Iraq Study Group Report
The Iraqi Study Group report can be read here. My principal reactions to it are in an Exclusive to Pajamas Media piece, so I can't reproduce it here. However, here are a few more observations that are exclusive the Belmont Club. The ISG recommendation is in the first column and my comments are in the second.
| "The Iraqi government must
send a clear signal to Sunnis that there is a place for them in national
life. The government needs to act now, to give a signal of hope. Unless
Sunnis believe they can get a fair deal in Iraq through the political
process, there is no prospect that the insurgency will end. To strike
this fair deal, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people must address
several issues that are critical to the success of national
reconciliation and thus to the future of Iraq."
RECOMMENDATION 26: Constitution review. Review of the constitution is essential to national reconciliation and should be pursued on an urgent basis. The United Nations has expertise in this field, and should play a role in this process. |
How will the Shi'a regard this? More to the point, why will Iran, soon to be part of the ISG's Iraq International Support Group, even hear of it? |
| RECOMMENDATION 30: Kirkuk. Given the very dangerous situation in Kirkuk, international arbitration is necessary to avert communal violence. Kirkuk’s mix of Kurdish, Arab, and Turkmen populations could make it a powder keg. A referendum on the future of Kirkuk (as required by the Iraqi Constitution before the end of 2007) would be explosive and should be delayed. This issue should be placed on the agenda of the International Iraq Support Group as part of the New Diplomatic Offensive. | I kept making the point in the Pajamas Media Exclusive that the Iraq International Support Group, the club of everyone who has participated in formenting disorder in that country, is now being given leave, indeed invited to participate in the internal affairs of Iraq. This is Exhibit A. |
| RECOMMENDATION 31: Amnesty.
Amnesty proposals must be far-reaching. Any successful effort at
national reconciliation must involve those in the government finding
ways and means to reconcile with former bitter enemies.
RECOMMENDATION 37: Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch. |
I think that embedded in this phrase is a recommendation to give amnesty to all those who have killed or kidnapped American troops and estopping the US public from objecting. |
| RECOMMENDATION 34: The question of the future U.S. force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success. | And what does the ISG think "insurgents and militia leaders" will say once asked their opinion on the future US force presence? This recommendation seems like an absurdity; it puts the fate of US forces in the hands of its enemies, just so that the US can talk to them. Why? |
| RECOMMENDATION 38: The United States should support the presence of neutral international experts as advisors to the Iraqi government on the processes of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. | When has this ever worked? Oh I forgot. It works in Lebanon, where Syria, a future member of the Iraq International Support Group is also involved in settling the internal affairs of a war-torn country. |
| RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq. | The point of the whole exercise, in case you thought it was bringing peace to Iraq or peace to the Middle East. |
I could go on, but this is enough for now.
posted by wretchardthecat at 12/06/2006 12:39:00 PM
67 Comments:
> Amnesty.
It happens in every war. We gave most Nazi and Japanese soldiers amnesty after World War II. No German soldier was ever put on trial for shooting at our soldiers. The only Nazis who went on trial were charged with "war crimes", like killing civilians, not charged with fighting a war.
> signal to Sunnis
The Sunnis can't expect to have peace while they are killing Shiite civilians and tolerating Al Qaeda in the insurgency. The Shiites can't expect peace if they run a Shiite, anti-Sunni government like Al-Sadr wants.
This is why ultimately it comes down to the Iraqis, and the US is limited in what it can do. There could be peace instantly if the Iraqis all decided to stop shooting at each other. The foreign invaders from Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria would quickly be ejected if the Iraqis unified and gave us intelligence information. Iraq has a civil conflict solely because its people want it, not because of anything we did.
> The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
This is weasel-like lawyer language. It might be true in one way if "open-ended" is taken to an extreme. We should commit to staying in Iraq for a long time, but for reasons and rules which we decide, not "open-ended". We could guarantee to defend Iraq against external invaders, but we don't need to promise to protect the Iraqi government or fight their civil wars while the Iraqis sit on their hands. We still could choose to get involved in the civil wars, but we can do it for our own reasons and at times we choose instead of committing.
Maybe this is what the ISG means about "open-ended". Some Iraqi leaders say that we have "no right" to withdraw our support from them, and we have to support Baghdad "all the way". I guess that applies even if the Iraqi government is doing whatever Al-Sadr wants.
Link
"The US calls itself an occupying force in Iraq and, according to the Geneva Conventions, if you are an occupier then you are responsible for the country," said parliamentarian Mahmud Othman, a Kurd.
"They have no right to to do this. This is unfair."
Bassim Ridha, a top advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said the White House has to support Baghdad "all the way".
"If they do not support the government then it will look as if they do not do what they preach," Ridha said. "We need their support to go forward."
A high-level, bipartisan panel urged Bush Wednesday to act to halt a "grave and deteriorating" crisis in Iraq by holding talks with Iran and Syria and starting to withdraw US combat forces.
wu wei,
As I recall, those who were responsible for certain war crimes had no prospect of amnesty. Class "A" war criminals, the Nazi defendants at Nurnberg. Even Yamashita felt the rope. Who will be covered by this amnesty? Whoever the Iraqis or the Iraqi International Support Group decides will be, if I understand Recommendation 37 according to its plain meaning, no one can object. "Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch."
> those who were responsible for certain war crimes had no prospect of amnesty.
I think that is true. However, since almost all the US personnel in Iraq are military, the Iraqis would not seem to be guilty of war crimes against us. Shooting at a uniformed soldier is war, not a war crime.
Yet when the subject of amnesty came up, there was a big outcry in the US, that it would be a terrible thing. Amnesty seems to be mostly an internal Iraqi issue, that they broke the laws of war in killing each other.
The reality is that amnesty is always granted to all but a handful of the enemy, because that is the only way to end the war and less US troops get killed that way. If every enemy soldier were called a criminal, then they would have no incentive to surrender. They might as well fight to the death.
If you want to fix a problem, you must identify the problem. Saddam knew his people. He probably used just enough repression to maintain stability. It was ugly and wrong by our standards. But it is pretty ugly now and there is no sign of stability.
It seems to me that an acceptable goal would be one that would restore Iraq to a level of stability that it enjoyed under Saddam. A better goal would be to bring stability and fairnesss, but neither will be accomplished without repression in one form or another.
Bush is not capable in taking such a large step backward, but someone will have to find a new strongman who can take charge in Iraq. the government is a failure. The same happened in Russia when they rushed into democracy and then grew nostalgic for stability.
Stability at a price may sound wrong but in the long run it may be a bargain.
Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)
Lawful combatants are accorded "combatant's privilege," whereby they are exempted from the ordinary criminal law of the place they are fighting in. This means that they cannot be tried for murder, for example, for killing soldiers of the opposing side.
> better goal would be to bring stability and fairnesss, but neither will be accomplished without repression
The Iraqis will get tired of killing each other after a few years, then settle down to a peaceful democracy. In the mean time we can stay there guarding the borders and hunting Al Qaeda.
"The Iraqis will get tired of killing each other after a few years, then settle down to a peaceful democracy. In the mean time we can stay there guarding the borders and hunting Al Qaeda."
I thought about that as the unstated goal of the Baker report and it sort of made sense -- if you excluded the part about bringing in the Syrians and the Iranians. The State Department plan to back one side -- preferrably the winning one -- also had a gruesome logic to it. Even the Pentagon plan to "Go Long" had the merit of being of a single piece. But the idea that you can withdraw out the back and bring in the Syrians and Iranians in the front just doesn't add up. Moreover, enlarging the party so that in addition to Iraq, you start talking about Lebanon, the Golan and the West Bank in addition to discussing Iraq at one big table seemed a mite odd too.
I think the recommendations left out a lot:
According to the recommendations, to enlist Syria's help we should give them the Golan. But what should we give Iran? Maybe Armenia? And we could give Nepal to China for their help. Plus, we'll need Russia's help too so maybe we could give Poland back to them also.
> The Iraqis will get tired of killing each other after a few years, then settle down to a peaceful democracy. In the mean time we can stay there guarding the borders and hunting Al Qaeda
This was my personal opinion, not that of the ISG. I just finished the ISG report and they indicate that we could stay in Iraq as long as they need us if the Iraqis are making a serious effort. The part about negotiations was absurd, basically just groveling to Iran. Another thing which stands out is that the ISG seems to think everyone in the region needs to solve the problems in Iraq, except the Iraqis themselves. Or actually the ISG gives Iraq a small role.
The most amazing thing about the ISG report is that they claim that we simply cannot stay in Iraq much longer because we don't have enough troops. The ISG says it is destroying our readiness, etc. We had a 12,000,000 man army in world war II and now a deployment of 140,000 is breaking us?
Soon the president will release his own action plan, and the ISG report will be relegated to the ash heap of history.
For those who have not yet read Westhawk's thread today, covering both Gates and the ISG, do so. When milbloggers such as Westhawk, PoliPundit, and Captain Ed are repulsed by the administration, it begins to look like the administration will be happy with nothing less than alienating every possible conservative.
Oh, the one thing that will come from the ISG will be a concerted effort to feed Israel to the dogs. See PoliPundit for a good rundown of that eventuality.
Hey, C4, there is a silver lining to every dark, Zionist cloud?
Two very bad days in Washington
Jimmy vs. the Jews - No, not Carter, BAKER
Link
c4.
Cedarford said...
tyler -
Unless you believe in the Zionist vision that all the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates is Jewish property given them by God...
Dear Mr C4,
you really don't KNOW anything about a ZIONIST dream do you?
A Zionist dream would be a historic homeland for the Jewish people in the area that it now sits.
Israel has shattered it's OLD dream of holding on to HISTORIC ZIONIST lands of MOST of the WEST BANK and areas of GAZA.
All the Zionist dream is now to be able not to be suicide bombed within a tiny fragment of thier historic lands. (which is 25% arab populated) (1/650th of the arab world)
900,000 jews were thrown out of thier HISTORIC lands within ARAB OCCUPIED North Africa, egypt, iran & iraq....
I guess you missed the barak offer, or sharon removing jews from gaza? I guess you missed the PLAN to leave 97% of the west bank? the only reason that did not go forth was the palestinian murder attacks.
c4: The Golan is Syrian and part-Leb territory.
By whose standards? Lebanon is Syrian if you ask Assad.
The Golan can be returned when there is not a dictator that supports terror and actually wants peace, not before...
As for the Larger issue...
The ISG is nonsense.
We are at war with Iran already, those of you that wish to not see this will soon enough.
We need to stop BSing and do something about OIL.
Let's declare war on oil 1st.
then see where that gets us
2164th wrote, "Saddam knew his people. He probably used just enough repression to maintain stability. It was ugly and wrong by our standards. But it is pretty ugly now and there is no sign of stability"
The Kurds in the north have stability and a working (if not officially recognized) state, and no one is gassing them by the thousands anymore. Even if peace comes (the peace of the dead at the last throw) and an oil-sharing arrangement is made, it will be distributed according to current, not historical demographics. Saddamists are losing future oil revenues with every Sunni who flees to Jordan (700,000 now) or Syria (600,000 now), and every al-Qaeda-in-Iraq car bomb results in a retaliation that creates more refugees.
Re the report of the Iraq Study Group, line up a few of the reports
State Department advocating tilt to the Shia
http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/12/mr-bush-may-finally-kick-sunnis-to-curb.html
westhawks’ on the Sunnis getting their clocks cleaned
http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2006/11/chasm-to-sunnis-is-too-wide.html
The Sunnis blustering in Syria
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061203-1332-syria-baathistsregroup.html
The Saudis denying diplomatic efforts to stave off Sunni defeat
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20863285-1702,00.html
But perhaps planning or at least threatening to intervene
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061129-0310-iraq-saudi-adviser.html
Baker pushing for a regional conference with all issues on the table, including Israel-Palestine
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/797964.html
and the right of return
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/06/061206204349.qjq06iek.html
but Israel won’t even be invited
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Baker_1.htm
Then isn’t what we are seeing Jim Baker of the old Bush-Saudi alliance stepping in to save the Iraqi Sunnis at the instance of the Saudis and at the price of cramming down an Israel-Palestinian solution over Israeli objections?
re: from the river to the sea
Israel has an inventory in excess of 400 nukes. If, Israel wished to create an empire it could do so within the next few minutes. By simply launching 20 warheads against its antagonists, while holding 380 pretargeted weapons in reserve, Israel could relieve itself, almost instantly, of existential threats and acquire vast stretches of real estate and enormous resources. No one would dare challenge Israel for fear of losing capitol and capital cities.
At some point, Jews are going to come to recognize the futility of trying to get along. We will understand that most of the rest of mankind will not be satisfied until we are exterminated. At that point, MAD, will be inconsequential. Then the world will tremble with fear at the thought of angering 0.25% of its population. Oh yeah! That is power! Feel the power of the Maccabees!
Boy, the Elders are going to be pissed with me.
Same old blah, blah, blah. It calls for talks with people we've been talking to for 40 years to no avail. It calls for screwing the Kurds and inviting an isolated Israel and a Hamas-led Palestine to start talking again. It has absolutely no real clue what to do in Iraq except give hopeful approval to a Federalism dividing Iraq into thirds (a plan that Iraqis don't seem to care about) - altho it admits the third that the Sunni would get would have no oil resources or income. These are the same Sunnis that avoided the democratic process, and who are the mainstay of the insurgency. The very same Sunnis looking at extinction if the Americans leave.
Bottom Line Translation: Get everyone in the area talking so we can spend a few more months training up the Iraqi Army and police forces - then run for the hills as they all start killing each other again.
The law of realpolitik unintended consequences:
Running from Iraq too soon will result in the (understandable) slaughter of the Sunni minority that has ground the Shia and Kurds down for 30 odd years. Sadr is just waiting and licking his chops. While the Shia are supported by Iran, Turkey and Saudia Arabia would not allow the Sunnis to be a target of genocide and neither Iran nor Turkey want an independent Kurdistan. The resulting 3 way bruhaha makes the present insurgency look like a food fight at a girl's school. The UN gets called in to protect the Sunnis - hilarity ensues.
All of the local players get to try to even the age old rivalries that haven't changed in a thousand years - with the added benefit that they get to blame everything on the Americans. What's not to like?
Oh, and while the above is going on - Syria grabs Lebanon and the Palestinians do something stupid...as always.
>allen
Not under Olmert, they won't. The old man has completely bought hook, line, sinker into ceasefire after ceasefire, hoping that a negotiated peace will placate Palestinians instead of shelling their cities where their human shields are situated.
The ISG seems to place all the onus on Iraqis themselves...
RECOMMENDATION 21: If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.
...without according them the means to do so, or even giving them the guarantee that we'll be there to support them and act as a safety net. Not only that, instead of assuring them of our commitment (or lack thereof), we're introducing foreign intervention that would undoubtedly deprive Iraqis of the means to act upon their sovereignty.
Plus, who's to enforce those restrictions on Syria and Iran, ensure that they are not violating any provision of the Versai...I mean, ISG report? Iran and Syria will inevitably monopolise the regional apparatus of coercion, intimidation and destabilisation to discourage other participants in intervening or upholding all provisions. Iraq will be left vulnerable to direct, legitimised dismemberment.
And we'll have little say at that point in time because Iraqi sovereignty would have degenerated into nothingness ala Lebanon. Expect assassinations, car bombs and Iranian Revolutionary Guard/Hezbollah/Badr/Sadr sit-ins in Baghdad.
wretchard wrote: and of more concern, is that a regional forum runs the risk of regionalizing the national conflicts in Iraq.
Remember Jordan's King Abdullah? He specifically mentioned that there were three separate civil wars occuring in the Middle East, the core cause being Israel-Palestine. Why? I had pointed out then that Abdullah fears that the concept of a wider Shiite-Sunni struggle for religious hegemony in the region will gain credence within Jordan and thus destabilise or even disintegrate the country.
A regional forum will eventually expose Iranian and Syrian complicity and invidious intentions in perpetuating such a conflagration to all other Arab regimes. Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis would be disinclined to work within the parameters of the forum because the ISG seems to allow Iran and Syria carte blanche to interfere and violate every inch of sovereignty of any nation in the Middle East.
Without even the other regimes ever likely to commit to upholding the provisions, the ISG report shall inevitably be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs. Or do we want to risk it and deal with appeasement twenty years down the road?
Oh, you know what, we don't have to wait that long. Only till Iran gets their first nuclear weapon.
harrison,
There you go, raining on my parade!
;-)
Something curious here that I'd like BCers and Wretchard to comment on. Under section 9, pg. 62, the ISG report claims:
In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. . . Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.
Interesting. Does anyone see a connection between this analysis and earlier administration claims of a few "regime dead-enders", a "victory" with the election of Shiite Islamist parties or an insurgency that is in its "last throes"?
This was a "Bi-Partisan" report.
Along similar lines to a "Bi-partisan" transportation bill. 100 senators, all agreeing to build roads to no-where.
Everyone gets to toss in their "Grand Plan".
All 100 Senators get to run around claiming that the "Baker-Hamilton" commission endorsed their ideas.
The Ego's of 100 Primadonnas have now been stroked.
Watch the Senate Web Sites as 100 Senators blather on about how the "Baker-Hamilton commission confirmed what I have been saying since 1921"
Bob Gates got confirmed by 95-2.
It is nothing more than a Kumbaya Moment for 100 Senators wishing to reassure their constiuents that they are the most brilliant people on the planet.
The ISF is growing in both quantity and quality. Two increasing variables on the same vector is a geometric progression, not linear.
1.01 X 1.01 = 1.02 Not Very Exciting
2 X 2 = 4 = Interesting
The Iraqis can now churn out 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 police a month, on their own.
Every 2 months, the ISF grows by more than the size of the Mehdi Army.
Every 3 months, the ISF grows by more than a US Division.
It has taken three and a half years of 1.01 X 1.01 to finally get to the point of 2 X 2, but to throw in the towel now is just plain stupid.
My reaction to the ISG report today comes down to two proverbs:
“The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse.”
And
“The obscure we see eventually. The completely apparent takes longer.”
The Baker group could have saved everyone the time and trouble by boiling down their report to a single sentence.
“We recommend that the United States cuts and runs at the first opportune moment after asking permission from the Syrians and Iranians.” Geesh. Hope President Bush thanks them for their work and promptly dumps the report into the circular filing cabinet.
Cedarford-
My post was an attempt at hyperbole, where if we are changing disputed borders as chits for help in Iraq, then why not have a firesale? Kashmir- half price for some help with Taliban holdouts! China could get two for the price of one: Support one UN sanction against Iran for nuclear infractions and we'll give them Taiwan plus let North Korea take over South Korea. Etc.
Apparently you really don't like Israel and Zionists, and might have missed the hyperbole.
C4,
re: "Nukes and ability to destroy mean nothing..as the Soviets learned."
What nonsense. As the West learned, the Soviet had detailed plans for the first use of tactical nukes launched from Poland. Poland would, thereby, be sacrificed, catching the brunt of the tactical retaliatory strike. Testimony from principals indicates the plan would have been implemented in due course. By the way, the Soviet was not concerned about a strategic US response, thinking the US would only take such action if the US homeland came under attack.
Moreover, the Soviet was not faced with extinction during the nuclear age. Israel is. When Israel concludes as much, it will have no reason to negotiate the time of its execution only.
Again, I see no one retaliating against an Israeli first strike, which was my point, avoided by you entirely. But nothing new there, reality is never permitted to intrude into your shadow world of Zionist nefariousness. If the puzzle piece does not fit, trim it as necessary. The political Picasso.
...the ISG makes an attempt to reduce tensions in Iraq by engaging the parties responsible for the problem... -Richard Fernandez
The ISG is suggesting a Faustian Deal.
If the ISG deal is implement it will lead to another Carter/Iran hostage situation.
...Except, on a much larger scale.
The Republicans who were on the ISG packed this full of things which the Bush administration can use, if they choose. The ISG report supports the President's goal in Iraq, quoting it, says there should be no immediate withdrawal, and no time tables. It says that if Iraq is making a serious effort, that we should stay as long as it takes. The report does not says that we must pull out in 2008; it says we could if everything goes right. Shame on the Bush Administration if they let the MSM control the debate about this.
Really this report supports the Administration. Other than having visible diplomacy, the ISG report doesn't add anything new. Much of what it recommends was already set as goals by the Bush administration or the Iraqi government.
Bush needs to simply say that everyone, including the ISG, is agreed on the goal, and discussion of the details on how to get there is welcome.
U.S. President George Bush's chief spokesman says Bush would like to have a new policy for Iraq by the end of the year pending consultation.
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday night, spokesman Tony Snow said after receiving a sweeping report from the Iraq Study Group recommending an urgent change in course, Bush would consult with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Council.
"We're hoping to have all that pulled together so that maybe by the end of the year, the president can announce a new way forward," Snow said.
The other thing the Bush administration needs to do is stop muddying the waters by talking about "Islamofacists". Instead they should name our specific enemies, like we have always done. Al Qaeda is our enemy. If Iran is our enemy we should say so. Likewise Syria and Al-Sadr.
Focusing on anything Islamic plays in to bin Laden's hands by looking like a Crusade. It also leads to mush where no one knows who the enemy is or what winning is.
c4: The few hundred Jewish billionaires in the USA and the Russian Oligarch ones are no bailout - not when even most Jews with wealth believe Zionism is a cancerous ideology.
Ok, mr c4,
please site any proof that MOST JEWS WITH WEALTH BELIEVE ZIONISM IS A CANCEROUS IDEOLOGY.
Do you make up your crap as you sit on the can and make crap or while you pick your teeth?
Where do you come up with these gems of wisdom? I doubt you even KNOW any jews, let alone any jews of "wealth".
Post after post of "jew this" or "jew that" you have proved that on THIS subject you are as informed as a lump of coal (or an average hamas member)
So congrats C4, all those OTHER decent/reasonable comments you make on OTHER subjects are NOW suspect, as for why could ANYONE listen to ANYTHING you say when you are actually are TOTALLY off base (including lies, distortion and invention) when it comes to the Jews, it simply shows you lack any judgement. So why trust anything you say?
I was always taught to say nothing if i had nothing nice to say... Maybe when it comes to Jews C4, you should learn to shut up, it just makes you look stupid at best, jew hating hitler loving at worst.
c4, have a nice day and yes there are JOOOOOS under your bed, sleeping with your wife and yes gay ones looking at your son, jooos in your yard, your cereal box and yes Jooooos in the basement....
joooos to the left, Joooos to the right....
> Don't let the enemy define your behaviour.
Exactly. That's why I don't want to obey bin Laden by pretending that all Muslims are Al Qaeda or that they support bin Laden. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, just like the US used the Soviets to help beat the Nazis in World War II.
Most Muslims actually think bin Laden is a nut case, and don't want anything to do with him or to live under his tyranny.
Saddam Hussein's facist state was supposedly socialist, but that doesn't mean we need to declare a military war on socialism or vow to hunt down and kill every socialist on earth. Hitler was supposedly a socialist too. The problem is the tyrant, not the ideology they pretend to believe.
Anointiata Delenda Est said, "There is one great objection to the theory that Christ came to save humanity - most of humanity is not worth saving."
Catholics firmly hold that men and women are worthy of divine love (Gen.1:27) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.") but that we need a Savior (Rom.3:23) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
C4,
My experience tells me that none of Russia, China, Pakistan (facing a hostile India) or France (you have to be kidding) would retaliate. For you, that might be a pleasant thought, but none of these guys have shown strong suicidal urges. Israel has more than enough punch to bring on global winter. And facing certain death, why should it hesitate to take the risk? People like you will make sure of that. It will be difficult, however, to get your nasty-grams off from that cave.
To the artist formerly known as "Pork Rinds for Allah",
"Facts", you say? That's not fair. How very Jooooish of you.
:-D
Oh, C4 would need a thesis before availing himself of facts. Try finding one in his jottings.
Posted some of my comments over here.
And allen? I had the creeping premonition that c4 would unleash his tirade again. And he did. Any of you expect the same thing?
harrison,
re: your link
Shameless! Shameless!
;-O...;-D
I could've pasted here, but then wretchard didn't do that with his article over at PJM, so I decided a link would suffice.
Apologies! ;)
Sadly this seems like another loss in the media / propaganda war. The reality is that the Republican members in the ISG got some decent stuff added, supporting the current course.
Yet one would never know this from the media. The liberals are all telling the lie that the ISG said we must leave Iraq in 2008. Democratic politicians have taken to the airwaves proclaiming that the ISG said they were right and Bush is wrong. Unfortunately no Republican politicians are matching them.
And how could they since Bush's spokesman announced today that the president is hoping to have a new plan ready by year end? That will be nearly two months since the election, two months that the Bush administration let the Democrats and MSM control debate and direct foreign policy. The Democrats win by default.
I will make this prediction:
No matter how much we appease iran/china/nokor/arabia/syria (and parties) they will NOT stop thier fight against us.
No matter how much land is demanded
No matter how much aid is given
No matter how much technology is given
No matter how much medical supplies & food
in the end we will wake up to the threat, will we learn collectively AFTER millions more are murdered?
maybe, however the west seems to want to sing kumbya and HOPE that the others (on the otherside of the equation) are really just decent people seeking justice and equality and that all can be forgiven and hugs will cure it all....
I for one will NOT go quietly into the night...
I for one WILL expose the lies of self deception many will for all hope place upon themselves
I will laugh as Europe and Russia and Africa and the Arab world murders it'sself all while STILL not looking at the issues but rather blaming the west...
Talk to Iran? Talk to Syria?
Ok, talk....
What will they say...
USA you are great satan, please die.
Israel you are the little satan, please die.
Ok, we have talked.
The truth?
WAR is HERE now.. In the streets of Paris cars by the hundreds are burned monthly, buses are ambused and people are murdered.
In France, Belguim, Sweden and Denmark there are major urban areas that are literally Islamic islands bound by shria...
For lack of time and energy I could list all the places beheadings/islamic murders are happening, but just to rattle off a few: Sudan, Somolia, Malaysia, Germany, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, France, belguim, Sweden, Russia, Jordan, Lebanon, USA, Indonesia, Pakistan and on and on...
the WAR is on... From those 2 greyhound bus attacks 2 yrs ago to the coptic family in trenton NJ, the killings are happening here, just quietly and with knives.
do not doubt NOTHING we do to appease will work, the question is simple, how many will needlessly die before we strike back?
There is much we can do withouta major war....
1. Bio-fuels
2. Cyber attack all unfriendly nations, bring all computer networks and phone networks down
3. Stop selling satellite space to any unfriendly nations
4. Black OPs, any and islamic leaders that issue death fatwa's to be killed
5. Embargo of all aid to unfriendlies: medicine & food INCLUDED.
6. Expelling all illegal aliens from UNFRIENDLY nations (mexico is a friendly nation)
7. Cyber attack and bring down the electric grid or destroy the generators/turbines of any unfriendly nation.
let's do that, then let's set up a conference to "talk"
or wait....
wu wei wrote:
It happens in every war. We gave most Nazi and Japanese soldiers amnesty after World War II. No German soldier was ever put on trial for shooting at our soldiers. The only Nazis who went on trial were charged with "war crimes", like killing civilians, not charged with fighting a war.
Actually the British hunted down and slaughtered SS officers. And the Israelis never stopped hunting down "war criminals".
ISG is a strategy for negotiated surrender. No matter how Baker, Hamilton & others spin it, think of what it calls for:
Redeployment away from the field of battle, leaving the primary enemy (Iraqi insurgents & foreign terrorists) in a position of power, while offering secondary enemies & their allies concessions (nukes to Iran, Golan to Syria) and withdrawing support for our allies (Israel, Jordan, Saudi), all in exchange for free passage.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wretchard wrote:
"Moreover, enlarging the party so that in addition to Iraq, you start talking about Lebanon, the Golan and the West Bank in addition to discussing Iraq at one big table seemed a mite odd too."
It is only odd if you think that Iraq exists separated from the region in a bubble all its own.
Soldier's dad, just standing up folks in the ISF doesn't make them want to fight for all of Iraq as opposed their particular interests within Iraq. Then you've got the guys who've signed up for the paycheck. You like to talk exponential growth - how about the recent rise in US soldier death rates, interesting to you? 30 dead US soldiers already this month. Not long ago we talking 1 a day, then 2 a day, now...4? That's looking pretty exponential to me.
allen,
I thing there is a bit of a problem with your MIGHTY Israel bearing 400 nukes and that is the very small geographical region that they occupy. One of Sharon's favorite things to do with foreign leaders was to take them up in a helicopter hand show them how narrow Israel really is. The place is small enough that is can be laid to complete waste in pretty short order and I'm not aware of Israeli nuclear armed subs roaming the seas providing deterrance.
There are some interesting conflicts of interest in the Iraqi Study Group. New Defense Secretary Gates was part of the ISG until Bush appointed him.
James Baker, who is co-chairman and supposedly representing the Republican side, was responsible for foreign policy under Bush 1. Neo cons and others attacked him for abandoning the Shiites in the past, etc. So by slanting his recommendation Baker can make his past actions look better, which is not the neutral third part approach which people are told they are getting.
Surrender Monkeys
Good cover on the NY Post
stated: I'm not aware of Israeli nuclear armed subs roaming the seas providing deterrance.
You are not aware, but trust me the leaders of the islamic world are.
If the genocide of israel/jews is what the world wishes, so be it, bring it on... However there will be no Black rock in arabia, there will be no beirut, no teheran, no damascus, no middle eastern oil, no palestine, no arab nation, no easy lifestyles based on cheap oil..
so if the world wants to murder me and mine AGAIN this time you will see Jews fighting back.
Funny thing, i read all the history I can find of the last 1600 yrs of christian and islamic "tolerance" to the jew, and what i dont see is any jews actually fighting back, (except for maybe the warsaw ghetto uprising) If the Eternal Jew is facing genocide for the 2nd time this century I do not doubt that israel WILL take a few pieces of crap out with them.
Maybe it's time to put some cards on the table....
If any Jew is murdered anywhere in the world I shall:
Print 1000 Mohammed cartons showing Mohammed eatting a BLT and having sex with a camel, then I shall burn said cartoons...
If any Jew is attacked anywhere in the world I shall visit Islamic cementaries and mosques and sprinkle bacon bits whereever I go.
As for death threats, no need, that is what governments are for.
But seriously, the "victim" jew that the world LOVES so much is dead, the new Jew, one who will fight is back (and pissed).
Now I know what I say sounds pathetic but I shall do everything in my power LEGALLY to annoy those who seek my death.
I am already boycotting all unfriendly nations to do any business with my company. Not much of an impact true, but I shall grow and I shall NOT tire.
And someday, my small business shall have an impact on the quality of lives for millions of people in the world and guess what? If you hate Israel or America, screw you, I aint selling you what I have at any cost.
I shall (via darwin) impact those that seek my destruction.
Bush said he is planning to deliver a major speech to outline his decision for a new way forward.
"I think you're probably going to have to pay attention to my speech coming up here when I get all the recommendations," Bush said in a joint news conference with the British prime minister.
"I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed. I do understand that progress is not as rapid as I had hoped. And therefore it makes sense to analyze the situation and to devise a set of tactics and strategies to achieve the objective that I have stated," the president said.
"It's a tough time and its a difficult moment for America and Great Britain and the task before us is daunting," Bush said, even as members of the bipartisan commission were testifying on their report on Capitol Hill.
Between prime-time Senate hearings and crowded press conferences today, elder statesman and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III was shown today's New York Post, which on the cover portrays him as a "surrender monkey."
Beneath that wartime headline are two shaggy crouched monkeys with the faces of Mr. Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton.
"Lovely," he said as he took the paper in his hands and reviewed it closely.
"If we're getting attacked by this rag, you know we're doing something right," he said.
ash,
I am surprised that you, as others, have missed the point. The Israelis are well aware of the size of Israel. When Israelis come to realize that the land is sufficient for the burial of all Jews and that most of the world will applaud the extermination, retaliation will be a risk worth taking.
Many insist on putting Israel in the postition of bargaining for its day of execution or war. I am betting on war.
ash,
re: Israel laid waste in short order
Strangely enough, ash, Moscow, Bejing, Riyah, Paris etc etc etc, are small in comparison to a nuclear detonation. That's why I foresee negotiation rather than retaliation. When Israel learns to use its clout to advantage, the world will be a much better and more peaceful place.
Economic frustration feeds social problems. The Iranian government acknowledges that two million people—or 2.9 percent of the population—use narcotics; other estimates place the number at five to six million.[16] Divorce is also on the rise; one study found that 30 percent of newlyweds get divorced within three years.[17] The poor economy is also driving prostitution. While officials estimate Iran hosts 300,000 prostitutes,[18] there have been a number of corruption scandals involving judges and government social workers involved in procuring young girls.[19] Instead of enacting reforms to encourage job creation, the political elite is more comfortable with rising emigration rates, despite the brain drain's long-term erosion of Iran's economic vibrancy.
read more: http://www.meforum.org/article/1068
do you remember the british and china opium war?
this is NOT to crazy to try...
drugs & porn
ash,
re: I'm not aware of Israeli nuclear armed subs roaming the seas providing deterrance.
That's right, you are not.
What is "Occupation",
If Israel is forced into a war of survival and therein uses nukes, it is not just Muslim nations which should suffer for the error of their ways. It would be criminal to leave in place governments that have enabled Muslim hostility.
ok, I'm now aware of 3 Israeli subs that may have nuclear capacity.
ash ; ok, I'm now aware of 3 Israeli subs that may have nuclear capacity.
shhhh... no on 2nd thought, tell the average moslem that if israel is destroyed mecca, medina, and all islamic places will be turned to glass... yep that's the ticket, we NEED to LIVE up to C4's super human warrior jew boys....
How about this threat...
If israel is nuked, the entire world dies...
ok, entire world, solve the potential problem....
one problem, Jews are not Arabs so the world is safe, not the arab world, not the oil supply, but the rest of the world. If the Jews were arabs the issue would have been settled on day 2 of having nukes...
The Arabs / Persians would have USED them already.
Just a thought...
Currently I purchase 35 pound / 5 gallon containers of cooking oil delivered to my door for $3.00 a gallon
This is providing me with 60% of my diesel usage.
There is no shortage of cooking oil.
If Irans oil output was stopped and thier imput of gasoline was distrupted (40% of total usage) how much hurt would this cause iran?
Baker acknowledged that the Iranians were unlikely to help, even if asked. He said that during the course of the commission's discussions an Iranian official told him that Iran was not inclined to help.
But Baker said he saw no harm in approaching Iran anyway, and if it declines to help, "then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state they have proven to be."
ash,
re: 3 subs
A whole lot of whump-ass there, Ash. Better hope I never get my hands on the keys.
President Bush's speech, reacting to the ISG report Link
He connects all the dots, and didn't pull any punches in the speeech.
> You can't fight an ideological battle if you fail to say the ideology is the problem...
But it is not ideology. For example the Christians in Lebanon are strongly supporting Hezbollah! The Christians are helping Hezbollah destroy their Bush supported government and stop the UN investigation of Syria's assassinations of Lebanese politicians. (Hezbollah couldn't assassinate enough politicians to take over, so now they are taking to the streets.)
So do we need to include Christofacists in our war on terror?
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah vowed on Thursday to pursue his campaign to oust Lebanon's Western-backed government...
Speaking via a live video link to tens of thousands of cheering supporters in central Beirut, Nasrallah accused Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of trying to thwart the pro-Syrian Hezbollah in its recent 34-day conflict against Israel.
Thousands of opposition followers have been camped out for a week in squares near government headquarters in central Beirut to try to topple the Western-backed Siniora.
"You won't hear us accept defeat or weakness or feebleness," he said in a fiery speech that lasted more than an hour. "The door is open for negotiations ... but we will not leave the street before achieving the goal that saves Lebanon."
The opposition, which includes a populist Christian party, is demanding the formation of a national unity government and has paralyzed the heart of Beirut for the past week in an around-the-clock protest that shows no sign of fading.
Link
> There are some 60 organized radical Islamic cells and a large number of unorganized "spontaneous Jihad" groups arising from internet readings, firebrand Mullahs, or the inspiration of acts of others.
Who cares?
I only care if any of them are dangerous to the United States. Let's face it, the US had a massive over-reaction to 9/11, making too big a deal out of it. That plays into our enemy's hands, by letting them manipulate us like a puppet.
We need to always do what is best for us, not over-react to bodies being dragged through the streets in Somalia or three hijacked airplane bombs on 9/11. We need to cooly find the real enemies and deal with them, not let them provoke us.
MC_Mustang - right idea. Wrong oil fields.
What is Occupation - yes the Iranian economy is in the dumps. See Spengler's take on this: Jihadis and Whores.
Knowing that wars are won based on the economies of the opposing sides, and knowing that the Iranian economy is weak and is almost completely dependent on oil exports it becomes obvious that disrupting Iran's oil exports is a way, if not the way, to defeat the Iranian rulers.
There has been lots of talk and speculation regarding a military strike on Iran's nuclear research sites, either by the US or by Israel. Obviously such an attack would be difficult and the outcome uncertain. By contrast an attack on their oil pipelines, oil refineries, and oil wells, would be much easier. While impossible to predict the outcome it would certainly destroy the Iranian economy for a period of time and one could argue that the govt would be in great danger of being ousted by its own people.
If there is no resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue and the US doesn't attack Iran militarily then I expect that Israel will attack the Iranian oil infrastructure, with the goal of destroying Iran's economy and causing regime change.
There would be grave repercussions worldwide with oil prices rising dramatically and Iran's terrorism response but I expect that Israel will be forced into this move. There is obviously a ticking clock as Iran tries to go nuclear.
> There is no question in my mind that the monsters who caused 9/11 would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon against a major American city.
No doubt. But lots of people hate us, not just Islamists. News reports said the Chinese Premier watched the 9/11 tape endlessly, laughing... and he's actually got nukes. Putin hates our guts and wants to bring the Soviet Union back. The new generation of Socialist Latin-American tyrants like Chavez hates us too, and they live a lot closer.
There have always been America haters and there always will be. I grew up in the Cold War with thousands of Soviet nukes pointed at my head. I think Osama sitting in his cave and the idiotic suicide bombers are a joke compared to real threats like the Soviets and Red China.
Instead of saying Osama was a two-bit thug who hijacked airlines to kill civilians we made a star out of him and the Islamic movement. President Bush should have said he was a would-be tyrant pretending to be religious instead of going down the Christian vs. Muslim crusade angle.
Yes, the lives lost in 9/11 are important, but so are any American lives lost in war. I said we should not over-react, which will end up costing more lives. Osama thinks he can play us like a violin. Will we let him?
> What's really frightening is the next 9/11 attack will probably be nuclear.
I've heard that before and don't believe it at all; it's flat out impossible to transport and launch a nuke that easily. This is one of those myths that gets passed around the internet but no one ever debunks.
And if it ever did turn out to be true that nukes were that easy, then trying to hunt down every Muslim nut in the Middle East would be no way to waste our time. The threat could come from anywhere so our only defense would be mutual assured retaliation along with the best detection and response possible on the home front.
What I meant in the last part of my post is that the only way for someone to nuke us would be to launch it by missile, not by terrorist carrying imaginary small nukes around. So we would prevent it the same way we did attacks by the Soviets and Chinese, which is to be able to survive a first strike and still destroy them, mutual assured destruction.
Eggplant said, "Remember how the Palestinians were dancing with joy when they heard about 9/11?"
Yes, and what did we do? Give them 3,000 rifles and 1 million rounds of ammuntion.
Eggplant said, "Remember how the Palestinians were dancing with joy when they heard about 9/11?"
Yes, and what did we do? Give them 3,000 rifles and 1 million rounds of ammuntion.
Link
Kurdish leader blasts Iraq group's report
The president of the Kurdistan region of Iraq issued a stinging rejection of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, saying Kurds "are in no way abiding by this report."
>wu wei
The Kurds want federalism and seem to be averse to further entanglement with the central government. They're out for themselves - and for good reason - and hope to gain autonomy before the Shiites start looking their way.
All their talk of "Iraqi unity", but only under a federal government. Truth is, the only reason why the Kurds are supporting the current government is because it's not interfering with them. Don't be fooled by the seemingly nationalistic mood of the Kurds.
We have a long way to go before Iraqis start to think of themselves as a "nation".
Post a Comment
<< Home