From The Department of "As If"

The WaPo looks at Obama's new stance on Afghanistan and delivers this laugh line:

Some NATO military officials said enhanced U.S. leadership would be welcome, as long as it was not seen as a "takeover bid," said one senior European officer whose country has troops fighting as part of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. While the U.S. military has long criticized some NATO members for lacking combat zeal and expertise in Afghanistan, many European officers resent what they see as U.S. arrogance.

The NATO officer suggested that Obama, whose election was greeted with wide approval in Europe, may have more success than Bush in persuading other alliance members to increase their fighting forces in Afghanistan. "I think you'll find the new president would then be able to persuade a number of European nations who have not liked this administration's way of doing business to come in behind them," he said.

Uh huh.  Obama will be able to persuade European leaders to come up with a new list of excuses, but, with a few exceptions,  European troops don't fight any more.

Back in reality, this was very interesting:

But conversations with several Obama advisers and a number of senior military strategists both before and since last Tuesday's election reveal a shared sense that the Afghan effort under the Bush administration has been hampered by ideological and diplomatic constraints and an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a modern democracy -- rather than a stable nation that rejects al-Qaeda and Islamist extremism and does not threaten U.S. interests. None of those who discussed the subject would speak on the record, citing sensitivities surrounding the presidential transition and the war itself.

Ahh!  What did Mickey highlight from Obama's victory speech?  Here we go:

Grant Park: I was struck by two lists of virtues used by Obama in his acceptance speech--or rather by two omissions on those lists. [Emphasis added]

1.  To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you.  To those who seek peace and security – we support you.

 

"Peace and security." Not "democracy" or "freedom." This is someone who doesn't want to seem in any way a neocon idealist.

Uncanny.  Maybe I should go back and look through that victory speech for other tea leaves.

And back in Iraq:

Some military leaders remain wary of Obama's pledge to order a steady withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, to be completed within 16 months -- an order advisers say Obama is likely to give in his first weeks in office. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called a withdrawal timeline "dangerous." Others are distrustful of a new administration they see as unschooled in the counterinsurgency wars that have consumed the military for the past seven years.

Gosh - a very public order to commence withdrawals followed by very quiet back-pedaling as conditions are evaluated and re-evaluated would be awfully cynical and manipulative, wouldn't it?  On the other hand, Obama has said a million times that we must be as responsible in leaving Iraq as we were careless in entering, so of course there will be constant evaluation and re-evaluation of the withdrawal timetable.

I smell a photo-op and defeat celebration soon after the inauguration - why should Obama break the hearts of his base by declaring his intention to win in Iraq, even if that goal is eventually foisted upon him by dead-enders in the Pentagon and Congress?  Of course, "win" ought to mean leaving Iraq as a stable, unified democracy, although if this Afghanistan talk can be believed Obama might well settle for something that is stable and unified.

Comments

[bad]

Hey, Mickey was right about John Edwards...

[PWT]

Ahhhhh........we all remember the sweet unity and kite flying that flourished under Saddam. Bring back the good ol' days.

[Forbes]

If we are "as responsible in leaving Iraq as we were careless in entering," doesn't that result in Obama's 16 month timetable?

[Thomas Collins]

My worry is not that PrezO would withdraw troops from Iraq precipitously. My worry is that PrezO will be rolled by the Persians in negotiations over the region's future. Perhaps, though, I shouldn't worry that much about this. PrezO won't be rolled by the Persians any more than he will be rolled by the Russians, Chinese, Venezuelans, North Koreans and Cubans. Now I feel better.

[bgates]

Some NATO military officials said ___, said one senior European officer
Is the WaPo saying what "one European" is saying that "some NATO officials" said? Because that's what I'm saying they're saying.

Once upon a time, American foreign policy involved the installation and support of sympathetic figures in places like South Vietnam and Central America. At the time, the gentler criticism of domestic opponents of that strategy was that they had
an unrealistic commitment to the goal of building a modern democracy -- rather than a stable nation that...does not threaten U.S. interests.
The more vigorous criticism of these people, who can now without loss of accuracy be described by the shorthand "the Democratic Party", was that they were committed to American defeat in any contest with totalitarianism.
I don't see how the gentler criticism can possibly be correct.

[RichatUF]

bgates-

Somewhere on the blogsphere today someone had an article flagged up that the Obama Administration believes that Iran could be "helpful" to us in Afghanistan too. I'm pretty sure the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Arabs, and KSA, who all spent so much to get him elected, didn't quite anticipate Obama would be going about trying to put the old Persian Empire together as his vision of Middle East "peace and security".

I can't wait until he gives his speech to the 57 states of the OIC.

[PeterUK]

"Somewhere on the blogsphere today someone had an article flagged up that the Obama Administration believes that Iran could be "helpful" to us in Afghanistan too."

Why not? They helped get him elected.

[bgates]

That's where that "57 states" idea came from! It's 56 right now, he must have been looking forward to when he signs us up.

[davod]

Don't these f.....s understand that talk of withdrawal encourages the deadenders.

[RichatUF]

davod-

Yes that is the point.

[PaulL]

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force: Clearly from their name, they aren't involved in security itself, which might include fighting and getting hurt; they are involved in assisting fighters (mostly Americans). I'm not sure how ISAF forces sunbathing assists Americans exactly?

[davod]

Rich.

I know this. I am just a little frustrated with the debasement of values in the USA.

I really think someone more knowledgeable than me needs to find a way to redefine the definition of Patriotism. The US ratbags (covers more than politicians) have convinced the country that they are still patriotic, even when contributing to the enemies propaganda effort.

[E. Nigma]

"Arrogance of the Bush administration" and a "takeover bid" in Afghanistan, Eurpoean official that has troops "fighting" in Afghanistan.

code words

Decoder ring deployed.

"Arrogance" is a pretty typical word that comes out of the British foreign ministry, as they are past masters at arrogance. They know what of they speak.

"Take over" could also be from Britain, as they are one of only about, uh, three countries in NATO that actually have, uh, troops fighting. That would be Canada (nope, wouldn't say that, and they aren't European), Britain and France. The Dutch may have a small contingent "fighting", but my money is on "France". The French try and take over everything they have even a small stake in, so that fits the MO.

Great allies. Happy Veterans Day.

[truthynesslover]

Too bad we cant have that good ol draft mccain wanted,huh?

Veterans React to McCain's Admission That He'll Need a Military Draft
By VoteVets.org | Press Release
PUBLISHED: August 20, 2008

WASHINGTON – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans today reacted to John McCain’s statement that he doesn’t disagree that we would need a military draft to do everything he wants. At a town hall in Las Cruces, NM, a woman said she could not see doing everything McCain wanted, and would not have the troops under his plan to follow Osama bin Laden to the “gates of hell” without a draft. In response, McCain said, “I don’t disagree with anything you said.” The video of that can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI

Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, “At least Senator McCain is being honest. A vote for him is a vote for the draft. Period. Unless Senator McCain radically changes his worldview, there would be a draft to implement his plans.”

Soltz added, “When you take into account his indefinite military commitment to Iraq, his desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, record lows in recruiting and retention, and possibly more wars he is looking to get into, like “Bomb Bomb Bomb” Iran, his numbers don’t add up without a draft. Whether America likes it or not isn’t relevant – a draft is the only way to do everything Senator McCain wants to do. I give him points for being honest and upfront, though, that we’re going to need a draft if he is elected.”

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I don't care what the truthers and trolls say, I am going to miss President Bush:

Veterans Day, 2008

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who in defense of our freedom have bravely worn the uniform of the United States.

From the fields and forests of war-torn Europe to the jungles of Southeast Asia, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, brave patriots have protected our Nation’s ideals, rescued millions from tyranny, and helped spread freedom around the globe. America’s veterans answered the call when asked to protect our Nation from some of the most brutal and ruthless tyrants, terrorists, and militaries the world has ever known. They stood tall in the face of grave danger and enabled our Nation to become the greatest force for freedom in human history. Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have answered a high calling to serve and have helped secure America at every turn.

Our country is forever indebted to our veterans for their quiet courage and exemplary service. We also remember and honor those who laid down their lives in freedom’s defense. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for our benefit. On Veterans Day, we remember these heroes for their valor, their loyalty, and their dedication. Their selfless sacrifices continue to inspire us today as we work to advance peace and extend freedom around the world.

With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our service members have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor America’s veterans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2008, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 9 through November 15, 2008, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I encourage all Americans to recognize the bravery and sacrifice of our veterans through ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to support and participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with commemorative expressions and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[Angie Smith]

The United States has helped spread freedom to many countries, and so many of our soldiers have died, yet those utterly idiotic liberal, left-wing illuminatis want a timeline for withdrawal, in addition to cutting military spending 25%! They don't care about the Army families left behind or of those who will continue to die because of their arrogance and sheer stupidity!

[P Jones]

It confounds me why you people talk about "winning" the war in Iraq. It is an impossibility. Those folks haven't been fighting each other for thousands of years just waiting for the United States to come in and in 5 or 20 years, through the force of arm, just wash away all of that animosity and show them the error of their ways.

I'm sure most of you guys just can't help yourself when you think of the "shock and awe" of U.S. military might just causing these poor "towel heads" to drop down in gaped jawed obsequiousness to our presence, but, boo, it ain't gonna work like that. Just like the flip-flop wearing VietCong didn't let the jet jockey John McCain types and the B-52 carpet bombing end their ragtag efforts. The power of their ideas and dreams were always more powerful then our bombs, jets and corrupt practices.

Whenever the U.S. leaves Irag/Afganistan, be it 5 years or 50 years from now (thank God Johnnie Mac didn't win!) , the folks with the greatest convictions (and that inevitably will be the folks that resist us, not the ones that take the easy way out through collaberation) will take the country. And they will do what every winning side does with collaberators.... take them out and shoot them. As was done by the French and the Germans after WWII.

I know history seems to escape most of y'all when given a choice between thoughtful reflection and gungho brute force, but, remember: the U.S. pumped boatloads of money and technical & military support into the Shah of Iran for decades. Iran was a "model" of stability and progress in the middle east. It was a stalwart ally of the U.S. .... Until eventually the power of the ideas of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeni eroded the Shah from the bottom up and sent him on his last days shuttling from port to port trying to find someplace that would take him in so that he could die of cancer with some dignity. Better he had faced the firing squad at home... Given where Iran is today, how'd that work out for us?

[RichatUF]

P Jones-

Wow you must have gotten your history degree from Patrice Lumumba University.

[kim]

Except, P. Jones, the powerful ideas of those to whom we threw Southeast Asia were murderous and failed. You would have the same thing happen in Iraq?

The Shah failed from his own egomania and corruption, not because we supported him. Given the then recent story of Russia and Eastern Europe, supporting him was necessary to prevent the USSR from gaining a warm water port, not to mention the Middle East's petroleum resources. You are either ignorant about the times, or attempting to deceive.
==============================

[Jim Ryan]

That argument was already boring when it was marshaled against the surge. Where'd you cut n' paste it from? Snore.

What always comes through is the writer's thinly veiled desire for the doom of the Iraqi people. You can tell by the hyperventilating. And "towel heads" always shows up to mark the fact that the writer doesn't give a hoot what happens to Iraqis. They can go to hell as long as it takes the GOP down a notch or two, right?

[PD]

re: Peace and security

Apparently Democrats have little interest in Democracy.

[bad]

..die of cancer with some dignity. Better he had faced the firing squad at home..

A dignified firing squad is more fitting for someone of your stupendous stupidity.

[kim]

Here's a little irony. An already nearly terminal Shah sought out the 'best' surgeon in the world for his splenectomy and wound up with someone with little recent experience below the diaphragm, who should have let his residents do the job, and who nicked the pancreas, to ill ultimate effect.
====================================

[kim]

Lil nown fack.
=========

[Jim Ryan]

Ouch.

[Soylent Red]

The power of their ideas and dreams

Here's a little taste of their ideas and dreams.

Tell me again how we were worse?

[P Jones]

Soylent Red, Kim, Bad, Jim Ryan....

I appreciate your interaction! Now, on to the next lesson:

American Exceptionalism.

American have always stood sufficiently distance (physically) from the playing field of battle as to be isolated from the consequences. During the Vietnam War there was this weekly "body count" that LBJ insisted on to show our "progress" in defeating the enemy. Usually the USA body count was a thousand or so. And the Viet Congs was usually listed as 10's of thousands. Now, America's carpet bombing approach to battle was extremely efficient and smart. We weren't actually counting the bodies. Because dropping our bombs from 30k to 2k feet up, they were able to go off and the explosion would only seek out the Vietcong in the neighborhoods. The thermal blast and shockwave would skip over the farmers and peasants and kids and all the non participants, and just exert their force on the bad bad Vietcong. Then report that information back to CenCom on how many enemies were killed! Amazing technology! From recent news reports it seems they must have brought out some of those same bombs, because we see they are using them again(ultimate to the same resulting conclusion *sigh*) in Afghanistan.

Our liberation of Iraq has been just as refreshing. Some 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of our intervention. Outside of the greenzone areas (and in some cases, inside,too) no electricity most of the time, no running water some of the time, no sewage plant operation most of the time, and the random attack here and there to assure no personal security. And the ungrateful bastards didn't dance in the streets when we arrived as your boy "Rummy" predicted!

Folks, this is not about what we would want in the world. If through some magic wand we could wave it and make life better for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Venezuala, North Korea, et al, I would say "Wave that wand!". But the grubby reality of having to kill people to affect a result (which, I understand is most definitely sometimes necessary) needs to be reserved for those instances when our vital national interest are at stake. And as can be seen in Vietnam, nothing was at stake for the U.S.there. They just wanted their country back...first from the French and then from us after we stuck our nose in. I intend to go on a nice cruise to Vietnam next summer and tour the lovely sites of Da Nang, Haiphong, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. And in 10 years in Iraq, after they take their country back, I'll go on a nice tour of Baghdad, Karbola, the "Triangle of Death", et al, too.

[kim]

P. Jones, you have apparently been sucked in by the Lancet disinformation, you still seem to prefer Saddam's civility to the horror of democracy, and I hope you go see a few of the skulls on display in Cambodia. You have a quaint view of the world.
===================================

[sbw]

Pardon, I just walked in late and caught the last comment by P. Jones.

As I understand it, P. you are challenging the wisdom of a Democratic President, LBJ. Have have to advise you to be careful about that. There is no telling the price the trolls will make you pay for that.

Secondly, you are comparing an apple to an orange. Instead of Vietnam, why not compare Iraq to France in World War II. In Iraq we liberated 28 million. In France we liberated, say 40 million. Now, what was it that you were saying?

Oh yes, "Folks, this is not about what we would want in the world." Sorry, bucko, This is not about the unworkable philosophy of moral relativism that was so chic back in the day of zombie movies and Buddy Holly. This is about the minimum requirements for behavior between individuals and nations, which, apparently the United Nations, that despot protection agency also stuck in the 1950s, forgot.

Was there anything else, P?

[P Jones]

SBW! Welcome to the party!

You speak of apples and oranges...and you want to compare Iraq to Nazi Germany?!? I won't even go down those obvious dissimilarities, because you seem smart enough to know better. We all slip from time to time.

Now, you speak of moral relativism. I'm not sure where in my comments you devined that, but, let me assume you see it in there when I speak of "... what we would want in the world". One minimum requirement for behavior between individuals and nations used to be that one wouldn't attack another unless it was attacked first. You're obviously comfortable in giving that up.

You seem to take it (something I devine, and perhaps u didn't mean this!) that if other people and other nations have different values and customs than ours we should judge them and if necessary attack them to force the fit of our views. Well! How refreshing! Welcome to the 14th century! You and the spanish conquistidors would make lovely running buddies ... although perhaps your tastes might run more toward 18th century colonialism. If "moral relativism" is unworkable...them strict construction to our views and customs must be applied.

Now, I know you guys believe that the United Nations is some all powerful empire (would it were!) out to floridate the water and defile our youth....but, in the absence of any such body, who is the "decider" (OH! how I hate that word! lol)? I suppose you believe the U.S. is all good all the time and what we decide should unilaterally be good for the world and they should just salute because we know whats best for them.

*Sigh!* I could go on for hours, but it would be pointless in this space. But, It is interesting to engage from time to time...

[bad]

I could go on for hours, but it would be pointless..

Absolutely true.

[kim]

Ooh, what a precious bird you are. Your droppings perfume the air.
========================================

[clarice]

After years of definitive debunking of the Lancet figures, a poster appears out of the ether who still believes that cock and bull story. Amazing. See how hard it is to kill an outright lie and yet think--how long is it taking for the bien pensants to recognize the truth--i.e., the world is cooling.

[P Jones]

Oh! Since you guys are so appreciative of me (bad, kim!), let me just say one last thing.....

I think LBJ and Richard Nixon were two of our greatest presidents, period...accept for their two flaws of Vietnam and Watergate. I don't separate myself from the two flaws, however, because at the time I supported the war and didn't see the relavence of Watergate. But, in retrospect, they were flaws.

What made each of them great was: 1) LBJ's Great Society...which transformed America from a rural, agriculutural based, "rugged self reliant, individualist" society, into a more urbane and pluralistic society; and 2) Nixon's "Glasnost" and "Realpolitics" which moved us onto the world stage of big boy politics, as one of the two great powers, working with, through, and around our enemies.

Why I digress into this stroll down memory lane is this: The opportunity for the Obama Administration is the movement to the next stage .... to fully engage the requirements and necessities of a true pluralistic Great Society (fixing the health care mess, as an example )with the reality of a world with multiple centers of political influence. The Real "Realpolitics" of the next generation. If he can do that, he'll get his own Mount Rushmore!

[kim]

What's the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits your windshield?
===================================

[sbw]

One minimum requirement for behavior between individuals and nations used to be that one wouldn't attack another unless it was attacked first.

Stating something does not make it valid. Under your presumption bad behavior within physical boundaries gets a free ride. Yes. That is the guiding principle of the United Nations' Despot Permanent Employment Act. You'd fit in well there.

... And you're not sure where I get your commitment to moral relativism? Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

You fail to distinguish the difference between culture and society -- Society is the framework by which one individual (or culture) deals with another. Society is not a culture, but the collection of all cultures.

Think of it like a carpet. Cultures are the pile -- many varied patterns, textures, materials -- and think of society as the underlying warp and weft fibers manufactured to hold the cultural pile together.

Your homework, P, is a mind experiment. Deduce the minimum requirements -- independent of any culture or history -- for behavior when one individual meets another.

As a corollary, figure out how you would see if the other side believes in that minimum standard of behavior towards you. Because, if you can't, you do not have society, you have animals behaving according to the law of the jungle.

You see, P, society is mankind's creation. But that is not yet taught in school.
--

Well. This is enough for now. Your comment is a poster child for how much schooled people have yet to learn. You have landed at the right blog, if you have a keen enough intellect and the will to learn. It's your choice: Troll or Traveler. Your behavior makes the choice. We enjoy inquisitive company.

[clarice]

No end to PJ's precious droppings and glib posturings, is there?

[sbw]

P., Spend $10 on P.J. O'Rourke's "On the Wealth of Nations". it's the best investment you'll ever make.

It distills Adam Smith's discovery of what in history has never worked in practice. In other words, you suggest that we don't believe that we are all in this together, when we do. We just want to bootstrap the poor in a manner more likely to work and less likely to produce conflict.

The problem with American liberals is that when they feel your pain, they don't want to solve it; they want to cover it up using other people's money.

Some great society.

[Jim Ryan]

It's hard to tell when one of them might be worth it, eh, sbw? The dripping conceit and ignorance may conceal the heart of a truth lover or the heart of a true sophist, and only time will tell.

[Peter Jones]

Hey, SBW and Jim Ryan!

Thanks for the reposts! I will deeply consider your suggestions and thoughts. Perhaps there is something in there that I have missed over the years (I have read "Wealth of Nations"). I am sure you two are convinced of your thoughts and are beyound reconsideration..... but, I'd suggest some reflection there as well. But, I never will say that I know so much as to not be open to learn something new!

Take care!

[sbw]

Peter, Karl Popper explained that science isn't about understanding what is true, but identifying and rejecting what is false.

We are anything but convinced about our thoughts, but we have practice identifying that which previously we might have been taken in by.

We can't teach you anything. You have to figure it out for yourself. We can only encourage you to keep on working at it.

[PD]

If he can do that, he'll get his own Mount Rushmore!

Why should we wait for this? There's already a movement afoot to have a national Obama holiday, before he's done a thing.

[kim]

In honor of his stabilizing the sea level and coastline, all waves henceforth will murmur 'Obama' as they break upon the shore.
======================================

[kat-missouri]

It confounds me why you people talk about "winning" the war in Iraq. It is an impossibility. Those folks haven't been fighting each other for thousands of years just waiting for the United States to come in and in 5 or 20 years, through the force of arm, just wash away all of that animosity and show them the error of their way

Uhmm...what world did you live in? "These people"? Are you a racist who thinks that all Arabs are just a bunch of retro-grade tribalized serial killers?

Second, "these people" inside of Iraq have not been killing each other for decades. One group of people under Saddam was doing all the killing. The other people were being killed. Period.

Beyond that, that is no excuse to allow tyrannical and murderous governments to exist or to flourish. Most of all because they typically end up being a threat to the US. But, just as important, because they typically end up being mass murdering scumbags.

[sfcmac]

P Jones:

One of the letters we intercepted from Ayman al-Zawahiri to the now in hell Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, specifically mentioned the establishment an Islamic Caliphate in the “heart of the Islamic world”, to include Iraq. He mentioned this as being vital to Al Qaeda’s war against Western civilization. Afghanistan was a side show. Despite this, you Dem sock puppets keep spouting the line that Iraq is a “mistake”. Well, looks like Zawahiri refuted that notion. Zawahiri also said that Afghanistan is “just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world.”

As for this asinine comment:
"Our liberation of Iraq has been just as refreshing. Some 1,000,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of our intervention. Outside of the greenzone areas (and in some cases, inside,too) no electricity most of the time, no running water some of the time, no sewage plant operation most of the time, and the random attack here and there to assure no personal security. And the ungrateful bastards didn't dance in the streets when we arrived as your boy "Rummy" predicted!"

One million? Sheeeit, you've just out-Sorosed George Soros. His claims were debunked, btw: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/02/09/us-has-killed-655-000-iraqis-soros-funded-lancet-study-debunked

You also demonstrate just how ignorant you are of a war’s aftermath; i.e. continued sporadic fighting, the struggle to rebuild the economy and residential communities. When the end of WWII was declared, Europe, Japan, and the Philippines were in ruins. It took decades to recuperate.

You should actually take the time to read about the progress instead of posting tripe.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/

Since your so wrapped around the axle with body counts, the numbers from previous wars should have you in a hissy fit:

Troop casualties:

WWI Deaths: 116,516 Wounded: 204,002 Total casualties: 320,518

WWII : Deaths 291,557 Wounded 670,846

Korean War: Deaths: 33,629

Vietnam War: Deaths: 58,238 Wounded: 128,000

Civilian casualities:

WWI: 8,871,428

WWII: 41,743,400

Korea: Between 547,000-1,000,000

Vietnam: Approximitely 2,000,000, but add in the subsequent efforts of the Khmer Rouge and you have at least another 2,000,000.

By the the way, since you plan on visiting the 'worker's paradise' of Vietnam, you might drop in on all those political prisoners in the 're-education camps' and tell them how lucky they are.

The trouble with pseudo-intellectual effetes, is that they talk a lot of shit, but they'd never really live under the foreign systems they advocate (READ: Worship from afar)

I agree with this with one exception: "But the grubby reality of having to kill people to affect a result (which, I understand is most definitely sometimes necessary) needs to be reserved for those instances when our vital national interest are at stake."

Our vital national interests depend on total annihilation of an Islamofascist culture that's hellbent on a world Caliphate. Even after victory is officially declared in Iraq and Afghanistan, this war ain’t over by a long shot. Terrorists are trained, funded, and supported throughout the Middle East.

Stopping them dead before they try another attack that makes 9/11 look like a picnic IS vital to our national security. Just don't expect that to be high on Obamessiah's list of priorities.

Our policy should be simple: you attack us, we annihilate you, your supporters, your country, everything.
That’s how you fight a “jihad”. But, I’m a former Soldier, not a politician.

[sfcmac]

@kat-missouri:

"Are you a racist who thinks that all Arabs are just a bunch of retro-grade tribalized serial killers?"

Doesn't take a 'racist' to understand what motivates them. You oughta read the Koran sometime. It's chock full of 'retro-grade, tribalized' kill all the infidels crap. That includes you, sweetpea. The Arab culture doesn't share your touchy-feely indignation.

[mandible claw]

Um wasn't Iraq fairly stable and unified under Saddam and Baath already? Stable as in there was no credible political opposition, unified as in all suffering to similar extents?

Obama really does aim high, huh.

[Soylent Red]

SFCMac:

I've read the Koran. I've also read the Bible.

The problem is that Salafists take certain passages literally, and interpret certain other through Qutbism. That seems to be a dominant trend in Islam.

You could produce the same kinds of fanatics using the Bible if you interpreted it in a certain way. These crazy-assed Baptists from Kansas who protest funerals are a good example.

Islam was founded and is practiced in honor cultures. So it not only derives from that kind of mentality, but feeds it as well. It's become an excuse for "these people" to settle arguments with violence.

[kim]

Phred's a phraud.
============

[sfcmac]

Soylent Red,

Since you've read both, you should be able to discern the biggest difference: The prophet Mohammad was an anti-jew, anti-Christian, kill all the infidels demagogue. I don't recall one comment by Christ that even comes close. The Koran outdoes the Bible 100 fold when it comes to fire and brimstone. When baptists, catholics, episcopalians, or wacky snake-handling pentecostals from Appalachia decide to fly some airplanes into buildings in the name of God, you might have an arguement. BTW: I'm agnostic.

[Soylent Red]

When baptists, catholics, episcopalians, or wacky snake-handling pentecostals from Appalachia decide to fly some airplanes into buildings in the name of God, you might have an arguement.

You already have them bombing abortion clinics and honor killings for pregnant daughters have been going on in Appalachia since anyone can remember. The main deterrent is that most fundie wackos live in a place where there is established law enforcement.

In Afghanistan, the fundie wackos took over and became the law enforcement. There is no direct Western analog, imagine a place where the Christian fundies took over the government and made biblical law (as interpreted by them) the law of the land. You would then start to see the same kind of fanaticism. The Second and Third Crusades were good examples of that.

I will give you this: Islam is a social/civil structure as well as a religion. That needs to change before they will get straightened out. That change isn't going to come at the prodding of an American M4. As an honor culture, Arabs are inclined to do just the opposite in that situation.

[sfcmac]

Soylent Red,

Another difference between those wacky snake-handlers from Appalachia and the Islamic zealots:

The snake handlers don't have a world-wide network of terrorists or a concerted campaign to overthrow this democracy. Abortion clinic bombings are few and far between. Eric Rudolph was the last perpetrator that comes to mind. Again: When they become as dangerous to Western Civilization and your way of life as Islam, you might have an argument. The 'fundie wackos' in the hills of West by god Virginia pale in comparison to type of sophisticated, organized, dedicated Islamic terrorists who attacked on 9/11.

Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. 'Honor' in their culture comes with bombs in the name of allah

I'd rather 'prod' with a MOAB; several of them.

[sfcmac]

Oh, by the way, the Crusades were a direct response to the Turkish Ottoman Islamic Empire and its own 'crusades'.

[sophy]

Please do not hesitate to have flyff penya . It is funny.