tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5147877082533960899..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Is there anything left to be said about Iraq?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-63090712822317868302010-06-18T08:23:34.999-07:002010-06-18T08:23:34.999-07:00A humankind begins scathing his wisdom teeth the i...A humankind begins scathing his wisdom teeth the initially chance he bites eccentric more than he can chew.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-19354744520211248632007-08-16T05:05:00.000-07:002007-08-16T05:05:00.000-07:00"Now the vast majority of terrorism in the world i..."Now the vast majority of terrorism in the world is Muslim-on-Muslim, with Shiites and Sunnis radicals killing each other in Iraq."<BR/>--Leaving aside the usual tit-for-tat violence this encapsulates, one of the interesting products of this rivalry that has escaped notice is the upsurge in religious pilgrimage to Iraq - some three million people at this moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76618483499882932162007-08-15T14:35:00.000-07:002007-08-15T14:35:00.000-07:00Do you want to p*** off 1 billion Muslims who are ...<I>Do you want to p*** off 1 billion Muslims who are not living in your insulated fantasy politics?<BR/></I> <BR/><BR/>Gosh, please don't hurt us! We just want to be friends. Make nice ... ( reaching for weapon. )<BR/><BR/>////////////////////////////<BR/><BR/>Kosovo may bring the Euro. situation to a head. The {Muslim} Kosovars are pressing for indpendence. Russia is opposed. I suspect the EU will side with Russia and the south Slaves this time.<BR/><BR/>Will the USA bomb Serbia again? Maybe not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80832665478082452192007-08-15T12:47:00.000-07:002007-08-15T12:47:00.000-07:00The problem with these discussions about Iraq is t...The problem with these discussions about Iraq is that, much like 9/11, it all comes down to conspiracy theories about how the Jews did it all. It's a bit predictable.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07356561639000345084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80061357787899570712007-08-15T12:14:00.000-07:002007-08-15T12:14:00.000-07:00Let me put some of this hand-wringing about Iraq i...Let me put some of this hand-wringing about Iraq in perspective: this has been a relatively cheap (yes!) war for us so far, and we are accomplishing a number of useful things with it. At about $100 billion per year, the war is costing us less than 1% of our annual $13 trillion economy. Most of this money is going in the pockets of U.S. troops, who are the best paid troops in American history (this will have some interesting economic, social, and political consequences in the near future). Casualties have also been extraordinarily low, by historic standards.<BR/><BR/>Far from the common lamentation about the war in Iraq weakening the U.S. military, it is ultimately making it stronger. Although personnel are stretched temporarily, we now have more officers and NCOs with combat experience than almost any other country. As these troops move up the ranks and through the armed forces' professional education system, myriad lessons from combat will be absorbed into the military's doctrine. <BR/><BR/>Iraq and Afghanistan have also been a laboratory for future military techniques. It hasn't gotten as much press as you might expect in the U.S., but parts of the U.S. Army's Future Combat System are already being deployed in Iraq, including combat robots. See, for example, <A HREF="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,500140,00.html" REL="nofollow">this article in Der Spiegel</A>. <BR/><BR/>As far as the geopolitical consequences of the Iraq war, the unhealthy status quo (from our perspective) in the Middle East of peace in the Muslim's backyard combined with terror exported abroad has been upturned. Now the vast majority of terrorism in the world is Muslim-on-Muslim, with Shiites and Sunnis radicals killing each other in Iraq. If we play our cards right, we can leave Iraq with a low-grade proxy war bubbling between Iran and Saudi Arabia, sucking in jihadists from both main Muslim sects, and a stable, democratic ally in the Kurdish region. <BR/><BR/>This phase will probably go on for another 5-10 years, attracting tens of thousands of angry young Muslim terrorist wannabes into the Iraq bug zapper.<BR/><BR/>Eventually, Arabs will tire of this jihadism, especially as they see their brothers in Dubai succeed in creating a post-oil boom first world merchant city-state -- an Arab Singapore. They will remember that commerce and trading are more profitable aspects of Arab culture, and more will move to embrace this. Dubai and other Gulf States, flush with oil revenue, will have the capital to help finance this transformation. In fact, this is already happening, with a quiet economic and financial boom in the most populous Arab state (Egypt) being financed exactly this way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59828946138674006332007-08-15T11:50:00.000-07:002007-08-15T11:50:00.000-07:00The only UN Security Council resolutions which are...The only UN Security Council resolutions which are legally binding are the Chapter VII resolutions -- not the "condemns", "deplores", etc. resolutions. Those are the ones relevant to enforcing a non-proliferation regime. This is the Iraq was in violation of 16 of these Chapter VII resolutions. This is the 'metric' Svigor claimed applied to Israel as well. So which Chapter VII resolutions is Israel in violation of? <BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know this may require a little more than simply cutting and pasting a page out of Wikipedia, but it wouldn't hurt you to do your homework before pontificating next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91749531840216656252007-08-14T12:51:00.000-07:002007-08-14T12:51:00.000-07:00Anon. 8/13/2007 12:21 PM asks:"Which UN Security C...Anon. 8/13/2007 12:21 PM asks:<BR/><BR/>"Which UN Security Council Resolutions is Israel in violation of?"<BR/><BR/>Some people don't read.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel<BR/><BR/>Muslims read:<BR/>http://www.muslimedia.com/ARCHIVES/special-edition/terrorism50/unresolu.htm<BR/><BR/>More (open each year and scroll through):<BR/>http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/vGARes!OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Collapse=1#1<BR/><BR/>People who read tend to dislike arrogant ignoramuses who don't. Just saying. Do you want to p*** off 1 billion Muslims who are not living in your insulated fantasy politics?<BR/><BR/>For balance, here is a statement from Israel's shills:<BR/>http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-7.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42714261744462977122007-08-14T12:06:00.000-07:002007-08-14T12:06:00.000-07:00bjdouble says:"Reinstitute the draft and immigrati...bjdouble says:<BR/><BR/>"Reinstitute the draft and immigration policy would change overnight."<BR/><BR/>Promises, promises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56723032155045623392007-08-13T15:37:00.000-07:002007-08-13T15:37:00.000-07:00JD: Yes, submissions please on why Arabs cannot ev...<B>JD:</B> <I>Yes, submissions please on why <B>Arabs</B> cannot ever stabilize, and why you're morally justified in messing up the rest of the world! 500 words maximum.</I><BR/><BR/>You're using the word "Arabs" when you mean to say "Muslims".<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of Arab Jews, Arab Christians, Arab Animists, Arab Zoroastrians, etc etc etc, who don't pose any problem whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the old Arab Christian community of Lebanon produced a society which enjoyed a remarkably vibrant intellectual life [<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Atiyah" REL="nofollow">Michael Atiyah</A>, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Taleb" REL="nofollow">Nassim Nicholas Taleb</A>, etc].Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-711531435072451302007-08-13T15:04:00.000-07:002007-08-13T15:04:00.000-07:00Here we go again:The US Air Force thinks it can ru...Here we go again:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/air-force-capab.html" REL="nofollow">The US Air Force thinks it can rule the Middle East from the sky, with precious little help on the ground.</A><BR/><BR/>I remember reading <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805068848" REL="nofollow">David Fromkin's explanation, in <I>A Peace To End All Peace</I></A>, of Winston Churchill's scheme to dominate much of the Middle East using airpower. Churchill actually got aerodromes built in a chain from the Med to Central Asia but things did not work out as he had intended.<BR/><BR/>There's nothing profound in this observation. I think it just shows how Iraq has fatigued everyone to the point where they even repeat famous mistakes since they can't come up with any new ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29588988211921718322007-08-13T12:21:00.000-07:002007-08-13T12:21:00.000-07:00"By that metric, shouldn't we have invaded Israel ...<I>"By that metric, shouldn't we have invaded Israel long ago?"</I><BR/><BR/>Which UN Security Council Resolutions is Israel in violation of?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72025740690293018842007-08-13T01:48:00.000-07:002007-08-13T01:48:00.000-07:00Please don't try to say Israel didn't want the Ira...Please don't try to say Israel didn't want the Iraq war. Yes, the neocons and Israel are independent actors, to some degree, but Israel wanted the Iraq war.<BR/><BR/>Quick review of the history:<BR/><BR/><I>Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, <B>but it was critical.</B> Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by <B>a desire to make Israel more secure.</B> According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. <B>The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’</B>, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because <B>it is not a popular sell</B>.’<BR/><BR/>On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that <B>‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’</B> By this point, according to Sharon, strategic <B>co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’</B>, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, <B>‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture</B> presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’<BR/><BR/>Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. <B>‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’</B> Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’<BR/><BR/>At the same time, <B>Ehud Barak</B> wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that <B>‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’</B> His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. <B>‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’</B> he declared. <B>‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’</B> Or as Ha’aretz reported <B>in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’</B></I>Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387233246665688430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69673757760165819332007-08-12T15:53:00.000-07:002007-08-12T15:53:00.000-07:00There's no real chance that any European nations o...There's no real chance that any European nations other than France and Britain will ever again have serious militaries, IMO. The nations themselves will soon cease to exist in all but name. Fantasises about a remilitarised (eg) Germany are just fantasies. The nations of Europe, including Britain, and probably France, are in a deathly kind of paralysis, awaiting their demise.<BR/><BR/>- SNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66101091447843386152007-08-12T14:50:00.000-07:002007-08-12T14:50:00.000-07:00tommy wrote: "Gun companies aren't militaries. Hav...tommy wrote: "Gun companies aren't militaries. Having Smith and Wesson isn't the same as having the Marines."<BR/><BR/>Well, I didn't feel like I had space to write a complete yearbook on the status of European armed forces. A visit to Hazegray or wherever would shed light on whether or not these countries have "real militaries to speak of". <BR/><BR/>Part of the question, of course, was not about the status quo but about the future. Gun companies, along with makers of sonar, tracked vehicles, aerospace, etc., do provide the basis for building a military. <BR/><BR/>The other important ingredient, the human element, is harder to find hard facts on so I glossed over it. There are several European countries getting combat experience in the Iraq and Afganistan. Politics will determine if the EU countries choose to strengthen their militaries, but if they choose to do so I see no reason why they couldn't be comparable in strength to the US in a decade or so. If attacks from anti-Western forces increase, and if the pro-defense politicians play their cards right, my guess is that Edward's prediction will come true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73849350984048548372007-08-12T09:59:00.000-07:002007-08-12T09:59:00.000-07:00Martin, I've served in both the Army (artillery) a...Martin, I've served in both the Army (artillery) and the Foreign Service, and I fully agree with you--we're not as bright as we think. But I've also had enough experience all over the world to know that we're about as good as it gets, both morally and professionaly.<BR/><BR/>I admit we've made lots of mistakes, but who do you know who wouldn't have? History pretty much teaches that the winner is the one who makes the fewest mistakes. I hope that's us, but wouldn't guarantee it.<BR/><BR/>But, the fact remains that the world is an increasingly nasty place. Going home and hiding under the blankets won't change that. If you got the answers, the Foreign Service exam is offered regularly. Join up and show us how to do it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41529486737343987052007-08-12T09:56:00.000-07:002007-08-12T09:56:00.000-07:00eh, if they needed, germany could remilitarize in ...eh, if they needed, germany could remilitarize in 10 years with better technology in almost every area than the US.<BR/><BR/>the US knows that, which is why it buys, licenses, or just plain takes lots of war technology from europe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61634356271646021442007-08-12T06:18:00.000-07:002007-08-12T06:18:00.000-07:00As for why Arabs "can't," I've never really unders...As for why Arabs "can't," I've never really understood this kind of discussion. Seems the fundamental questions are flawed.<BR/><BR/>It makes no sense to assume everyone's the same, and then work backwards looking for explanations for why Qatar has never put a man on the Moon.<BR/><BR/>Western levels of civilization seem to be the exception, not the rule. Those groups capable (i.e., equipped AND inclined) will do something similar; those who aren't, will do something else. It is enough for a people to see that something's possible. That's about as much help as anyone needs.<BR/><BR/>Not saying there's no interference by the west in the ME (obviously), or that it has no effect; just saying that there's a lot of truth to the saying "it's hard to keep a good man down."<BR/><BR/>As for being on the "winning" side, you must be joking. Sell that to someone else. We've got lots of brass on the Titanic; yay. At least the ME hasn't been persuaded into racial suicide.Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71015055581866821582007-08-12T05:56:00.000-07:002007-08-12T05:56:00.000-07:00Howard, I might be inclined to belabor the obvious...Howard, I might be inclined to belabor the obvious at some other time.<BR/><BR/><I>Getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime was a necessary and overdue act of geopolitical hygiene, but sticking around in a quixotic long-term occupation was a stupid idea. It was necessary to get rid of Saddam because there would have been no credible way to attempt to enforce non-proliferation of WMD with other countries through diplomatic means if we let a tin horn dictator go about his business after violating 16 UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly as Saddam was in the process of bribing his way out of the sanctions regime.</I><BR/><BR/>By that metric, shouldn't we have invaded Israel long ago?<BR/><BR/><I>One thing that strikes me, however, is the prevalence of nostalgic, 19th century thinking among you towards the Middle East and Arabs. Even Svigor -- whose realism and insights I respect -- takes the same attitude: place a Big Man that'll do our bidding, and if he goes astray replace him.</I><BR/><BR/>I never suggested placing a big man, I suggested bumping the existing one off if he gets so bad he's threatening the flow of oil. In other words, the minimum amount of interference possible to position ourselves as a large (if far-off) part of the forces of nature (i.e., selection).<BR/><BR/>But this is academic in a way, because it's almost impossible for this kind of intervention to actually become necessary (only thing I can think of is psychosis); what are they going to do with their oil? They don't need it, and more capable peoples do.Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29408848115603238512007-08-12T05:09:00.000-07:002007-08-12T05:09:00.000-07:00"If they could accept that the Muslim Arabs are fu..."If they could accept that the Muslim Arabs are fundamentally *not* like them in most important respects they might finally start to put together a viable strategy for national survival. - SN"<BR/><BR/>Incidentally I think Ariel Sharon might have been starting to do just that before his stroke. He certainly seemed to be going for a 'separate and contain' strategy, rather than the leftist fantasies of peaceful integration and the neocon-Likud fantasies of democratic transformation through violence - SNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78762708736143000572007-08-12T03:53:00.000-07:002007-08-12T03:53:00.000-07:00anon/JD 2:46:I agree that the our-Big-Man strategy...anon/JD 2:46:<BR/><BR/>I agree that the our-Big-Man strategy is a poor one. Smart analysts suggest not messing with the ME at all; a defensive separate-and-contain strategy. <BR/>Work (at a distance) with *their* leaders who've risen without our help and thus have political legitimacy, but don't keep stirring the pot. - SNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22939693526570413042007-08-12T03:45:00.000-07:002007-08-12T03:45:00.000-07:00gcochran:"Today I'm not so sure about Wolfowitz's ...gcochran:<BR/>"Today I'm not so sure about Wolfowitz's motives: I now suspect he's a different kind of fool than I thought back then. An Arab girlfriend may have had something to do with it. "<BR/><BR/>My impression is that neocons genuinely believe(d) that Muslim Arabs have the same potential for liberal democracy as Jewish Israelis, but were held back from this by dictatorial regimes. Israelis of both right and left seem to persist in an incredibly rose-tinted view of their enemies, that they are at root 'just like us'. This is held to as an article of faith in the face of all contrary evidence. I'm reminded of Ehud Barak offering Yasser Arafat everything he said he wanted re a Palestinian State, and being gobsmacked when Arafat turned him down flat. Arafat knew that accepting *any* deal would sign his death warrant with his own people.<BR/><BR/>I just wish the Israeli leadership class (including the neocons) would read isteve and think about the implications of cousin marriage and 30-point IQ gaps, among other factors. If they could accept that the Muslim Arabs are fundamentally *not* like them in most important respects they might finally start to put together a viable strategy for national survival. - SNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67760701594772663692007-08-12T02:46:00.000-07:002007-08-12T02:46:00.000-07:00Gentlemen --I've read above a comment that Jews su...Gentlemen --<BR/><BR/>I've read above a comment that Jews suffer from a nostalgic interpretation of current events. That may well be true -- or it may simply be due to the prevalence of group survival strategies that Kevin MacDonald has elucidated among them.<BR/><BR/>One thing that strikes me, however, is the prevalence of nostalgic, 19th century thinking among you towards the Middle East and Arabs. Even Svigor -- whose realism and insights I respect -- takes the same attitude: place a Big Man that'll do our bidding, and if he goes astray replace him.<BR/><BR/>Has it ever occurred to you that the primary reason the ME has turned into the present day hell hole because of this arrogant, simplistic understanding of sociology? It seems you have figured out the critical element called "race" -- along with all its implications -- in the structure and functioning of societies, but somehow you stop utilizing this insight when you go beyond Greece.<BR/><BR/>Could it be, for instance, that your ancestors -- when they were greasy barbarians and bullies up north as Rome ruled the worlds -- improved simply because their isolation helped them stabilize as the bullies kept killing each other and gradually left the stage to the meeker and more cooperative ones? Could it be that this is how strict cousin marriages was replaced by wider and wider pools of procreation so that nationalism as the infrastructure of a stable society and culture emerged?<BR/><BR/>Maybe the primary reason Arabs have failed to stabilize is your constant meddling in the ME according to plans plotted by the CIA rather than conservatives like Sailer or conservative sociologists like Nisbett. Maybe the "plant a subservient Big Man, replace if he breaks the strings attached" idea is one of the reasons why they won't stabilize -- because puppet Big Men are generally not interested in creating stable societies that'll outlast them.<BR/><BR/>And then, when the liberal left says "it's all because of oil," you call them "liberal fools" and some such. Well, heck, it's pretty much that: oil. Why else would it be ANY OF US's BUSINESS when Saddam entered Kuwait? Why else would it be anybody else's business whether there are Big Men planted who does your bidding?<BR/><BR/>And then, you turn around and keep quoting the conventional wisdom that has been common currency since the 19th century -- the time of Brits -- that Arabs are fuck ups who richly deserve being messed with. So, they are unstable, so you're there to provide stability, by planting your men so that they, well, never stabilize so that oil is as cheap as you won't because you can't let such unstable people control oil. Nice logic. Have you ever used this on your girlfriends? It should work like a charm. You can have a steady flow of blowjobs, and if doesn't work, you can beat the hell out of them and claim that they are irrational.<BR/><BR/>Must feel good to have put one's Big Man ancestors behind one's back way back in the past. Must feel good to pretend that you, as a race, have descended from heaven in perfection while you despise others for not being "smart" enough to have gone through your ancestors' stabilization process as early.<BR/><BR/>Ah, the manichean game of survival: with your kin, morals, law and order applies; outside your tribe, any Machiavellian, tortured, twisted, schizoid logic goes.<BR/><BR/>Oh, but I know, you're too busy moving from decade to decade (70s, 80s, 90s, etc.) with all the conspicuous consumption and self-destruction that entails, to be patient enough for the "Arab sociological stabilization processes" to kick in. You've got to have your cheap oil fix, and you've got to have it now.<BR/><BR/>One fact: Back around 1910, when whites constituted about 65% of the world population, the total Muslim population was 150 million. Note that this includes crowded places like Indonesia, as well. Enter the brilliant British imperialist plans to "keep the bastards at each others' throats." As you say, stir and repeat as necessary -- nice touch, that one; gives you such an air of confidence. <BR/><BR/>Year 2000, and the Muslim population is 1.25 billion. And, lo and behold, the West is bleeding trillions to deal with "War on Terror" and some such. I tell you, when it comes to civilizations, there's no screw up like a cocky, arrogant, successful screw up. Nice job, guys.<BR/><BR/>The plan is a success story, so keep using it. It obviously caters to your testosterone levels,f or one. Never miss any opportunity to quote it on blogs -- the "to-hell-with-them hawk" posture will surely get you dozens of girls. Such verve and bravado. <BR/><BR/>It feels good to be part of the winning team, doesn't it? Even if the plan doesn't work and we lose another century, at least you feel so much more manly when you construct such "more-realistic-than-thou" statements. If Americans cannot bottle up and sell conservatism in these tiresome phrases, who else can?<BR/><BR/>BTW A simpler and cheaper way is to nuke the bastards. Wholesale. And be done with it. If only they were all in once place, right?<BR/><BR/>Enough with the phoney peace that ended all peace.<BR/><BR/><BR/>JD<BR/><BR/>Yes, submissions please on why Arabs cannot ever stabilize, and why you're morally justified in messing up the rest of the world! 500 words maximum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83571193638873162442007-08-12T02:15:00.000-07:002007-08-12T02:15:00.000-07:00Getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime was a neces...Getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime was a necessary and overdue act of geopolitical hygiene, but sticking around in a quixotic long-term occupation was a stupid idea. It was necessary to get rid of Saddam because there would have been no credible way to attempt to enforce non-proliferation of WMD with other countries through diplomatic means if we let a tin horn dictator go about his business after violating 16 UN Security Council Resolutions, particularly as Saddam was in the process of bribing his way out of the sanctions regime. <BR/><BR/>That said, there was a better way to do this. Once Baghdad fell, we should have called on the U.N. to immediately schedule Iraqi elections for a provisional government. Those elections should have been held within a couple months of the fall of Baghdad, and we should have left within a couple months of that. Iraq today would still be a battleground for the Shias and Sunnis of the Muslim world to kill each other, but it would have cost us a lot less in blood and treasure to get there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12540297502545366092007-08-11T23:30:00.000-07:002007-08-11T23:30:00.000-07:00Both Italy's and Spain's carriers operate Harriers...<I>Both Italy's and Spain's carriers operate Harriers, as does the RN. Belgium is home to FN, Germany, to Walther, Sauer, Mauser, and maybe you've heard of Heckler & Koch? I don't know much about Greece but Improved HAWK, MP5, Patton, Leopard, MILAN ... sounds okay to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Gun companies aren't militaries. Having Smith and Wesson isn't the same as having the Marines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-82696084321771115282007-08-11T23:13:00.000-07:002007-08-11T23:13:00.000-07:00To anonymous (one of them anyway):I don't think we...To anonymous (one of them anyway):<BR/><BR/>I don't think we buy stability by getting involved in unstable areas. We set up a complex of military bases in Saudi Arabia in the 80's, and ended up pissing off some of their people such as Osama bin Laden. We may have had good geo-strategic reasons for doing so at the time. But it seems that good geo-strategic reasons often become, and very quickly, bad geo-strategic reasons.<BR/><BR/>Also that particular alliance with the house of Saud was never discussed publicly, nor to my knowledge voted on by the Senate.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Africa, I see no benefit to us to even having diplomatic relations with most of those countries. And military involvement in the third-world leads to one thing - streams of refugees bound for our shores. Do we really want to import former teenage soldiers from the endless civil wars in places like Sierra Leone and the Congo?<BR/><BR/>Our diplomatic and military leaders are not nearly as bright as they think. They cannot control the situations they blunder into. We would be better off if they stopped playing the great game of empire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com