We support your war of terror!

They don't call him instaputz for nothing. And they let this guy teach future lawyers

It is always interesting to watch the Christianists and their fellow travelers of USA promote the 'secularization' of the Muslim countries.

It sounds as though these guys may have better ideas than the ISG. Surprise, surprise.

So, the same supporters of Oedipus Wrecks who cheerled their way into Iraq are cheerleading for more war.

Didn't they notice that their boy's administration does war about as poorly as they do everything else?

I think that it's a devious plot to burden the next President with an insurmountable mess so that the Cardboard Cowboy won't look as bad as he is by comparison.

Here's a suggestion I'll bet they didn't get - Unconditional surrender by the United States. Just tell the Iraqis they won, pack up our gear and go home. What difference does it make? What do we lose? Our pride? It would be the Christian thing to do.

It would be the Christian thing to do.

That is why the junta and it's enablers will have nothing to do with it.

Check out Professor Glenn's brilliance!

This is like hiring Larry, Moe, and Curly for a wallpapering job because they have past experience.

Holy cow. I clicked over to read the full Instapundit post. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by what I saw, but that was flat-out the most insane thing I've read in a long time.

Just more of the same neonut posturing. Things not going well? People not doing what you want them to do? Well, it's just because you haven't been enough. You need to show them who's in charge. What they need is a good whoopin. That will do the trick.

Of course, history has proven over and over again that the Eight Hundred Pound Gorilla theory of international relations doesn't work. It just makes all of those little ducks mad at you and they will eventually peck you to death.

aa

Background clown/circus "doo-doo-doodoodoodoo-doo-doo-doo-doo" music not included.

Crashback, read the link by Al's Mommy for something way better.

He is right about secularization. As long as we grant credence to those who "believe" their "God" commands them to kill "heathen," we aren't going to be safe. But, as pointed out, secularization and commitment to reason begins at home.

Wes Clark is right now in Dubai at an international conference including the heads of state of some middle eastern countries. They are discussing the future of the Middle East.

What qualifications does the blogosphere bring to this discussion? The same as the media? The same as the Bush Administration --- people who have never talked to anyone but Americans on this subject?

We all grew up in a school system that emphasized that it's more important to communicate how you feel about things than it is to actually study facts and base your opinions on actual data. Style over substance. It gives middle class kids an advantage, as the style that is promoted is the style of middle class parents.

Find some bloggers who live in the Middle East and get their opinions. Ask some experts who have been in the region. The rest of us should sit on the sidelines ....and learn from them.

Instanpundit did say on Dec 3rd-- outright war with Iran is unlikely and probably a bad idea. But the mullarchy that runs Iran is corrupt and unpopular. What about targeting the mullahs -- personally?
Maybe the CIA can steal some polonium-210 from the Russian FSB and lead a trail to Damascus?..That should help cause a full-blown regional war by 2010, but maybe that wouldn't be instant enough.

The only idea I can think of that would be worse than the ones listed would be making George Bush Commander In Chief.

I am surprised that no one in the blogosphere offered poverty reduction as an approach to cleaning up all our confused international relations in the Middle East. The Borgen Project lists multiple political leaders talking about development and poverty reduciton as a way to reinforce national security and global stability. The UN Millennium Development Goals are definately something to shoot for, ensuring that no human being lives on less than $1 a day...and from the White House National Security Strategy, I quote,"a world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable."

Instead, we should be exporting Iraq to the rest of the region.

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what we'll do.

Amy1022;
Poverty reduction is fine and dandy.
But how to keep that money out of the hands of the mullahs, the terrorists, and the plutocrats?

When we shipped food-aid to Somalia in the 1990's, the militias stole it right off the truck, so we were essentially supplying terrorist militias.

So we had to send troops to guard the food to make sure it made it into the right hands.

Billions of dollars of aid that went to the Palestinians ended up in Arafat's swiss bank account.

Iraqi Oil for Food money ended up going to build lavish palaces for Hussein and his cronies.

After the invasion, US funds that were supposed to help the Iraqi people were funneled to Ahmed Chalabi through his cronies.

That's the challenge.

To make sure this aid gets to the people who need it, these countries would have to have their political and economic systems opened up. And as far as having open economic systems goes, the US has historically NOT been a champion on that front.

Worst yet; this issue was used as one (of many) bogus rationalizations for taking down the Hussein regime - to replace one thug with another set of thugs.

Worst of all: Wolfowitz, as head of the World Bank, is virtually guaranteeing that plutocrats and thugs will be able to get ahold of aid cash and loans, by his direct influence on World Bank policies. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse - this is the fox running a worldwide chicken-enslavement industry.

I'm all for solving these problems - but FIRST, we need to recognize the criminals, stop them, and punish them, and then prevent them from ever gaining this kind of power again.

I have this funny feeling that the end game is going to be that we leave when we're not willing to kill enough people to be able to secure the Green Zone.

So in a weird sense, these guys are right on the money. We won't have 'lost' Iraq unless we balk at using the amount of force necessary to hold on there.

if the Green Zone is so safe, why don't they just make the whole country the Green Zone ?

</Seinfeld>

"When we give those who follow this or that imam a bigger voice by doing things this way, we get in the way of what we need to be promoting: secularization."

" ... but, um, we need to be promoting less of it in the U.S.!"

The nation-building plan the Bush administration adopted from the neocons is a liberal poverty reduction program. They sent all those teenage Heritage Foundation applicants to Iraq to erect a bastion of laissez faire wealth and prosperity on the wreckage of a Stalinist state. It was going to be a beacon to the benighted peoples. Turns out the treatment, which spawned chaos and destitution, is worse than the disease, which was an authoritarian state that didn't cooperate.

But this is always what happens. The cover story is so good even the hucksters believe in it, as Mark Twain says:
LOVE,
LAW AND ORDER,
JUSTICE,
LIBERTY,
GENTLENESS,
EQUALITY,
HONORABLE DEALING,
PROTECTION TO THE WEAK,
MERCY,
TEMPERANCE,
EDUCATION,

– and so on.

There. Is it good? Sir, it is pie. It will bring into camp any idiot that sits in darkness anywhere. But not if we adulterate it. It is proper to be emphatic upon that point. This brand is strictly for Export – apparently. Apparently. Privately and confidentially, it is nothing of the kind. Privately and confidentially, it is merely an outside cover, gay and pretty and attractive, displaying the special patterns of our Civilization which we reserve for Home Consumption, while inside the bale is the Actual Thing that the Customer Sitting in Darkness buys with his blood and tears and land and liberty. That Actual Thing is, indeed, Civilization, but it is only for Export. Is there a difference between the two brands? In some of the details, yes.

Stop worrying about deeply held religious beliefs: "When we give those who follow this or that imam a bigger voice by doing things this way, we get in the way of what we need to be promoting: secularization."

More secularization? Does Bill "Falafel" O'Reilly know about this???

But don't forget Syria! If we draw down our forces in Iraq to a "30,000 or so ground troop advisory effort, we'd again have the forces for outright war with Syria."

Jesus, if that isn't the craziest thing I've read all week (normally I'd say "all year," but these days one reads so many damn insane things that the bar has been set a bit higher). Yes indeed -- if we can do something that we so far have found it all but impossible to do, then we'll be able to do something else even more impossible. After all, why just lose to Iraq when we can lose to Iraq AND to Syria?

I refuse to read Ole Perfesser. Has anyone there advocated for "Shock and Awe II: Nuclear Bugaloo" yet? Or is that a little too LGF for his readership?

catherineD: Find some bloggers who live in the Middle East and get their opinions. Ask some experts who have been in the region. The rest of us should sit on the sidelines ....and learn from them.

I worked in the Middle East for three years, learned Arabic (now mostly gone, alas), and read a pile of books on the area while I was there. What would you like to know?

A few random thoughts: In the oilfields of the Persian Gulf (or, as the Arabs prefer, the Arabian Gulf), the Iraqis have the reputation as being the most corrupt and venal people in the region. (They won't compete in that respect with the Nigerians, but that's a whole 'nother league.)

Recommended reading: A Short History of the Arab Peoples, by Colonel John Glubb, who the Arab Legion in what is now Jordan from 1938 to 1956. He distinguishes four types of Arabs by personality type. Palestinians were said to be the most intellectual but the most rigid. They would fight for the last iota of their position and not compromise over anything. They remind me a lot of Grover Norquist.

Saudis were said to be the most practical. They would compromise to get an agreement but immediately begin working on negotiating an amendment to get some more. They also have the greatest sense of entitlement by virtue of being Saudis. If a Saudi crashes into a parked car owned by a foreigner, it’s the foreigner’s fault, because if the foreigner hadn’t been there, the accident wouldn’t have happened.

I don't remember the details of the other two types (Syrian and Egyptian), so I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. Glubb traces much of Middle Eastern conflict to urban-rural differences. In Lebanon, for example, foreign traders settled in the cities, which became ethnically and religiously different from rural folk. In other areas, it looks more like Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical theory, where a rural religious wacko whips up sentiment against the decadent city. Then they rebel, take over the city, and in 3 more generations become the people they rebelled against.

Never expect an Arab (speaking here of natives of that area, not people in the US of Arab extraction) to successfully do anything mechanical or industrial twice in a row. Sometimes they do, but then they decide to change the oil on a generator but forget to bring the oil, so they just take off the oil filter instead and duct tape over where the filter screws in. It's a hell of a mess and a dead generator. My first thought after the 9/11 plane crashed in Pennsylvania was that the guys flying it were probably just incompetent. Tales of Saudi pilots in US jets are funny but scary.

There is a greater reverence for truthiness than for facts. In the 1967 war, Nasser kept telling the King of Jordan that his troops were pushing back the Israelis, so the King disposed his troops accordingly, which turned out badly for the Jordanians. The King, educated at Sandhurst, had expected facts. An oil field worker will never tell you how something broke if it reflects badly on him. Can’t be done.

Anything else you'd like to know?

"When we give those who follow this or that imam a bigger voice by doing things this way, we get in the way of what we need to be promoting: secularization."

Alek Hidell " ... but, um, we need to be promoting less of it in the U.S.!"

I think you mean less sectarianism. We need more secularism.

And that should have been "Colonel John Glubb, who led the Arab Legion in what is now Jordan"

In other areas, it looks more like Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical theory, where a rural religious wacko whips up sentiment against the decadent city. Then they rebel, take over the city, and in 3 more generations become the people they rebelled against.

Any resemblance to the Republican Party in the US is purely coincidental....

Anandine -- I think Alek Hidell was using sarcasm....

Better yet: put Iran's oil fields out of commission! (Does this mean bombing their oil facilities? Maybe, maybe not. The delicate phrase used here is that we should "disrupt Iranian oil export capacity.")

That'll do wonders for the price of a gallon of gas, I'm sure. American consumers will love it!

I think you mean less sectarianism. We need more secularism.

anandine, I agree that the Middle East needs more secularism, and a lot more. I was being sarcastic: the same people who here are advocating more secularism for the Middle East are continually bemoaning how secular the U.S. is. I think the irony is lost on them. They don't do irony well.

They don't do irony well.

Its pronounced eye-ran-ey Iraq, Syria, then Irony.

They don't do irony well.

Or anything else, apparently....

compel the Shiite and Kurdish led government to declare a federal republic with a great deal of autonomy for each region with or without the consent of the Sunnis, offer relocation assistance and security to people wanting to relocate to ethnic and religious majority zones, refocus deployments on separating sects from one another, partitioning Baghdad and the three major regions with blockades and check points, at the end of the day partition the country if necessary

The recommendations remind me of the joke about the kid digging through a pile of horse crap because "there has to be a pony in here somewhere". Except for the Instawankers crowd who are digging through a pile of dead bodies looking for victory.

"Regime change. More of it."

We're trying that now. That's what the Nov election was all about. Give it some time, ok?

That'll do wonders for the price of a gallon of gas, I'm sure. American consumers will love it!
Posted by: Stefan on December 5, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

And for ExxonMobil's bottom line for the next 3 decades.

I can see it now;
"waaah! Iran is building WMD!"
"waaaaah! Our Israeli mast- er, I mean ALLIES, are getting nervous!"
"Waah! we don't have enough troops to invade!"
"waaah! the deficit from tax breaks and Iraq is driving up the cost of borrowing!"
"waaaah! all these expensive nuclear warheads just sitting around in our arsenal, wasted!"

...
one brief nuclear strike later. . .
. . .

"Expensive gasoline is just a result of the Free Market, stop whining!"

Stop worrying about deeply held religious beliefs: "When we give those who follow this or that imam a bigger voice by doing things this way, we get in the way of what we need to be promoting: secularization."

From the same voices who argue for more religion in American public life:

less religion for those swarthy Muslims.

What a bunch of bigots.

I don't know if everyone clicked through to read Glenn's comments, but following the suggestion of "disrupting" Iran's oil fields, he wrote, With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . .

War profiteering is so much easier when you're the one starting and running the war. I think this counts as libertarian morality.

Instapundit's ideas make my Operation Shakira look practical and feasible in comparison.

The major reason I believe that the Republicans may never again find their way out of the electoral woods is that these comments represent the base that the Republicans have encouraged and molded over the decades. It's the talk radio crowd fatally combined with the Old Testament Right. All of geopolitics can be reduced to one cure: chronic and massive use of force as punishment for evil-doers.

Republican politicians and advisors may realize perfectly well that they can't advocate the sorts of policies that created the chaos in Iraq without losing all national elections. Yet they can't possibly satisfy their base with more moderate approaches without that base declaring them RINOs.

If you pull out all the stops to create a radical party, you get a radical party. The momentum it takes to turn that around will require decades to change, just as it took decades to get to where they are today.

I don't understand why Instapundit thinks that he needs to solicit suggestions from the blogosphere for what to do in Iraq...why, goodness, there are plenty of wonderful ideas in Rumsfeld's (departing shot) memo to Bush. Like this one:

"Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)"

Now there's an idea! We could ask all of those who supplied helpful suggestions over at Instapundit to volunteer their time and efforts, on the ground in Iraq, to setting things right!

I'm sure they'll be welcomed with flowers and sweets.

We all grew up in a school system that emphasized that it's more important to communicate how you feel about things than it is to actually study facts and base your opinions on actual data. Style over substance. It gives middle class kids an advantage, as the style that is promoted is the style of middle class parents.

Ummm... no, we "all" didn't. You might have. None of my teachers ever gave a rat's ass about how I "felt", all the way through a Master's Degree.

My current employers also do not give a crap about how I "feel".

William H. Macy's character schrieking incoherently as the cops nab him at the end of Fargo.

After noting that blogger, John Engram, proposes "placing Iran's oil fields at risk" by "disrupt[ing] Iranian oil export capacity" Reynolds notes: "With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . ." WTF?!?!?! This is so insane that I really think Reynolds had to be kidding around. Or is he seriously suggesting that the US take up a financial position in the futures market and then make foreign policy decisions in order to derive a benefit from that financial position? That would have no global consequences. Right? I mean no chance that would have an effect on the global markets or anything like that.

That's not to mention, of course, whether Engram has given any thought to whether that would effect the world's oil supply thereby effecting the US economy.

These people are nuts!

Alek Hidell: anandine, I agree that the Middle East needs more secularism, and a lot more. I was being sarcastic: ... They don't do irony well.

Apparently I don't, either. I should have known you know what the words mean.

Looking at the caliber of recommendations from that group of geniuses, I'm anticipating the clever suggestion that we build a gigantic wooden horse and roll it up the gates of some middle eastern country in the middle of the night....

RSA: You beat me to it!

Here's another "suggestion" by one of Reynolds' commentators:

Now that we have confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that Iran is supplying weapons to anti-American militias, and probably training them, too, we should cut transport lines between the two countries.

It's comments like these that reveal how bone-deep stupid, ill-informed, and just plain crazy these wingnuts are. If we could have controlled Iraq's borders, we would have done so over three years ago, but at this point, with only 150,000 or so US troops in the entire country, there's absolutely no way on earth this could be achieved (not to mention that you'd also have to cut off the borders with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria).

It would be like me suggesting that the only way to control illegal immigration in the US is to police the border -- true in concept, but virtually impossible in execution. And if it's impossible in execution, why are we even wasting breath discussing it? (Except for the pleasure tha mockery brings, of course).

"With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . ."

Obviously, this guy wasn't at Cheney's secret energy policy meeting.

With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . .

Wouldn't that count as Insider Trading?

Here's another idea from the Reynolds brain trust:

But I think the best idea is what is already underway, according to some of CENTCOM's recent press releases,

Hey, if you can't believe CENTCOM's press releases whom can you trust?

i.e. converting the patrolling of the big American units into a relatively small advisory effort. Call it training for the Iraqi army, if you want,

Just don't call it cutting and running!

but it would mainly be about providing them with American officers on the ground with access to our artillery, air support and medevac.

Um, we already have access to our own artillery, air support and medevac, and it doesn't seem to be helping us any.

Which is what we were doing in Vietnam by 1972, with more success than previously.

Yeah? How'd that turn out for us?

And where's a solution other than "surrender to terrorists" from the left?

*crickets*

Wouldn't that count as Insider Trading?

No.

More regime change, an aggressive secularization agenda, and cutting off the oil, thus bringing democracy, peace and prosperity to the region.

Not a bad plan for North America, but I thought the symposium was supposed to be about Iraq?

Wouldn't that count as Insider Trading?
Posted by: tomeck on December 5, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Only if a Democrat does it.

So this is what it feels like to have no leadership at all.

Senate hearings on the Gates nomination are chilling, to say the least, though the Dumb Media loved his we're not winning statement.

Gates actually is saying U.S. troops must remain in Iraq at least another 10 years. That's the Cheney position, you might know.

Folks, it's time to take to the streets.

And where's a solution other than "surrender to terrorists" from the left?

Well, at DKOS we're deciding which terrorists to surrender to. The consensus right now is on the Tamil Tigers. They have the best swag, and we think they might be open to adopting the PETA platform.

*Kisses*

Gates actually is saying U.S. troops must remain in Iraq at least another 10 years. That's the Cheney position, you might know.

While I believe they'd like to, I don't believe it's possible to stay that long, as within a few more years the situation on the ground will become untenable for us (though I don't believe Bush will ever willingly withdraw, so barring outright catastrophe we're stuck there at least until 2009).

Or, to put it another way: how many permanent US military bases were there in Vietnam in 1976?

And where's a solution other than "surrender to terrorists" from the left?
Posted by: American Hawk on December 5, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Levy a new War Tax of 90% (Capital Gains AND Income) on the upper quintile%.
Draft, Train, and Deploy 1 million Americans.
Go to War - for REAL. (not this fake Drive-thru war we've got going on now).

This is not overkill - this is the level of effort that is now required to achieve any meaningful goal in the Middle East. Thanks to Bush. (I'm talking about 41, and his removal of democratically-elected Mossedegh from Iran - this is the real cause of most of this).

Then ask the American Public if they approve.

You with me, American Hawk?

If you prefer, you can PROVE to me, how the current level of troops is "good enough". I suppose 3 years of disaster isn't long enough, so between you and me, let's let this infected wound fester another two years and call it an even 5.

See ya in '08, and then we'll discuss whose policy led to "Surrendering to Terrorists".

Thanks to Bush. (I'm talking about 41, and his removal of democratically-elected Mossedegh from Iran - this is the real cause of most of this).

Just a correction: Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953 through a CIA-supported coup, at the time of the Eisenhower Administration, at a time when Bush 41 was still a young man working in the oil fields in West Texas. He had nothing to do with it.

Actually, we on the left all got together to surrender to the terrorists (they're so much easier to find now, thanks to the chickenhawks), but you know what they said?

"Sorry, too late. But do please keep sending your American boys and girls."

Think how disappointed we were.

Earlier this year, I remember this little nugget of instalogic...

March 20, 2006
Glenn Reynolds
Via Belle Waring at Crooked Timber, I found these serious answers to serious questions by Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds:

1. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

Yes.

2. Have you changed your position?

No. Sanctions were failing and Saddam was a threat, making any other action in the region impossible.

3. What should the U.S. do in Iraq now?

Win

See? It's just that easy. Somewhere, a village is missing their idiot.

All this posturing, inc. Gates' ravings, has 2 motives, one of which I can't figure out, but the other is to set up a 'stabbed in the back myth'. When sanity finally prevails and the US withdraws, the nutters will start saying how we should've just shown more determination to follow through with their plans instead of 'giving up' Iraq.

Why is the right so enamored of, er, ultimate solutions?

What we really need are ultimate processes.

Kevin Drum wrote:

There are also a few pro forma proposals for redeploying troops, adopting a more effective counterinsurgency strategy, sharing oil wealth, and other versions of rearranging the deck chairs, but the main thread is pretty clear: the only problem with our Iraq strategy is that we haven't declared war on enough people.
_________________

Kevin, while it's true that many of the ideas were downright stupid, not to mention dangerous, there were many nuggets of ideas that should be given consideration in any plan. Unfortunately, your own intro did little to encourage anyone to actually read the ideas. Instead, what we've got is another thread of snarky comments from folks without any comparable discussion of their own ideas.

Is there some sort of particular antipathy to Instapundit that I'm unaware of here?

compel the Shiite and Kurdish led government to declare a federal republic with a great deal of autonomy for each region with or without the consent of the Sunnis

Why should the Shiites (60% of the population) give control of Kirkuk, the oil and the rest of the northern territory to the Kurds (20% of the population)? And, you know Turkey is just going to love that!

Is there some sort of particular antipathy to Instapundit that I'm unaware of here?

If you have to ask...

I believe Gates said we are neither winning, nor are we losing, in Iraq.

I believe he did.

I also believe that's insane; if we're sacrificing American lives to not-win, we are indeed losing.

Do the words WAR REPARATIONS appear anywhere?

If not, go back and start over.

The US is not the victim here.

Looking at the caliber of recommendations from that group of geniuses, I'm anticipating the clever suggestion that we build a gigantic wooden horse and roll it up the gates of some middle eastern country in the middle of the night....

Make sure it plays the song Slow Ride by Foghat really loud because the Arabs love classic rock, y'know. It's true! I read it on Powerline.

Sooo, I was wondering...why can't we just leave Iraq...m'yeh...now?

This is ALL about oil -- America's addiction to oil, and the ultra-rich, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist ruling class of America's military-industrial-petroleum complex who are enriching themselves almost beyond conception through their control of America's oil supply, and their lust to gain complete control of the world's last, biggest, richest reserves of cheaply-extractable high-grade oil in the Middle East, and their willingness to use America's military might to murder tens of thousands of innocent people to that end.

That's what America's "strategic interests" in the Middle East are all about.

That's what America's designation of some Middle Eastern nations as "friends" and others as "enemies" is all about.

This discussion has NOTHING whatever to do with "solving the world's problems."

It has EVERYTHING to do with "how can America's ultra-rich corporate elites gain control of Middle Eastern oil and enrich themselves thereby for as long as there's any oil there to be pumped."

The only discussion related to America's policy towards the Middle East that has anything to do with "solving the world's problems" is the discussion about how America can phase out the burning of fossil fuels as completely and as rapidly as possible.

Creeping Commercialization would have Westernized the ME anyway in time, so why not just send Wal Mart, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance to that part of the world. Viola! Commercialized Democracy, just like we have here.

I believe Gates said we are neither winning, nor are we losing, in Iraq.
Posted by: Spock on December 5, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wow - kinda weird hearing a statement like that come out of "False-Dilemma-Spock". I imagine you as a computer, rocking back and forth, smoke pouring out of your orifices. . . "does not com pute. does not com pute. err ror. err ror."

It doesn't matter--Gates just won unanimous recommendation by the committee.

So much for accountability. It sure would have been nice to see Jim Webb sitting across from Gates.

Chuckles,

It doesn't matter what handle you use, I'm not going to play your game of irrelevant questions. Sorry.

Spock,

We were winning in WWII when we removed an occupying force from France and Belgium. We were winning everyday there after. We did so at an enormous cost in lives and production but we were never really NOT winning from the time we stormed the beaches at Normandy. We were not conducting some grand experiment in nation biulding, we were part of an alliance that included the countries we liberated. WWII was not sold to the country as something it was not. FDR never sugar coated the costs or the enormity of the struggle ahead. He enlisted nearly every segment of this country to do their part. Bush and his enablers would like to compare this idiotic adventure to WWII but there is no comparison. Please stop it.

SecularAnimist:

Did you find Instapundit's comment on taking out Iran's oil infrastructure and going long on oil stocks interesting?

It's about CONTROL all right. But not of the oil. Of the infrastructure. The channel through which they fleece the American middle-class. If nobody else can provide the oil, and if oil speculators jack up the price of oil due to war, it BENEFITS the oligopoly of operators of US refineries and petroleum distribution, in the richest (not for long) market in the world.

Take out Iraq's infrastructure.
Take out Iran's infrastructure.
Yank supply and capacity off the market.

OWNING an oil reserve is hard, and very costly. You need to PAY all those troops to guard hundreds of thousands of square miles, and thousands of linear miles of pipeline, oil terminals, refineries, shipping, etc.

It's far more profitable to just kick over an anthill, and watch the ants scramble - because it's so much cheaper to destroy than to control, especially when you've got a "Free Market" and a resource that your customer can not live without.

It's not incompetence. It's malice.

It's not incompetence. It's malice.

Oh, I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive with this crew....

It's seems appropriate, on a day when Reynolds is putting forward solutions for Iraq, to ask the people who have been claiming the war was going swimingly a couple of questions:

1) If you believed the war was going just fine, don't you think your leader's owe you and explanation for misleading you?

2) If you believed the war wasn't going well, but chose to claim that is was, were you doing it for political purposes? If not, why were you doing it?

The United States was certainly NOT "winning" in the Pacific Theater of Opertations (PTO).

Sure they were, after Midway. Anyway, the Japanese generals knew they would lose before Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Spock,

Maybe you haven't heard, we won the war in the Pacific too. It was in all the papers. Look it up. But the larger point is that this war is not comparable to WWII. Here's another heavy dose of reality, Bush isn't exactly Churchill. Don't tell the boys at Powerline, they might not be able to handle that much reality.

Not tuff enuff. Bashing your head against the wall until you die brings to mind the answer, I am not tuff enuff. If only I was tuff enuff the wall would cave in, but, lo, my soft-headed skull has died and it is your fault because you shouldn't have been able to let me lock you out of the room and you should have joined in me in bashing our skulls into the wall and our combined will to bash in our own heads would have been tuff enuff to prevail, but you have failed.

But there is still Hope! There are more walls, more walls we may bash our skulls upon once yet before we die! And when we strike them all at once how can they stand the smashing of our brain containers? They will topple in shock and awe, like dominoes, for by the time they think they see solutions that emerge from their judicious study of discernible reality we will already have moved on for when we who are conservative act we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

>And where's a solution other than "surrender to terrorists" from the left?

We told you: regime change. We've been working on it since 2002. Unlike Bush, we have made great progress. The problem is that we only get to gain ground every 2 years.

If you want to help, just rate the House and Senate for us. We'll just invert your ratings of "best to worst" and it will give us a nice set of targets for '08.

It's about time you did *something* for your country rather than just stink it up.

Back to WWII...

Ooh goody. This analogy never gets old.

With the right futures-market positions, we could actually turn a profit on this approach . . . .

tomeck: Wouldn't that count as Insider Trading?

In this case it is what George Washington Plunkett called honest graft.

Hmmm, on a serious note I think I've just figured out why these "how do we save Iraq" discussions don't get anywhere.

Iraq is not the problem. It is a symptom.

The problem is Inside The Beltway. Fix that (go Webb!) and the symptom will go away on it's own.

Spock, any similarities are superficial and provide no guide to action. The differences are substantial enough to make any comparisons irrelevant.

"Spock" is Charlie.

The obsession with irrelevant and completely invalid comparisons of the war in Iraq with World War II are the giveaway.

"Spock" wrote: Senator-Elect Webb has stated he wanted to punch the President in the face. Is that your "fix" too?

Yep, that's Charlie alright.

SecularAnimist wrote:

"The only discussion related to America's policy towards the Middle East that has anything to do with "solving the world's problems" is the discussion about how America can phase out the burning of fossil fuels as completely and as rapidly as possible."
____________________

SA, assuming the problem is, indeed, "the ultra-rich, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist ruling class of America's military-industrial-petroleum complex who are enriching themselves almost beyond conception," [ignoring the inherent contradictions therein] then there is no amount of discussion that is going to solve anything. If we are controlled by such evil forces, then there is no reason to believe those same evil forces won't control us if we should ever be weaned off oil.

Given your assumuptions, you don't need to end the war, you need a revolutionary solution - nothing less than the overthrow of our ruling elite, probably at the risk of a new American civil war. If you really believe what you say, then this war is small potatoes, a mere sideshow compared to what really needs to be done.

Yep, that's Charlie alright.

You could have just said yes. At which point he would warn you that it is against the law to urge or engage in violence against the President.

Oh, wait, that's Thomas1. Totally different guys. Totally.

Spock:
It is illogical to compare Yamamoto to bin Laden.

Uh, Spock/Charlie, yes necessarily. There is no chance that this country is going to engage in rationing, mobilize auto manufacturing plants to manufature war-related vehicles and institute a crash weapons program on the scale of the Manhattan project in order to rescue Iraq from civil war.

You are delusional.

Hell, I knew Spock was Charlie from his first False Dilemma.

I'll be more vocal in cluing you guys in next time.

Spock/Charlie: If three million die in an al Qaeda terror attack, which country should we bomb? Where is the analogy between Japan, which had a homeland and a military and al Qaeda, which has neither.

You are both delusional and historically illiterate.

Adults are talking here, Spock/Charlie. Please be quiet.

"Not necessarily. I believe that the country should be on a much closer war-footing to WWII, for instance."

So, you were obviously not a supporter of this war since it was never sold or executed that way.
Or did you think strong rhetoric was a replacement for strong policies? Do you support a draft? Do you support eliminating the Bush cuts?

If three MILLION, instead of thousand, die in the next 9/11-type attack

Anyhoo, my question upthread was for you.

1) If you believed the war was going just fine, don't you think your leader's owe you and explanation for misleading you?

2) If you believed the war wasn't going well, but chose to claim that is was, were you doing it for political purposes? If not, why were you doing it?

Trashhauler wrote: "Kevin, while it's true that many of the ideas were downright stupid, not to mention dangerous, there were many nuggets of ideas that should be given consideration in any plan."

Were there? Then it should be trivially easy for you to bring a few of them to our attention. Frankly, I will be very surprised to find any that a) are not batshit insane or b) have not been discussed on this and other blogs, ad nauseam. Go ahead, surprise me.

"Unfortunately, your own intro did little to encourage anyone to actually read the ideas. Instead, what we've got is another thread of snarky comments from folks without any comparable discussion of their own ideas."

Most likely because most us here recognize that we have no good options for Iraq, so what's the point of revisiting material we've hashed over time and time again?

Why the heck are you guys talking to Charlie/Spock? Hasn't he demonstrated he's beneath contempt and not worth discussion a hundred times already?

Sorry, Neutral Observer. You are correct. I'll stop feeding the troll now.

Mea culpa.

Please tell us all which days before April 30, 1975 you think we were "winning" Vietnam?

"I was not a supporter of this war or tax cuts; I believe Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes and should be impeached; we probably do need the draft."

Then my work is done here...Via con dios!

Chuckles, our resident clown, wrote: "cmdicely was the one who maintains that we are not winning, therefore we must be losing -- I am the one pointing out that is not necessarily true."

Only because you're ignoring what cmdicely actually said, which is that if we are spending thousands of American lives (and hundreds of billions of dollars) and we are not making any progress, then by any rational measure, this cannot be called "winning," by any reasonable definition of that word.

As for your idiotic question about VJ day, the correct answer is that we knew we were winning well before VJ day. Any moron knows this. Among other things, we had all sorts of metrics that we were measuring our progress against, metrics that were clearly showing progress towards victory. The equivalent metrics in Iraq are mostly negative at this point. Certainly, there is no end, and no victory, in sight, even if we knew precisely what "victory" really was.

But then you knew all this and just wanted to play silly little games.

Dear little Chuckles, just as amusingly obtuse as ever, writes: "You never answered my question to you"

That's mostly because it's a really stupid question. Ask a reasonable question and you'll get a reasonable answer.

It scans better than IP's "sea of glass" idea ... but only incrementally better, and temporarily.

Trashhauler wrote: SA, assuming the problem is, indeed, "the ultra-rich, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist ruling class of America's military-industrial-petroleum complex who are enriching themselves almost beyond conception," [ignoring the inherent contradictions therein]...

What "contradictions"?

... then there is no amount of discussion that is going to solve anything. If we are controlled by such evil forces, then there is no reason to believe those same evil forces won't control us if we should ever be weaned off oil.

Some energy technologies are inherently less centralized and less subject to centralized control than fossil fuel extraction. For example, electricity generation with wind turbines and rooftop photovoltaics, and agricultural biofuels, have the potential to distribute and democratize energy production.

Certainly, you may buy your PV panels from a big multinational corporation, but once you buy them, you own them, and you own your own means of energy production. And the technology for manufacturing PV panels and wind turbines, or for growing crops for biofuels, and the physical resources to do so, are themselves not as subject to centralized control as the extraction of oil and coal, or the building and operation of nuclear power plants.

There is a revolution in distributed, democratically controlled, individual, community and small-business based energy production that is already underway world wide, and it has the potential -- like other "disruptive" technologies -- to bring a social and economic revolution with it.

Chuckles, our resident clown, writes: "Please point out even ONE time above where you believe I have demonstrated I am 'beneath contempt and not worth discussion'"

That's easy: when you asked "was the United States 'winning' on December 23, 1941?" The question is so mindbogglingly stupid, not to mention clearly intended to derail discussion into a fit of endless pointless pedantry, that it's quite clear that you are not worth discussion.

PaulB wrote: Dear little Chuckles, just as amusingly obtuse as ever, writes: "You never answered my question to you"

That's Charlie alright, by "Spock" or any of his other names. Asking stupid, irrelevant questions that have no point whatever, usually having to do with some inane analogy that has no validity at all, and then spending the rest of the thread whining that no one will answer them.

...come grow a beard with me :)

\m/ pwnd \m/

Poor Chuckles...loves to make an ass of himself in public.

Is this really a Purpose Driven Life, Chuckles?

For the record, though, just because we are not winning in Iraq does not necessarily mean we are losing. We were certainly not "winning" on December 7-8, 1941.

I disagree; in fact, we were only attacked at Pearl Harbor because both our entrance into the war and our subsequent victory were so clear in the minds of the Japanese planners that they knew that their only hope of success was to so cripple the United States by surprise that we would be unable or unwilling to enter the war effectively at all; when they failed that, which, bad as Pearl Harbor was, they clearly had, we were winning. (That is not to say we had won, which is a completely different thing.)

Just as we've been losing in Iraq since we failed to establish security rapidly on the fall of Hussein's regime.

Aw, poor Chuckles. When did you turn your back on your church? Did you tell your friends at bareback, I mean, Saddleback church that you weren't going to read Pastor Warren's book?

Dear little Chuckles, ever bent on living up to his reputation, writes: "Once SOMEONE answers my question"

Dear heart, why would anyone care to answer a really stupid question, one that, moreover, is clearly intended to either a) derail the discussion with your usual pedantic irrelevant crap, or b) frame the discussion in a wholly inappropriate manner? Either way, it's a complete waste of time.

"then I can ask the next obvious question"

We're still waiting for you to ask the first "obvious" question, Chuckles.

"Then we can argue about metrics, etc."

Dear heart, we can discuss those right now, without wasting our time on stupid questions. We'll be right here waiting for you.

"I would maintain, however, that one such "metric" (the fall of Wake Island) did not mean the U.S. was "losing" either."

And were we talking about a time in Iraq when the war had just begun, you might have a point. Since we're more than three years into the war and since we're now in a war of occupation rather than a war of winning or losing territory, you, as usual, do not.

"I'm sure you will tell us all what is 'mindbogglingly stupid' about that though."

Any time, dear.

Dear little Chuckles, still intent on amusing us, writes: "I've answered every question put to me though. Why the double standard?"

LOL.... If you're answering stupid questions, then it's your own fault, Chuckles. And if you're answering intelligent questions, then you'll find that your intelligent questions will get answered in return. Either way, no double standard.

Of course, if we had some meaningful metric that could tell us whether we were making progress in Iraq, that would make it easier to measure whether we were winning or losing in Iraq.

Another example of how the Republicans abdicated their responsibility of oversight--a failure to force Rumsfeld and DoD to answer tough questions and report the situation in Iraq clearly and accurately to the Congress.

Case in point--how many Iraqi battalions can fight on their own?

Instead of making that information publicly available, they classified it--solely because it was too embarrassing.

Now, I need to see how far you take this -- how about June 26, 1876? Did Custer win the battle of the Little Bighorn the day after he died?

Certainly, the US was winning the war against its recalcitrant aboriginal population from a date long before that, and continued winning long after that.

Winning wars isn't the same thing as winning individual, artificially isolated, military engagements within the context of that war.

Chuckles, our resident clown, wrote: "I'd much rather continue the discussion with someone who is polite..."

ROFL.... Woohoo! I'm back on Chuckles' "ignore" list! Don't you just love his drama queen behavior?

Chuckles, do you really think I care whether you continue the discussion with me? You bring nothing to the discussion; you are incapable of learning. You're only here to amuse me, nothing more.

Chuckles, our resident clown, wrote: "it was not so certain during WWII though.

Dear heart, here's a stupid question right back at you: Was it or was it not certain 3 1/2 years after the U.S. entered WWII that we were winning?

Here's a hint: It was and we were.

Back on topic: so, did anyone find anything on that thread that a) wasn't batshit insane or b) hadn't already been discussed to death?

Evil Spock wrote: "Because even to me, this bears no relation to scrupulous logic or honesty in the slightest bit."

That's our Chuckles. His only goal is to derail the discussion; nothing more. Mock him, laugh at him, point out he's an idiot, counter his occasionally semi-sane point, but don't ever make the mistake of thinking you can have a serious discussion with him. We've had a lot of experience with him.

Charlie/Spock's cut and pasted information about Firebase Ripcord has been brought to you by the good people at Wikipedia, assisting struggling trolls since 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebase_Ripcord/

Dear little Chuckles, funny as ever, writes: "I am certainly not going to ignore you."

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

"I simply stated my preference to continue the discussion with someone who is polite. What is 'illogical' about that?"

LOL.... Dear heart, I never said it was "illogical." I said you were a drama queen and that you were not worth debating. And I love how you continue to confirm both of these judgments. I will, as always, continue to mock you and laugh at you; I will not make the mistake of taking you seriously. What you do matters to me not one whit.

The Army was worried such an invasion would reach CHICAGO before we could stop them.

I was there. Spock/Thomas1/Charlie/Chuckles and I fought of the Japs with such ferocity, that the Japs went on to honor us everytime they eat. You know when you leave a Japanese restaurant, and they say that crazy Jap talk as you're walking out the door. Well, translated is means, "Look out for Spook/Thomas1/Charlie/Chuckles...He never quits until the job is done. Now have a nice day."

The only question is this... Will the nuclear bomb that Al-Qaeda detonates in a major city stand a chance against Spook/Thomas1/Charlie/Chuckles' will to win?

I have my doubts.

The examples of the U.S. taking precautions during WWII are not evidence that the U.S. didn't believe it would prevail againt Japan but simply precautions to save lives in the face of potential attacks.

I go inside when it hails, but that doesn't mean I think I've lost. I have no doubt I'll be outside again soon.

I simply stated my preference to continue the discussion with someone who is polite.

Who introduced Chuckles to the concept of being polite?

Ah, must have been that pastor of his...

I bet you play "Risk" a lot. I have never read a bigger piece of garbage in my life.

This fellow is paid to carry on like this, why help him earn his s