Thursday, April 20, 2006

Politics

Knock me over with the feather department. Betsy's Page says Howard Dean is calling for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday called border security his party's top immigration priority for November. "The first thing we want is tough border control," he said. "We have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done. And then we can go to the policy disagreements about how to get it done." Republicans reacted with surprise to Mr. Dean's announcement, which puts the DNC chief's views at odds with those of many Democrats in Congress. "If Dean means what he says about border enforcement, that would put the Democrats somewhere to the right of President Bush on immigration," said Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican.

Why? Here's a clue from conservative blogger Latino Issues, reacting to the arrest of IFCO Systems managers for employing illegal aliens.

It sounds like they are feeling the heat from the voters--you know, those citizens that came to this country legally, or are born here. Again, mass rallies are going to have the opposite intended effect as far as policy makers are concerned. The left-wing Latino organizations have made a mistake by inciting these rallies, as far as they are concerned, but I guess you can say they did us all a favor. They brought attention to the issue.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't. FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog notes that what Howard Dean actually said was:

Mr. Dean said he wants “immigrants who obey the law and pay taxes to be able to apply for citizenship. We support earned legalization vigorously. And, much to my surprise, so do the American people.” “We don’t like guest-worker programs,” said Mr. Dean, a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. “I don’t like guest-worker programs. I think the president’s guest-worker program is essentially indentured servitude. It doesn’t help the immigrant, and it threatens wages.”

“Don’t forget — the Republicans have been in power for five years. They’ve had the House and Senate and the White House most of that time. And they have done nothing about immigration.”

Earned legalization. That's the phrase that makes one think of the old chestnut: the devil is in the details.

It's interesting to consider whether national policy is driven by some kind underlying national interest, as expressed by voters, rather than by the partisan platforms. Timothy Garton Ash writes an imaginary news article in the Guardian set in the future: Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009. It's hard to know what exactly Garton Ash's is driving at, except perhaps that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Containment was supported by every administration during the Cold War from Truman to Reagan, though through each election cycle both parties somehow managed to convey that each disagreed with the other. In Ash's alternative future, America goes through a cycle of 9/11s and retaliations. Or rather, in his account, the new 9/11s are caused by Hillary's retaliation. It's funny how in Garton Ash's 2009, Hillary Clinton does the very thing that he thinks George Bush won't do. Only three years later.

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009. ...

Washington claimed that it had legal authorisation under earlier UN security council resolutions sanctioning Iran for its non-compliance on the nuclear issue, but these claims were disputed by China and Russia. Most European countries did not back the operation either, producing another big transatlantic rift. However, under enormous pressure from his close friends among US Democrats, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, reluctantly decided to give it his approval, and allowed the token deployment of a small number of British special forces in a supporting role. This provoked a revolt from the Labour backbenches - led by the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw - and a demonstration of more than 1 million people in London. Even the Conservative leader, David Cameron, mindful that a general election was expected soon, criticised Brown's support for the American action. Brown therefore postponed the British election, which had been provisionally scheduled for May 2009. Instead of an election, the country experienced a tragedy.

As opposed to Garton Ash, Michael Young at Reason Magazine takes a look at the balance of pain between Iran and the US. There are no clear answers, just pros and cons Young seems to say. But he notes that people are "spinning" or emphasizing different pros and cons according to their political preferences, which is what you would expect. Seymour Hersh, for example, emphasizes the most extreme possible responses:

Hersh wrote that the lack of reliable intelligence about the bunkers protecting Iranian nuclear facilities "leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons." As the unnamed former official put it: "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap."

Go with Bush, go with Strangelove. It's an easy message to remember. But here's Young's best line.

On Sunday, Richard Clarke, the famous former national coordinator for security and counterterrorism, and Steven Simon, a former senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, warned that such ambiguity might lead to a clash that would be devastating for the U.S. Clarke and Simon recall that the Clinton administration also contemplated bombing Iran, but backed off because "the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States." ... the prize for apocalyptic prophecy went to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who thinks a war with Iran will be "the ending of America's present role in the world"

That single line encapsulates the problem with sanctions, blockades and surgical bombing. It puts America's foot on the escalator and  Clark, Simon and Brzezinski are saying that they don't like where the escalator leads. The real core of the problem is that unless the US is ultimately willing to embark on a program of regime change then it might as well not contemplate any actions which might escalate at all. Because the mullahs will sense that America will never ride the escalator to the top and simply wait for the politicians to get off. Whatever OIF's defects were it had this virtue. It committed a US Administration, for good or ill, to an end state. Saddam is gone. Finished. Finito. Future problems might emerge but some things at least are settled beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the case of Iran, however, the case for regime change has not yet politically taken root. Politicians are still talking about 'denying the mullahs a nuclear weapon' as if that were distinguishable from toppling the mullahs.

68 Comments:

Blogger Cedarford said...

Bush has long been a paid whore to the moneyed elites in America that want Open Borders and labor costs within the USA driven down to create enhanced Owner Class profits.

Which is why even after 9/11 he and other tools of the plutocrats still fought like crazy to keep the Borders unguarded and remained silent as foreign labor attacked the middle class jobs of Reagan Reopublicans and small town, rural Americans in the Republican base.

Bush figured as long as he fed the Religious right regularly, rewarded his fatcat donors with government pork and cheap, exploitable illegal labor, and posed as Maximum Beloved War Leader who keeps the soccer moms safe - business as usual could proceed.

Obviously, when even Fox News shows he only has 33% popularity and still declining - his approach isn't going too well. He still has Truman's record of 26% to reach...

What is going on with the Democrats is that the rage about Open Borders by displaced blacks is finally being taken seriously. All through the SW, blacks have lost their jobs to illegals and are now seeing illegals pouring into eastern and northern cities and being preferred over black workers. Dean has begun to get an earful from them and has decided to break with the Jews and Teddy Kennedy types in the Party that want to flood America with 3rd Worlders for ideological reasons. The DNC is also hearing it from the unions being displaced by 3rd World masses of workers.

It makes sense to have some debate within the Democratic Party and to take on issues like Ports, secure borders, floods of millions of unknown people into this country seriously....and to position themselves as tougher than the corporate crony Republicans. It makes even more sense to keep the black and union base solidly Democratic and count on the zeal of Bush-hating Jews and Teddy Kennedy types to keep their money and clout flowing to the Democrats - as usual.. All while talking up certain additional rights and affirmative action privileges they wish to succor hispanic favor despite now talking openly about ending Bush's unguarded Borders. (Many hispanics who made it in publically support their Aztlan Nation's brown brotherhood continue to pour in, but privately feel it has to be stopped so that their US wages will finally rise and they get more from their work - instead of the owner class exploiting their labor and getting all the money instead of them....

4/20/2006 03:26:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

Garton-Ash's scenario was so-so but the comments following it were revealing. They reinforced the stereotypes of the peace loving, Euro left.

Excerpts:
US ought to help build the power plants that would not produce bombs... America cannot afford to lose another war as badly as it did in the Iraq quagmire. Even in Afghanistan, after four years, the US is still struggling to defeat the Talibans.

I honestly had no idea it was going that badly for us.

I wonder if this confrontationist attitude of the western powers, headed by America, is the right approach. My thinking is this. if i make my enemy my friend, he becomes harmless, at least comparatively.

For some reason this guy has a low opinion of the US.
What is this? An utopia article? Things are going to be much worse than this if United Empire of America attacks yet another country. And Hillary Clinton? Give me a break. In an anti-intellectual, conservative, mysoginic and religiously backward country as America. I repeat, UTOPIA.

Then you had a sprinkling of this:

Ok then. We’d better let them develop the bomb in peace, so they can nuke us good and proper in a couple of years time instead of doing only half the job now.

Of course then, the West is totally neutered.We cannot do anything because Iran and (if it works for Iran, other countries) will send bombers into our cities. I suppose the same arguement was used by some in World War 2. if we bomb Germany they will bomb us back.

4/20/2006 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger John Samford said...

First, gunships fly thru the air, while torpedeos travel underwater. 'The twain shall never meet'
Second, The UN will do back flips to see who can kiss Hill-de-beasts hind quartes first. No chance of them saying 'no' to her.
Clinton could pull the US out of the UN and see her poll numbers skyrocket. Bush couldn't do that without risking impeachment.
The Politics of the situation are such that a Democratic President could do just about whatever they wanted to. The Demonrats would be so happy to get back the White House that the President would have carte blanc for their first administration. The Press would shut up and bow down in fear of another Republician. The Republicans are NOT going to do the same sort of obstructionism that the Donks have done the last 8 years.
Fortunatly, Hill-de-beast is unelectable as President.

AS far as the illegals demonstrating.... Why don't they go back to Mexico and do that? If Mexico would clean up it's act, there would be no need for illegals to make the crossing. That seems like the best solution to me. Regime Change in Mexico. They have OIL don't they? They are a threat to America, aren't they?

4/20/2006 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

If Dean is to the right of the GOP on anything it's because he's running in a circle chasing poll numbers.

The public mood does seem to be heading towards building a wall before discussing any concessions with the current illegals.

4/20/2006 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Garton Ash doesn't think the Islamization of Europe matters much. Some have argued that he looks forward to it. If I were to guess he feels that any reaction is futile. Orwell once said that the quickest way to end a war is to surrender. And if no one cares one way or the other ...

4/20/2006 03:54:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Well, Cedarford's laid down another Sura. I suppose there's no point in posting.

4/20/2006 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Here's a good one from Memri:

Saudi Cleric Sa'd Al-Breik Complains: Whoever Says Anything Good about Hitler is Accused of Anti-Semitism

4/20/2006 03:59:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

The interesting thing about containment with The Soviet Union is that it worked, because each side knew or learned of consequences of various activities. Cuba showed American tolerance for forward deployed strategic weapons was unacceptable. Proxy wars in Nicaragua, Viet Nam, and Afghanistan were tolerated on both sides as well as deep acts of espionage. Germany was split in the center and there were forward deployed forces nose to nose. You did not have opposed forces in each others camp. You did have Berlin and Guantanamo, which were unique and mutually tolerated.

If you look at Islamic jihadists as one camp and The US another, you have a very profound difference. Interspersed within the Jihadists region are American bases and forces. These are clearly unacceptable to the Jihadists and their response is suicide bombers. Clearly, we will never be able to eliminate them. Others and I have argued that the only response against suicide bombers is to target their advocates and sponsors. Those opposed to the strategy have sensibly argued that this has been tried with limited success by Israel and we still have suicide attacks.

If we accept that the US and Soviets successfully managed a cold war to a reasonable degree of conclusion, one can assume mutual respect for spheres of influence was the containment catalyst. Is it too unreasonable to ponder a similar strategy with radical Islam? Can we develop a line in the sand acceptable to both sides? Do forward deployed US troops in Islamic nations make sense? If we cast away the naive hope of democracy spreading and taking root in Islamic nations and we encourage Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan to take up regional security, would we not be stronger and more secure? We can maintain our over the horizon presence. We can demand a policy to reduce the need, use and value of oil. We could encourage an indigenous Islamic force to restrain Islamists.

It is not necessaery to negotiate anything with the Jihadists. The US has demonstrated an ability and willingness to exert force in the region. Now would be a good time to exert judgement based on experience and change our strategy.

4/20/2006 04:01:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Wretchard, the cleric has a point--we are no doubt prejudiced against Hitler. In a world where nothing is connected to anything else, he's just another dude, right?

4/20/2006 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Dean is to the "right" of Mr Bush 'cause he taken the "Populist" position.
It is a Democratic Standard.
For many of the reasons C4 outlines the Democrats will be moving to "secure first".

This will leave the "Amnesty" and the 13 million foreign workers without papers to be dealt with later.

Certainly, as a Policy, Dean's proposal is better than the status que. There are more and more coming each day, the promised opportunity of legal status in the US to good to pass by.

In life saving first thing, stop the bleeding.
In Immigration Policy, secure the Border.

To be against that is to ensure defeat.

4/20/2006 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

The Democrats must have read some interesting polls after their much needed two week vacation.

4/20/2006 04:47:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

And Mr Bush certainly does not represent the "right" or conservative version of Border Control.
Not enforcing the Law has never been a Conservative position, as far as I remember.
Mass migration across borders were considered Invasions, in times past.
No more, the lessons of Rome are lost upon US.

4/20/2006 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

2164,
Had some coffee clatchs, drank a few beers at the local bar, talked to old friends.
JD Hayworth, my favorite Congressman, has so distanced himself from Mr Bush, on this issue, that the 5,000+/- infiltrators arrested last night would not begin to bridge the Gap.

4/20/2006 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Wonder what backed the AZ Guv off her hard line? News sez nada, except that she changed her mind on asking for a military deployment.

4/20/2006 04:56:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Three recent presidents wore cowboy hats and boots. Two had more in common than either did with the third. Two best represented their parties at the time. One was a conservative.

4/20/2006 05:00:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

I've updated the post. Apparently Howard Dean's actual phrase after his line about border control was "We support earned legalization vigorously". So there's that.

4/20/2006 05:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This New Republic piece by Matthias Kuntzel is a chilling must-read for anyone attempting to understand the threat that is growing in Iran.
The article describes in detail the "Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979," and deployed in horrific fashion throughout the Iran-Iraq war: (ht Hewitt)

...ends by saying the survivors are now working on Nukes.
I'm sure they'll be reasonable to talk to.

4/20/2006 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

".... By Leslie Berestein
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 15, 2006

Arrests of illegal border crossers have increased more sharply in the San Diego region than anywhere else in the Southwest during the past six months, as stepped up enforcement in Arizona has pushed human smuggling traffic west. ... "

"... apprehensions of illegal border crossers in the agency's San Diego sector are up 43 percent for fiscal year 2006, which began Oct. 1, compared with the same time period a year ago. Agents made 80,436 apprehensions between Oct. 1 and Wednesday. ... "

"... In the Tucson sector, still the busiest in terms of human-smuggling traffic, year-to-date apprehensions are down 8 percent. Border enforcement there has tightened in recent years, with increased Border Patrol presence and surveillance technology.

As a result, smuggling traffic is spilling over the sides. The adjacent Yuma sector to the west, which saw apprehensions more than double between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, reports 22 percent more arrests so far this year compared with the year-ago period. The El Paso sector to the east, which includes New Mexico, has seen apprehensions increase 27 percent. ..."

"...Increased enforcement in Arizona is pushing traffic away from the Tucson sector, but so are Latin American media reports of ever-increasing deaths along hazardous desert crossing routes, said Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego.

This could be contributing to the push west, he said. Even if the chance of getting caught in the heavily patrolled San Diego sector is higher, the risk of dying not as great. ..."

from San Diego where Zonis head each summer.

From USA Today
" ... The United States' inability to slow illegal immigration from Mexico is fueling a financial crisis in the 24 counties along the 1,951-mile Southwest border, according to a new study. It says the counties are struggling to fund law enforcement, health programs and other necessities because they are spending millions of dollars a year to care for illegal immigrants. ... "

" ... The jump in arrests has come to symbolize how localities have been left with much of the bill for border security, according to a study by the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) to be released today by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition. A funding increase by Congress last year will boost the number of federal detention cells from 18,000 to 20,000. However, that's not nearly enough to handle the waves of immigrants who are being arrested, so such people often end up in local jails.

Reimbursements fall short

The federal government reimburses localities and states for services they provide to illegal immigrants, but the payments don't come close to matching the localities' costs, the report says. For example, Department of Justice records show Arizona's four border counties asked the federal government for $23.2 million last year to cover the cost of jailing thousands of illegal immigrants. The counties were reimbursed $731,000.

In California, San Diego County spends $50 million a year to arrest, jail, prosecute and defend illegal immigrants, and is reimbursed about $2 million, says county Supervisor Greg Cox, president of the border counties coalition. The $48 million shortfall cuts into the $600 million a year the county has for discretionary spending, he says. "That's money that would support libraries, parks and public safety." ... "

Hard to be against Parks, Libaries and Public Saftey and for Law Breaking.

4/20/2006 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Doug,

I do not recommend talking to the Iranians. I think it would be most entertaining to point out the power vacuum and encourage an new anti- Iranian coalition, lets call it PEST Control for Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi and Turkey.

4/20/2006 05:09:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Gov, Ms Napolitano, was posing, buddy, talkin' tuff, but didn't want a stick.

The Legislature passed an illegal in AZ act, making it a State crime to be here illegally.
She vetoed the Bill.

Posturing and BS from a Democratic Gov. plyin' both sides, or tryin' to

4/20/2006 05:12:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

Cedarford said:
[blah, blah then]
business as usual could proceed.

------
Conservatives and libertarian conservatives don't really like Bush. I see him as a Democrat. A Democrat I like, trust, admire and can support.

I could go on and on with my disagreements.

We need legal workers here. The lack of leadership is indeed sad.

'Owner Class profits', free markets, rule of law, private property rights and individual independence (read catching fish vs. being hand fed) are the key to a trul great nation.

Read my lips, watermelons (Green on the outside, red to the core) are for smashing.

4/20/2006 05:12:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

While I am at it, anyone know who authored the strategy to use and support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban? Can we promote him to SOD? That is an English joke for Sec of Defense, sorry. Although that would have to have been approved by Rumsfeld. Bloody complicated isn't it?

4/20/2006 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

Someone, I can't remember who, linked to Luttwak's article at Commentarymagazine.com. It's a must read on Iran.

Also, this review of Cobra II by Michael Rubin sheds some light on the Iraq/Rumsfeld debate.

4/20/2006 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Knucklehead on ICE Roundup

4/20/2006 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

'Rat 5:12 PM,
Her neighbor, Mr. Richardson uses the same tactics, right?

4/20/2006 05:22:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

I second Aristides motion on The Luttwak read. He is an interesting guy and has appropriate political astigmatism. Makes you take a second look.

4/20/2006 05:25:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"(read catching fish vs. being hand fed)"
---
Exactly!
Vouchers rather than Force Fed PC Socialist/Sexologist/Anti-American Claptrap!

Glad we finally agree, Arthur!

4/20/2006 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

It appears so, but I am not as familar with his actions or lack of, but Ms Napalitano has been talkin' a good local game, but as the fat enters the fire....
she folded

4/20/2006 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Doug,

Can you post a couple of juicy paragraphs from that TNR article so I don't have to register, please?

As for the border, how about landmines?

4/20/2006 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I left out Victimology and Racial Politics from the curriculum.
Sorry.

4/20/2006 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

2164,

Has there, in the history of humanity, been many near perfect wars like Afghanistan and Iraq? By near perfect I mean for 'our side' as well as survivors.

I've been reading and studying WWI and WWII the past few years and the only word that ecapsulates either is abject horror. (OK the only two words that...).

I joke, but both represent a horror that that I am worried will be repeated 100 fold.

4/20/2006 05:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sam,
It was free for me and Hewitt!
(maybe a free registration thing somewhere?)

4/20/2006 05:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage."

Ahmadinejad's ascendance on the shoulders of the Basiji means that the Iranian Revolution, launched almost three decades ago, has entered a new and disturbing phase.
A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders."
---
Sam,
Like the Democrat Party.

4/20/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Yep, thanks.

4/20/2006 05:36:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

I think Afghanistan was as clever a US miltary operation as The Little Big Horn was inept. Tora Bora aside it was a grand entrance. Afghanistan is a three act play that never seems to end for invaders. Iraq was another brilliant entrance. The problem is not the score but the libretto. More plainly, we fell in love with our own bullsh*t about democracy.

4/20/2006 05:40:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

Doug, I don't have good answers, it would be a great discussion. Leave me a message at my site. My problem with vouchers is that I don't want to create a new entitlement (worth $5,000 to $10,000 per child). I don't want a million dollars going to Islamist parents.

I would love to see an explosion (pun not intended) of private schools, or better yet private scholarships for parents to choose.

:-)

4/20/2006 05:40:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

"... That, as it happens, is one excellent reason not to move forthwith to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations. For the long-term consequences of any American military action cannot be disregarded. Iranians are our once and future allies. Except for a narrow segment of extremists, they do not view themselves as enemies of the United States, but rather as the exact opposite: at a time when Americans are unpopular in all other Muslim countries, most Iranians become distinctly more friendly when they learn that a visitor is American. They must not be made to feel that they were attacked by the very country they most admire, where so many of their own relatives and friends have so greatly prospered, and with which they wish to restore the best of relations.

There is a second good reason not to act precipitously. In essence, we should not bomb Iran because the worst of its leaders positively want to be bombed—and are doing their level best to bring that about. ... "

If bombing is out, then Social Revolution must be "In"

4/20/2006 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Personally I think the only non-kinetic or noncombat solution to Iran is to subvert it from Iraq. In some sense the US is already in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq. Whether that's good or bad news depends on whether it is good to be in proxy war with Iran.

4/20/2006 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Well said DR. It does remind one of the "rabbit" scene in Private Ryan. The taunting of the tiger tank. The mullahs do recognize that some US warplanes would make for a good pep rally. Only another great Carteresque Presidential mind would fall for it.

4/20/2006 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

2164,
Afghanistan is a three act play that never seems to end for invaders
-----------

The total obliteration of Afghanistan (like Iraq) was never an option. Some day it might be.

You go with the cards you are dealt.

America needs more countries like U.S.... If we want to remain free.

Who would prefer we become like EUnuchstan, Russia, China, Kim or Carter? Not me.

Sometimes your cards suck and the neighbors dog shiites on your lawn.

:(

4/20/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Rumsfeld Audio Clip

4/20/2006 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Wretchard,

Would it not be better to eliminate the religious aspect entirely and not have the US do it? Iran has no influence except in areas of hostile anarchy. Why promote more? There must be an Iranian Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

4/20/2006 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

...a last resort, but a resort.

4/20/2006 05:56:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"More plainly, we fell in love with our own bullsh*t about democracy. 5:40 PM "
---
Armen to that.
Lots of Armed Men, too.

4/20/2006 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

5:56 PM, Cabo?

4/20/2006 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Arthur,

I would like an America smart enough to avoid war where possible, courageous enough to enter and win wars when necessary and wise enough to know the difference. I believe bush is courageous but not clever and will never achieve wisdom. Hotspur.

4/20/2006 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Except for a narrow segment of extremists, they do not view themselves as enemies of the United States, but rather as the exact opposite: at a time when Americans are unpopular in all other Muslim countries, most Iranians become distinctly more friendly when they learn that a visitor is American. "
---
Any disagreement here on that?
...in the previous thread was a comment about this being true for the Cosmopolitans, (like some of the Sunni Baghdaddies?) but not the peasant country folk who are into that old time religion.
New Republic link also gives the impression there are more than a few angry and VERY COMMITTED foes.

4/20/2006 06:04:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

The best way to turn a friend into a foe is to kill his grandmother with a misdirected bomb.

4/20/2006 06:06:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Better to hit the foe.

4/20/2006 06:07:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Foe sure.

4/20/2006 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Seems like our Proxy war should at least include the Terrorist Training Camps and IED Factories.
Syrian, too.

4/20/2006 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

If it's a BIG mofo, you can do it, 2164.

4/20/2006 06:10:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

2164 said:
I would like an America smart enough to avoid war where possible, courageous enough to enter and win wars when necessary and wise enough to know the difference.

----------
That's exactly how I see Iraq war 1 and 2, Afghanistan as well as our current action in Iran.

The easy thing would have been to give Saddam Kuwait. The second easy thing would have been to pull out of the no-fly zones and walk away. The third easy thing would be to bend over and let UN/EUrope drive regarding Iran.

The US is divided, thus our choices are self-limited. EUrope, as I keep saying, has no such dilemma. They are too fubar to see the shot coming. We need many more nations and peoples like U.S... or we lose.

4/20/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

We bombed and killed Christians in Belgrade because they were being beastly to the Muslims, who in turn won autonomy and became beastly to the Christian Serbs and burned their chuches down and enboldened the Jihadists who spread the faith, set up IED factories and terrorist camps and just may need bombing. It is all sounding quite Vonnegutesque or perhaps I need another glass of wine.

4/20/2006 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

Some say Chinese missionaries will save EUnuchstan and Africa.
I hope so. It won't be french or Germans.

4/20/2006 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

6:16 PM: Who is "we" Bubba?
...or is that Westley?
fosho I didn't say Leroy.

4/20/2006 06:19:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

If all else fails try a Chilean, Casal de Gorchs, Cabrenet Sauvignon, Gran Reserva , 2001.

4/20/2006 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

“They Die to be Alive” – A Video Presentation by the Jihad Media Battalion:

The Jihad Media Battalion recently issued a 11:40 minute video compilation of footage from attacks executed by al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, a statement from Usama bin Laden, and myriad pictures of martyrs, terrorist leaders and attacks. Interspersed throughout the video are English statements lauding the mujahideen and debasing American forces, for example: “They are seeking death & you big’s [sic] are running from it”.

Included among the various clips are suicide bombings perpetrated by members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, an English-speaker with an Australian accent of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, appearing in the “War of the Oppressed ” film, castigating U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in addition to photos of the September 11th attacks, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and several deceased mujahideen.

Die to be Alive

4/20/2006 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

2164th -

On your nice post on spheres, I had to think how would I feel if I was a Russian after the fall of the USSR left Russia weak and America immesurably stronger.

Russian "freedom" was in fact a period of rampant crony capitalism and corruption that America supported, and when the wined and dined and massively bribed Yeltsin Administration sold Russia's natural resources off to 8 billionaire Oligarchs backed by London, German, and Tel Aviv financiers. Then the US pushed into Russian spheres despite Russian warnings and destroyed several Russian client states, and culminated with American money and experts right in Russia's backyard orchestrating the "triumph" of Democracy in former members of the USSR like Georgia and Ukraine. Similar to Russian agents trying to get the anti-Yanqui candidate elected in Mexico and Venezuela..Russia has avoided meddling in Latin America since 1988. Now they are interested in payback..

Putin has since spent time rolling back the Oligarchs (theft) awarding of national Russian assets to a few Yeltsin cronies, imprisoning those not smart enough to escape to London or Israel. And from America pushing, decided to join the nascent Warsaw Pact II - The Shanghai Collective Initiative - which now has all Central Asian nations outside Afghanistan, and which seeks to add Pakistan, Iran, Nepal, Myanmar, Indonesia.

And Russia is certainly looking forward to making America pay not just for Ukraine, but Iraq. The support of Iran with advanced missile defenses, a strategic move to rid Central Asia of Americans, and general mischief like perverting the already perverted vision of the neocons and stupid Likudniks like Sharansky to "advance democracy" everywhere - in the Russian thinking, will expand to include open, democratic elections involving Al Qaeda election slates in Egypt, Pakistan, and KSA.

Meanwhile after the crony-capitalist/Sharansky inflicted fucking of Russia under Clinton/Bush, there is no weapons system outside actual WMD that China or Iran, festooned with US trade dollars, cannot ask of Russia and get.

And we have to be honest. Iraq, once sold to us by neocons as "paying for itself with oil", has gone from 46 billion in 2003 to 96 billion this year with 36 billion addaitional in deferred equipment replacement. And 400 billion in benefits likely to come to soldiers for claims and disabilty over their lives. (Vietnam at its peak, in 2004 dollars, cost 67 billion a year). All for noble purple-fingered "Iraqi heroes" now on the verge of all-out civil war.

With Iran a 3X bigger country in population and size with millions outside in Hezbollah devoted to it?

How Bush will justify an airwar and 6-10 years of aftermath and costs while still pushing further tax cuts for the wealthy?

Won't happen.

Sad to say, but any Iran strike, no matter how much the Zionists in positions of influence demand otherwise, will have to wait until Iraq is concluded and a leadership team the American public trusts more than Bush's on foreign policy takes office. And on Iraq's resolution.

Fixation on Israel aside....no way will we expend only American lives and dollars to safeguard Israel's nuclear monopoly and colonization activities. 3 years for a more competent foreign policy management team to emerge is reasonable given the Bush Team's ineptitude and doscredited neocon tilt.

4/20/2006 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sam,
That just Kills Me.

4/20/2006 06:56:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Sam,

They've got it the wrong way around. The video should be: "They Live to Die". It's a good B-movie title. The full bill should be: "They live to die" doubled with "I walk by night" at your neighborhood theater.

4/20/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

C-4, Wretchard has moved to the next posting. I do not agree with everything you post, but within my variances are many, many points of agreement and frustration.

4/20/2006 07:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Frum on Garton, Clarke, et al
PS - Shouldn't it be mildly embarrassing to somebody in the world of left-liberal politics that a 25-year-old blogger is able to produce a stronger case against striking Iran than two former Clinton NSC Senior directors in the New York Times, the director of the European Studies Center at Oxford University in the pages of The Guardian?
PPS- The best case of all against immediate action Edward Luttwak's piece to be published in the next Commentary: "Three Reasons Not to Bomb Iran - Yet."

4/21/2006 01:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/21/2006 01:09:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

cedarford,

"Bush...paid whore"

There are other kinds?

Dollars, shekels, or pieces of silver?

4/21/2006 04:48:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

He's definitely either a Paid Whore of the Owner Class, or a Running Dog of the Oligarchs, or a Greed-Soaked Exploiter of the Proletariat. I can't figure out which--waiting on more data.

4/21/2006 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

buddy larsen,

"Running Dog of the Oligarchs"

Given Mr. Hu's visit to the US, that has such a familiar ring. Let us not fail to mention "Paper Tiger" in some non-judgmental context. Paper Tiger Poo Poo Platter. That just has to hurt.

4/21/2006 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger Evanston said...

Cedarford is the only one to mention Israel, although his goofy posts never seem to propose a solution. "3 years for a more competent foreign policy management team to emerge is reasonable given the Bush Team's ineptitude and doscredited [sic] neocon tilt." Hey dude, got any specific ideas for the next "foreign policy management team" or do you just like to type general rants about Borders, exploitation, etc.?
Still, Cedarford mentions Israel, which remains the real wild card in this whole deal. They're the ones getting directly threatened with nukes. How long will they watch Russia and others stall "diplomatic solutions" before pursuing military options? Sure, the U.S. would have to acquiesce to a strike, but the body politic to watch is in Israel, not America. No strike this year, but look out in 2007 or 2008.

4/21/2006 03:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger