December 20, 2006
Dec 20 02:00 Iraq vs. WW II; Winning vs. Leaving a Catastrophe Dec 20 10:20 Wednesday's MUST Reading Dec 20 10:48 Merry Christmas From Ahmedinejad Dec 20 11:26 Selling Out Democracy Dec 20 13:57 Ahmadinejad: Iran Now Nuclear Power Dec 20 18:52 Paranoia Patrols
Iraq vs. WW II; Winning vs. Leaving a Catastrophe
There hasn't been a week that's gone by in the last six months when I haven't heard some dipstick Democrat whining about how long we've been in Iraq or that we've now been there longer than we fought in WW II. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing it. Let's get a few things straight.
While we've spent more time fighting Operation Iraqi Freedom than we fought in WW II, it's also true that we've lost fewer people during OIF than during the opening hours of Normandy, much less during the entire war.
Amy Proctor, my blogging partner at California Conservative has commented on Bill O'Reilly's interrogation/whining session with Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey. Here's a portion of the transcript of that interrogation:
O'Reilly: Can you understand that after four years most Americans are exhausted, they don't want to hear about Iraq, they don't care about the Sunni and Shia, they just don't want American soldiers being killed?Let me respond to each whining statement individually.
O'Reilly: But we're talking 4 years now, this adventure here in Iraq, and you're telling me that you're still working hard, you're optimistic but am I looking at another 4 or 5 years? How much sacrifice, blood and treasure is America supposed to extend to this country?
O'Reilly: 3,000 American dead, 15,000 wounded or something, Americans are saying "not worth it."
O'Reilly: Can you understand that after four years most Americans are exhausted, they don't want to hear about Iraq, they don't care about the Sunni and Shia, they just don't want American soldiers being killed?Frankly, I'm exhausted having to continually hear about the American people's apathy towards winning in Iraq. It's time we started acting adults in this nation instead of acting like a bunch of whiny spoiled brats. It's time we got serious about winning in Iraq.
I'm also pretty tired of hearing about politicians like John Murtha and Ted Kennedy saying that they don't want our troops being put in harm's way. What the hell is the sense of having a military if soldiers aren't in harm's way? It isn't like the troops don't know that that's part of the job description. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for keeping our troops as protected as possible but there's only so much that can be done to protect the troops. There's an old saying about war that goes like this: Rule # 1 is that young men die in war; Rule #2 is that generals and surgeons can't change Rule #1.
O'Reilly's caved because of the Agenda Media's campaign against Iraq. It's disgusting to see him look at the short term rather than seeing the major longterm impact leaving Iraq without victory means to the U.S. If we leave, for whatever reason, Iran gets a new puppet regime and control of a huge portion of the region's oil. If we leave, for whatever reason, then al-Qaeda gets a new training/operations base.
O'Reilly: But we're talking 4 years now, this adventure here in Iraq, and you're telling me that you're still working hard, you're optimistic but am I looking at another 4 or 5 years? How much sacrifice, blood and treasure is America supposed to extend to this country?That's the wrong question. The right question to ask is this: What changes in force level and tactics should we make to defeat the Iranian-trained and supplied militias and Sunni insurgents? Long ago, President Bush and John McCain and Joe Lieberman said that we couldn't afford to lose in Iraq. It was true then and it's true now. Accepting that as fact, why shouldn't we view this as being a war we must win?
Does anyone think that al Qa'ida won't restart their training of terrorists the minute we lose there? Does anyone think that Iran won't use the additional oil revenue to finance terrorists to kill us?
Here's another way of wording this: How many innocent civilian lives are we prepared to sacrifice here at home as a predictable consequence of leaving Iraq without achieving victory? Are we willing to say that we can go into a defensive crouch within our borders without worry of future terrorist attacks? I'm not at all willing to accept that.
O'Reilly: 3,000 American dead, 15,000 wounded or something, Americans are saying "not worth it."We're now basing strategic military decisions on the national mood??? We're now basing strategic military decisions on the emotional makeup of the nation's uninformed masses? God help us if we reach that point.
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment 1 by Cycloptichorn at 20-Dec-06 01:11 PM
You say,
"What changes in force level and tactics should we make to defeat the Iranian-trained and supplied militias and Sunni insurgents?"
And the answer is: no changes in force level will allow us to defeat these people.
Those we are attempting to fight are not only on their home turf, they are extremely effective at intergrating themselves into the larger, innocent population. Naturally this makes it quite difficult for us to find them and kill them without killing many innocent civilians simultaneously, which is a big no-no when the goal is to win over people to your side.
It is in fact you sir who are asking the wrong question. The right question is: What do we need to do to get Iraqis, both Shiite and Sunni, to reject terrorists and militias within their societies? For we will not be able to expel them as long as their support groups support them.
Cheers
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Dec-06 10:21 PM
Those we are attempting to fight are not only on their home turf, they are extremely effective at integrating themselves into the larger, innocent population. Naturally this makes it quite difficult for us to find them and kill them without killing many innocent civilians simultaneously, which is a big no-no when the goal is to win over people to your side.
Frankly, I'm not that interested in winning over people. I'd be perfectly satisfied with a massive, ruthless offensive. I believe that people would be upset initially about lost loved ones but they'd be ok with it when they noticed how much the violence had dropped.
Ergo, I did ask the right question by asking what changes in tactics were needed.
Wednesday's MUST Reading
Bradley Smith, the man who first alerted bloggers of the FEC's desire to silence the political blogosphere, has written a compelling op-ed in this morning's LA Times. Here's a taste of Commissioner Smith's op-ed:
What did the groups really do wrong? Did they bribe or corrupt politicians? Well, no. You won't find "Duke" Cunningham, William Jefferson or Bob Ney connected to MoveOn or the Swift Boat Veterans. Did they make illegal contributions to campaigns? Well, no again. Did they seek out special favors or illegally coordinate their efforts with candidates? No. The FEC admitted that, after a "thorough" investigation, it found no evidence that any of the groups operated in concert with candidates or sought legislative favors.The FEC and crusading do-gooder politicians complain about the corruptive influences of campaign contributions made by "special interests", which is a farce. With few exceptions, they aren't as interested in cleaning up Washington as much as they're interested in silencing their critics' ads. That's the quintessential definition of censorship.
The elitist cognoscenti in Washington, who support anything they think will take money out of politics, are pleased, huffing only that the fines are too small. The FEC admitted to going easy on the groups, given the "uncertainty" in the law. In my view, there is no uncertainty, the groups did not violate the law at all.
But these groups aren't being punished for making errors in their filing papers. They're being punished for criticizing politicians. Now, it's natural that politicians don't like that and might pressure the FEC to shut their critics up; the FEC reportedly acted in part because of pressure from Congress and a lawsuit brought by Reps. Christopher Shays and Martin T. Meehan, but why should ordinary citizens feel offended by criticism of public officials? Shouldn't we be more upset by efforts to silence criticism of public officials?
No doubt many Americans think that the Swift Boat Veterans were terrible, smearing the reputation of an honorable Vietnam War veteran. And no doubt many Americans think that MoveOn.org was terrible, making misleading and unfounded charges that undermined American unity in time of war. That is what political speech often does. No doubt King George III considered that Thomas Jefferson fellow an irresponsible pamphleteer.
Bloggers, and all Americans, owe Bradley Smith a hearty Thank You for his efforts to prevent censorship, especially since his efforts have been criticized by the Censorship Patrol. Smith has fought against BCRA, which would be named the Incumbents' Protection Act if it were subjected to the same scrutiny provided by the truth in advertising laws.
Furthermore, you owe it to yourself to read Bradley Smith's op-ed. You won't be disappointed.
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment 1 by terrance at 08-Jan-07 03:32 PM
If public financing were a reality, it might do for our politics what blogging has done for our discourse; broaden the range of people who can participate and make their voices heard, and make politicians more accountable than they've ever been before.
Merry Christmas From Ahmedinejad
Yes, you read that right. Except that there's strings attached to these greetings, as Christi King points out here. Here's the link to the letter published through the ISNA's website. Let's first take a look at Ahmedinejad's letter to America's Christians:
"To guide mankind, Jesus offered all his love and sacrificed all his being. He tolerated all the misunderstandings, the insults, pressures, agonies and imposition of all those around him. He was drawn into isolation and bore all this pain just to carry out his divine mission," stated Ahmadinejad while speaking to the public in the city of Kermanshah.Now let's take a look at how Christi takes Ahmedinejad's statements apart:
"I wish all the Christians a very happy new year and I wish to ask them a question as well. My one question from the Christians is: What would Jesus do if he were present in the world today? What would he do before some of the oppressive powers of the world who are in fact residing in Christian countries? Which powers would he revive and which of them would he destroy? If Jesus were present today, who would be facing him and who would be following him?" said Ahamdinejad.
Well, if Jesus were to return today I think Mr. Ahmadinejad might just have a bit of a problem because Jesus hated hypocrites. He was quick to point out the pompous, self-righteous religious leaders during his lifetime. He called them hypocrites and He warned all believers to be wary of these wolves in sheep's clothing.As you can see, it isn't wise to make hypocritical statements in Christi's presence because she's liable to tear you to shreds with her analysis.
So, I believe the real questions should be; what would Jesus think of a leader who professes righteousness while funding the terrorism and murder of innocent Israelis, Iraqis, Americans, Lebanese, and others to further his own selfish political agenda of dominating the Middle East? What would Jesus think of a man who incites his nation to hate America, Israel, and the entire West? What would Jesus think of a leader who jails his own citizens for speaking in opposition, a practice He knew all too well? And what would Jesus think of a leader who denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of the nation of Israel?
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment 1 by Christi at 20-Dec-06 12:07 PM
LOL, thanks! :)
Selling Out Democracy
That's Masrour Barzani's opinion on the ISG report, an opinion that's shared by most rational-thinking people.
The Iraq Study Group's recommendations will accomplish nothing in Iraq. Its expressions of "gratitude" to those of us Iraqis who fought on the battlefield for freedom and liberty ring hollow. The report ignores our accomplishments, dreams and sacrifices in favor of a concern for those whose ultimate goal is the destruction of democracy.As I've pointed out before, the ISG report was short on military advice because it wasn't a military document. It was a political CYA document designed to give President Bush a 'graceful exit' from Iraq. Thankfully, President Bush didn't take them up on that option.
Our federal constitution, which the majority of the Iraqi people voted for, is treated flippantly, as though it were a negotiable document rather than the hard-fought result of lengthy negotiation among those willing to participate in the new Iraq. Further, the study group's approach is driven by the concerns of the countries in this region rather than by the concerns of the Iraqi people.
The ISG's report lightly dismisses the blood shed by Iraqi patriots like Mr. Barzani. It doesn't take into account all the heroic things we've seen in Iraq, starting with the defiant purple fingers raised on Jan. 30, 2005. Mssrs. Baker and Hamilton didn't think that these were worthy considerations but Mr. Barzani's op-ed tells us that the ISG didn't do its job in finding out what's important for victory in Iraq. They should be ashamed of themselves for that. Sadly, they won't be ashamed because Baker's ego is too big to allow that to happen.
Thankfully, Mr. Barzani has written a stinging op-ed that exposes the ISG's elitism while also talking about the patriotic Iraqi people.
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:27 PM
No comments.
Ahmadinejad: Iran Now Nuclear Power
I just read the scariest headline I never wanted to read. Here's the headline:
Ahmadinejad: Iran Now Nuclear PowerIf that isn't enough to get your undivided attention, then nothing will get your undivided attention. Here's the gist of the article:
During a speech delivered in the Western Iranian province of Javanroud, Ahmadinejad said: " The Islamic Republic of Iran is now a nuclear power, thanks to the hard work of the Iranian people and authorities." The announcement of Iran as a "nuclear power" is bound to significantly escalate tensions between the West and Iran, and marks a dramatic stage in the Islamic Republic's nuclear campaign.Here's a newsflash for Sen. Kerry, Justice O'Connor, Rep. Hamilton, SecState James Baker, etc: Negotiate that. If ever there was proof of these people's lack of wisdom, this should suffice. This group didn't learn Reagan's lesson of negotiating from a position of strength. They're just a bunch of 'surrendering realists' who think that talking endlessly is a solution to every situation. Shame on them for thinking that.
In recent days, the US military has begun to build up forces around the Gulf, in what is being seen as as a warning to Iran. Ahmadinejad was also reported to have announced that "Iranian young scientists reached the zenith of science and technology and gained access to the nuclear fuel cycle without the help of big powers." The Iranian president began the speech by saying that "the powerful Iranian nation resists bullying powers and will defend its rights, including the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology," the IRNA said.
It's worth reviewing Reagan's principle on negotiation. The Reagan principle teaches that you don't negotiate until you scare the daylights out of the people you're negotiating with. It's only at that time that they're willing to make significant, long-lasting concessions. Furthermore, the Reagan Principle teaches us that there shouldn't be a time when the United States can't get to the position of superiority to negotiate from.
Gorbachev didn't make the concessions that he did because of his benevolence. He made them because he knew that Reagan wasn't someone to be messed with and because Reagan's policies and actions scared him into making concessions.
Right now, we don't scare Ahmadinejad. That must stop. IMMEDIATELY. We need to put the fear of God into him. We need to help him feel like Qaddafi felt after Reagan bombed Qaddafi's home.
In a clear rejection of all diplomatic attempts to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Ahmadinejad added in his speech that "the Iranian nation will continue in its nuclear path powerfully and will celebrate a nuclear victory soon."It's time that we put some serious pressure on Iran with a multi-front, multi-faceted policy that makes them wish they'd never started this escalation.
That can't happen soon enough.
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment 1 by Anonymous at 20-Dec-06 03:10 PM
Want to know my favorite joke?
What was the name of Ronald Reagan's dog?
He doesn't remember either!
Hey-o!
I guess that joke lost some of its zing when that bastard died.
Paranoia Patrols
Thanks to my good friend Leo at Psycmeistr's Ice Palace, I now have a must buy Christmas item to purchase before Sunday. Here's what's got the Paranoia Patrol's undies in a bunch:
Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them. They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray. "You are fighting a defensive battle in the game," Frichner, whose previous company produced Bible software, said of combating the Antichrist. "You are a sort of a freedom fighter."It's time for Rev. Simpson and Mr. Stevens to get medicated for their paranoia. It's also long past time to let a couple lone voices dictate the majority's actions. Rev. Simpson and Mr. Stevens are free to complain about these games but Wal-mart isn't under any obligation to cave to their demands. If Mr. Frichner is accurately portraying the game as pacifist in nature, then it's up to their groups to get a thicker skin and not let everything offend them.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the retailer has no plans to pull Left Behind: Eternal Forces from any of the 200 of Wal-Mart's 3,800 stores that offer the game, including just seven in California. The nearest are in Chico and Redding. "We look at the community to see where it will sell," said Tara Raddohl. "We have customers who are buying it and really haven't received a lot of complaints about it from our customers at this time."
Clark Stevens, co-director of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, said the game is not peaceful or diplomatic. "It's an incredibly violent video game," said Stevens. "Sure, there is no blood. (The dead just fade off the screen.) But you are mowing down your enemy with a gun. It pushes a message of religious intolerance. You can either play for the 'good side' by trying to convert nonbelievers to your side or join the Antichrist."
The Rev. Tim Simpson, a Jacksonville, Fla., Presbyterian minister and president of the Christian Alliance for Progress, added: "So, under the Christmas tree this year for little Johnny is this allegedly Christian video game teaching Johnny to hate and kill?"
I also find it more than a little ironic that someone from an organization called "the Campaign to Defend the Constitution" would essentially be advocating censorship. The last I looked, the Constitution didn't codify censorship into the Bill of Rights.
When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game. That is so obvious," he said.I'm at a loss for words about this one. If Muslim organizations worry about intolerance to this extent, they need to get a life. Most people wouldn't give this issue a second's worth of thought and rightfully so. In other words, these organizations need to develop a thicker skin. Their whining isn't winning them support. As you might expect, CAIR has voiced their opinion on this, too:
In a letter to Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr., CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote in part:If Mr. Awad is serious about improving interfaith relations means, then removing Basim Elkarra from his position as the executive director of its Sacramento Valley chapter is essential. This isn't a one way street. If CAIR demands improved interfaith relations, they need to rid their organization of their extremists first. Until that happens, their calls for "improved interfaith relations" should be seen as hollow and hypocritical.
"We believe the message this game is promoting is one of religious intolerance. The game's enemy team includes people with Muslim-sounding names. When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Left Behind Games' President Jeffrey Frichner said, 'Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ', and therefore cannot be on the side of Jesus in the game. (San Francisco Chronicle, 12/12/06) As you may know, Muslims do in fact revere Jesus as one of God's prophets.
"In the post 9-11 climate, when improving interfaith relations should be a priority for all, this type of product only serves to dehumanize others and increase interfaith hostility and mistrust.
According to this AAH statement, Mr. Elkarra has much to learn about intolerance:
Basim Elkarra has defended someone that trained for jihad in a Pakistani terrorist camp; he has defended an imam that urged a Pakistani crowd to wage attacks on America; and he has defended an imam that was attempting to build an Islamic school for the purpose of teaching children how to commit violent acts against Americans.In other words, when an Islamic extremist like Mr. Elkarra urges crowds to wage attacks against America or attempts to build a school with the intent of teaching children how to commit terrorist attacks, Mr. Awad doesn't say a word. But let a game come out that has even a hint of anti-Muslim sentiment to it and Mr. Awad goes ballistic. Forgive me if I don't see Mr. Awad's calls for religious tolerance as sincere.
Mr. Awad's statement that "Muslims do in fact revere Jesus as one of God's prophets" is offensive to those of us who view Jesus as God in human form, not just one of God's prophets.
Posted Wednesday, December 20, 2006 6:53 PM
No comments.
