Hoping We Fail

[MMMMMM]

Who hopes we fail in Iraq, and why?

An interesting and perceptive piece by Victor Davis Hanson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson082803.asp

[nicky g]

I'm sorry M, and I don't see this simply cos I come from a different viewpoint, but that is not a perceptive piece, it's just an incoherent rant. Mr Davis Hanson must be a very lonely man what with hating the entire world.

[nicky g]

This is the best bit:

"Aside from the acute embarrassment that will arise should textual or material evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and of Saddamite ties with al Qaeda, soon appear"

No mention of the acute embarrassment given that they haven't appeared. I can't believe people are still banging on about al-Qaeda. Noone believes it; all the Western intelligence services have made it clear they do not believe there ever was a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda; and yet propagandists like this dude keep pushing it without a single shred of evidencce. They're lying; pure and simple.

As for France and air-conditioning, it isn't that hard to understand that this summer's heatwave was an abberation; it normally never reached those kind of temperatures there. I wonder how many people die in the US every year because they can't afford healthcare; I suspect it's more than die from lack of airconditioning in france. And it had nothing to do with doctors on holiday. What an absolute ignorant bigoted tool.

[Wake up CALL]

"I wonder how many people die in the US every year because they can't afford healthcare; I suspect it's more than die from lack of airconditioning in france. "

I would suspect it is less people per capita than die waiting for their turn to see a physician under a socialized health care system such as in Canada or Great Britain.

Besides Jim Rome had one of his funniest shows ever joking about the heat stricken Frenchman. One particularly amusing scenario was this:

Jim said all the Germans had to do in WWII to take over France would have to simply threatened to turn up the heat. Germany says to France "Surrender immediately", France replies "No", Germany then says "Surrender now or we will turn up the heat", france hurriedly replies "OK, we surrender". Perhaps you had to be there! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Steele]

... than die waiting for their turn to see a physician under a socialized health care system such as in Canada..

I have never experienced any wait at all for for Canadian health care. It is true that there may be shortages of some sort of specialized equipment but for almost everything this is not the case.

Compared to the US, where I have also lived, it is very nice that everyone is covered and also it is nice not to worry that ones flakey policy will not really work.


D.

[Cyrus]

"It is not hard to determine who wishes the United States to succeed in rebuilding Iraq along lines that will promote consensual government, personal freedom, and economic vitality"

The article sets forth the above premise and then builds on it.

Allow me to be doubtful that the above are, indeed, the United States' objectives in starting a war against Iraq. For instance, we have already read the articles indicating that a democratically-elected government in Iraq that opposes "American objectives" in the area would be "unacceptable". Since, however, dissent is the essence of a free government (meaning to dissent against another government), this renders null and void the point about consensual government or personal freedom.

But let's talk tactics, instead of strategy, for a sec. Take the item in the news that a chief imam was killed in a car bomb, in Iraq, along with some others in his company. Iraqis were probably behind the killing. But how obvious can you get?? That was the leader of something called Islamic Revolution, an organisation residing in Iran, that is anything but conciliatory towards the U.S. or progressive in thinking. Check out the title again. We have the United States inviting the leader of a Shia faction (the most radical of Islam, by the way) into Iraq in order to build some sort of power base to counter "the old Baathist regime". This "clever" tactic of inviting a devil to fight another devil, to use the State Dept jargon, has exploded in America's face time and again. It's a cinch to explode again. (It did and the imam got it.)

(Note that the Arab Baathists, in general, are nationalist, anti-communist and anti-religious in their politics. Think Kemalism in Turkey for a very similar counterpart. That most Baathist parties instigated dictatorships when coming to power is par for the course both for the area and the ideology.)

As to economic vitality, I don't know. Would America tolerate an Iraq that would reap the whole benefits of its oil wealth? Perhaps it would, who knows, stranger things have happened. Me, I have made some stock purchases early on and I'm sticking to them. What's good for Halliburton is good for America.

--Cyrus

[GeorgeF]

From http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Heat_Wave_of_1995

Deaths from Chicago heat wave = 739
Population France=59,551,227
Population Chicago=2,896,016

Predicted Deaths in france based on chicago experience =
739 * 59,551,227 / 2,896,016 = 15,197

Actual Deaths 10,000 more or less.

France seems to have had a superior respose to a heat wave than the US. I realize that comparing two heat waves is imperfect and that France is a Country while Chicago is a City. I am not sure how accurate the wikipedia is.

I also think the people are 'Hoping We Fail' premise of the article is childish.

"that ones flakey policy will not really work. "
Is is shocking how little notice is made in the US of things like pension and insurance failures.

[Chris Alger]

Conservative propaganda consistently fails to develop arguments based on aknowledged facts or quotations by those they are disagreeing with or attacking. It instead strings along unsupported polemical statements as if they were indisputable embellished with cheap rhetoric of U.S. grandeur, self-pity and xenophobia.

The first sentence in this piece makes clear that it aspires to be no exception. I can't imagine why you think that anyone's understanding of anything could be helped by reading their thousandth or so right-wing editorial about how everyone hates the U.S. for the wonderful things it does.

Why would anyone take seriously an article that attacks statements and positions of much of the world without identifying those positions in a single document or quotation (apart from a rhetorical question by Howard Dean)? Since the writer doesn't want to be taken seriously, why do you? Answer: because this kind of writing isn't intended for discourse, it's intended to prop up the emotions and mindset of uninformed U.S. state-worshippers.

[MMMMMM]

So would you say then that Hanson's list of those who wish us to fail in Iraq is not in part at least self-evident?

Baathists: obviously

Syria: has sent and facilitated passage of militants/insurrectionists

Iran: as obviously as Baathists, sends militants to destabilize Iraq

Saudi Arabia: "allows" (or perhaps even "sends") al-Qaeda foot-soldiers to cross Northern Saudi Arabia into Iraq; many Saudi imams calling for jihad in Iraq

France and Germany: while it may go too far to say they wish this for a certainty, a relatively rapid success in Iraq would make their pre-war positions look foolish and probably self-serving given their economic ties

Democrats: a mixed bag, but those opposed to the war might have to admit it was a good thing after all should the war go well (it did) and should the transformation/rebuilding of Iraq go well (yet to be seen).

So what exactly are you objecting to? His comments about France, perhaps? His not providing documentation for the obvious top four in the list above?

Maybe in your world, you think things have to be proven and re-proven with exhaustive documentation every time they are mentioned--but anyone with half a brain and a bit of knowledge of current world affairs will know that the first four elements I listed above obviously not only have a lot to gain should we fail in Iraq, but that they are actively helping the forces that are sabotaging our efforts--and the efforts of the Iraqi people as well.

"State-worship" my foot. How about common-sense worship and worship of the ideals of freedom--instead of apologetics for tyrants, fascistic theocrats and terrorists.

[Chris Alger]

The article doesn't supply a shred of evidence that Syria, Iran and Saudia Arabia "allow" or "send" anyone, much less undefined "militants" to Iraq, much less their reasons, stated or otherwise, why they might do so. And neither do you, keeping with your practice of making up reality to suit your worldview instead of using facts. Nor are your assumptions plausible given that these governments have little to gain and literally everything to lose should any such evidence exist.

The reason for this, which I pointed out and which you don't deny, is that articles like this one don't even try to argue or raise issues, they're just crude propaganda. Your writer's real point is this: U.S. interests in Iraq are identical to those of Iraqi's and U.S. success therefore means freedom, democracy and affluence for the downtrodden of Iraq. Since the article doesn't want to address this question directly (because it's absurd, given history), he has to resort to sweeping generalizations about forces that want to see the U.S. "fail" at the wonderful things the U.S. will do, all presumed. Whether the U.S. is likely to do unprecedentedly good things for this poor country or merely install and maintain yet another corrupt, repressive client is, of course, what the real debate is about. But if we debate that, we have to acknowledge the arguments of the critics and the facts they site. Neither your writer no you have the ability or willingness to do this and instead stick to presumptions and then offer up a lot of speculative filler about what follows from your presumptions.

In fact, you can shorten the whole article to the following: the U.S. is committed to doing wonderful things for Iraq and the people that oppose the U.S. are people that are opposed to wonderful things. I can't give evidence so you'll just have to trust me. This isn't information for people that appreciate it, its propaganda for people that need to believe that people smarter than they are that write in actual magazines hold the same worldview.

"those opposed to the war might have to admit it was a good thing after all should the war go well (it did)."

First, it didn't go well for the children and families we dismembered and burned. Second, it went "well" by your definition because the U.S. quickly prevailed at toppling Saddam, although the current stage isn't going very well (and since you admit it is ongoing, hardly means that it "went well.") Since toppling Saddam was a foregone conclusion, generally admitted by principled opponents of the war (like me), admitting that it happened as predicted wouldn't mean a thing. If it is proper to find war meritorious because "our" side prevailed, then it would be proper to find merit in any invasion or conquest that "went well." I'm sure Hitler's and Stalin's apologist made the same argument that you are now: that the ease with which their forces conquered this or that country makes the prewar critics, in your words, "look foolish."

State-worshipper is the correct term for someone who has an obvious need to believe that U.S. and U.S.-backed mass violence, unlike that of every other country, can never be considered criminal, regardless of the law, and is almost always for the greater good.

"Maybe in your world, you think things have to be proven and re-proven with exhaustive documentation every time they are mentioned...."

Just plain stupid. Your souce makes a whopping presumption about U.S. intentions in Iraq and attacks virtually the whole world from the Saudis to the democrats without offering any particulars about what they've said or done. I make the obvious complaint aout lack of evidence, and your reponse is to pretend that I therefore required things to be "prove and re-proven" etc., as if the only alternative to a simple demand for proof means pointless repetition and redundancy. This kind of exaggeration as substitite for argument also is a staple of the state-worshipping right.

[MMMMMM]

You don't believe Iran is sending militants to Iraq, Chris? Really? Honest to God?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't believe Iran is sending militants to Iraq, Chris? Really? Honest to God?

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM I believe that Chris being so obviously biased in favor of these middle eastern nations refuses to acknowledge their culpability in any terroristic (Thank-you BruceZ for this word) actions.

[MMMMMM]

Oh I think he knows it all right, but I think he feels it is a justified response to "oppression" by America, Israel and the West.

Chris, the Arab nations have managed to suppress, oppress and repress themselves far more than the West could ever have done. They the West as their enemy, when in reality, embracing modernity is their only chance at success and happiness in this world.

[brad]

'You don't believe Iran is sending '

i knew a guy who liked to argue that nyc was capitol of new york.

theres a fundamental difference between fact and opinion.

--------

to use another example, everyone knew that you couldnt give up the center (chess) with like KID or alekhine's defense. it wasnt sound.

of course the after a while empirical results ended up changing theory.

so maybe it is widely believed iran is sending whatever. it doesnt make it true, and i think you are totally being deceptive to confuse fact and opinoin in that way

[MMMMMM]

Sorry brad, I wasn't trying to be deceptive, I just thought it was common knowledge that the Iranian mullahs are supporting the insurrection in Iraq.

Anyway, that isn't even the point. If freedom should succeed in Iraq, then the neighboring regimes which depend on lack of freedom will be more in danger of falling; therefore they would certainly like to see the experiment in Iraq fail. That was Hanson's point, and I think it's a good (if not obvious) one.

[Chris Alger]

Instead of making a pathetic attempt to ridicule anyone with the temerity of putting you to your proof, why can't you just provide the proof? If it's that obvious, proving it should be quite easy.

[Chris Alger]

Still can't come up with any evidence, can you?

[brad]

'then the neighboring regimes which depend on lack of freedom '

you realize irans post ww2 history with US , right?

[brad]

'repress themselves far more than the West could ever have done.'

the i replied to you above about iran, well US put shah in power and he ruled the same way castro did/does - secret police, torture, death squads, repression.

ive talked to arabs and they know the history (personally) and they know when thier uncle was taken to be tortured in one of tehrans dungeons it wasnt just the shahs men it was cia men too.

[MMMMMM]

Wow. And what would be the benefit to me to spend so much time on such a project, so that I can convince Chris Alger of something? Wny not just go and research it yourself and draw your own conclusions? I'm neither an archivist nor a babysitter /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

you realize irans post ww2 history with US , right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, they attacked our Embassy and then held our diplomatic personell hostage. Is this the history brad?

[brad]

btw i know persians are not arabs, etc. ...

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
btw i know persians are not arabs, etc. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you also know there are no more Persians, right?

[brad]

if you consider the incident in ford theater to be the history of the american civil war then i would be forced to say yes.

[brad]

ask someone from iran where theyre from.

[brad]

we got the point you dont do much research when u mentioned that recessive genes are so named because they recede from the population, and then went on to demonstrate your complete ignorance of basic genetics as taught in high school.

other than that ...

[MMMMMM]

Because it's too much work and I doubt it would convince you anyway. Also, proof is not necessary for purposes of this discussion; reasonable suspicion should be adequate.

[MMMMMM]

The fact that we helped put the shah in power in no way controverts my statement. Arab and Muslim countries, overall, have oppressed themselves far more (than the West has oppressed them) through their adherence to antiquated ideologies/political systems. And that's not even factoring into the equation the ways the West has benefitted them.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
ask someone from iran where theyre from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Must I be in Iran when I ask this question? Or must they be in Iran when I ask them this question? Or could we both be in say Chicago, when I ask them this question?

Wherever I ask them this question they will probably not say Persia since it doesn't frigging exist any longer.

[MMMMMM]

no brad, I said that if one segment of the population outbreeds another segment at a rapid pace the effects will not likely be unnoticeable over several generations. And you brought up the whole thing about blond hair (which is in fact becoming less prevalent).

[Chris Alger]

How could it be work to find a web source for a fact that's so indisputable anyone asking for proof of it deserves ridicule? Don't tell me you didn't spend 60 seconds looking. You looked and can't find any evidence at all, and now you have to water it down by admitting that it might not be true, that you only have "reasonable suspicion." Okay, let's see some evidence suggesting that your suspicion is "reasonable," especially since the U.S. would love to broadcast any fact suggesting that Iran or Syria are trying to disrupt our new colony. Or else admit that you just made it up.

[brad]

'Wherever I ask them this question they will probably not say Persia '

hey if you dont know anyone from around there dont blame me.

ive heard people say theyre from persia but perhaps because anti-iran sentiment is high here in US.

in any case my point was that people who live in modern day iran (what used to be persian empire) are not arabs.

[brad]

and you said that people are stupider today than 20/30 years ago because of evolution or selective breeding or whatever.

hey, you said it not me.

[brad]

come on chris, reasonable suspicion after the fact (it was 100% certainty before the war) in the case of wmd in iraq was good enough too, wasnt it?

heh

it was good enough to trick everyone. i suspect M knows hes arguing in a propaganda style.

[MMMMMM]

No Chris, I read that Iran was supporting/sending militants/insurrectionists in at least several different articles over the last week or two. I'm just not going to go dig it all up now because it is too much trouble. I don't know where I read it and I read from dozens of sources. I'm sorry for ridiculing you for not having read this yet but I really think you'll come across it soon anyway.

[MMMMMM]

No brad I'm arguing in lazy style.

[MMMMMM]

I said that I suspected it was so because stupid people have been outbreeding smart people at a pretty good clip for a couple generations or so now. It is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

in any case my point was that people who live in modern day iran (what used to be persian empire) are not arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

ARAB:

1 a : a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsula

The Arabian Peninsula includes the nine (9) countries of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar,
the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

You are correct that Iran is not part of the area mentioned. That however does make not them Persian rather than Iranian. If you ask me where I am from and I say Mars does that make me a Martian?

[ACPlayer]

My read is that even the US government has no idea who is behind the insurgents.

Just as before the war we got a long list of possible reasons - the bope being that at least one of them will prove to be true - we are now getting a laundry list of possible suspects.

Unfortunately, our present government has no faith in the american people to understand that the reasons to go to war were a) Oil b) Israel. Instead they trotted out a bunch of hooey for reasons.

Similarly they wont tell us now that we must stay in Iraq and not let the UN in to run the country and get our troops out because : a) oil b) Israel and c) the multi-billion dollar contracts to the friends of the VP and The Pres. They will however, offer a long list of possible suspects, while American and British soldiers die every day.

Its a sorry state of affairs.

[Wake up CALL]

"Unfortunately, our present government has no faith in the american people to understand that the reasons to go to war were a) Oil b) Israel."

More liberal propaganda, I urge you to learn more about the true situation rather than parrot the democratic presidential candidates.

[ACPlayer]

I understand the situation very well.

I have not voted democrat since Kennedy. This time however I plan to do just that.

[clovenhoof]

Are you asking, "any posters out there hoping we fail?" Or, the less interesting question that seems to be the one everybody's answering, "what countries or political groups or organizations are hoping we fail?"

In anticipation of potential flak, the first question is interesting because of the number of 2+2'ers who are not American, and who might have an answer other than "I hope they fail because I really hate George Bush."

'hoof

[MMMMMM]

Well then you will likely be voting for either Dean-the-far-out-leftist, or Shrillary. Choose wisely please.

[MMMMMM]

countries, groups and political organizations

Interestingly, I think of many who hope us to fail, it would actually be in their best interests too should we (and the Iraqi people) succeed, but they are too short-sighted to recognize this.

[ACPlayer]

I would even vote for Ralph Nader orthe white house janitor - anything to get this sorry excuse of a conservative out of office before he wrecks the constitution, kills more American soldiers, drives the economy into the ground and completely divides the country.

[MMMMMM]

"I would even vote for Ralph Nader orthe white house janitor - anything to get this sorry excuse of a conservative out of office before he wrecks the constitution,"

It is arguable as to whether the Patriot Act has in any way actually damaged the Constitution--I've read views on both sides. AS an aside, I do think the recent US Supreme Court decision on Affirmation Action made a complete travesty of the Constitution.

" kills more American soldiers,"

relatiely few have died considering two wars have been fought, both for good causes

"drives the economy into the ground"

Actually the economy is doing surprisingly well considering that we've had to absorb the humongous costs of 9/11 and two wars. Also, indications are that the economy is improving.

"and completely divides the country."

somehow I get the sense that certain Democratic leaders are doing more to this end than Bush;-)

Also, those supporting bilingual education and bilingual offices are contributing to the division within the country. Immigrants who fail to learn English tend to become increasingly isolated and lacking in opportunities. It is necessary to speak and write English in order to have a full range of opprtunity in this country; indeed, being illiterate in English is a far greater handicap in terms of opportunity than being say Black or Latin. We are a melting pot, but for the melting pot to work well, we need to all become Americans. The Balkanization of, say, Quebec and Canada is not a beneficial thing, either for the country as a whole or the large separatist region. If a huge Latin segment of our population becomes balkanized, that will not be to anyone's benefit. Already this is occurring. Many immigrants never learn English. There is also a Hispanic student political organization in this country which is as racist as the KKK, called MEChA, whose slogan is "Por La Raza, todo. A fuera de La Raza, nada." (For The Race, all. Outside The Race, nothing.") Their goal is reclamation of Aztlan, the Southwestern USA.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3039

Do we want a melting pot which actually joins in common goals, common dedications to freedom and individual rights, common support of the concept that all are endowed with certain unalienable rights...or do we want a melting pot divided and increasingly at odds? Immmigrants of past generations happily and proudly took the oath of citizenship swearing allegiance to the USA. Now many immigrants believe their first allegiance is to their race or to their country of origin (or even to Islam). Illegal immigration only exacerbates this undesirable trend.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I would even vote for Ralph Nader orthe white house janitor - anything to get this sorry excuse of a conservative out of office before he wrecks the constitution, kills more American soldiers, drives the economy into the ground and completely divides the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post of yours prompt me to reitterate, please study the current political situation and US economy more carefully prior to jumping to incorrect conclusions.

[ACPlayer]

Thank you for your advise.

A bit condescending.

Considering that from the posts to date it is clear that I am far more well informed and well read than most of the posters.

The last paragraph was written with My BruceZ hat on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

I wonder why you picked the Patriot act to defend. Perhaps some aspects of it sub-consciously bother you.

If you are truly interested in liberty and pursuit of justice you should consider what your subconscious is telling you.

On the next two points, perhaps the wars are to blame. But that goes back to the stupidity of that decision -- and that decision was solely that of the President and his henchmen. Specially after the congress completely gave up their responsibility to the people who elected them.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your advise.

A bit condescending.

Considering that from the posts to date it is clear that I am far more well informed and well read than most of the posters.

The last paragraph was written with My BruceZ hat on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

Was not trying to be condescending just helpful, it seems strange that such a well informed individual should reach faulty conclusions on the state of our econamy and our current administrations ability to govern. It must indicate a form of bias which limits your ability to be completely objective while evaluating said subjects.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't pick the Patriot Act to defend--my mind is not convinced either way about it at this point. I am definitely somewhat worried about it. I've read highly conflicting opinions regarding to what extent it erodes our civil liberties--if at all. I honestly don't know. It's a very complex subject and I think most people who make claims claim about it know little whereof they speak.

Well, I was in favor of both wars. I think they were wise decisions viewed in the long-term. Of course much remains to be seen, both regarding our economy and in the Middle East. For what it's worth, I have more faith in our economy than in the Middle Eastern affairs.

[brad]

at least ive adroitly avoided the quagmire of having you question my competency by lumping in iranians with arabs. heh

[brad]

well despite the headlines the supreme court said affirmative action a no go, except if you take herculean efforts (law school every applicant screened , no automatic points like undergrad program).

and they said even this treatment will have to end in about 20 years.

not perfect but far more in line with constitution than previous rulings.