Sunday, September 12, 2004

IRAQIS FOR KERRY - Ali from Iraq the Model doubts that the anti-Democracy forces in Iraq will be stumping for Bush this November:

"There is however another factor *this time* that will have an influence on this from now on. It’s the American’s elections and their effect on the Iraqi issue. I don’t think there are plans for a terrorist attack on America, because they ( the enemies of America’s plans in Iraq) know this will further increase the support for Bush, while killing Iraqis will probably enhance the American support for Iraqis, but killing Americans will promote different emotions and I expect that we’ll see more frequent attacks on Americans in Iraq from now till the election time. This can be seen in today’s attacks for instance, as although there were civilian casualties, it was very obvious that the main target was the American soldiers unlike what happened before when the terrorists openly targeted Iraqis whether in mosques, churches, police stations or training centers for ING.

Most people supporting the resistance think that if Kerry wins he will pull the troops out of Iraq, or that’s what they wish. They know that the decisive factor in this is the American’s casualty, and that shifts their priorities now. They are betting that if they can inflict more losses among American soldiers, American public opinion will favor getting out of Iraq soon and will vote for John Kerry because they (Americans) probably think that too, and that with such public pressure he would find himself more committed to promises he never even made, but gave some impression that he’s at least considering it. The assumption that Americans would pull out of Iraq if they receive heavy casualties is an old one that had stopped looking possible for quite a time, but now with the strong coverage by the media for the losses in Iraq and with the figure 1000 coming up every now and then together with unclear messages from the Kerry camp, the theory has been revived. The bottom line is that with Kerry they think they have a chance but with Bush there is none (emphasis added).

I don’t want to predict anything here but I want to say that if America decided to get out of Iraq before the job is finished, that will be not only disastrous but will be (in my opinion) the worst thing America ever did. Freeing Iraq (again in my opinion) was the best thing America ever did. It gave oppressed people everywhere a hope and a belief that the mightiest power on earth, the symbols of freedom is on their side and that it will help them in one way or another to get their freedom. Their misery has stopped looking eternal. Retreating now will prove some people’s theory that America is an imperialistic power that only care for its interests, and although there’s nothing wrong with caring about one’s own interests, most Iraqis and millions of oppressed people in Darfur, Iran, Syria...etc. like to think more than that of America. Keeping the course will turn this thought into a firm belief."

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

NUMBER CRUNCHING - The complaint that the US should not have gone to war to depose Saddam because we armed him in the first place was never persuasive even taken at face value (after all, shouldn't we strive to correct our mistakes?). Others may disagree on this: to them I suppose a forgein policy change after several decades proves hypocrisy, and hypocrites shouldn't wage war. What happens though if we take a closer look at the original charge? Now, this may be just a teensy bit nitpicky, but here's where I think the argument begins to unravel...(link via The Dissident Frogman).

Friday, September 03, 2004

GETTING A CLUE - The good news is that so far, France is not backing down on the head scarf ban (and some French Muslims are rallying to support the government). I fear though that the majority in Europe still don't understand the enemy we are fighting:

"Yet with this week's hostage crisis, residents say they are slightly disbelieving that the country is suddenly involved in Iraq's troubles.

'France has nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq,' said Abdel, a 24-year-old Moroccan immigrant who sells jeans in the Clignancourt street market in northern Paris and who did not want his last name in print. 'We opposed the war. We did not send soldiers. So what does this have to do with us?'

So the French, like the Spanish still think the "correct" foreign policy should protect them from the Islamofacists. How many more vile acts of terrorism will it take to dispense of this dangerous naivete for good?

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

LOW MORALE? - Apparently not in this National Guard unit (link via Instapundit):

"The largest Alabama Guard unit to return from Iraq, the 877th Engineer Battalion, had its first weekend drills earlier this month at its northwest Alabama armories. And at those drill sessions, only 19 of the 555 soldiers who attended said they wanted to hang up their helmets or were seriously considering it...

When Guard units such as the 877th were deployed for up to a year in and around Iraq, many of their members had never been away from home for such a lengthy period, and more than a few vowed to get out once they got home. "That's just talk," said Spc. Charles Walker of Fayette, a member of the 877th's C Company who has two brothers and a sister in the battalion. Walker and his siblings are staying in. "

Thursday, August 19, 2004

NICE PICTURE - Check out this snapshot from Athens.... (link via Iraq the Model)

Sunday, August 15, 2004

"ACCIDENTAL THEORY" - Jonathan Lipow on Krugman and Iraq (link via the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid):

"Since he began writing regular op-ed columns for The New York Times, however, Krugman has become increasingly difficult to take seriously. In his columns, Krugman repeatedly imagines that his conclusions simply emerge from the facts. They don't.

For example, Krugman has argued that the invasion of Iraq was an unnecessary diversion of resources from the real war on terror that engendered needless hostility toward the US throughout the Muslim world. He bases this argument on the fact that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US and was not involved in 9/11.

This argument is a classic example of accidental theory. Krugman's facts are accurate, but his conclusions do not follow from them. Consider an analogy: Vichy France was neutral during World War II. Yet Roosevelt responded to Pearl Harbor by mounting an invasion of Vichy North Africa.Does it therefore follow that Operation Torch was an absurd diversion of resources from the Pacific Theater that only engendered hostility in neutral France toward the Allies? Maybe, but clearly considerably more analysis would be required before reaching such conclusions. "

MORE GOOD NEWS - From part 8 of Chrenkoff's "Good News" series:

" Iraq spent only $20 million on health care in 2002. Now, the Ministry of Health has a $1 billion budget. Most of the money comes from oil revenues, but the United States and other nations are supplementing this as the result of last year's donors conference in Madrid. This does not mean the Ministry is awash in money, but the increase has raised health care spending from 68 cents per Iraqi in 2002 to about $40 today."

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

STILL MUDDLED - I'm sure glad Kerry finally "clarified" his position on Iraq! Now we know that Kerry agrees with Bush that the war was necessary (missing stockpiles notwithstanding). We know that in Kerry's mind, Bush erred in "rushing" to war on faulty intelligence, while Kerry was correct in voting to allow him to do it. We know Kerry will reduce US troop levels in Iraq within 6 months of taking office...(Wow!). Wait a sec, scratch that, actually maybe the reductions won't happen until the end of his first term. Then again, perhaps he might just increase troops levels .... Crystal clear, no?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?