Democratic leadership has shown they donâ€™t have the balls to end the war by voting to cut off funds and put their political capital where their mouth is
In short, Democrats are cowards because they don't want to cut and run.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 3.05.2007 @ 11:39
I believe at some point there has to be CONSENSUS, not compromise, but I really donâ€™t see how those of us who see the wolf at the door and have supported the War on Terror can â€œcompromiseâ€ with a people who steadfastly refuse to see the difference between murdering innocent people and killing evildoers â€¦
Anyone who talks seriously about "Democratically elected Iraqi government" _doesn't_ see the wolf.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 2.05.2007 @ 18:18
The pacifists will always be with you, they don't make any real difference, but the real conflict about Iraq is between the people that refuse to recognize radical Islamists when they see them (Bush and GOP) and those that don't (Democrats).
So, basically, Bush's logic in dealing with Maliki is this: "you better stop stop screwing everything, otherwise I will have to...
say this again!
and if this doesn't help,
I will say this again!
And I will keep on saying this again and again, because, my dear jihadi friend, we both know that to actually try to push you into doing anything will mean that AQ wins! And we can't have that!"
That's just so very smart to show Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim and the rest of the jihadi-friends crowd that you'll _never_ abandon them in this "central fight in the war on terror".Comment Posted By Nikolay On 2.05.2007 @ 18:07
However the fact is withdrawing is not, based on history, and what is going on currently on the ground likely to end the conflict nor cause al-Qaeda and itâ€™s allies to view the the US in something other then anything less then a â€œpaper-tiger.â€
Don't you think that the image problem is secondary to the reality? Is it any good to pretend that you're not a paper-tiger when in fact you are? Make no mistakes, engaging US in the endless war on the foreign ground was Al-Qaeda's explicit goal. And there's absolutely no way you can win the war against suicide bombers, besides building thousands of walls.
While I would like to think that Republicans arguing on ethical grounds against a troop withdraw, I doubt that such a position would play with the war-weary American people.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you consider Iran a serious threat? Do you believe in the possibility of the military confrontation with Iran? If the answer is yes, it's hard to understand why would you not argue for the urgent disengagement from Iraq. The attack against Iran is likely to bring Beirut barracks bombing multiplied by 100.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 29.04.2007 @ 18:30
The problem is, nothing will be done because of the "just turned a corner" syndrome. Just a typical example: HotAir commentators celebrating the good news from Anbar, arguing that it puts to shame Reid, Murtha etc., when in fact it is a perfect justification of Murtha's talking points: as soon as US leaves, Iraqis (including insurgents) will destroy Al-Qaeda, but the insurgency won't stop as long as US is around.
The main problem that your right-wing fellows refuse to address (actually they address it sometimes, but then just forget about it) is that Iraqi democracy means nothing. If you watched "Gangs on Iraq", the impression that SCIRI's leader Al-Hakim and his man Jabr leave on the visceral level is of pure evil. Not Putin-level evil, not even Ahmadinejad-level, but right there with Hitler. Which is totally not surprising given his background or his family-ties(that video of his brother was, obviously, posted by a Sunni fundamentalist, but it speaks for itself). And Al-Maliki looks not much better. And you can't do a heck with this "Democracy" trap; as far as I remember, the only way Algeria and Egypt saved themselves from Islamism is by effectively shutting down their democracies. That's the main problem: however long you fight, you will still be left with those same Islamist crazies as the democratic rulers -- some of them, at best, versed in Arafat's craft of pretending to be normal.
In fact, there are two ugly sides of the debate: Bush that refuses to forget his pipe-dreams about the "democratic unity government that will be our ally in the war against terror", which is about as much reality-based as Gonzales that was "totally convincing", on the other -- "get out of Iraq" Democrats. The absurdity of Bush's delusions provokes and justifies absurd answers from the other side. But "get out of Iraq" Democrat's message is in fact just pandering. What they really mean and legislate is gradual disengagement, relocation, etc. -- exactly the things you talk about. To blame them for cynicism for not just defunding the war is wrong because that's not, in fact, their idea of salvaging the situation.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 29.04.2007 @ 18:01
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of Shia fanaticism in the Middle East
?Comment Posted By Nikolay On 30.04.2007 @ 11:35
I Support Democracy In Iraq
Do you support Hamas as well?
whose character assassination by the left continues to this day
When citing those fringe elements, it would be at least fair to acknowledge the fact that Tillman was far left himself (I guess, being a fan of Chomsky makes you _far_ left).Comment Posted By Nikolay On 25.04.2007 @ 12:48
an unseemly demonstration of attachment to what for all intents and purposes is an entity that should be viewed as if not an enemy then certainly an opponent of individual liberty
Next thing you'll be against the Patriot Act. If you're not a terrorist, there's nothing to worry about, you know. The government, by its nature, is only about serving the best interests of the people, such as promoting Shia theocracy in the Middle East, etc. /sComment Posted By Nikolay On 17.04.2007 @ 07:49
If this isnâ€™t the silliest, stupidest, most asinine idea ever presented to the Congress of the United States, I donâ€™t know what is.
You can't really say that there was never anything more stupid presented to the Congress? Like, this same nonsense pushed by the same Kucinich six years ago?Comment Posted By Nikolay On 17.04.2007 @ 08:04
He's really a serious politician, that Kucinich, what with his 344.000$ raised for the presidential campaign.
But criticizing strategy and calling for a precipitous departure are two different things. If you are going to protest and call for an end to the war, at least have the honesty to acknowledge that you are doing exactly what the enemy who is shooting and killing Americans in the field wants.
Rick, some time ago you seemed to appreciate the nuances of the situation, but now it's the same old song again.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 21.03.2007 @ 07:25
The only thing that AQ wants is for America to stay in Iraq. This way they can bleed American army and budget, radicalize Sunnies and not fear serious retaliations from Shias because American army, in effect, protects them. The precipitous withdrawal could be bad for numerous reasons, but it certainly would hurt AQ. _You_ are doing exactly what the enemy wants to do, and there's no way of denying it. The other thing that AQ wants is for everybody to declare that possible withdrawal would be a victory for them, so that they could frame a bad thing for them as a good.