Of course every democrat voted for the bill, they are pro union and union means votes for the losers on the left.
Feinstein, said they are good citizens and that they pay taxes. Either she is completely out of touch with reality or the Il-legals are. To believe her would mean that these illegals file a w-2 every year and the IRS knows exactly where all 11 million illegals are.
Also if they file a w-2 then then they also have to have a social security number. They have all this but they have no green card. Feinstein is as stupid as they come.
She is also the one who has said Guns kill people, well if that is the case then my keyboard is responsible for all my mis-spelled words.
A reporter from a Mexican Radio station, said after seeing all the illegals protesting, " You see Los Angles has always been ours" If illegal immigration keeps up at its current rate, LA will be nothing more that a 'barrio' for every crook south of the border and the Gringo's beware.
We have to call them Hispanics or Latinos but they call us 'Gringos'?
The future is now the present. The American political class has demonstrated to Latin America that it regards the Latinization of North America as inevitable. Stage two of our Balkinization is under way. See Paris and imagine LA and other cities five years from now, with the issues being both economic and ethnic.
Much the same is happening in France (and behind the scenes, everywhere else in Western Europe), with the humorously-called "laboring classes" conspiring in their own economic extinction while their ethnic vanquishment is already a certainty. This is Scene III, Act II of the toppling of French society and just a preview of the bloodletting to come.
And, worst of all in the short term, sectarian insanity in Iraq has, in my view, made the establishment of a stable, non-authoritarian government impossible. One of my sons over there is now back to guarding the Palestine Hotel on regular basis in order to present the illusion of stability in central Baghdad. Coalition forces are the only thing holding that country together. Watch for a Helicopter-On-The-Roof moment in Baghdad in two years.
Lots of other ducks are lined in this preview to 1914 and 1939.
Rhod,
Hard to argue with your son, who is there in Iraq ... and manning a post that is the epicenter of a lot of the conflict. God bless him. Still, others don't present such a dismal view. For sure, Iraqis still have a ways to go in defending themselves without our help. And I share your skepticism about the efficacy of a working democracy where much of the population is mired in backwards thinking.
Still, if you are right, then what? I don't see the point. I know you don't want that result to come to pass, yet such thinking (when it gathers steam) does just that.
My view is that things will get more like the Wild West when we are gone (or start pulling out) and then they will calm down eventually. What kind of govt. ultimately emerges from this? Hard to say. Hopefully, one that has a leader like Hamid Karzai. It can happen, but still ... even in Afghanistan, the climb is steep.
I will bet that we don't have any saber-rattling or complicity with jihadis coming out of the new Iraqi govt., though. Put it this way: It's a lot less likely that the new Iraq will behave toward America like the old Iraq did.
Again, I have my doubts about democracy penetrating the Muslim psyche (absent a Muslim reformation). Still ... I don't think we will see helos leaving Baghdad like we saw them leaving Saigon.
If Rhods predictions come true, the United States may as well shut down, because that would surely be the end.The left would have accomplished their goal of turning this once great nation into a third world power.
The Il-legals have gotten their wish they have intimidated the congress and forced legislation, from a bunch of spineless malcontents, that would reward their law breaking, and be granted citizenship. While legal immigrants have to jump through all the obsticles laid out by the same corrupt congress, that has given our rights and now our country away.
The next thing will be a nation of a bi-lingual system and our identity as a country will be usurped by Illegal immigrants, leftist supporters of these illegals, and the socialists in genral, will get their wish to turn the US into another France.
Mark,
I forgot to mention ... Ain't no such protesters around my neighborhood. It's a long way from France here.
Geez. Thing's trying to wipe out my ID. What does it think I am ... an illegal blogger? That previous post was me, of course.
Mark and DC:
It's the hardest thing of all to disagree with men who share most or all of my views about...everything.
My opinions about Iraq or the WOT haven't come from L, my son in Baghdad , or his twin brother in Afghanistan, R. Both of them are full of the stuff we took to Vietnam, and will hold any line anywhere until the end of time. My opinions are developing around what appear to be the facts of Iraqi society and Arab culture in general, and the possibilities of actually draining the lakes of blood these people live in, and seem to enjoy as a way of life.
It doesn't help that son number three, G, has told me of the military modelling being done at this minute to handle the rear-action defense and withdrawl in the event of civil war in Iraq, the first sign of which would be sectarian divisions developing in the new Iraqi military.
It seems to be happening, and would represent the end of any notion that Iraq can stablize itself with a cohesive military in place to instill trust in the population and get the insurgency job done. This is a very, very bad sign, and it's happening at a time when the American government, at every level, has proven itself a Punch and Judy show incapable of even defending our own borders or being honest about the problems. If there's a Vietnam parallel here, for me it's a decline in confidence that our "government" actually understands what it's doing.
I have, in fact, more faith in the prospects for Iraq than I do for America. Our President is singing his silly carioca with a President of a failed state, Vicente Fox, which poses more dangers to us in the near term than Iraq did in 2003. Is this coherence? No, and when policies lack coherence they generally lack insight and understanding.
For two years our President has been acting like a mime feeling his way around a glass box, without the words or determination to defend himself against the rotten defeatism and incompetence of the entire Democratic Party establishment (include Joe Lieberman, who's a Trojan Horse), and if you can't defend yourself against these boobs, what can you do?
Need more space...
Excellant thats what I wanted to say but it didn't come out right.
I seem to have encountered a point of illumination on many things, or a point of cynicism and resignation, I'm not sure which it is. Facts have a way of coming together and pushing conclusions upwards until you have workable theories, or at least general ideas about things.
What the immigration buffoonery has shown me is that now, as in other times throughout our history, we have a completely useless set of professional pols, protected forever in their encumbency from everything except being dragged ultimately to the gallows where they belong. There are so many flaws in their plans on illegal immigration that even Jimmy Carter would blush at its stupidity and cowardice.
The same people are claiming expertise or wisdom on the prosecution of a major geo-political contest in the Middle East, a war marked by the blood of men like all of us here, and I no longer have faith we're being told the truth or that, if the truth were known, it would be recognized.
The question I'm forcing myself to ask...myself..is this: Is Islam capable of democracy, or even marginally capable of dispensing with traditions of tribal killings, blood feuds, religious murders, payback slaughter, kleptocracy, sectarian bloodbaths and the casual punishment of innocents for the crimes of independent thinking?
I don't think it is, which doesn't call for immediate withdrawl, but a change of strategy, a Grand Strategy worthy of The Cold War, and not trying to stop the local assistant Imam from deciding to behead his troublesome neighbor or blow up the local goat milk store because they overcharged him. Screw them all. We've irrigated the Iraqi soil with the blood of our best young men and women. For what?
Conclusion to this rant..
...in the end, Iran is going to be the linchpin of everything that happens in the next ten years. A nuclear Iran will be the end of the Islamic world...one of their devices will escape, and be detonated somewhere in The West, not necessarily the US, and the powers capable of responding, lacking a culprit or government to negotiate with, will just wipe them all off the face of the earth.
Sorry, but that's down the road.
Rhod,
I like the way it ends, although the road there is pretty bleak. I agree with much of the skepticism you express.
What is interesting to me is that you go back to the Bush Admin's woeful job at defending itself. Frankly, they are so pathetic at it that it makes me want to scream. Dan Bartlett should have been moved to middle management at IKEA about 4 years ago. I believe I could replace them all, and that is not good. Explaining what we are doing and why has been missing, and these are not trivial matters, as I know you and every one else who reads here knows. Much of this war is an information one. Call me crazy, whatever, but that's why I took up this little observation post in June 2004.
In the midst of all of this, I do think it is important to note what the world/U.S. might look like if Kerry, et al. get in power. Always keep that in your mind. This world provides no perfect choices. Some not so good choices look downright lovely compared to, say, Hillary.
You go to the crux of the matter ... There is this "religion of peace" nonsense that permeates the thought processes of what we are doing. I have said it before (copying from Robert Spencer): Many Muslims are peaceful. Islam is not. This is at the core of the problem. We continue to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the enemy.
Rhod, I would be interested to know: What kind of grand Cold War strategy would you advocate with the Islamic World?
Rhod, a similar discussion is going on over at belmont club (in the last two posts). I have participated. I too am concerned that the administration is a spent force at a very dangerous time.
The good news is Wretchard's latest post on Iraq has some positive notes. I think on Iraq we all need to step back and realize that Iraqis negotiate violently and that they have a much greater tolerance for it than we do. Watching it can be very disappointing - but there are powerful folks there (Sistani for one) who do seem to be working for a better Iraq and who seem to know when they need to step in an provide direction (which point from our perspective seems like things have gone too far). Here is to hoping things can work out for the better soon. I fear the administration will not have much longer to continue this experiment.
On Iran, I think it is pretty clear that this Administration will not take military action to stop Iran from getting nukes. Nothing short of military action will stop them. The administration have not even begun to prepare for military action (inceasing the size of U.S. ground forces, preparing the public, etc.). I'm sorry to say but it seesm to me the administration joined the EU negotiating track in order to spread the blame when Iran gets nukes.
DC, I laid out my grands strategy in the Belmont Club comments - in the middle of the comments on the second post:
I think we should recognize that the Bush administration had to try this "Nation Building/democracy" thing - even knowing that it might not succeed. If it had succeeded (or succeeds - I am not ready to give up hope yet - I do think that the current violence is mostly internal politics by other means and may get resolved for the better for us) - I do think it would have spread throughout the middle-east to our benefit.
However, at some point I think we need to make a call whether the "signs point to yes" on this experiment and act accordingly.
If we decide that it will not work, I think we should revert to our 1980s stance of pitting Shiite Iran against its Sunni neighbors. In that event, we should work out long term basing rights in the Kurdish region in Iraq and support the creation of an independent Kurdish state under our protection. Then, we will need to reestablish our deterrent credibility by taking down one or more middle-eastern governments (primarily with airstrikes and with no overt effort to rebuild the nation). This action would need to be taken with significant world objection - to ensure that the message is sent that we will not be stopped by UN machinations. Iran is the best target because of its nuclear program. Further, airstrikes will weaken it so that it will be more vulnerable to the surrounding Sunni nations. The point is to make sure that Iran is too busy trying to survive to do much else.
Cruise,
Thanks for your comments. Re: Iran, you may be right. But I do think that there is a chance of action against Iran, but after 11/06. This is reality. Remember, too, that Ahmadinejad thinks that the Islamic Apocalypse is coming within the next 2-3 years. He may be trying to trigger the Islamic Apoc. and get the real one. We'll see.
Confucious say: He who doesn't have large stockpile of nukes should not start Apocalyptic showdown.
As for your plan re: Kurdistan, the only problem is that the Turks would not permit this. This is why the Brits cobbled Iraq together after WWI. An independent Kurdistan would start a war b/t Turkey and Kurdistan. Then, we have more libs here calling for death the the Great Satan.
There are not a lot of good options in the ME.
What all of us seem to be saying is ... this gamble on democracy is indeed a gamble. No question. And if this were presented as the only reason for going into Iraq or any country, we wouldn't support it. Still, there is more here. Going back to my prior point, even if the experiment "fails", I still don't believe our presence has been for naught.
Re: Iran, don't forget the following option, too:
Israel attacks Iran, takes out nukes and accidentally fires a missile up Ahmadinejad's skirt.
America, citing Ahmadinejad's claim that the Holocaust never happened, claims that Israel, full of imaginary people, could not have done this. It must have been the dastardly French.
All seriousness aside, I am disappointed that no one of the sensitive posters here sent condolences to Sharon Stone.
DC:
Agreed.
On Kurdistan, I think Turkey deserves Kurdistan. If the Iraq experiment fails, then I assume we will return to a colder simpler realpolitic foreign policy. I seems to me that such a policy would require us to make sure that those who cross us pay a price and those who help us receive a reward. Kurds - reward, Turkey - punishment. If the Turks resist - they have much more to fear than us and the Kurds. Turkey has a large Kurdish population and we could exploit that fact.
Cruiser,
I am all for simple approaches. What you say might be the next step and might work ... as long as we don't have a Demo president.
Cruiser:
I think I've read The Belmont Club analysis you mention. Militias are the praetorian guards for the various factions, and while they sit at the tables hashing out their problems, their militias are busily killing each other.
It was also a Dec 2003 Belmont Club article, with which I agree, that hypothesized that a nuke Iran would be the beginning of the end for Islam. I mentioned it because I agree with it.
DC's question about an analogue to a Cold War strategy?
First, my strategy begins with language and a common understanding of the enemy, and all strategy evolves from how one describes and rationalizes the threat. If you don't define the systems of thought and people you're fighting, you have no hope of victory.
My question to every blogger is this...who has defined this war on terror, from either side? The White House or the blogs, the antique media and the New Media? Everything we know about it has come from unofficial sources, because the Bush administration is very internationalist in its pronouncements, but dead in the details.
The War on Terror is, as Tim Blair said about The War on Capitalism, a war on an abstract noun. It means nothing. Terror is not an entity, and can't be warred upon.
Second, the Wilsonian dreck that emanates from the White House about the inherent passivity or peacefulness of democracies is a consequence of their thinking about The War on Terror. Building democracy in Iraq is the means by which they hope to undermine the thinking behind Terror, and that's utter nonsense.
It concedes some of the debate to The Left, because it's true that eight million purple fingers don't make a democracy.
The thing called "The Cold War" was never uncoupled from the the enemy we described as "communism". If we'd called The Cold War a War on Tyrrany, the struggle would have trickled off into nothing and the Soviet Union would still be around today.
Everyone in the West knew, intuitively, WHO were were fighting, and part of the Cold War was the propaganda struggle to discredit Communism as a way of politics, as a way of life, and a way of thought, which is why The Cold War was fought over fifty years by American of all political beliefs.
(Next page)
The War on Terror is a War Against Islamism, and Iraq is a proxy war in the same way that Vietnam was a proxy war. They're transnational struggles, with geopolitical consequences. Americans need to hear this LOUD AND CLEAR, from the administration, not treacle about a religion of peace, and they need to know that Iraq is a battleground, not an experiment in the pacifying beauty of representation. How long can any American care about Iraqi democracy? About five minutes. It's NOT a reason to go to war.
Bush's pathological need to praise any and all opposition to his policies (he was doing it again today)is seen as weakness and indiscriminate goodness by both Islamists and Democracts, and encourages them both.
The rationale underlying the Vietnam War evaporated when the progressive left redefined the struggle there from a distant war against communism to a war of liberation fought by nationalists. Westmoreland succeeded in dragging the conflict out so long that some redefinition was inevitable. All free societies will eventually find ways to think themselves out of prolonged conflicts. It's our nature.
Having expended so much idle chatter about Iraq's infant democracy, the administration has put itself into smaller and smaller boxes, so that each act of violence tolls the bell of failure for everyone wanting to hear it. The American public will not be denied the logic of their wars, and neither will the men fighting them. There is no longer any "official" logic to the Iraq War.
I think, in all this rambling, my idea of a global strategy means letting Americans know what the facts are, WITHOUT PC BULLSH**, defining the enemy (dysfunctional forces within Islam, and maybe Islam itself) explaining clearly WHO is doing the killing in Iraq, that the possibilities of civil war are very real, and that in the extreme, our assumptions about the Middle EAst might be proven wrong, but that this does not end the struggle. What does Bush have to lose? The Left? Can they be any worse than they are now? I think most Americans would appreciate the clarity, and open new lines of thinking.
I like your description of the new Cold War, Rhod, b/c that means I can participate. I think we all are.
You know you are singing my song when you talk about accurately describing the enemy. Back when I was a wee lad blogger, I was calling a jihadi a jihadi. Recall how that offended Charlie.
Your line ... "more than 8M purple fingers to create a democracy" is a good one.
I would add this, though: If we are talking democracies like we understand them in the West, then I agree that they don't export "terror". Problem is, we are finding that democracies in the Arab world are going to be different, at least for some time.
I think we can all agree that Iran is not a democracy, even though "President" Ahhadinejad was duly elected ... allegedly.
All of this discussion brings me full circle to what George Washington said: Democratic govt. depended on a virtuous citizenry, which he believed depended upon faith in God. He did not mean Allah, either.
This is not to say that democracy can't work in the ME. It is to say, though, that it will be difficult at best if the "Supreme Court" of a country puts out a death warrant for rejecting Islam.
Addendum:
I ask again, how do we know any of this, how do we have any facts about Iraq or the Middle East? Because of information sources other than our elected government. That means both the executive and the legistlative branches. No matter how you figure it, both the unelected left and right are fighting the war better than our own government.
DC:
I know I fumbled the question, because everything I've said has been said before, and very well by you. I do recall how you annoyed the bridge troll by accurately describing the enemy.
Rhod, I agree with:
"a global strategy means letting Americans know what the facts are, WITHOUT PC BULLSH**, defining the enemy (dysfunctional forces within Islam, and maybe Islam itself) explaining clearly WHO is doing the killing in Iraq, that the possibilities of civil war are very real, and that in the extreme, our assumptions about the Middle East might be proven wrong, but that this does not end the struggle"
One thing that this makes apparent (for the nth time) is how very difficult it is to be an effective President if you don't espouse leftist Warm and Fuzzy policies (short-term feel-good gestures that create enormous long-term problems). The media will relentlessly dog any president that violates the laws of political correctness. Some of Bush's PC behavior may be his inclination - but, I suspect a lot if it is imposed by the pressure of the media.
Rhod,
You didn't fumble. Good stuff. We need to hear it and bat it around. You inspire me.
All of us need to remember and take heart ... The enemies of America may have their days, and indeed there may be dark days ... but we will prevail.
We are better because we stand on the shoulders of giants and because being an American is still a special, special thing.
Thanks to all for a great discussion.
First of all I have been checking out the demonstrations out on the left coast.
Guess what, George Soros is behind alot of this,...Surprise, surprise..
So this wasn't spontaneous after all. The Mexican DJs out there were instructed by Moveon.org and they took it from there.
DC you say we got to keep in the fight ok I am all for that but we got to know who exactly is on our side. Half of the Republicans in congress are more worried about getting re-elected that preserving the country. The dems,the Unions and the leftist kook fringe are out for themselves and they hate Bush, get Bush at any cost and it just so happens that our country is the 'any cost'.
But I think this demonstration is going to backfire on them. All those mexican flags, who are they protesting anyway ? Normal people who saw that are not too happy about all the mexican flags and the dissing of our own flag.
So our legislators are virtually saying we will reward you for breaking our law this has got to stop.This may be a telling event, we will see.
Rhod, just wanted to let you know that there are some interesting letters from leaders in the WSJ opinion page about that article on fighting insurgencies (VN/Iraq).
Second(part2)
There are a lot of similarities to Iraq and Vietnam. But as striking as these are, there is also startk differences.
The commanders are the ground are for the most part calling there own shots. This has been affirmed by the President, and the Secretary of Defense.
Johnson micro-managed the war in Vietnam, he oversaw every detail and did his own planning the Military was being directed from the WH. He ran a limited bombing campaign, only certain targets were to be hit. Even 'Rolling Thunder' was limited to certain Military targets, You can't send the American Military in to that kind of situation with one hand tied behind its back, and then tell them to 'go to it',... go to what ? We were not allowed to win that war. We were sent to Khe Sanh to secure the area we took and cleaned out 3 hills of NVA and then pulled out, what the hell kind of strategy is that, it was re-occupied with in days thus Khe Sanh 68' which turned into a siege.
The left touted it as America's Dien Bien Phu, BS we cleaned them out again, even with limited ops.
The problem in Iraq I think is the inability of the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own defense.
Rhod and I were told that it should only take 8 weeks to train soldiers,what the author of that statement never considered was that the United States has perfected that 8 week technique over the past 229 years. Like anything else you do it enough times you get real good at it.
The Iraqis are not a bunch of grab-ass civilians the kind that show up at the Army recruiters, these people have been led to believe over thousands of years that the great Caliphate is coming back and will take care of them.
I don't know if they will ever be able to effectively defend themselves or their borders. We learned in Gulf war 1, according to one Marine, " I hope they are good lovers 'cause they sure as hell can't fight". This is the third year in Iraq, and morale is still high and that is a good sign, the troops have not given up on the mission, so from my perspective, if they think it is worth it then by God it IS worth it.
Mark,
The Marine's comments are hilarious. I have believed this for a long time.
In fact, the next Arab army that can really fight (I don't mean sawing off civilians' heads or dying as "martyrs" ... I mean, slicing, stabbing, hooking, and jabbing ... and putting well-aimed rounds down-range) will be the first.
The Israelis have had them surrounded for 58 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
