Comments on: Common sense

By: Skippy-san

Skippy-san — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:59:17 +0000

Flat lander,

That had nothing to do with religion-everything to do with nationalism and racism.

By: Zane

Zane — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:32:09 +0000

“Either our cause is in the main noble and just or it isn’t. I can find much to criticize in any like endeavor; that has nothing to do with whether it’s right or not.”

TomG, the question isn’t whether the effort in Iraq is noble and just. It is. Everyone on this page is agreed with that as well.

The question is, is it the effective thing to do? The first requirement of any nation is to effectively defend itself; nobility and justice don’t even enter into it, otherwise, they are reduced to the being the means of a suicide.

By: Flatlander

Flatlander — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:53:33 +0000

“the Japanese have never had the religious fanatacism of the Muslims”

Tell that to the Chinese, and to the Nanjingese in particular, and you will get a different perspective.

By: Skippy-san

Skippy-san — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:42:58 +0000

Tom,

The remake efforts sowed the seeds of the current situation. Its up to history and the observer to decide if they were worth it or not.

As for the views of the Japanese vs the Arabs-I’ve never made it a secret that any and all Arabs are not on my Christmas card list-or that I hold the Japanese in high regard.

Nonetheless comparisons between Japan and the situation in Iraq are fatally flawed IMHO. Japan was a unified national entity both before and after the war. Most of the major institutions of government were already place before the war and did not require any major re-invention after the war. The Japanese did not launch an insurgency-they took their defeat in a stoic fashion and set about to rebuild their infrastructure-and did so in a relatively short time.

And as for religion,Shinto and Islam have nothing in common and the Japanese have never had the religious fanacticism of Muslims.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:55:47 +0000

Thanks for the response, Casca.
The reason I picked up on your first comment was that it jingled up for me that old refrain from way back that invading Iraq was all just part of the masterplan of … (shows how much attention I was paying, I guess) … Bush’s inner circle, Rumsfield, etc. who had made comments long before 9/11 as to their “plans” for the world and how it should look. I’m sure somebody here knows of what I speak better than I. Anyway, I must ponder this upon that for a while.

By: Casca

Casca — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:13:26 +0000

Thanks for picking the ball up Lex. I didn’t see it pop out of the scrum.

To answer Michelle would properly require a book. Let’s just say that there is method to our madness. In 2001 we had no way to practically influence events in the long run in the ME; i.e. by using the stick, or at least showing our willingness to use a stick. The drive-by shootings of the Clinton era were impotent gestures designed more for domestic public consumption than effectiveness.

To effectively prosecute the GWOT means to bring the threat to our real enemy, Iran. They are the destabilizing force in the ME and the world. We couldn’t do that from Saudi or Afghanistan. Saddam set himself up as the punk needing an ass-whiping. We obliged, and at the same time created a honeypot to attract our regional enemies to play their weakness against our strength. We’ve killed a lot of them.

We dare not leave a weakened Iraq on Iran’s doorstep. A stabilized vigorous Iraq has got to scare the shit out of the mullahs. We are working toward that end. Like the old Soviet terror masters, they’ll have to call, raise, or fold. So far they’ve been raising, on their pair of kings, but we hold the royal flush. We just need to have the stones to play out the hand.

But what about AQ you ask? In the grand scheme they’re merely an irritant. Iran is the threat.