It's so funny how we don't talk (politics) anymore
For a site called "dummocrats" we sure don't talk about politics much anymore. Politics are too depressing. We have a wide open Presidential race and we should be in the midst of stirring debates on public policy. Instead, we're subjected to stories about Hillary Clinton's cleavage, Obama's misteps, Fred Thompson's young wife and Mitt Romney's dog. It's the same stuff, different year.
The Democrats and Republicans (or, if you prefer, the Dummocrats and the Repuglicans) are essentially the same, united in their willingness to spend your money, tell you how to live your life and blame the current administration for the mess in Iraq.
I'm depressed about the situation in Iraq. I think we should just get the hell out of there. We can negotiate with the government in certain areas of Iraq (i.e. the future Kurdistan) to stay longer, but I think it's time for us to fly. Now, all you Bush-haters out there, please know that this doesn't mean I'm ready to board your ship and have some Kool-Aid. I agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. I was wrong. That doesn't make me or the President evil. It makes us fallible. It happens. I'm not the Pope, ya know (although I am Catholic ;-).
Ronald Reagan once wrote (and Ron Paul quoted him):
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today.
I wish I would have read that quote 5 years ago. As usual, Reagan had it right. Politicians today try to be the next Reagan by getting the right speechwriter or haircut or sound bites. As long as they want to emulate Reagan's style rather than his substance, it'll be politics as usual and I'll want nothing to do with it.
Posted by at August 7, 2007 01:10 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1514
|# August 7th, 2007 8:09 PM themandownthehall|
|Awww, Kris, I'll talk to you anytime. :) Even about politics. I think one of the few big mistakes Reagan made, was leaving after the barracks were blown up. He didn't make a showing of it. He did it pretty quietly, but the fanatics saw us run. It was one of many showings of weakness over the past decades. The islamofacism started earlier than khomeni, but it flourished under him. From his overthrow of the Shah up until 9/11 our response was the same: Sound tough, back off, negotiate, make a payoff and slink away. Now we're doing something different and yes, it is painful, but running away hasn't attained us anything.
Iraq is a mess, but it shouldn't be. More bombs, less kindness. Especially along the Iranian and Syrian borders. Personally, carpet bombing Terhan with daisy cutters sounds good to me. Let the next nutjob see the smoking hole in the ground that used to be Iran and maybe he'll think twice about messing with us in Iraq.
Now we have an even bigger problem with Iran. President Ahmadinejad. This guy belongs to a sect of Islam called the hojjatieh sect in shia isalm. This group believes that their "messiah" (mahdi) has to be brought out of his slumber by the actions of men. Only then can the era of worldwide islamic rule begin. What actions? Well, I'm glad you asked. By killing lots and lots of people. The blood and the bombs wake will wake him and he will finish off the unbelievers. This sect was banned and its followers hunted down by the ayatollah khomeni. Think about that. Too radical for khomeni? Isn't that like too evil for satan? Too psycho for Manson? Let's make it worse: the safest estimates are that he is 2-3 years from nukes. Others put him months away. Now estimates were way off in Iraq, but still, nukes make a lot of noise and spill lots of blood. He has already promised his people that Isreal and America will burn. Chance it?
We went back to that sound tough, back off, negotiate, payoff and slink away with him once. It got us nothing. We will have to deal with Iran one way or another. Anything that leaves Ahmadinejad in power will come back to bite us. This may have to happen before we get out of Iraq. We're in for a long haul. A lot longer than Bush's term.
Iraq is very important. We have to show we can stomach a fight. We've shown ourselves to be to eager to get out before and it has only empowerd them. Get out without the country being pacified, and that empowering grows.
I'll sit back and let y'all blast me to kingdom come. But that's my 1/2 cent valued view on Iraq, Afganistan and the middle east.
Have a good night. Oh, mark it down, Fred Thompson will blow Hillary out when they meet in November of 2008...
|# August 7th, 2007 9:10 PM kris|
|I'm talking more about our whole experiment in "nation building" in Iraq. If they want a decent nation, they can get their shit together and build it themselves. I'm sick of Americans dying and Iraqis not doing their part to make things better.
Bombing the crap out of people, when necessary, is a completely different game.
|# August 8th, 2007 4:33 PM themandownthehall|
|Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. We did nation building before and it was successful, but the people of Japan and Germany valued their own lives if nothing else. We can take a few lessons from WW2 which is, stop caring about a civilian population that doesn't care about us. We bombed them into submission, moved in, set up the governments, killed the insrugents without trial or care and pacified the place. It's what we need to do here.
We need to get a little more ruthless. Stop putting soldiers on trial for killing the enemy. I don't care what the enemy says about being unarmed, they are lieing. If one moves, he dies, no questions, no post kill analysis, no trials of soldiers. They watch us jump at the chance to devour our own to show we're fair and they use that against us.
The fact that Al-Sadr is still breathing is a disgrace. He should have been killed right off the bat. Ditto the leadership of the Sunnis in the Sunni triangle. Instead, his followers murdered our people and hung them from bridges. Our response, negotiate, but don't kill him. They laugh at our idiocy.
Find an Iranian in Iraq? Kill him where he stands. Send his corpse to the border as a warning. Ditto Syrians. They have no business being there.
Iraq can still be won. We just have to show some backbone and less mercy. Somewhere along the way from WW2, the American soldier's roles were changed from fighter/helper to helper/fighter. We need to change them back.
From what I have heard in the blogosphere, the democrat candidates all say behind the scenes that they think they can't pull out. That we will have to stay in. They are just saying things to their base and won't follow through (say it isn't so, a politician saying anything to get elected?). I don't know about that. But I do believe that either Guiliani or Thompson would probably lead this better.
On a different note: about the opening paragraph and title of this post detailing our not talking politics much. That's ok, we have plenty of time for that between now and November 2008. Besides, I'd rather talk college football and American Idol with y'all anytime!
|# August 8th, 2007 7:45 PM kris|
|That reminds me...I probably need to think of some interesting take on a college football preview.
We have some good and goofy college football articles in the very old archives that I can repost and add something too. Other than that maybe I'll come up with a poll or two.