Comments

Shh, don’t tell: progress in Iraq — 101 Comments

1. The generals have their perspective – as do the grunts. One of my oldest and best friends is on leave from Baghdad. He tells me one day they are fighting Sunni’s one day, Shia the next; combinations of murders vary, and gratitude from those we are protecting short lived. The next day one or the other murderers are lobbing mortars at soldiers. The Iraqi police hate the soldiers and are always suspected of ratting them out, yet calling for help when they are attacked. From a grunts perspective, the surge is not making things better, and what has always been as much of an inevitable conflict as Iraq has been an inevitable implosion just isn’t worth America blood – of our soldiers or innocent Iraqis. But again the war has been inevitable because radical Islam insist it is, and more is yet to come. We can not unknow this, and we know it’s delusional to deny it, and we can not ignore it. I wish there was more we all could do – it’s going to take another attack to galvanized the west, unfortunately the international Left will continue to pound the drum, “The cause of terrorism is our resistance to it”.

2. Sharansky better than most Westerners understand effects of absence of freedom on people and societies. They are profound and poorly understood by those for whom this is only theoretical knowlege, not personal experience. He also right that closed societies are so nontransparent both for outsiders and insiders that nobody actually knows how people in them would behave if they were free from fear and intimidation. This is a very big “if”, because a cruel dictatorship is not the only source of this fear, the society itself can be very hostile to dissidents, so even in formally free societies people often do not dare to show their true aspirations. Arabic culture is one of the most intolerant and hostile to dissent, so there really can be millions of silent dissidents, political and religious.

3. Arabic culture is one of the most intolerant and hostile to dissent, so there really can be millions of silent dissidents, political and religious.

   Good point Sergey.

4. Pingback:Wake up America-Tides Turns in Iraq

5. War in Iraq is bad. However, it seems to be the least bad course we could follow. Leaving Saddam in power would have been worse. Abandoning Iraq to Al-Qaeda and/or Iran would have been worse.

   Yes, it would sure be nice if there was a simple, easy, and morally pure solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. But there isn’t. So we do what we must rather than do what we would like.

6. It’s interesting to note how no one can predict the future. We all have our opinions, yet they look like this:
   60% chance of A
   20% chance of B
   10% chance of C
   10% chance of D.

   One day, we will retrospectively convince ourselves that “of course we knew, in advance, what the outcome would be. It was completely obvious to any smart person who looked at the situation.”

7. What matters is not so much numbers, Neo, as organization. Without organization, which means resources, information, connections, social networks, and protection abilities, no amount of individual numbers will do any constructive good or evil.

8. That’s not true — it only takes a few individuals to set a bomb at a school and the cycle begins.

9. Ymar, this is is true, but more important thing that formal organization (like Solidarity worker’s union in Poland) is ability of people to do self-organization. This is the most weak point in post-totalitarian societies – their atomization, absence of social skills, deficit of trust. Purpose of terror – governmental or moral – is to isolate dissidents from each other, prevent cooperation between them. There may be thousands of like-minded people in a town, but if they fear to talk about some issues in public, they never get accustomed and each can think that he is a lone heretic in the town. Even small aggressive minority of extremists can, in effect, subjugate the whole community of moderates, if freedom of speech is not effectively protected.

10. That’s not true – it only takes a few individuals to set a bomb at a school and the cycle begins.

    Without organization that “bomb” simply makes an isolated event that can be shut down with normal laws that prevent crime and catch criminals.

    9/11, 7/7, Madrid Train Boming and all those people blown up in Iraq by terrorists and their suicide bomber fodder shows how different organizational skills and resources can change something like the Oklahoma incident into something that is more than a one album hit.

    Often people witness violence and believe that it was somehow “spontaneous”. The people rose up against Cuba’s former government and the Shan of Iran “spontaneously” via grassroots. It’s complete bull. Such revolutions are meticulously crafted and organized via, if not foreign sources, then top echelon elite cadres.

    If we take the example of Iran’s hostage taking of US citizens on American soil, we can either say that the cycle began there with the spontaneous student protests or we can say that the cycle began when such activities were organized with the intent to target Americans.

11. Ayad Allawi made an interesting point in his 11/2 NYT op/ed. He said it was wrong to organize elections on the basis of ideological and sectarian parties rather than electoral districts. He said the form of parliament was recommended by the international community. Petreus seems to be successful because he is encouraging decision making from the bottom up. This is probably the only way to overcome the trauma that Sergey described. As people learn that they can have input into rebuilding their own town and that they can do this without fear of being fed into a meat grinder, they will overcome the isolation.

    Things like the victory of the soccer team also help. I only wish that the media would pay respect to the little victories of self determination achieved by the Iraqis. But , of course, like good left thinkers everywhere, they prefer victims they can pity and the big bad bogeyman they can blame.

12. Listening to the “interational community” is a creative method for suicide.

13. If Bush wasn’t so multilateral, he would have made Iraq get a Roman Republic Senate to go along with the American balance of powers.

14. Things like the victory of the soccer team also help. I only wish that the media would pay respect to the little victories of self determination achieved by the Iraqis. But , of course, like good left thinkers everywhere, they prefer victims they can pity and the big bad bogeyman they can blame.

    I recommend you go here to hear what the Left actually thinks or prefers.

    Barf bags not supplied

    I think I am going to write a post about some things mentioned there. Or not.

15. One thing I’ve noticed is that the Left tends to speak according to a specific rhetorical style recycled over and over again. Take a look to see how many times “justice” or “social justice” is mentioned.

    This site for example, tends to have a large variation in writing styles and thinking methods. Sergey, for example, would be a total alien using the Left’s metric of common traits.

    I liked the engineer/hippie dynamic, of course. That was something new. Almost Steven Den Beste, almost.

    This really isn’t an indepth analysis so much as a set of observations. For example, you can analyze the social justice aspect using ethics and epistemology to figure out what exactly Leftist actions have to do with justice in relationship to the justice conservatives seek.

    There’s also a subtle belief on the Left that attacking Republicans for political points and defending Hillary not because she is virtuous but because Republicans are her enemies, is somehow NOT an act of violence. They have traded physical violence for emotional violence, since nature dictates that no organism can truly rid itself of the need to kill. Even vegetarians kill, they just happen to need to kill plants to live.

16. National-wide elections, parlament and political parties belong to upper echelon of democracy. Municipal councils comprise lower echelon. As Sharansky quite resonably said, upper echelon meaningless if there is no democracy at the lower level. So in communities where democratic culture is absent constructing of democratic institutions should start at the lowest possible level and only after this is achieved expand bottom up. During this process nation-wide government should be hierarchical, so the best form of government at this level is enlightened absolutism devoted to providing security and interfering in local issues as little as possible. This is called authoritarian modernization, and is the only possible course to promote democracy from barren land. Anything other is like erecting a building beginning from the roof, without basement and walls.

17. It is interesting to note that idea of authoritarian modernization was first formulated not by Sharansky, but Solzhenitzin. Being political antipodes in many issues (Solzhenitzin is Slavophil, Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox Church parishioner, even antisemite; Sharansky Jewish nationalist and political Zionist), they agree on relative strong and weak points of democracy and autocracy, secularism and theocracy. Unique personal experience of dissidents and political prisoners of a totalitarian state made them experts in field of political transformation of such societies.

18. Trimegistus offers – “War in Iraq is bad. However, it seems to be the least bad course we could follow. Leaving Saddam in power would have been worse. Abandoning Iraq to Al-Qaeda and/or Iran would have been worse.”

    Iraq and Iran have been at serious odds with one another for decades. Remember back in the 1980s when we were supporting Saddam as the “lesser evil” as a means to go after Tehran? Saddam was on Al-Qaeda’s hit list and his regime was also unfriendly toward the Taliban.

    In short, however much we might wish it were not so, the execution of the occupancy of Iraq has done much to make it a significant recruiting and training opportunity for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It also distracted us from our focus on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. And it has strengthened Musharref’s anti-democratic regime in Pakistan. And has made more precarious the Kurdish situation vis a vis Turkey and Syria. And has effectively made the Shia Sunni divisions in Iraq more pronounced and volatile.

    Are there currently hopeful signs that some progress is being made? Probably. However, this situation is like a benevolent family (the USA) calling the cops and hiring a contractor to take away the abusive father and fix-up a poor family’s home only to watch as the cops destroy the house hunting for Dad, then the contractor tackles the repair job by sub-contracting most of the tasks to the cops and others who are not trained or equipped for carpentry and plumbing work. After a few years members of the benevolent family begin to complain things aren’t going well and are told, “But look, we’ve got a roof back on the north side and water to the sink in the laundry. Why stop when there is so much progress being made?”

    So, having made such a mess, we must continue to clean it up and hope for the best, but let’s not confuse this with being either a success or a good idea in the first place.

19. Yes, I know. “going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan” should read going after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan”. It is a little too early in the morning for proper proofreading before hitting that “submit comment” button.

20. Neo, I hope you know what a treasure sergey is with his pointed, trenchant comments.

    His point about levels of democracy is spot on and usually forgotten. Before the American Revolution the colonies had been pretty much ignored by Britain until they were seen as a source of income after the Seven Years War. By that time, republican ideals and local government were established and deep rooted.

    For a wonderful study of the pre-revolutionary internal debate, see Rossiter, Clinton; Seedtime of the Republic : the origin of the American tradition of political liberty; New York : Harcourt, Brace; (1953)

21. Chris:

    Your analogy is flawed. Leaving the status quo in the Mideast alone is what got us attacked on 9/11. The status quo failed and it was time for a change. We didn’t make the mess; that region’s been a mess since the collapse of the Abbassid Caliphate in the middle ages.

    Leaving Saddam in power because he wasn’t actively supporting Al Qaeda at that particular moment would be idiotic. He was a danger to everyone, and should have been removed after the first Gulf War.

    Where did liberals like you develop this sudden fetish for “stability” and the status quo? You guys used to support every self-proclaimed “liberation movement” — as long as it was sufficiently anti-American. But when anti-American thugs are removed, suddenly that’s endangering your precious stability.

22. Sergey is a treasure and should keep writing. For a Russian, he sure understands better than most Americans do of the need for democracy from the ground up. Examples include condo boards, zoning boards, neighborhood beautification committees, and other local endeavors. Running for class president is a great way to train for local government. I used to comment a bit on Iraq the Model about this need for local participation in local affairs.

    I was surprised that the Bush administration failed to apply this knowledge to its construction/reconstruction efforts in Iraq. It took me quite a while to see that they didn’t have a clue. Someone hadn’t studied his/her colonial American history!

    Anyway, colonial American history shows how we lucky Americans got our unusually strong democratic system, and it’s too bad more people, including Americans, don’t study it in some detail. (A few college level non-Marxian courses would open eyes to the from-the-ground-up process.)

23. the execution of the occupancy of Iraq Going into Iraq was inevitable whether or not 9/11 had happened or not.

    To not have intervened after 9/11 would have been the height of irresponsibility. Saddam’s regime had been long moving away from a secular décor — by attracting radical Islamist to set up shop in Baghdad, stitching “Allahu Akbar” on the Iraqi flag to show his solidarity with radical Islam, and was openly sponsoring jihadist terrorists in Palestine.

    During the coalitions 2-year mobilization around Iraq, the A. Q. Khan network and North Korea’s WMD dealers ran for their lives from Damascus (a regime that still hasn’t learned their lesson as we’ve recently seen), and Colonel Kadafi’s handover of his WMDs to Bush and Blair.

    If we had not intervened, the blood-bath that would have ensued would have seen an invasion by Turkey, Iran/Syria/Hezbollah, and thus Saudi Arabia (elements of which are involved with the insurgency) — we’ll never know what ultimate horror we have so far prevented.

24. Iraq and Iran have been at serious odds with one another for decades.

    So what, Communism and Fascism has been at odds for the great majority of their history, but I don’t hear people like you talking about improving upon the US’s alliance with Stalin as a standard lesson on how to deal with Iran/Iraq.

    Saddam was on Al-Qaeda’s hit list and his regime was also unfriendly toward the Taliban.

    As if Saddam is a more reliable and useful ally than the people of Iraq. On the global list of power players, people who are dead are far less useful than people that are alive and not only fighting but growing in strength and numbers. Even without that, Saddam was always useless for he was far more a tool of the UN than the uS.

    Alliances are based upon mutual interest. That is why the Shia and Sunnis allied together to kill Americans, cause they hate Amis more than they hate each other. When they found they couldn’t kill Americans, they had to settle for second best. You somehow think America has enough money to bribe Saddam into hating us less than he did his own people and various revolutionary organizations like AQ? Saddam hated everybody that wouldn’t bow down to his power. The US should not allow people like Saddam to bribe the international community into anti-Americanism just because our enemies were trying to off each other. I’m sure Saddam got France and Company to backstab America at the UN because Saddam just wanted help against America’s enemies.

    Such calculations for alliance based upon some idealistic belief that Saddam could have been a buddy if the dominion of American forces could have just steered him towards some targets, is unhistoric and ineffective. All alliances are made upon mutual interests. If Saddam had a chance to become the US’s enforcer in the Middle East, he certainly didn’t take it in the decade after 1993.

    Leaving Saddam in power because he wasn’t actively supporting Al Qaeda at that particular moment would be idiotic.

    Saddam was left in power and alone after Gulf War 1. We already tried this path to hell.

    Dead people don’t become problems, that is a truism that is still true today.

    I was surprised that the Bush administration failed to apply this knowledge to its construction/reconstruction efforts in Iraq.-P

    That is because the Bush administration doesn’t like to involve themselves in small time local matters. Bush was elected to the Presidency, where macroscale projects and policies were designed and implemented. He doesn’t like to micromanage, so he doesn’t like to go into personal neighborhoods, like ours, and tell us what we need to be doing. A plus in America, a very big negative in Iraq. Somebody expected the Iraqis to suddenly create their own “American style” townhouse meetings just because. Just because that is what Americans would do. However, Arabs are not Americans.

    Real diplomats, back in the day before the Left corrupted the Foreign Services, knew that if you treated foreigners like they were your own people, it would be a very nice way to start a war.

    Bush should not have believed his own rhetoric that Iraqis yearned for freedom, since he associated too closely Arabs with Americans with that belief. You should recognize the idealistic framework that human beings are more powerful in a cooperative society, but also recognize the pragmatic situation as well that Arabs are believers in insh’allah and children of their culture. Their messed up culture in addition to the damage Saddam did. Had Bush called in Kurdish leaders for advice, things might have been different, but the military told Bush to leave out the Shia/Kurds since this was going to be a military invasion solely based upon American forces (read American glory). Last and best chance for some of the generals to get some combat experience and commands. Cynical, but true nonetheless since generals are human too.

    In short, however much we might wish it were not so, the execution of the occupancy of Iraq has done much to make it a significant recruiting and training opportunity for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It also distracted us from our focus on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

    You must be talking about getting local Afghanistanis to deal with AQ, thereby allowing Osama to bribe his way out to the safety of Pakistan. Your solution to this is to get the local dictator called Saddam to deal with AQ in/around Iraq. Why exactly do you think your solution is better than the problem?

    The real problem is that people want to get other folks to deal with problems that they don’t wish to. The entire reason why COIn is being implemented is that before, American was trying to push every security and political detail unto the Iraqis. When the Iraqis started sinking, COIN came in to help the locals out more. This will always happen, whether the locals are allies, maybe friends, enemies, and neutrals.

    And it has strengthened Musharref’s anti-democratic regime in Pakistan.

    As if Saddam’s regime was more democratic. That’s really the point. You simply pick and choose places for the US to go into or not go into based upon some personal calculation of what is more “efficient”. That calculation has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual intel and psychological profiles of the various power players, factions, and nations in the area. You would keep Saddam and weaken Musharref simply because of an arbitrary decision to get Osama, regardless of the consequences to the people living in that area or the soldiers sent out to fight for such a cause.

    Such strategic calculations will always end in ruin. Because it is simply too tunnel visioned, it is too focused on one aspect above all else. THe United States military may be able to fight in manifold climes and places at the same time, but the same can’t be said for the various individuals that make up America.

    And has made more precarious the Kurdish situation vis a vis Turkey and Syria.

    Sure, the Kurds would be a stronger ally if we sided with Saddam. Absolutely no consideration of the beliefs and psychologies of the players in question.

25. we’ll never know what ultimate horror we have so far prevented.

    The priority is getting Osama, since that will make people feel psychologically better. The priority is not avoiding ultimate horrors.

26. I was surprised that the Bush administration failed to apply this knowledge to its construction/reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

    The Bush Administration never really had their hearts in reconstruction, and regime change for that matter — the Administration and other Federal hierarchies had been split on this. The President’s church, the Methodist, or Christianity in general, has had nothing to say on ousting Saddam, at least without some quick retraction.

27. The article in the Times Online, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp, says that progress has been made toward creating conditions for making a settlment between Sunnis and Shia. I’d like to see more information on this. I think reconciliation is not in the near future, not in the next 10 years at least. I think proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran is more likely, each supporting its like-minded religious groups in Iraq.

    Fallujah is doing better because vehicle traffic is completely forbidden, to prevent car bombs. There is 80% umemployment there.

    Baghdad was 50/50% Sunni/Shia before we invaded. Now it is 25/75% Sunni Shia, and the Sunnis are protected by concrete barriers and the U.S. forces. I hate to think what will happen to them when we eventually leave, whether that’s next year, or several years from now.

    Al Qaeda has less of a presence that it did in recent years, but still more of a presence than it had before we invaded.

    The Basra region is almost completely under control of independent Shiite militias. Oil money going to that region goes to these militias and their causes. Taliban-like strictures are on the rise there, signaling a rise in fundamentalism since the fall of Saddam, not a decrease in it.

    If Iraq is going better now, can the 4 million refugees forced from their homes (2 million out of the country to Syria and Jordan) return? ‘Cause they’re draining resources where they are being housed now, temporarily.

    Not to cast a dark cloud on things, but I would like to see hopeful pieces like that in the Times Online address these matters. But hey, maybe he’s right. Maybe the Maliki government will actually do something soon to help move things forward! Maybe Sunnis and Shia will begin to reach agreements, albeit slowly. Let’s watch and see if this article shows itself to have a grasp of reality.

28. The odd projections and misreadings scattered among the comments here is astounding; as is the selective view of the history of the Iraq Iran conflict. Ymarsakar seems to have attached a long laundry list of suppositions to my comment. Most erroneous is his notion that I somehow argue FOR Saddam as the lesser of evils in the region.

    Here’s how I follow key events over the last half century or so. We can begin with the restoration of the Shah to the Iranian throne by means of an American backed and instigated coup against one of the first democratically elected governments in the region. This was done in the name of anti-communism. Move forward a couple of decades; many, including me, argued for years before the Shah’s overthrow that it was long past time to support the moderate, business community based, democratic opposition or face a far more radical alternative that would not be advantageous to our long term interests. I guess we know how that turned out.

    Once the Ayatollah was in power and the embassy hostage crisis took place, our interests shifted and so we shifted our regional proxy to Saddam. That some of the materiel we provided him was used against his fellow Iraqis, most notably the Kurds, rather than Iran … and that much of the funding went to graft and greed in Saddam’s regime was merely the cost of doing business, right?

    This was the period when the Reagan administration was similarly supporting the mujahadean in their anti-Soviet rebellion in Afghanistan. They were the progenitors of the Taliban and Al-Quada, but for the moment they were useful tools in our struggle with the Evil Empire.

    In the late 1980’s, as the struggle between Iraq and Iran became a stalemate, Saddam went off reservation in an attack on Kuwait after getting mixed signals from the Bush 41 administration. Something finally had to be done. For the record, I did not LIKE Desert Storm, but understood it and accepted it as a necessary conflict. It had international support and was predicated on international laws and various treaties. I argued then that it was a mistake NOT to have completed the mission and removed Saddam; especially after urging the people of Iraq to rebel against him. When the Shias did begin to rise against him they were left to suffer the consequences when we (Bush 41) failed to support them.

    The next decade was the era of “No Fly Zones” and clandestine support for the Kurdish rebels. We had concerns about Turkey and Syria’s interest in this region, but we could leave that to another day … which seems to be dawning.

    Then came 9/11 and, for Americans who’ve been so fortunately spared conflict on our own soil for a century … and that was not a foreign invasion … everything seemed to change. We wanted justice. We wanted someone to pay. We wanted revenge.

    When efforts to bring down Osama and punish Al-Quada began to bog down in reality rather than play out like a season of “24” Bush 43 (and the remains of his father’s and Reagan’s administrations who had once supported Saddam before they were spurned and who failed to finish the job in Desert Storm) took it as an opportunity for regime change. Better late than never, I guess.

    They then failed to make a strong enough case for it to pull together a true international coalition. And failed to listen to the generals about what it would take to secure the peace after the initial invasion. And ignored calls, both before and after the invasion was underway, to expend more energy on regional diplomacy. And made no real effort to back up the troops through the swift restoration of basic services needed to win the hearts and minds of civilian Iraqis, not just fill body bags with combatants. Oh, yes, and then there’s the not so minor issue of how the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of civilians lost as “collateral damage” and millions of refugees effect our long term interests. In short, they’ve made things worse overall, not better, at least for the foreseeable future.

    And if I hear the argument that the lack of a major terrorist action on our soil proves the effectiveness of the Bush approach one more time I’m going to scream. I am also tired of the notion that anyone holding views that are not in line with, say, Cheney’s are “anti-American.” Many of us feel that American foreign policy serves the interests of global capitalism too much and the interests of both the American people and the citizens of those countries in which we intervene too little. This is patriotism, too.

29. Many of us feel that American foreign policy serves the interests of global capitalism too much …

    Ah.

30. This is an excellent piece.

    May I suggest as well the following commentary from Andrew Bolt, if you’ve not seen it yet:

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22689634-5007146,00.html

31. Yes, I am glad that things are more peaceful in Iraq.

    But, since one of the objectives of the war was to establish a unified nation-state, then clearly we’re losing. After all, we didn’t arm the Sunnis in Anbar by working through the central government in Baghdad. We just armed them directly – in effect, we’re helping the Sunnis create their own militias to help take on the Shiites.

    It’s time to end this unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq…and Afghanistan too!

32. There is an apt historical analogy to nowdays Iraq – British India. It was a mess of almost independent small states with dozen of languages, separate ethnicities and castes, Muslims, Hindu, Sikh, and lots of other divisions and enmites. Very backward, medieval societies with no sense of all-Indian national unity, extreme powerty and over-population. If Iraq is artificial state, than India was even more artificial. But providing administration, securuty, infrastructure and judical system Brits were able to keep civil order and prevent havoc. That is why Orwell, not a big fan of colonializm, still advocated giving India status of dominion after war was over, with British administration at place, and with gradual transfer of executive powers to Indian nationals. He wrote that without British administration critical infrastructure would collapse and millions of Hindu would die from famine and epidemics. And he was right: after withdrawal of Brish troops from 1 to 4 million were killed in ethnic clashes in a year, and unknown number perished from starvation.

33. But, since one of the objectives of the war was to establish a unified nation-state, then clearly we’re losing.

    Incidentally, that is what Benedict Arnold thought when he tried to turn over Westpoint to the British.

34. after withdrawal of Brish troops from 1 to 4 million were killed in ethnic clashes in a year, and unknown number perished from starvation.

    But this is progress, Sergey.

35. Most erroneous is his notion that I somehow argue FOR Saddam as the lesser of evils in the region.

    Ah, I see. You are simply noting the realities that the reality based community have recognized. Which is that Saddam was better alive then dead, which incidentally helps Saddam out.

36. many, including me, argued for years before the Shah’s overthrow that it was long past time to support the moderate, business community based, democratic opposition or face a far more radical alternative that would not be advantageous to our long term interests. I guess we know how that turned out.

    Except for the fact that the Shah started to loosen his grip on things and thus allowed the key leaders of the Iranian Islamic revolution to actually live, that might actually count for something other than digitized words.

    Jimmy Carter incidentally agreed with you, Chris, and that is why Carter pulled support from the Shah and prefered revolution instead.

    It is the counter-reality that if you cannot accept that your opponents actually listened to you and took your advice, and that is why they went down in flames and took almost all their allies with them, then what good are you, truly, in the strategic narrative and war?

    The same sentiments are what caused Diem’s assassination. The belief that if only we supported the people’s movement (of Communists and revolutionary destroyers) that somehow they will become friends and buddies.

    It is always ignored by these idealists that grassroots revolutions simply do not occur without outside backing or support from elements of the current regime. The always repeated scenario is that reform is inevitably seen as weakness in the Middle East. It is why Sadat was assassinated when he brokered the peace deal with Israel. Accomodating Western grievances and guilt complexes is why the Shah loosened his grip and inevitably was overthrown by Leftists and revolutionaries, whom were executed in turn by their fellow Muslim brothers. Such things were promoted by those that believed moderation equaled strength and stability.

    And if I hear the argument that the lack of a major terrorist action on our soil proves the effectiveness of the Bush approach one more time I’m going to scream. I am also tired of the notion that anyone holding

    You can try to dodge and evade the issue all you want by changing the subject, but your compartamentalized mind knows as well as I do that your arguments do not parse logically.

    I assume you understand that even with your skilled use of rationalizations to explain away the inconsistencies, they are still there to be seen if you look hard enough.

    In the late 1980’s, as the struggle between Iraq and Iran became a stalemate, Saddam went off reservation in an attack on Kuwait after getting mixed signals from the Bush 41 administration. Something finally had to be done. For the record, I did not LIKE Desert Storm, but understood it and accepted it as a necessary conflict. It had international support and was predicated on international laws and various treaties. I argued then that it was a mistake NOT to have completed the mission and removed Saddam; especially after urging the people of Iraq to rebel against him. When the Shias did begin to rise against him they were left to suffer the consequences when we (Bush 41) failed to support them.-Chris

    In short, however much we might wish it were not so, the execution of the occupancy of Iraq has done much to make it a significant recruiting and training opportunity for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.-Chris

    You recognize in one compartment or another, that your opponents supported Saddam because he was the lesser of two evils. You believe that you, Chris, support only the better nature in men’s souls, such as moderate businessmen in Iran before the Mullah revolution. So you, logically, do not recognize or accept that it was only your support for more moderation and anti-Shah policies that inevitably gave rise to the true Islamic Revolution.

    You were not out to look for actual and stable allies so much as you were out to appease Western guilt complexes. Which is fine for Al Gore flying in his jet and speaking about Global Warming, but has drastically more radical consequences in the Middle East.

    And it has strengthened Musharref’s anti-democratic regime in Pakistan.

    For one thing, you would wish to undermine Musharref’s anti-democratic regime. Should your efforts succede and Pakistan go into chaos, then you will say that it was the fault of not listening to people like you more when in truth, people had listened to folks like you too much.

    So, having made such a mess, we must continue to clean it up and hope for the best

    You truly do not recognize the cognitive dissonance inherit in speaking about supporting the moderate business based democratic opposition (as being a cleaner solution) while at the same time describing the United States military support of democratic opposition in Sunni areas as a mess that “we” must continue to clean up?

    This was the period when the Reagan administration was similarly supporting the mujahadean

    Once again, we have you directly attacking the support given to Massoud Shah, another moderate democratic opposition that made great use of American support against the Soviet invaders.

    The divide is simple in truth, if complex superficially. You do not believe force can create prosperity. Thus you cannot sustain or guarantee security for any of your “democratic” proxies in the ME or elsewhere. That is why inevitably the Islamic Jihad fills in the power vacuum and takes control of whatever revolution you were starting to foment against the status quo, in the belief that if you didn’t do such things then the end result will be far worse for the long term interests of the United States. If not for the minor detail of bungled operations, things might have been different, but they aren’t.

    I argued then that it was a mistake NOT to have completed the mission and removed Saddam

    Another cognitive dissonance moment is that you supported removing Saddam before you were against the invasion of Iraq in OIF 1. You were willing to create a terrorist sanctum in Iraq that trained up American enemies, after Gulf War 1, but you believe that it was a bad idea to do so after Gulf War 2. The differences are small but vital.

    So, having made such a mess, we must continue to clean it up and hope for the best, but let’s not confuse this with being either a success or a good idea in the first place.-Chris

    I had no illusions about whether you supported Saddam in truth or not. Yet I could also not ignore the rationalizations and doubletalk you were using which covered for Saddam. You see the removal of Saddam as a mess, yet in Gulf War 1 you saw the removal of Saddam, which was not internationally sanctioned and thus not attempted, as a “necessary” and correct move. You argued that it was a mistake not to have completed the mission, which removing Saddam was never part of, and removing Saddam.

    The difference, then, is that Gulf War 1 was internationally sanctioned in your view, and therefore correct, while Gulf War 2 was not internationally sanctioned, and therefore a mistake that creates a mess that has to be cleaned up.

    You cover for Saddam in two ways, while ostensibly advocating his overthrow. First, you cover for him in the international community by seeking the international community’s agreement on Saddam’s removal. Second, you cover for Saddam by quoting the problems that have resulted, or problems you perceive to have resulted, from Saddam’s overthrow without international approval, aka your approval.

    In doing these things, you have to cover for yourself, as well, since you would not wish to be accused of supporting anti-democratic regimes like Saddam, which you recognize as being a bad thing.

    It had international support and was predicated on international laws and various treaties. I argued then that it was a mistake NOT to have completed the mission and removed Saddam; especially after urging the people of Iraq to rebel against him. When the Shias did begin to rise against him they were left to suffer the consequences when we (Bush 41) failed to support them.-Chris

    One of the necessary components in covering your side of things, is to forward the implicit proposal that international support was for removing Saddam in Gulf War 1, which Bush’s father did not do, thus pitting Bush’s mistake against your advice, Chris.

    While Bush 41 rightfully deserves scorn for allowing international treaties and borders to prevent him from helping those that he owes loyalty to, it is simply the same old game conducted by other Presi bvcfdxdents and US policy makers. They have often, if not always, promoted civic strife and rebellion in foreign territories and then failed to back up their promises with actual military security and force. This inevitably allows Jihadists and Communists to come in and fill the vacuum, by promising to protect the rebels from retribution by the state or simply through extortion and protection rackets where they protect you from themselves. Such things occured in the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc.

    You logically believe that Bush 41 and others did not listen to you enough or at all. The truth is, they listened far too well to your beliefs on international law and what is or is not legitimate sanction for US actions. They may have shared those beliefs, erroneously, or they may simply have listened to bad advice. It is the same number of body bags in the end.

    If more people actually believed, like you, that the mission in Gulf War 1 was sanctioned internationally in order to remove not just Saddam from Kuwaitt but Saddam from Iraq, then it follows logically that such folks would have favored advising the Shia and Kurds to rise up. These erroneous beliefs do have consequences, usually bad ones for the people in the ME.

    Bush Jr also listened to the international community too much. Except unlike his father, Bush junior stepped over the international cabal of corrupt bureacrats and bought politicians in favor of a better life for human beings. He, unlike you Chris, actually tried to correct Bush senior’s mistake. At present, all you can talk about are the US sending in the cops (barbarians essentially in your view) that trash up the house while paid civilian contractors rebuild it at the same time, simultaneously.

    You have no interest in improving the lives of those in the Middle East, for you do not even recognize such things when they do happen. So obviously your recommendations have no connection whatsoever to actual potential successes such as Massoud, Karzai, the Sunni grassroots councils, or the various other people that need American military security more than they need false promises of freedom. The belief in the international community will always limit you in such endeavours. If they had both the power and the desire to improve the lot of humanity, then you would be right and I would be wrong. However, the only organization with both the power and the will to actually create a better world is the United States military, not the international cabal of corrupted men and women.

    For example, you believe the cops break things down, thereby requiring that it always be rebuilt, but in the end no progress is produced. I believe the same of the UN, that they are the ones keeping people down, while at the same time offering a helping hand with money from the US. Such beliefs are mutually exclusive.

    This is patriotism, too.

    Certainly that can be true, given that Benedict Arnold believed that he was doing the best thing for his country as well. However, such things are open interpretation, usually depending upon how things go. The Iranian Islamic Revolution won out after all. So those for the mullahs are now patriotic while those for Western liberties and human rights are traitors to the revolution or simply traitors. It all depends upon the interpretation, you see.

37. Neo-neocon wrote:

    “Seemingly, one can be wrong many times, and yet continue to be respected as a prognosticator.”

    It’s these kinds of lines that pop up so often around here, inevitably directed at “leftists” and without any irony whatsoever, that leave me shaking my head at the narrow focus prevailing here.

    As if you’ve never heard of “respected prognosticator” William Kristol.

38. The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters.

    Where? Where is it an embarrassment? That’s an unsubstantiated smear, and useless. Besides, how would a war hawk even know to recognize something like embarrassment?

    You truly do not recognize the cognitive dissonance inherit in speaking about supporting the moderate business based democratic opposition (as being a cleaner solution) while at the same time describing the United States military support of democratic opposition in Sunni areas as a mess that “we” must continue to clean up?

    Is this a joke? What exactly is “democratic” about the Sunni movement? It is a tribal movement, and a movement aimed at gaining more political power. Honestly, do you not understand this? The rest of what you write is hardly less egregious, but I read things like this and it makes me want to tear my hair out. You tell me that the Sunnis are “democratic” and I’m supposed to somehow listen to anything else you say? What’s next? That the Shiites are interested in political reconciliation, peace, love and harmony with the Sunnis? No thanks.

    Certainly that can be true, given that Benedict Arnold believed that he was doing the best thing for his country as well.

    And that’s just plain idiocy. You have nothing to contribute when you equate liberals with Benedict Arnold. That’s smear for one thing, and even if you sincerely mean it that just makes clear how misguided you are, as you seem to think opposition to a war that was premised on what has now proven to be lies and falsehoods and for which we have no strategy beyond “surging” everywhere, is un-patriotic.

    You know who the threat is to this country? People who want to flush our constitution and national status down the toilet for temporary but illusory security gains. People such as yourself fancy that you are the “real” Americans, but I’m sure the loyalists of the Revolution thought the same of themselves.

39. X, once again we come down to the core issue: what do you consider patriotism to be, given your previous prevarication at being asked whether you love this country?

40. Ymarsakar,
    An excellent post and an even more excellent flensing and filleting of White. Soon after reading it I can across this passage in Machiavelli’s Discourses which seems appropriate even if only as a footnote:

    “These methods are most cruel and hostile to every system of living, not only Christian, but human, and should be avoided by every man; and he should want rather to live as a private individual than as a King at the (expense of the) ruin of men. None the less, he who does not want to take up the first path of good, must, if he wants to maintain himself, follow the latter path of evil. But men take up certain middle paths which are most harmful, for they do not know how to be entirely good or entirely bad.”

41. what do you consider patriotism to be, given your previous prevarication at being asked whether you love this country?

    I consider it to be loyalty to the Constitution, which I possess, as opposed to loyalty to a nation, which you possess. Unlike you, I understand that our nation is more than the people who comprise it, and thank God for that.

    Where do your loyalties lie? What elements of the Constitution do you believe should be dismantled for the sake of security? List them the liberties the revolutionaries fought for that you think are worth throwing away. Be explicit. And then explain to me how you reconcile that with the near-sacred document they died for. Please help me understand why you’d throw them away in fear of a man who hides in caves from us.

    The question is, what do you consider patriotism to be? Explain it thoroughly.

42. I love both the Constitution and the nation. Unlike you, I recognize that the nation comprises not only the Constitution, but the people, and principles on which the nation was founded.

    I don’t propose to throw away any civil liberties, but I don’t think any have been thrown away, either. And I don’t live in fear of a man in a cave; he’s just someone we need to kill, that’s all. It’s a big club.

43. And one last question: do you then love the Constitution, and consider it worth dying for, if you don’t consider the nation or its people worth such?

44. Xan:
    “List them the liberties the revolutionaries fought for that you think are worth throwing away.”

    No. Instead you list those liberties we have thrown away.

    Good call Occam.

45. I love both the Constitution and the nation. Unlike you, I recognize that the nation comprises not only the Constitution, but the people, and principles on which the nation was founded.

    You’re wrong. The Constitution is what makes our nation unique among nations of the world. Without it, we are merely another in a long line of powerful countries seeking to advance our interests over those of other countries. Of course, that’s what you think America is, which is why you value the Constitution so little.

    I don’t propose to throw away any civil liberties, but I don’t think any have been thrown away, either.

    You’re wrong, and that comment is proof that you don’t value the Constitution like you think you do.

    do you then love the Constitution, and consider it worth dying for, if you don’t consider the nation or its people worth such?

    Rank dishonesty yet again, as I said no such thing. And a poor attempt to turn my question back on me. I expect no less from you, but am still disappointed to see it.

    And you didn’t answer my question: what is patriotism?

46. No. Instead you list those liberties we have thrown away.

    No. That changes the subject. I want to know what OB thinks the Constitution stands for. Listing a bunch of things I think the Constitution stands for in no way answers that question. And anyway, it would be a long comment. See my blog archives if you want that answered.

47. I consider it to be loyalty to the Constitution, which I possess, as opposed to loyalty to a nation, which you possess.

    That is just the thing; by separating the Constitution from the United States, you are essentially creating a pseudo country that the Constitution resides in, along with a pseudo set of people that don’t really exist. The Constitution is meant to protect and preserve the American people, not some made up fantasies. The people live in and are part of the nation, they cannot be separated from it without violence, revolution, or indoctrination. You can address the problems of the people by ignoring the nation or believing that the Constitution is the only thing that matters. Without a nation, there is no constitution, US or otherwise.

    Without loyalty to the nation in which the people reside, there is no such thing as loyalty to a piece of paper since human beings don’t operate that way. Human beings only feel a limited kind of loyalties. Family based, self-interest based, religion based, and philosophy based. Might be others, but not relevant to this topic at the moment.

    At most, X, you use up the second with a limited version of the first.

    Unlike you, I understand that our nation is more than the people who comprise it, and thank God for that.

    And then explain to me how you reconcile that with the near-sacred document they died for.

    You are engaging in rather bad logic if you believe that they died for a document, X. You even set it up as a fallacy concerning either/or. Either you are right or they are wrong, which coincidentally is an either/or that favors you.

    There were three things on the line, primarily both as the risks and the rewards. Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor were the three. Idealism was meaningless without the three, and so were any documents in question.

    Please help me understand why you’d throw them away in fear of a man who hides in caves from us.

    Just as your idea of what America consists of has little to nothing to do with the reality of the nation that protects the people, so it is the same with your belief about what the Constitution actually is and what it is designed to accomplish.

    The idea of the need for change, as opposed to adherence to orthodoxy and politically correct indoctrination programs, would be foreign to you and non-existent in the US Constitution to you. The idea, or even consideration, that unified and central executive command over the lives, laws, functions, and responsibilities of the people is necessary in warfare is also another idea and consideration that would be foreign to you, X. You don’t agree with them and you won’t accept them in the Constitution that you see, because if you did, then you would realize that the Constitution that you are so fond of was never the US Constitution.

    What exactly is “democratic” about the Sunni movement?-X

    You are not a believer in the Cause, X, nor even a Jacksonian, let alone a classical liberal neo-con. Why should you wish for education and enlightenment from those that you oppose?

    Honestly, do you not understand this?

    Not everyone that disagrees with you must be in the pit of dark ignorance and dank corruption. I assume you just don’t know this.

    I have not called or described opponents, such as Chris, as being ignorant or misguided. They are simply wrong and I clearly state that in order to prevent miscommunication.

    I read things like this and it makes me want to tear my hair out.

    Be assured, when people like me read what the Left honestly believes, as oppsed to the rhetorical flourishes they use in place of physical violence, I feel a very similar emotion.

    That the Shiites are interested in political reconciliation, peace, love and harmony with the Sunnis?

    They will be ready when they have seen what the Japanese saw in 1945. Fanatics are easily converted once defeated ideologically on their own chosen ground.

    You have nothing to contribute when you equate liberals with Benedict Arnold.-X

    So I can’t agree with (fake) liberals, even on a hypothetical basis? You have some very interesting rules, Xan.

    People who want to flush our constitution and national status down the toilet-X

    personally, I thought you didn’t care much for any national status. Did you have a change of mind?

    People such as yourself fancy that you are the “real” Americans-X

    I would probably be characterized as a member of the Jacksonian war party, if you wish to get technical. Bush isn’t killing and crushing enough people to be part of that membership group, though, unfortunately. He hasn’t even conducted one summary or even tribunal/court martial execution either personally or indirectly through an order. We are displeased with him primarily because of that, since it causes many problems elsewhere, such as at the Southern Border.

    An excellent post and an even more excellent flensing and filleting of White.-V

    I am glad you liked it, Vander.

    You might also like my post concerning why Leftism uses the survival method of parasitism as opposed to simple predation or complex cooperative hunting, if you haven’t caught it already.

    It lays out much of my philosophy concerning the Left. Certainly it can save people some time asking questions. If people disagree with me, then fine, simply try to address the beliefs in play. Certainly I believe that Chris White believes that he is interested in freedom or democracy or liberty; that doesn’t mean I agree with such beliefs however. I do believe Chris wishes to be interested in such things, but what we want and what we can have are two different things. That is just how things are, and I can’t change them.

48. Occam made his reply first, even though I didn’t see it until I posted mine. Still, the similarities are very telling.

    It is clearly a philosophical difference, Occam, that we have with X, not just one based upon the notorious thing called “fact” by folks.

49. You’re wrong. The Constitution is what makes our nation unique among nations of the world. Without it, we are merely another in a long line of powerful countries seeking to advance our interests over those of other countries. Of course, that’s what you think America is, which is why you value the Constitution so little.

    Forgive me, for I am going to attempt a little bit of psychological deduction or deconstruction as it may be called.

    There is an obvious price to be paid in believing that it is the US Constitution, a piece of paper that is neither sentient, aware, nor even a computer processor, that separates the United States from all other nations. That price is fanaticism; for if the Constitution is so important, then if you were ever given a chance to sacrifice 150 million Americans in order to safeguard the Constitution, you, as a fanatic, would automatically choose saving the Constitution over the millions of Americans. For if it is not the people of America that make America great, knowledgeable, wise, and right, then it must be the US Constitution, correct? And if the American people ever got in the way of the US Constitution, or ever threatened to change or destroy the US Constitution (in favor of something worse or in favor of something better), then obviously to you, X, the people have to go , and the Constitution must be preserved.

    Things might be different if you did not worship the false idol of the US Constitution and therefore mistake the document for the things it was designed to safeguard, protect, preserve, and nurture. Then you might be able to choose your duty over the law, even Constitutional law.

    And you didn’t answer my question: what is patriotism?-Xan

    Go easy on Xan, Occam. He only wishes to learn from the more enlightened, you see.

50. …time to end this unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq…and Afghanistan too!

    As I’ve stated in this thread, the war in Iraq was inevitable as it was necessary. It was just by upholding the Clinton, Iraq Liberation Act — and acting on our promise to uphold Genocide Convention. Removing Saddam and holding the ring from a Turkish, Syrian, Hezbollah, Iranian, and Saudi invasion was, has been, and continues to be a great act of moral courage and mercy (and high time we acted — it should have been done sooner). We waited 12 long and painful years. How many more generations could the Iraqi people endure in this despotic cycle? An implosion and invasion by Iraqis neighbors was INEVITABLE — so far we have held back these collapsing mountains. If this isn’t uncommon high-morality and titanic courage then nothing is, after all it was the West that put Saddam in power, it is our responsibility to at least help undo the damage.

51. I have more pressing and time consuming, if mundane, tasks to accomplish and thus have not yet had insufficient time to untangle Ymarsakar’s somewhat obscure and arcane rhetorical flourishes sufficiently to argue (or, who knows, possibly even agree) with the many elements in his “Leftists are Parasites” posting, nor with his continued “excellent flensing and filleting of me” but there was one tidbit that really caught my eye.

    “In any useful idiot subversion operation, you are going to have a pyramidal hierarchy where at the top are the spiritual leaders that know what is up while at the bottom are the cannon fodder.”

    This seems to me to be a perfect description of the current administration’s view of how things are supposed to work, with them at the top of the hierarchy, of course. This also appears to be Y’s own view, again, with himself near the top of that pyramid. If only folks like me would have the good sense to stop holding views other than those he thinks we should have, all would be well.

    I was also caught a bit short by his closing paragraph above in which he states, “Chris White believes that he is interested in freedom or democracy or liberty; that doesn’t mean I agree with such beliefs however.”

    Now, as I read this Y is stating that he does not believe in freedom or democracy or liberty. If that is the case, what DOES he believe in? Or, is this just an oddly constructed sentence meant to say that he does not believe that these are MY actual beliefs? If that is the case I would suggest that he makes this hasty judgment absent any knowledge about me and my beliefs other than whatever he has gleaned from my scant few comments here, filtered through his own set of stereotype filters.

    Let me finish with an aside to our gracious hostess. ‘A mind is indeed a difficult thing to change’ when those who disagree with the dominant view here are shown such contempt by those whose minds are already made up and closed to other views. As you have made no such attacks, I want to be clear that I am not ascribing this behavior to you, merely making an observation on why a mind may be difficult to change.

52. If only folks like me would have the good sense to stop holding views other than those he thinks we should have, all would be well.

    Chris must have missed the part where it was clearly stated that his beliefs were fake. There’s no point in getting people to discard fake beliefs, because they never had them to begin with, so what is the point really. I suppose that will have to come later.

    Or, is this just an oddly constructed sentence meant to say that he does not believe that these are MY actual beliefs?

    Too many ors. There need only be one required. You can believe that Chris isn’t conducting doublethink or you can believe otherwise.

    The Leftist mind isn’t very hard to change. It is just that people like me have enough patience to wade through what you call thinking, Chris, while you are reduced to scrutiny that is far less in quality.

    The most you can say for yourself is that you are trying to repeat what you think I am saying, when I already know what you believe. You’re too many steps behind, so there’s nothing much productive coming out.

    You could have chosen to talk about Saddam, or the UN, or even Jimmy Carter and the Shah. Instead, you choose to speak about semantics because you don’t really want to touch any of the other subjects. Too much cognitive disonnance, probably, had you involved yourself with those topics.

    I would suggest that he makes this hasty judgment absent any knowledge about me

    Leftists inevitably make the argument about either themselves or their opponents. Because personalities are a topic they have much difficulty with, given their constant inaccurate assessments of the personalities and behaviors of both foreign individuals as well as foreign populations. So why not practice with such as often as possible?

    You just can’t keep on subject for more than one pass through the ring, Chris. First it was about how bad things have gotten and how much of a mess things are because Bush took out Saddam, and now the Kurds have problems too, etc etc. Then it was about how Iran was screwed up by Americans that disagreed and shoved off Chris, or something close to that. Eventually, Chris, you will have to actually stick to a topic for more than one comment. Evertyhing can’t be about you and what you believe or don’t believe; it really isn’t that important.

    This seems to me to be a perfect description of the current administration’s view of how things are supposed to work, with them at the top of the hierarchy, of course.

    That is what all Leftists are programmed to believe. So what is new? Some lapse, some don’t.

    You complain much about how I am reading your views incorrectly, Chris. Yet with such comments such as this, you just prove that you are not only a Leftist, but you are also a fake liberal that will happily prop up democratic institutions and just as happily allow those institutions to be crushed by terrorists and revolutionaries. You see yourself as the white against the administration’s black. That might actually have amounted to something positive, had you not sold out to hubris and pride. You value more your opposition to the administration than what the administration could do to help people that need it, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You would rather hack at the administration’s prestige than work with them in a common cause. Your hubris, your extreme sense of superiority over all the heathens, is almost as limiting as your belief in the value of international sanction. How long do you think before your ego feels satisfied from feasting on the carcass of Bush’s faults and problems? Long enough for one man seeking liberty to die? Or simply 2?

    Not once in the entire list of words you have used have you ever given a thought, a thought, to protecting common men and women against the depredations of violence, thuggery, and international oppression. It wsa always about how Chris was right, how Chris was the enlightened amongst a sea of the ignorant. Chris this, Chris that, it was never about ensuring the success of other people for you, because you just don’t think that way. You keep thinking that in order for you to win and be right, someone else has to lose and be wrong. Chris the anointed and the enlightened, sent out amongst the flock to steer them from folly and infamy. My, but it didn’t go so well, now did it.

    I suppose it could always be about you, Chris, if you so choose.

53. Chris,

    A few historical facts I would add to your recounting:

    The US didn’t support the proto-Al Qaeda. They specifically avoided funding Arab fighters in Afghanistan.

    The US was able to build a great international coalition for Desert Storm because it promised to leave Saddam in power. This was an explicit bargaining point for many members of the Coalition. The mission was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, and no more.

    Two major reasons the US was unable to build a great international coalition for the 2003 invasion were because Saddam had offered France, Russia, and China multi-billion dollar oilfield development contracts upon the end of sanctions, and because the goal was to remove Saddam, which would set a precedent many in the international community were quite uncomfortable with.

    Meanwhile, Saddam spent the Oil-for-Food money on palaces, bribes, huge mosques, gold-plating weapons, etc., and let possibly hundreds of thousands of Shi’a die due to malnutrition and lack of medical care. This was blamed on the US, and was a major recruiting point for Al Qaeda. Bin Laden specifically mentioned the suffering of the Iraqi people as a reason for the 9/11 attacks.

    Americans were not told the truth about what was happening because CNN and other major media thought it was worth the trade off to hide the dark side of Saddam’s regime so they could keep their offices in Baghdad open.

    Meanwhile, as Saddam continued to defy the conditions of the ceasefire he signed in 1991, anti-Americanism rose abroad through the later part of the ’90s based in good part on belief that America was causing the suffering of the Iraqi people (there were almost no reports of Saddam’s new palaces or mosques, etc.). I lived outside the US at the time and saw this first-hand, so please spare me the whole ‘the world loved us until Bush’ nonsense. The US had NO moral standing for much of the world; we were strongly accused of genocide and compared with Nazi Germany on a regular basis in the late ’90s and early 2000s.

54. Without loyalty to the nation in which the people reside, there is no such thing as loyalty to a piece of paper since human beings don’t operate that way. Human beings only feel a limited kind of loyalties. Family based, self-interest based, religion based, and philosophy based. Might be others, but not relevant to this topic at the moment.

    No, some human beings operate that way, and that is exactly the problem. If you believe that the Constitution is a “piece of paper” then yes, you will not be loyal to it or the principles it represents. And you will not mind seeing pieces of it torn away. There are those who believe that America is defined by the Constitution, not the other way around, and I am one of them. I am not alone.

    There were three things on the line, primarily both as the risks and the rewards. Their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor were the three. Idealism was meaningless without the three, and so were any documents in question.

    That’s absurd. Are you trying to tell me the revolutionaries didn’t die for freedom? Those who actually fought to free our country? That they died for money and property?

    They will be ready when they have seen what the Japanese saw in 1945. Fanatics are easily converted once defeated ideologically on their own chosen ground.

    Again you demonstrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam and his Sunni cohorts, and now we’re supposed to crush the Shiite? The people who run the country, who comprise the majority, who are allies to Iran? We put them in power, remember?

    I would probably be characterized as a member of the Jacksonian war party, if you wish to get technical. Bush isn’t killing and crushing enough people to be part of that membership group, though, unfortunately.

    If that’s an attempt at humor, it fails.

    Things might be different if you did not worship the false idol of the US Constitution and therefore mistake the document for the things it was designed to safeguard, protect, preserve, and nurture.

    Absurd. There is no difference. The Constitution was designed to protect our national integrity and our freedoms. Neither are protected by wars premised on lies and the torturing of language to justify violations of fundamental human liberties.

    As for my fanatical loyalty to the Constitution…indeed, sign me up for that club. Better that than the opposition, who think that we must alter the fundamental political make-up of our nation in fear of swarthy Arabs who utterly lack the ability to destroy our country…except to provoke us into destroying it ourselves.

    Admit it Y, everything you say is merely an argument that it is better to live safely with less freedom. You may consider yourself a patriot as such, but to me it’s obvious that you and your kind would have never joined the ranks of the revolutionaries, who believed that there are things more precious than human life, such as human freedom and dignity. If you believe that we should kill other human beings, deny them their fundamental rights, and willingly give up our own, for the sake of security, then I call you what you are, a nationalist. Certainly not a patriot.

    I see also that you seem unable to answer the question, and leave it to OB to hope to do that for you. Well, let me spare you both the trouble. A patriot loves his country, flaws and all. But a patriot is not blind to the flaws of his country, and works ever more to hold his country to a high ideal. An American patriot acknowledges that the revolutionaries risked their lives and died for a belief in fundamental human freedoms that are embodied by the Constitution, but are not limited by it. An American patriot understands that his country at its best should be a symbol of liberty to other nations. An American patriot values liberty and human freedom above all else, because he knows that it is the ultimate right of all men and women to live free and in peace. An American patriot will die to defend his country from its enemies, but he will not fashion enemies out of whole cloth out of fear or for short-term political gain. An American patriot knows that there are things that are more important than life itself, and one of them is freedom. And an American patriot will also stand up against those who would destroy his country in the hopes of saving it.

    That’s what a patriot it is. I find it interesting that those here who are quick to call out others for their lack of patriotism, seem unable even to define what it means.

55. Xan:
    “An American patriot understands that his country at its best should be a symbol of liberty to other nations. An American patriot values liberty and human freedom above all else, because he knows that it is the ultimate right of all men and women to live free and in peace.

    My God Xan, what the hell do you think we’re doing? Name the number of countries France has liberated in the last 8 years. Hell, anybody else for that matter. All this while preserving our own Constitution from the likes of those people, who usually vote Democrat,… more likely than not, never read the Constitution, think the Constitution contains rights that the document never actually spells out, and who has often described it as a “living document” to be changed when ever it suits them.

    We already live that idea Xan. We OWN Patriotism.

56. Let’s expand the time frame to the sixty plus years since the end of WW II and ask how many democratically elected governments have been overthrown (or efforts made to overthrow them) through US backed coups? Chile, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Zaire, Greece … and, in this context most significantly, Iran.

    The reasons for most of these interventions were primarily that the governments chosen by the people of those countries had socialist or populist leanings deemed inimical to the interests of global business concerns. One major result of these activities has been a reservoir of anti-Americanism that can be, and too often is, tapped by would be despots and revolutionaries around the globe.

    Is it unpatriotic or illogical to point to this history and question whether the long-term goods we are told will surely result from our continued pursuit of such efforts are illusory? Is it unpatriotic or illogical to point out that supporting right wing dictators over democratically elected socialists may be practical means of insuring our continued access to the resources of those nations, but is decidedly not going to make the world a safer, more democratic, place.

    I think that questioning such adventurism in our name is an act of patriotism … but then again, I guess that can’t be because neocons OWN Patriotism. I expect that soon enough anyone claiming to be patriotic will be required to pay a licensing fee to Irving Kristol.

57. My God Xan, what the hell do you think we’re doing? Name the number of countries France has liberated in the last 8 years. Hell, anybody else for that matter. All this while preserving our own Constitution from the likes of those people, who usually vote Democrat,… more likely than not, never read the Constitution, think the Constitution contains rights that the document never actually spells out, and who has often described it as a “living document” to be changed when ever it suits them.

    We already live that idea Xan. We OWN Patriotism.

    Unsurprisingly, you demonstrate an inability to understand recent history, or the Constitution. I would remind you that we went to Iraq based on fears for our own national security, so we don’t even get credit for good intentions (which would hardly count for much, seeing how many have died as a result of the invasion.) I know it’s common for those on the right to re-write history, but absent WMDs can’t be so easily dismissed.

    And frankly, it is better to believe that the Constitution contains rights that are not explicitly spelled out, than to dismiss the rights that are explicitly spelled out, or misunderstand the entire purpose of the document, as you do.

    Patriotism cannot be owned, which you would understand if you knew what it was. Rather, it is asserted most loudly by those who seem to understand the least what it means, which is why you seem to think that questioning the patriotism of others in blog comments is “living” the idea of patriotism. The men who died as patriots in the revolution would probably not think the same.

    The more you comment, the more you give me reason to questions your understanding of history and the world, and your loyalty to the Constitution.

58. Xan:
    “I would remind you that we went to Iraq based on fears for our own national security, so we don’t even get credit for good intentions (which would hardly count for much, seeing how many have died as a result of the invasion.)

    Whereas we fought WW2, or any other war for entirely altruist principals? Or that there are any other historical examples of anyone else involving themselves is a war for purely altruist reasons. Or that there are better examples of post war treatment and administration of indigenous populations by anyone else.

    “And frankly, it is better to believe that the Constitution contains rights that are not explicitly spelled out, than to dismiss the rights that are explicitly spelled out, or misunderstand the entire purpose of the document, as you do.”

    I suspect it is better for you to believe the Constitution contains rights it doesn’t actually spell out. That way its easier for you people to claim that some right has been dismissed you never actually had in the first place.

    “The more you comment, the more you give me reason to questions your understanding of history and the world, and your loyalty to the Constitution.”

    That’s Ok. Based upon your responses, I question your credibility in making such a judgement.

59. Let’s expand the time frame to the sixty plus years since the end of WW II and ask how many democratically elected governments have been overthrown (or efforts made to overthrow them) through US backed coups? Chile, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Indonesia, East Timor, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Zaire, Greece … and, in this context most significantly, Iran.

    Let’s expand it to 70 years, and include Germany and Italy.

60. Whereas we fought WW2, or any other war for entirely altruist principals?

    List the differences between the invasion of Iraq and WWII, and you will see why they are not the same. I’ll start it for you. Saddam does not equal Hitler and the French didn’t start killing themselves after we liberated them. You can go from there.

61. Xan:
    “Saddam does not equal Hitler and the French didn’t start killing themselves after we liberated them. You can go from there.”

    There are degrees in despotism? The numbers of countries invaded not up to par, the level of genocide not passing the bar?

    And what if the French did start killing each other? There certainly was some animosity there, what if they did attack each other? Does that invalidate our involvement?

    You are the guys who are more moral than we are? Somehow Im not seeing that.

62. We invaded Iraq for quite a few reasons, only one of which was WMD. Anyone who cared about the reasons could easily discover them as the authorization for the use of force was posted on the Internet in 2002, and Bush’s speeches recapped the points. Only those who believe soundbites can tell the whole story thought WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq. 17 UN Security Council resolutions were part of it, as well as Saddam’s future potential for building WMDs, and we DID find his dormant WMD programs – Saddam fully intended to restart his programs after sanctions were dropped, including biological, chemical, and nuclear. Additionally, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act making removal of Saddam’s regime official US policy since 1998, and he supported the invasion in 2003.

    While it’s important to not allow a Stalinesque dictator seeking WMDs and funding terrorists to control tremendous financial resources, the US never got a significant amount of oil from Iraq and we still don’t. We get our oil primarily in this hemisphere, so the idea that the invasion was about controlling Iraq’s resources is unsupported by any evidence. (Denying resources to an enemy is quite valuable and a common strategy.) The most one could claim was that it was an attempt to influence the price of oil, which is silly; we could have done that with far less trouble by cutting a deal with Saddam and agreeing to the dropping of sanctions in exchange for price concessions.

    It is true that the US pursues its own interests — so does every nation, and every individual, regardless of how idealistic. Myself, Chris, Xan, Ymar, etc., are all on this blog pursuing our own individual interests. However, while many often equate ‘interests’ with selfishness (and it is often selfish), ‘self-interest’ also often leads to helping others, when the nation or individual recognizes that building a better community actually improves conditions for everyone, including the acting nation / individual.

    Since the fall of the USSR, the US has defined its self-interest as, where possible, creating a better international community by creating more democratic members of that community. Particularly in the Middle East, where we were completely stymied after the failure of the Oslo Accord, turning Iraq into a democracy seemed like a way of cutting the Gordian Knot. Yes, the liberation and attempts at democratization were undertaken out of national interests, but contrary to the communist propaganda that survived the fall of its author, that interest was not greed but rather democratization in an attempt to cut through the seemingly intractible problems the US faced in the Middle East.

63. By the way, the reference to communist propaganda is historical, and not meant to impune the patriotism of Xan, Chris, etc. It is a historical fact that Marx developed the argument that capitalist nations war purely for money, and it was developed further by the Lenin-Hobson thesis in the early 20th century, where the contemporary usage of the narrative of empire comes from. This is all right out of Marx, Lenin, Hobson, Stalin, etc.

64. “not meant to impune the patriotism of Xan, Chris, etc.”

    No worries, agip, they do that all by themselves.

65. Absurd. There is no difference. The Constitution was designed to protect our national integrity and our freedoms. Neither are protected by wars premised on lies and the torturing of language to justify violations of fundamental human liberties.

    Of course there is no difference to someone that believes as you do, Xan. You do not value people over a document. Thus, it is not absurd at all that you would sacrifice numerous folks to save what you value as being the same as flesh and blood human beings. It is simply a matter of priority. The United States has accepted the sacrifice of many men and women in its past because people saw the United States as a worthy goal to fight, kill, and die for. If an individual and individual’s nation had the same importance, then why would any Founding Fathers fight at all?

    It was always the people that mattered first, X. Not ideologies and words on paper. This is something the Left has never accepted, for all the blood it has caused them.

    indeed, sign me up for that club. Better that than the opposition

    Well… thank you for proving my point. So we agree, I assume.

    Admit it Y, everything you say is merely an argument that it is better to live safely with less freedom.

    Not really. My argument is that you cannot have liberty without essential security. Do you believe someone being threatened with death has any liberty at all? Some, but not much. About as much as a person living in Egypt.

    who believed that there are things more precious than human life

    The Founding Fathers were not so cavalier in sacrificing the lives of others, as you are, X. They put their lives on the line, because that is their choice to make. You have no right, X, to dictate to other Americans what they should fight or die for. You don’t even have the power to do so.

    I think that questioning such adventurism in our name is an act of patriotism

    Dissent is the highest form of patriotism for the Left, Chris. After all, is it not the best that parasites can hope to aspire to? Parasitism, after all, is certainly not the best vehicle for cooperation and harmony.

    I would remind you that we went to Iraq based on fears for our own national security

    Since you believe that your beliefs matter more than the lives and choices of other Americans, why do you even care why the US went to Iraq for? It is not like it is going to change anything for you. Unless you told the US to go to Iraq, nothing about Iraq would change the fact that people chose to do things contrary to what you think the Constitution allows.

    And frankly, it is better to believe that the Constitution contains rights that are not explicitly spelled out

    Exactly. Like the right to own slaves in the South and to rebel and kill anyone you like. That’s a right that is not spelled out in the Constitution.

    And what if the French did start killing each other? There certainly was some animosity there, what if they did attack each other?

    The French did attack each other, at least the French that disliked the French that cooperated with the Nazi occupation. Course, most of Paris cheered when the Nazis came into Paris. So they were essentially taking it out on each other. A lot of the French resistance groups also started out as pro-Communist groups, which is why they didn’t start anything with Germany when Germany was still allied with Stalin.
    ****
    Seems everyone wants a piece of this discussion.

66. No worries, agip, they do that all by themselves.

    Yes, I can see how my lengthy definition of what a patriot is would lead one to think that I have impugned my own patriotism. That no one else here seems capable of defining what a patriot is except to say “I’m one and you’re not” is irrelevant in your thinking, of course.

67. It was always the people that mattered first, X. Not ideologies and words on paper.

    I love how, in your mindset, freedom is an “ideology” and the Constitution is merely “words on paper.” I of course had assumed that the right thought so of both things, but to hear you so frankly admit it is a bit of a surprise.

    The Founding Fathers were not so cavalier in sacrificing the lives of others, as you are, X.

    Indeed they were not, as their own lives were on the line. Only nowadays, when warmongerers can safely watch soldiers go off to die for dubious causes, is someone like me-who would rather soldiers not die for unclear reasons-“cavalier” about the lives of others.

    Parasitism, after all, is certainly not the best vehicle for cooperation and harmony.

    Hmmm, strange is the parasite who seeks to better the host. It seems rather to me that the false patriot, of which there are more than few bounding around on this blog, is the parasite who lives off the glory and feats of others. What would such a parasite do except turn on those who would deprive him of his joy in war and torture, and question their patriotism?

    Not really. My argument is that you cannot have liberty without essential security.

    What is “essential” security then, if not “as much security as possible against minimal terrorist threats?” Your argument would make more sense if we were in an war over our very existence. We are not. Therefore my point stands. You are willing to sacrifice freedom for only increments more of security. That’s really all there is to it. You might want to read the words of Alexander Hamilton, who knew something about this phenomenon:

    “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_08.html

68. “is the parasite who lives off the glory and feats of others.”

    You know, we see this shibboleth all the time in comments here. What exactly has your service to the country you so admire been? How have you sacrificed for your freedoms?

    And, since the argument is sure to be brought up, I haven’t done much along those lines either, save working in a capacity that indirectly serves the warfighters currently in country, and performing in a USO-style troupe for service members during the Vietnam war, when folks like you were spitting on returning veterans. I contribute to charities that benefit the children and widows of service members killed or injured in action. And I vote for people who support the mission, instead of constantly threatening to shut off funding.

    Really, X, what do you do for your country, besides complain?

69. And again, X, please tell me how your freedoms have been abridged. Do you miss going to the library to read up on nuclear weapons design? Do you miss phoning your Taliban friends in Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi?

    (If neither of these applies to you, then perhaps your freedoms are still intact, neh?)

70. It’s funny how those opposed to the current war in Iraq are so touchy about the subject of patriotism. No one questioned it until all the demonstrations with “Bush = Hitler” and “No Blood For Oil” and etc painted all over them. Which, if you think about it, those slogans, and the beliefs they and the anti-war crowd express on a regular basis (including in this comments thread) are really horrendous charges. So, while they’re quite happy to lightly toss around the most horrifying, unproven allegations, it hurts their feelings if you question their patriotism.

    As for myself, I make a habit of extending the benefit of the doubt and assuming Xan, etc., are acting for what they believe are the best interests of the nation. I wish those on my side of the aisle were extended half the benefit of the doubt they regularly demand from me.

71. Xan:
    “Only nowadays, when warmongerers can safely watch soldiers go off to die for dubious causes, is someone like me-who would rather soldiers not die for unclear reasons-”cavalier” about the lives of others.”

    What is suddenly not clear to you Xan? Wasnt that you who said this?:

    “An American patriot values liberty and human freedom above all else, because he knows that it is the ultimate right of all men and women to live free and in peace.”

    So what’s changed? Are those value still worth fighting for? Or has the conviction behind that statement “evolved” in much of the same way you wish the Constitution would?

    “It seems rather to me that the false patriot, of which there are more than few bounding around on this blog, is the parasite who lives off the glory and feats of others.”

    Have you served in the military Xan? I have. I dont know that you can pretend preach to anybody about their patriotism and how it couldnt possibly measure up with yours. It has been my experience that liberals who like to pretend to be one the side of soldiers one moment wont hesitate to denounce them the next.

    “Your argument would make more sense if we were in an war over our very existence. We are not.”

    A couple of hundred people killed here, a few thousand there….Whats the difference right? I mean, whats the likelihood that Xan is going to be killed in a terrorist act? Far less than the threat of having his non-existent moral standings and convictions threatened. What a patriot. What a true defender of peoples liberties.

72. Really, X, what do you do for your country, besides complain?

    First off, I don’t make the chickenhawk argument, even if it’s tempting at times. I think it’s unfair, and I don’t agree with it because I don’t think you have to serve in the military to serve your country. A citizen serves his country by being informed, by paying his taxes, by voting…by just being involved.

    So that’s what I do for my country. Oh, and bitch about the likes of people who want to see it destroyed in wars.

73. It’s funny how those opposed to the current war in Iraq are so touchy about the subject of patriotism.

    It’s funny how you can say that when it’s the right-wing that’s always impugning the patriotism of people they disagree with. Forgive me for being “touchy” when people want to compare me to Benedict Arnold. I suppose I shouldn’t be so sensitive.

74. And again, X, please tell me how your freedoms have been abridged.

    Please try to read more carefully; I already invited you to visit my blog for an extensive list of the way in which our freedoms have been abridged. See archives, 2004-present.

    And for what it’s worth, when the Constitution is harmed, all of us are harmed, not just those who it affects. Unless of course you believe democracy means “majority rules”, in which case you should have been paying attention in sixth grade.

75. A couple of hundred people killed here, a few thousand there….Whats the difference right? I mean, whats the likelihood that Xan is going to be killed in a terrorist act? Far less than the threat of having his non-existent moral standings and convictions threatened. What a patriot. What a true defender of peoples liberties.

    Unlike you H, my belief in the constitution does depend on my own personal safety being preserved. That’s why, unlike you, I have no desire to see it dismantled to preserve us from the minor threat of terrorism. I could make this argument again, but I invite you to read the quote from Alexander Hamilton above. You may not understand what I’m saying, but if you read carefully, it might make sense coming from him. Let’s just say, he had people like you in mind when he wrote that.

76. I of course had assumed that the right thought so of both things, but to hear you so frankly admit it is a bit of a surprise.

    You just think that the Constitution and the people are one and the same. Liberty is useless unless it is the people that have liberty. The President is not the people of the US nor is he the country itself, yet you would have us believe that liberty is present in the enforcement mechanism in equal amounts to its presence in people. That is truly false idol worshipping.

    As you have admitted, you believe that the Constitution is liberty. Yet liberty involves people, not paper, not even ancient and well preserved paper.

    So what’s changed? Are those value still worth fighting for? Or has the conviction behind that statement “evolved” in much of the same way you wish the Constitution would?

    Nothing has changed. It is just that when you worship false idols, you inevitably will not pursue the fight for true liberty. Since true liberty cannot exist in false idols such as the US Constitution. The US Constitution is not a substitute for liberty and rights, it is the mechanism of enforcement of those rights and ideals. Should the US Constitution ever come between the dignity of humanity and the protection of liberty, the US Constitution would lose out in such a fight. Yet to Xan, the US Constitution is liberty, and thus is just as important as the people in which liberty resides. That is worshipping false idols, and nothing good comes from worshipping representations of truth as if it was truth.

    I think it’s unfair, and I don’t agree with it because I don’t think you have to serve in the military to serve your country.

    If it wasn’t for your pseudo outrage over the Constitution, X, that might actually count for something.

77. my belief in the constitution does depend on my own personal safety being preserved.

    Logic problem number 1. The Founding Fathers risked their very lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on beliefs more important than their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. X, here, says his belief in these “higher beliefs” that the Constitution is supposed to represent, is contingent upon his own personal safety. Logic train derailment here.

    That’s why, unlike you, I have no desire to see it dismantled to preserve us from the minor threat of terrorism.

    Which means that if terroism was a major threat to X’s existence, X would be the first to throw the Constitution out with the baby water. After all, his belief in the constitution does depend upon his own personal safety.

    So that’s what I do for my country.

    Logic problem number 2. What X values as duty to the country has actually nothing to do with his high falutin claims about the United States greatness or the Constitution’s preservation of liberty.

    X does not believe that liberty and freedom requires the blood of both tyrants and patriots to flourish. Therefore, logically speaking, X believes in something that is called liberty but really is something else.

78. An additional similarity and connection I would forward for the benefit of the community is that X believes the same as Chris. They both believe that force, military force at that, especially American military force, cannot create nor sustain liberty and progress.

    After all, X is not suicidal per say; he does believe that if there was a threat then he should be protected from that threat. What he doesn’t believe is that military force, represented in the security apparatus of the Patriot Act or law enforcement modifications post 9/11, will ever protect X, given that terrorism is such a minor minor problem.

    I cannot extrapolate what X’s response to a greater threat is to any high accuracy standard, except that it would probably be very similar to believing in international law and “diplomacy” (aka haggling, ensuring that both sides come out thinking they have won a good deal). Which, coincidentally, is the same as throwing the Constitution over the balcony in favor of personal safety, which I stated was X’s logical conclusion.

    Both Chris and X does not see military force in Iraq as a harbinger of progress, human rights, civilization, stability, and liberty. Other than the fact that they are definitely not Jacksonians, the reasoning is very simple. They just don’t believe that military force can create a better world and protect people that need protection. They do not believe, as we believe, that the tree of liberty requires the blood of tyrants and patriots to flourish.

    The Founding Fathers chose a war over living under unfair taxes and British troops garrisoned illegaly on colonials. President Lincoln fought to end slavery by agreeing and ordering the slaughter of many thousands upon thousands of Americans, and he was killed for such actions and beliefs.

    Yet X and Chris would have us believe that their way lies with the methods that they favor. Such things are just that. Lies at best.

79. Yet X and Chris would have us believe that their way lies the better methods; methods that they favor as being better and more right than ours.

80. You see Ymar, its gotta fit on a bumper sticker:

    Free Tibet

    Save Darfur

    Coexist

    Visualize world peace.

    Honk if you’re horny. (Ok, that last one is on my car.)

    Because for Xan, doing his part means issuing moral homilies from behind the protection of a forcefully defended Constitution. Forcefully because just slapping it on a sticker does not protect or defend those ideas. Determined use of force and having actual convictions does.

81. “Please try to read more carefully; I already invited you to visit my blog”

    Please try to read more carefully; I invited you to tell me, not to request me to read more of your drivel. By the way, I visited your blog, and can’t find any references to “archives 2004-present”. The place is really difficult to navigate. You could take some lessons from neo.

    You could just give me one example of how your freedom has been abridged. Just one. Easy enough?

82. Yet to Xan, the US Constitution is liberty, and thus is just as important as the people in which liberty resides. That is worshipping false idols, and nothing good comes from worshipping representations of truth as if it was truth.

    Thus, you admit that honoring the Constitution and the values it represents is “worshipping a false idol.” I don’t really feel the need to say anything else at this point; you’ve admitted what I asked you to admit.

    If it wasn’t for your pseudo outrage over the Constitution, X, that might actually count for something.

    There’s nothing pseudo about it, and nothing I’ve said has suggested that I’m engaging in this debate out of mock outrage because I have a secret agenda in mind. Unless of course you think arguing for upholding the Constitution is actually a secret agenda for undermining the country, which I suspect you and your cohorts do.

    Logic problem number 1.

    My mistake; that was supposed to read “does not.” Still, you really should have been able to get the gist of my argument even with the typo.

    Logic problem number 2. What X values as duty to the country has actually nothing to do with his high falutin claims about the United States greatness or the Constitution’s preservation of liberty.

    There is no “logic problem” here. Only your misunderstanding of my argument. Please tell me how being a good citizen has nothing to do with being a patriot, and perhaps we can see your logic unfold.

    The Founding Fathers chose a war over living under unfair taxes and British troops garrisoned illegaly on colonials. President Lincoln fought to end slavery by agreeing and ordering the slaughter of many thousands upon thousands of Americans, and he was killed for such actions and beliefs.

    That you conflate the invasion of a country that does not threaten us with the throwing off of a monarch and a civil war over the existence of our country indicates that you have at best an incomplete grasp of history, and it is both the beginning and the end of our argument. I’m trying to be fair, but there’s nothing to say to someone who thinks the invasion of Iraq and the American revolution are equivalent.

    Yet X and Chris would have us believe that their way lies the better methods; methods that they favor as being better and more right than ours.

    Well, now that you did get right.

    They do not believe, as we believe, that the tree of liberty requires the blood of tyrants and patriots to flourish.

    Who said such a thing? Only when invading other countries out of fear and calling it “humanitarianism” and freeing people to kill each other in the hundreds of thousands and calling it “liberty” does that statement make any sense.

    Because for Xan, doing his part means issuing moral homilies from behind the protection of a forcefully defended Constitution.

    I’m really not sure what you think in all my arguing is a “moral homily” that I could fit on a bumper sticker. If I could fit Hamilton’s quote on a bumper sticker I might, but persons such as you would read it there about as much as you’ve read it here.

    Please try to read more carefully; I invited you to tell me, not to request me to read more of your drivel. By the way, I visited your blog, and can’t find any references to “archives 2004-present”. The place is really difficult to navigate. You could take some lessons from neo.

    Since you do not understand how a blog works, please visit my blog and type it at the top “torture.” Or “wiretapping” or “Gitmo” for starters, at least.

    Lastly, I still have seen no one who has taken upon themselves to tell me what a patriot is or does, as I asked. I have only seen it stated repeatedly what one is not, the definition being “liberals who disagree with me.”

83. Thus, you admit that honoring the Constitution and the values it represents is “worshipping a false idol.”

    How many times do I have to spell it out, X, that you don’t worship ideals by worshipping what represents those ideals. It is the difference between being a true classical liberal and being a fake liberal. Neo, for example, is a true liberal while you are an example of the fake kind.

    Unless of course you think arguing for upholding the Constitution is actually a secret agenda for undermining the country

    There are two Americas. When you undermine one, it doesn’t mean you are undermining the other at the same time.

    that was supposed to read “does not.”

    A lot of things you have said are supposed to read “does not” make sense.

    That you conflate the invasion of a country that does not threaten us with the throwing off of a monarch and a civil war over the existence of our country indicates that you have at best an incomplete grasp of history,

    You do understand that there were British loyalists living in the Colonies that believed that the Colonies (Britain’s Colonies) were threatened not by the British but by the rebels, do you not? This is not a historical schism over bad facts, this is about different beliefs.

    Logic derailment problem number 3 consists of your warped doublethinking consideration that all that matters is whether an enemy threatens you or not. For all you have repeated that you, X, are a patriot while your detractors are nationalists, the only real difference that we can observe from your words are that nationalists believe there is a threat while you don’t. Why this difference of belief makes them nationalists but you a patriot, only makes sense to you.

    For all you speak about freedom, the only freedom you care about is your own. That’s called selfishness and narcissism in case you missed the train.

    All of humanity is created equally with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not just you, X.

    who thinks the invasion of Iraq and the American revolution are equivalent.

    That’s because you are not a true classical liberal, X. You believe that ancestors that fought for your freedom were good, while those that fought for other’s freedoms are bad because the latter threatens your status and beliefs. Well, tough.

    freeing people to kill each other in the hundreds of thousands and calling it “liberty” does that statement make any sense.

    Yet you have obviously shown your true colors by praising America’s Civil War and the Revolutionary War. What differs the slaughter in Iraq from the slaughter sustained by George Washington when he supported rebellion or the slaughter allowed because Lincoln wouldn’t permit the South to secede? What. Is. The. Difference?

    The difference is that it is fine for people to die for Xan. It is not fine for people to die for the liberty of others; that threatens Xan’s status and beliefs.

    Since you do not understand how a blog works, please visit my blog and type it at the top “torture.” Or “wiretapping” or “Gitmo” for starters, at least.

    What Xan means is that he has been tortured, wiretapped, and threatened to be sent to GitMo. In other words…

    The simplest definition of what a patriot is, is a person that loves his or her country. Since you love a piece of paper more than your country, it is kind of hard for you to call yourself a patriot. Patria can mean many things, such as homeland, fatherland, motherland, etc. Patriotism is the love of one’s homeland. The use of the word love then implies a certain loyalty as well as divided loyalties when one is asked “whom do you love more”.

    freeing people to kill each other in the hundreds of thousands and calling it “liberty” does that statement make any sense.-Xan

    This is what you believe and wrote, X. I did not make it up. You believe that there is no liberty in Iraq because people were made free to kill each other by the US. As I have said, X, you love words on a piece of paper more than you love the people those words were meant to defend. Such a person is not a patriot, rather he is a fanatic and loyal to his creed.

84. Your rights, X, not the supposed rights of enemy combatants (who have none, by the way, since they do not abide by the GC).

    As for “wiretapping,” do you even understand the program? Do you have a clue as to what and who’s being tapped? Again, how have your rights been abridged? You complain about the administration “trampling” on the Constitution, yet you can’t give us one simple example of how you’ve been harmed. “No man is an island,” perhaps?

    I don’t appreciate the snark; BTW, I do “understand how a blog works”–generally, when someone references “archives–2004” one would expect his blog to contain a reference to same, not the (unstated) command to “type it at the top “torture.” Or “wiretapping” or “Gitmo”.

    And since we’ve not been able to satisfy your petulant need to describe a “patriot”, here goes:

    Xanthippas, patriot extraordinaire. You can find it in the dictionary, right between “xanthine” (a feebly basic compound that yields uric acid on oxidation) and “xanthoma” (a condition marked by irregular yellow patches or nodules on the skin) /Julia Roberts.

    Good enough for you?

85. The United States is a central communications hub. Information, internet based as well as telephone based, goes through the United States territory, in servers or other means, all the time. Thus many of the calls monitored by wiretapping, even if it originated in foreign lands, are no longer monitored simply because they pass through the United States. The wealth and status of the US, supposedly an advantage against a foe living amongst savages in caves, is no longer an advantage at all. Such is the nature of asymmetrical warfare. It will continue to be asymmetrical until the United States beats the terrorists at their own game. Then it will become symmetrical. Then we will win.

86. Book has a frightfully enlightening post about Communism up

    This hits straight into the court of Sergey, given the topic of democracies, their weaknesses, and how the Soviet Union subverted those weaknesses.

    As I mentioned about the Shah of Iran to Chris White, it is the loosening of security which brings the revolutions and public executions on. The Left is ecstatic at such things, because they do not believe that violence is justified unless it is Leftist violence.

87. Myth: The Communist ideal is quite innocent, for example, “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”

    Fact: “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. … Abolition of the family! … Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality … this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads … In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.” (The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.)

    Myth: The Russian Communists overthrew the czar; they were simply replacing a violent dictator.

    Fact: Czar Nicholas II, no longer getting support from his own army, abdicated in March 1917, yielding power to a provisional government ultimately led by Alexander Kerensky, a democrat and a socialist, not a Communist. At the time of the abdication, much of the Communist leadership was out of the country in Switzerland, New York, London and Paris, or in Siberian prisons. In particular, Vladimir Lenin was in Switzerland, Leon Trotsky was in New York and Joseph Stalin was in Siberia.

    With a newly liberated Russia, the Communists were able to return. The German Kaiser paid for Lenin’s return because Lenin supported Russia’s withdrawal from World War I. The Communists overthrew the provisional democratic government in its infancy a few months later, in November of that same year. (It is called the October Revolution because it occurred in October of the Julian calendar used in Russia at the time.)

    Myth: The Russian Communists were no more violent than the czar.

    Fact: “The size of these numbers alone – between 10,000 and 15,000 summary executions in two months – marked a radical break with the practices of the tsarist regime… In the space of a few weeks the Cheka [Bolshevik secret police] alone had executed two to three times the total number of people condemned to death by the tsarist regime over ninety-two years.” (The Black Book of Communism)

    A taste.

    We can begin with the restoration of the Shah to the Iranian throne by means of an American backed and instigated coup against one of the first democratically elected governments in the region. This was done in the name of anti-communism.-Chris White

    It is America that is the greater threat, you see. Not the Islamic Jihad. Not Communism. And certainly not the Left.

    Except for the fact that the Shah started to loosen his grip on things (because he listened to Western agitations about democracy) and thus allowed the key leaders of the Iranian Islamic revolution to actually live, that might actually count for something other than digitized words.-Ymar

88. Xan:
    “Only when invading other countries out of fear and calling it “humanitarianism” and freeing people to kill each other in the hundreds of thousands and calling it “liberty” does that statement make any sense.”

    Ah, so you do think the oppressive dictatorship was preferable then, don’t you? Tidier, safer. Safer for Xan who can kickback blame his own country whether the dictator exists or not.

    But why? Without the invasion there could be no liberty. As it stands the people of Iraq have the best chance at liberty than they have had in more than a generation. So why is it Xan opposes our efforts? Because its hard work? Because its frustrating and at times, disheartening? Because people are dying in the process?

    Xan is unable to support our efforts because it forces Xan to admit to himself or others that his ideology is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt. Xan likes to present his stand as morally superior to ours and pro-offers phantom atrocities and violations on our part to deflect the evil inward where it becomes safer and easier to deal with than actually having to deal with it. But it doesn’t quite stand up to scrutiny does it? No Xan, it doesnt.

89. Let’s see if I follow the reasoning here; when the Iranians democratically elected someone we felt had too socialistic an agenda it was the right thing to support a coup and restore the Shah. When, after a couple of decades of brutally repressing any and all opposition, the Shah began to move in the direction of slightly greater recognition of human rights, that was stupid and led to his overthrow. When Saddam oppressed his people and grew fat on graft and corruption while fighting Iran that was okay. When he did so after he stopped fighting the Iranians he needed to be removed for the good of the Iraqi people. And all of this fits neatly into supporting liberty, extending democracy and advancing our national interests … how?

    So, now we’ve got a nuclear Pakistan with a megalomaniac ruler who took control in a coup. We’ve been supporting him because he’s supposedly assisting in the greater War on Terror. Faced with a functioning judiciary and semi-free press (well, there’s a big part of his problem) he’s declared Marshall Law to avoid losing power. What should we do next? What are the most likely outcomes?

    And I’m one of the crazy, un-patriotic ones for questioning how this sort of foreign policy serves our long term interests?

90. Xan: It’s funny how you can say that when it’s the right-wing that’s always impugning the patriotism of people they disagree with.

    Can you point me to any statement by a major right wing figure impugning the patriotism of those in the anti-war movement BEFORE the ‘Bush = Hitler’ marches?

    The instinctive reaction of the left is to call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist, Nazi, or to otherwise greatly malign their moral character (blood for oil, etc.). You have been no exception.

    Xan: Forgive me for being “touchy” when people want to compare me to Benedict Arnold. I suppose I shouldn’t be so sensitive.

    Forgive me for being so touchy when people compare me to Hitler. I suppose I shouldn’t be so sensitive, or question their motivations.

91. Ah, so you do think the oppressive dictatorship was preferable then, don’t you?

    I don’t think that even matters, certainly not to X. Since X believes Iraq was based upon false premises, then obviously Saddam was not the enemy he was made out to be, in X’s eyes.

    Xan: Forgive me for being “touchy” when people want to compare me to Benedict Arnold.

    Are you a full blown narcissist or what? The comment in which I mentioned Benedict Arnold was to Chris, not you. Somehow you have transfered a comment that had nothing to do with you, into an alternative reality in which people compared you to Benedict Arnold. Preposterous, but you still do it.

    You transfer what happens to people at GitMo as it happened directly to you, as well. Both are not very useful sets of behavior.

    To Chris,

    It is martial law, not Marshall Law. This is simply to remove the confusion that this has anything to do with the Marshall Plan, just in case you might be refering to it.

    And I’m one of the crazy, un-patriotic ones for questioning how this sort of foreign policy serves our long term interests?

    You don’t question anything, Chris. It is not as if you are Neo, nor have I accused you of lacking patriotism. Certainly you love a homeland, it just so happens that there are two Americas and loving one America does not include loving the other. I only disagree with your claim that you are interested in the long term interests of the same country I am for supporting, and I also disagree with your claim that you have the correct methods that could promote liberty amongst the world.

    When, after a couple of decades of brutally repressing any and all opposition, the Shah began to move in the direction of slightly greater recognition of human rights, that was stupid and led to his overthrow.

    Pretty much exactly how it went. Read this historical document for the goods.

    It was hardly an auspicious 59th birthday last week for the Shah of Iran. Under mounting opposition from critics of his regime, the Shah has been forced into a radical reassessment of his priorities. In recent weeks, strikes by workers angered over the country’s inflation rate (currently 50%) have paralyzed the nationalized oil refineries, postal service, airline, and copper and steel industries. The nation’s balance of payments deficit exceeds $5.5 billion. To pay for an across-the-board wage increase for at least 1 million workers, and for subsidized housing and other social projects, the Shah has canceled $7 billion worth of American and European military orders, including the controversial U.S. AWAC airborne warning system. He is also scrapping plans to build 20 nuclear plants, a modern railroad and a subway system for Tehran.

    Despite such spartan measures, there is increasing doubt among both knowledgeable Iranians and Western diplomats that the Shah will be able to survive as ruler of the 57-year-old Pahlavi dynasty. In recent days. 64 members of the royal family, including the Shah’s brothers and sisters and in-laws, have fled the country.

    On the eve of his birthday, the Shah released 1,451 prisoners, including 1,126 political detainees. Still, demonstrations and rioting continued; 1,200 people, by conservative estimates, have died in clashes with military troops since August. The Shah remains committed to political reforms that will lead to parliamentary elections next June. He has also indicated a willingness to give up some of his absolute powers in favor of a constitutional monarchy. Nonetheless, he now privately admits that if the turmoil continues, he may be forced to leave the country.

    The question of the Shah’s future role is one on which his opponents are divided. Many people in Iran would like to see him remain as a figurehead but removed from politics; others insist that his rule must end. One of the most vigorous advocates of the Shah’s removal is Ayatullah Khomeini, the 76-year-old mullah who is now the undisputed spiritual and political leader of Iran’s 32 million Shi’ite Muslims, who comprise 93% of the population. A longtime opponent of the Shah, Khomeini was exiled in 1963 following violent demonstrations against the Shah’s land reforms. Two weeks ago, he was expelled from Iraq, where he had kept his headquarters and served as a catalyst to the opposition against the Shah. He is now temporarily residing in France.

    A specialist in Islamic philosophy and law, Khomeini lives the typically ascetic life of a mullah and hardly looks like a political leader who could galvanize a nation. Yet no less a personage than Ardeshir Zahedi, Iranian Ambassador to the U.S., tried to pay a call on Khomeini in France. The reported purpose of the visit was to persuade Khomeini to return to Iran and help defuse the crisis. But Khomeini refused to see the ambassador. He will not return to Iran, he insists, until the Shah’s rule has ended. Last week TIME Correspondent Dean Brelis interviewed Khomeini at a guarded farmhouse in Pontchartrain. Excerpts from the interview:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948276-2,00.html

    This ties in directly with what I was telling Neo when her Sanity squad brought up the topic of Mushie in Pakistan.

    When Saddam oppressed his people and grew fat on graft and corruption while fighting Iran that was okay.

    It definitely was okay with your vaunted international law and approval program. It was only Bush acting outside international and United Nations corruption circles that got rid of Saddam. It wasn’t not you, Chris, not your international pals. Have some shame for goodness sakes.

92. Chris, there’s a lot of question about how ‘democratic’ the election was in Iran. Saddam was ‘elected’ as well, but not democratically. Also, the problem was not the elected government’s socialist tendencies (that has never been the problem) but rather their willingness to ally themselves with the Soviet Union. There was this whole thing called ‘the Cold War,’ maybe you’ve heard of it?

    And speaking of the Cold War, Saddam’s Iraq was a Soviet client state right up to the fall of the USSR. And, no, what Saddam did was never OK with the US, but we were in no position to do anything about it (cf. Warsaw Pact, ICBM, etc.). Of course, what blood dictators shed within their own borders isn’t something the left is concerned with, or they would demand more unilateral action from the US. Building international consensus and great coalitions to carry out major goals requires mollifying a lot of dictators, unless you go all cowboy unilateralist on it.

    But, the left does truly enjoy its rhetorical hypocrisy: If we deal with dictators, we’re condoning their bloody actions, and if we refuse to deal with dictators, we are rednecks destroying our international reputation with unilateral action. And they are excellent at selective forgetfulness: We didn’t like the socialist tendencies of some government, so we overthrew it to prevent Hillarycare … uh, never mind the threat posed by Communist imperialists armed with ICBMs, with a military requiring huge amounts of oil. Hmm, now where could the Soviets have aquired the oil they needed? What country, with a newly formed socialist-leaning government, might step under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics umbrella and supply the Soviet military with the oil they needed? Gosh, I just can’t think of one. Oh well, I guess we did help overthrow the Iranian government to prevent Hillarycare. We are so MEAN!!!!

    And the same for Pakistan, of course (which joined the nuclear club during which presidency? Starts w/ a ‘C’ …). Dealing with them in order to get what help we can in fighting our declared enemies is a Bad Thing. We should be more unilateral, go it alone or only with thoroughly vetted, morally upright governments, right? I mean, we’d never have anything to do with the Chinese government, certainly. Forget that whole diplomacy, international community, UN, multilateralism stuff. That’s for fascists.

    Oh, and I guess the fact that Afghanistan is a landlocked country, with Iran and Pakistan between it and the ocean, and the fact that our major method of projecting military power is aircraft carriers, shouldn’t have any consideration? Sorry, of course not. We should just do all that Robert Heinlein stuff and build a spaceport in Kabul. Go Space Marines!

93. For one thing, Carter and the Left’s treatment of Iran shows you quite well how they would deal with Pakistan.

    Please read this for what they plan to do to Pakistan’s people, ag.

    http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html

94. Dealing with them in order to get what help we can in fighting our declared enemies is a Bad Thing. We should be more unilateral, go it alone or only with thoroughly vetted, morally upright governments, right?

    What the Left will do to Pakistan can be spelled out in one word.

    Betrayal.

    It is a specialty of subversive organizations.

    Leftism and Communism creates the vacuum into which fascism steps and thereby reigns supreme. It is as simple as that.

95. Chris, sorry, I forgot to address this: When Saddam oppressed his people and grew fat on graft and corruption while fighting Iran that was okay. When he did so after he stopped fighting the Iranians he needed to be removed for the good of the Iraqi people.

    Yeah, I don’t know, something about Soviet client state (cf. Warsaw Pact, SLBMs, etc.), Kuwait, international community, thousand points of light (sorry, joke) … I don’t know. I just feel something is missing from your recounting of the logic.

    Chris:And all of this fits neatly into supporting liberty, extending democracy and advancing our national interests … how?

    Well, if that’s what you think our logic is, no wonder you’re confused!

    Try this: During the Cold War, the US was locked in an existential conflict with a rival, aggressive superpower. During this time, overthrowing some governments, or simply supporting the overthrow of some governments, to keep them from joining the Soviet side against us, seemed like a better deal than letting the enemy build a bigger and bigger alliance of states against us. However, there were some states the US couldn’t do anything about, and some against whom it was simply dangerous to try to move against. The Soviets played the same game, and were quite a bit more brutal about it.

    After the Soviet Union fell (say, from 1989, ignoring the technical details of dissolution), the US was no longer in an existential conflict. We could breathe easier and address concerns a rung or two down from survival, like building a better international community through promoting law, order, and democracy. At that time, we thought promoting and enforcing international laws would reduce violence and bloodshed (now we would say ‘Tell it to Ruwanda, tell it to Bosnia, tell it to Darfur,’ but we were young and naive then … [flash scenes of Paris in the spring, a cafe, a young woman in a beret] ).

    When Saddam fought Iran (what, 1980-88?), he was a Soviet ally (cf. Warsaw Pact, MIRV, etc.). When he invaded Kuwait, he wasn’t, and it seemed in the best interest of both the US and the international community at large to slap his hand and tell him to keep it on his own oil wells. This was when we believed strong international laws were in our best interests.

    We all know how the next 12 years, 17 UNSC resolutions, and the perfidies of three UNSC permanent members along with dishonest bureaucracy (e.g. Oil for Palaces), dishonest journalism (e.g., Eason Jordan), and rising anti-Americanism and terrorist attacks worked out, so no need to go there again. Although, happy to do so if you want. That’s me, obliging to a fault.

    Anyway, after that nasty experience with tying ourselves up in international law enforcement, and dreams of international peace went wafting up in cordite smoke, it was clear that the spread of democracy was more in our interests than the increased power of organizations where we were outnumbered by tyrants and those who would do anything for a few billion in oil field development contracts.

    It was also clear that Saddam wasn’t going to allow peace: he did have dormant WMD programs, and once the sanctions were dropped (and hence the no-fly zones) he would have gone after the Kurds. After the Kurds were finished off, it would have been some other war. He needed enemies to justify his brutal regime, so there was never any chance of peace with him around. Naturally, he and Iran would be in an arms race for nukes right now, and my wouldn’t that have been exciting to watch? Plus his support for terrorists, yada yada yada, you know the rest (or at least you do if you’ve been listening to what the right’s actually been saying instead of just soaking up the horrendously simplistic versions they’ve been tarred with by lefty propagandists).

96. Okay, I get it now. You guys have a magic crystal ball. You KNOW what will happen in every country around the world and so, when you see a bad future ahead, it is your … our … right and duty to change it by deciding which governments are “good” and which are “bad” based on a calculus developed by brilliant patriots back in the day when Stalin was in power. I can’t wait for the the television adaptation, kinda “24” meets “Heroes.” Will Fred Thompson get to play the role of President in the series or actually BE President when the series airs?

    More seriously, either we are an alternative to the Evil Empire or new caliphate, supporting democracy, freedom and the rule of law at home and abroad over those who would rule by fear and oppression, denying freedom to their subjects … or we are in a perpetual existential struggle in which we must adopt the same tactics as our enemies if we are to survive. Or, as Patrick Henry (should have) said, “Give me security or give me death.”

97. Chris White:
    “Okay, I get it now. You guys have a magic crystal ball. You KNOW what will happen in every country around the world and so, when you see a bad future ahead, it is your … our … right and duty to change it by deciding which governments are “good” and which are “bad” based on a calculus developed by brilliant patriots back in the day when Stalin was in power.”

    Now you’re getting it.

    Now you and Xan just sit there and relax. Don’t worry your pretty little heads and let the men folk do their jobs.

98. Chris, you not only missed the boat, but you’re at the airport.

99. Regardless of whether Chris is right or wrong, he has done a very excellent job of describing his beliefs and philosophy. Even if he chooses not to discuss or debate that philosophy.

100. Pingback:80's music

101. Pingback:ann magnuson

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>