"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Thursday, December 08, 2005

IS IRAQ INTRACTABLE?

"INTRACTABLE." That's the word Harry Reid used today, to describe our presence in Iraq. (Kennedy has used it, too; in fact, here are a few other choice quotes from LEADING DEMOCRATS:

They're (the Iraqi people) going to have these elections but that's sort of being imposed on them." Senator Schumer.

“The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.

“…young American soldiers (do not) need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children…” Senator John Kerry.

“The Army is broken, worn out, and living hand to mouth.” Congressman John Murtha.

“The President has dug us into a deep hole in Iraq; it is time for him to stop digging.” Congresswoman and Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi.

“Iraq has become an intractable quagmire.” Senator Kennedy

“The war in Iraq was as bad as the Holocaust." Congressman Charles Rangel.

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.” Senator Richard Durbin.

Sheesh. In 2+ years we've liberated 25 MILLION Iraqi people, rebuilt the infrastructure, they wrote a constitution, they will SOON elect a parliament. THAT'S INTRACTABLE!? And as a result of this invasion: Libya gave up its WMD programs, Syria withdrew after 23 years of occupation in Lebanon, women have won the right to vote in several Arab-Muslim nations, and democracy is spreading throughout the Arab-Muslim world. AND THAT'S INTRACTABLE!? THAT'S A QUAGMIRE?!

NO. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT REAL AMERICANS WILL BE PROUD OF FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

GOLLY: If the Dem/Left had been in charge of WW2, then they would've surrendered DURING the Battle of the Bulge.

If the US Dem/Left had been in charge of the Israeli Labor Party, then they would have surrendered to the Arabs in 1956 - if not before!

If the US Dem/Left had been in charge of Congress in 1980's they would've pulled the plug on the Contras and allowed Ortega and hius Marxist totalitarians keep Nicaragua. OOPS: THEY DID.

If the Dem/Left had been in charge of Congress in 1975, then they would've pulled the plug on the South Vietnamese goverment, and allowed all of Vietnam to fall under the domination of Marxist totalitarianism. OOPS: THEY DID.

Let this be a lesson to the electorate: Don't vote for Democrats in '06. If the Dem/Left takes control of Congress, then they'll do to the Iraqis what they did to the Nicaraguans and the South Vietnamese: abandon them to totalitarianism.

IF YOU ASK ME: The connection between the Dem/Left/dove appeasers and totalitarianism is intractable. And the only quagmires around are the ones the Democrats are stuck in: one called the 1970's; another called Leftism; another called multiculturalism; and another called defeatism.

24 comments:

Pastorius said...

Great post, Reliapundit. That list of Dem statements is a damning doozy.

Spartan said...

Just a quick history check for you

The Democrats were in charge of WWII.

And Vietnam wasn't a war that was winnable, and I'm sure you'll give me the crap about how we were winning every major battle and blah blah blah,

Winning battles and winning wars are two different things.

In a gurillia war such as Vietnam, and what's going on in Iraq, you must win the hearts and minds of the people, any LOGICAL military stratigest will tell you that. Our generals in Vietnam failed to realize that, they have the same attitude you do towards Iraq, WIN at any cost, even our own humanity.

unfortunatly that doesn't exactly work when your fighting an ideology. because the Ideology has'nt a care in the world about human life, it can recruite more and more and more and more, Propaganda is a very usefull tool to it. You must counter the ideology in peoples minds, show then that America is truly the guiding light of the world, not the scourge of the world.

if you go about fighting a war as you suggest, going as far to drop nukes, you Aid the enemy, you show the world that you are evil, and they will be recruited to become your enemy, and then myfriend, the blood shed continues needlessly.

My objection to the war in Iraq isn't "oil" it isn't "secret agenda" though i don't like being mislead into war, my primary objection to this war is the priority it was given. Bin Loden is still free, terrorists can still Easily attack us in the United states, Al Queda is still very strong. Our Military should have marched into Pakistan first, ensured that Bin Loden was safly in U.S coustady, de-nuclearized Iran and North Korea so that they don't sell their weapons to terrorists, THEN overthrow suddam as a last testamant to our cause.

And to do all this without torture, without mass slaughter, and without de-humanizing yourself, THEN you win the hearts and minds of the people, then you secure your victory in the war on terror.


And as to your remarks about multi coulturalism. Multi - coulturalism is what makes our world so great, to have so many different types of people, and different beliefs makes the world interesting and worth fighting for. I suppose you'll give me the same crap I alwayse hear about how it causes wars and blah blah blah.

Multiculturalism doesn't cause wars,

Economics Causes wars.

I can assure you that 99% of all wars fought in Human histoy have economic cause related to them. I admit there are a few wars such as The American Revolution, and the French Revolution, that were fought over Ideology, but they make up a VERY, Very, Very, small minority.

Anonymous said...

the only thing intractable about the iraq war it is the calcified premises and petrified views of the old left.

Gandalin said...

Reliapundit,

Excellent post. The list of defeatist and FALSE daschlecrat statements indicts and convicts them.

But I think you're wrong about the daschlecrats surrendering at the Bulge. I think they would have surrendered after the battle of the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia in 1942.

Spartan,

Without entering into a discussion of the history of all wars, let me simply assert that the vulgar marxism of your economic determinism is false.

And yes, WWII was in the hands of the Democratic Party, but that was a different Democratic Party than the one we have now. The Democratic Party of today is dominated by today's Jeannette Rankins, not today's Harry Trumans.

For an eye-opening insight into winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, I suggest you peruse the ABC News poll of Afghans that was published yesterday. 90% think the USA was RIGHT to remove the Taliban, and 90% think their democracy is moving in the right direction. With the possible exception of the die-hard Sunni-Arab-hegemonists, I think that the results of a similar poll in Iraq will be much the same a year or so from now.

"Multiculturalism" does not mean admiring the many differentl cultures in the world. "Multiculturalism" as an ideology is the left's tool to attack western democratic culture and assert that slave-holding, woman-oppressing, christian-hating ideologies deserve a privileged status that makes them immune from criticism.

And I'll bet you a chocolate milk shake that Bin Laden is "still" dead.

Pastorius said...

Wow, that history lesson was enlightening. I learned that Anonymous has never heard of World War II.

Hey idiot, we were fighting ideology in Germany and Japan too.

For God's sake.

Pastorius said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

hey pastor i us!

I thing you mean spartan, not anonymous...no?

I mean anonymous comment had nothing to do with ww2, but Iraq...

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
You're right. I'm the idiot.

:)

Spartan said...

Yes, but the ideals in WWII were confined to specific nations.

therefore the war was with their nations, not their ideology. Their Ideolgy couldn't spread effectivly enough to recruit entire nations agiast its enemy's, all it could do was simple civil demonstrations in enemy countries, hardly enough to affect the out come of the war.


and WWII goes with my point as no other that war is caused by economics. Hitler Invaded Poland to get more land and therefore more reasorces. The Japanesse bombed pearl harbor over Oil exports, they also invaded China to gain land. Italy invaded North Africa for territory.

Economy, Economy, Economy.

Ideology played little part except for the uprising of the various facist groups that started the war.

Spartan said...

Gandalin, I'm not talking about afganistan, Im taking about Iraq.

I agree Afganistan was the absolute best choice to start the war on terror, but Iraq was the worst possible choice for the second step. Pakistan would have been better, that way we could capture Bin Loden or at the very least shown his body to the world as a testamant to OUR Ideology.

And my assertion to the cause of war is not false, I've studied military history EXTENSIVLY it's been shoved down my throat from many differnt people, I know for a fact that war has economic underlining wether it's the direct cause or not is a different story, but i guarentee you, very few wars are fought in history without the promise of economic gain.

Gandalin said...

Spartan,

Thanks for the dialogue.

What is true in Afghanistan today, will be true in Iraq in due time.

The progress in Iraq is phenomenal. We are helping an Iraqi army to stand up and fight the terrorists. The German army wasn't reconstituted, if memory serves, until 1955. Ten years after the war.

All parties in Iraq are participating fully and massively in next week's parliamentary elections. Democracy is taking hold.

As far as where to take the war on terror was concerned, you have to go where you have a chance of making a difference. America's victory in Iraq has already achieved the total transformation of Iraqi political life, the birth of the only free press in the Arab world, the destruction of Libya's WMD programs, the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and even progress towards democracy in the most populous Arab country, Egypt. I think that Pakistan might not have been the best place to go after Afghanistan. I think Iraq was an appropriate place, especially since we had been at war with Saddam since 1991, albeit in a low-key way. But remember, hundreds of thousands of sorties were flown over Iraq in the 90s, and many of them came under AA and missile fire.

Remember that after Pearl Harbor, the first American invasion was not of Japan. Nor Germany. Nor even Europe. It was Tunisia. And it was a debacle. Thank God Patton saved the day.

Finally, as to the economic underpinnings of war. One could make the argument that nothing in life is done by anyone without some promise of economic gain in the offing. But saying so is really not very helpful.

Gandalin

Pastorius said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastorius said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pastorius said...

Spartan,
We are fighting specific countries in this war. I always thought the idea of a "War on Terror" was an odd idea. But, I think the phrase was chosen because it would have been harder to sell the idea that we were going to attack Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Syria, then Iran, etc.

Plus, it would be stupid to tell everybody what we were going to do.

I remember shortly after 9/11, Colin Powell said, "Regime change will be necessary." Regimes are, of course, the governments of specific countries.

What is your point about wars having an economic factor? I don't understand what kind of point that is. Of course, economics is about the flow of goods and services and money. When any country or business exchanges Goods, services, and money with any other country or business, a dependancy is formed. Where there is dependancy there are issues of power. When a country feels it's power is threatened it is always because of ideology. Let's look at it on a micro-level. The other day, I bought a desktop at Fry's Computers. When I bought it, the sales guy insisted I needed to buy a particular software package. When I got home, I opened the software and began the process of putting it into the computer, only to find out that, not only did it not work with the desktop, but that the computer already had another software package that did the same thing.

So, I took the software back to Fry's and asked for my money back. They refused, saying they don't give refunds on open software. I asked them why they allowed their sales people to advise on which software should go with a particular computer. They said it didn't matter.

The conflict was over ideology. I believe they should tell the customer the truth, and if they didn't they should refund the money. They believed that they should not have to refund money on open software.

And there was no way I was going to allow them to do that to me.

My solution? Cause a scene so that they had to give me my money back, or risk alienating every other customer within earshot.

Now, you see, that was a situation where I felt they did something absolutely wrong. They felt justified in sticking to their rules. We were having a conflict of power. The only way to solve it was to butt heads. I won.

If I would have had no economic relationship with Fry's, the two of us would have had no reason to conflict. In fact, only insane people have conflicts with people or institutions with whom they have no relationship. (Kind of like me, in having this conversation with you :).

Now, going back to the macro-level, of course, if the United States feels it's interests (economic and military) are threatened we are going to retaliate. Iran, Hussein, and to a lesser extent Syria, have all directly threatened the United States on numerous occasions, and they sit on top of a lot of oil. In the case of Iran and Iraq, we had ceased buying oil from them for the very reason that they were murderous and threatening regimes. But, even when we don't buy oil from them, they still hold some power over us, in that they represent a powerful part of the oil market, so they effect our purchasing.

Honestly, I don't understand how economics, power, and military can ever be separated, except in the case of the aforementioned insane person.

Maybe I am missing something in your point.

reliapundit said...

the centrality of persian gulf oil to the West (and the USA's assumtion of the right to defend persian gulf oil for the West) was first officially enunciated by President Jimmy Carter in his SOTU in January 1980 - (before Reagan had even been nominated).

That's why it is STILL caledd THE CARTER DOCTRINE.

Google it.

The West - and all nations which aspire to our STANDARD OF LIVING - NEED ENERGY.

Without energy sources there is no electricity, hot water, or industry - no products, noo food moving from farmalnmd to market, no stock market - NO ECONOMY. NO JOBS -- just poverty, unemployment, and social unrest.

STANDARD OF LIVING is NOT some "bad thing" either - high lvign standards is, after all, what socialism is all about; Marxis was ALL ABOUT IMPORVING liiving standards for the workers.

Well without oil, the workers living standards COLLAPSE with everybody el;eses.

So defending THE FREE FLOW OF OIL FROM THE FIELD TO THE MARKET is NOT DEFENDING the interests of a few corporations. LIKE CARTER SAID: it is defending out way of life and our living standards.

For the Third World's poor to IMPORVE their living standards, they will have to increase their use of energy. As China and Indioa energe from poverty they are consuming MORE ENERGY. The world needs MORE oil, not less - and not 25% of it under the control of islamofascists who would just as soon see us freeze in the winter as cut off our heads.

SO... as Pastorius says: we shouldn't separate our HUMANITARIAN interests from our economic.

Another way to prove that the Left's argument that the war was for oil is STUPID AND WRONG it by saying that prospetty and international stability are y-products of liberty and democracy.

So as we deomcratize the Middle East, we are making them more properosu and less likely to attack their neighbors or us or anyone.

Liberty and democracy are the cures for what are some of the 'root causes" of islamofascism -- or at least a major EXCUSE for it: poverty and tyranny.

Jihadoterrorists need tryanny to inflict their evil creed on the people.

When we TAKE AWAY what the islamofascists IMPOSE on their people, we LIBERATE the people, and make them able to becoem more prosperous and less belligerant.

And then there's this aside, Pastorius: son;t you love how Leftists always accuse the ERight of doing EVERYTHING for material reasons - follow the money - as if ONLY the Left had altruistic reasons for anything.

That's all BS.

In fgact every single genocidal tyrant of the last century was a leftist, andf they slaughtered more people in one centruy than relgion did in the preceeding 20 centuries.

Yet the Left says religion is dangerous! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Bush is a altruist - one who bucked the 'realists" in his own party to undertake the BOLD and IDEALISTIC war we are now in.

Those who deride his aims are projecting their own pettiness on Bush.

BTW: Merry Christmas!

Pastorius said...

Thanks for clarifying my muddled statement, Reliapundit.

To sum up what I was trying to say, put it this way,

ALL ECONOMICS IS IDEOLOGY AND VICE VERSA.

Our ideology is the manifested in the way we order our lives. The way we order our lives dictates the goods and services we use. Even if we are completely spiritual people we will buy food and furniture for our family. And we will buy material to clote them, and a house to live in.

And, like Reliapundit says, the better standard of living, the more energy is needed. For now, the most affordable form of energy is oil.

Can't wait until a liberal scientist invents something cheaper and cleaner. I would love to get past this argument.

Spartan said...

Pastorius, you bring up a interesting point about frys electronics, but your dispute with Frys was over your MONEY. you wanted your MONEY back because you feel they cheated you in a trade deal thecnicly speaking, eventhough no mater what your on the deficet side of that trade balance because they diliberatly sell the item for more than it's worth, but thats a debate for another time, actually I think I already made that point to Replipudit in an earlier post. oh well, the point is, your dispute was over money. now, Ideology, as in war, is often a factor, but it wasn't the route cause, you wouldn't have challenged that ideology had they not taken your money, therfore it is the rout cause of the problem, and the idology behind it fules the conflict, but it does not start it.

and I do concur with your statment of alternitive fule scource, however i fear that oil companies will not take such threats to their business lightly.

Spartan said...

TO say oil had no play in the Iraq war is blind ignorance. It's Iraqs biggest reasorce, somthing our nation DEPENDS on, it's like a drug to our country, we're addicted to it. I dare say, if oil wasn't a factor in the Iraq war, then why aren't we after the more dangerous places? like North Korea? or pakistan?

Now, as to your debates to the war on terror, we are fighting IN countries, many countries my point about the idology, is that this Ideology has spread to the far corners of the world, it is limited to no one area. It's all over the Mid east, its' in india, it's in Russia, it's in Africa, It's in China, and indonesia, and endo china, as well as parts of central and south america.

Nazism was limited to Deutschland, and where ever they chose to expand to. sure the idology was in america, but it had no power, except for demonstrations and the occasional hate crime, absolutly nothing on the scale it was in Deutschland. same goes with Japaneese Bushido, it was limited to the japaneese people, once we defeated them, the ideology died.

The ideology of terror will no die with the overthrow of countries alone, it prays on angry Youths and poverty. It knows no boundries, no particular race of people. and quite possibly most frigtning of all, those who embrace it are not afraid to die, and when they die, it is in a display of the ideology, which then spreads threw every media outlet in the world, to it's next victims who will do the same, and the cycle repeats itself.

It knows no limits. I agree Iraq is an important nation in the war on terror, but it was a poor second choice, and was rushed into unprepared.

It would have been better to show the world the carcas of Osoma Bin Loden First, then de-nuclearized major threats like Iran and North Korea, and pakistan, put pressure on the saudi government to activly hunt and destroy terror cells, Then as your last testamant to freedom, overthrow Saddam Hussaine.

Then the enemy Ideology would be crippled, and the masses in othercountries would have seen the guiding light of american, and instaget their own revolution.

Of corse our reputation of Torture, and mass murder only helps to feed our enemy more rapidly and give it more and more recruites to sacrafice themselves.
More soldiers will die then needed in this war on terror because of the poor judgment used by this administration.

its a shame really.

Pastorius said...

Spartan,
You are jousting with windmills. We are not saying oil had nothing to do with Iraq. We are saying that economics and ideology are part and parcel of the same thing.

Egads. (Sorry for calling you an idiot this morning. You are not.)

My dispute with Fry's WAS over ideology. Believe me, if I had not been so offended by their bad behavior, I would not have compromised my dignity for 100 bucks. It's a stupid way to behave, but we, as consumers, can not afford to allow companies like Fry's to exist under an evil ideology; in this case, "we will sell you something you don't need, and then, when you find you don't need it, we will refuse you your money back."

How can you say that is not an ideology. I am a sales person by trade, dude. I know a sales ideology when I see one.

Pastorius said...

Spartan,

You said: The ideology of terror will no die with the overthrow of countries alone, it prays on angry Youths and poverty. It knows no boundries, no particular race of people. and quite possibly most frigtning of all, those who embrace it are not afraid to die, and when they die, it is in a display of the ideology ...
---

Ok, now I understand what your beef is. But, I don't agree. Yes, we are fighting in many, many countries (like, for instance, the Phillipines), but those are police actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about denying terrorists a state-sponsored base, and about denying them access to WMD. That's why it will be on to Syria and Iran next. There are certain countries whom we believe will cooperate with terrorists, and then there are other countries who we think hate the terrorists in their midst. The ones who will cooperate, we will take out. The ones who hate the terrorist within their borders, we will help.

Doesn't that make sense?

Pastorius said...

Spartan,

You said: The ideology of terror will no die with the overthrow of countries alone, it prays on angry Youths and poverty. It knows no boundries, no particular race of people. and quite possibly most frigtning of all, those who embrace it are not afraid to die, and when they die, it is in a display of the ideology ...
---

Ok, now I understand what your beef is. But, I don't agree. Yes, we are fighting in many, many countries (like, for instance, the Phillipines), but those are police actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about denying terrorists a state-sponsored base, and about denying them access to WMD. That's why it will be on to Syria and Iran next. There are certain countries whom we believe will cooperate with terrorists, and then there are other countries who we think hate the terrorists in their midst. The ones who will cooperate, we will take out. The ones who hate the terrorist within their borders, we will help.

Doesn't that make sense?

Anonymous said...

Hey pastorius!

you're not an idiot - just made a mistake reading anonymous as the author of that drivel above...

Its ok - I made a mistake once - I thought I was wrong, but I was right!

Gandalin said...

Iraq's really most imnportant asset is not oil, which everybody around the Persian Gulf has plenty of, but WATER, which nobody else in the vicinity has any of. The Tigris and the Euphrates, and the great Marshes, are a unique resource.

Saddam's deliberate draining of the Marshes was one of the filthiest genocidal ecological crimes of all time.

Thank God that George W Bush had the courage to overthrow Saddam, and that the Marshes are being restored.

Gandalin

reliapundit said...

spartan, your cpmments are ill-informed. and idiotic. please stay away from here. thanks.