Corlyss And Pizza - Why Do You Admire Bush?

[Vaseena]

Hello Corlyss and Pizza,

I hope you don't mind my asking but I'd really like to know why you continue to support George W. Bush at this stage.

And if you had to list 3 qualities that you most admire in him what would they be?

Thanks,

Vaseena

[Corlyss_D]

1) He cuts thru the State Department and Pentagon bull crap to see what needs to be done. The problem of festering Arab terrorism has been with us at least since 1970, and probably since 1948 when the Arab states forced the Israeli Arabs to flee for their lives but refused to absorb them, crafting them into permanently stateless weapons to be used against the Israelis at will. And maybe since the 30s when the Nazis cultivated and trained the Muslim Brotherhood to use against the British. Hitler's favorite cleric was not Pope Pius but the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was Arafat's uncle.

2) Seeing what needs to be done, he does it.

3) He isn't distracted by the constant whining of peoples and nations whose behavior over the last 40 years has demonstrated that they have no standards we need to respect when it comes to our national security and wellbeing. Having said that, what Bush is doing in the middle east will save the Whiners as certainly as it will save us. They will profit, and continue to be whining ingrates.

4) He's a bold thinker, unafraid to upend 50 years of failed policies vis-a-vis the middle east, prepared to commit American blood and treasure, and determined to see the job thru.

5) He's not a hand-wringing, ineffectual, quivering-lipped, flustered, and hapless Democrat. I've had enough of them with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to last me a lifetime.

What's not to like?

Besides that, he's got the best economy in 2 decades, at least he did until Katrina.

The only thing I don't like is he and his WH are abyssmally message-challenaged.

I would feel the same about anyone that behaves like he does, even a Democrat if there were such a thing. But there isn't.

That's it in a nutshell.

BTW I see you are a Renaissance & Medieval music fan. Let's talk in the Music room some time after I get this remodeling effort over with and have more time to chat. We have a couple of other enthusiasts here - Ralph and Brendan. We almost have enough for poker.

[jbuck919]

BTW I see you are a Renaissance & Medieval music fan. Let's talk in the Music room some time after I get this remodeling effort over with and have more time to chat. We have a couple of other enthusiasts here - Ralph and Brendan. We almost have enough for poker.

Ahem. I'm not chopped liver on the subject myself. On the other board I've tried to get something going several times, without much success. And if you want to go back as far as Gregorian Chant, getoutamyway.

[herman]

And maybe since the 30s when the Nazis cultivated and trained the Muslim Brotherhood to use against the British. Hitler's favorite cleric was not Pope Pius but the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was Arafat's uncle.

you're hilarious. You get this obscurantist stuff on the web, don't you? If anything helped put the current islamo terrorism in place it was the good ol' US of A, helping the Taliban etc as a counterforce against the then USSR.

2) Seeing what needs to be done, he does it.

we've just seen an excellent example of this, which is why I'd rephrase it into: Buch sits on the ranch doing nothing, unless the policial and media pressure gets out of hand. Basically if you're not a corporate donor he doesn't give a excrement.

Corlyss is one of those people who always root for the winner because it makes them feel a winner themselves. That's why she's a hard-right blinkoid right now, just as she was all for the Democrats when they were the winning team, a long time ago. That's how deep it goes, Vaseena.

[jbuck919]

Corlyss is one of those people who always root for the winner because it makes them feel a winner themselves. That's why she's a hard-right blinkoid right now, just as she was all for the Democrats when they were the winning team, a long time ago. That's how deep it goes, Vaseena.

I wouldn't be that unkind. Corlyss is a principled person with strong political values. I usually disagree with her, and in fact it is hard to see any virtue in Bush except an absence of venality (which I suppose is a virtue), but I don't think she has actually gone far off the mark in enumerating what strengths he has. I'm willing to forgive the guy everything just because he didn't nominate some twit instead of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. He's the only president we have, God love him, and help us.

[BuKiNisT]

And maybe since the 30s when the Nazis cultivated and trained the Muslim Brotherhood to use against the British. Hitler's favorite cleric was not Pope Pius but the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was Arafat's uncle.

you're hilarious. You get this obscurantist stuff on the web, don't you? If anything helped put the current islamo terrorism in place it was the good ol' US of A, helping the Taliban etc as a counterforce against the then USSR.

Well, while the latter is true, you might be surprised to find out that the former is true as well. Would be so nice of you to do some research on the issue before calling its essence "obscurantist stuff" and the one who voices it hilarious.

[herman]

Well, while the latter is true, you might be surprised to find out that the former is true as well. Would be so nice of you to do some research on the issue before calling its essence "obscurantist stuff" and the one who voices it hilarious.

The issue is not whether these factoids are true. The issue is whether they are significant, i.e. whether there's a significant link between Hitler and Arafat (whom I used to loathe), and the answer is no.

This is typically what happens with people who use the net as their main source of info.

[BuKiNisT]

herman, there is.
Arafat was the political successor of the Great Mufti, who was a close friend of Hitler's. Arafat stood for exactly the same things that the Mufti did, and used the same methods, just updated. And the ground on which he started operating was one prepared by Mufti.

If you don't call that a connection then what is?

And no, net isn't my main source for information.

[pizza]

The connection between Islamic anti-Semitism and the Nazi regime is too well established to be a matter of serious debate, whether among those who spend a substantial amount of their time on the Internet like Hermie and who nevertheless claim to eschew any information obtained therefrom, or from those who obtain their information from reading books, or both.

Anyone who has read Chuck Morse's book: "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism : Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini" and has reviewed any of its sources knows of course that the connection has been well established for many years, supported by documents and photographs that are contemporaneous with events occurring during the Nazi era and before.

[jbuck919]

The connection between Islamic anti-Semitism and the Nazi regime is too well established to be a matter of serious debate.

What? I mean what?

[pizza]

The connection between Islamic anti-Semitism and the Nazi regime is too well established to be a matter of serious debate.

What? I mean what?

It's pointless to take the trouble to rub your turned-up Ivy League nose in volume upon volume of information available on the subject since the '40s and before. You can look it up for yourself.


New York Post
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1948


A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, reviewing Bosnian Muslim Fundamentalist troops - a unit of the "Handzar [Scimitar] Division" of the Nazi's Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally
State Dept. Conceals Promised White
Paper Book; Uses Whitewash Instead
By OBSERVER

On Mar. 19, 1942, the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem spoke to the Arab world by Rome radio and said: “If, God forbid, America and her allies are victorious in this war . . . then the world will become hell, God forbid. But Allah is too just and merciful to grant such murderous violators any victory.”

After a long struggle and supreme sacrifices, the “murderous violators” became victors. They entered Germany while the ex-Mufti was still there with the bags of gold he had received from Hitler. He escaped to Switzerland, was expelled from there back to Germany, was captured by the French army and placed under house arrest; then he escaped from France to Cairo on a false passport, and became the head of the Arab Higher Committee.

On Aug. 28, 1946, Dean Acheson, then Acting Secretary of State, announced that “the State Dept. is preparing a White Paper concerning the activities of the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem.” Acheson said the publication would be in the form of a book, which would cover all the documents concerning the ex-Mufti seized from German files.

This While Paper has not yet been published, although 17 months have passed.

What keeps the State Dept. from publishing it? Who is interested in the delay? Are all the documents safe?

* * *

In October, 1941 Gen. Wavell, commander of the British Middle Eastern forces, offered a $100,000 (25,000 pounds) reward for the capture of the ex-Mufti, dead or alive. This offer has not been withdrawn and therefore it still stands. Nevertheless, the British Government allies itself with the ex-Mufti and the Arab Higher Committee which he heads, and follows him on everything that concerns Palestine.

In August, 1945, Yugoslavia asked that the ex-Mufti be placed on the official list of war criminals. What is the reason for the failure to bring him to trial in Germany, where he was captured when Germany collapsed?

If the State Dept. is not subservient to this war criminal, why does it keep back documents it is bound to publish? Officials of the State Dept. who conceal documents that would be useful at present during the trials of war criminals are guilty of shielding the criminal and become fellow culprits.

What, can be the facts that the friends of the ex-Mufti in the State Dept. should find It necessary to add the information to the unpublished archives, instead of releasing it without delay, as I promised by Dean Acheson over 17 months ago? This protected person is a fugitive from justice, and has been since 1937, being under a still valid warrant of arrest of the Palestine government for the assassination of Jews, Arabs, and British, including Galilee Commissioner Andrews. Since then he has lost his Muftiship, to which he was never elected by the Arabs, but merely appointed, ignoramus that he is (he never finished a single course in the Cairo Theological University and was expelled) through the intrigue of Gen. Storrs, later of evil Cyprus fame.

* * *

The ex·Mufti escaped from Jerusalem and Palestine in the garb of a woman. In Syria he was on Mussolini’s payroll. When, with the beginning of the war, his position in Syria, a French mandate, became ‘insecure,’ he escaped to Iraq. There he worked hard and succeeded in bringing Iraq into the war against the Allies, the declaration of war having been made on May 2, 1941. At that time the Nazis’ entered Greece and Egypt.

When the revolt was crushed (mainly by the Jewish volunteers from Palestine), the ex-Mufti escaped to Iran and hid himself in the Japanese Embassy there. From Teheran he escaped to Italy, where his arrival was announced by the Fascist radio as a “great and happy event;” in November, 1941, he arrived in Berlin and was received by Hitler. In 1942 the ex-Mufti organized the Arab Legion that fought the American invasion in Africa (on Apr. 10, 1946, Representative Celler referred to 3,000 members of the Arab Legion that were held prisoners of war at Camp Opelika in Alabama).

* * *

On Dec. 29, 1942 the ex-Mufti sent a telegram of congratulations to Emperor Hirohito, assuring the latter that the Arabs were “praying for the final victory of Japanese arms.”

By the end of 1943 the ex-Mufti had organized Bosnian “Black Legions” to fight the Allies. He also bears a heavy responsibility for the annihilation of European Jewry, according to Nazi testimony given at Nuremberg. He visited the gas chambers; he wrote to the Cabinet Ministers of Hungary and Romania asking them to send the Jews from their countries to the concentration camps in Poland.

Thus according to the Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, the ex-Mufti is a criminal on all three counts, for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

If the ex-Mufti is not only not brought to Nuremberg, but is permitted to continue his murderous career, then we will do well to reflect once more upon his words quoted at the beginning of this article. Did not the world really become hell?

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/mufti.htm

And one more for the road:

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest ... bnazi.html

[jbuck919]

During the Nazi period, the Islamic world was so marginalized that we might as well be talking about an opinion about the Jews coming from Proxima Centauri, not that this would not have been more enlightened. I don't know where you got the idea that this is some kind of meaningful connection, except possibly that you obsess on the subject.

Modern anti-Semitism has its roots in the post-war establishment of Israel, which managed to make the second-class Islamic world notably angry because, in case you didn't notice, they are not quite as rich as us.

[BuKiNisT]

Modern anti-Semitism has its roots in the post-war establishment of Israel, which managed to make the second-class Islamic world notably angry because, in case you didn't notice, they are not quite as rich as us.

This is one of those opinions that are just as widespread as they are far from being anywhere near the truth.

[BWV 1080]

Indeed, the kinship between radical islam and naziism continues to this day:

SEBRING, Florida (CNN) -- A couple of hours up the road from where some September 11 hijackers learned to fly, the new head of Aryan Nation is praising them -- and trying to create an unholy alliance between his white supremacist group and al Qaeda.

"You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah."
....

Kreis wants to make common cause with al Qaeda because, he says, they share the same enemies: Jews and the American government

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/

[/u]

[pizza]

During the Nazi period, the Islamic world was so marginalized that we might as well be talking about an opinion about the Jews coming from Proxima Centauri, not that this would not have been more enlightened. I don't know where you got the idea that this is some kind of meaningful connection, except possibly that you obsess on the subject.

Modern anti-Semitism has its roots in the post-war establishment of Israel, which managed to make the second-class Islamic world notably angry because, in case you didn't notice, they are not quite as rich as us.

I pity your abysmal ignorance. Of course you "don't know where got the idea of . . . a meaningful connection. . . " You obviously haven't read anything on the subject, least of all any of the Arab scholars and journalists themselves who know the subject well.

[BuKiNisT]

Well, that could be expected from a man who seriously proclaims communism "the greatest evil this world has known"

No offense.

[jbuck919]

During the Nazi period, the Islamic world was so marginalized that we might as well be talking about an opinion about the Jews coming from Proxima Centauri, not that this would not have been more enlightened. I don't know where you got the idea that this is some kind of meaningful connection, except possibly that you obsess on the subject.

Modern anti-Semitism has its roots in the post-war establishment of Israel, which managed to make the second-class Islamic world notably angry because, in case you didn't notice, they are not quite as rich as us.

I pity your abysmal ignorance. Of course you "don't know where got the idea of . . . a meaningful connection. . . " You obviously haven't read anything on the subject, least of all any of the Arab scholars and journalists themselves who know the subject well.

Don't you think that I would love to be able to stand in front of my students and delight them with connections born of flights of fantasy that have no bearing on reality? It would be so entertaining both to me and to them. Unfortunately, I am stuck with a world that is as it is, and with a correspondent who dwells in a land where self-induced fancy reigns over that truth which is, inevitably, stranger than fiction.

[Barry]

I'd like to point out Herman, although others have already pointed out the relevance of the Nazi-Arab-anti-Semitism connection (and I agree with them), even were that not the case, your follow-up remark on how wrong-headed our Cold-War policies were is so typical of the European left.

I don't know if you're stupid enough (as I know many from the European left are) to think the Cold War wasn't worth fighting because there was no great difference between our tyranny and the Soviets' tyranny, but regardless, we fought that war to save both our butt and yours. When your fighting against a force as powerful and evil as the Soviet Union, you don't have the luxury of always doing what morality would dictate under the best of circumstances. We made some mistakes, but overall, but in most of the cases the left likes to bring up, we had two choices. We could either engage the bad guys in a give third-word country or leave them to the Soviets. Had we left enough for them, their increased world-wide influence would have made it that much more difficult to win the Cold War. You should be thanking us for what you're criticizing us for, but of course you're too ignorant to realize it.

And if you think I'm full of it, just ask your neighbors to the east what life would have been like for you had we lost the Cold War.

[BuKiNisT]

Barry Z

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was just that evil. It was, rather, full of internal anti-soviet propaganda - at the later stages, that convinced many of the residents that everything was 'bad'.
Soviet Union was a stucture produced by the russian background and it is Russia's own history that shaped many of its key features and aspects.
And although based on an artificial idea and flawed in many ways, it was a structure that worked, produced a great share of positive results - until destroyed from inside, with the glad help of USA&Co.

And the cold war - well wars are fought not because one side is good and the other one is evil... It is simplier than that: you either fight it or get chewed, digested and excrement out.
That's what actually happened to Soviet Union.

[jbuck919]

Barry Z

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was just that evil. It was, rather, full of internal anti-soviet propaganda - at the later stages, that convinced many of the residents that everything was 'bad'.
Soviet Union was a stucture produced by the russian background and it is Russia's own history that shaped many of its key features and aspects.
And although based on an artificial idea and flawed in many ways, it was a structure that worked, produced a great share of positive results - until destroyed from inside, with the glad help of USA&Co.

And the cold war - well wars are fought not because one side is good and the other one is evil... It is simplier than that: you either fight it or get chewed, digested and s**t out.
That's what actually happened to Soviet Union.

It is a mistake to think that the Soviet Union, as the prime manifestation of communisim, was anything but the monstrous evil of all time. I am no fan of Ronald Reagan, but his speach writer got it right when he said that it belonged on the ash heap of history.

Alas, we've still got China to deal with, not to mention North Korea.

[Corlyss_D]

Barry Z

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was just that evil. It was, rather, full of internal anti-soviet propaganda - at the later stages, that convinced many of the residents that everything was 'bad'.
Soviet Union was a stucture produced by the russian background and it is Russia's own history that shaped many of its key features and aspects.

And you think that makes them less evil, just because their government was a manifestation of the worst tendancies of oriental despots but it was traditionally Russian? You sound like one of those cultural relativists/international realists: all governments are equal because they control the national government and as such they are legitimate actors on the international stage. You're wrong. There are representative democracies. There are undemocratic tyrants. And lately - for the last 60 years - we are dealing with the remnants of oriental despotisms that took their cues from the Byzantine/Ottoman cultures. You can claim the Russian government wasn't evil till you're blue in the face, but a government that murders 20 million+ of their own citizens is evil, period, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Part of modernization is the spread of representative democracy and market economics as the chief model for governments of the world. Why? Because they respond to the deepest needs of humans and are the guarantors of freedom for individuals. The Soviet system would have come a cropper eventually, but it was nice to have a president who recognized that and put all the pressure our system was capable of on the Soviets to run them hard up against the realities of 20th Century life. Every American should be proud of that accomplishment.

it was a structure that worked, produced a great share of positive results

You're delusional.

That's what actually happened to Soviet Union.

[herman]

I am no fan of Ronald Reagan, but his speach writer got it right when he said that it belonged on the ash heap of history.

Just goes to show the depth of the knowledge here. The "ash heap of history" is actually a Trotsky quote. (Trotsky was a radical Marxist.)

Alas, we've still got China to deal with, not to mention North Korea.

Since the US can'y even subdue a helpless country like Iraq, I'd say, pick another strategy, folks. China's too big and powerful.

[BuKiNisT]

Corlyss, i won't cite your whole lenghty post, but you a) got me all wrong b) are totally misinformed.

That's what they call making judgement without knowing the issue. If you want to continue this discussion, we might do so in a new thread, otherwise I'll just consider your post dismissed as uneducated.

[herman]

I'd like to point out Herman, although others have already pointed out the relevance of the Nazi-Arab-anti-Semitism connection (and I agree with them), even were that not the case, your follow-up remark on how wrong-headed our Cold-War policies were is so typical of the European left.

I don't know if you're stupid enough (as I know many from the European left are) to think the Cold War wasn't worth fighting because there was no great difference between our tyranny and the Soviets' tyranny, but regardless, we fought that war to save both our butt and yours. When your fighting against a force as powerful and evil as the Soviet Union, you don't have the luxury of always doing what morality would dictate under the best of circumstances.

I had a real hard time figuring out what to quote from your post, Barry, and the reason why is there is, unfortunately, no place, sentence or even word where you're actually saying anything.

1) I am not part of "the European left". I have never voted for a leftwing party; no one in Europe regards me, as a private person or as a writer, as a left wing person; no one in the US, when I lived there, regarded me as a left wing person. You and a bunch of other people on this board have rather silly problems finding a political position; or rather your need to find a political position, and figuring out what you are against, is the problem. I'm wishing you good luck with this figuring out process, but do me a favor and stop calling me "the European left." Just call yourself something and get over with it.

2) Of course I am fully aware that the US encouraged the Taliban as part of the Cold War strategy. I'm not saying it was a mistake at the time. However it does turn out to have had some rather unfortunate consequences (a word Americans have a big problem with). This historical fact does however make it rather pathetic if you go and look for proofs that Muslim radicalism was actually sponsored by Hitler. That's just because you want to wash your hands of what the US did. It's got nothing to do with finding out the truth. It's narcissist history.

3) Thank you for your recommendation to talk to my "eastern neighbours" about the cold war. Have you ever? I have obviously talked to German people all my life. Most of my teenage girlfriends had, for some reason or other, German mothers. We also employ a Polish maid; I talk to her every week as good or bad as it goes. You want me to ask if she has a picture of Reagan over her bed? Personally I doubt she will be able to aid you in yoru American narcissism.

4) One of the funny things of the last ten years or so is that as the US is slowly but surely eroding its own power on the world stage it is more and more anxious to claim all the good characteristics for itself, whether it's Werner saying something as grotesque as helping one another is the American way (as if America has invented it) and the end of the Cold War is also claimed exclusively by the US - as if there were just two countries on earth. It's all a little more complicated than that, but this intensely self-regarding look (America is the greatest country) won't ever make you see the whole picture.

[Corlyss_D]

I'll just consider your post dismissed as uneducated.

Funny, I thought exactly the same thing about yours.

[Ralph]

Barry Z

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was just that evil. It was, rather, full of internal anti-soviet propaganda - at the later stages, that convinced many of the residents that everything was 'bad'.
Soviet Union was a stucture produced by the russian background and it is Russia's own history that shaped many of its key features and aspects.
And although based on an artificial idea and flawed in many ways, it was a structure that worked, produced a great share of positive results - until destroyed from inside, with the glad help of USA&Co.

And the cold war - well wars are fought not because one side is good and the other one is evil... It is simplier than that: you either fight it or get chewed, digested and s**t out.
That's what actually happened to Soviet Union.

*****

Where do you factor in the destruction of the kulaks, the regime-created famine that killed beyond the level of even Pol Pot, the utter abnegation of human rights and the Gulag? Did the West force those conditions on the U.S.S.R?

[BuKiNisT]

Ralph, you're forgetting creation of a world-class industrial infrastructure in a previously retarded and utterly agricultural country, setting a not-so-bad life standard (while previously people en-masse were in terrible conditions), winning WWII against Hitler, setting the world's highest education standard in a country that was previously inhabited by 98% illitirate people, advancing and modernising many regions that were previously almost in a stone-age state, advancing to a huge degree the cultural values of the mass; creating countless pieces of art in different genres, including wonderful cinema, literature, poetry, translations of western classic and modern literature, Yes music and theater.
Hm, should I go on listing it?

As far as the above statements go...

It is a mistake to think that the Soviet Union, as the prime manifestation of communisim, was anything but the monstrous evil of all time.

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was the prime manifestation of communism at all. There was nothing like communism there, and even the leaders openly realised that communism was a dream never to come true, and reasonable shifting towards natural market economy was done. Actually, the system that governed Soviet Union was socialism, and it was traveling towards social democracy. One needs to realise that.

And you think that makes them less evil, just because their government was a manifestation of the worst tendancies of oriental despots but it was traditionally Russian?

Could you name those tendencies, please? The tendency to educate everyone, maybe? Or the tendency of spending millions and millions on building an entertainment system, and art? Or is it the tendency to advance the country as far as possible in the industrial, social and technological ways? Or maybe social care about everyone, giving possibilities to everyone regardless of race, nation or religion is one?

a government that murders 20 million+ of their own citizens is evil

This, just like many other numbers/statements/etc, is GROSSLY overstated. Those numbers that are YES realistic, though, while being a lot humbler, also include executed criminals, war criminals, victims of revolutionary terror, many of the victims of wars that occasionally fell in that category, etc.

Where do you factor in the destruction of the kulaks, the regime-created famine that killed beyond the level of even Pol Pot, the utter abnegation of human rights and the Gulag?

Well, it's so nice of you to throw in one pot revolutionary terror (which takes place on every account of revolution, everywhere), a famine of the late 30s which was created by many factors, but thankfully overcome, and writings of Solgenitsyn, a man who lived many, many years after that and who's seen a lot of things and drew a lot of wrong conclusions from them.

There is also the imaginary case of depravation of the human rights. There was no such thing. period. There were local cases of it, but it's not uncommon to any new state/government, but in the end it's rather the system was afraid of applying even deserved punishment, to not to look too 'bad' to the propaganda.

All in all, it was a tremendous machine, it has its great things and its terrible things, and it was destroyed. When it was functioning and it was your enemy - it was more than normal for you to consider it the ultimate evil, but now when it no longer exists, it is an obligation of every thinking man to judge it just that little more objectively and have some respect for the dead

[Barry]

I'd like to point out Herman, although others have already pointed out the relevance of the Nazi-Arab-anti-Semitism connection (and I agree with them), even were that not the case, your follow-up remark on how wrong-headed our Cold-War policies were is so typical of the European left.

1) I am not part of "the European left".

I stand corrected then. It's typical of Europeans in general.

[Ralph]

Ralph, you're forgetting creation of a world-class industrial infrastructure in a previously retarded and utterly agricultural country, setting a not-so-bad life standard (while previously people en-masse were in terrible conditions), winning WWII against Hitler, setting the world's highest education standard in a country that was previously inhabited by 98% illitirate people, advancing and modernising many regions that were previously almost in a stone-age state, advancing to a huge degree the cultural values of the mass; creating countless pieces of art in different genres, including wonderful cinema, literature, poetry, translations of western classic and modern literature, Yes music and theater.
Hm, should I go on listing it?

As far as the above statements go...

It is a mistake to think that the Soviet Union, as the prime manifestation of communisim, was anything but the monstrous evil of all time.

It is a mistake to think that Soviet Union was the prime manifestation of communism at all. There was nothing like communism there, and even the leaders openly realised that communism was a dream never to come true, and reasonable shifting towards natural market economy was done. Actually, the system that governed Soviet Union was socialism, and it was traveling towards social democracy. One needs to realise that.

And you think that makes them less evil, just because their government was a manifestation of the worst tendancies of oriental despots but it was traditionally Russian?

Could you name those tendencies, please? The tendency to educate everyone, maybe? Or the tendency of spending millions and millions on building an entertainment system, and art? Or is it the tendency to advance the country as far as possible in the industrial, social and technological ways? Or maybe social care about everyone, giving possibilities to everyone regardless of race, nation or religion is one?

a government that murders 20 million+ of their own citizens is evil

This, just like many other numbers/statements/etc, is GROSSLY overstated. Those numbers that are YES realistic, though, while being a lot humbler, also include executed criminals, war criminals, victims of revolutionary terror, many of the victims of wars that occasionally fell in that category, etc.

Where do you factor in the destruction of the kulaks, the regime-created famine that killed beyond the level of even Pol Pot, the utter abnegation of human rights and the Gulag?

Well, it's so nice of you to throw in one pot revolutionary terror (which takes place on every account of revolution, everywhere), a famine of the late 30s which was created by many factors, but thankfully overcome, and writings of Solgenitsyn, a man who lived many, many years after that and who's seen a lot of things and drew a lot of wrong conclusions from them.

There is also the imaginary case of depravation of the human rights. There was no such thing. period. There were local cases of it, but it's not uncommon to any new state/government, but in the end it's rather the system was afraid of applying even deserved punishment, to not to look too 'bad' to the propaganda.

All in all, it was a tremendous machine, it has its great things and its terrible things, and it was destroyed. When it was functioning and it was your enemy - it was more than normal for you to consider it the ultimate evil, but now when it no longer exists, it is an obligation of every thinking man to judge it just that little more objectively and have some respect for the dead

*****

Actually Tsarist Russia was a major industrial power during WWI albeit a horribly managed one.

And the American Revolution, which featured its share of atrocities, didn't have widespread terrorism as a sequel. Quite the opposite.

I judge Communist Russia objectively. I recognize its military, industrial and space exploration prowess - all at the cost of decent, humane and minimally civilized treatment of its citizens. All the progress it made can't offset the reign of terror it sustained through the NKVD and its successors in name but not in deed.

Amazing the number of denizens of the old U.S.S.R. who couldn't wait to escape and some paid with their lives for trying to get to America. And only a handful or deluded Communist sympathizers and the occasional forewarned of prosecution spy fled the U.S. for the Communist homeland.

[BuKiNisT]

I judge Communist Russia objectively. I recognize its military, industrial and space exploration prowess - all at the cost of decent, humane and minimally civilized treatment of its citizens. All the progress it made can't offset the reign of terror it sustained through the NKVD and its successors in name but not in deed.

Amazing how my family and I lived there for many years, and how I have come to know a lot of other people who lived there (quite naturally isn't it), from many different social backgrounds, and I know how the system worked in and out, in different regions, in different times...
And neither I nor anyone of the guys I know remember or know anything about the "reign of terror" you're putting us into. How is that, just tell me?

And if you call free housing, virtually free water, electricity and gas, free medical care, free education (including university), good protection from crime (free, too), 5-day work week, virtually free public transportation services, payckeck enough to travel to any part of the huge country on the one-month vacation at least once a year, a pension enough for an elderly person to buy his share of land on the countryside and a car to get to it - provided he has some support from his younger relatives, the ABSOLUTE social security with minimum trouble - do you call that indecent, inhumane and uncivilised treatment of its citizens?

Yes, there was the propaganda. Quite annoying, I must say. Yes, there were the repressions (oh how I love that "numbers" game. Get the number of people executed for political reasons, on top of that add the ones executed for common crimes, on top of that add the ones who died serving their time, on top of that add the casualties of a couple of wars - really, why can't they be there too?) - though not nearly on a scale that you probably imagine them to be.

There was indeed that Stalinist period that was characterised by insane achievements coupled by inhumane treatment of a portion of citizens - well, nothing can be said on this, except that it has never been the other way around in Russia. And I doubt that it'll ever be.

And the American Revolution, which featured its share of atrocities, didn't have widespread terrorism as a sequel.

You just seem to forget that America's background is quite different from Russia's. Let me point you to just one fact:
Russia has never had the culture of freedom and/or private business. It has been attempted by the socialist government to install a free operating middle-class of businessmen in the late 20s, but
the attempt utterly failed because of the aforementioned lack of the culture and experience. This attempt has nearly torn the country apart before it was stopped.

Just ponder this a little to realise how different things are.

And about 'widespread terrorism', well, there also was a civil war, and the terrorism thing mainly happened by that time. So you can hardly call it a 'sequel'. It was then quickly taken care of and was non-existent already in the mid-20s.

Amazing the number of denizens of the old U.S.S.R. who couldn't wait to escape and some paid with their lives for trying to get to America. And only a handful or deluded Communist sympathizers and the occasional forewarned of prosecution spy fled the U.S. for the Communist homeland.

This issue is a very complicated one, and propaganda together with an overall state of mind of soviet intelligentsia (the 'fifth column') were major factors in it. Essentially, western propaganda was quite successfully able to deceive the minds of a portion of the crowd (especially the ones who considered themselves enlightened) into thinking that Soviet Union was all bad, and the western life was the bright, spectacular parade of freedom - a dream that, upon 'escaping', never actually came true. Because said 'englightened' accidentally forgot that while having a rather pale color scheme and the annoying propaganda, and being limiting, the Soviet Union also gave them everything. Their home, their education, their knowledge, their freedom to think as they were thinking (yes, that is true as well), everything. Everything that in the free society nobody was going to provide them for free.

This is actually one of the core problems that led to Soviet Union's eventual destruction: it was simple. There was little personal responsibility involved. If you did it all wrong, stole, didn't do your work good - you would still do well if you can at least point your nose to the wind. And it is indeed one of the core problems (the roots of which lie in the artificiality of the whole communism idea) that ate the mammoth from inside. There were certain movements made to address it, but they didn't come in time.

And don't rush to call me a delusional communist-supporter, I know a great share of things that were awfully wrong and bad in the Soviet Union, there are the atrocities, but there were also the jewels. It is just a thing that was, but is no more. And its destruction and the following destruction of nearly everything positive it has created (while retaining all the negative stuff) - is the real sad (and evil) thing. Though it's not America and the west that made it evil. It's the innate russian mentality unleashed and out of control.

P.S
Don't rush in to call me ignorant middlebrow, too. I've researched the issue, read on different opinions, but my own is based on just one foundation (besides the facts). I have come to respect what the country has given to me, and hysterical whining about all the inconviniencies that came in the box is not my nature.

[John Bleau]

BuKiNisT,

I have a couple of questions for you:

Were it not for Reagan, do you think the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway?
If so, how much sooner or later, and would it have collapsed in a more orderly manner?

I've asked a number of Russians, and they generally think that it would have collapsed anyway because the Politburo was rotting and aging, but it would have occurred later and more gradually.

[BuKiNisT]

John Bleau,

My personal opinion is that there was a chance of it collapsing anyway, and there was a chance of it not collapsing - but transforming.
And while the latter opportunity was the less likely of the two, it could have yet come true (not with Gorbachyov, though, that man has the ability to ruin anything), because actions for the system's renewal and democratisation were already being taken.

But in a nutshell, yes, most likely it would collapse anyway, but hopefully in a much more peacefu manner - one not involving most of the nation's treasure being stolen away by a few individuals, the whole infrastructure falling apart in a course of just a few years and insane masses of people losing virtually everything.

[Vaseena]

1) He cuts thru the State Department and Pentagon bull crap to see what needs to be done. The problem of festering Arab terrorism has been with us at least since 1970, and probably since 1948 when the Arab states forced the Israeli Arabs to flee for their lives but refused to absorb them, crafting them into permanently stateless weapons to be used against the Israelis at will. And maybe since the 30s when the Nazis cultivated and trained the Muslim Brotherhood to use against the British. Hitler's favorite cleric was not Pope Pius but the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was Arafat's uncle.

2) Seeing what needs to be done, he does it.

3) He isn't distracted by the constant whining of peoples and nations whose behavior over the last 40 years has demonstrated that they have no standards we need to respect when it comes to our national security and wellbeing. Having said that, what Bush is doing in the middle east will save the Whiners as certainly as it will save us. They will profit, and continue to be whining ingrates.

4) He's a bold thinker, unafraid to upend 50 years of failed policies vis-a-vis the middle east, prepared to commit American blood and treasure, and determined to see the job thru.

5) He's not a hand-wringing, ineffectual, quivering-lipped, flustered, and hapless Democrat. I've had enough of them with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to last me a lifetime.

What's not to like?

Besides that, he's got the best economy in 2 decades, at least he did until Katrina.

The only thing I don't like is he and his WH are abyssmally message-challenaged.

I would feel the same about anyone that behaves like he does, even a Democrat if there were such a thing. But there isn't.

That's it in a nutshell.

Corlyss,

Your reasons for supporting Bush betray the same lack of critical faculty as the defense of the Judao-Christian God.

Do people simply disregard the facts and remain blindly loyal to a president who is a national embarrassment, a man so out-of-touch with reality that he probably believes his tired dogma on 'freedom and democracy' in Iraq, fighting the terrorists "over there", global warming needs more study, the jury is still out on evolution, etc. etc.

Here's a more interesting question for you - just what would Bush have to do to turn you against him?

Where exactly is your lower threshold for incompetence?

If wasting 2,000 young American lives and $300 billion to destabilize a whole region is not enough, then just how many lives and dollars is?

Let us know, because when 20,000 Americans are killed (and many times more Iraqis) and $2 trillion has been blown, and the oil price is still at $70 a barrel and the West is still being attacked by Islamofascists/jihadists and you finally say 'That's enough, Bush is a fool', I would like to remind you of this conversation.

And it is patently a matter of 'when' not 'if' that day happens.

[Barry]

Washington Post

Why We Must Stay in Iraq

By Victor Davis Hanson

Sunday, September 4, 2005

Vietnam is once again in the air. Last month's antiwar demonstrations in Crawford, Tex., have been heralded as the beginning of an antiwar movement that will take to the streets like the one of 30 years ago. Influential pundits -- in the manner of a gloomy Walter Cronkite after the Tet offensive -- are assuring us that we can't win in Iraq and that we have no option but a summary withdrawal. We may even have a new McGovern-style presidential "peace" candidate in Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

America's most contentious war is being freely evoked to explain the "quagmire" we are supposedly now in. Vietnam is an obvious comparison given the frustration of asymmetrical warfare and savage enemies who escape our conventional power. But make no mistake, Iraq is not like Vietnam, and it must not end like Vietnam. Despite our tragic lapses, leaving now would be a monumental mistake -- and one that we would all too soon come to regret.

If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows -- or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

The specter of Vietnam will also turn on those who embrace it. Iraq is not a surrogate theater of the Cold War, where national liberationists, fueled by the romance of radical egalitarianism, are fortified by nearby Marxist nuclear patrons. The jihadists have an 8th-century agenda of gender apartheid, religious intolerance and theocracy. For all its pyrotechnics, the call for a glorious return to the Dark Ages has found no broad constituency.

Nor is our army in Iraq conscript, but volunteer and professional. The Iraqi constitutional debate is already light-years ahead of anything that emerged in Saigon. And there is an exit strategy, not mission creep -- we will consider withdrawal as the evolution to a legitimate government continues and the Iraqi security forces grow.

But the comparison to Vietnam may be instructive regarding another aspect -- the aftershocks of a premature American departure. Leaving Vietnam to the communists did not make anyone safer. The flight of the mid-1970s energized U.S. enemies in Iran, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Central America, while tearing our own country apart for nearly a quarter-century. Today, most Americans are indeed very troubled over the war in Iraq -- but mostly they are angry about not winning quickly, rather than resigned to losing amid recriminations.

We forget that once war breaks out, things usually get far worse before they get better. We should remember that 1943, after we had entered World War II, was a far bloodier year than 1938, when the world left Hitler alone. Similarly, 2005 may have brought more open violence in Iraq than was visible during Saddam's less publicized killings of 2002. So it is when extremists are confronted rather than appeased. But unlike the time before the invasion, when we patrolled Iraq's skies while Saddam butchered his own with impunity below, there is now a hopeful future for Iraq.

It is true that foreign terrorists are flocking into the country, the way they earlier crossed the Pakistani border into Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban, and that this makes the short-term task of securing the country far more difficult. But again, just as there were more Nazis and fascists out in the open in 1941 than before the war, so too there were almost none left by 1946. If we continue to defeat the jihadists in Iraq -- and the untold story of this war is that the U.S. military has performed brilliantly in killing and jailing tens of thousands of them -- their cause will be discredited by the stick of military defeat and the carrot of genuine political freedom.

All this is not wishful thinking. The United States has an impressive record of military reconstruction and democratization following the defeat of our enemies -- vs. the abject chaos that followed when we failed to help fragile postwar societies.

After World War II, Germany, Italy and Japan (American troops are still posted in all three) proved to be success stories. In contrast, an unstable post-WWI Weimar Germany soon led to something worse than Kaiser Wilhelm.

After the Korean War, South Korea survived and evolved. South Vietnam, by contrast, ended up with a Stalinist government, and the world watched the unfolding tragedy of the boat people, reeducation camps and a Southeast Asian holocaust.

Present-day Kabul has the most enlightened constitution in the Middle East. Post-Soviet Afghanistan -- after we ceased our involvement with the mujaheddin resistance -- was an Islamic nightmare.

So we fool ourselves if we think that peace is the natural order of things, and that it follows organically from the cessation of hostilities. It does not. Leave Iraq and expect far worse tribal chaos and Islamic terrorism than in Mogadishu or Lebanon; finish the task and there is the real chance for something like present-day Turkey or the current calm of federated Kurdistan.

Have we forgotten that Iraq before the invasion was not just another frightening Middle East autocracy like Syria or Libya, but a country in shambles -- not, as some will say, because of international sanctions, but thanks to one of the worst regimes on the planet, with a horrific record of genocide at home and regional aggression abroad? As the heart of the ancient caliphate, Iraq symbolized the worst aspects of pan-Arab nationalism and posed the most daunting obstacle for any change in the Middle East. Thus al Qaedists and ex-Baathists alike are desperate to drive us out. They grasp that should a democratic Iraq emerge, then the era of both Islamic theocracies and fascist autocracies elsewhere in the region may also be doomed.

Our presence in Iraq is one of the most principled efforts in a sometimes checkered history of U.S. foreign policy. Yes, there is infighting among the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis, but this is precisely because Saddam Hussein pitted the sects against each other for 30 years in order to subjugate them, while we are now trying to unite them so that they might govern themselves. The United States has elevated the formerly despised and exploited Shiites and Kurds to equal status with the Sunnis, their former rulers. And from our own history we know that such massive structural reform is always messy, dangerous -- and humane.

So, too, with other changes. It is hard to imagine that Syria would have withdrawn from Lebanon without American resolve in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would either Pakistan's A.Q. Khan or Libya's Moammar Gaddafi have given up on plans to nuclearize the Middle East. Saddam's demise put pressure on HosniMubarak to entertain the possibility of democratic reform in Egypt. These upheavals are, in the short term, controversial and volatile developments whose ultimate success hinges only on continued American resolve in Iraq.

There is no other solution to either Islamic terrorism of the sort that hit us on Sept. 11, 2001, nor the sort of state fascism that caused the first Gulf War, than the Bush administration's easily caricatured effort to work for a third democratic choice beyond either dictatorship or theocracy. We know that not because of pre-9/11 neocon pipedreams of "remaking the Middle East," but because for decades we tried almost everything else in vain -- from backing monarchs in the Gulf who pumped oil and dictators in Pakistan and Egypt who promised order, to "containing" murderous autocrats like Saddam and ignoring tyrannous theocrats like the Taliban.

Yes, the administration must account to the American people for the radically humanitarian sacrifices of American lives we are making on behalf of the freedom of Kurds and Shiites. It must remind us that we are engaging murderers of a sort not seen since the Waffen SS and the suicide killers off Okinawa. And it must tell us that victory is our only option and explain in detail how and why we are winning.

The New York Times recently deplored the public's ignorance of American heroes in Iraq. In fact, there are thousands of them. But in their eagerness to view Iraq through the fogged lens of Vietnam, the media themselves are largely responsible for the public's shameful lack of interest.

A few days ago, while the networks were transfixed by Cindy Sheehan (or was it Aruba?), the United States military, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, was driving out jihadists from Mosul -- where the terrorists are being arrested and killed in droves. Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, who had worked for months to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding on the city's streets, was severely wounded as he led his men to clear out a terrorist hideaway. The jihadist who shot him -- who had recently been released from Abu Ghraib -- was not killed, but arrested and given medical care by U.S. surgeons.

Not long before he was wounded, Lt. Col. Kurilla had delivered a eulogy for three of his own fallen men. Posted on a military Web site, it showed that he, far better than most of us, knows why America is there:

"You see -- there are 26 million people in Iraq whose freedom we are fighting for, against terrorists and insurgents that want a return to power and oppression, or worse, a state of fundamentalist tyranny. Some of whom we fight are international terrorists who hate the fact that in our way of life we can choose who will govern us, the method in which we worship, and the myriad other freedoms we have. We are fighting so that these fanatical terrorists do not enter the sacred ground of our country and we have to fight them in our own backyard."

Amen.

[John Bleau]

BuKiNisT, thanks for the reply.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss,

Your reasons for supporting Bush betray the same lack of critical faculty as the defense of the Judao-Christian God.

You asked. I told you. I'm not in the business of trying to convince someone whose psychic well-being depends on not being convinced. I've been talking to people like you for 5 years now, and I know that it is as pointless as talking to the door post. But, like the feckless Europeans, you will benefit from his courage and determination in the face of odds that others shrank from, and he won't even ask you for your insincere thanks.

[Corlyss_D]

John Bleau,

My personal opinion is that there was a chance of it collapsing anyway, and there was a chance of it not collapsing - but transforming.

If by 'transforming' you mean they could retain some socialist aspects of their system while freeing up other aspects, it's highly unlikely, not because they are Russians, but because the system's elements are inconsistent with a dynamic nation and because people who have the power to run a state to the degree that socialism demands do not give it up readily or peacefully. And then there was the observation by the Russian in the street as well as some very respected Russian watchers: They (meaning the brutal tyrants running the soviet union) killed all the smart ones and left only the sheeplike and helplessly dependent. I don't believe that - I think the remaining smart ones got out and live in the US and Israel today. Proof that the socialist model is an abject failure, if more were needed, is about to be supplied by Old Europe.

[BuKiNisT]

Corlyss, are you reading what I've written at all? It's rather sad, having had expressed and shared so much to just see it run down the drain.

And by 'transforming' I meant the continuation of gradual introduction of private property and market values, the resulting emergence of a strong middle-class to rely on and get some of the strain off of the state's back, finally delegating to them some decision-making power (with the institutions already in place). This was the natural way of evolution for Soviet Union, and it can't be called "retain some socialist aspects of their system while freeing up other aspects". And it was already being done because the strain system was experiencing from the artificial turnaround scheme was nearly unbearable, and there was only one way of relieving it.

Also, as I've stated before, such an attempt was made already as early as in the late 20s, but then it failed. Well, you can just read my earlier posts.

They (meaning the brutal tyrants running the soviet union) killed all the smart ones and left only the sheeplike and helplessly dependent.

I can't just stop emphasising how terribly incorrect such a statement is.

[Brendan]

A gradual approach had sod-all chance of success in the newly globalizing world economy in which the fall of the Berlin Wall took the analysts by surprise, IMHO. Why Gorby gets a bashing and Boris a free ride is strange to me, but I didn't live through it.

[BWV 1080]

And neither I nor anyone of the guys I know remember or know anything about the "reign of terror" you're putting us into. How is that, just tell me?

FWIW, I have worked with a woman from the former USSR for years who spoke similarly in regards to the Great Terror. Recently she related that she met a cousin who told her the great family secret: that one side of her family had priests going back generations and that almost every one of them was killed in the 1930's

[Corlyss_D]

Washington Post

Why We Must Stay in Iraq

By Victor Davis Hanson

Nice post, Barry. A friend read me the article Sunday afternoon. I was going to put it up.

[Vaseena]

Washington Post

Why We Must Stay in Iraq

By Victor Davis Hanson

Nice post, Barry. A friend read me the article Sunday afternoon. I was going to put it up.

And you should also read the counter-argument by William E. Odom:

What’s wrong with cutting and running?

"Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?"

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm ... isid=00129

[pizza]

And neither I nor anyone of the guys I know remember or know anything about the "reign of terror" you're putting us into. How is that, just tell me?

FWIW, I have worked with a woman from the former USSR for years who spoke similarly in regards to the Great Terror. Recently she related that she met a cousin who told her the great family secret: that one side of her family had priests going back generations and that almost every one of them was killed in the 1930's

I have spoken at length over the years about this subject with my late aunt who lived in the Soviet Union all her life, except for a couple of years when she was visiting our family in the late '80s. She was well educated and thoroughly familiar with the Soviet government's apparatus for repression. I have also spoken within the past year at a conference to Nathan Sharansky, former imprisoned Soviet refusenik and recent Israeli cabinet minister. According to both, the Gulag system has existed for decades, still exists, and governmental use of intimidation and force to repress political dissent in Russia, even under its new management continues unabated.

[Corlyss_D]

And you should also read the counterargument by William E. Odom:

Well, you've at least got a better class of alarmist to do your thinking for you.

[Vaseena]

And you should also read the counterargument by William E. Odom:

Well, you've at least got a better class of alarmist to do your thinking for you.

Selective memory, Corlyss.

In fact, every major nation at the UN other than the US and their sychophantic British lapdogs said that there was no evidence of WMDs and that the world should wait for the UN assessors to complete their work.

Colin Powell stood in front of the UN (and the world) and lied (according to one of his staffers who worked on the presentation, Powell knew that what he said was not true).

Now once you've made this mistake and invaded, you're in a tricky situation. You can't pull out without leaving behind a complete disaster. But that does not justify the original decision to invade.

You didn't answer my question - how many dead Americans and Iraqis is enough for you to say this was a bad idea?

2,000 young Americans?

3,000?

Maybe 4,500 is the right number?

How long did you hold out during Vietnam?

[Lilith]

I'm sure 50,000 wouldn't even make Corlyss flinch.

[MaestroDJS]

How many moderates are in this forum? As a moderate, I find it interesting to watch the Left and the Right bash each other. Why do they get so worked up? Just about everything Will Rogers, H. L. Mencken etc. said about politics 70 or 80 years ago is still true today, and they had genuine world wars to worry about. The Earth has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since we humans began to infest it untold millennia ago, but somehow we never quite arrive.

Then I look at something like this (Earth in the far distant background above a large lunar boulder during Apollo 17) and it puts everything in perspective.



We humans are merely insignificant specks in this wondrous Universe.

Dave

David Stybr
Personal Assistant and Der Webmeister to author Denise Swanson
http://www.DeniseSwanson.com
~ Scumble River Mysteries ~
Book 7: Murder of a Smart Cookie, July 2005
Penguin Putnam ~ Signet, New York, New York

David Stybr, Engineer and Composer: It's Left Brain vs. Right Brain: best 2 falls out of 3
http://members.SibeliusMusic.com/Stybr

Coordinator, Classical Music SIG (Special Interest Group) of American Mensa

[MaestroDJS]

You didn't answer my question - how many dead Americans and Iraqis is enough for you to say this was a bad idea?

Much as I regard war as an evil, sometimes it seems to be a necessary evil. I can't help thinking that this is more than a coincidence:

BBC News: Tuesday, 23 August 2005
US sees full relations with Libya
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4176180.stm

Col Muammar Gaddafi has invited US President George Bush to visit

The US has suggested it could restore full diplomatic relations with Libya if Tripoli addresses concerns over democracy and its human rights record.

The US state department said if Tripoli made continued progress, it would "meet their acts of good faith in return".

US officials are negotiating opening an embassy in Tripoli and Libya's removal from a list of state terror sponsors.

The countries have been rebuilding ties since Libya gave up the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

Then again, I may not know what I'm talking about. And yet ... if our invasion of Iraq scared Gaddafi (and a few other tyrants) straight, maybe it was a good idea.

In a way, it reminds me of the Barbary Coast pirates of northern Africa who, after signing and breaking treaties, attacked European and American ships in the Mediterranean Sea in the early 19th Century -- until the young United States Navy and Marines beat the crap out of them in 1805, including a big victory on "the shores of Tripoli."

Oh heck. Maybe I'd better stick to music.

Dave

PS. Maybe it was a good idea.

BBC News: Saddam 'confesses' says Iraq head
Tuesday, 6 September 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4221202.stm

Saddam Hussein has confessed to crimes during his regime - including executions - and deserves to die, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has said.

Mr Talabani told Iraqi state TV a judge "was able to extract confessions" from the ousted leader.

"Saddam deserves a death sentence 20 times a day because he tried to assassinate me 20 times," he said.

The Iraqi government last week confirmed that Saddam Hussein would go on trial on 19 October.

Several of the ex-president's closest aides will also face trial with him, on charges relating to the massacre of 143 Shias in a town north of Baghdad.

The killings in Dujail in 1982 followed an attempt on Saddam Hussein's life.

Saddam Hussein could face the capital punishment if found guilty in the case.

[rwetmore]

You didn't answer my question - how many dead Americans and Iraqis is enough for you to say this was a bad idea?

2,000 young Americans?

3,000?

Maybe 4,500 is the right number?

How long did you hold out during Vietnam?

First of all, since when is military success or failure dictated by the number of casualties sustained? Had this been a criteria for success in WW2 we would have pulled out right after the D-Day invasion.

Secondly, pulling out of Iraq puts the lives of more troops in danger. If the terrorists' tactics succeed in getting us to pull out of Iraq, it will only encourage them more, ultimately costing more lives to defeat them in the long run.

Finally, whether it was a "bad idea" or not is irrelavant now. You and the terrorists share the same objectives: Getting rid of Bush, and getting us the pull out of Iraq. Says a lot about your position and thinking on the subject.

[Vaseena]

First of all, since when is military success or failure dictated by the number of casualties sustained? Had this been a criteria for success in WW2 we would have pulled out right after the D-Day invasion.

In 1945 we were fighting Fascism.

What threat did Iraq pose in 2003?

Bush's Middle East "policy" was not to re-make it. If you'll remember from his 2000 campaign, he was against nation building. That was just the rationale once there were no WMD found. The stated reason for going to Iraq was the possibility of a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." However, his distrust of international inspection teams which were never given the chance to finish their jobs led to his pre-emptive ill-planned war. Bold, maybe; but not very thoughtful.

Criminal, yes.

And of course we all know that the invasion of Iraq was being planned long before September 11, 2001.