Say Anything Blog

I wonder if Maliki remembers what happened to the Diems in South Vietnam?
Putting a ‘strongman’ in charge in Iraq would force Bush to acknowledge that his plan to democratize the ME is pretty much dead. Don’t see it happening.

Personally, I think we need more troops in Iraq.  A lot more.  I think we need to send those troops in to show our commitment to finishing this thing.

100,000 or so more boots on the ground will show our enemies and the world that we’re serious about not pulling out.

But you’re not interested in victory, are you Mike?  Just look at the title of this post.  Bow out gracefully.  The only option you’re willing to consider is defeat.

You’re just a part of the problem, Mike, not part of the solution.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Personally, I think we need more troops in Iraq.  A lot more.  I think we need to send those troops in to show our commitment to finishing this thing.

100,000 or so more boots on the ground will show our enemies and the world that we’re serious about not pulling out.

Rob, you are 100% correct. We should have had more troops in there from the get go doing security, guarding infrastructure, and kicking ass. Not only would it show the bad guys we fucking mean business, it would also show the elements within that society that wouldn’t usually take up arms against us that we give a shit about them. Cutting the CIA out early on was a huge mistake. Whether Rumsfeld thinks they can or not, 20 cutthroat commandos can’t win these wars for us.

docdave
I thought we were bringing democracy to Iraq? Was I just being naive or was that you?

Rob, you are 100% correct. We should have had more troops in there from the get go doing security, guarding infrastructure, and kicking ass.

Absolutely.

The problem though, as I see it, is if we send more troops to Iraq it will just become another talking point for the Dems/media.  They’ll talk about sending more lives into the meat grinder.  Because again, they’re not about victory in Iraq.  They’re about using Iraq as a political weapon against Bush.  Period.

Which is no excuse for Bush to avoid sending in more troops though, obviously.  He’s the commander-in-chief and must do what’s right.

I think he will.  He’s having those big meetings with the military leadership the last couple of days.  I suspect the result will be more troops in Iraq.

I hope anyway.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

THE main problem with sending more troops isn’t really the media. ..its the Iraqis ..nationalist bastards.. and how many of them will perceive it.

Rob:
I don’t think we have the troops to send, but I agree that it would probably help.
I think the American people would get behind it if they thought it would lead to a successful conclusion.  We just don’t like to lose, and it seems like that’s what’s happening with the current numbers there.

Rob said

But you’re not interested in victory, are you Mike?

This actually brings up an interesting point. How should I react to a military operation that seemed wrong headed in the first place and has not been conducted with a level of competence that the world normally associates with America? More to the point, how should I react when the operation bogs down in a quite predictable stalemate? I opposed Saddam and I certainly oppose Al Qaeda so the invasion should be construed as a good thing but how should I react when the world is no safer than it was pre-invasion, the Iraqi people are worse off materially, Saddam’s brutality has been replaced with the randomness of sectarian hit squads and it appears the best we can hope for is a carving up of Iraq al a Yugoslavia into sectarian mini-states.

It’s like going to the bar with a friend and he gets into a scrap over something he shouldn’t and with someone you don’t know all that well. You want him to be okay but you wish he hadn’t done it.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

docdave said

what you are overlooking and have ignored in all your posts is that we, the non-muslim nations, are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan but with Islam which wants to conquer the entire world and has had that goal unrelentlessly almost since its inceptions 1400 years ago.

I’m not ignoring those points at all...it’s just that we’re not at war with Islam but rather with a group of zealous thugs.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Gang, we already had this exact conversation. America is not attempting to make Iraq, or any other country, its possesion or colony. And unless you are prepared to place troops there at a ratio of 5 to 1 and keep them there for 100= years, or kill 98% of the population and move American civilians in, more troops is not the solution. In the last 5 days local religious leaders have begun attempts to rein in militias, because they have come to the realization that their militias are infiltrated and being used to destabilize the situation. Al Sadr has shown them this problem, and they are rallying against him, as well as against Al Queda’s cell structure. Do they hate America? Damn skippy they do. They also understand that stabilizing they country will place them in a far better position to excerise control over the government than allowing terrorists to turn it all into anarchy. They see Muslims killing other Muslims for the sole purpose of killing. They are seeing the lie and realize they will never be in control of the terrorists. They are being targeted by those same terrorists, just as their women and children are. Increasing our troop strength will not help.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

It’s like going to the bar with a friend and he gets into a scrap over something he shouldn’t and with someone you don’t know all that well. You want him to be okay but you wish he hadn’t done it.

You and I will never agree that Iraq was the right thing to do, nor will you and I probably see eye to eye on the progress in that country (the people are worse off than they were under Saddam?  Puh-lease...), but your analogy is an interesting one.

Would you stand by and watch your friend get beaten to a pulp just because you didn’t think he should have gotten into the fight in the first place?  Maybe you would, but that’s not what I would do.

Which isn’t to imply that America is getting beaten to a pulp.  We haven’t scratched the surface of what we’re capable of militarily.  We just have to have the will to finish what we started.  Which is the real problem in all of this.  Western society has grown cynical.  Not since the advent of the 24/7 news cycle have we been able to win a decisive military campaign.

We’re a fast food culture now, and you Mike are just another person whose upset because his burger isn’t ready yet.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The standard Moslem response to any and all controversy - kill somebody.

No matter how many troops we send in, it will not change this fact.

In Islam, as in most religions,there is a broad gulf between the ideal of unity and the realities on the ground.

Even during the ‘golden age’ of Islam, at the height of the Abbasid empire, there were rival caliphates in Cordoba and in North Africa, as well as ethnically Turkic and Iranian dynasties that challenged Baghdad’s authority.

For the entire 20th century,Muslim societies have been swept up in civil wars and violent internecine conflicts.

The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history.
Genocide took the lives of an estimated 167 million people.

Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’ – so says the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 19:21) – in other words, the offender should suffer what the victim has suffered. This philosophy of retribution has been part of all manner of societies for centuries.

Shia and Sunni will still be killing each other long after the U.S. leaves--

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

"His burger isn’t ready yet.” I love that, Rob! 30 minutes or less, or it’s free. That about sums up the political acumen of 99.9% of western populations.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

...it’s just that we’re not at war with Islam but rather with a group of zealous thugs.

This myopic vision is why lefties can’t be trusted with leadership in the present world situation.  Hitler just wanted the Sudentenland…

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

MikeA: Here’s what is wrong with “bowing out gracefully”:

We leave, we lose;

We lose, the terrorists win;

The terrorists win, the free world is f*cked.

Can’t make it any more simple than that.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert:  If we are at war with all of Islam, then why are we trying to stabilize a nation full of Muslims?  Some of them have to be good, or what the hell are we doing there?
Maliki’s a muslim- is he our enemy?

gregdn: Your premise is faulty, and so you can’t draw a valid conclusion.  Try again.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

gregdn: Let me ‘splain it to you.  We are obviously not at war with all of Islam(the faulty premise)...yet.
If the terrorists are successful in defeating us in Iraq, the bulk of Muslims, who are waiting to see how it all turns out, will be encouraged that the violent ones among them are in the right, and then the sh*t will really hit the fan, worldwide.  Understand?
If we win in Iraq, those same Muslims will be more persuaded that our way of life is the right one.  Simple enough for you?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

1977
March 9
A dozen Hanafi Muslim terrorists seize 134 hostages in three buildings only blocks from the White House. One man is killed and 12 are wounded in the takeover of the Islamic Center, the international headquarters of B’nai Brith, and the District building, Washington ‘s city hall. They surrender two days later after negotiations with ambassadors of Egypt , Iran , and Pakistan
------------------------------------------------------
November 4
Islamic students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran , Iran , and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen were soon released, but over 50 remaining were held hostage.
-----------------------------------------------------
November 21
The US Embassy in Islamabad , Pakistan , is attacked by a mob and set afire, killing four. 12
----------------------------------------------------
1981
June 17
Egypt : 22 Coptics burned inside their homes and businesses, in El-Zawia El-Hamra, Cairo , during religious rioting. Egyptian Internal Minister at the time, General Hassan Abu Basha, declared after his resignation that 81 Coptics killed, 100+ seriously wounded, and 80 homes looted & destroyed .
-----------------------------------------------------
October 6
Terrorists, soldiers who were secretly members of the Takfir Wal-Hajira sect, jump off a parade vehicle during an Egyptian parade, firing weapons and throwing grenades at the reviewing stand. They kill Egyptian President Anwar Sadat along with eight others and injure 20, including four American diplomats
--------------------------------------------------

1983
March 16
Five American Marines were wounded in a hand grenade attack while on patrol north of Beirut International Airport . The Islamic Jihad and Al-Amal, a Shi’ite militia, claimed responsibility for the attack. 11

April 18
A suicide car-bomber drives a van carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63-including 17 Americans-and injuring 120. The CIA’s Middle East director was among the casualties. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility
-----------------------------------------------------
Oct 23
A Shiite suicide bomber blows up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut , Lebanon , killing 241 Marines. At almost the same time, a nearly identical suicide bombing attack kills over 50 soldiers at the French military barracks in Beirut - all members of a U.N. peacekeeping force. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility
-------------------------------------------------
December 12
Shiite extremists set off car bombs in front of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait City , killing five people, and wounding 86. Analysts later blame the attacks on the banned Al-Dawa party, a radical Shiite group with ties to Iran
----------------------------------------------------
1984
April 12
Hizbullah Restaurant Bombing: Eighteen U.S. servicemen were killed, and 83 people were injured in a bomb attack on a restaurant near a U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon , Spain .

and on and on and on......................

Full list/Timeline

Robert:  If we are at war with all of Islam, then why are we trying to stabilize a nation full of Muslims?  Some of them have to be good,

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

Right on the money Doc!!!!
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
But MikeA (I think) will contend that the history you’re reading is flawed (and therefore misleading) because it was written by ‘biased’ people.

Kinda like...perception ‘is ‘ reality.

That’s the same (Michael Morre) school of thought that allows terrorists to be called freedom fighters.

Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.

Mike said:

This actually brings up an interesting point. How should I react to a military operation that seemed wrong headed in the first place and has not been conducted with a level of competence that the world normally associates with America?

This kind of hindsight isn’t the wisdom some like to make it out to be.  “Seemed wrongheaded” doesn’t say anything about why the global intelligence should have been ignored, why Sadaam should have been allowed to continue a reign of terror, or why Sadaam should have been allowed to remain an immanent threat based on his willingness to do business with terrorists.

It is legitimate to say that based upon the absence of WMD we probably wouldn’t have gone in.  However, it is not legitimate to say we shouldn’t have gone in since such a statement presumes what we know today could have been known then.  This scenario is impossible and therefore to say we “shouldn’t have” is utter nonsense.  So it is pathetic for some talk about how they knew, or sensed, or it seemed to them we shouldn’t have.  The bottom line is there was no wisdom in not addressing Iraq in 2003. 

Now that the debate is moving away from why we went in, to how we get out, some are acting as if their opposition to our war effort, and criticism of Bush, is now justified.  They are wrong.  They make the mistake of thinking that their complaints about the war effort have now come to pass.  Rather, their opposition was principled upon liberalism, and their complaints equal to the number of negative scenarios advanced, that should anything go wrong, they were in a position to claim they told us so.  They hoped for the worst not caring what worked in Iraq only what might not. 

So libs, don’t confuse your hindsight for brilliance.  When we leave Iraq it won’t be on your terms.  We will leave when the job is finished with our national security intact no thanks to you.

Rob asks

Would you stand by and watch your friend get beaten to a pulp just because
you didn’t think he should have gotten into the fight in the first place?

No I wouldn’t but I would probably stop going to the bar with him.

r108 said

We leave, we lose;

We lose, the terrorists win;

The terrorists win, the free world is f*cked.

If you’re prepared to pay in order to stay until you win then more power to you...just don’t think you’re doing the rest of us any favours. We’ll just muddle our way through like we always do.

BF said

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
But MikeA (I think) will contend that the history you’re reading is flawed (and therefore misleading) because it was written by ‘biased’ people.

Not flawed necessarily but hyped and twisted for sure. Who can state with a straight face that Islamic societies are the only ones who have possessed imperialistic designs in history? 54-40 or fight!

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

HG opines

It is legitimate to say that based upon the absence of WMD we probably wouldn’t have gone in.

I would buy your whole argument if I thought that statement was true but I just plain don’t. I think the Administration rolled the dice that WMD would be found even though there was little to no practical evidence that an immanent threat was posed. They rolled them and they lost and thus democracy has moved to the justification front. That’s the problem with having conservative idealogues in positions of power...there’s too much reliance on whimsical visions of how the world should be and what prevents the shaping of that world. The same is true of lefist idealogues too of course...the realists may be soulless but at least they act on situations as they are.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Mike, who here said that only Islamic cultures have had imperialistic designs? You give the appearence of attemptingto mislead with that claim. Why?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I think the Administration rolled the dice that WMD would be found even though there was little to no practical evidence that an immanent threat was posed.

Mike,

The Administration did not “roll the dice”.  The House and Senate, the Brits, our other 32 allies, and the UN believed the global intelligence gathered on Sadaam’s Iraq.  Of those all but the UN agreed to war in Iraq (well the UN passed a resolution including force, but backed off when the time came to act).  Mike the world disagreed with you, and according to you the Bush Administration is to “incompetent” to have ever pulled off such a conspiracy.

They rolled them and they lost and thus democracy has moved to the justification front.

Interesting use of words.  It appears from this statement the war you’re fighting is against the Administration’s decisions regarding Iraq. 

Democracy has not moved to justification, that would be the anti-war crowd.  There is no justification for having opposed and undermined our war effort.

54-40 or fight!

So, a border dispute that was settled a long time ago is equivalent to trying to take over the known world?  That is irresponsible!

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

2H9 asks

who here said that only Islamic cultures have had imperialistic designs?

Anyone here who takes passages and ideas from Islamic theology and believes that they promote an imperialist agenda more than any other religion does. The jihadists take these passages literally as justifying their violent acts whereas reasonable Moslems do not. Some contemporary Christians believe that the Catholic Church is the Devil’s seat on earth and justify it based on Biblical Scripture...they are a minority. I don’t fear Islam any more than I fear _______ but crackpots who use and twist religious demands do make me nervous, be they Islamic, Christian or Daughters of Venus.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

HG...the Administration indeed rolled the dice in that it was the Administration that pushed for the Iraqi invasion and not the Senate, the House, Britain, etc. They certainly supported the invasion based on the evidence at their disposal but who could have predicted that the Administration case would be so flimsy once the details emerged? The world certainly did not disagree with me as the smaller number of coalition members in Iraq versus coalition members in Afghanistan bears out.

As for my choice of words, it produced a clumsy passage on my part. What I meant is that the desire for democracy in Iraq became a higher priority, particularly when it became clear that the search for WMD would come up dry.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

r108 protests

So, a border dispute that was settled a long time ago is equivalent to trying to take over the known world?

They are both examples of imperialistic design but they certainly aren’t equivalent. One is trying to take a smaller part of the world while the other is trying to take over the whole thing.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeA: I don’t think establishing the border between the US and Canada it “trying to take a smaller part of the world”.  Was Canada trying to do that, or was it just the US?  It’s still not any sort of equivalency with worldwide Islamic terrorism.  That is a ridiculous notion.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

r108...just the US and it’s an example of a nation trying to take over another nation’s territory which is why I consider it an example of imperialistic design. I’m not sure why you think it’s so silly as it seems pretty textbook to me.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

HG...the Administration indeed rolled the dice in that it was the Administration that pushed for the Iraqi invasion and not the Senate, the House, Britain, etc.

Mike A,

Are you saying that the Administration rolled the dice by pushing for the Iraqi invasion, or by betting WMD would be found, or both?

They certainly supported the invasion based on the evidence at their disposal but who could have predicted that the Administration case would be so flimsy once the details emerged?

Nobody.  That is my point.  The evidence was not only US, but Brit and other foreign intel.  We weren’t joined by 33 allies because the Administration sold a war, they all beleived that global intel and Sadaam’s track record made him an immanent threat.

The world certainly did not disagree with me as the smaller number of coalition members in Iraq versus coalition members in Afghanistan bears out.

I based that statement on the final UN resolution against Iraq that allowed for military force.  The point was the world did agree that Iraq was an immanent threat. At the actual time of the invasion, you are right, the world didn’t disagree with you then.

I repeat, to compare a border dispute by two emerging nations to worldwide Islamic imperialism is, to me, simply hyperbolic and ridiculous.  If there were any parallel, we would today occupy all of Canada, and we don’t.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

it’s an example of a nation trying to take over another nation’s territory which is why I consider it an example of imperialistic design.

Wasn’t the territory jointly occupied?

MikeA: You don’t consider that the US position was the correct one on 54-40, and that we prevailed for that reason.  Are you prejudiced against the US, by any chance?  That would explain your hyperbole in comparing it to the unending Islamic imperialism, which has only ever been stopped by military defeat.  Victory seems to encourage them, as proved by history.  Or are you just being silly?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

r108...now you’re being silly. I’ve already said that I don’t consider the two equivalent but that both are examples of imperialist sentiment and/or acts. Now you’re pushing the silliness envelope by saying that I can’t bring up 54-40 or fight as an example of imperialist sentiment and/or acting because it’s hyperbolic and might paint me as anti-American.

HG...the area was indeed jointly held for several years. The arrangement wasn’t particularly satisfying for either side and, in spite of Polk’s games of brinkmanship, the American and British governments split the difference between the two positions and we all lived happily ever after.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

I don’t consider the two equivalent but that both are examples of imperialist sentiment and/or acts.

I guess you consider them equivalent in that respect, then.  In the note to HG, you take my position that it wasn’t US “imperialism"(a term I considered hyperbolic), but that it was what I said all along was a border dispute that was settled in a mutually agreeable manner.  So, you misquote me in order to label me as silly, then end up making the same point I made earlier.  Is this something personal with you?
BTW, I never said you couldn’t bring up anything; you made that up all by yourself.  I just questioned your labeling a border dispute as an example of “US imperialism”.  In mentioning it along with Islamic imperialism, you at least implied an equivalency.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

54-40 was an odd cartridge, and I would not want to have to use it in a fight. Now, to this secondary topic, comparing a border dispute from 150 odd years ago to global jihad advocated by a significant number of Islamic religious leaders in nations scattered all across the world is silly, Mike, and I for one fully expect better from you. Your contry has had 4 attempts in the last 10 years by Muslims to institute Shari’a as the law governing portions of your population, the first step in making it the law over all citizens. Your moderate politicians and judges have not allowed this to happen. Canadians should be far more aware of the implications of global jihad than Americans. Why are you so wilfully clueless?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So, you misquote me in order to label me as silly, then end up making the same point I made earlier.  Is this something personal with you?

No it’s not but occasionally I feel compelled to restrict your more dubious leaps of logic...dubious to my mind at least. If you could point out where I misquoted you I’d be happy to make amends.

2H9...54-40 or fight and the global jihad are not equivalent nor was I comparing them with each other. I may be clueless but I can assure you it is not willful.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

First, we ‘bow out’ upon securing the objective.  Not before.  That’s a pretty basic concept.  Had these latter-day Tokyo Roses been in charge of the US MSM during WWII, the D-Day landing would have been a mistake, the Ardennes would be a quaqmire, the frightful loss of troops in Tarawa and Iwo Jima would have been cause in and of themselves to surrender to Japan, and Eisenhower would have been lying to us about one thing or another.  Would a time-line (for withdrawal) have been practical at any point in the war?

For the mouth-breathing element, I’ll supply the all-too obvious answer: NO.

And so it is here.  The Middle East, and specifically, Islam is undergoing its own internal struggle.  Islam is far from monolithic.  It behooves us to bolster that branch of Islam which can at least try to live peacefully with the West (dar al harb), rather than make endless jihad against it.

Secondly, it is perhaps best that I wasn’t running the show over there.  I would be far less soft- spoken.  When the residents of Fallujah murdered those four contractors, I would have cordoned off the area, leafletted it, giving women and children three days to leave, then made a point out of reducing the place to rubble.  Any structure that hosted hostile action would be toast, mosque or no mosque.  Photoshopping journalists would have no protection and if collateral damage happened, oh dear how sad.  Iran would have already been hit.

My hats off to the Soldiers and Marines who are doing the tough, tough task of using ultimate restraint by surgically separating out the neck-sawing coward terrorists from the people they hide behind.

...for great justice