This is odd. The SF School Board (Michelle Malkin) wants to toss out the Junior ROTC from the SF School system because the miltary's Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy. As I recall, this policy was set up by Bill Clinton as a compromise between conservatives who want a complete ban on gays in the military and liberals who would like the military to become a gay institution.
In the ever repeating history department, it is interesting that San Francisco Liberals are trying to set Nancy Pelosi's rise to power off on the same misstep that tripped up Clinton.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
Al Quaida's Victory
al quaida is celebrating its victory in the 2006 US Elections and hopes to have genocides in full swing throughout the world in a few years.
It is interesting how so much of the propaganda generated by radical Islam matches to the propaganda of modern progressives. It is almost as if many of the revolutionary leaders of radical Islam went to school in the west. Oh, wait a second. Many of them did learn their revolutionary thinking in modern leftist schools.
The big similarities that I see in this Yahoo report is that the al qaida propagandists repeat the same attacks on Bush's intelligence that Nancy Pelosi successfully used in her rise to power..
Anyway, while listening to the post 2006 election reports, I am startled by the large number of reporters who accept that a complete withdrawl from Iraq is a done deal.
Changing direction does not necessarily mean surrender. It could mean that we try to find different ways to fight the enemy.
A much smarter idea is to stay in Iraq, but to simply move our troops out of harm's way. Bush's course involved directly engaging terrorists. Chaning course could mean that we leave offensive engaging the enemy to the Iraqis. Our forces would stay in Iraq but would be in well defended places. In other words, we get out of the businesses of trying to protect the Iraqis from themselves. We would only be there to help prevent an invasion from Iran and our forces would really only be in places that we have well defended.
The idea that the 2006 election means we must retreat is very naive.
Lets quickly review the problem: Al quaida and other terrorist groups are willing to kill millions of civilians to take power. This war in Iraq is simply one where terrorists kill civilians by the thousands while we watch in horror and want to get out. If we follow our impulse and set the precedence that we will retreat whenever we encounter a force willing to kill large numbers of people, we will eventually end up surrending the whole world to these forces.
Yes, surrending will stop our newspapers from reporting the killings. It does not stop the actual killings. When we followed John Kerry in a retreat from Vietnam, our press stopped giving us daily reports on the deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia. However, after the retreats, the there was an exponential increase in the killings. Not seeing the killings reported in the paper does not mean they did not happen.
So, lets say we give Iraq to Al Quaida. The terrorists will see that their technique of killing large numbers of innocent civilians is successful. They will then start killing tens of of thousands of people in Afghanistan. Because we can't stand reading about murders, we will follow John Kerry in another retreat and give that country back to the Taliban. Next the terrorists will move on to Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.. Terrorists will start killing tens of thousands of people in these countries until we retreat. With the Mideast secure, the Arab terrorists will be in the position to practice their mojo in Spain, France and Turkey.
The technique is simple. If you are willing to kill large numbers of people, the west will run, just as the West ran from Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, Vietnam and Somalia. Any fool who stands up to the tides of history, as Bush tried, will simply be labeled by the left as an incompetent.
Now, most of the Democrats who won in 2006 are moderates. They are not seeking a Kerry style retreat. The fact that our left leaning press is treating the election as a victory for the left leaning al quaida is really absurd.
The 2006 Democratic victory should be reconized as an opportunity to create a bipartisan policy to support the struggling young democracy in Iraq. The yammering of talking heads who've concluded that we have no option except retreat might create a self fulfilling prophesy.
It is interesting how so much of the propaganda generated by radical Islam matches to the propaganda of modern progressives. It is almost as if many of the revolutionary leaders of radical Islam went to school in the west. Oh, wait a second. Many of them did learn their revolutionary thinking in modern leftist schools.
The big similarities that I see in this Yahoo report is that the al qaida propagandists repeat the same attacks on Bush's intelligence that Nancy Pelosi successfully used in her rise to power..
Anyway, while listening to the post 2006 election reports, I am startled by the large number of reporters who accept that a complete withdrawl from Iraq is a done deal.
Changing direction does not necessarily mean surrender. It could mean that we try to find different ways to fight the enemy.
A much smarter idea is to stay in Iraq, but to simply move our troops out of harm's way. Bush's course involved directly engaging terrorists. Chaning course could mean that we leave offensive engaging the enemy to the Iraqis. Our forces would stay in Iraq but would be in well defended places. In other words, we get out of the businesses of trying to protect the Iraqis from themselves. We would only be there to help prevent an invasion from Iran and our forces would really only be in places that we have well defended.
The idea that the 2006 election means we must retreat is very naive.
Lets quickly review the problem: Al quaida and other terrorist groups are willing to kill millions of civilians to take power. This war in Iraq is simply one where terrorists kill civilians by the thousands while we watch in horror and want to get out. If we follow our impulse and set the precedence that we will retreat whenever we encounter a force willing to kill large numbers of people, we will eventually end up surrending the whole world to these forces.
Yes, surrending will stop our newspapers from reporting the killings. It does not stop the actual killings. When we followed John Kerry in a retreat from Vietnam, our press stopped giving us daily reports on the deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia. However, after the retreats, the there was an exponential increase in the killings. Not seeing the killings reported in the paper does not mean they did not happen.
So, lets say we give Iraq to Al Quaida. The terrorists will see that their technique of killing large numbers of innocent civilians is successful. They will then start killing tens of of thousands of people in Afghanistan. Because we can't stand reading about murders, we will follow John Kerry in another retreat and give that country back to the Taliban. Next the terrorists will move on to Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.. Terrorists will start killing tens of thousands of people in these countries until we retreat. With the Mideast secure, the Arab terrorists will be in the position to practice their mojo in Spain, France and Turkey.
The technique is simple. If you are willing to kill large numbers of people, the west will run, just as the West ran from Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, Vietnam and Somalia. Any fool who stands up to the tides of history, as Bush tried, will simply be labeled by the left as an incompetent.
Now, most of the Democrats who won in 2006 are moderates. They are not seeking a Kerry style retreat. The fact that our left leaning press is treating the election as a victory for the left leaning al quaida is really absurd.
The 2006 Democratic victory should be reconized as an opportunity to create a bipartisan policy to support the struggling young democracy in Iraq. The yammering of talking heads who've concluded that we have no option except retreat might create a self fulfilling prophesy.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Is Bolton Next?
I think that Axing Rumsfeld was a good idea.
I think the new Democratic majority would do very well at this point to approve the nomination of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nation.
The UN is in dire need of reform. Having a gruff UN critic as our UN ambassador could help the United States achieve that goal. The majority of Bolton's complaints are dead on. The standard dried in the wool internationalist who usually serves as UN ambassador would be less effective in inducing positive change.
Remeber, the UN stood by to watch genocides in Sudan, Rwanda and even in Iraq. IMHO, the corruption of the UN by the oil for food program was one of the contributing factors to the current mess.
There is value to having a harsh critic or two. Bolton is one of those harsh critics who can induce change. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is the typical insider technocrat who has the magic ability to turn victories into defeat.
I think the new Democratic majority would do very well at this point to approve the nomination of John Bolton as the Ambassador to the United Nation.
The UN is in dire need of reform. Having a gruff UN critic as our UN ambassador could help the United States achieve that goal. The majority of Bolton's complaints are dead on. The standard dried in the wool internationalist who usually serves as UN ambassador would be less effective in inducing positive change.
Remeber, the UN stood by to watch genocides in Sudan, Rwanda and even in Iraq. IMHO, the corruption of the UN by the oil for food program was one of the contributing factors to the current mess.
There is value to having a harsh critic or two. Bolton is one of those harsh critics who can induce change. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is the typical insider technocrat who has the magic ability to turn victories into defeat.
Rumsfelds Gone. Hurray!
Rumsfeld's Out!
This is the best news I've heard for several months.
Michelle Malkin is correct that the Rumsfeld served honorable! The problem is that the guy has that neocon/Machiavellian approach to issues that tends to accomplish the opposite of what our nation needs.
Rumsfeld kept coming out and doing stupid things like appearing to favor the use of torture, and the use of landmines. Neither the use of torture nor the use of landmines is in the United State's interest.
There are reasons why bans on torture and landmines fall short.
Instead of pointing out these reasons, Rumsfeld would blunder into prattle that made the Bush Administration look like it supported the use of torture and landmines.
(The reason that bans on torture don't work is that different countries have different definitions of what is and what is not torture. Members of the international community wanting to embarrass the US could define any interrogation techique as torture. Conversely, when our intelligence community is working abroad, say in Saudi Arabia, we have the problem that they do commit torture. A total ban on torture prevent us from working with an ally.
The Landmine Ban has an overly aggressive schedule for removing the landmines between North and South Korea. The international community should not be destabilizing that area, even for the worthy cause of a landmine ban.
The Bush Administration would have done well to rid itself of Rumsfeld a long time ago.
So far, the change in leadership of the House is serving our nation well.
Nancy Pelosi has come out and said that the Democratic leadership will change its tact from an unending attack on the adminstration to one of cooperation. If this is true, there is hope for a peaceful resolution to the problems in Iraq.
Conversely, if the next two years degenerated into a two year Democratic campaign for the presidency, then the world would become a more divided and hateful place.
I belittled Howard Dean for a backhanded call for civility. If the Democratic controlled Congress does behave in a civil manner, then things can get better.
This is the best news I've heard for several months.
Michelle Malkin is correct that the Rumsfeld served honorable! The problem is that the guy has that neocon/Machiavellian approach to issues that tends to accomplish the opposite of what our nation needs.
Rumsfeld kept coming out and doing stupid things like appearing to favor the use of torture, and the use of landmines. Neither the use of torture nor the use of landmines is in the United State's interest.
There are reasons why bans on torture and landmines fall short.
Instead of pointing out these reasons, Rumsfeld would blunder into prattle that made the Bush Administration look like it supported the use of torture and landmines.
(The reason that bans on torture don't work is that different countries have different definitions of what is and what is not torture. Members of the international community wanting to embarrass the US could define any interrogation techique as torture. Conversely, when our intelligence community is working abroad, say in Saudi Arabia, we have the problem that they do commit torture. A total ban on torture prevent us from working with an ally.
The Landmine Ban has an overly aggressive schedule for removing the landmines between North and South Korea. The international community should not be destabilizing that area, even for the worthy cause of a landmine ban.
The Bush Administration would have done well to rid itself of Rumsfeld a long time ago.
So far, the change in leadership of the House is serving our nation well.
Nancy Pelosi has come out and said that the Democratic leadership will change its tact from an unending attack on the adminstration to one of cooperation. If this is true, there is hope for a peaceful resolution to the problems in Iraq.
Conversely, if the next two years degenerated into a two year Democratic campaign for the presidency, then the world would become a more divided and hateful place.
I belittled Howard Dean for a backhanded call for civility. If the Democratic controlled Congress does behave in a civil manner, then things can get better.
The US is Very Lucky
I voted with the new Deibold machines. The vote was extremely clean. I voted the usual mix of Democratic, Republican mixed candidates.
In this regard, I am happy that the Democrats won. The left wing has thrown millions of dollars and millions of man hours into a disinformation campaign to convince the world that the elections are rigged.
The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration has done a horrible job convincing the public that there is value to the traditional values that had made the United States such a wealthy nation. Bush earned this kick in the rear.
During the Bush administration, the Republicans had abandonned too much of their ideology and tried to buy continued power through expensive idiocies like the presciption drug gimmick, and tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. The Republicans have a difficult, but not impossible task, in the next two years to convince the American people that freedom is a good thing.
Since the left has a winning strategy of claiming all electoral losses as fraud, the Republicans have to have a strategy that goes beyond their last minute get out the vote campaign.
The 2006 election really goes down as one of the most pathetic things in history. The primary campaign for the Democrats was simply hatred for Bush, and the primary campaign of the Republicans was the fact that the Democrats are worse.
On the plus side, we only have to deal with Nancy Pelosi for two years. Unlike Nicaraguan vote for Ortega that effectively ends democracy in that country, this vote didn't end US democracy. It was a pathetic, idea free stage in a series of elections. We can only hope that the Republican leadership realizes that their abandonning the ideals of limited government and freedom for the people led to their losing the election.
In this regard, I am happy that the Democrats won. The left wing has thrown millions of dollars and millions of man hours into a disinformation campaign to convince the world that the elections are rigged.
The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration has done a horrible job convincing the public that there is value to the traditional values that had made the United States such a wealthy nation. Bush earned this kick in the rear.
During the Bush administration, the Republicans had abandonned too much of their ideology and tried to buy continued power through expensive idiocies like the presciption drug gimmick, and tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. The Republicans have a difficult, but not impossible task, in the next two years to convince the American people that freedom is a good thing.
Since the left has a winning strategy of claiming all electoral losses as fraud, the Republicans have to have a strategy that goes beyond their last minute get out the vote campaign.
The 2006 election really goes down as one of the most pathetic things in history. The primary campaign for the Democrats was simply hatred for Bush, and the primary campaign of the Republicans was the fact that the Democrats are worse.
On the plus side, we only have to deal with Nancy Pelosi for two years. Unlike Nicaraguan vote for Ortega that effectively ends democracy in that country, this vote didn't end US democracy. It was a pathetic, idea free stage in a series of elections. We can only hope that the Republican leadership realizes that their abandonning the ideals of limited government and freedom for the people led to their losing the election.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Projection???
Democratic leader Howard Dean just said this on TV:
"We are going to be civil ... Unlike the Republicans."
The fact that this claiming of civility is immediately followed by a jab at his enemies makes me interpret both the statement and the smirk on Dean's face as an instance of a politician projecting his methods onto his opponents.
We are not going to be able to return to civil discourse until we get people who realize that the incivility is coming from the foundations of the modern system of reasoning. It is not just a matter of those Republicans lacking civility.
In my modern liberal schooling, I had learned to attack my enemies by creating an undercurrent of subtle barbs in their direction. The constant assault of subtle jabs, however, eventually closes off discourse.
Everything I have seen of Bush 1 and Bush 2 is that the Bushes are primarily civil. The main fault I see in George Bush is that he instinctively deflects the constant bombardment of subtle jabs with Bushisms. That is not incivility. It might be insecurity. More likely, it is a studied method that the Bush's have developed to thrive in an era when the foundations of discourse have been eroded. Unfortunately, the method shuts off one's ability to engage in discourse.
The years of Bush rule has been so frustrating for most of the Conservatives and Classical Liberals that I know because Bush has failed to engage the world in the good ideas that the Conservatives and Classical Liberals have.
I doubt we will see a new age of civility in Washington. I think it will be a question of whether the Democrats decide to continue the barrage of subtle barbs, or if they blossom into two years of loud criticism in the style of Keith Olbermann.
"We are going to be civil ... Unlike the Republicans."
The fact that this claiming of civility is immediately followed by a jab at his enemies makes me interpret both the statement and the smirk on Dean's face as an instance of a politician projecting his methods onto his opponents.
We are not going to be able to return to civil discourse until we get people who realize that the incivility is coming from the foundations of the modern system of reasoning. It is not just a matter of those Republicans lacking civility.
In my modern liberal schooling, I had learned to attack my enemies by creating an undercurrent of subtle barbs in their direction. The constant assault of subtle jabs, however, eventually closes off discourse.
Everything I have seen of Bush 1 and Bush 2 is that the Bushes are primarily civil. The main fault I see in George Bush is that he instinctively deflects the constant bombardment of subtle jabs with Bushisms. That is not incivility. It might be insecurity. More likely, it is a studied method that the Bush's have developed to thrive in an era when the foundations of discourse have been eroded. Unfortunately, the method shuts off one's ability to engage in discourse.
The years of Bush rule has been so frustrating for most of the Conservatives and Classical Liberals that I know because Bush has failed to engage the world in the good ideas that the Conservatives and Classical Liberals have.
I doubt we will see a new age of civility in Washington. I think it will be a question of whether the Democrats decide to continue the barrage of subtle barbs, or if they blossom into two years of loud criticism in the style of Keith Olbermann.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Activists Watching Polls
Conservatives have made a big mistake by not taking more time in the last several elections to assure the integrity of the voting apparatus. Meanwhile the left has made big strides in a relentless misinformation campaign to imply that anyone against socialism cheats on elections.
The truth of the matter is that dirty politicians on both sides of the great partisan divide cheat.
Michelle Malkin just pointed out that we now have a new problem with the 2006 elections: An ongoing campaign to associate the Republican Party with voter fraud has created a new brand of activist set to prove (at all costs) that Republicans cheat.
I do worry about voter fraud. To have honest elections, you need a group who's focus is on the accuracy of the vote count. By definition, activists are looking out for the partisan concerns. An activist is not interested in the accuracy of the vote, but on the success of their party.
The other thing one must fear when one digs through accusations of cheating is that people inclined to cheating themselves often have a tendency of projecting their methods onto others.
I do believe that there are members in both party willing to commit fraud. In a previous post, I noted that Republican controlled districts often have the newest voting machines because the people who control the district are sticklers about the accuracy of the vote. Democratic districts often have older voting machines as the leaders see themselves as the proper representative of the people and counting the vote is just a formality.
I think the Republican voters feel that they are assuring a more accurate vote by investing heaving in voting machines. Oddly, this massive investment in trying to assure voter accuracy opens Republicans to even more accusations that they are cheats.
I think Michelle Malkin is correct to bring up the fact that we need to watch activists who are claiming to be watching the polls. With activists who have a strong political motivation to accuse their opponents of fraud, we are left with a very volatile political situation with the counting of the vote.
I am an independent. I always vote a mix of parties. When approached by exit pollers, I've always lied about my vote.
This year, I hope people are honest with their votes. Regardless of whether or not there is fraud, any disparity between exit polls and counted votes will be reported in the media as fraud.
The truth of the matter is that dirty politicians on both sides of the great partisan divide cheat.
Michelle Malkin just pointed out that we now have a new problem with the 2006 elections: An ongoing campaign to associate the Republican Party with voter fraud has created a new brand of activist set to prove (at all costs) that Republicans cheat.
I do worry about voter fraud. To have honest elections, you need a group who's focus is on the accuracy of the vote count. By definition, activists are looking out for the partisan concerns. An activist is not interested in the accuracy of the vote, but on the success of their party.
The other thing one must fear when one digs through accusations of cheating is that people inclined to cheating themselves often have a tendency of projecting their methods onto others.
I do believe that there are members in both party willing to commit fraud. In a previous post, I noted that Republican controlled districts often have the newest voting machines because the people who control the district are sticklers about the accuracy of the vote. Democratic districts often have older voting machines as the leaders see themselves as the proper representative of the people and counting the vote is just a formality.
I think the Republican voters feel that they are assuring a more accurate vote by investing heaving in voting machines. Oddly, this massive investment in trying to assure voter accuracy opens Republicans to even more accusations that they are cheats.
I think Michelle Malkin is correct to bring up the fact that we need to watch activists who are claiming to be watching the polls. With activists who have a strong political motivation to accuse their opponents of fraud, we are left with a very volatile political situation with the counting of the vote.
I am an independent. I always vote a mix of parties. When approached by exit pollers, I've always lied about my vote.
This year, I hope people are honest with their votes. Regardless of whether or not there is fraud, any disparity between exit polls and counted votes will be reported in the media as fraud.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Cruelty to Puppies
Readers of this blog have probably guessed that I am a mean and cruel person at heart. Readers wanting proof of my innate cruelty will probably want to file this photo in the "Mr. Delaney is Sadistic" folder. Coco was such a nice dog. We will all miss her ... but, hey, I got the shot I was looking for. That is all that matters to me. I will probably get death threats from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and recipe requests from PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals).
Yes, it is a cruel, cruel, cruel world.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Yes, I did know it was a bad joke
Discourse in the US really has deteriorated to new lows. This is my prediction about the 2006 election (It was pretty much the same for the 2004 election). If voters are thinking about Bush at the time they vote, they will vote Democrat. If they are thinking about what will happen if the Democrats gained the House and Senate, they will vote Republican.
Think about this for a moment. The primary complaint in this election is that the Republican party has been taken over by a think called a Neo-Conservative. Neocons include groups like the Dixiecrats and Mormons that are essentially Democrats who became Republican because they were either kicked out of the Democratic Party or they saw the Republican party as an easier host to dominate.
We are upset that the Republicans have become Democrats. But how are we to fix this problem by electing Democrats? Of course, the Democrats have taken a leap to the left, I don't see that as much of an improvement.
Election 2006 is a game of the Democrats trying to keep the Bush-hatred they've cultivated for the last several years in full force, while Republicans have to get America thinking about the horrible thing that the Democratic party has become under the leadership of Kerry, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.
Kerry's anti-troop gafaw got this ugly side of the Democrats on the front page.
The counter response by the media (the majority of whom are Democrats) is to repeat the mantra that Kerry's anti-troop Freudian slip was really a missed time Bush bashing joke.
GUESS WHAT????
The majority of Conservatives know that Kerry's Freudian slip was a bad joke gone wrong?
The modern progressive method of argumentation is to sling ridicule at their opponents. Look at the blogosphere, each day progressive pundits pop forth with several hundred mean little insults or anti-Bush jokes. The ones that get people stirred up go viral and increase the hatred and division in the world.
I dislike this method of argumentation. Yes, Kerry was trying out ways of insulting Bush when he made a Freudian slip and insulted the military instead. I find the fact that his ugly method of gaining power by ridicule backfired and Kerry is in retreat is wonderful.
The neocons (Democrats who became Republicans) and the Progressives are both destroying our ability to engage in discourse.
Because the methods of both parties are undermining discourse, my hope is that the Republicans retain the Congress. If this happens, the Republicans will spend the next two years challenging Bush ... and the Democrats might reconsider their leap to the left. While if the Democrats gain control of Congress, we will have two more years where this ugly method of rhetoric continues to escalate.
Think about this for a moment. The primary complaint in this election is that the Republican party has been taken over by a think called a Neo-Conservative. Neocons include groups like the Dixiecrats and Mormons that are essentially Democrats who became Republican because they were either kicked out of the Democratic Party or they saw the Republican party as an easier host to dominate.
We are upset that the Republicans have become Democrats. But how are we to fix this problem by electing Democrats? Of course, the Democrats have taken a leap to the left, I don't see that as much of an improvement.
Election 2006 is a game of the Democrats trying to keep the Bush-hatred they've cultivated for the last several years in full force, while Republicans have to get America thinking about the horrible thing that the Democratic party has become under the leadership of Kerry, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi.
Kerry's anti-troop gafaw got this ugly side of the Democrats on the front page.
The counter response by the media (the majority of whom are Democrats) is to repeat the mantra that Kerry's anti-troop Freudian slip was really a missed time Bush bashing joke.
GUESS WHAT????
The majority of Conservatives know that Kerry's Freudian slip was a bad joke gone wrong?
The modern progressive method of argumentation is to sling ridicule at their opponents. Look at the blogosphere, each day progressive pundits pop forth with several hundred mean little insults or anti-Bush jokes. The ones that get people stirred up go viral and increase the hatred and division in the world.
I dislike this method of argumentation. Yes, Kerry was trying out ways of insulting Bush when he made a Freudian slip and insulted the military instead. I find the fact that his ugly method of gaining power by ridicule backfired and Kerry is in retreat is wonderful.
The neocons (Democrats who became Republicans) and the Progressives are both destroying our ability to engage in discourse.
Because the methods of both parties are undermining discourse, my hope is that the Republicans retain the Congress. If this happens, the Republicans will spend the next two years challenging Bush ... and the Democrats might reconsider their leap to the left. While if the Democrats gain control of Congress, we will have two more years where this ugly method of rhetoric continues to escalate.
An Impassioned Plea
Thankfully, there is a little bit of free press left in the world. Michelle Malkin is running an image that was smuggled out of Iraq showing US Troops pushing their limited intellects to the max in a desperate plea for John Kerry to come and save them. While I prefer to invest my time reading great thinkers like Noam Chomsky (praise to the Chomsky), I admit I am often inspired when I see the lower uneducated classes (like the US Army) trying to formulate complete sentences. A whole US army troop was able to put together almost one complete sentence.
(Link to Photo)
As for the mayhem in Iraq. The reality in Iraq (the large number of civilian casualties and sectarian violence) is a lot less than I thought it would be when we invaded in 2003.
Saddam Hussein had suppressed his people by infesting the country with a very violent nihilistic philosophy (an Islamic version of Stalinism). The people in Iraq have to make their choice of following this nihilistic way of life or of trying to establish a classical democracy. What is going on right now is that Iraq and the world are seeing on the big screen the inevitable results of this left leaning version of politics.
I was against invading Iraq in 2003 because the violence we are seeing at the moment really was inevitable. Quite frankly, I am amazed that that American troops have actually been able to keep the violence contained to the extent that they have. I am proud of the fact that American soldiers are standing up against nihilism of the Jihadist philosophy ... even if it takes a whole troop of soldiers to write one sentence.
(Link to Photo)
As for the mayhem in Iraq. The reality in Iraq (the large number of civilian casualties and sectarian violence) is a lot less than I thought it would be when we invaded in 2003.
Saddam Hussein had suppressed his people by infesting the country with a very violent nihilistic philosophy (an Islamic version of Stalinism). The people in Iraq have to make their choice of following this nihilistic way of life or of trying to establish a classical democracy. What is going on right now is that Iraq and the world are seeing on the big screen the inevitable results of this left leaning version of politics.
I was against invading Iraq in 2003 because the violence we are seeing at the moment really was inevitable. Quite frankly, I am amazed that that American troops have actually been able to keep the violence contained to the extent that they have. I am proud of the fact that American soldiers are standing up against nihilism of the Jihadist philosophy ... even if it takes a whole troop of soldiers to write one sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)