Just in case anyone here could possibly have forgotten, today marks the 38th anniversary of mankind's first landing on our nearest solar neighbor - the moon.
I was just short of my 10th birthday at the time and I remember being allowed to stay up as late as it took to watch the whole event unfold on a tiny B&W TV screen at our home at the time in Ohio. I didn't
sleep a wink the whole night.
When the transmission came through "the Eagle has landed" I think I might have had my first experience at something that was so exciting it was very nearly sexual for a 9-year old. Even back then I was an enthusiastic supporter of the space program and more specifically _manned_ space exploration.
#1
As in the 1960's people ask "Why should we spend all this money to go to space when we could be using it here on Earth to fund solutions to other problems?"
Disregarding the multitude of spinoff technologiesmicrocircuitry not least among themAmerica's lunar missions served a critical role in winning the Cold War. After over a decade of continuous Soviet triumphs in satellite, unmanned and manned space exploration, it was vital that America conclusively demonstrate the superiority of its technological prowess.
The USSR had long touted itself as the scientifically planned society. Through misinformation and espionage they routinely thwarted American gestures of good will around the world. Imagine what a stinging defeat it was that this capitalistic society of wage slaves managed to achieve the pinnacle of space exploration and plant our American flag in lunar soil.
This was of no small importance. As we fought to neutralize Soviet influence, NASA's vivid example of American technological excellence played a pivotal role in persuading potential allies how our military weaponry was of superior quality to that of Russia's. By aligning many undecided nations with Western alliances we deprived the USSR of badly needed income via arms sales. This also resulted in lessening the spread of communist indoctrination and thereby reduced their overall global influence.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of this. The Iron Curtain prevented any realistic assessment of actual Soviet capability and only by furnishing incontrovertible proof of bestingnot only their marginal accomplishments in spacebut the endless unsubstantiated boasts and outright lies spread by Russia would we ever manage to discredit them. To land a manned mission on the moon not just once but six different times is a stupendous accomplishment of a magnitude that stands unmatched to this very day. Less understood but important in its own right is how their fruitless competition with America also drained Soviet coffers at a critical juncture in their program of expansionism.
Casting aside all of the innumerable benisons conferred by this monumental feat, one other artifact was brought home by our returning astronauts.
The image of our planet suspended in the starry void forever impressed upon our minds the fragile and precious nature of this cloud streaked blue-green orb we call earth. That alone was worth the bill.
#2
And when RR decided to go for SDI, the Russkies knew that we had gotten to the moon when they couldn't; we just might be able to shoot down bullets, too.
#3
The image of our planet suspended in the starry void forever impressed upon our minds the fragile and precious nature of this cloud streaked blue-green orb we call earth. That alone was worth the bill.
#4
As in the 1960's people ask "Why should we spend all this money to go to space when we could be using it here on Earth to fund solutions to other problems?"
Has anyone actually spent money in space? Last I checked, there wasn't anyone out there who would take cash OR credit.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/20/2007 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Rob, "go to" space, not "spend money in space".
The saying usually goes "spend money on space" or "spend money going to space". Either way they're short-sighted ignorant fools IMNSHO.
Call them ecosexuals green-minded men and women who date with an eye toward preserving the environment.
"The green buzzword has infiltrated our consciousness in terms of what we eat and how we recycle and when we drive to the store or walk, Heather Buchanan writes on Hamptons.com, a Web site focusing on Long Islands tony summer playground. "Now its even entered the equation of your carbon-footprint-free place or mine? The question is: Are you an ecosexual? Here are several of Buchanans tips for ecosexual dating:
Guys, pick up your date on your bicycle if possible, or else impress her by arriving in a hybrid car.
When exchanging gifts, eschew metallic gift wrapping and packaging that will get thrown away. Instead look for something reusable, like a decorative linen napkin. Or give as a gift membership in an eco-conscious organization.
If the gift is jewelry, help recycling efforts by buying an antique or estate-sale piece.
When preparing for a date, women should avoid shampoos and cosmetics that use animal products or synthetic preservatives. A Certified Organic label indicates the product is eco-friendly.
In the green bedroom, opt for bedding made from 100-percent organic cotton hand-picked in India. Wash it in phosphate-free detergents and avoid chlorine bleach.
Use a dimmer light to save energy, and a ceiling fan instead of air conditioning.
#1
Here is the original article on the original site.
Look at the pic and remember that date, dude. She'll be on your back for the rest of your life.
Only in a website like Hamptons.com can we think of green dating and not think of VD.
And to the ordinary folks who post here: The only green date you will get from a young, beautiful eco-sexual female who haunts the Hamptons will be the one at $2500 a night, $500 if you want to snuggle with her all night long.
#6
I'm a graysexual (aging). Believe me the aging thing takes care of the ecosexual concerns. You really don't have to worry or even think about environmental-sexual concerns unless you are still plowing up grass as a sexagenarian or a septuagenarian.
An Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden theme, I'd expect. Flowers in her hair, dancing around the trees - Slow mo of nude Eve eathing the apple, tied down by the snake.
Also popular would be the Eco-Mud Girls. High on the list would be - Girls without air conditioning.
Posted by: AT ||
07/20/2007 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
Don't be fooled by the surge in sterling to a 16-year high of $2.05 against the dollar. We have not become the planet's Über-rich, nor have we stumbled upon the secret of perpetual wealth.
The pound is no higher against the euro or Canada's loonie than it was three years ago. It has fallen against India's rupee, the Philippine peso, Poland's zloty, Romania's leu, Chile's peso, and the Aussie and Kiwi dollars. Brazil's real has been the strongest currency in the world for a couple of years.
This is a global dollar slide, the long-deferred consequence of America's monetary misrule. At least at first sight....
Look closer at the world currency system and you see a shift in spending power from Atlantic civilisation to the rest of the world, one of those rare realignments that occurs every century or so. The euro and sterling will follow the dollar down soon enough against the new boys.
For now, China is refusing to play its proper role in the emerging order, causing ructions for everybody else. It is holding down the yuan against the dollar by political intervention - in the process flooding the world with some $1.2 trillion in liquidity, and driving up the prices of London houses, premier cru Bordeaux, Monet landscapes, and gold.
By default, much of the dollar exodus is ending up in Europe, even though an ageing, hidebound continent with unfunded pensions is no place to put money...
Countless countries have been through versions of this boom-bust saga: 19th-century Brazil with rubber, or 1970s Norway with oil, or imperial Spain with metals. The currency rises too far, warping the economy. The underlying commodity crashes.
It would be nice -- or at least more convenient -- if America could fight just one enemy at a time. But thats seldom how it works.
World War II was called a world war for a reason: President Roosevelt might have preferred to take on only Imperial Japan, the nation that had attacked us. Instead, he had to lead the country into battle also against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He had to fight not only in the Pacific but in North Africa and Europe as well.
Its astonishing how many otherwise smart people seem incapable of grasping this reality. Many have been making the peculiar argument that we shouldnt worry too much about al-Qaeda in Iraq -- because its somehow different from al-Qaeda Not in Iraq. Consider the question a reporter asked of President Bush at a recent press conference:
But, sir...what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?
Can you imagine, President Roosevelt being asked:
But, sir...what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on December 7th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the so-called blitz bombings now taking place in London? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that those attacking London belong to the same organization as do those Japanese who are allegedly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Reporters and other interested parties might spend a few minutes reviewing the latest National Intelligence Estimate. It states unequivocally that al-Qaeda in Iraq is al-Qaedas most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland" here in the U.S. In plain language: The consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community is that the most dangerous branch of the terrorist organization that attacked American on 9/11/01 is al-Qaeda in Iraq.
A front-page story in the Washington Post this week further muddies the issue. It describes West Rashid, a Baghdad neighborhood currently controlled by Jaish al-Mahdi, the Shia militia led by the radical and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The article asserts: West Rashid confounds the prevailing narrative from top U.S. military officials that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is the citys most formidable and disruptive force.
That is flatly misleading: First, the fact that there are neighborhoods controlled by Jaish al-Mahid hardly constitutes proof -- or even compelling evidence -- that Sadrs militia is more formidable and disruptive than al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the vast majority of suicide bombings in Iraq. Second, top U.S. military officials have said consistently that the new surge strategy fully underway since June 15 includes an offensive against both al Qaeda strongholds and extremist militias.
If the U.S. does have an enemy more worrisome than al-Qaeda, its Iran. For years, we have responded fecklessly to Irans acts of war -- from the seizure of our embassy in 1979 to the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut by Irans proxy, Hezbollah, to the 1996 attack on our troops in Saudi Arabia to the undermining of our current missions throughout the Middle East.
Finally, last week -- and with relatively little media attention -- the Senate unanimously indicted Iran for murdering Americans in Iraq. It adopted Senator Joseph Lieberman's amendment to "Confront Iran on its Attacks on American Soldiers.
Some of these attacks have been direct. Others have been carried out by militias -- such as Jaish al-Mahdi -- financed by Iran and, in many case, armed and trained on Iranian soil. Hezbollah also has come to Iraq to help slaughter Americans. The amendment notes that Iran has even been facilitating the entry of al-Qaeda terrorists into Iraq. And the Tehran regime permits Ansar al-Sunna, an al-Qaeda affiliate, to maintain a base in northwest Iran.
These combatants, Sen. Lieberman observed, are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians as well.
So yes, America has a long list of formidable and disruptive enemies-- in Iraq and elsewhere. Thats not just a narrative. Its the truth -- and it ought at least to be taken into account by those debating from which battlefields Americans should flee.
It's pathetic when a major political party holds a pajama party to publicize its desire to surrender during a war. But it's even worse when such shenanigans drown out a vital message from a real leader. In the end, it was a cheap PR stunt that came undone when the Senate voted not to cut off debate on a proposal to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days. Such maneuvers have earned the Democrat-led Congress the American public's contempt. They've rewarded this Congress with a 14% approval rating the lowest ever.
Unfortunately, the noise from Congress' pajama-clad know-nothings drowned out a truly important voice in this debate: that of Gen. David Petraeus. In case you don't know, he's the innovative commander who is spearheading our war effort in Iraq and the "surge" of 28,500 additional troops. He's worth listening to because this September he will deliver a progress report on Iraq to the American people. That report, required by Congress, will make or break our war effort. And that's why we listened carefully Wednesday as Petraeus spoke about the progress in Iraq on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.
What he had to say, in measured, nonpartisan tones, both the good and the bad, should be of interest to every American. After watching a parade of Democratic congressmen pursue their 15 seconds of fame on TV, it was refreshing to hear someone who genuinely knows what he's talking about and wants to win. Here's just a taste of what Petraeus said:
On progress in the war: "(W)e have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaida Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long-term threat: Shia militia extremists."
On fighting al-Qaida: "(We have seen) the detention, or the capture or killing of (a) number of leaders that we have taken out in recent months . . . and the progress in terms of just clearing areas of them. . . . So there has been considerable progress against them."
On Iran's support for the enemy: "It has remained very substantial. . . . Iran has indeed provided substantial funding, training, equipping, arming, and even direction, in some cases, to what are called the special groups or secret cells affiliated with the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr."
On our troops: "Our (military) leaders get it, our soldiers get it, they are these flexible, adaptable, thoughtful, culturally astute, and by and large, leaders and soldiers and Marines, and they are showing that on a daily basis here."
As we said, balanced. But read for yourself. The entire extraordinary interview can be found [here]. As you'll see, Petraeus is no Pollyanna. He knows things aren't perfect. He wants to get things right. But it's also clear from his remarks we've made significant progress in recent months in stabilizing major parts of Iraq. The surge seems to be working.
Petraeus is doing an incredible job and deserves America's support. So do the 160,000 troops now in Iraq who risk their lives daily in the war on terror even as some in Congress would pull the rug out from under them, making us all less safe. From what we've heard from Petraeus and contrary to the parade of pundits and politicians urging us to withdraw it seems we're winning this war.
#1
General, don't bother us with the facts or stories of success. By definition we are all-knowing and all-important since we took over control of Congress. Dhimmicrats
SUNAPEE, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
Posted by: Adbinajab Loves you ||
07/20/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
Pandering to the base?
Heartfelt desire to make the whole war issue just go away?
Either way, words fail.
Posted by: N Guard ||
07/20/2007 0:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sad to say, but perfectly believable for a Democrat. Absolutely anything to countermand Bush's plans while pandering to his own base. I cannot recall a time when either party has been so craven in their pursuit of the executive office. The republicans had better start milking this like the last cow on the farm.
#5
Ahhh...I hate to jump in here, but what the heck. Did anyone read the article? The analogy is that we are not concerned with preventing Genocide in Dufar or the Congo, so standing alone, Genocide is not sufficient reason to remain in Iraq.
I tend to agree...there may be other reasons to stay, but Genocide is not enough to continue in Iraq.
I still come daily to Rantburg to get my news, but my writing on the subject has moved.
If you wish, for a really tough argument on the war and consequences, you could look at this Diary and comments.
#6
I disagree, Traveller. While stopping a genocide may not be sufficient reason to send in the army, knowingly facilitating genocide by walking away puts one at the moral level of the German villagers living next to the concentration camp who managed not to know. We all object to the French role in what the Hutus did to the Tutsis in Rwanda, and this -- given that we were in charge when the elections put the Shiites in power at the national level -- would not be a great deal different.
I think not. We are not selling Machetes's to the Tusi's here. I would tend to argue that some civil wars just have to be fought.
Our own civil war, delayed and put off again and again...was maybe worse for this. Likewise the Protestant wars in England, the Catholic wars in France where blood swelled the gutters of Paris and across the country with an unending flow, just had to be.
Of course we can't walk away...physically we couldn't walk away if we wanted to, though that might be my recommendation at this moment.
Time recently noted:
The reality is that it's difficult to get out fast. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out. Pulling out 10 combat brigades roughly 30,000 troops, along with their gear and support personnel would take at least 10 months, Pentagon officials say. And that's only part of the picture. There are civilians who would probably want to head for the exit when GIs started packing. They include some 50,000 U.S. contractors and tens of thousands of Iraqis who might need protection if we left the country.
Slowing things down further is the sheer volume of stuff that we would have to take with us or destroy if we couldn't. Military officials recently told Congress that 45,000 ground-combat vehicles a good portion of the entire U.S. inventory of tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, trucks and humvees are now in Iraq. They are spread across 15 bases, 38 supply depots, 18 fuel-supply centers and 10 ammo dumps. These items have to be taken back home or destroyed, lest they fall into the hands of one faction or another. Pentagon officials will try to bring back as much of the downtime gear as possible dining halls, office buildings, vending machines, furniture, mobile latrines, computers, paper clips and acres of living quarters. William (Gus) Pagonis, the Army logistics chief who directed the flood of supplies to Saudi Arabia for the 1991 Gulf War and their orderly withdrawal from the region, cites one more often overlooked hurdle: U.S. agricultural inspectors insist that, before it re-enters the U.S., Army equipment be free of any microscopic disease that, as Pagonis puts it, "can wipe out flocks of chickens and stuff like that."
*********
But the real thrust of your position is that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi's....the old, we broke it, we have to fix it argument.
I don't agree...no more treasure, more importantly, no more American blood...so that we have a Military intact for the next, really necessary, war.
We are in a borderless war that will extend for a generation or more. If we do not fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will fight it elsewhere - quite likely on our own borders or within them.
There were good reasons to take a stand in Iraq. Hussein's ongoing attempts at chaos, murder and terror outside Iraq's borders was one reason. Rather than be a buffer against the Shi'ite fascists in Iran, he was erratically but dangerously seeking WMD and showing no signs he would be deterred from their use if he had them -- most likely through proxies.
More strategically, look at a map Traveller. It's not just Iraq that is at stake if we leave, any more than it was just Iraq that caused us to go in. There is a huge swath of the globe from northern Africa to Indonesia in which a deadly mix of illiteracy, corruption, authoritarian governments, oil riches, global media (including the Internet) and a global economy have mixed with fundamentalist Islamicism to create an explosive situation that directly threatens the US.
Sure we could leave and let the region explode. The costs would include the collapse of the global economy and quite possibly the collapse of the west, since we waited until that region had its hands on massive wealth combined with our military and other technologies before we attempted even the lukewarm effort we've made these last 6 years.
This situation in the Global Swath of Rage can be diffused - but not from a distance and not without cost. Pay the cost now or pay a much higher one later. Those who seek to put off the bill - as many Europeans are doing, as many 'realists' seek to do - only ensure that we pay a higher price and are in a weaker condition when the bill comes due in full.
#11
A mans memory is a most terrible thing to lose.
Policy Adrift on Darfur
By Barack Obama and Sam Brownback
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A25
The Bush administration has helped reduce suffering in Darfur, but the situation is dangerously adrift. And when the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll.
Barack Obama is a Democratic senator from Illinois. Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.
#12
Which raises the question, if Obama and Brownback can agree on this...well, I still must question, Can we, should we, be policeman to the world?
Which brings me back to Lotp's position above.
It is easy to say pay now or pay later and paint the picture full of apocalyptic imagery...but is that true?
I would tend to agree that there will be a show down of some sort...but maybe not also. The more proper question seems to be are we currently making this outcome more or less likely?
This also presumes that there is an acceptable out come in Iraq...and this assumption may not be true either.
I think our Counter Insurgency efforts are...not only not effective...they are bad. Out and out bad.
The fact that our Soldiers still seemingly possess no Arabic language skills at all, (from what I have been able to glean), and the open fact that neither the Army or Marines are placing, even four years into this puppy, any emphasis on this absolutely vital component to any COIN opps...leads me to believe that we are simply not serious about this war.
Back up, re-group, re-fit, make language acquisition an absolute pre-requsite part of training and then approach this from another direction...that's the ticket.
#13
So, Traveller, must we wait until these evildoers strike within the confines of the United States to muster the resolve to defeat them? More precisely, what domestic devastation will be sufficient to raise you to the level of commitment this country had after Pearl Harbor? Is there any point at which you will say there is no substitute for victory? Because you surely don't think withdrawing from Iraq will mean they will stop trying to destroy our culture, do you?
#14
No, but culture is made of pretty stern stuff...both ours and theirs, (something we are coming to learn to our regret).
Evildoers? I can't find it right now, but there is an argument to be made...that...well, I was watching The Patriot with Mel Gibson one night and, like lightening, it struck me that it wasn't that far a stretch to see that an Insurgent could see himself playing the Mel Gibson role.
Yep.
There was a time when I argued that the only real basis for this War was Liberal Enlightenment...with all that that implies. Liberal values....Freedom of Conscience....that's all there is.
Democracy? Pifft...see Gaza today.
I don't care about the form of Government. Freedom of thought, Freedom of Conscience...that's what we should have premised this war on.
And when I can carry a Bible in Riyadh, SA, the same as a Muslim can carry a Koran in Washington, that's when this war will be over.
(Not that I care a wit about carring a Bible...but those are the terms)
#16
The reality is that it's difficult to get out fast. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out.
The Soviet Army planning norms were for five percent casualties in certain types of live artillery fire exercises. And to compare as Time did American forces to the Soviets is a tremndous stretch. The Soviet Army at its peak military efficiency was no more than a technologically efficient third world rabble, they have never been much more than that, likely the current Russian Army never will be.
Your presentation of this comparison is invidious.
Look at the map yourself. Iraq is if nothing else a strategic block against Iran. If nothing else it is a great staging ground for the liberation of Iran, the last piece of the WoT terror puzzle. Iran, as you may recall, is Jimmy Cater's crowning foreign policy achievement.
Iran is an ongoing sucking vortex of hatred, and the center of the rise of Islamic terrorism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Eliminating Iran as the main central node of worldwide terrorism will certainly temper Islamic terrorism through the world, perhaps for a generation and maybe more.
Maybe our being in Iraq is bad, but I believe for every day we are there is a day less Iraqis will suffer from whatever Islamic evil will come to fill the void, is a day added to Iran's misery, and a day less from the date of liberation of Iran from Islamic terrorism.
If you ever come back, Traveller, I will take you to the woodshed for your remarks.
#17
The fact that our Soldiers still seemingly possess no Arabic language skills at all, (from what I have been able to glean), and the open fact that neither the Army or Marines are placing, even four years into this puppy, any emphasis on this absolutely vital component to any COIN opps...
You are misinformed. I work with some of the soldiers who are passing along language and cultural skills. It is a key priority in both officer training and enlisted training, along with other important skills.
leads me to believe that we are simply not serious about this war.
due to people who downplay the consequences of losing it, IMO.
#19
I'm a bit surprized that Obama acknowledges that genocide would happen subsequent to an early withdrawel. He didn't have to do that. He could have said that "...Certainly there would be many killed (perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps several million) but it would be during multiside ethnic-sectarian conflict which might result in a relatively stable quasi partition." or some such.
The French supported the Hutu Power people both before but also after the genocide. You see the leasdrers of the FPR were English speakers (their parnets had fled to Uganda in the 60s) while the Hutu leaders were French speakers and integrated in France's satellite system.
#22
What he said was we can't use the Military to solve humanitarian problems. I disagree. We used the Military to great effect after the Indonesian Tsunami and after the Pakistani earthquake. There are areas where a military presence is necessary to assure the safety of humanitarian workers. The difference between Darfur and Iraq is we are already in Iraq and the situation is somewhat of our making. He also says there is the potential for genocide in Iraq if we leave now but it doesn't sound to me as if he believes there will be. Every indicator I have read is that there will be. Again he and other Democrats are willing to sacrifice other peoples' blood for Political gain. I find that abhorrent.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/20/2007 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I would actually agree that using our military as a combatant force, instead of in a peacekeeping role, solely to prevent a genocide in Iraq is not enough.
However, and this is a big "if", if the genocide would be limited to *only* Iraq.
The entire region is dangerously near the brink of a far wider conflict, and without US forces in Iraq, there is a strong possibility that several nations in the region would *rapidly* develop nuclear weapons to resist Iran.
And from that point, you have what amounts to a tinderbox ready to turn into a major nuclear war--one big enough for fallout to reach the US on the other side of the world in significant amounts.
So one, small genocide, really ethnic cleansing, in which the Sunnis are driven out of Iraq, is not enough for the US to invade or remain in country, except as part of a larger group of nations trying to keep the peace.
But if our departure also means a major nuclear war, with the loss of much of the world's oil supply, a decades-long worldwide economic depression, and the deaths of perhaps 750 MILLION people, that is something else entirely.
#24
Recent reports state that new oil reserves have been discovered in western Iraq; new fields which may lead to a production level of up to 4 million barrels per day.
It is vital to the national security of the United States and the free world that the current and future revenue of Iraq not be placed in the hands of implacable enemies. Should Iraq fall into the control of AQ and/or Persia, it is pure folly to believe that "genocide" would be limited to the peoples of Iraq, SA, Lebanon, Israel, Italy, Greece, Germany, ...
The Democratic leaders dwell in some sort of Cloud Cuckoo-Okinawa Land.
#26
IIRC, accusations of geneocide in the Balkans was enough for Bill Clinton to get us involved there.
The amount of effort it would take to stop genocide in Darfur is ridiculously small. Only the fact that Muslims are engaging in it, with the support of the Communist Chinese, keeps anyting from being resolved. Problem is, it's Obama's job to KNOW stuff like that, and he is no stateman if he chooses to ignore it while grandstanding.
#28
lotp, your #9 post is spot-on. My only difference of opinion is that this war will not last a generation. It seems far more likely that Islam will push its miserable luck with some truly barbaric atrocities (i.e., NBC attacks) until the West simply throws up its hands and sterilizes much of the MME (Muslim Middle East).
While not a pleasant prospect, neither are the intentions of Islam with respect to the West. One thing we most certainly agree upon is that the butcher's bill only increases with time. Worst of all is that Islam greedily counts upon this despite how they do not realizeor, more likely, refuse to admitthat they will bear the brunt of the tab.
I certainly didn't mean to doge your question...and heaven knows we could go round and round what Victory is.
To answer your question directly, I don't think there is anything at this moment that could turn around my opinion.
To quote myself and to put it succinctly:
Be that as it may...my argument has been for the longest time:
Do what you're good at.
We, the United States, are good at making War....
Not so Good at Counter Insurgency...but then, no one is.
And no one really has been. Maybe we'll pull off a coupe, but I doubt it. Not even the Germans could subdue Yugoslavia or the marches of Russia...and God knows they tried by, all in all, killing millions and millions of Russians to no avail.
The reason, as I see it, that we can't go to War a lot...frequently, if need be, is is the cost in men and treasure of these kinds of willful occupations.
And the resultant bad name that these occupations give to War in general.
It is this crippling of our War Option in the future that I so, so, so object to.
#30
Traveller First If you intend to try to communicate in English you best learn to spell "traveller" properly in English ( i.e. traveler ).
Secondly If you intent to communicate in issues regarding America, you better learn American History. Defeating insurgency is our forte and has been trough out history ( indian uprisings, mass rebellion against freedom for slaves, etc., etc. )
There you will also find that we are very good at starting wars AND ending them.
You are a Hussein Obama butt kisser. That puts you in the category of can't do which is the Dhimmicrat slogan, which makes "Aluha Akbar" another one of your slogans.
Genocide in Iraq will not take place. I know that hurts your feelings to know genocide will not take place and that the insurgency will be defeated. Get over it. And in the mean time, work harder on learning English.
#31
No, I tend to agree, Genocide will not take place whether we are in Iraq or not.
As to to our position re Indians, etc, we were here, ever expanding, inter-marrying, pushing westward. The same problem obtained in Viet Nam...we simply were not there for the...really long haul.
BTW, Viet Nam, aside from some political freedom issues, is doing very nicely now that we are not there...thank you very much.
We could only wish the same for Iraq.
Good at winning wars? I'm not so sure...See Korea and Viet Nam and I sense that we are even losing Afghanistan.
Be that as it may, Iraq is winnable if we were willing to do a WWII...level every city as we did in both German and Japan and kill 20% of the population.
I am not at that point yet...and, as noted, a slow bleeding of our manpower and treasure is not acceptable to me.
We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
I seem to remember asking Uncle UN for action; where is that?
"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question,"
What does that mean? What question? I can only (hopefully) guess that the quotes are taken out of context because I would be laughed out of a beer joint for making such nonsensical statements.
My guess is that the Ivory Tower of Peace-a is attempting to shore up his foundation. And for our GURPS Traveller, some people do not mind giving all to save lives even when it seems futile - lest we forget the thousends who died in Greensburg. And with your unknown stance on any issues you have brought up I understand the 'why' when you state Obama and Brownback agree; I give you Whats the matter with Kansas. My blue (blooded) friends in East Kansas try to tell me (an Independent) Obama is the choice because he is a centrist. Based on what? This? His first year in Congress has been spent campaigning and he cant really get that straight. At least Brownback has a (lousy) voting record.
Where I live, we have a 4th of July community event. In this previous celebration we had some snapping turtles on display, big ones. Being a volunteer firefighter I am of course helping out when I notice a toddler getting ready to pet one of the big ones. I could: (a) let this five year old get bit and, although may lose a finger, feel good that it was a lesson to last a lifetime or (b) drop what I was doing, charge 10 yards through a crowd in less than a second, and grab that little arm out of the tub, explaining (and demonstrating with a handy stick) what that snapping turtle was about to do. Without really needing to explain to serious patrons of Rantburg which choice was made, I now have 2 new lifelong friends the parents and the lesson was still taught.
Oh, and my cousin would drop anyone out of her Blackhawk who told her that she did not help out with the Pakistan earthquake while she was in Afghanistan. The others I know would just laugh in your face. Any epiphanies from What Girls Want? At least give me a passage from a Shaara book, and include those documentations of blatent mass civilian murder for such mirage deep analogies
So Traveller, next time someone from Kansas tells you that Kansas is Fly-over country, do take it personally.
#34
I have nothing against Kansas, and I'm not even an Obama man....the question was, Is the potential of a Genocide sufficient reason to stay in Iraq? I think that Obama answered the question correctly, but that doesn't make me a supporter of Obama. He said something that seemed correct...that's simple enough.
Viet Nam not so hot?
Viet Nam in 1970, 1975, 1980...is much better now. There should be no question on this...Just joined the WTO, their President feted by President Bush...oh how times change.
Traveller (sic) This is the genocide throughout South East Asia when the American's left. These are people, like you. If you think this is great, be a real Traveler (proper spelling) and go there. Experience first hand your love and acceptance of genocide.
The above was buried in a bold tag. I want to make sure you get a chance to see what is left of these people of genocide of which you openly support. You are having a problem with reality, click the link.
3) You are completely unfamiliar with the rise of Pol Pot resulting in genocide in South East Asia.
Pol Pot was also contacted by the Vietnamese who now offered him whatever resources he wanted for his insurgency against the Cambodian government. China was supplying five million dollars a year in weapons and Pol Pot had organized an independent revenue source for the party in the form of rubber plantations in eastern Cambodia using forced labor.
The withdrawal of American influence in South East Asia caused the death of million in the killing fields of South East Asia.
Traveller your problem is that you show complete ignorance of anything factual regarding real world events, proper spelling while using the English language and your debased support of genocide. There will not be one genocide if we leave Iraq now. Terrorists will reek genocide all across the world with weapons revenue from 100 Billions of Oil reserves will purchase for these terrorist, barbarians you support.
#41
Genocide would be just the start in Iraq. The creation of another failed terror exporting state (like Afghanistan under the Taliban) would follow, along with regional players (Turkey, Iran, Syria) jousting for control.
I understand that the Democratic base was hostile to U.S. involvement in Iraq from the very start, but now we need grownups in charge to deal with the dangerous and volatile geopolitical situation which can not be petulantly wished away.
#42
As a Kansan, I have an easy time spotting a Straw Man argument. As a professional blogger it is commendable that you visit multiple sights for your research before accepting the responsibility of expressing your opinion, and you most likely have access to this kind of information, but let me help us 'others' find Kampuchea, and Evacuation of Saigon. Of course there are others who frequent Rantburg who would be, I'm sure, more than welcome to give a serious history lesson, but I have work to do and Wikipedia looks like a good start for ya.
Did we have something to do with that? Well, the U.S. withdrew troops and support from the (then winning) South Vietnam government. Notice how this entry coincides with the previous two links. As posted in #39, perhaps you should blog in a location where 'there are no striks, no outs, and everyone is safe'.
Vietnam, been there. When our 'handlers' were not within ear shot our guide, a nephew of an American ally (his uncle disappeared after the communist victory 'making rocks into rice') pointed out the different colored school uniforms of the children. One color was the descendents of communists and the other color was the decendents of South Vietnam. Long story short, the offspring of northerners get to go to college, the southern offspring get rudimentary education to become laborers. I saw a 'lawnmower' of laborers - eight gals hunched over with clippers, cutting the grass. Stopped by Cambodia while in the neighborhood; the locals say the UN is the biggest bunch of theives and corruptors around. Your penniless posts fall on its face.
#43
Your last paragraph is certainly interesting. I simply do not know if it is true. It does not comport with the reports that I get back from people visiting VN.
And, of course, I've been there also, but it was long ago...lol
Okay, Vietnam : still has secret police attacking ANY ethnic minority like the hill peoples that refuse to completely drop their culture for the vanilla-Hanoi version of a Vietnamese. And remember, these attacks have included chemical weapons, mass killings, and scorched earth attacks. Also, NO apparent rule of law when it comes to property, patents, or intellectual property. So more than a "little issue" with the freedom issues.
Cambodia : the US had NOTHING to do with Pol Pot's rise or his killing fields - unless you consider the US withdrawal from Saigon as a green light for genocide in Cambodia, an entirely different country with a different language and ethic groups.
Iraq : How would leaving Iraq benefit the US in any measurable way? Al-Qaeda and their terrorist allies have made it clear that simply withdrawing from Iraq will NOT stop attacks against the US anywhere and at any time. No, we would have to abandon ALL of the Persian Gulf region {including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, and assorted other SW Asian friends}; basically give them Israel on a silver plate; apologize to all Muslims for our "sins against Islam"; and as a people convert to the Salifist form of Islam. These conditions have be laid out repeatedly in Al-Q communiques over the past 5 years.
Also, what country in the region would EVER trust American security guaranties or aid us in any fashion if we cut and run on Iraq? If the US cannot lose in 5 years the amount of men and material that we lost in a single day's combat during any major WWII battle and keep going on to victory, then NO state would be sensible to rely on us again - since all that would have to happen to make the US cave would be to kill a few thousand troops. And that would basically guarantee terrorist states all over North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia. Plus, rolling genocide against any Christian, Jewish, animist, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, feminist, homosexual, or Shite in that whole zone.
What would be the consequences of such a novel experience? Who knows? But the Left is probably correct cf. the July 8 editorial in the New York Times that we could probably redeploy without significant casualties. And it is likewise prescient to anticipate that mass killings in Iraq would probably follow if not a Cambodia-like holocaust, at least something akin to the gruesome fate of the Harkis, those Algerians loyal to France, but left behind to be disemboweled after the French flight across the Mediterranean.
It is easier to envision post-democratic Iraq as a tripartite badlands: a shaky Kurdistan living under the fear of alternate invasion from either oil-hungry Turkey or an ascendant Iran; a Sunni Anbar serving, like Waziristan or Somalia, as a terrorist haven, effused with Wahhabi money and Sharia courts; and an Arab Shiite rump state of Iran, residing in safety under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, that would be the convenient jumping off point for Shiite insurgents in the Gulf States. The sorting out of populations into these various enclaves would be messy and bloody, if not like the Pakistani partition of 1947, at least akin to what we saw in the Balkans during the 1990s.
What would the effect be of all this televised carnage and chaos on the United States? Anti-war critics would turn on a dime disclaiming their prior assertions that our presence ipso facto had been the chief cause of the violence in Iraq. Instead, when the mass beheadings of female reformers and serial shootings of collaborators appeared on our screens, American and European leftists would almost immediately blame our fickleness for the carnage. . . . Just as our resolve and stubbornness are now alleged to have resulted in the deaths of thousands, so our irresoluteness would soon be cited for the murders of tens of thousands.
A second effect would be a sort of psychological devastation of the U.S. military, particularly the army. . . . Militaries that are beaten and flee take decades to reconstitute and regroup. Command, the mood of the rank-and-file, an armys self perception all that is recast in the shadow of recrimination, no more capable of quick resurgence than a boxer recapturing the championship after a surprised, terrible beating.
Indeed, even after the five-year withdrawal from Vietnam, the American military took twenty years to regain its own confidence. If we blame a Jimmy Carter for the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the unchecked Cambodian genocide during 1977-79, or the communist infiltration of Central America, he can at least claim he was a mere epiphenomenon of the times that a war-weary American public and a demoralized military were in no shape to engage in another disastrous foreign adventure. . . . And if we worry that our new President in 2008 will have to worry about thousands of soldiers still in Iraq, we should worry even more that he will immediately be challenged by all sorts of enemies emboldened by the nature of our flight from Iraq.
In fact, redeployment is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? . . . If Vietnam, Beirut, or Mogadishu left doubt as to the seriousness of American guarantees, Iraq would confirm that it is a dangerous thing to ally oneself with an American government and military. Aside from realignment in the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines would have to make the necessary readjustments.
The surge would be our high-water mark, a sort of 21st-century Picketts charge, after which skilled retreat, consolidation, holding the line, and redeployment would be the accepted mission of American arms.
It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and redeploy, Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/20/2007 09:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
In the future, whenever I have to endure some self-righteous, blabber mouth boomer getting up on their high horse about bringing home our poor little children (ie: soldiers) - I'm going to knock them right off it by pointing out that they are condoning the murder of perhaps millions of innocent men, women and children and that I am shocked and dismayed over the fact that are ok with it.
I'm not going to sit quietly and tolerate this upcoming humanitarian disaster. We CAN NOT casually just turn our backs, cover our ears and allow this slaughter to occur. IT IS NOT OK to justify the pitiful cries of millions with casual words. Anyone who does so is a selfish, ice-cold, black-hearted, mean-spirited, hateful wretch that is unfit to refer to themself as "human".
It is NOT OK. NOT!!!
Posted by: AT ||
07/20/2007 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's interesting to read all the back and forth here on this forum about the war.(undeclared) We are a very, very small group compared to the general US public. The general public, finally getting some absorption of the war overall, are decidedly against it. Some polls show 70 % against; some 73 % against; some 80 %. Doesn't matter much. Basically, most are against it. The military cannot continue without public support. Being a life long Republican, I am terrifically upset at what I see from so-called Republicans today. By holding on for Bush, the Republican party is going to be decimated in the coming election. The public will have their revenge and the Dhimmis will benefit greatly. Once they have control again of the White House and Congress, they will have the power to choke this off and they will. What has been lacking all along is a public discussion of the war on Islam. Actaully the war instigated by Islam on the western world. This should be shouted from the rooftops daily by the American President. By not going to the front and leading clearly, Bush has utterly failed. The main job of President is to lead by influence. FDR wanted to go to war in 1939. He didn't because he knew the American public was not convinced of the necessity. So he led, giving many clear voiced talks on the medium of the day.. radio. The next President must conduct a public discussion of the exact situation we are in. He/she must delineate that we must have a different approach. A cruel, cold, direct appraoch which may result in the deaths of millions of Muslims. After laying the cards on the table, let the public decide if they want to play the game as it needs to be played. Otherwise, if they decide to fold, the consequences of Islamic domination ought to be pointed out in clear, concise terms which cannot be misunderstood by even the simplest ones among us.
#3
The U.S. public has never gone soft in its support for American involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11.
As antiwar critics have pointed out, Saddam Hussein was a secular Fascist and only tangentially connected to al Qaeda style elements. Thus, the simple refrain of "we did not find the WMDs and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11" carries weight with the general public. They seem to believe that we did not have a critical national interest there originally or since.
What needs to be publicly explained by high government officials in frank language is that Islamic radicals have long since launched a global war against us and how such distant and seemingly unrelated places as Iraq, the Phillipines, England, and Pakistan are all squares on the global chessboard in this war which we can not afford to lose. Abandoning any corner of the world to Islamic militants is too great a risk now.
#4
I think VDH is way off base in his analysis of the effect of a withdrawal on the military. I have to believe that the military knows they have done the job, did not lose on the battlefield and are the most powerful, competent and accomplished military force in history.
His parallel to the Vietnam war less reasonable than a comparison to the Spanish Civil War. The Soviets won in WWII in spite of the defeat of the International Brigades.
I suspect the upshot of a withdrawal would be a substantial reassessment of the relationship of the military and civilian spheres. The fundamental problem is that democracies don't do limited war well politically, regardless of how they perform militarily.
I can't predict exactly what would happen, but I would not be surprised if the next time the civilians want to employ the military, the military ask for a Total War level of commitment. Likewise I would not be surprised to see the development of surrogate forces such as a foreign legion with a path to citizenship or an expansion of Special Forces to fight Afghan type campaigns.
I would be interested to hear how 'burgers closer to those in uniform think they would react to another civilian stab in the back.
#5
All very interesting and good arguments. However the issue here is that anyone who is willing to endure another Saigon - unnecessarily leaving millions of innocent men, women, children and infants to be slaughtered and dumped in mass graves can not say that they are concerned about human life or "the war" or that they are tired of the killing. They are just a heartless jerks who probably would have looked away at slavery, or any other evil to avoid themselves from being even slightly inconvenienced.
Anyone who will turn their backs and cover their ears for a slaughter of this magnitude is an -inhumane, uncaring *(&^# who deserves exactly what they get, when they get their come around of what goes around. They need to start thinking about what their own personal come around might look like. Torture, rape, and a cruel death. Yeah - and no one will listen to your cries out for help either - you loser, low level uncaring, subhuman jerks.
The calls for of leaving Iraq is just politics, mixed with slogans and mantras repeated by half-wits who probably can't even find Iraq on a map.
Anyone reading this - if who can justify this slaughter in your mind - YOU SUCK and I hope you go to hell where you belong.
Posted by: AT ||
07/20/2007 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yah, unless Bush makes a move on Iran, we are snatching defeat from the arms of victory. With the US out of the way, Iran will walk into eastern Iraq, and unite with the Shiites. Then they will encroach on the rest of the Sunni cities. If there is nothing between them and Mecca, then that is where they will march.
Maybe our grandchildren will make us wear t-shirts: I COULD HAVE PREVENTED IRAN'S NUCLEAR ICBM THREAT TO THE HOMELAND.
Greatest generation? We are scum at the bottom of the history barrel.
Amid the Senate's all-night pillow fight and other Iraq grandstanding, real things are happening on the ground in Iraq. They consist of more than just a surge of U.S. troop levels. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.
Ever since the December 2005 Iraqi elections, the U.S. has been waiting for the central government in Baghdad to pass grand national accords on oil, federalism and de-Baathification to unify and pacify the country. The Maliki government has proved too sectarian, too weak and perhaps too disposed to Iranian interests to rise to the task. The Democrats cite this incapacity as a reason to give up and get out. A tempting thought, but ultimately self-destructive to our interests. Accordingly, Petraeus and Crocker have found a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda.
This has begun to happen in Anbar and Diyala. First, because al-Qaeda are foreigners. So are we, but -- reason No. 2 -- unlike them, we are not barbarous. We don't amputate fingers for smoking, decapitate with pleasure and kill Shiites for sport.
Third, al-Qaeda's objectives are not the Sunnis'. Al-Qaeda live for endless war and a reborn caliphate. Ultimately, they live to die. Iraqi Sunnis are not looking for a heavenly date with 72 virgins. They are looking for a deal, and perhaps just survival after U.S. troops are gone. That's why so many Sunnis have accepted Petraeus' bargain -- they join our fight against al-Qaeda and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they'll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.
The bargain is certainly working for us. The recent capture of the leading Iraqi in al-Qaeda's Iraq affiliate is no accident, comrade. You capture such people only when you have good intelligence and you have good intelligence only when the locals have turned against the terrorists. The place of his capture -- Mosul -- is also telling. Mosul is where you go if you've been driven out of Anbar and Diyala and have no other good place to go. You don't venture into the Shiite south or the purely Kurdish north where the locals will kill you.
The charge against our previous war strategy was that we were playing whack-a-mole: they escape from here, they re-establish there. Petraeus' plan is to eliminate all al-Qaeda sanctuaries.
You hardly hear about that from the anti-war Democrats in the Senate. But you did hear it from someone closer to the scene: Shiite lawmaker and close Maliki adviser Hassan al-Suneid. He is none too happy with the new American strategy. He complained bitterly about the overtures to Sunni groups in Anbar and Diyala. "These are gangs of killers," he told the AP. Petraeus is following a plan according to a "purely American vision."
How very true and very refreshing. We had been vainly pursuing an Iraqi vision that depended on people like Suneid and Maliki to make the grand bargain. So now, the American vision. "The strategy that Petraeus is following might succeed in confronting al-Qaeda in the early period but it will leave Iraq an armed nation, an armed society and militias," said Suneid.
Again, he is precisely right. His coalition would not or could not disarm the militias. So Petraeus has taken on the two extremes: (a) the Shiite militias and their Iranian Revolutionary Guard enablers, and (b) al-Qaeda, with the help of local Sunnis.
For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution -- for Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Maliki & Co. are afraid we are arming Sunnis for the civil war to come. On the other hand, we might be creating a rough balance of forces that would act as a deterrent to all-out civil war and encourage a relatively peaceful accommodation.
In either case, that will be Iraq's problem after we leave. For now, our problem is al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and the extremist militias on the Shiite side. And we are making enough headway to worry people like Suneid. The Democrats might listen to him to understand how profoundly the situation is changing on the ground -- and think twice before they pull the plug on this complicated, ruthless, hopeful "purely American vision."
#1
The greatest fear of the dhimmicrats is that Bush will be successful, the Iraqi war is won, and Iraq is a democracy amongst the dictatorships in the mideast.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
