Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Dealing With More Liberal Idiocy

I have left this one on the back burner for a while, as they don't even rate mention. But, as more than one person has been led here, I will address it. I speculated about the quantification of violence and liberals propensity for making horrific claims about our soldiers in the aptly titled "Al Qaida Just a Crime Wave?" What grand humor. Alas, there are those who laugh only at the destruction of our traditions, society, and unborn. The link in question is from a blog entitled "Intelligent Discontent". Notice anything amiss? The truly intelligent would not name their blog 'adjective' 'adjective'. Try this one, "Vapid Soreness". Or how about "Compulsive Expletive"? Anyhow, they make a vain attempt at sarcasm, then parade out gruesome photos of dead Iraqi civilians, babies included. Of course war is horrible, I loath the destruction. But where, oh enlightened lib, are your pictures of the hundreds of dead children at the hands of terrorists? Where are your pictures of the millions of dead fetuses from your abortion mills? You are responsible for their deaths, are you not?

Should we leave Iraq, and its innocent, to the hands of Islamofascists? You want a policy that will virtually guaranty the subjugation of millions, let alone the prospect of another killing fields? All so that you can gain political power? Or absolve your guilt? Juvenile imbeciles, that would be a better name. I apologize for my readers in not linking up to this material. If you really care, you can find it. But don't bother. Alright, enough ranting, thanks for your patience.

Things Jihadists Don't Like

Or, one thing they don't like. Me. Yes, I got a great comment on my piece about the jihad junkies and their cyber war. What inspired this 'anonymous' dupe to put finger on keys in anger is unknown. How is life in Turkey? But, I got a nice surprise, when the referring page is Goog's blog search of cyber hack. At least I make the front page of something. What is life like filled with hate? One thing jihadists certainly have in common with liberals...

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Liberal Solution for Somalia

I get this in the mailbag:
So, us Liberals Lefties want to know,
Why was the Scrub and the CIA
Shoveling money and guns
To the Somali Warlords
What killed our Marines!
Poetic to say the least! Could be a bit on the wailing and gnashing of teeth side, but I stoically ignored the barb and soldiered on:

That is a disingenuous question, in that it is not the same warlords that killed our men. But, I ask myself the same question, what in the world are we doing? More importantly, why in the hell does the U.N., who is supposedly the wise example setter and caring institution in all things Africa, totally ignore this? I don't get it. And the Euros certainly shouldn't want another terrorist training ground, whats up? You wouldn't be happy with anything Bush does. But apart from that, what should be done there? No government, no economy, no security. What do you do?
Ah, well.
I'd sit down with Kofi and work a deal. The UN contacts the new Somalia government and sees if they need a little UN help. Ya know, food, medical, transport, etc etc on a small scale and building up. But, set some expectations. We'll supply this stuff as long as you respect human rights, no mass killings, don't harbor terrorists etc etc. Work out a quid pro quo....backstage, quietly, diplomatically. Keep the Americans out of it! We should support this, a lot. Give it a few years. Ask to appoint a low level diplomatic mission. No big rush. Patience....

Matter of fact.
That's about how I'd deal with most Islamic governments. Don't give them a reason to turn to the hardliners. Make it easy to be moderate. Try to get along. Talk, a lot. Listen even more. Solve the Palestine issue. Take your time. Find a way. Compromise. Everything is on the table to be TALKED about, but there are some things we WON'T DO. But, you give a little, we'll give a little.
Wow, that tells me a lot. In other words, you have no plan. Oh, wait, you want to give aid to terrorist supporting 'warlords' so long as they promise to be good. I guess you would have to throw in some security dough as well. Oh, wait, that sounds like the Bush plan, only no filthy American influence. Hey, I bet there is some good graft to be made in your plan. Join the U.N., get billions for your home country and a little on the side for yourself. Yeah, great plan. Has worked real well in the past. You have correctly expressed the true blindness of the liberal socialist. Thanks.

That is it, hope everyone enjoys the restatement of the obvious!

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Fitzmas in June?

Ah, we see that Fitzmas is the holiday when the gifts that you get, keep on giving. Yes, it's summer, but it might as well be snowing! Rove apparently is not going to be charged in the Plamegate affair. Gee, two and a half years, and he couldn't come up with even perjury? How very sad for the leftist nutters who have made this their Waterloo. But, not to be dismayed, a statement was released by the Plame-Wilson's legal council hinting that this will not be the end of the matter! By gosh by golly, the evil overlord Rove must be brought to justice! Hey, what ever happened to Joe's other 'lawsuit' against the former general Vallely? I guess Joe just can't get a break anywhere. But what impact will this have on all the faithful who have tried to ride this donkey to glory, only to see said donkey hobble, trip, fall over gasping and expiring? Half the Kossacks will need to schedule some depression counseling.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

More Wacky War Wonderment

For documentation and reference, here is an argument ongoing in regards to my piece about levels of violence (block quote = original, then my response, italicized is the nuttiness, and my last following):

First, as the 'occupying power' we are responsible for law and order in Iraq. I don't think we are responsible for Columbia, etc.
So you glibly ignore my argument? If its just about the numbers, then for a war zone its pretty tame. And the responsibility thing, hmmm, peaceniks don't want to be responsible for much. But how to stay with the peace and harmony for all thing, and ignore such violence simply because 'we' are not responsible? Irregardless, my argument was not about the lefts need for atrocities in the news cycle, simply about large numbers of people, and what level of violence they had.

So....there's 20 times the terrorist death rate in Iraq than in Columbia...not counting what the US does. And Scrub proclaimed that the war was over (remember the speech on the USS Lincoln?) Just what was your argument again? The US destroys the infrastructure of Iraq, so the Iraqis are to blame?.....

Second, the deaths in Iraq are a direct result of US foreign policy actions.
Here is where you nutters are so ignorant. Threat denial, and always falling back to the stock "U.S. collective guilt" answer.

Rant, rant. Then name call. How much "terrorism" was there in Iraq before 2002? None. It came with the US invasion. So, who IS responsible? Little green men?

Third, if the CCCRW's had followed the universal advise given them by their own military, State Department and numerous NGO's, they would have used a military force which could have controlled Iraq and prevented the current situation.
This is a platitude, there were plenty of said officials for the plan as executed, advice becomes universal in the mind of a peacenik kook. Hindsight is convenient, and I agree, two factors would have limited the current violence, more U.S. troops, and retention of Iraqi forces (keep them off the street). Throw in the big buck construction debacle.

Ah, the "nobody told us" argument. Won't fly. Several generals told them. Planners in the CIA told them. NGO's on contract told them (and were never consulted again) Rummie et all were told many times by many sources months ahead and they chose to ignore the warnings and live in a world of make believe. Now, exactly who, outside of Rummies direct advisors and the Bush CCCRW insiders, said the plan was great? Not even Tommy Franks, who went back AT LEAST three times with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 380,000 troops.

Fourth, there already IS a civil war going on, and has been for some time.
Strange definition of civil war you lefties have. There certainly is sectarian violence. And the Sunnis and Shiites aren't going to love each other soon. But civil war it isn't. Now, if the unified government splits up and the Iraqi army splits up, and there is pitched battles over territory, then I will give you the civil war bit.

What's a civil war? It's not defined by the number of dead. When the citizens of a country (Iraq or US) take up arms against each other (Shia vs Sunni militias or US army vs Confederate volunteers) in order to settle political issues (control of Baghdad, oil, religious shrines, control of government or states rights, slavery, control of congress), then you have a Civil War regardless of the level of intensity of the conflict. Iraq sure looks like a civil war, and the intensity seems to be rising.

Fifth, a number of those bodies appear to be the result of US military forces murdering innocent civilians.....did the marines think that the ol'guy in the wheelchair was an insurgent? How about the little kids?
Yep, war is an awful thing. But you don't address my argument, just throw typical lefty claims in the air. Show me actual statistics on proved murders committed by U.S. troops (not leftist media claims), and I think you would be safer in many places in Iraq patrolled by Marines than say, Compton, Wash D.C, Trenton... Certainly you would be safer in Iraq than in Columbia.

Ah shucks, ain't war awful. Well, yes, but that's not an excuse for what the Marines did. "It's just what happens in war" is a BS excuse and it don't fly either. Cold blooded murder is what it is, and there isn't an excuse for it.....welcome to Mai Lai. About being safer in DC, r u making a pro gun control argument?

Apparently you still don't get the argument. It is not about terrorists, simply about relative levels of violence. You know, perspective. Actually, Bush haters don't care much for perspective, but that's ok. I make no claim about "terrorist deaths" anywhere, just looking at levels of violent behavior among large populations. Perspective...

On the side, you bring up the gun control thing. I would happily support the old west solution of no firearms within dense urban population centers. Hawaii, for all its socialism, does not do to bad on this point. No carry, but you can own firearms. And there is publicly accessible ranges. I am all for "Leave your heat at the door..." type of control. But that is not what gun control advocates want, so I must oppose them. And from experience in the U.K. (apparently similar in other dense urban areas with strict gun control), there are a lot of stabbings. Granted, your better off statistically with a few stab wounds as opposed to a big hole in your head, but that is a different topic.

I love the 'war is over' thing. The big lib lie machine has you hooked up. Or are you to naive to understand the difference between active combat and police actions? Actually, most lib peacenik wackos don't get that one. It part of the creed now, liberal mythology alive and well. Kind of like the "Bush stole the election" meme. How did you like that special election in the 50th Cali congressional district? Ye ole culture of corruption platform works well (sarc.). Hahaha... Heehehehhehee hahahahhaaha....

So on to the Civil War debate. You claim it is a civil war, and in your argument you use: 1) the level of intensity 2) fighting over political issues. Huh? So Columbia is in a civil war, and so is South Africa! Better throw in Jamaica too. Dang, if we get away from the per capita thing, I bet we can find civil war all over the world under your definition. The only reason you want to label it a civil war is to try and claim the critical step towards failure. Yes, critical for your philosophies political existence, and hence the tendency is to engender and support increased criticism of our Country, our Military, and our President.

Now lets see about this last point. Murder is not acceptable. If they (Marines) committed such acts, they will be prosecuted. Yet, this is a fight is it not? It is a good idea to fight Islamofascism, at least that is my position. To claim we created the problem is asinine. And to bristle at my "War is Hell" rhetoric is disingenuous. Your the one who wants to parade around civilian tragedies, and blame our forces. That is whats truly distasteful. Liberal peacenik nutters really do not see tyranny, and end up in their actions enabling such.

As to Mai Lai, if you are trying to make this Vietnam again, you must have memory loss. There is no free fire zone, no systematic policy of shooting anything that moves, no excuse for breaking clear guidelines of the modern military. Furthermore, even with Vietnam, as horrible as that incident was, there is no proof of systematic abuses. There are a whole lot of allegations (a popular pastime in the early 70's), but not much in the way of proof. I am not making lite of any abuse, but nutter claims are just that, claims. As for real, documented, systematic abuse, turn to Cambodia, or just stay in South Vietnam, in the time after we left. But peacenik nutters don't seem to be bothered by such.

Come on up to the real world. Furthermore, it isn't "the Marines" as you state, it's a few Marines, who have not even been charged yet. Oh, I see the Anbar region has been transferred to Iraqi control. A few more to go. Hey, where are all your statistics on how many murders committed by Marines? Now that I have 'ranted' some more, I leave you with this last thought: the irrational peacenik nutter platform couldn't even beat Bush in re-election, so keep at it!

Monday, June 05, 2006

Al Qaida Just a Crime Wave?

Well, concerning Haditha, if we had actual facts to pass judgment, I would make a lot more of it. If the Marines involved did respond recklessly, as indicated by some, the penalty should be severe. And I think its in the best interest of the Corps to flesh it out thoroughly. However, on two accounts there is great idiocy. One, Murtha is a monster. He not only pandered politically in the most disgusting manner, but he jeopardized the fairness of the Military Justice system in this case. Doubly an idiot, he is as former of a Marine as you can get and still be breathing. On the other popular charge, of systematic abuses, which is fair game on the rhetoric side, though clearly untrue, I found some of the statistics interesting. If we have seen around 800,000 personnel in country or rotate through in three years, what should we expect? Look to per capita murder rates. Lets take the worst case, peaceful Columbia. If one third of the total deployed represent a years population, we should expect 165 murders, if it was a Colombian army. How about for the U.S.? Around eleven. Big difference! But what about within the U.S., say a peaceful place like our nations capital? Get the firearms death rate for Washington D.C. and we should expect in one year, among the military in Iraq approximately 81 fatal shootings. Even in Hawaii, which has the most repressive gun laws, you would still expect five or six shootings a year.

Of course this is just a relative observation, and we should expect our military to have a higher standard. Yet, they do have more stress, and easy access to lethal force. Whatever your take on the statistics, for any claim of systematic problems to even begin to express reality, there would need to be around ten incidences like the claims in Haditha. Now the Moonbats Cook Leftists claim such all the time, but that is their stock in trade. Realistically, there are probably a few incidences not known publicly, and a few accidents, but given the environment, and the nature of the combatants, it is very surprising how few of these situations have occurred. It is still a black mark, if true, and as stated before, we must have higher expectations of our enlisted men. Conversely, it is clearly specious and treacherous to impugn the whole military, or any branch, of systematically perpetrating such abuses. As a final thought, the per capital total for Iraq puts it squarely between Jamaica at 0.324 per thousand and South Africa at 0.496, numbers three and two on the list. So, who is screaming about civil war in South Africa? And why is there no cry for peace in Jamaica? Let alone the superior effectiveness of Colombian drug gangs (#1 on the list) versus the insurgents in Iraq. Could we now claim that Al Qaida is just a mediocre crime syndicate?