The Purpose-driven Left (Ann Coulter)

[Lisa_N]

gnjsdad:

I’d like to offer another thought about this. It seems to me that the attack on Abu Ghraib was a victory for the insurgency, no matter how many insurgents were killed. Their victory lay in the fact that Abu Ghraib, as a hated symbol of the American occupation and a potent source of anti-American fervor in the Muslim world, was attacked at all. It wouldn’t matter if 8 or 80 or 800 insurgents were killed. The attack insures that the insurgency is alive and well and will go on. That’s the paradoxical nature of insurgencies like this; seeming ‘defeats’ get transformed into victories because the fact of the occupation gets reinforced in the Muslim public sphere.

Look I do not doubt that the insurgency will go on. That does not mean defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory. There are many countries that have been established long before Iraq that have active insurgencies that surface from time to time. Good grief even in America we’ll have a neo-Nazi group come out from under their rocks and cause problems. This is what happens when you have some angry people with nothing to lose. They are all over the world, not just in Iraq.

I don’t think the insurgency is ‘well’ however. Once they started killing Iraqis, they lost a lot of traction. I think they will become increasingly marginalized and while probably no more easily eradicated than cockroaches, will be less of an issue as time goes on.

Lisa N

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

I am confused here. According to you, ‘there is a lot of evidence that the terrorists suffered a tremendous loss’, but you didn’t indicate what that evidence might be. What other evidence, absent their dead bodies, which were supposedly dragged away, was there? I originally heard that 80 insurgents were killed during this attack. That number was subsequently reduced to 6. Since we don’t know for sure, I suspect that the original report of 80 insurgents killed was not accurate. Again, truth is hard to come by in war.

You need to read the link, there are eyewitness accounts there.

But how is that evidence of the inspectors incompetence, especially since we have had no more success 2 years after the invasion?

I didn’t say that was evidence of the inspectors incompetence, we have that evedence elswhere. But it isn’t evidence of their accruacy either.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

I’d like to offer another thought about this. It seems to me that the attack on Abu Ghraib was a victory for the insurgency, no matter how many insurgents were killed. Their victory lay in the fact that Abu Ghraib, as a hated symbol of the American occupation and a potent source of anti-American fervor in the Muslim world, was attacked at all. It wouldn’t matter if 8 or 80 or 800 insurgents were killed. The attack insures that the insurgency is alive and well and will go on. That’s the paradoxical nature of insurgencies like this; seeming ‘defeats’ get transformed into victories because the fact of the occupation gets reinforced in the Muslim public sphere.

But if the result was a route, which it was, then it does not make them look like a strong insurgency. What it makes them look like are fools for inadequately attacking a fort. This sort of attack only really works for propaganda purposes if it is a success, or can be done repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.

This was the Tet Offensive that wasn’t.

 

[gilliam]

Lisa N:

I don’t think the insurgency is ‘well’ however. Once they started killing Iraqis, they lost a lot of traction. I think they will become increasingly marginalized and while probably no more easily eradicated than cockroaches, will be less of an issue as time goes on.

Good point, read: Signs of hostility within al-Qaida emerge in Iraq

 

[gilliam]

gilliam:

You need to read the link, there are eyewitness accounts there.

I didn’t say that was evidence of the inspectors incompetence, we have that evidence elswhere. But it isn’t evidence of their accruacy either.

 

[Trelow]

Coulter 2008!!!

 

[reggie]

Philip P:

So…the ends justify the means? I guess there’s no point being against fetal stem cell research anymore,then…

There is absolutely no comparison to finding some good to have come from the war in Iraq, regardless of why it was started and fetal stem cell research, which I strenuously oppose.

My position on the war does not represent an ends justify the means argument. I do not know the why of Pres. Bush going to war. I know the reasons the administration cites, but I was not privy to the decision making. The war and it results are not the same as stem cell research and its results.

The intent of the American soldiers in Iraq has been and still is to further the security of our country, regardless of why Pres. Bush sent them there. The removal of Saddam and a budding democracy in the middle east, if fruitful, will ultimately accomplish this. Further, the soldiers in Iraq did willfully and voluntarily submit themselves to the authority of the government when they joined the military. While I am grieved for all the losses suffered there on both sides, these young men died for a worthy cause for which they were willing to fight. The Iraqi people, while not in the same position as the soldiers, had suffered death and oppression under Saddam’s regime. Once again, if fruitful, their deaths will have been for a worthy cause for which they were unable to fight on their own.

Now as to stem cell research. While it is conceivable that some diseases and disabilities may be cured through this research, it is not a worthy cause. To create life and then destroy it for the purpose of finding cures is a horror that cannot ever result in good. For Jesus warns us, “What profit a man to gain his life and yet lose his soul.” Cures may be found for the body in this research, but its result is the loss of the soul of humanity. These poor innocents have no choice or say in how their life is used. That is vastly different than the lives of our soldiers lost in Iraq.

 

[gilliam]

reggie:

The intent of the American soldiers in Iraq has been and still is to further the security of our country, regardless of why Pres. Bush sent them there. .

I know I am repeating my self. But we don’t have to guess as to the reasons for liberating Iraq. The reasons we liberated Iraq are well known and are documented in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq . The President of the United States can’t just send troops off to invade another country. No matter what propagandists say. Only congress can. And when they do, they do it via a resolution. This is the one for the Liberation of Iraq and it tells us why.

 

[thestickman]

caroljm36:

You call a civil difference of opinion “hostility”? On the contrary, I think maybe you are the one overreacting.

Amen!!!

 

[Trelow]

gilliam:

I know I am repeating my self. But we don’t have to guess as to the reasons for liberating Iraq. The reasons we liberated Iraq are well known and are documented in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq . The President of the United States can’t just send troops off to invade another country. No matter what propagandists say. Only congress can. And when they do, they do it via a resolution. This is the one for the Liberation of Iraq and it tells us why.

Silly facts always seam to get in the way.

 

[reggie]

gilliam:

I know I am repeating my self. But we don’t have to guess as to the reasons for liberating Iraq. The reasons we liberated Iraq are well known and are documented in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq . The President of the United States can’t just send troops off to invade another country. No matter what propagandists say. Only congress can. And when they do, they do it via a resolution. This is the one for the Liberation of Iraq and it tells us why.

I do not presume to know what was in the heart of Pres. Bush nor do I have all of the inside information regarding the war. I know what was presented to Congress in the request for permission to use military aggression in Iraq. What I meant is that regardless of what people believe, that Pres. Bush was acting to safeguard our country, or that he and his “oil buddies” trumped everything up as an excuse to oust Saddam and take control of Iraq’s oil, the men and women who are doing the actual fighting and dying there are serving our country.

Personally, I see Pres. Bush as an honorable man who I don’t believe callously and cavalierly send our soldiers to war to enrich himself. There are those who would argue that but it is only our opinions. Only God knows what was in his heart.

 

[gilliam]

reggie:

I do not presume to know what was in the heart of Pres. Bush nor do I have all of the inside information regarding the war. I know what was presented to Congress in the request for permission to use military aggression in Iraq. What I meant is that regardless of what people believe, that Pres. Bush was acting to safeguard our country, or that he and his “oil buddies” trumped everything up as an excuse to oust Saddam and take control of Iraq’s oil, the men and women who are doing the actual fighting and dying there are serving our country.

Personally, I see Pres. Bush as an honorable man who I don’t believe callously and cavalierly send our soldiers to war to enrich himself. There are those who would argue that but it is only our opinions. Only God knows what was in his heart.

The way it works is that Congress does its own investigation in such matters. They received the same information that Bush and came to a similar conclusion.

Personally, I think we are all too close to the events right now to know the real story. Historians will write about this war after more information is available.

 

[Philip_P]

reggie:

I do not presume to know what was in the heart of Pres. Bush nor do I have all of the inside information regarding the war. I know what was presented to Congress in the request for permission to use military aggression in Iraq. What I meant is that regardless of what people believe, that Pres. Bush was acting to safeguard our country, or that he and his “oil buddies” trumped everything up as an excuse to oust Saddam and take control of Iraq’s oil, the men and women who are doing the actual fighting and dying there are serving our country.

Maybe, but the when we as a country decided whether or not to go to war it was based on what we were told. If this was really about bringing democracy to the middle east or some other such matter, we should have voted on that, rather than having all these scary suggestions about mushroom clouds and this tasteless exploitation of 9/11 being used to frighten us into war.

And if Pres. Bush were really serious about democracy in the middle east, one wonders if perhaps it would not have been more constructive to work with already existing democracies rather than just completely destroying an already existing country. Pre Iraq, there had been a thawing in Iran/US relations (Iran is, structurally, among the most democratic countries in the region). Or maybe he could have spent a bit more attention on Israel/Palestine or assisting Turkey with its transition to the EU.

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

Maybe, but the when we as a country decided whether or not to go to war it was based on what we were told.

No, in the US the congress declares war, when they do they investigate. They are not blind sheep… well, at least most of them are not. You can believe they were “bluffed”, if you want, however if you look into the history of it, you will find it isn’t true.

And if Pres. Bush were really serious about democracy in the middle east, one wonders if perhaps it would not have been more constructive to work with already existing democracies rather than just completely destroying an already existing country. Pre Iraq, there had been a thawing in Iran/US relations (Iran is, structurally, among the most democratic countries in the region). Or maybe he could have spent a bit more attention on Israel/Palestine or assisting Turkey with its transition to the EU.

The only existing democracy in the Middle East at the time was Israel. Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled by a rulling class of mullahs.

We tried working with Turkey, they had no use for bringing democracy to the Mid-East (they are too afraid of the Kurds). And Palestine was not a democracy at the time (only after Arafat’s death was that even a possibility).

 

[Philip_P]

gilliam:

The only existing democracy in the Middle East at the time was Israel. Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a theocracy. It is ruled by a rulling class of mullahs.

We tried working with Turkey, they had no use for bringing democracy to the Mid-East (they are too afraid of the Kurds). And Palestine was not a democracy at the time (only after Arafat’s death was that even a possibility).

You really want to get into this? Iran, after Israel and Turkey, is the closest thing to a democracy in the Middle East. Certainly closer than our “ally” Saudi Arabia. They have elections, a parliament. The problem is that at the very top level, the clergy have the final say. Below this level, though, the structure is actually quite democratic, to the point that a number of reformist leaders have consistently been elected in recent years, including the president. Unfortunately, the reformers continue to by stymied by the clerical elite. Iran is a very young country demographically (don’t recall the exact figures off the top of my head, but a lot of youth). Most are disenchanted with the Islamic revolution, looking for change, and don’t hate America. I would suggest that the best way to encourage these positive trends is probably NOT to scream Axis of Evil and invade their next door neighbor.

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

You really want to get into this? Iran, after Israel and Turkey, .

Only if you want to call a theocracy a democracy. But if you want to split hairs, I would call it what the CIA calls it: a theocratic republic. Does that help?

As far as in lower levels: Your talking about a country that used religious law as a basis for civil law.

A theocracy is a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, but the Deity’s laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.

Pretty much describes Iran.

Turkey, by the way, is technically not part of the Middle East.

 

[Philip_P]

Turkey is important because it bridges between Europe and the Middle East. It is a Muslim (but not Arab) country, as well as a pro-western secular democracy. If Iraq were to turn out as well as it possibly could, it would look a lot like Turkey.

Iran is indeed a theocratic republic. This does not take away from it’s remarkably democratic structure. Like Turkey, Iran is important as a bridge, though in this case it is more a cultural rather than geopolitical bridge. A moderate theocratic republic is a better alternative than the paranoid extremist one we seem intent on pushing Iran back toward, and a better model than the repressive monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Iraq, if things go moderately well, will probably end up looking closer to this model.

Personally, and I hope I’m wrong on this, I think Iraq is going to end up looking like Lebanon, on a larger scale. Fractured into warring factions that serve as proxies for face offs between regional neighbors (Baathis Syria vs. Shia Iran vs. Turkey vs. Kurdistan).

 

[gilliam]

Philip P:

Turkey is important because it bridges between Europe and the Middle East. It is a Muslim (but not Arab) country, as well as a pro-western secular democracy. If Iraq were to turn out as well as it possibly could, it would look a lot like Turkey.

Yes, I agree with all your points here.

Iran is indeed a theocratic republic. This does not take away from it’s remarkably democratic structure. Like Turkey, Iran is important as a bridge, though in this case it is more a cultural rather than geopolitical bridge. A moderate theocratic republic is a better alternative than the paranoid extremist one we seem intent on pushing Iran back toward, and a better model than the repressive monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Iraq, if things go moderately well, will probably end up looking closer to this model.

If Iran would get rid of their rulling class of mullahs (not get rid of the mullahs, just get rid of them as a rulling class), they would indeed be a bridge. Right now they act more as an extremist unstable state. I await a revolution in Iran with baited breath.

I agree Saudi Arabia is no model for anyone.

Personally, and I hope I’m wrong on this, I think Iraq is going to end up looking like Lebanon, on a larger scale. Fractured into warring factions that serve as proxies for face offs between regional neighbors (Baathis Syria vs. Shia Iran vs. Turkey vs. Kurdistan).

You are not alone in this group with that opinion. However I do not hold it, and so far that has not happened. In fact with the new tri-partied PM/President/Speaker I have been pleasently surprised.

By the way, this seems to be made an issue much more outside Iraq than inside. The people of Iraq that I have talked with come into the conversation assuming they are all Iraqi first.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

.

Iran is indeed a theocratic republic. This does not take away from it’s remarkably democratic structure. Like Turkey, Iran is important as a bridge, though in this case it is more a cultural rather than geopolitical bridge. A moderate theocratic republic is a better alternative than the paranoid extremist one we seem intent on pushing Iran back toward, and a better model than the repressive monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Iraq, if things go moderately well, will probably end up looking closer to this model.

.

Philip, Philip, Philip, what do you know about Iran today? It’s a horrible place, much worse for the loss of the sadly demonized shah who is now looking PRETTY good in comparison to a bunch of nasty mullahs who won’t let women go out of their houses with a strand of hair showing. I suspect more than a few Iranians would trade the mullahs for Savak.

I was in college when the Shah was deposed. I assure you that many of the lucky ones who escaped wish he were back in power. As much of a despot as he was in some facets of governance the country was modern, well educated, clean, and people were quite free. Businesses flourished, there were bookstores, movies, music. We had literally hundreds of Iranian students at my college so I got to know a lot about Iran in that era. My best friend from high school was engaged to an Iranian. Thank heavens she didnt marry the guy as she’d probably never had escaped.

Reading Lolita in Tehran is a good way to understand what is going on now. That is one sorry country and certainly not someone we should look on as an ideal for the future of the middle east.

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

Philip, Philip, Philip, what do you know about Iran today? It’s a horrible place, much worse for the loss of the sadly demonized shah who is now looking PRETTY good in comparison to a bunch of nasty mullahs who won’t let women go out of their houses with a strand of hair showing. I suspect more than a few Iranians would trade the mullahs for Savak.

That’s precisely my point - directly below the level of the ruling mullahs, Iranians want, even are desparte, for change. Our bellicosity has only served to strengthen the mullah’s hand at the expense of the reformists within the government. There’s nothing like a war, or the threat of war, to unify a population behind its rulers and quash dissent (I’m talking about the Iranian context here, but I think it’s principle that works generally across the board)