What Success In Iraq Looks Like
Forget the fact that there were no WMDs; ask yourself whether there could ever be a possibility for longterm democratic rule in a Muslim country. The Brit army will hand Basra back to the Iraqis in less than two weeks, and they say they've done all they can to stabilize the city during their four years there. From the Times/UK, here's what they're leaving in their wake -- murderous militias giving, not just Muslim women, but Christian women, a choice...cover your heads or die:
On her first day at Basra University this year a man came up to Zeena, a 21-year-old Christian woman, and three other Christian girls and ordered them to cover their heads with a hijab, or Islamic headscarf.“We didn't listen to him, and thought he might just be some extremist student representing only himself,” she said. The next day Zeena and two of her friends returned to class with uncovered heads.
This time a man in the black clothes of the Shia militia stopped them at the entrance and took them aside. “He said, 'We asked you yesterday to wear a hijab, so why are you and your friends not covering your hair?'. He was talking very aggressively and I was scared,” Zeena recalled.
The girls explained that they were Christians and that their faith did not call for headscarves. “He said: 'Outside this university you are Christian and can do what you want; inside you are not. Next time I want to see you wearing a hijab or I swear to God the three of you will be killed immediately',” Zeena recalled. Terrified, the girls ran home. They now wear the headscarf all the time.
In the past five months more than 40 women have been murdered and their bodies dumped in the street by militiamen, according to the Basra police chief. Major-General Abdul-Jalil Khalaf said that some of them had been killed alone, others gunned down with their children. One unveiled mother was murdered together with her children aged 6 and 11.
And, hey, all you multiculties singing Kumbayah and preaching "tolerance," here's what these barbarians are going for, in the words of a commenter below the Times/UK article:
When it is forcefully banned in the schools in many countries of the world it is law!
Farhan, Riyadh
Remember, per the warnings of George Mason, Islam is in drag as a religion; it's really a political movement, bent on the totalitarian rule of the rest of us.
Far be it from me to beat a dead horse voluntarily, but every time somebody says, "no WMDs", I must point out that: a) Kurds died of poison gas, b) Congress, even those on the foreign intelligence committee, said there was (not just GWB), c) a chlorine gas bomb was, indeed detonated in a suicide attack this year (evidently chemical weapons are no longer WMDs?), d) Iraq, as an industrial nation, has had the capacity to make chemical weapons at any time (Some simply can't think. Insecticide IS a chemical weapon!), and e) most people don't know that Iraq HAD a nuclear program. See nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/index.html .
Every time this canard is repeated, it encourages people to think that Iraq is and was a breezy land of date palms shading a people engaged in baking bread all day in mud ovens. That's nuts, regardless of how you view American meddling in the area.
Radwaste at December 9, 2007 8:21 AM
> ask yourself whether there
> could ever be a possibility
> for longterm democratic rule
> in a Muslim country.
Well, do we have a choice? There's no here and there anymore... The shittiest parts of middle eastern life are brought to the modern west by airliners and immigration. They've simply got to get modern. We have to force the issue. We don't have a choice, and they won't either.
Meanwhile, this is a fabulous new web page...
http://urltea.com/2br4
I like the "Gennifer Flowers" -style haircuts best.
Crid at December 9, 2007 8:30 AM
But even then, wouldn't you rather hang out with Joanie?
Crid at December 9, 2007 8:30 AM
Rad - the fact is that any industrial nation has the "potential" to develop chemical weapons. That's not a reason to invade it. I never understood the "immanency" argument; did Saddam say that he was prepared to launch rockets or something?
As for that "chlorine gas bomb", I'd need to see a link or proof. What we were told was that somebody detonated a traditional explosive attached to a chlorine truck. Also, given that Islamic terrorists are very resourceful, I don't see how the detonation of a chemical weapon NOW means that it was found in Iraq. Any chance chlorine could have been um, smuggled or sneaked into the country? Yes, I think that chance may just exist.
The Kurds were gassed in what, 1989? So what's your point in bringing up an almost 20-year-old example?
So your argument is basically that there was WMD because "Congress and the President said so" and that Iraq is industrial. Ho-kay.
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 9:12 AM
> your argument is basically that
> there was WMD because "Congress
> and the President said so"
We've covered this ten thousand times before you got here. *Everybody* (Gore, Albright, Cohen, Byrd, Pelosi, Lieberman, Feinstein, Boxer, Waxman, Chirac, Clinton and Hillary) said there were WMDs in Iraq.
(I stole that list from earlier posts here. If you want, I'll give you the links, but it'll take two days to read them.)
Iraq was worth invading whether there were WMDs or not (and I think there were). So it's kinda academic.
If you're saying that we shouldn't trust the spook agencies to know what's going on, and should end their funding and shut them down, then I completely agree with you.
But I don't understand why this week's report about Iran impressed people so much.
Crid at December 9, 2007 10:20 AM
Iraq was worth invading whether there were WMDs or not (and I think there were)
This strikes me as patent nonsense. If we wanted to pick an Islamic nation dangerous to us and the world for invasion - one likely to cause us real problems in the long run and one likely to do harm in the shorter term to our real allies (Israel) and pseudo-enemies with whom we must do business (e.g., Saudi Arabia) - then the real choice should have been Iran. Or if we wanted a weak threat to easily pummel, Syria. We already had Saddam and Iraq in check with sanctions, no-fly enforcement and the rest. Their economy and military were devastated.
We picked Iraq because it was weak and without allies, perceived as an easy way to prove a point, and because the too-clever advisors to the President believed in some pipe dream of fixing a part of the world that is now, and has always been, broken. These clever people, like a lot of smart people, were unaware of where they were ignorant (in this case, they had no idea of the ancient hatred of the different tribes residing within the geographic borders of the Iraq non-state for each other and the clever and brutal tactics apparently needed to keep them in line) and succeeded in getting us into a mess that has deeply tarnished our image as a superpower (we can't control one pathetic little country) and as a righteous nation.
I'm glad some people think invading Iraq was worth it. I see it as an utterly craven act of desperation and fear caused by the great uncertainty of the post-9/11 world.
justin case at December 9, 2007 11:06 AM
BYW - the utter cravenness I mentioned is not limited to the Bush regime, but is most certainly extended to all the people in Congress who enabled Bush with their support of the measure permitting the use of force there. I'm not a partisan about this. Our leadership, Democratic and Republican alike, failed America and the world here. I understand why it happened to an extent - the need to do something to make us and them feel better in the face of inchoate fear (and X-raying our shoes wasn't cutting it) was probably overwhelming. They picked the wrong thing with Iraq, but we almost always regret decisions made out of fear.
justin case at December 9, 2007 11:16 AM
Iraq was worth invading whether there were WMDs or not (and I think there were).
Why?
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 11:44 AM
> the real choice should have
> been Iran. Or if we wanted
> a weak threat to easily
> pummel, Syria.
First, Iraq had the best oil, and other compelling demonstrative qualities. Secondly, it's just cowardly lunacy to imagine that enemies are best selected by identifying the weakest contenders. What kind of shit is that?
> We already had Saddam
> and Iraq in check
> with sanctions
Oil-for-food was the biggest financial scandal of all time. Of all time. Of all time.
> no-fly enforcement
> and the rest
So, like, you don't really have problem with the concept of making war in Iraq, right?
> Their economy and military
> were devastated.
They were unstable, which is not the same thing.
> a part of the world that
> is now, and has always
> been, broken.
To me, that's a way of saying "sand nigger" or "wog" but making it sound polite by adding extra syllables. That you could hold fellow men in such contempt is a matter for judgment by your Creator; that you could imagine such people could by policy be kept at comfortable distance, especially after 9-11, is laughable. They're here, and they're full of shit. Game on.
> an utterly craven act of
> desperation and fear caused
> by the great uncertainty
> of the post-9/11 world.
Oh, don't be so fucking half-assed about it, Justin. How were things supposed to go in these years? What were we and other nations (including the Europeans and Asians whose oil supplies we guarantee by our sacrifice) supposed to do?
> we almost always regret
> decisions made out of
> fear.
Now is the time to share this fabulous courage which you imagine beats in your heart but not those of your elected representatives. If you can't come through with specific scenarios, it's safe to presume you're an NPR ninny, prepared to imagine that every day of history brings a darker stormcloud because of some distant evil. We all hate listening to the radio in freeway traffic... But, I mean, get serious.
Crid at December 9, 2007 11:46 AM
They're here, and they're full of shit. Game on.
Wow, and you have the audacity to imply that someone else is racist? Give me a break.
I don't see, Crid, how adventurism abroad and nation-building is in any way a good and decent solution; especially with 3900 American Soldiers dead and more than ten times that wounded. Not to mention probably more than 1 trillion dollars of American taxpayer dollars gone.
What's the purpose? You think that Iraq is somehow going to reform the face of the Middle East?
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 12:04 PM
Worth a shot.
Unless --as I've suggested to Justin today and every other reader of this blog for the last four years-- you had a better idea. And if you did, it's a tootin' shame you never found a moment to share it with us. Shucks!
Crid at December 9, 2007 12:07 PM
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be such an arrogant cavalier asshole in the face of dead Soldiers and their families. Just maybe.
I mean, the fact that almost 4,000 of your fellow Americans, plus countless Iraqis, have died for your drive to just do something, crossed your mind, didn't it? Or do their deaths just not matter to you? I guess that's what you think when you say it's "worth a shot"...that the dead folks were "worth it".
I had a better idea - leave a country that had no fuckin' thing to do with 9-11 or any other terrorist attack alone.
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 12:24 PM
> I had a better idea - leave
> a country that had no fuckin'
> thing to do with 9-11 or any
> other terrorist attack alone.
And yet, your wisdom and your warmth and your horse sense counted for nothing, and Bush was handily re-elected even underneath the headlines of the troubled invasion.
PS- I'm not cavalier to the soldiers, just to you... The twitchy, witless bitch-a-day commenter with the ten-second attention span who, when asked what should have happened, can only reply "Not this! Not this!"
Just curious... How did you feel about the invasion of Afghanistan?
Crid at December 9, 2007 12:41 PM
And yet, your wisdom and your warmth and your horse sense counted for nothing, and Bush was handily re-elected even underneath the headlines of the troubled invasion.
So, your metric for morality and good public policy is popular opinion? Do you listen to nothing but Top 40 and eat nothing but pizza too?
Yeah, you're pretty cavalier about the Soldiers and the dead innocent Iraqis, all for some kind of "shot", as if waging war and killing people is some kind of wager or fun new social program. I mean, killin' people: it's worth a shot, right? fuck.
As to all that blah blah ad hominem shit you're spitting is completely meaningless. As if my self-esteem and worth rose and fell on some faceless commenter on a blog.
I felt that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban shielded al-Qaeda and deserved to be destroyed for that; I don't see why we're sticking around to rebuild it. We shouldn't have to rehab broken nations; all we need to do is kill the people who killed our people and get the hell out.
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 1:02 PM
> As if my self-esteem and worth
> rose and fell on some faceless
> commenter on a blog
Your feelings have been hurt... We can tell.
> all we need to do is kill
> the people who killed
> our people
You know 'em when you see 'em? If not, then congratulations, you're in the nation-building business.
> I don't see why we're sticking
> around to rebuild it.
Because Al-Qaeda took to those hills as a matter of convenience... They knew that nobody in the world gave a flying fuck about what happens there.
Y'know, so long as people (like you) use this war as an opportunity to cluck about their own personal (if rhetorically unsubstantiated) excellence, Dems are at risk for offending the majority that supported Bush's invasion, and for losing again in 2008.
Crid at December 9, 2007 1:16 PM
Secondly, it's just cowardly lunacy to imagine that enemies are best selected by identifying the weakest contenders. What kind of shit is that?
I'm saying that's why we picked Iraq, Crid. It was weak and isolated (and you're right, the oil certainly lends it strategic weight). Not that it was a threat. We explicitly ignored Iran and Syria, especially Iran, a far bigger threat(and BTW - don't forget that Iran would have made for a much better neocon experiment with its homogeneous and well-educated population, many of whom have strong familial ties to the U.S.).
Oil-for-food was the biggest financial scandal of all time. Of all time. Of all time.
So? This relates to Iraq being a threat how?
To me, that's a way of saying "sand nigger" or "wog" but making it sound polite by adding extra syllables. That you could hold fellow men in such contempt is a matter for judgment by your Creator
Well, my creators (mom & pop) are largely in agreement, thanks. I'm OK with them.
It's not a way of saying "sand nigger" or "wog" but you and other supporters of the Iraq invasion love to trot out the racist canard whenever someone points out that the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, has been a pit of tribalism and religious zealotry since the beginning of recorded history. It's not race, it's culture, you ninny, and we can't make their culture work. That's their job.
that you could imagine such people could by policy be kept at comfortable distance, especially after 9-11, is laughable.
I think that nothing we can do will prevent us from being occasionally attacked by whackos, and that to live our lives in fear of such is kinda sad and pathetic. Even worse, we can't do much now if the whackos don't happen to be in Iraq. What if they're in North Africa somewhere?
They can't break us unless we choose to let them. I think that killing Islamic zealots wherever we find them helps keep them at a distance. There's no evidence Iraq was populated by many radical terrorist types, nor that it was a fixture in their consciousness like other parts of the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian territories, the Sudan - those seemed to be the places the nutters were worried about.
Unless --as I've suggested to Justin today and every other reader of this blog for the last four years-- you had a better idea. And if you did, it's a tootin' shame you never found a moment to share it with us. Shucks!
Dude, we've been over this. I've shared these thoughts here, I shared them years ago elsewhere; it's largely irrelevant what I think or thought. You never like the answer, so you ask the question again. I'll have to bookmark this thread for future reference so I don't have to repeat it.
President Justin would have deployed enough forces in Afghanistan to massacre every nutter that could have been found. Just bombed the bejeezus out of the place - made sure everyone knew that if you attack us, or tell us, "Yeah, we got the people who attacked you. So what?" you end up dead. Then helped put things back together there as best as could be done. Then gone to building up our forces back home and in the region for quick deployment as needed. Probably put a big troop presence in Kuwait and other places that would have us. Use these places to strike terrorist camps wherever they could be discovered. If they appeared in Iraq, we would have bombed there, too.
President Justin would have delivered a big speech to the world telling them all that he had great confidence in America and the good things that we bring to the world, and that sometimes bad people will attack us. That this was unavoidable. He would also say that America will not change its way of living or acting in the world because a few zealots can occasionally come up with a trick or two to bloody our noses. He would say that the only people who can destroy our way of live is us, and the best way to protect ourselves was to project our best ideals in the world and support those who share those ideals.
President Justin would have worked diligently to secure the borders and control immigration, to guard our ports, and to work to secure nuclear materials in former Communist block states.
I've expressed this plenty. I think it would have been a better plan for our security, for the health of our military, and for our treasury. But it wasn't my call.
I've also expressed that I would love to be wrong here. I would love to see Iraq operate as the first domino to fall in spreading Democratic ideas in the Middle East. But I sincerely doubt it. I don't think those ideals will spread there until there is deep demand for it from inside their culture.
That specific enough for you?
justin case at December 9, 2007 1:48 PM
**Unless --as I've suggested to Justin today and every other reader of this blog for the last four years-- you had a better idea. And if you did, it's a tootin' shame you never found a moment to share it with us. Shucks!**
Actually, George's dad had pretty much summed it up for everyone in his 1999 book "A World Transformed", and we were all pretty sure Jr. wouldn't be arrogant enough to ignore it:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
http://www.amazon.com/World-Transformed-George-H-Bush/dp/0679752595/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197244922&sr=1-3
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 9, 2007 4:09 PM
Amy, I'm sorry I somehow changed the topic. People are even hallucinating about what I said, and they're so happy with the beliefs they've built up they don't consider any alternative. A good example of commonality with the Shia.
Radwaste at December 9, 2007 5:10 PM
> It was weak and isolated
Would Ahmadinejad have agreed with you in 2002? Would King Fahd? Would Bashar al-Assad? Would your average chemist or communications specialist in Baghdad? Yes; We know now that Saddam was more likely to have collapsed by 2008 than have cemented a kingdom for one of his psychotic sons. (Which, by the way? Tell me.)
> We explicitly ignored Iran
> and Syria
We did no such thing. On 9apr03, every village big man and valley potentate on this cocksucking planet did a testicle check. I hadn't been so proud to be an American since 21Jul69.
> Iran would have made
> for a much better neocon
> experiment
I look forward to reading your contemporaneous writings on this matter. Please post links in successive comments with Tinyurl and/or Urltea to avoid Amy's spamfilter.
> This relates to Iraq
> being a threat how?
You said "We already had Saddam and Iraq in check", when actually that money was being taken from his subjects to build him a shiny new "Boogie Nights" sex palace in each of the 18 provinces. I have photos on my PC and can email them to you. Imagine a 1974 dorm room in Fond-du-lac, WI, Champaign, IL or Athens, GA.
> a pit of tribalism and
> religious zealotry since
> the beginning of recorded
> history.
So, like, Germany and Japan were just minor corrections?
> It's not race, it's
> culture
I kinda said that, didn't I? "They've simply got to get modern. We have to force the issue. We don't have a choice...."
(Don't feel ashamed. Ayn the Dorm Room Guy didn't catch that passage, either.)
> nothing we can do will
> prevent us from being
> occasionally attacked
Fine. When it's you or your wife, no tears.
> They can't break us
> unless we choose to
> let them.
Agreed. Let's slap them straight from the 14th century into the 21st.
> There's no evidence Iraq
> was populated by many
> radical terrorist types
[A.] Nobody said it was. [B.] There were a lot of authoritarian fucktards who were sitting and shitting on the average citizen.
> it's largely irrelevant
> what I think or thought.
Eric of CDA said that once, and essentially never posted another comment again. "Who, me?" Yes, you.
> massacre every nutter that
> could have been found.
Would PJ have known them when he saw them? At what point does a guy become a nutter? This makes be feel much better about the middle-class types who are getting their fenders dented by our Humvees in Baghdad just because they dared to go out for a loaf of bread on a Tuesday afternoon: President Justin knows who the bad guys are!
> we would have bombed
> there, too.
Bush is often faulted for pretending that we're still fighting stated (national) enemies rather than trans-national forces. You apparently sit at the same table.
> That this was
> unavoidable.
Again, my condolences re: the missus. She was a lovely woman, and to die so young, just because that was the hour that the bastards decided to take out the Golden Gate Bridge....
> say that America will
> not change
Ok, so you are wearing 'nards....
> worked diligently to secure
> the borders and control
> immigration
Dude, you are going to have a tough time casting a vote next year.
> the first domino to fall
That's not how it goes. These are some of the most liquid forces in human nature, and human nature is all about liquid forces. You don't wrangle them with a rope and a "hee-yaw!"
> deep demand for it from
> inside their culture.
Their feelings are not of interest to me.
> That specific enough
> for you?
Not by a long shot.
GGGGRRRRRRRRRrrrr.
Crid at December 9, 2007 5:12 PM
Dude, you are going to have a tough time casting a vote next year.
Yes I am. It sucks. Every once in a while I see a glimmer of sanity from one candidate or another, but that's about it. I'm really just anti Hillary and anti-Giuliani. I could probably deal with any of the other credible candidates. But enthused about none of them.
As to the rest of your comments, I simply don't have it in me to go through another round (at least at the moment. You misinterpreted so many things I might feel differently later) where I write about how I think Iraq was an irrelevant and largely pointless venture in the "war on a military tactic called terrorism that we really should call the war against militant Islam" that has done nothing except weaken America's military might, its moral leadership and its financial foundation, and you say "Not so!" These debates are all academic at this point anyway, we're there and I wish Petraeus all the success in the world. I still think it was the most wrong-headed way to deal with 9/11. It's like getting punched in the face by someone and then kicking his cousin's ass.
justin case at December 9, 2007 6:11 PM
No, they aren't hellbent on world domination. They're only hellbent on dominating their own world, and if we'd just get the hell out of it and find new sources of energy they'd be happy to blow up Russia's buildings instead.
ges at December 9, 2007 6:33 PM
> I simply don't have it in
> me to go through another
> round
Dammnit, make time!
Listen, I think the Amy's of the world are to be thanked for keeping the heat on, and for asking every day what we think we're doing over there. Obviously we're not doing what needs to be done.
But I also wonder about the scenarior of this decade where we weren't going to give the lives of several thousand soldiers to make the world spin more smoothly. No, this is not an account from which we can write checks, but still: What did you expect for these years?
> military might, its moral
> leadership and its
> financial foundation, and
> you say "Not so!
I quibble only about the morality. Until someone tells us more about what was supposed to happen...
Crid at December 9, 2007 7:00 PM
ges - your statement is provably false. look up barbary pirates. Petroleum wasn't in use in 1796. There were no American troops or cultural influences in the middle east then either.
Please explain their religion-based attacks on American ships.
Please adjust your reality filter to include more history than the late 20th century.
brian at December 9, 2007 7:31 PM
brian- Word. Let's go halvies on getting Amy a copy of Hitchen's Jefferson book for a holiday gift.
Crid at December 9, 2007 9:12 PM
Basically, Crid admits that there weren't many "radical terrorist types", but seems to justify the war because Saddam had great palaces from the money he stole. And because we just "had" to pick a country and drag it into the 21st century.
someone tells us more about what was supposed to happen...
well, since Iraq (in your own words) didn't have radial terrorist types and was in no way involved in terror attacks, how about leaving Iraq alone and going somewhere else?
I think it's really cute how you have somehow conflated supporting the Iraq war with um, making sure someone's wife doesn't die on the golden gate bridge or something? brilliant rhetorical point! Ok Crid, no tears when when it's your friends or family who die in Iraq because you just had to "do something", if you want to play that game.
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 9:36 PM
How old are you?
Crid at December 9, 2007 10:17 PM
Old enough to know that waging war shouldn't be taken as lightly as you're taking it.
Old enough not to let neo-cons/liberals and wannabe imperialists sell me some worthless bill of goods.
Want to respond to the points now or what?
brian - you think that his statement was provably false because of a 210-year-old example? How unwell are you? I guess that means you think that Italians still have designs on conquering the world because of Rome. Try adjusting your filter and not viewing everything as a wide-and-deep historical conspiracy.
Ayn_Randian at December 9, 2007 10:57 PM
> Old enough to know that
Undergrad! High schooler, maybe.
> Want to respond to
> the points now or what?
Go ahead and make one.
Justin hates this war, but was willing to "bomb the bejeezus out of" Afghanistan, as if it weren't a nation of impoverished illiterates in which these troublemakers could hide themselves. So apparently lots of death is not really the problem, but let's visit the Star Trek Parallel Universe where we didn't invade. (I'll be Bearded Spock: Don't fuck with me.) It's 2007 without the invasion, and -
* Saddam's predations on Iraq's economy (to say nothing of the international community) would, for some reason, not have been a problem. He'd have somehow got religion about industrial maintenance instead of running their infrastructure on duct tape and dumb luck, as he had since coming to power in the 1970s.
* His support of terrorists in Israel woulda, y'know, just stopped. Somehow.
* Saddam wouldn't have completed the purchase of a nuke from North Korea. The bomb in Mahdi Obeidi's garden --and nobody knows how many of those were tucked into the countryside-- would never have been exhumed for deployment.
* The ambition of Saddam's sons wouldn't have been a factor in Iraq's flowing history, because of... ah... some sequence of events as yet unimagined.
* Saddam would have changed his mind about draining the marshlands and starving the half million who lived by them, and would be several years into their restoration.
* Iraqis in the south and north (i.e. Kurds) would have lived in confident democracy on the strength of our No-Fly zones alone.
* Qadaffi woulda surrendered his weapons program just for the hell of it.
* The duplicity of the French (and others), who vowed never to allow international disciplinary consequences for Saddam, would somehow have been ennobled by the passage of time.
* The Saudis (and to a lesser extent, the Syrians) would have stopped using Iraq's deeper wretchedness as a fig leaf for their own incompetence and corruption. All the region's governments and people would have continued in the belief that they could live in primitive arrangements of serfdom and ignorance.
Is that enough craziness? OK, let's jump back through the rip in the time/space continuum! Ta-da! Normal Spock here, Captain! Phasers on stun, let's move forward.
What I hate most about all the chatter about Iraq is the way it shamelessly, nakedly mocks the wisdom of the American voter. Democrats (and others) condescend to voters as would a distracted parent to a high schooler who was acting out. The voters only supported the war because George Bush lied about WMDs; Little Bobby only got into trouble with beer after the football game because of peer pressure. "Right, little Bobby? You didn't mean to get shitfaced and break that other boy's arm with a baseball bat... That's not what was in your heart, right, kid? C'mon, say it wasn't, so we can get out of the principal's office... I got a 4:00 meeting at back at the factory."
But voters supported the invasion, and I've never met one who worried too much about WMDs. And then --and this is important-- they re-elected Bush less than two years later, even though the invasion wasn't going well.
They've been cheated. Bush has bungled this politically and fiscally and horrible deaths aren't buying enough progress. And I hate this shit with a fire that words can't describe.
But to pretend that voters were deceived simpletons is tragically risky when elections are upcoming.
Perhaps these pretensions are like other commuter fantasies... Like the happily married executive who nonetheless daydreams of being blown by the office intern as he hits the offramp while listening to Howard Stern in the morning. Maybe the White House and Congress are so drenched with shit that it'll take a generation of "Iraq Virgins" like Obama to get things back in order... Can't see that anyone would be bothered by that.
But when you dream of the world where we didn't invade, don't allow yourself to think the decade was going to be all about Ipods and Austin Powers movies... Any more than the executive should tell his wife how much he wants to bang the girl from the University. In the fantasy world as in this one, other players have their own interests that would have been pursued.
Crid at December 10, 2007 1:52 AM
It's convenient that your parallel universe just happens to conform to your ideological preferences. Wow, Crid, you're SO prescient! And that whole list of stuff...yeah, still not seeing an attack on the United States in there anywhere. I thought that Iraq's threat was "imminent". Guess not.
So Iraq would still be a sucky place in the future, all your bitter sarcasm aside. So what? It's not our job to fix the world, and it's especially dumb to go after a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
I don't treat the voters like simpletons. The "evidence" from the Administration was bogus to anybody who had a thought in their brain. Seriously, it was.
I think that you're approach is especially flawed. As you said, this is a trans-national force. So why are we nation-building? Do you want to gallivant around the world, checkbook and gun in hand, and fix every failed state that may or may not harbor a terrorist? Do you really think an open-ended perpetual global crusade to implement democracy is the way to go? Have we learned nothing from the failed War on (Some) Drugs?
Undergrad! High schooler, maybe.
Yeah, because everybody who disagrees with wise ol' Crid must be some whippersnapper under the mental bootheel of a communist professor or socialist high-school teacher. *Tee-hee, gosh, I didn't have a thought in my pretty little head until Crid straightened me out*...how did you get to be such a condescending prick, anyway? Mommy didn't love you enough?
Ayn_Randian at December 10, 2007 2:59 AM
"...they [Brits] say they've done all they can to stabilize the city during their four years there."
From what I've heard, the Brits did a poor job in Basra, basically letting the bad guys take over.
justin:
"...It's like getting punched in the face by someone, and then kicking his cousin's ass."
me:
It's like getting punched in the face by someone, tracking him down to an abandoned warehouse, and then finding the whole place full of violent drug dealers.
doombuggy at December 10, 2007 3:32 AM
It's like getting punched in the face by someone, tracking him down to an abandoned warehouse, and then finding the whole place full of violent drug dealers.
Wow, I have read some non-sequiturs and poor analogies in my day, but this one deserves its own brand of crazy.
Ayn_Randian at December 10, 2007 5:43 AM
Nope, Doomy, that was brilliant.
Crid at December 10, 2007 8:58 AM
Ayn_Randian - You supercilious twit!
You read, but you do not comprehend.
"ges" put forth the argument that our involvement in the middle east is the sole reason for their desire to fight us.
I presented a counter-argument that we experienced a nearly identical interaction with Libya 250 years ago, and you dismiss it as a mental illness?
I'm not presenting anything as a conspiracy theory. I'm merely stating the fact that our involvement in the middle east concerning oil and politics are not necessarily (or even likely) driving factors in the political Islamic movement that we presently find ourselves combating.
re: the Brits - If their military presence is anything like their policing of London, then I can understand how they got walked all over.
brian at December 10, 2007 10:37 AM
"Tee-hee, gosh, I didn't have a thought in my pretty little head until Crid straightened me out"
Ayn I took you for a girl for exactly wording things like this. I can't speak against it, I was for some time mistaken as a man on here. Though I think in my case it's a compliment.
I would like to say that outside the internet realm I am glad that I am not mistaken for a man. Last night I picked up a fine Cuban chap at a liquor store and we fucked all night. Got no sleep for work. He was the best lay I've had in my life.
I wore feminine clothing, I flirted my ass off, and I got laid by a hot guy with personality all on the same night! I love this blog because Amy would probabbly say "Job well done Purple for finding a good fuck." Thank You Amy, much appreciated.
PurplePen at December 10, 2007 1:29 PM
PurplePen - I am glad that you had a good time and that you're proud of yourself. Really, I am.
However, try to maintain your dignity, huh? I know that this is the age of wide-open, balls-to-the-wall say anything-isms, but damn, sprinkle a little class on in the morning, please.
Ayn_Randian at December 10, 2007 11:59 PM
"However, try to maintain your dignity, huh? I know that this is the age of wide-open, balls-to-the-wall say anything-isms, but damn, sprinkle a little class on in the morning, please."
You found THAT to be classless? Wow. You really haven't been here long, have you?
1. This is a "wide-open, balls-to-the-wall say anything" blog. So not only is her comment appropriate, but she's probably spot-on as to how Amy would reply. Amy appreciates a good fuck as much as the next godless Sodomite. And she says so, too.
2. Dignity? Dignity is completely subjective. I'm sure PruplePen felt very dignified in relating how good of a fuck she had. To me, a class-act is a woman who's proud of herself and carries herself in such a way that people know it. Not someone who's afraid to state her mind for fear of offending someone else's sense of propriety.
3. Criticizing her lack of "class" makes you sound like a Victorian who is utterly aghast at the show of some ankle. Make up your mind, are you a high schooler, or an octogenarian yearning for the "good ole days?"
Jamie at December 11, 2007 12:54 PM
Thanks Jamie. Anything that Ayn says always comes off as a hissy fit.
PurplePen at December 12, 2007 11:01 AM
Leave a comment