|
 |
November 16, 2003 CAN WE BRING NATO IN?....I took a quick stroll around the pro-war blogosphere just now because I was curious to see its reaction to the news that we're accelerating the transfer of power to the Iraqis. There's surprisingly little comment about it, actually, but a few people seem pretty seriously pissed off, including Sebastian Holsclaw, Tacitus, and Armed Liberal. Well, if they're pissed now, I don't want to be anywhere near them if this turns out to be true:
Bring NATO in? These guys are sounding more and more like Democrats every day. I have a hard time believing that the Bush administration will ever be willing to make the painful concessions necessary to get NATO cooperation, but the fact that they're even thinking about it is a turnabout of startling proportions. This state visit to Britain is already full of surprises, and it's just barely started. Posted by Kevin Drum at November 16, 2003 10:03 PM | TrackBackComments
France said it was going to help the US once the sovereignity
transfer was going to happen, in other words France accepted to cover up
the dysfunctionnal problems of the DOD as an exit strategy. WE always
been consistent in our thinking and we won't change our mind. Given that Solana is the EU foreign policy chief, I'll hold off on giving this too much credit until the administration confirms it. Sounds a little too much like someone might be trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Posted by: David at November 16, 2003 10:27 PM | PERMALINKThe state visit you refer to is going to be a low point for both Bush and Blair, although it'll be the latter who suffers the greatest damage. For a year he's hitched his wagon to Bush's and has only suffered as a result. For Bush, I don't see how the spectacle of angry Londoners, be they protestors or folks simply inconvenienced by the security measures, helps his cause much. As to NATO and the European powers, they have played this brilliantly, which is far more than the neo-cons can say. France in particular always wanted to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, but didn't see the need to piss off the French public by going along from the get-go. More importantly, they were able to avoid the ugliness that has taken place there and were thus able to put the U.S. between a rock and a hard place. In the end, the U.S. will have to eat a Thanksgiving dinner's worth of crow in order to pull off an exit strategy from Iraq, and the Bushies will choke on it the entire way. Posted by: eugene at November 16, 2003 10:30 PM | PERMALINKI just read the article from the Independent and needless to say this was a jaw dropper. I hope it's true. It is becoming almost impossible to paint the conflict as anything but a looming disaster. America needs help and the sooner we get it the better. The go-it-alone philosophy is out of date and needs to be exorcised from American mentality. It just seems to me that America is growing into Goliath. It only took a little boy, a slingshot and a stone to take Goliath down. I don't particularly care for my counrty to be the Goliath of the world. Posted by: RitaM at November 16, 2003 10:32 PM | PERMALINK"These guys are sounding more and more like Democrats every day." That's just the Janus nature of the republicrat rearing it's ugly head. Despite the surface similarities, this policy and the Democrats' policy are quite different. Namely, the former is Good and the latter Evul. Look, over there! An open school! Posted by: Realish at November 16, 2003 10:35 PM | PERMALINKNop, there has been a PR with Chirac and Schroeder but it seems like
it has never been revealed. We would prefer not to see Bush though for a
second mandat. Hmm neither a democrat. A libertarian would be kewl. The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power... Somehow, I doubt it has much to do with 'avoiding humiliating
failure' than it does with 'hoping to get reelected' -- I'd buy
'humiliating failure' if we were 'bogged down' nowhere near Baghdad,
Turkey had invaded or caused civil disruption in the north, and our
death rate in Iraq far exceeded the military death rate at home. bush (actually Condi) must have read Wes Clark's book. Now all he has to do is let go of all those oil contracts. Posted by: obruni at November 16, 2003 11:02 PM | PERMALINKFrenchy, not trying to be snide, but what's a mandat? Seriously, if you could repost your first paragraph in French I might be able to see your point... again, I don't mean to be snide. And was that the real Tacitus posting above? Yep, it's me. I'll hold off on the aneurysm till the Solana quote gets corroborated elsewhere -- he's hot off another gaffe wherein he hinted, utterly wrongly, that the Germans were ready to send troops to Iraq -- but if it is corroborated, well.... Posted by: Tacitus at November 16, 2003 11:08 PM | PERMALINKTacitus: don't do that. At the very least, wait to see it it's true. It's not as if the Indpendent has a sterling track record on this kind of speculation. But if it does turn out to be true, I won't blame you if your head explodes. Mine is coming close to that too. Thersites: yep, he's the real McCoy! Posted by: Kevin Drum at November 16, 2003 11:09 PM | PERMALINKBonus points for the person who figures out where the aneurysm line is from, by the way. Posted by: Tacitus at November 16, 2003 11:13 PM | PERMALINKBlair could make out quite well if Bush makes some kind of announcment while in the UK about passing authority over to some multilateral power. Blair could be seen to be the bridge between Europe and Bush that he wants to be. Now, so far Bush has done nothing to help Blair and I wouldn't expect him to do this out of any sense of, you know, owing Blair anything. But, on the other hand, there's real debate in England about whether their troops should come home, and with Blair doing so horribly, he could actually get pulled in a vote of non-confidence. So, maybe Bush would have something to gain by trying to boost Blair's image at home. And Rove knows from experience that they can reverse course, bring in Europe, hand over authority to Iraqis or NATO or whomever they want, and so long as they start bringing home lots of well-publicized living soldiers (rather than the dead ones they try to cover up), and so long as they say "this is what we planned all along" over and over again, then eventually everyone will just stop asking questions. Or at least, so he hopes. Posted by: dalai at November 16, 2003 11:27 PM | PERMALINKThat whiff of desperation emanating from Bush is quickly turning into a stench. Posted by: susan at November 16, 2003 11:28 PM | PERMALINKOf course, once the Bushies turn us around 180 degrees by suddenly announcing the internationalization of the Iraq occupation, their new talking points will be full of nonsense like "This was our plan all along!", much like the creation of the Homeland Security department... Posted by: Rammy at November 17, 2003 12:01 AM | PERMALINKWell, if it helps get less Americans killed in Iraq, I'd be all for bringing in NATO. If they brought a couple of extra divisions, it would seem to be well worth it. Posted by: Timothy Klein at November 17, 2003 12:03 AM | PERMALINKTacitus is a joke. I mean, I accept that the one posting here is the real deal - it's the comments that are absurd. Is one really supposed to see international control of US troops as a bad thing? We obviously haven't been doing so well at this going it alone, so international control won't make it worse. It is also no small matter that it would bring in needed reinforcements. Of course, Tacitus' brain need not aneurize, because we all know that even when there is a structure of "international control", the US still wields tremendous influence over that structure, if not outright leadership of it. The key question for folks like Chirac and Schroeder is whether or not the US is offering a fig leaf or something more substantial. Posted by: eugene at November 17, 2003 12:14 AM | PERMALINKEugene, international control could most definitely make things worse. Let's not forget where Boutros Boutros Ghali's personal vendettas got us in Somalia. And yes, international control could make things better, particularly if a Flemish savant took control of our destiny. Is that likely? Who knows? All in all, why not blaze our own trail? The only remotely plausible reason for international command of American forces in Iraq that doesn't amount to political window dressing is a substantial infusion of soldiers. I'm talking divisions, here. Since that's not going to happen in a blue moon, let's abandon the notion that international control is a desireable thing. If it happens, it will be for, at best, cosmetic reasons. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 12:24 AM | PERMALINK
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-airborne17nov17,1,1498439.story?coll=la-home-headlines Posted by: me at November 17, 2003 12:28 AM | PERMALINKFrom "me"'s link: He ordered the detention of a popular religious leader and a well-known tribal chief when evidence surfaced linking them to the armed opposition. To the many former high-ranking Iraqi officers lying low in this caldron of anti-U.S. sentiment, he has issued a stern warning: "We're going to take 'em down one at a time." The Pentagon is proclaiming a get-tough approach — dubbed Operation
Iron Hammer — in the Sunni Muslim heartland of central and western Iraq,
where a stubborn insurgency has cost the lives of growing numbers of
U.S.-led troops, stalled the national reconstruction effort and
contributed to an intense political debate in Washington. The article seems mostly laudatory and describes a mix (to me half-nuts half-sane) of actions against secular foes in Falluja. See Tacitus for tactical analysis. Posted by: rilkefan at November 17, 2003 12:40 AM | PERMALINKDoes no one notice the amazing and coincidental changes in the Bush Administration's Iraq Policy just a week after Wesley Clark's speech in South Carolina November 6 on his outline for success in Iraq? There are some remarkable similarities. http://clark04.com/speeches/009/ Posted by: Barbara S at November 17, 2003 02:12 AM | PERMALINKIt seems like Clark is the only person who knows what he's talking about. Posted by: Old Hat at November 17, 2003 02:17 AM | PERMALINKTacitus, baby. Sorry you had to feel so protective. What did I say? To answer my own question, I said (to one of your commenters): "I'm sure you're proud that your son was ill-informed enough to lay his life on the line for the likes of GWBush and his handlers. "Patriots" like you make me sick." On the basis of that you banned me from commenting on your site? Guess I can't complain too much, it IS your site. You can be as thin-skinned as you like. (NB: the past tense in my offending remark should NOT be understood to mean that the commenter's son actually died for Bush's lies, merely that he had put his butt on the line for Bush's lies. As far as I know, the commenter's son is alive and well, occupying Iraq to advance the interests of U.S. oil interests. Life is good.) Posted by: Pretentius at November 17, 2003 02:40 AM | PERMALINKPretentius, you were talking to patriots - maybe misguided ones, but the scare quotes are insulting. And your entire quoted comment is in questionable taste. And this is Kevin Drum's blog. You can argue with Tacitus over email. In this thread he's showing his usual admirable ability to test his beliefs against reality, and his address isn't bogus. Posted by: rilkefan at November 17, 2003 03:08 AM | PERMALINKi think NATO involvement should not really be a problem for the
warbloggers in that their stance was always that internationalisation
wouldn't help, but I'm not aware of anyone really saying it'll hurt.
Heck, being against something that might possibly work is hardly
characteristic of them. Hold on there -- this is the Independdent -- a paper that is not likely to have sources within the Bush administration. I'd hold off on believing this one 'til someone else reports it. Posted by: pj at November 17, 2003 04:36 AM | PERMALINKThey'd better grab Saddam before June, or there could be a surprisingly high number of votes for the write-in candidate, "Hussein, S." Posted by: ChrisL at November 17, 2003 04:38 AM | PERMALINKOn the basis of that you banned me from commenting on your site? You mocked a father for his son's willingness to fight for his country in Iraq, and derided his possible death there. You don't have to support the war to agree that that's remarkably callous and cruel behavior. Banning is the least you deserve. But as Rilkefan points out, this is Kevin Drum's site. You're welcome to plead your case over e-mail. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 05:05 AM | PERMALINKNo self-righteousness from you, Tacitus, please: you followed up
banning Pretentius by yourself mocking the family of Rachel Corrie (and
Rachel Corrie herself). You don't have to support non-violent direct
action against the Israeli occupation in Palestine to agree that that's
remarkably callous and cruel behavior. Once more, Jesurgislac: There's no equivalency there. One is a public figure in a squalid cause; the other is a private figure in a noble endeavor. Not that you differentiate between the two. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 05:49 AM | PERMALINKActually, let me short-circuit this XXXVIII Round of CorrieFest right here. If you want to continue, come to my site or drop me an e-mail. This really doesn't belong here. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 06:13 AM | PERMALINKBring Nato in? Oh, gawd, another government program seeking a further lease on life long after its reason for being has ended. It was bad enough when Clinton turned Nato from a defensive operation into an offensive one in the war against Yugoslavia/Serbia. That experience illustrated Nato's weaknesses, which the Shrub malAdministration largely avoided in Afghanistan by keeping Nato at arms length during the offensive phase of the war there. Now there's talk about getting Nato involved again in an offensive operation in Iraq? At least one could try to make an argument--lousy though it may be--that the Balkins were in Europe, and try to justify Nato operations there. But Iraq? That's ludicrous. Nato is just another government program trying to justify its continued existence long after it should have been dismantled. Posted by: raj at November 17, 2003 06:27 AM | PERMALINKThere's no equivalency there. One is a public figure in a squalid cause; the other is a private figure in a noble endeavor. Not that you differentiate between the two. What that amounts to, Tacitus, is that it's fine with you to mock people who support causes you don't agree with: it puts you precisely on the same moral level as Pretentius. "One is a public figure in a squalid cause; the other is a private figure in a noble endeavor." And it's debatable which is which. People, there's been a lot said about civility in these discussions lately. Shouldn't we at least be able to agree that mocking the dead or those in mortal peril is out of line? Posted by: rea at November 17, 2003 06:44 AM | PERMALINKNATO can't hurt but since Britain accounts for most of NATO's combat-ready forces after the United States I'm skeptical of any military value. The Germans already have some of their better units in Afghanistan and the French might be able to come up with 10,000 men if you include the Foreign Legion units who are always " good to go ". Most of NATO are just free riders on Anglo-American and Franco-German forces and the latter have degraded their logistical abilities since 1991 to the point where their armies are virtually immobile without American airlift and support. Secondly, their doctrinal adherence to Protocol I addition to Geneva renders non-American NATO forces relatively useless against guerillas and irregulars until the latter are mounting battalion-sized overt attacks. I suppose every NATO soldier frees up an American or British soldier for more active tasks so bring them in. The stubborness in pursuing a global war on the cheap with a peacetime sized American military has its political costs. ( The United States could afford 18 divisions- more armor to boot- with a 6 trillion GDP but only 10 divisions today with a 10 + trillion GDP ? This is simply a budget choice not a necessity) Posted by: mark safranski at November 17, 2003 06:50 AM | PERMALINKOthers have already pointed out the stunning similarities of Bushco's ever-changing Iraq policy to those set forth by Clark. Guess we know which person is the real leader here. I suppose if it works, Bushco will be claiming success. If it fails, I am sure he will be the first to blame Clark. But if this article is true and it becomes actual policy, lets hope it works for the sake of all those in Iraq because it's obvious that what we are doing now is failing. Posted by: emal at November 17, 2003 06:52 AM | PERMALINKShouldn't we at least be able to agree that mocking the dead or those in mortal peril is out of line? That's my position, certainly. The thought of the Bushies "giving up control" is ludicrous. If they did, it would be a sham. The thought of NATO being sucked in to the war on these terms is equally ludicrous, they would know it was a sham. In this regard, it is therefore imperative to place this report in proper context. Were the bars just about to close when this alleged conversation took place? Posted by: bobbyp at November 17, 2003 07:01 AM | PERMALINKBush didn't use the actual word "imminent," did he, so therefore he always had meant that there was no imminent threat. Likewise, he never SAID "Screw you, NATO, we'll go it alone," so what he really always meant was, we need NATO, and we'll make every effort to get them to come aboard. When they do, it will be on terms that the White House had always insisted upon. Posted by: phein at November 17, 2003 07:09 AM | PERMALINKBringing NATO in? These guys are sounding more and more like Democrats every day. Democrats??? (Clark version of Dem maybe but certainly not mine or Deans version) retiring Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen OH I see, and who does Bush want appointing to NATO now that Robertson has suddenly decided retirement is a good thing? This move is just another Bush snow job-like that last UN resolution that Bush got which had no meaning whatsoever? Bush isn't turn over our troops to NATO if indeed we control NATO and we pretty much do. Remember why now the Bushie were pretty upset that "the meeting of chocolate makers" decided to go start their own group-asking other EU members to join them - because the US control to much of NATO. Well at least now we (Dems) know just how screwy Clark's take it to NATO talk has been and his "-- I am too really am a liberal" BS has been as well. And here we all thought Clark was really trying to do something-and how much of this does Bill Clinton approve of-being a PNAC man and regime change kind of guy himself???? But still the US screws the UN--(the real Democrat version) THERE is NO change here Kevin. We own NATO and we own Annan Kofi too-case you haven't noticed that either. It's why Annan Kofi replaces his staff members whenever Bush tells him too....Annan Kofi gets his pay check from US funded sources same as NATO is mostly funded by the US too. Posted by: Cheryl at November 17, 2003 07:23 AM | PERMALINKYeah, so exactly what votes are there to send Germans to Iraq? None. Handing the occupation over to NATO doesn't solve the simple problem: it's still an occupation. As last week attack on the Italians showed, as long as there is an occupying force, Iraqis will resist it. I don't care who runs it. We're past the UN or NATO taking over. Why? Because NATO HQ would get carbombed just like the Red Cross and UN were bombed. Tom Friedman is right about one thing. It only matters what people say in public. Sistani isn't calling for NATO, Sadr isn't calling for NATO. They want elections so they can take over. And you can bet their plans don't call for NATO to be in Iraq. We need to sit down with the real powers in the country, not our handpicked exiles or some tribal chiefs and negotiate a way home without some kind of violent bloodletting. All this talk about fixing Iraq is belied by Iraqi disinterest in assisting the occupation. They watch Americans die and remain silent or actively aid the resistance. In a country where informants once were the bane of decent people, we still have no idea of the structure of the resistance. Why is that? How can Wolfowitz come within feet of being killed? How do teams shoot down our helicopters and escape? Because a few people hate Americans? Unlikely. Posted by: steve_gilliard at November 17, 2003 07:29 AM | PERMALINKI think this sucks. They bring in Nato, bug out in the spring and summer with big parades, and then when the civil war breaks out in the fall, they say "See We left Iraq in great shape, but the damn French are causing chaos and deaths." These people are total scum Posted by: bob mcmanus at November 17, 2003 07:47 AM | PERMALINKThe Bush II Administration is like a weather vane. It keeps pointing in what ever direction the wind is blowing. Since there is no leadership at the top, decisions are flowing down to lowest levels. Thus, the 101st Airborne pacification effort is more “minds and hearts” than Ivy Division’s “kill the hajii’s” Posted by: Jim S at November 17, 2003 07:58 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Steve -- and would also like to point out the camel in the tent: NO Army of Occupation can bring stability to Iraq, no matter whether it is American Coaltion, NATO, or Arab League. The Iraqi people will ONLY accept an Iraqi Security Force, and it's doubtful that an Iraqi Army or Police Force created by the Occupiers will be accepted. The biggest mistake the NeoCon radicals on the Bush Team made was disbanding the Iraqi Army. The James Baker Insitute, other think tanks, The State Department, and General Gardner ALL wanted to keep the Iraq Army intact -- with a selective purge of Saddam Loyalists from the officer corps. Even now, even with former Iraqi soldiers involved in the resistance, reforming the Iraqi Army may be the only way to stabilize the country. With security on the streets in the hands of the Iraqi Army, and the civil administration in the hands of a council seltected by Iraqi Tribal and Religious Leaders, the United States will be able to draw down our troop strength, while maintaining enough of a presence to avoid a coup by an ambitious officer. As for the Independent article -- it doesn't matter what the Bushies do, no one is going to bail us out. The best we can hope for is that the Iraqi people prefer stability to civil war, and they will subordinate their sectarian rivalries for the good of the country. But we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that an Occupying Power can impose it's will on Iraq. It cannot be done. Posted by: Charles K at November 17, 2003 08:00 AM | PERMALINKbob, "You mocked a father for his son's willingness to fight for his country in Iraq, and derided his possible death there. You don't have to support the war to agree that that's remarkably callous and cruel behavior. Banning is the least you deserve." Pooor taci. He sounds like such a brave girl. But of course, we all know that you are only allowed to (and strongly encouraged to) mock dead anti-war protestors or dead twenty year old women on Tacitus' site. It's best if you put up photos when you do so in order to really drive the point home to the deceased's family what a despised loser the family's loved one was. Extra points if you can outrage people on the left in the process. Don't look for consistency or fairness on that site. It's is a GOP site, afterall. Posted by: obe at November 17, 2003 08:48 AM | PERMALINKI'm having a really hard time believing this report. I just cannot envision a scenario where the Bush administration would accept any real "international control" of U.S. troops in Iraq. Absent any further confirmation, I'm going to ignore that part of the report. Speeding up the handoff? Well, that's not exactly a surprise and it appears to be precisely what the Bush administration is doing. Short-term, it might even work. Long-term? I'm not placing any bets. The cynic in me says that Rove is trying to make sure that Iraq will either be a non-story or a "success" story for the 2004 election, regardless of what will happen in the long-term. Can anyone think of a reason why I shouldn't listen to my inner cynic? Posted by: PaulB at November 17, 2003 08:53 AM | PERMALINKi think tacitus is actually very fair. Posted by: praktike at November 17, 2003 08:54 AM | PERMALINKWhat is the point of bringing in NATO? Apart from the USA only three NATO countries have serious militaries, Britain, Turkey and France. Britain is already there, Turkey has been asked by the IGC not to come so the only additional source of troops would be France. France is not exactly considered trustworthy by the administration, so I don't think that it can happen. Posted by: Gracho at November 17, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINKi think tacitus is actually very fair. He has his moments. There is a good deal of integrity and good will in him. Unfortunately, he's also a bit of a bigot - a prime example of how (as recently discussed on his blog) bigots can have good in them as well as bad. The recent example where Tacitus banned Pretentius for mocking a US servicemnan in Iraq, and yet himself mocked Rachel Corrie and her family, was simple bigotry: Tacitus plainly doesn't even see why mockery was wrong in both cases. And unfortunately, bigots can't see past their bigotry. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 17, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINK"i think tacitus is actually very fair." Yes, it is fair to mock the actual death of someone's young daughter whose views you do not agree with while banning people for mocking the potential death of someone's son whose views you do agree with. Very fair indeed! But this is a side issue not worth dwelling on. Double standards and hypocrisy are par for the course these days. Posted by: OBE at November 17, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKJesurgislac at least has the spine to come to my site and take his lumps, Obe. I've never really seen you do anything but shriek safely ensconced in leftyland. Like I said, come on over and/or e-mail me if your knickers are in a twist. But do Kevin a favor and stop hijacking his thread every time I garner your attention. The obsession is worthy of Donald Luskin. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 09:19 AM | PERMALINKThe cynic in me says that Rove is trying to make sure that Iraq will either be a non-story or a "success" story for the 2004 election, regardless of what will happen in the long-term. Can anyone think of a reason why I shouldn't listen to my inner cynic? No. I think that's exactly what's happening. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 17, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINKNATO willing to help? Not if this is an indication: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1034286_1_A,00.html Berlin Contradicts EU's Solana on Iraq - (Deutsche Welle, 11-15-2003) The German government on Saturday reiterated it would not send troops to help stabilize Iraq, contradicting EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who said Berlin was no longer opposed helping out militarily. Germany, one of the staunchest opponents of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, remains steadfast in its refusal to send soldiers to Iraq, despite growing worries amongst the international community that the country is becoming increasingly unstable. A government spokesman denied Berlin’s position had changed after EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana reportedly said German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was no longer “fundamentally” against sending troops. Solana met with Schröder last week and later gave an interview to the Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “Germany at the moment rejects deploying soldiers to Iraq – but not fundamentally. If NATO is asked by the United Nations to take part in the stabilization of the country, then there is a new question of military engagement for each member of the alliance,” Solana told the paper. According to the German news agency DPA, the government spokesman said Schröder had made it “very clear” to Solana that Berlin was sticking to previous position against military involvement and that his comments were possibly based on a misunderstanding. ... Posted by: David W. at November 17, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKWhat is the point of bringing in NATO? The point of internationalization is that a number of countries, both within and without NATO, that are reluctant to be involved have expressed some willingness to consider being involved if there was genuine internationalization. (Outside of NATO, India comes to mind). Some have argued it would also demonstrate to Iraqis that the US isn't interested in seizing resources -- I'm not as convinced that internationalization under NATO auspices particularly would do that, but it might help a little. France is not exactly considered trustworthy by the administration, so I don't think that it can happen. Well, that would be a point as to why it might be less likely under this administration. Posted by: cmdicely at November 17, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINKWhy am I not surprised, given Schroeder's minimal reelection last year. The French are in Africa and Afghanistan, they don't have the troops to spare. Even if they did, they don't have the votes to approve it. There are no extra troops for this plan and haven't been since June. Solana wants to open a door for Bush, but the only people with a key are the Iraqi resistance. Posted by: steve_gilliard at November 17, 2003 09:56 AM | PERMALINKI think the two car bombs in Bombay took care of any Indian plans for intervention. Pakistan didn't even need that much to pass. Posted by: steve_gilliard at November 17, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINKThey call it Mumbai now. "Bombay" sends the wrong message. They're too close to Sri Lanka, where the Tamils invented suicide bombing, Posted by: Zizka at November 17, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINKBonus points for the person who figures out where the aneurysm line is from, by the way. Tacitus--were you referring to Colin Powell's famous description of what he thought when Madeleine Albright asked him (something like) "why do we have such a great military if you guys never want to use it?" vis-a-vis the Balkans? Posted by: Haggai at November 17, 2003 10:13 AM | PERMALINKI seem to recall the "real" Tacitus referring to himself as "the fake Tacitus." I, not the previous "David" who posted, am the real David. What is reality -Pearl Bailey Incidentally, my musical tastes withstanding, I'm not gay. Really. Posted by: David at November 17, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKGerman troups are also engaged in Afghanistan. One obvious difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan is viewed--at least in Germany--as being nominally a Nato action, related to the attack on the WTC, while the US adventure in Iraq is not viewed as being even closely related. Posted by: raj at November 17, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINKI have mocked no one. Tacitus: I don't want private discussions. We'll deal with this publicly or not at all. "Secrecy is a monstrous canard." Ian Masters 7/18/99 Posted by: Pretentius at November 17, 2003 10:57 AM | PERMALINKGerman troups are also engaged in Afghanistan. One obvious difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Afghanistan is viewed--at least in Germany--as being nominally a Nato action, related to the attack on the WTC, while the US adventure in Iraq is not viewed as being even closely related. There is an official NATO operation in Afghanistan, unless I'm badly mistaken; its not just some wacky German perception. Posted by: cmdicely at November 17, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINKI seem to recall the "real" Tacitus referring to himself as "the fake Tacitus." Because the real real Tacitus died 2000-odd years ago. :-) Posted by: Geoduck at November 17, 2003 11:35 AM | PERMALINKThere are combinations of words that just don't seem to fit together for some reason. Like "wacky" and "Germans" for instance. Posted by: BruceR at November 17, 2003 11:51 AM | PERMALINKGlad that somebody finally noticed what I've known for many years, Tacitus. :) Of course, being the liberal interventionist that I am, I agree with where Albright was coming from in that conversation. Posted by: Haggai at November 17, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINK"There is an official NATO operation in Afghanistan, unless I'm badly mistaken" I believe that is correct. But I also believe that the US operation in Afghanistan--at least during the early days of the war there--was independent of Nato, so I didn't want to . Posted by: raj at November 17, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINKBringing in the U.N. or NATO might not be such a bad idea. Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Mozambique, Uganda...all these countries have slowly put their houses in order with help of the international community. You can cite the U.N's failures, but it has learned tough lessons in dealing with peacekeeping and nation-building. NATO has done an excellent job in Kabul and there's no doubt that if Europe was willing to do so, it could do the same throughout the whole country. Posted by: Arash at November 17, 2003 12:22 PM | PERMALINK...so I didn't want to go out on a limb and say so for sure. Posted by: raj at November 17, 2003 12:22 PM | PERMALINK"Jesurgislac at least has the spine to come to my site and take his lumps, Obe. I've never really seen you do anything but shriek safely ensconced in leftyland." Ummm, I (along with a slew of others) happened to get banned by your hypocritical ass for complaining about the Rachel Courie pics the day they were posted (which i believe was the day after she was killed). Now why in god's name would I ever want to return? And what for? To hear you spew your ugly bigotry and to endure your infantile insults? No thanks! Posted by: OBE at November 17, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINKYou were unbanned a long time ago, Obe -- and I even told you when I did it, if I recall correctly. Although now that I'm checking, I can't find you anywhere on my site....hm. Were you posting under a different name? Anyway, if you can't face up to it, it's on you. Lack of backbone, in my book. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINK"What that amounts to, Tacitus, is that it's fine with you to mock people who support causes you don't agree with: it puts you precisely on the same moral level as Pretentius." Yep. And more then that, death is death. Provided Pretentius mocked the father, you are just as reprehencable as he is. Posted by: Ragdrazi at November 17, 2003 02:02 PM | PERMALINKTacitus, you banned people for complaining about Rachel Corrie pics? That doesn't seem your style. Posted by: freelixir at November 17, 2003 02:13 PM | PERMALINKJesus, Tacitus, why would any of us want to go to your site, and why would we want you here? Politically we're trying to beat you and you're trying to beat us. There's nothing much to talk about. You're not exactly someone in the undecided middle whom we can persuade. I'm not sorry I missed your nasty Corrie shit and any comment I would have made would have been sputtering and uncivil -- your goal, I'm sure. And apparently once one of is unbanned from your site, we have an obligation to visit again. Jesus one more time. Posted by: Zizka at November 17, 2003 02:14 PM | PERMALINKComments here are like O'Hare: everyone in the world comes by. They're usually civil and always fascinating. Thank you, Kevin, for maintaining and managing the General Assembly of World Bloggers.com. Posted by: clio at November 17, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKRagdrazi, I trust that on some level you realize that which Jesurgislac and others in their relativist zeal staunchly refuse to acknowledge -- not all deaths are equal. We need not honor the memory of those who died for evil causes, be they SS battle dead, or al Qaeda fanatics, or terror apologists. I consider Rachel Corrie to have died willingly for such a cause, and so I do not respect her sacrifice as I would the sacrifice of an American soldier in Iraq. This is not to say that I do not sympathize with her family for their tragic loss, nor that I think she deserved her grisly fate. I simply see no need to fetishize the girl. Freelixir, no one ever gets banned from my site without having violated the posting rules. Rest assured that Obe, in his inability to civilly disagree, did. Still busily negating your goal of not talking to right-wingers, eh Zizka? And now your hypothetical spluttering foolishness is my fault: I guess it's good to cover your bases. Best of luck in pursuit of your stated dream -- we'll both be glad when you achieve it. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 03:44 PM | PERMALINKI simply see no need to fetishize the girl. Then why did you do so? Fetishizing can be hostile, too, you know. Posted by: cmdicely at November 17, 2003 03:56 PM | PERMALINKTacitus, the problem is that I am unable to see why you consider someone who died for the principle that Israelis should not destroy Palestinian homes as having died for an evil cause. I can only put it down to your anti-Islamic bigotry. FWIW, I think the US invasion of Iraq was an evil cause (or rather, I disbelieve Bush's claims that he wanted to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons). Yet I would not dream of mocking a soldier who sincerely believes it's a good cause and who is willing to put his/her life on the line for it - nor would I mock the parent of a soldier for caring about their child and believing in the cause for which their child is risking her/his life. Therein lies the difference between you and me: You think it's perfectly fine to mock those with whom you are in political disagreement: I think that people who are willing to risk their lives deserve respect. I agreed with you when you banned Pretentius: I thought he was obnoxious. But you failed to live up to the basic standard of courtesy you'd set Pretentius when you mocked Rachel Corrie and her family. That was obnoxious. Disagree with her and her family all you like: but you can at least be civil where you disagree. That's what you claim your posting rules are - and, if you weren't blinded by bigotry, I do you the credit of believing you would realise you need to keep the rules of civility you lay down for the others. Even decent people can be bigots: but that doesn't make their bigotry decent. I'd say this on your blog, but you don't have an current open thread or a relevant one, and since the topic's come up anyway, I'll discuss it here until Kevin tells us to leave off.
Tacitus, the problem is that I am unable to see why you consider someone who died for the principle that Israelis should not destroy Palestinian homes as having died for an evil cause. Tacitus apparently thinks that not supporting the crime of collective punishment is the same thing as supporting terrorism. Despite the fact that, as a violent act, outside of international
law, targetting a civilian population for the purpose of intimidating
them into a course of political action, such collective punishment
itself is terrorism. cmdicely, you're the clarion voice of ignorance. I suggest hurrying along to my site to see why. Tacitus, the problem is that I am unable to see why you consider someone who died for the principle that Israelis should not destroy Palestinian homes as having died for an evil cause. Leaving aside the tedious arguments over whether she actually was defending a home, and not a concealed arms-running tunnel, the fact is that ISM is an organization deeply complicit in aiding and condoning Palestinian terrorism. She died in their service, furthering their cause, and I do not respect that. I can only put it down to your anti-Islamic bigotry. Tedious, Jesurgislac. Your bar for "bigotry" is set ludicrously low; by its standards, I have more than enough ammo to tar you as an anti-American "bigot." Or an anti-Israeli "bigot." It would be too easy. I think that people who are willing to risk their lives deserve respect. And I think it all depends on what they risk their lives for. Your standard accords respect to those who risk their lives by detonating themselves in crowded pizzerias. And maybe you do respect those individuals on some level; but that's a sewer I'm not descending into. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 04:54 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, you're the clarion voice of ignorance. I suggest hurrying along to my site to see why. Well, first, "clarion voice" has got to be the worst phrase I've seen in quite some time. Second, the fact that your willing to rationalize Israeli actions that you won't support when your own government does it is bizarre, but hardly changes anything in my post. I suppose "Israeli" should be inserted before "collective punishment", for accuracy. I suppose, were I a right winger observing the disconnect between what you will accept from Israel and the US, I might ask why you hate America (well, if Israel was any country other than Israel -- apparently, the right wing is okay with any double standard that favors Israel). Of course, I'll note that your post endorses the idea of collective punishment if effective, it just bemoans that this isn't demonstrated to work. Which gets partial credit, but no more. Posted by: cmdicely at November 17, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINKSo risking one’s life for the entertainment of Republicans is a worthy cause, risking one’s life to stop the insanity of collective punishment is an unworthy one. Just so we are clear. And yes, the invasion of Iraq, having failed to be justified by any
of its pre-war rhetoric, is reduced to entertainment for Republicans.
Did it get rid of Hussein? Well, not exactly if he is putting out
videos exhorting the Iraqi people to violence. Did it improve the lives
of the Iraqi people? I guess that depends on who is making the call.
Did we find WMD? A nuclear bomb? A nuclear program? Is Iraq more
democratic than Iran? Is it likely to be? No, more and more it looks
like the Republican notion of a video game – entertainment without
purpose. Second, the fact that your [sic] willing to rationalize Israeli actions.... Gripe about my phrasing when you get your spelling down, chief. Reading comprehension, too. I've not mounted a defense of Israeli home demolitions. Posted by: Tacitus at November 17, 2003 07:17 PM | PERMALINKTacitus, I can't completely ignore someone stinking up about a third of a long thread. Though I tried. I still do come around to Kevin's even though you're here fighting so nastily for civility. Posted by: Zizka at November 17, 2003 08:27 PM | PERMALINKLeaving aside the tedious arguments over whether she actually was defending a home, and not a concealed arms-running tunnel Well, I can see it would be tedious for you to have to try and discover evidence that she was defending a concealed arms-running tunnel. I looked for any definite news about it, but saw only that the Israeli army had claimed that they were searching for arms and tunnels that day, and that every wingnut blog had leapt on that as fact. the fact is that ISM is an organization deeply complicit in aiding and condoning Palestinian terrorism. And that is a piece of bigotted nuttery. It's simply and plainly not true. ISM as an organization is for non-violent direct action against Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians. There has been much slandered about ISM, but nothing proved: the one thing you can say definitely is that ISM says on its website that it supports the principle of lawful Palestinian resistence against military occupation: it does not support Palestinian terrorism - attacks on civilian targets. To claim that it does is pure slander. I do not myself agree with this principle, and do not support ISM in this. But ISM themselves do nothing but non-violent direct action protecting civilians and their homes. She died in their service, furthering their cause, and I do not respect that. The cause she died for was the cause of protecting civilians against an illegal military occupation. Tedious, Jesurgislac. Your bar for "bigotry" is set ludicrously low; by its standards, I have more than enough ammo to tar you as an anti-American "bigot." Or an anti-Israeli "bigot." It would be too easy. Tacitus, I'm certain that you could cherry-pick times when I have criticized the US and Israel. However, I doubt that you could find any examples where I have railed against all Americans or all Israelis as you have railed against all Muslims, or made false claims about Islam. And I think it all depends on what they risk their lives for. Your standard accords respect to those who risk their lives by detonating themselves in crowded pizzerias. But you are now trying to twist the issue. The issue is not "are
suicide bombers worthy of respect?" but "Are people who act as human
shields for civilians knowing they risk their lives in doing so worthy
of respect?" Answer: yes. (Unless you're so bigoted you actually think
the civilians being shot by the Israeli army deserve to die: from the
smallest to the oldest.) Wow, that's the first time I've seen Rachel Corrie being lumped together with the SS and Al Qaeda. Tacitus, you don't have to descend to the sewer, your feet are already covered in sh*t. As far as ignoring you is concerned, I myself would be most happy to do so if you could restrict your hate speech to your own site, which I do in fact ignore. Posted by: novakant at November 18, 2003 02:28 AM | PERMALINKTacitus on this blog: "Actually, let me short-circuit this XXXVIII Round of CorrieFest right here. If you want to continue, come to my site or drop me an e-mail. This really doesn't belong here." Tacitus on his own blog, re. Rachel Corrie: I strongly suggest letting it drop. Ignore previous comment - Tacitus just acknowledged and apologized for his mistake. LARGE GIRLS XXX MALE SUPER SITE MILFSEEKER MY SEX TOUR RUB AND TUG ULTRA VIDEOS Ebony Fantasy 8th Street Latina Anal Valley Black Cock White Slut CaptainStabbin Posted by: cumfiesta at June 30, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - naked thumbnail hardcore, nude Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
