This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 18th, 2009 at 1:27 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is hillarious…. They keep making comparisons in Iraq from this year to last year… Where are the comparisons of now vs. BEFORE we attacked them. How many of those folks said something along the lines of…”this is how it was 4 years ago?”
Iraq was perfect prior to invasion. Everybody knows that. Saddam was truly a benevolent great leader concerned solely with the welfare of his citizens.
Hmm, how quickly we forget the last time the United States meddled in Iraqi affairs. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was our golden boy in the Middle East, with Donald Rumsfeld as our emissary to Hussein. We gave Saddam aid and weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.
But this isn’t even where the story starts. In the early 60s, the CIA was involved in promoting the Baath party over the Iraqi communists in the coup that put the Baathists (including Saddam) in power.
Given this history, I think Jamie can be forgiven for his skepticism about our latest foray into Middle East politics.
I’m not sure how you can be so single mindedly against government involvement in the marketplace, yet put so much faith in its ability to positively affect political power structures in unstable and hostile regions.
I agree with Michael’s astute observation. If you want to meddle in the affairs of others in attempt to affect change in that country you best not go half ass. It’s better to simply invade and put a standing army in control while you rebuild the government and country.
This observation is precisely why I support a full scale invasion and am weary of any kind of covert operation or economic sanction. Many of our half ass attempts fail and often make things worse while full scale invasion gets ‘er’ done.
Presumably, many of you who are opposed to the invasion would support sanctions in Iraq. Implicit in this assumption is that half ass measures are enough to affect the desired change in a country. You might be against funding Saddam in the Eighties to manage Iran but you support economic sanctions to manage Iraq in the Nineties. Its the same principle in both cases: using half ass measures to affect change in a country. In my opinion, it don’t work.
If you want to affect change, you do so through invasion. That’s why I supported the Iraq invasion while find no justification in WMD. I was there to establish democracy in the middle east to being the process of moderating the region. And I knew if we were going to do it right, we were going to have to invade.
Incidentally, I never liked the way the administration handled Afghanistan because it felt to half ass to me. Fortunately, it looks the current adminstration is going to ramp up the military effort. Hopefully we can solidify that fledgling democracy. Then all we need is a hat trick. Invade Iran and watch the region moderate right before you eyes.
Trampage, you’re missing the big picture here. Steve has found the solution to all of our problems.
“If you want to affect change, you do so through invasion.”
Failing school systems? Get a marine with an AK-47 standing at the back of every classroom, firing on students who throw spitballs, and watch those test scores start to rise!
Failing economy? Just carpet bomb Wall Street and then send in miitary overseers to rebuild the financial market.
Illegal Immigration? Declare martial law in California and Texas and indefinitely detain anyone who employs or harbors an illegal immigrant (or anyone who was accused of being an illegal immigrant by someone who was paid for the information).
It’s a whole new paradigm for the government’s approach to problem-solving, and I for one am very excited about it.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
This is hillarious…. They keep making comparisons in Iraq from this year to last year… Where are the comparisons of now vs. BEFORE we attacked them. How many of those folks said something along the lines of…”this is how it was 4 years ago?”
March 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Oh, and I’m not saying Iraq can’t be better than they were before we attacked, I’m just wondering where the data are that say they are.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
It’s still too early to call it, but if the democracy continues to function they have a great chance.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Iraq was perfect prior to invasion. Everybody knows that. Saddam was truly a benevolent great leader concerned solely with the welfare of his citizens.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Hmm, how quickly we forget the last time the United States meddled in Iraqi affairs. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was our golden boy in the Middle East, with Donald Rumsfeld as our emissary to Hussein. We gave Saddam aid and weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.
But this isn’t even where the story starts. In the early 60s, the CIA was involved in promoting the Baath party over the Iraqi communists in the coup that put the Baathists (including Saddam) in power.
Given this history, I think Jamie can be forgiven for his skepticism about our latest foray into Middle East politics.
I’m not sure how you can be so single mindedly against government involvement in the marketplace, yet put so much faith in its ability to positively affect political power structures in unstable and hostile regions.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I agree with Michael’s astute observation. If you want to meddle in the affairs of others in attempt to affect change in that country you best not go half ass. It’s better to simply invade and put a standing army in control while you rebuild the government and country.
This observation is precisely why I support a full scale invasion and am weary of any kind of covert operation or economic sanction. Many of our half ass attempts fail and often make things worse while full scale invasion gets ‘er’ done.
Presumably, many of you who are opposed to the invasion would support sanctions in Iraq. Implicit in this assumption is that half ass measures are enough to affect the desired change in a country. You might be against funding Saddam in the Eighties to manage Iran but you support economic sanctions to manage Iraq in the Nineties. Its the same principle in both cases: using half ass measures to affect change in a country. In my opinion, it don’t work.
If you want to affect change, you do so through invasion. That’s why I supported the Iraq invasion while find no justification in WMD. I was there to establish democracy in the middle east to being the process of moderating the region. And I knew if we were going to do it right, we were going to have to invade.
Incidentally, I never liked the way the administration handled Afghanistan because it felt to half ass to me. Fortunately, it looks the current adminstration is going to ramp up the military effort. Hopefully we can solidify that fledgling democracy. Then all we need is a hat trick. Invade Iran and watch the region moderate right before you eyes.
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 am
Didn’t you love it when rome brought a greater style of life to england?
I loved it when germany brought their precision and discipline to poland?
Wasn’t it great when england help organize America?
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Trampage, you’re missing the big picture here. Steve has found the solution to all of our problems.
“If you want to affect change, you do so through invasion.”
Failing school systems? Get a marine with an AK-47 standing at the back of every classroom, firing on students who throw spitballs, and watch those test scores start to rise!
Failing economy? Just carpet bomb Wall Street and then send in miitary overseers to rebuild the financial market.
Illegal Immigration? Declare martial law in California and Texas and indefinitely detain anyone who employs or harbors an illegal immigrant (or anyone who was accused of being an illegal immigrant by someone who was paid for the information).
It’s a whole new paradigm for the government’s approach to problem-solving, and I for one am very excited about it.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
“marine with an AK-47″
You mean M16. Generally US soldiers aren’t issued Soviet weaponry…