Senator Obama’s comments about Pakistan have been been much discussed but several commentators agree that part of the world will require attention in the near future. This comment provides a good overview of what may lay ahead and what the issues are.
The future of al Qaeda’s version of violent jihadism will very much depend on what happens in Pakistan in the coming year.
So, is it Iraq that is the “distraction”, or is it the Iraqis? According to you, of course.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Iraq is indeed a “distraction,” but not in the way Mike suggests. Iraq is distracting al Qaeda from plots for attacks against the west. We’re fighting them in Iraq and the middle east in general (yes, Pakistan will be a part of that, but I don’t think we should invade) and not here.
Which is a good thing. Not that partisan observers of the war are ever going to be able to admit that. Or admit that they were wrong about the surge strategy and our ability to complete the mission.
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 Iraqi mission is the distraction...sorry for any lack of clarity.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Yes, quite right. It is a distraction, for the terrorists. And so far it’s worked pretty well, though there are things we could have been doing better in terms of getting Iraq back on it’s feet.
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:
Rob...it’s unfortunate that America’s strategy didn’t include keeping Al Qaeda busy where it existed and exists instead of choosing Iraq as the war theatre but I know there’s no use crying over spilled milk, dwelling in the past, etc. etc.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike, are you forgetting that we invaded Afghanistan as well as Iraq? Or are you now claiming that al Qaeda wasn’t in Afghanistan?
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:
Rob...they were and are there all right.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
The Iraqi mission is the distraction…
The Iraqi mission seems to be about having elections, reviving their country after 20+ years of a murderous dictator and defeating Al Qaeda.
You must mean “our mission in Iraq”, then. I guess freeing the Iraqi people to determine their own fate, rescuing them from a murdering dictator, freeing 80% of the population to freely participate in their economy and society and establishing a representative govt in the middle of a medieval area of the world is a “distraction”, according to you. Let’s not forget removing a large source of world oil from terrorist control, as well. Pray tell, a distraction from what?
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
r108...confronting jihadist terror. It has been in all the papers so you should have heard something about it.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
..confronting jihadist terror.
That’s what we have been doing in Iraq, and what we continue to do there, along with everything else. Making a modern nation in the heart of the “jihadist terror country” isn’t a distraction; it’s the mission.
In the short range, we are killing them, and in the long range, we are establishing an alternative for them, right there in Iraq.
The most subversive thing we can do to defeat jihadist terror is to give them a shining example of a better life, don’t you think?
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
If jihadist terror had existed in Iraq before the invasion then I would have supported the invasion. What the mission has done is distract attention away from the important groups that pose problems to the West and allowed the jihadists time to regroup. The mission in Iraq is now about propping up the Iraqi state and trying to keep the sectarian factions from killing each other.
As you’ve pointed out on other threads, inaction now just leads to bigger problems in the future.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
If jihadist terror had existed in Iraq before the invasion then I would have supported the invasion
Really, Mike?? How dare the USA pursue the war against terrorism in Iraq without your support!! There wasn’t enough terror waged against the Iraqi people by the Saddam regime to suit you?
What should be obvious to the most unlearned is that the jihadist terrorists movement was not evident in Iraq BECAUSE Saddam was allied with it providing funds, training facilities and other resources. President Bush made it abundantly clear that he would pursue the war not only against the terrorists but against THOSE supporting them. Stay in your dream world. He and the USA does not need or want the support of milquetoast naysayers like you to do what has to be done in the war against Islamic terrorism.
You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.
What should be obvious to the most unlearned is that the jihadist terrorists movement was not evident in Iraq BECAUSE Saddam was allied with it providing funds, training facilities and other resources.
I think that knowledge is restricted to a small and select group which doesn’t include me, your President and virtually every person in the world who understands why secular Arab regimes are the ultimate target of jihadist terror.
President Bush made it abundantly clear that he would pursue the war not only against the terrorists but against THOSE supporting them.
Unless it’s politically inconvenient to do so of course e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
MikeAdamson - If jihadist terror had existed in Iraq before the invasion then I would have supported the invasion.
It did. Where do you think the majority of the enemies in Iraq came from?
What the mission has done is distract attention away from the important groups that pose problems to the West and allowed the jihadists time to regroup.
You’re just lying at this point Mike.
I think that knowledge is restricted to a small and select group which doesn’t include me, your President and virtually every person in the world who understands why secular Arab regimes are the ultimate target of jihadist terror.
I’m always amazed at liberals who claim that Saddam’s reign was “secular”. It was compared to surrounding countries, but not to any other standard. Remember that Saddam once wrote the entire Koran using his own blood. Many of the liberals who insist that Bush is trying to bring about some kind of Christian theocracy are the same people who bend over backwards insisting that Saddam and his reign was “secular”. That makes no sense, but these are the same people who insist that there are no jihadis in Iraq. Reality is not their strong suit, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Mike:
Rob...they were and are there all right.
What a silly comment! No change before the invasion, eh Mike?
LOL
It did. Where do you think the majority of the enemies in Iraq came from?
Iraq...but they weren’t jihadist terrorists. Perhaps you’re confusing them with the insurgents, particularly after Saddam’s defeat?
You’re just lying at this point Mike.
?
I’m always amazed at liberals who claim that Saddam’s reign was “secular”. It was compared to surrounding countries, but not to any other standard.
It was according to the jihadist standard which is the relevant one.
Many of the liberals who insist that Bush is trying to bring about some kind of Christian theocracy are the same people who bend over backwards insisting that Saddam and his reign was “secular”.
Many? Some loonies might but I doubt many with a brain do.
That makes no sense, but these are the same people who insist that there are no jihadis in Iraq.
See above. The jihadists active in Iraq today were not active in Iraq before the invasion and not simply because those ones have all been killed. There is little evidence of jihadist activity under Saddam and whatever jihadists existed tended to live in Kurdistan where Saddam’s influence waned.
None of which is particularly here or there. Jihadist fighters are found in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan while jihadist plotters and significant supports are unlikely to be located in Iraq. That is why I refer to Iraq as a distraction from the war on terror. It’s not because events in Iraq aren’t relevant because they are...just not in terms of directly confronting jihadist terror as you claim. The power vacuum created with the fall of Saddam has serious implications for the security of the region and the world but that is an additional problem the world faces and can’t be lumped under the war on terror umbrella.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Carrick...forgive my denseness but I don’t get your comment.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Iraq...but they weren’t jihadist terrorists. Perhaps you’re confusing them with the insurgents, particularly after Saddam’s defeat?
So, this is the latest leftie line, that the terrorists in Iraq aren’t “jihadist” terrorists? The whole “insurgent” meme is a lie cooked up by the Dems/MSM anyway. The jihad against all infidels has been going on for 1300 years, and trying to parse them into groups that are somehow not so bad is typical leftie propaganda.
To say that Saddam was not a force in the Kurdish areas is to deny his slaughter of them with chemical and biological weapons.
It is amazing to see the extent of denial on the Left that we are fighting and killing terrorists in Iraq.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
The whole “insurgent” meme is a lie cooked up by the Dems/MSM anyway.
I’ll add that to my list.
The jihad against all infidels has been going on for 1300 years, and trying to parse them into groups that are somehow not so bad is typical leftie propaganda.
Not to mention that it’s inefficient when compared to the “one size fits all” approach.
To say that Saddam was not a force in the Kurdish areas is to deny his slaughter of them with chemical and biological weapons.
I’m not sure why. I’m pretty sure that Saddam’s control and influence in the area had declined significantly by the time the invasion took place but I’m open to any reasonable evidence.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
What the mission has done is distract
attention away from the important groups that pose problems to the West and allowed the jihadists time to regroup.
Thank you for summing up the current leftie meme that denies that the President’s strong stand against the terrorists is effective. If we are to believe that, then doing nothing(like Clinton) is the real solution to worldwide terrorism. That makes no sense at all, of course, but it does continue the leftie game of “Get the President”.
Unless it’s politically inconvenient to do so of course e.g. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
I find this fascinating as well: you criticize the President for allowing politics to influence his foreign policy, but at the same time, he also stands accused of pursuing a military solution when a political one would be the best way. Which is it?
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
MikeAdamson - Iraq...but they weren’t jihadist terrorists.
Some of them weren’t. The rest? Sure they were. Ever listen to them? They bring up Allah as a reason for their doings all of the time. You know this already, so it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps you’re confusing them with the insurgents, particularly after Saddam’s defeat?
What?
?
Let me help you out. You are dishonest when you say that the mission has “distract[ed] attention away from the important groups that pose problems to the West and [has] allowed the jihadists time to regroup”.
It was according to the jihadist standard which is the relevant one.
That’s funny. You’re right in a way - compared to the “jihadist standard”, Saddam was very secular. I have to ask you though - why are you using the “jihadist standard” as your measurement?
Many? Some loonies might but I doubt many with a brain do.
Dude,..we’re talking about liberals here. You make my argument for me.
See above. The jihadists active in Iraq today were not active in Iraq before the invasion and not simply because those ones have all been killed.
So you’re telling us that “not active” means that they didn’t exist.
Okay.
I’m open to any reasonable evidence.
I’ll add that to my list.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Pretty simple, Mike.... you were equating al Qaeda from prewar and postwar Afghanistan. It’s silly to imply that al Qaeda represents the same threat today as they did prewar, when they were given carte blanche and could set up training camps all over the country, with only the worry only worry losing the occasional tent to a $2,000,000 cruise missile…
I happen to think that Waziristan and southern Afghanistan (where the big heroin fields are located right now) present the main threat to regional stability. But there is a huge distinction to be made between regional and global stability.
Taking a Clintonesque approach clearly has lead to larger and more frequent terrorist attacks. It has only emboldened them. And this is why your comment was particularly silly. Because you are comparing a landscape where the terrorists had the freedom to plot global jihad to one in which they are pretty much forced to accept regional targets.
At the same time, you continue to turn a blind eye to the terrorist haven and training ground that was Iraq. Saddam clearly was aiming to grow his own private terrorist army, the Jerusalem Fedayeen, and had recruited some 50,000 individuals that he was training to infiltrate into Israel. This is all established historical fact. At the same time, he was funding terroristic attacks against Israel. Again undeniable historical fact.
If one argues that our actions are based on global, rather than regional stability, this still provides a justification for an intervention of some form in Iraq. Otherwise, at some point during the Bush administration (probably 2005), we would have seen a major destabilization of the Israel, and there is no doubt that this would have spilled over from a regional to a global problem, which would have been characterized by people like yourself blaming Bush for not acting against an “obvious” threat.
Keep in mind that without the hindsight provided by the invasion, the pervasive assumption in Western thought would be that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and was actively developing new ones. So I feel pretty comfortable with the notion that Bush would have received widespread condemnation by the same people who are using 20-20 hindsight to routinely criticize him now.
Carrick: Great post; it is definitely “reasonable evidence”. We’ll see.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Forget Saddam. He was in good health, but old. He would have been dead soon enough anyways.
What about his two sadistic sons who were posed to take over? I guess they didn’t matter. Who cares, right?
Ahh..the “liberal” position of defending dictators. How far ye old “liberals” have fallen.
Carrick...I wasn’t comparing them, I was simply responding to Rob’s question whether I forgot that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan.
r108...it pays to be organised. 
lik...I disagree with the proposition that the individuals fighting the American forces invading Iraq were jihadists. If this is not your proposition then I apologise but that’s what I’m saying and that’s what I think you’re saying.
Thanks for the definition of “dishonest.” That the Iraqi mission is a distraction is my opinion rather than a verifiable statement of fact. Calling opinions with which war supporters disagree “lies” is a common gambit at SA but I honestly don’t believe that you’re using the term appropriately.
Dude,..we’re talking about liberals here. You make my argument for me.
ha ha
So you’re telling us that “not active” means that they didn’t exist.
The individuals who are currently jihadist terrorists may well have lived in Iraq back then but I question how active they were.
I have to ask you though - why are you using the “jihadist standard” as your measurement?
Because we’re talking about those regimes too secular for the jihadists’ liking and thus those that they want replaced. The jihadists pick their targets based on their own standard and not on your’s or mine.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
lik...are you saying that conservatives don’t defend dictators when it suits their interests? Please.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Ahh..the “liberal” position of defending dictators. How far ye old “liberals” have fallen.
likwid: You have to remember that, according to the lefties, the only “evil dictator” in the world is President Bush; all the others are only poor and downtrodden minorities trying to fight the evil imperialist United States.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
lik...are you saying that conservatives don’t defend dictators when it suits their interests? Please.
When it suits the US national interest, not our exclusive partisan interests. It’s the lefties who support dictators for their own selfish political interests. Big difference.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Mike, I always have to chuckle when someone like Carrick lays out a rather detailed analysis of why our mission in Iraq is justified, and you address one minor point and dismiss the rest.
Must be pretty nice to be able to ignore that which is inconvenient for your political predispositions.
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:
When it suits the US national interest, not our exclusive partisan interests.
See, but I don’t even think we should be doing that.
The Bush doctrine, which is part of what defines my outlook on foreign policy, states that we should support the aspirations of all free people political expediency aside.
That means no more tolerating the Saddam Hussein’s of the world for the sake of “regional stability.” Though, admittedly, we have tolerated people like Saddam in the past. But it wasn’t just conservatives to did it.
And there are exceptions too. FDR worked with Stalin. How many more lives would Allied Forces have lost had Russian forces not tied up the Germans on the eastern front?
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:
Rob...that’s because I don’t particularly disagree with Carrick’s comments. I might quibble about the relevance of Saddam’s posture vis a vis Israel and his use of terrorists to destabilise that country with the global war on terror but other than that he presents a reasonable case. I was responding to his comment addressing my response to your question directed at me....thus the brief reply.
Football pool this year?
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
That means no more tolerating the Saddam Hussein’s of the world for the sake of “regional stability.” Though, admittedly, we have tolerated people like Saddam in the past. But it wasn’t just conservatives to did it.
And there are exceptions too. FDR worked with Stalin. How many more lives would Allied Forces have lost had Russian forces not tied up the Germans on the eastern front?
All I was saying to r108 is that it’s not just a liberal thing, no matter how much he might believe it to be.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Football pool this year?
I failed miserably at it last year, but if you guys are game again I am.
I’ll organize the league if you folks want to do the posts and such on the reader blogs…
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:
I understand your point Mike, having read your linked piece, which does not trivialise the efforts of allied forces in Iraq, but merely states that the media and government focus on a Iraq has allowed al Qaeda to create in-roads into a potentially unstable Pakistan. I’m sure they (al Qaeda) have deliberately fomented the insurgency in Iraq, to divert resources away from their activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Other (under-represented) NATO nations need to step up and take some flak.
Pakistan could easily be the next theatre of operations, especially (as the piece points out), if another terrorist attack on allied interests is found to have originated from the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) of Northern Pakistan.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
In retrospect, I really wish I hadn’t been so cute with my post’s title. I think we could have had a more productive discussion if I hadn’t included the “distraction” jab and you should all consider me appropriately chastened.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Do I have to get out the list of US recognised dictatorships again?
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Boy I hope not.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
All I was saying to r108 is that it’s not just a liberal thing, no matter how much he might believe it to be.
A complete mischaracterization of what I wrote, but then that’s nothing new.
What I said was that lefties support dictators currently because they so hate our President, while the dictators we have “supported” in the past have been key to opposing a greater danger, like communism, for example.
I think it’s a leftie thing today, but not in the past, since administrations of both parties have done so for understandable reasons.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Do I have to get out the list of US recognised dictatorships again?
President Bush obviously didn’t “recognize” Saddam, did he? Yet you criticize him. Interesting. Hypocritical.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
R108, please show where I criticised Bush.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
R108, please show where I criticised Bush.
Do you approve of his fighting terrorism in Iraq and deposing Saddam?
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
r108 said...and I quote
When it suits the US national interest, not our exclusive partisan interests. It’s the lefties who support dictators for their own selfish political interests. Big difference.
Leaving aside the question of whether the American government currently supports any dictatorships, how can you say that I mischaracterised what you wrote? I notice you’ve changed your position significantly when you say...and I quote
I think it’s a leftie thing today, but not in the past, since administrations of both parties have done so for understandable reasons.
The point I was making was the same as the point you make which I’ve bolded above...that supporting dictators is common to both liberals and conservatives. Shall I take this as your operative opinion on the matter?
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
The point I was making was the same as the point you make which I’ve bolded above...that supporting dictators is common to both liberals and conservatives. Shall I take this as your operative opinion on the matter?
Mike, I can only repeat what I have already written: Today, leftie support for dictators(Hugo Chavez, for example) is for the purposes of advancing their political agenda in running down our President. Past US support for dictators has been a matter of supporting the national interest(opposing the spread of communism). I thought I was clear about that, but am willing to repeat it as necessary for communication purposes.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Do you approve of his fighting terrorism in Iraq and deposing Saddam?
I was against the war in Iraq in the first place because of the lack of supporting evidence, but feel that once our troops are committed to action, they should be supported until the job is done. Who else is going to fight terrorism in Iraq? Certainly not the Iraqis. Bush is the best man for the job.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Rob:
The Bush doctrine, which is part of what defines my outlook on foreign policy, states that we should support the aspirations of all free people political expediency aside.
This is an important change in US policy initiated by Bush’s administration. And I believe a needed change. The argument that choosing stability over the best welfare of the people in that region.
in then end, this social inequity leads to wars of the sort we seeing, because it is a perfect sowing ground for despots. I have to run off and work so I don’t have time to explain in any depth my ideas on how these are related, but it’s not a simple underprivileged angry-at-the world person = war class terrorist. The latter taking organization, funding and training, and of course a healthy supply of bodies to feed despotic tendencies. In the absence of organization, funding and training, the former are merely “street thugs”.
I’ll not put words in your mouth, Carrick, but I’ve always felt that while tyranny (and the poverty/ill-education that goes along with it) doesn’t necessarily cause terrorism, it certainly enables it by a) supplying terrorist organizers with a ready pool of recruits and b) allowing those terrorist organizers to operate, either through direct state sponsorship or through the tyrant’s inability to control his own territory.
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:
r108 opined
When it suits the US national interest, not our exclusive partisan interests. It’s the lefties who support dictators for their own selfish political interests. Big difference.
That’s what I thought you meant but I figured I’d give you the opportunity to clarify.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Rob, I think “tyranny enables terrorism” is the right description. Without the enabling of tyranny, the terrorists would be simple street goons.
Mike: Apparently this simple concept still escapes you. I’ll try one more time. The supporting of dictators for purely political purposes seems to be a characteristic of leftie politics. The supporting of dictators for national policy objectives has been done by both Parties.
Maybe my memory is getting faulty, but I don’t remember any parallel action by conservatives to the leftie support for Hugo Chavez, Arafat, Gorbachev and Ortega, just to name a few. I’m talking motivation here, btw.
Did conservatives support Hitler just to get at FDR? Did conservatives support Stalin just to get at Truman? Did conservatives support Ho Chi Minh just to get at LBJ? Did conservatives support Milosevic just to get at Clinton?
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Did conservatives support Hitler just to get at FDR? Did conservatives support Stalin just to get at Truman? Did conservatives support Ho Chi Minh just to get at LBJ? Did conservatives support Milosevic just to get at Clinton?
I could be wrong but I beleive the conservative position was to stay out of each of those conflicts so I suppose you are right on that point. Nevertheless, you said what you said.
The supporting of dictators for purely political purposes seems to be a characteristic of leftie politics. The supporting of dictators for national policy objectives has been done by both Parties.
You are talking about current leftists then since you state that both parties have supported dictators in the past. As for your examples, I thought Gorby was pretty open minded for a Russian Communist and I believe he merited support. The others have been supported by some liberals which apparently means all liberals in your assessment. Chavez has lost considerable support in the leftist community, Arafat was never particularly supported beyond his role as the face and spokesman for a fair shake for the Palestinians. Ortega did enjoy leftist support and, while short of ideal, was considerably better for his people than was the Samosa junta. Ortega is a good example of a least unpalatable option IMO although I realise he wasn’t sympathetic to American interests so I understand your animosity towards him.
Does the Bush Administration support dictatorships today? If it does then your argument is nonsense isn’t it.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Arafat was never particularly supported beyond his role as the face and spokesman for a fair
shake for the Palestinians.
Except when the Clintons put him up in the White House.
My argument is anything but nonsense, much to your chagrin.
I said lefties have the exclusive on supporting dictators for partisan political purposes, and have proven it. I never said “all”, but it is a consistent characteristic. The Dems/lefties supported Gorby to get at Reagan, and you know it.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
MikeA: I know it’s a bit of a generalization, but conservatives mostly know enough to pull together against a common enemy, even if it’s to our political disadvantage. I haven’t seen that quality in many lefties, either publicly or privately.
We may have disagreed with Clinton(to put it mildly), but we didn’t support Milosevic just to oppose Clinton for political gain.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
I said lefties have the exclusive on supporting dictators for partisan political purposes, and have proven it.
Aside from the lack of any evidence to support your ludicrous claim I think your point is well made. The fact is that America has always conducted its foreign policy in what the Administration of the day considers the best interest of the United States. Historically, that has meant supporting dictatorships when it is in America’s interest to do so and it doesn’t matter whether the President was or is a Republican or a Democrat or a liberal or conservative. That is my opinion on this subject and you are free to disagree as you see fit.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
Mike:
The fact is that America has always conducted its foreign policy in what the Administration of the day considers the best interest of the United States.
I can agree with this. The problem generically is not the administration, but the opposition party. Unfortunately most major examples of the opposition putting party allegiance over nation allegiance tend to come from the left, but that seems to be a recent historical occurrence.
In December 1974, the Democratically controlled House and Senate pulled the plug on funding for the Vietnam War after for all purposes, the military situation had stabilized, effectively throwing away the sacrifice of 50,000 US soldiers, and creating such a destabilized region that between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lost their lives in the resulting purge, or in fleeing that purge, and somewhere close to 2,000,000 Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge. All of this blood is on the US Democrats hands who voted for this precipitous withdrawal.
Now I’m aware it’s a favored talking point of the left (and I translate it into English) “I promise you...this time it won’t be a massive cluster f**k like the last time we did it. Trust us!”
Secondly there are those, like John Kerry, who strove to use protest on the Vietnam War as a means to prominence, going to the extent of lying in front of the Fullbright Commission as to the extent of causalities and ensuring the members of the committee that deaths associated with a withdrawal would be at most 50,000.
And of course, Kerry went on as the Democratic candidate for President to making withdrawal from Iraq one of the planks of his campaign. And, as we’ve pointed out in the past, the liberal Democrats drive main-stream media coverage in this country, so when Kerry made this decision, of course all of the liberal Democrats flip-flopped with him, and media reports of the war within a two month period changed from being rather balanced to entirely negative.
This isn’t that different than what happens in Canada or Britain, except the US media has this strange game of pretending they are neutral, whereas in Canada and Britain they don’t pretend like they’re playing it down the middle…
And while I might not go as far as Robert108 and say it’s only liberals...in my opinion much of the opposition to this war (post invasion that is) and of course to the Vietnam War post 1971 (where we had for all purposes defeated the PLA) has been entirely from the left-wing bloc.
You might rightfully complain these individuals aren’t liberals in the sense of the philosophical position, and I would agree. I would go so far as to say I can “understand” why this group behaves the way they do, it’s because they live in a world where the truth is what they say it is and what they want it to be (OK a bit of an exaggeration there, but you get the picture), a belief cemented in place by the reinforcement provided by the liberal MSM.
What should be obvious to the most unlearned is that the jihadist terrorists movement was not evident in Iraq BECAUSE Saddam was allied with it providing funds, training facilities and other resources.—Docdave
And you may actually be idiotic enough to actually believe this too. Evidence?
At the same time, you continue to turn a blind eye to the terrorist haven and training ground that was Iraq.—Carrick
You should be too smart to believe that. Docdave and Robert108 believing that is one thing, but they really aren’t that sharp. What’s your excuse?
Saddam clearly was aiming to grow his own private terrorist army, the Jerusalem Fedayeen, and had recruited some 50,000 individuals that he was training to infiltrate into Israel. This is all established historical fact. At the same time, he was funding terroristic attacks against Israel. Again undeniable historical fact.—Carrick
The Fedayeen is established fact, it was (is?) a militia, but 50,000 infiltrating Israel? You reckon Israel might notice? Were you trying to be funny, or was some retarded kid logged in under your user name?
From http://www.cfr.org/publication/7698/
Is the Fedayeen separate from the Iraqi army?
Yes. The militia is thought to answer directly to Saddam’s eldest son, Uday, bypassing the military chain of command. The leader of the force is believed to be General Iyad Futiyeh Rawi, a staunch Saddam loyalist who was awarded 27 medals during the 1980-88 war with Iran. Uday, 38, is one of the top targets of the U.S.-led invasion.—Sharon Otterman
Today, leftie support for dictators(Hugo Chavez, for example) is for the purposes of advancing their political agenda in running down our President.—Robert108
Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected president. Wannabe dictator? Probably. But currently he isn’t. Go look up dictator.
Rob, I think “tyranny enables terrorism” is the right description. Without the enabling of tyranny, the terrorists would be simple street goons.—Carrick
What about terrorism sponsored/supported by the `free’ west? Like the bombing of a pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan? Iran-Contra?
“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell
...creating such a destabilized region that between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lost their lives in the resulting purge, or in fleeing that purge, and somewhere close to 2,000,000 Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge. All of this blood is on the US Democrats hands who voted for this precipitous withdrawal.—Carrick
Are you being dishonest? If simply ignorant, go read some actual history, not disinformation from Fox News.
There was no `resulting purge’. Yes, there were `re-education’ camps. And if you knew anything about the Khmer Rouge, you’d know that it was the Vietnamese that intervened and stopped the slaughter.
“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell
Looks like I forgot to turn off italics. Bummer.
“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell
That is my opinion on this subject and you are
free to disagree as you see fit.
You share half of what I said, and have ignored the other part, which is about the lefties supporting dictators for partisan political purposes, for which I have provided many examples.
If you have examples of conservatives supporting dictators for purely political purposes, please give them.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Rob, I think “tyranny enables terrorism” is the right description. Without the enabling of tyranny, the terrorists would be simple street goons.
With all due respect to both Rob and Carrick, this position is seriously wrong. For another view of the real causes behind worldwide Islamic terrorism, check this out:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017744.php#comments
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
You share half of what I said, and have ignored the other part, which is about the lefties supporting dictators for partisan political purposes, for which I have provided many examples.
I ignored the other part because I think it’s hogwash and I didn’t want to ruin one of the rare occasions when we agree on something. The only evidence I recall you providing was Clinton putting up Arafat at the White House. You can refresh my memory if I’m wrong but I wouldn’t classify that as a lefty supporting a dictator for partisan gain anyway. I can’t think of any conservative or liberal who have supported dictatorships for partisan gain, probably because I can’t for the life of me see what partisan gain could be achieved through the support of dictatorships.
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC
I can’t think of any conservative or liberal who have supported dictatorships for partisan gain, probably because I can’t for the life of me see what
partisan gain could be achieved through the support of dictatorships.
I guess if it disagrees with your ideology, you just ignore it. I have already given plenty of examples:
...the leftie support for Hugo Chavez, Arafat, Gorbachev and Ortega, just to name a few.
The partisan political reasons for leftie support of dictators is generally to undermine and attack a sitting Republican President. Do you think Cindy Sheehan really loves Hugo Chavez, or is she just trying to stick it to George Bush. The Dem support for Gorby was to undermine Ronald Reagan. The Dems/lefties still can’t stand that Reagan rightly called the Soviet Union and its allies an “Evil Empire”, and ditto for President Bush calling the various terrorist nations an “Axis of Evil”. They hate him for it, and will continue to court anyone, including dictators, who oppose him. It’s so obvious.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
MikeA: My problem with you in this type of discussion is that you don’t debate honestly; you make dismissive statements, or simply deny that any points have been made at all, when they have.
When I pointed out the leftie support of Gorby during the Reagan Admin, your reply was that Gorby was “open-minded, for a communist.” So what? Are you saying that he wasn’t a “real dictator” because he was “open-minded”? Or are you saying that the lefties were just appreciating his “open-mindedness”, and not striking at Reagan? Either one of those would have been an honest reply, but you gave neither, and were simply dismissive. Maybe you don’t possess real debating skills, I don’t know.
Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected
Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin
Mike Adamson:
I can’t think of any conservative or liberal who have supported dictatorships for partisan gain.
1. Virtually every America President have found a need to coddle one dictator or another, and being politicians, it can be argued they all found some degree of partisan advantage in their decisions.
2. The difference is that most Republican Presidents have a belief that if they pursue policies that help the average American prosper and live at peace, they will be rewarded at the ballot box.
Most Democrats, in recent decades at least, do so to fill their insatiable lust for power and that means even if the policy hurts America. Just think about how they have been calling the Iraq War lost and fighting to get us to cut-and-run from Iraq. There is no desire for American victory and even though they are pretty sure a bloodbath would follow our surrender and we would lose the Middle East in the process, they thirst for power and that trumps everything else. If we can believe their words, there is no feeling of angst among any in the Democrat Party leadership about this representing another major American military defeat thus weakening us in the eyes of the world; or that an America President will be ridiculed, only their lust for power matters.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
