September 1, 2006

Iraq talk: victory, appeasement, fear.

The NYT observes that President Bush's most recent Iraq speech used the word "victory" 12 times, a word he's avoided for months. The same article also notes that he did not use the concept of "appeasement" to knock his political adversaries, as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumfeld each did earlier in the week.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are working on getting us to see through their frame:
“After six years,’’ said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “they’ve got only fear to sell.’’

Another Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, called the Bush speech “a long repetition of old messages and rhetoric to scare the American people’’ and said she would push for a Senate vote calling on the president to replace Mr. Rumsfeld.
The Times doesn't specifically call attention to this as a language ploy, even though the quoted text comes right after the discussion of "victory" and "appeasement."

77 comments:

JorgXMcKie said...

Only Republicans and conservatives use language ploys and speak in 'coded language.'

Doug said...

If you look at what democrats are trying to sell, it is :

that the world is now more dangerous because of Bush. (fearful message)

That Bush wants to starve your Grandmother by ending social security(more fear)

Bush is ignoring global warming and that is going to destroy large chunks of the world ( yet more fearmongering by dems)

Doyle said...

The more Americans are scared of a terrorist attack (especially those poor doomed souls in Indiana), the more they like Bush.

The more Americans realize that Bush is exploiting this fear and exaggerating or outright misrepresenting the threat (Iraq=9/11 for example), the less they like Bush.

Seems like the latter is starting to occur en masse, thank God.

quietnorth said...

If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler?

On the other side, the democrats are making an error by appearing to be on the left of the President on defending the country. If the enemy is Islamofacism, why are we fighting it so unseriously? With that approach, the dems could1)actually help defend the country from Islamofascism and 2) peel off defense oriented republicans, which must be pretty low hanging fruit at this point.

37383938393839383938383 said...

Nor does the New York Times bear to mention that Rahm Emmanuel is a former ballet dancer or that he has officially proposed reinstituting the draft if the Democrats retake the Congress.

Revenant said...

If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler?

Only if you think "we face a dire threat" automatically implies "we need higher taxes and more government".

But meanwhile, back in reality, we already have the most powerful and lucratively funded military in the history of the human race. One would hope they'd be able to deal with the problem without the need for the mobilization of millions of civilians.

Joe said...

Dream on, liberals. The threat is real, most Americans realize that, and it is the democrats who are playing politics with this war.
Ignoring or denying the threat does eliminate it, nor is that a strategy for dealing with it.

Joe said...

Correction: does NOT eliminate it...

Seven Machos said...

Doyle -- Yes. It looks like the Left will finally deal Bush a fatal electoral blow in 2008. No way he'll get reelected.

Also, clearly, a new tax is the way to deal with terrorism. Christ! Don't you people understand anything? Taxes are the way to deal with anything.

Jonathan said...

“After six years,’’ said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “they’ve got only fear to sell.’’


Instead of providing reasonable policy suggestions, after six years the Democrats have only cheap marketing slogans and adolescent gotcha soundbites to sell. However ineffectual Bush may be at this point, I could never vote for people who are as fundamentally unserious as the Democrats are now.

Hey Rahm, it's not about you and the Republicans, it's about serious threats to this country. If you want to get your guys elected you'll have to show that you're interested in more than scoring political points.

Seven Machos said...

I'm afraid the only thing you have to sell is fear, Jonathan. Voters will see through these scare tactics that paint the Democrats as vacuous and unserious people with no real domestic foreign policy platform. You can call Democrats clowns with a lust for power for the sake of having power, but it won't intimidate voters.

MadisonMan said...

I think the President should be trying to sell patience, and I'm not sure he has. My main question is: What can we accomplish in the next two years that we haven't accomplished in the last three? And why haven't we accomplished those goals in the last three? (Where'd that six come from, anyway, Rep. Emanuel, with regards to Iraq?). Does staying in Iraq further US goals? I argue that there are diminishing returns, I'm just not sure where the crossover point is.

It's wrong, I think, to assume that if Americans withdrawal, then suddenly all those forces in Iraq will unite to attack the West. They'll attack each other first -- as Sunnis find Shiites and/or Kurds and/or whomever easier to kill, in Iraq (and vice versa), than they find Americans to kill in the USA.

Henry said...

Bush doesn't need to use the word appeasement. At most the Democrats resemble less Neville Chamberlain than his passive predecessor, Stanley Baldwin. Baldwin preferred to believe that the Germans would strike east, not west, and that talk of rearmament might scare the public and possibly cost the Tories some seats.

The Democrats have yet to convice the American people to elect a Baldwin from their own ranks. All they can do, with their "fear" rhetoric is to try to get Bush to pay the political price for not being a Baldwin himself.

Bissage said...

One cannot say the word "victory" often enough.

Michael Farris said...

"the democrats who are playing politics with this war."

What war? There is no war being waged. There's a show of a war being waged to garner votes from nervous voters and wishful thinking from people that want the US to Do Something!
Meanwhile crowds being blown up in Baghdad doesn't even make it to conscious awareness anymore (hint: it's happening everyday, we're losing in Iraq by any rational accounting). Oh, and the Taliban are in control of maybe a third (guessing about the percentage but it's a lot). And there's no special show of concern about any of this from the administration. Draw your own conclusions but be honest with yourself.

As for the first point in the posting. Bush is the good cop (Victory!) to Rumsfeld and Cheney's angry, bad cop (Appeasers!). How transparent do they have to get?

Palladian said...

The Democrats (and liberals in general perhaps) are sorely mistaken when they attribute votes for a more aggressive foreign policy to fear. They should know better, as they've never won an election using fear as a central motivational factor. Americans don't do fear, contrary to what the scaredy-crats say. I'm not pleased with the domestic agenda of either party, and am only marginally pleased with the foreign policy of the current Republican administration. I just wish somebody would try to do better.

Revenant said...

I love how michael somehow reconciles:

There is no war being waged

with

crowds being blown up in Baghdad doesn't even make it to conscious awareness anymore (hint: it's happening everyday

and

the Taliban are in control of maybe a third (guessing about the percentage but it's a lot)

... without noticing that claims 2 and 3 refute claim 1.

We are, indeed, fighting a war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. And if, like michael, you beieve that

there's no special show of concern about any of this from the administration.

Then you're too busy hating Bush to actually listen to his words and notice his actions.

George said...

Speaking of fear, here's a link to an interview with Spanish politician Gustavo de Aristegui, who, if the article is to be believed, has spent the past some odd years under 24-hour police protection because of death threats from Muslim fanatics.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24141

His crime? Trying to alert his countrymen to what he perceives as the creeping re-Islamification of his nation.

Our world isn't more dangerous because of Pres. Bush; it's more dangerous because so many people, especially Democrats, refuse to believe that what's happened to a politician in Spain can't happen here.

Crushing fascists in Iraq and, yes, in Iran and Syria will keep them far, far from our shores.

Michael Farris said...

"We are, indeed, fighting a war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan"

No, there are troops stationed in both places with no real plan. There's a difference.

"Then you're too busy hating Bush to actually listen to his words and notice his actions."

I don't hate Bush. I don't think he's a good president, but that doesn't equal hate. And the thing is I pay attention to what he does, not what I wish he were doing (the fatal blogospheric error).

Faeless said...

6 years? That's an interesting slip?

Coco said...

I don't see what the confusion is with Emmanuel's 6 years comment. He said, " After six years, they've only got fear to sell." The Bush admin. has indeed been in office for six years. He's saying that they don't have anything positive to sell after six years in office. What is confusing abut that?

Doyle said...

Crushing fascists in Iraq and, yes, in Iran and Syria will keep them far, far from our shores.

Bwahahahaha!

You'd never know this guy was a Horowitz fan if he didn't provide the link :-)

MadisonMan said...

If the discussion is about Iraq, and a democrat talks about six years, well that's confusing -- the US hasn't been in Iraq for six years. I don't know the context of Rep. Emanuel's quote, but Ann's placement makes me think of Iraq.

vw: agoluout

Joe said...

If you think there is no plan you are being deliberately obtuse. The plan was remove Saddam, institute a constitution and free elections, provide training and security for Iraqi defense forces until they can carry the burden on their own. The plan proceeds apace.
No one promised it would be quick, or easy, or without casualties. But I would rather our military face them there than our civilians face them here.
Or do you subscribe to the Clinton method? That it is essentially a law enforcement issue, not a military issue? With perhaps the occasional cruise missile fired into an empty desert?
The law enforcement model is reactive, whereby we seek them out for punishment after they have done the damage. The military option is preemptive - stop them before they hit again. And we have not been hit in 5 years.

Simon said...

Doyle said...
"The more Americans are scared of a terrorist attack (especially those poor doomed souls in Indiana), the more they like Bush."

If you're referring to the recent Daily Show skit, it bears noting that while much fun was had laughing at how silly some of the "targets" in Indiana were, there are targets in Indiana that are of slightly more import, as the Senator from New York should well know. For example, in the sleepy little town of Newport, IN, in addition to the sort of home cookin' and bowlin' lanes mocked by Jon Stewart and co., there is a federal facility that contains some more old fashioned home cooking: 250,000 US gallons (950 m³) of VX Gas, which - given favorable winds and given that 200ml will kill a person - could potentially wipe out the entire population of the United States east of the Rockies. Even if the facility were merely bombed, the spoil would wash into the Wabash River, whereafter everything downstream - which includes northern Kentucky and the entirety of the Missisippi south of St. Louis - will have to start learning to love bottled water.

Terrorists are trying to create chaos, panic and death, not to bomb particular targets. If the government didn't make a list of potential targets, you'd complain - not unreasonably - that it was in dereliction of duty.

Doyle said...

Or do you subscribe to the Clinton method? That it is essentially a law enforcement issue, not a military issue?

This is also the Kerry method, btw, and noted liberal George Will was the one who pointed out that the London terror plot was actually a vindication of this method.

Recall, the plot was foiled by British authorities well before (too long before, actually) it was to take place. The plotters hadn't even procured passports yet.

Also, the surveillance used to catch them was warranted.

The problem with the military method (i.e. preemptive invasion) is that it creates more terrorists than it kills. Why? Because people get really pissed when you invade their countries, or countries they have sympathy for.

Who knew?

Simon said...

What I'd like a democrat to explain is how, specifically, withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq will help move Iraq closer to a stable, democratic society.

Cat said...

I don't think Bush has done a good job on PR with the war, but I don't think we are "losing." It's hard to have "winners and losers" like we did with other wars which were meant to completely destroy the enemy. We don't do that anymore.

Madison Man, who is saying that if we withdraw from Iraq that the forces in Iraq will unite and attack the west? I think you misunderstand. It's muslim fanatics where ever they are that are a threat - in Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, in Syria, in Iran, in Pakistan, etc. Death to Israel and all Western (liberal, democratic) Countries and particular all the countries we have a historial beef with (Spain, et al). THEN these crazies are funding and schooling Muslims in England, France, etc.

The other misunderstanding with the remarks about rising facism this week is that it's NOT (as some people in my office seem to believe) Pre-9/11 Rumsfeld and Bush are referring to, it's the 9/11 to end all 9/11s with a nuke being deployed future we might face.

The "gathering storm" is not only being ignored (they way Churchill saw happening in the early and mid 1930s in Germany) it's being laughed off with "Bush is the real Danger." At least Hitler did not have the ability to use nukes. You don't need any "army" or a "state" like Hitler did if you have a nuke. But it's the same too. Hitler saw Chamberlain as a fool and took what he wanted feeling safe against retaliation. The Islamo-facists are the same. Giving in to their demands (the Lebanon cease fire) only emboldends them.

And by the way, it's people like Bernard Lewis at Princeton who agree that there are "shadows" of the 30's too.

Joe said...

The British foiled that latest plot by use of intelligence, not necessarily law enforcement per se. Gathering intelligence by means that our ACLU would oppose.
We need all methods to fight this war, the fact that I include the preemptive military option does not preclude the use of law enforcement or intelligence. And saying that preemption breeds terrorists is laughable. We ignored the problem for decades, that did not stop the creation of new terrorists.
I have yet to hear a cogent plan from the left on how they would fight this war. They only offer criticism and denial.

Doyle said...

What are we doing with 250,000 gallons of VX gas?

I saw "The Rock." It's one of those things we wish we could disinvent.

Still, as a resident of NYC that works at the target-rich 42nd and Lex (Chrysler Bldg, Grand Central Station), I'm pretty appalled at NY's ranking on that DHS report.

Doyle said...

And saying that preemption breeds terrorists is laughable.

Haven't Iran and North Korea gotten more threatening since September 2003?

Isn't anti-American sentiment setting all-time highs these days?

We haven't had another 9/11 despite the Iraq War, not because of it.

Seven Machos said...

Ahh, Manhattanites. Basing their foreign policy views on movies like The Rock and just sure that their little island is the biggest terror target in the world.

Cat said...

No Doyle, police did not have "warrents" - like those from a judge - to catch the liquid bomb plotters. All of their surveillance (sp) and other methods are exactly what civil liberties folks in this country see as a violation of human civil rights. I believe the one who spilled the beans was tortured in Pakistan. In Britain, they're allowed to get a wiretap without a court order. They can detain a terror suspect for as long as 28 days before he has to be charged

hdhouse said...

ahhh doug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/middleeast/01cnd-military.html?hp&ex=1157169600&en=1fe8dd0fc7c09a05&ei=5094&partner=homepage

bush is ignoring global warming. please name a responsible scientist who does NOT believe global warming is current and happening (noooooo not rush limbaugh - he's the drugest)

and as to the draft - since not too many prime candidates for the military are rushing to the induction booth, would you please explain where we are going to get the troops to carry out further bush misadventures?...or are you enlisting?

and Joe, poor Joe said:
"I have yet to hear a cogent plan from the left on how they would fight this war. They only offer criticism and denial."

Gosh Joe...wash your ears. You got some of them thar Quayle potatoes in them? Democrats would fight this war:

1. where it should be fought (Afghan anyone?
2. against who it should be fought against (terrorists...anyone spell terrorists? - just shout it out when you know the answer)
3. in a time frame known to Iraq so that it isn't open ended (Let the next president solve it...huh huh...i gotta go play me some golf)
4. in a manner set by the generals AFTER they have the goal(s) clearly defined (the asides in this one are too long to list)
5. with the requisite number of appropriate troops
6. with a clear mission other than standing between several religious factions who want to shoot us on sight.

Would you please explain then to me what "stay the course" means? keep on truckin'? keep doin' that voodoo that you do so well? keep killing 60 americans a month for the duration? keep spending 1.5 billion a week (that we know of) ON WHAT?

oh and turn out the lights. we only get 4 hours of power a day.

Seven Machos said...

Isn't anti-American sentiment setting all-time highs these days?

No, Doyle. It's not. People don't hate Americans based on who is the president. The United States has been despised for many decades now. It was equally despised, just for example, to use my own lifetime as a gauge, under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush.

No one liked us any more or less under Clinton. I know you'd like to think they did. But that's patently false. Get your head out of your ass. See the world for what it is, not what you wish it would be.

Revenant said...

No, there are troops stationed in both places with no real plan. There's a difference.

Please provide proof of your claim that there is no real plan.

Revenant said...

Haven't Iran and North Korea gotten more threatening since September 2003?

Only in the sense that Iran and North Korea have been getting steadily more dangerous since the 1970s and 1950s, respectively. But there's nothing new about their nuclear programs, missile programs, saber-rattling, etc.

In fact, while Iran itself is more dangerous than it was before the American occupation of Iraq (since it has had more time to develop nukes), it is much less of a threat to the United States specifically -- as our military is now well-positioned to strike against them, should they give us cause to.

Seven Machos said...

hdhouse:

1. Bjorn Lomborg.

2. with the requisite number of appropriate troops Do you want a draft or don't you, hd? The only people who have come out in favor of a military draft are loony-liberal Democrats like Charlie Rangel.

3. What is to fight in Afghanistan? Who is to kill? You have no comprehension of what Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is a country in the sense that lines on a map demarcate a country. Whoever holds Kabul holds "Afghanistan" as well as it can be held.

4. You want to fight "terrorists"? Alright, then. Let's invade London, Madrid, Bali, Dearborn, and nefarious warehouses in Miami.

5. Holding Iraq at a cost of 60 American soliders per month simply is not a high cost. What are we buying for 60 soldiers? Saddam Hussein's regime is gone and can no longer fund or harbor Islamic radicals. Syria is in check. Iran is in check. Our troops are out of Saudi Arabia, which was a central point of contention for Islamic radicals. Oil flows at a reasonable cost. I know you and your nutty liberal buddies think those things are not worth having. But that's why you can't seem to win any elections despite the ridiculous mediocrity of the opposition.

6. I'm glad you are here, hd. It's good to have a loon in the comments to remind the saner left-liberals what their BDS-moonbat contingent believes and sounds like.

MadisonMan said...

Simon, I'm not exactly sure that staying in Iraq is helping move it towards a stable, etc. democracy. It certainly doesn't seem that way -- how long are you willing to let this experiment run on -- 'til your middle schooler is draft age? If neither leaving nor staying helps, what does one do? How is staying in Iraq preventing the inculcation of fanaticism in other countries?

I'm not saying I have the answers, but the President and his supporters seem to be saying "Shut up and let me work." Well, they've had 3 years....how much time is sufficient to determine whether this road the US is on is the wrong one? Questioning the path we are on does not equal appeasement.

Seven Machos said...

Well, they've had 3 years

I love it! I freaking love it. What was the situation in Germany in 1948? What was the situation in South Korea in 1952? What was the situation in Spain from 1936 to 1975? What was the situation in Greece from 1945 to 1975? What was the situation in the Balkans from 1991 to 1995?

Jesus! Politics in the aftermath of war isn't an episode of The West Wing. Real politics isn't an episode of The West Wing. I know you guys miss school uniforms and all those wonderful micro-initiatives of the Clinton Era. But it's time to get over yourselves. Welcome to the messy, unpredicatble, grown-up world.

MadisonMan said...

So, seven machos, how long are you willing to have troops in Iraq? Five more years? 10? 20? 50? Will the US be successful then?

Never watched The West Wing, by the way. Even though it had a Madison connection.

knoxgirl said...

I remember hearing/reading many times that the re-enlistment numbers for soldiers in Iraq far exceeded expectations. These are the people who are witnessing the progress first-hand. Anyway, for me this belies the notion that our efforts over there are a total failure, for who would want to sign up for a mess?

I feel bad for our soldiers over there. It's unreasonable to demand instant gratification in such a tremendously difficult situation. It must be very frustrating.

Seven Machos said...

I never watched it, either.

Madison, I believe that we will have troops stationed in Iraq 100 years from now and that our presence will provide a stablizing, civilizing force in the region. Iraq will be the next South Korea.

Either that, or there is going to be a huge war in the next 10 years and the chips will fall where they may.

Either way, we need to have a beach head in the Middle East.

It would be nice to just leave, but it would be nice to sit around and eat ice cream all day, too. We have too many interests at stake -- interests that compelled us to invade in the first place. I am very optimistic that the "South Korea"-type scenario will unfold.

Joe said...

HeavyDenialHouse:
1. You really favored invading Afghanistan? Al-qaeda in Afghan bad, al-qaeda anywhere else gets a pass? Iraq was a safe haven for them. I favor killing them wherever they are, and anyone who assists them.
2. Who are the terrorists? see 1.
3.The idea of fighting a war in a time frame is preposterous. War is fought till someone surrenders. It's not football. Giving al qaeda a time frame is delayed surrender.
4.5. Dems would fight the war in a manner set by generals, with sufficient troops. The generals there believe they have sufficient troops - more combat troops present a greater need for support troops and increases security problems. We are not engaged in massive infantry battles there. Unlike Viet Nam, this war is not being run by politicians.
6. A clear mission. I thought it was obvious. The elimination of al qaeda and any nation which provides cover for them. I think its the democrats who lack a clear mission in fighting this war.

Doug said...

hdhouse, how peaceful was Iraq before we invaded? According to Cindy Sheehan, Clinton killed more Iraqis with sanctions than Bush has. And Madame Albright declared that the 500,000+ lives lost were "worth it" on Meet the Press.
As for the global warming, my point wasn't whether or not it exists, it was about democrats complaining about Bush using fear when it comes to terrorism, which does exist, yet they use fear when it comes to global warming, which may exist, but isn't wiping out Americans. So why is it that it is ok for democrats to use fear, but when Republicans use it, it is out of bounds?

And you support the war in Afghanistan, yet doesn't that war create more terrorists and therefore make America less safe. Liberals have asserted that the islamists hated Saddam, and we know they love the Taliban. So doesn't attacking the Taliban create terrorists far more than attacking their supposed enemy in the form of Saddam? Your support of the Afghan war makes us less safe according to left wing logic.

Simon said...

MadisonMan -
Are you then prepared to give the real answer to the question - the one that is utterly obvious to all concerned as the anti-war answer, admitted or not? That you do not care what effect our withdrawal from Iraq has on Iraq?

To some extent, my earlier question was disingenuous; it is self-evident that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq cannot aid stability in that county; I might as well ask you to explain why 2+2=5. All know and understand that U.S. forces are vitally necessary in Iraq at this time; I say that because the shared presumption that Iraq's security forces cannot yet stand on their own underlies both the GOP and the Democratic position, although each approaches it from the opposite side of the coin. The GOP's stay the course position assumes that there is course left to be stayed, while the democrats' position that the war is failing would be disproven if the Iraqi forces did not need our assistance.

Hence, it seems to me, that the only answer available to the man who opposes the war is that he does not care what happens to Iraq; he does not care what the consequences are for Iraq, nor what consequences might befall us as a result. To concede the necessity of our presence while demanding our withdrawal is to assert that you do not care about what happens to Iraq or Iraqis. It is to assert that one is not concerned enough about what fate befalls Iraq, because whatever it is, it is not worth any more American lives.

And to be sure, that is not a terrible position to take. You know, Doyle has a picture of Russ Feingold in his profile, and I imagine that if the worst thing anyone could ever say about Feingold was that he didn't want American soldiers to be risking their lives over what happens to a bunch of muslims six thousand miles away, I imagine Feingold could live with that. In fact, the idea that American blood shouldn't be spilled for someone else's cause is as old as the Republic. It's just not a very liberal position to take, is all.

Nor is is a truth I expect to see admitted; you will no more see an anti-war person admit that he doesn't care what happens in Iraq than you saw them admit that they didn't care about Saddam remaining in power. There is a difference between voicing concern and caring. Caring is voicing concern and taking the neccessary action to deal with that concern. Those who opposed the war in the first place didn't care about Iraqis then, and sure enough, nothing has changed: they do not care about them now. They offer the concern and sympathy of the priest and the levite rather than the caring of the samaritan.

Elizabeth said...

Two hours and 18 minutes between Ann's post and the first "you just hate Bush" argument. Not bad!

JT Davis said...

Severed Nachos,

You are TEH funny! The West Wing and High School comments are delightfully piquant. I missed both of them. 100 years! You must be a bump on a log at parties. I wish I could see that far into the future. I'd be a rich man.

According to a 2004 poll, should the U.S. declare war on North Korea, at least 20% of South Koreans would side with North Korea, while 30% are undecided on the issue. I don't have the link handy to the more recent poll but those numbers have increased. We are not as popular as we once were, anywhere we were once popular, and you are right about that. There weren't many places.


I doubt you have ever spent any time in Iraq or South Korea. I have, and still have friends serving in both theaters. You people really need to flush out your headgear. The Democrats weren't the first ones to talk about leaving Iraq, or "cutting and running". It's called a strategic withdrawal by military professionals. Politicians are professional liars and obfuscators.Murtha just listened to conservative experts like former NSA Director General William Odom. Hardly a liberal Democrat and the original "cut and run" advocate (strategic withdrawal). You really do get played for fools by your "so called liberal media". It's no wonder this blog, and some of it's commenters, have a reputation for being vapid.

Scott W. Somerville said...

I used to try to engage minds in comment threads like this, but now I just sit and watch in pity and in terror as otherwise intelligent people hurtle past each other.

It wants a haiku:

Locomotive minds
Hurtle past each other like
Trains not colliding.

Simon said...

"According to a 2004 poll, should the U.S. declare war on North Korea, at least 20% of South Koreans would side with North Korea, while 30% are undecided on the issue."

I wonder how many of those South Koreans in the 20% would also be opposed to the South Korean government asking the United States for help in the event that North Korea invades the south? I also wonder how many of them have ever visited North Korea and are aware of what a Korea unified under Pyonyang's control rather than Seoul's control would look like?

I understand that there is a very strong sentiment in South Korea for a unified Korea. I just wonder if perhaps the people answering in the 20% are a little too flushed with romantic idealism.

hdhouse said...

Instant gratification???? its been 3 years. 3 years. 2600 dead. 20000 so badly wounded they can't return. a third of a trillion dollars on the low end. AND NO END TO IT.

what is the end game? tell me that you wierd-cons? what is the exit? no one goes into a war except president numbnuts without a "and here is the end game" clearly defined. but this looser, this fool of fools, this oarsman on the titanic hadn't a clue and he still hasn't a clue, either that or he is so incredibly stupid he can't get the words out (or both).

and seven nachos (god i love to make fun of you...you are sooooo easy)...why are you here? why aren't you there? its a piece of cake? its pacified? hey you could go to afghanistan...you could stay in one small part of the capital because YOU IDIOT, the rest of the country is so unsafe you wouldn't survive the night...now that is victory for you isn't it. helluva job there brownie.

you utter fools on the right will never figure out that you have to apologize to the rest of us for your simplisity, but some day when that rapture hits you and that nice walk toward the light moment shines your way, i hope to god that your 72 virgins great you with a club and a whip. if there is a merciful god, an all forgiving god, you will be the test.

Revenant said...

According to a 2004 poll, should the U.S. declare war on North Korea, at least 20% of South Koreans would side with North Korea, while 30% are undecided on the issue.

According to the article it was an online poll, which means it has no statistical validity.

Still, it is true that a sizable minority of deeply stupid South Koreans like North Korea more than us. But, well -- so what? How is that a problem, exactly?

Revenant said...

Murtha just listened to conservative experts like former NSA Director General William Odom. Hardly a liberal Democrat and the original "cut and run" advocate (strategic withdrawal).

First of all, Odom called for withdrawl in May of 2004 -- well after numerous other people had done so. So calling him "the original 'cut and run' advocate" is simply wrong.

Secondly, while Odom was a general, his experience is in intelligence analysis, not military strategy or politics. He is no more qualified to comment on those subjects than any other amateur enthusiast.

Finally, Odom's other brilliant ideas include letting Iran have nuclear weapons and implementing an economy-destroying $3/gallon tax on oil. I'm sure he's was a talented spook twenty years ago, but here and now the man's clearly an idiot.

Bruce Hayden said...

The question is not just what will happen in Iraq if we pull out before the job is done, but also about its effects on the overall War on Terror. OBL has stated that part of the reason that he felt he could attack us is that he didn't think we had the heart for fighting any more. Bloody our noses, and kill some Americans, and we will retreat. No surprise, given Vietnam, Iranian embassy seizure, the Lebanon Barracks, and all the Clinton years.

Cutting and running would give just the message to terrorists and other nepharious people around the world that the way to defeat us is to bloody us enough, and we will give up and retreat. We have been doing so since the early 1970s in one place after another. Afghanistan and Iraq are the first places we have stood and fought, taking casualties, since then.

To those who keep saying that we don't have a strategy in Iraq, wake up, quit listening the the MSM and Kos, and instead listen to the President and his Secretary of Defense.

I will admit that they really didn't have much of a plan the first year or so. But then they laid out the plan that they have been following since then, and the big thing left to do is to bring the Iraqi security forces the rest of the way up to the level needed to maintain security. And that is happening as we speak here.

In the current sectarian violence in Baghdad, the Iraqi army is performing better than many expected. The police are more the problem right now. This current round of violence may delay our troop withdrawls a bit, but not that much, as the Iraqis continue to train up as this goes on.

Also, note, this is not a civil war, as is commonly portrayed by the MSM, et al. As one pundit pointed out, you can't have a civil war when one side has 85% (up from 80% at the time of our invasion) of the population and most of the guns.

Rather, the Shiite militias are finally striking back at the Sunnis after three years or so of indiscriminate civilian murder on the part of the later, and 100+ years of oppression. It is also highly likely that the reason for this finally happening is because of Iranian meddling - the most active militia in this is considered an Iranian proxy. And the Iranian meddling is most likely tied to our opposition to their nuclear ambitions.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi army is now actively fighting the Shiite militias, and because they are typically better armed and trained (and backed up by our air power and artillary), winning handily. But note, this is primarily Shiites fighting Shiites, with some Kurds thrown in.

But note also that the government now has the backing of not just the main Shiite clergy, but also most of the Sunni tribal leaders, after a recent agreement granting amnesty. Also a major show of force by joint Iraqi American forces has gone a long way at pacifying the worst parts of Baghdad in the last couple of weeks.

Seven Machos said...

hdhouse: "...this looser, this fool of fools..."

"you utter fools on the right will never figure out that you have to apologize to the rest of us for your simplisity"


JT: How long has the United States held Hawaii? Do you think we will have military bases in Germany in 2045? In Korea in 2050? Do you know that Britain has owned Gibralter since 1713?

I'm pretty confident that when people start viciously attacking the name that I got off a bottle of perfume in a bodega instead of making substantive arguments, the actual debate is pretty much over.

Stephen said...

"Instant gratification???? its [sic] been 3 years. 3 years. 54,000 dead. 100,000 so badly wounded they can't return. a [sic] third of a trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation) on the low end. AND NO END TO IT.

what [sic] is the end game? tell [sic] me that you wierd-cons? what [sic] is the exit? no [sic] one goes into a war except President Truman without a [sic] "and here is the end game" clearly defined. but [sic] this looser, this fool of fools, this oarsman on the titanic [sic] hadn't a clue and he still hasn't a clue, either that or he is so incredibly stupid he can't get the words out (or both). Who knows? We may end up with troops there 40 years later.

and hdhouse (god I love to make fun of you...you are sooooo easy)...why [sic] are you here? why [sic] aren't you there? its [sic] a piece of cake? its [sic] pacified? hey [sic] you could go to Korea...you could stay in one small part of the capital because YOU IDIOT, the rest of the country is so unsafe you wouldn't survive the night...now that is victory for you isn't it. helluva [sic] job there brownie. [sic]

you [sic] utter fools on the right will never figure out that you have to apologize to the rest of us for your simplisity [sic], but some day when that rapture hits you and that nice walk toward the light moment shines your way, i [sic] hope to god [sic] that your 72 virgins great [sic] you with a club and a whip [cool]. if [sic] there is a merciful god, an all forgiving god [sic], you will be the test."

-c.a. 1953 in reference to the Korean War

[No, I don’t know what “simplisity” is either.]

Sloanasaurus said...

There is a plan in Iraq. It has been the same plan since the first day of the invasion. That is to 1) take out Saddam and 2) install a democratic government that is legitimate and can defend itself.

The left often makes this statement "There is no plan."

Classic leftism is to make assertions and to advocate the truth to the assertions without any real factual basis.

I enjoyed this statement...

"...If the Bush administration believed its rhetoric, wouldn't it be calling for a more general mobilization and tax to deal with this new Hitler...."

The idea is to take Hitler out when he is still young and weak. You don't need extra money, just the willpower to do it. Bush needs courage from the democrats, not more money.

The Exalted said...

do you people really believe what you're writing in here?

i mean,

No one liked us any more or less under Clinton. I know you'd like to think they did. But that's patently false. Get your head out of your ass. See the world for what it is, not what you wish it would be.


thats just ridiculous. clinton was met with adoring crowds and basically treated like elvis when he went abroad. bush gets jeered and protested. are you this obtuse?

The plan was remove Saddam, institute a constitution and free elections, provide training and security for Iraqi defense forces until they can carry the burden on their own. The plan proceeds apace.
No one promised it would be quick, or easy, or without casualties. But I would rather our military face them there than our civilians face them here


funny, i thought the "plan" was to remove the terrible wmd's saddamn had, and all the rest was an afterthought. and, the administration very much said it would be easy. do you forget the flowers and hugs comments? do you forget that people were fired for suggesting that the cost of the war would be $100 billion? do you forget that the administration suggested that the occupation would pay for itself after a year?

for christs sakes, what is with you.

The Exalted said...

1. You really favored invading Afghanistan? Al-qaeda in Afghan bad, al-qaeda anywhere else gets a pass? Iraq was a safe haven for them. I favor killing them wherever they are, and anyone who assists them.


sweet jesus, al-queda was not in iraq before we deposed saddam and rendered it into a near-failed state. joe, you cannot be serious with these comments. saddam and the baath was a secular party. saddam cracked down on fundamentalists. does this sound like a regime that would be in bed with al-queda?

Revenant said...

sweet jesus, al-queda was not in iraq before we deposed saddam and rendered it into a near-failed state

The statement "Al Qaeda was not in Iraq" is incorrect. Iraq had been giving aid and shelter to members of al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations for years prior to the invasion, with Zarqawi being the most notable example of this. There is also a pretty substantial paper trail of captured Iraqi documents detailing Iraqi/al Qaeda cooperation, pre-2003.

It is, of course, true that there are more members of al Qaeda in Iraq now than there were before -- and apparently fewer of them anywhere else, of course.

In any case, declaring Iraq a "near-failed state" three months into its government's first term of office is uncharitable, to say the least.

saddam and the baath was a secular party. saddam cracked down on fundamentalists. does this sound like a regime that would be in bed with al-queda?

Huh. For years I'd read, in history books, that the United States and the USSR were allies during the Second World War. But I see now that that's obviously logically impossible, because the USSR was an atheistic totalitarian communist dictatorship and the United States was a capitalist, overwhelmingly Christian democracy. So obviously we didn't help each other at all during the second world war -- why, that would have been absolutely ridiculous!

Look, genius: yes, Hussein and bin Laden hated each other's guts. What's that got to do with anything? Bitter enemies have been uniting against more-powerful mutual enemies since the dawn of human history. Hussein and bin Laden helped each other for the same reason -- they both knew that *neither* of them would get what they wanted until the United States was out of the picture.

class-factotum said...

Whoever wanted a "reputable" scientist about global warming, how about Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. You know, a real scientist, not a beauty school dropout like Al.

He says that we cannot necessarily attribute any change in climate to human beings. Read the whole thing here: http://www.babalublog.com/archives/003532.html

knoxgirl said...

hdhouse = Mary?

an awful lot of similarities...

Joe said...

hdhouse: wipe the spittle off your chin. Your rage is no substitute for substantive comment.
Exalted: try getting some facts straight. You are apparently clueless as to why we went into Iraq and the al qaeda connection in that country under Saddam, as well as the FACT that Saddam had WMDs and used them on Kurds and Iranians.

hdhouse said...

Seven Machos said...
hdhouse:

1. Bjorn Lomborg.

No...Seven...I said a reputable scientist not one who has 50+ websites dedicated to laughing at him.

Joe said...
You are apparently clueless as to why we went into Iraq and the al qaeda connection in that country under Saddam, as well as the FACT that Saddam had WMDs and used them on Kurds and Iranians.

Joe, are you referring of course to the WMDs that Reagan sold him in the 80s? and the HUGE stockpile so idiotically announce by Senator Rick and Sean in breathless "now we have proof" Geraldo style? and what al qaeda connection do you refer to? the mythical Prague meeting perhaps?...hahaha..when you get tired of kissing Rumsfeld's butt let us know ok?

knoxgirl said...
hdhouse = Mary?

an awful lot of similarities...

Jesus perhaps but Mary no.

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said...
There is a plan in Iraq. It has been the same plan since the first day of the invasion. That is to 1) take out Saddam and 2) install a democratic government that is legitimate and can defend itself.


No sirreee. That is the goal. Where is the "Plan" like in HOW DO WE DO THAT....That's one of the basic problems of the arrogant right...you don't know your asses from a hole in the ground.

Seven Machos said...

clinton was met with adoring crowds and basically treated like elvis when he went abroad. bush gets jeered and protested.

Selective memory is very uesful. Are you sure that Clinton was never protested abroad?

Greeks Protest Clinton Visit

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 20, 1999; Page A1

ATHENS, Nov. 19 As President Clinton drove into Athens tonight along heavily guarded streets swept clear of traffic and people, several thousand Greek demonstrators in the city center hurled stones and gasoline bombs at banks and police to protest his visit...


There's lots more where that came from.

I also seem to recall a few major terrorist attacks when Clinton was president.

Joe said...

hd, so if Reagan sold the WMDs to Saddam, I guess you are conceding he actually had them? For purposes of attacking Bush, however, you say he did not have them. Facts are so inconvenient. Logic and consistency, as well as truth, are strangers to you. BTW the myth that we armed Iraq has long been discredited; most of their weaponry came from Europe, Russia and China. And the al qaeda presence in Iraq is also well documented, aside from the Prague meeting, as others on this thread have pointed out.
Arguing with an idiot like you becomes tiresome after a while. Responding to your "arguments" is like trying to grab smoke. Go kiss Saddam's ass some more, you fascist loving moron.

dreamingmonkey said...

It is, of course, true that there are more members of al Qaeda in Iraq now than there were before -- and apparently fewer of them anywhere else, of course.

How on earth do you back this up? Are you suggesting that al-Qaeda has stopped admitting new members?

Jonathan said...

[i]thats just ridiculous. clinton was met with adoring crowds and basically treated like elvis when he went abroad. bush gets jeered and protested. are you this obtuse?[/i]

I lived in England for the last couple years of the Clinton administration and regardless of attitudes toward Clinton himself, anti-Americanism ran rampant and people from all over the world disliked the U.S. and disdained its citizens. Anti-Americanism may be more pronounced now, I don't know, but it certainly existed in very strong form before Bush was elected and when we had a more internationalist and elite-pleasing president.

[Incidentally, I am not the same "Jonathan" who posted earlier in this thread.]

Jonathan said...

[i]No...Seven...I said a reputable scientist not one who has 50+ websites dedicated to laughing at him.[/i]

So hdhouse, does that mean if your opponents start 50+ websites dedicated to laughing at you, you'll acknowledge that your position is illegitimate and stop posting?

Truth is not democratic. Or do you think the Church was right when it persecuted advocates of the heliocentric universe back in the day because they were ridiculed by those who disagreed with them? I don't know if Bjorn is right or wrong, but the fact thhat a lot of people disagree with and even mock him has no bearing on whether he's right or not.

Revenant said...

"It is, of course, true that there are more members of al Qaeda in Iraq now than there were before -- and apparently fewer of them anywhere else, of course."

How on earth do you back this up?

It isn't like al Qaeda members advertise, so obviously any claim about whether there are more/less of them in any country is going to be purely speculative -- all we can do is infer al Qaeda's numbers from the level of their activity, which is up in Iraq and down elsewhere. That's why I said there were apparently fewer al Qaeda outside of Iraq.

Are you suggesting that al-Qaeda has stopped admitting new members?

I'm sure they are, but those new members appear to be flocking to Iraq. And whether they're managing to recruit new members faster than we capture or shoot the old ones is questionable.

Also keep in mind that most of the terrorist violence in Iraq seems to be of domestic, ethnic origin.

hdhouse said...

joe....joe....joe heehee

Joe said...
hd, so if Reagan sold the WMDs to Saddam, I guess you are conceding he actually had them?

At one time he had them....but since no one has been able to find them or any evidence of them in the past 15 years most thinking people would assume that he doesn't have them any more. the weapons inspectors tried to tell bush that but ohhhh no. he wouldn't have any of that. why powell even went before the UN in that famous speech now referred to as the "i'm a lying asshole in retrospect" speech and show illustrations of those now infamous mobile wmd labs.

we just sat around and lapped it up as powell was a hero and a straight shooter but in this case, he simply lied at the administrations request.

now let's see what else joe says....

" BTW the myth that we armed Iraq has long been discredited; most of their weaponry came from Europe, Russia and China. And the al qaeda presence in Iraq is also well documented, aside from the Prague meeting, as others on this thread have pointed out....."

I guess you weren't alive during the Iran Iraq war and there aren't any good books on the subject and certainly no one wrote anything about an Ollie North or anything?

To be born stupid is just the luck of the draw. To grow stupid...oh well.

37383938393839383938383 said...

The Democrats haven't anything new to sell, either. The worst part is they had an opportunity to present a new face. They could have made Harold ford, Jr. (TN) the House minority leader instead of Nancy Pelosi (CA). Why you would chose a West Coast tax-and-spend liberal who is 60 -years old over a 36-year-old Southern proponent of tax cuts is beyond me. An explicit appeal to youth and to the South and to fiscal restraint would have done the Democrats some good.

Revenant said...

I guess you weren't alive during the Iran Iraq war and there aren't any good books on the subject

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research institute (run by those nefarious American jingoists, the Swedish government), between 1973 and 1990, the Soviet bloc and China were responsible for 80.4% of foreign military aid to Iraq, France for 11.8%, and Egypt for 1.3%. The United States comes in at 0.5%, between Denmark and Switzerland (those warmongers!).

So, no, we didn't arm Iraq. Iraq was a Soviet client state slowly attempting to achieve a degree of independence (hence their deals with France).

and certainly no one wrote anything about an Ollie North or anything?

I'm about 70% convinced that you're actually a war supporter deliberately trying to make anti-war lefties look like idiots.

Oliver North transferred weapons to Iran, not Iraq.

hdhouse said...

ahhh revenant...of course he double dealt and sold to Iran..well duhhhh.

but the proof of the pudding is that he "double dealt". get it? iran and iraq...get it? look at the foreign policy? look at the deal on the day reagan took office.

look! open your little baby blues and look. nnooooooo not the rose colored bush glasses...the clear ones.the ones that u use for truth?

got 'em on? see the difference?

Revenant said...

but the proof of the pudding is that he "double dealt". get it?

Allow me to amend my earlier remarks. I'm now 80% sure that your "left-wing idiot" routine is just an act.

Seven Machos said...

Never looked at it that way. Perhaps we are being had by a really devious conservative, or centrist, or just someone with a great sense of humor.

If so, hats off to you, hdhouse. Hats off to you.