Thursday, February 15, 2007

How to treat those who kill our troops?

Let's say that the "Democratic Republic of Waca-waca" was suppling sophisticated armament to the knuckleheads in Iraq who are exploding IEDs and shooting down our choppers. What should the policy of the United States be toward the Waca-wacan government?

If you're name is Nancy Pelosi, your response would be to make sure that the President never ever invades the "DRWW" and does absolutely nothing to provoke them any more! Except Waca-waca isn't a joke, it's the Islamic Republic of Iran, a founding member of the Axis of Evil.

Ok, I understand that the Democrats think Bush lied us into a war in Iraq - for what purpose nobody can reasonably say - so they think Bush is crying wolf about Iran. Well, Nancy, what if he isn't lying? Do you suppose Karl Rove has a master plan to win the White House in 2008 with another lengthy war, or do you think that Bush might possibly be going out on a limb here because Iran really is doing what he says? What would Occam say?

Speaker Pelosi "fully supports" Rep. John Murtha's plan to "prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval". Pelosi and her ilk are again placing a hard bet on the rationality and peaceful intentions of Islamic Fundamentalists , and betting that a twice elected US President who is trying to fight two wars would lie us into engaging in a third major front. Things might look bad for the Republicans at this very moment, but I would be amazed if the electorate would reward this sort of behavior in 2008.

Again, Nancy, go out on a limb here and imagine the possibility that Iran is helping to kill American troops. How do you respond to those who are killing Americans? You kill them right back! Pelosi would rather tie the hands of this President and every subsequent President, permanently weakening US foreign policy, than contemplate the idea that Islamic fundamentalist states who are on the CIA list of state sponsors of terrorism might actually provide material support to Islamic fundamantalist terrorists.

Support the troops, Nancy; don't let Iranian bombs kill them without response.

4 comments:

Russell said...

I'm going to try to make a formal and professional rebuttal to your article.

Lets start with your statement "it's the Islamic Republic of Iran, a founding member of the Axis of Evil." This is a term coined by the USA government, Iran never claimed themselves as part of the "Axis of Evil".

Now on to your statement "Ok, I understand that the Democrats think Bush lied us into a war in Iraq - for what purpose nobody can reasonably say". I think that you are trying to say that Bush and company did not lie about WMDs etc in Iraq. He did lie, there was never any evidence of WMDs found in Iraq and more Iraqi civilians have died in the course of the war than Saddam Hussein ever killed so saying that we were taking a oppressive dictator out of office and freeing the people of this tyranny is untrue, they are worse off now than ever.

WMDs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

Iraqi deaths:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Addressing the lack of evidence provided by the USA proving that Iran is involved in these supposed attacks on American troops stationed in Iraq:

"JAKARTA, Indonesia Feb 13, 2007 (AP)— A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials."

From: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2870944
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/ap/world/mainD8N8RC300.shtml

I can appreciate your concern that we may have a conflict brewing with Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology, but maybe you will think differently after this. Karl Rove apparently received a document of the secret Iranian proposal for negotiations with the USA and disregarded it. Condoleeza Rice also claims that the CIA official Flynt Leverett did not present this information to her, his response to that was it was "unthinkable that it would not have been brought to her attention" and demanding an apology from her.

From:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/what-did-rove-do-with-200_b_41472.html
http://alternet.org/story/48238/

My point here is that just because Bush and company tells us something doesn't necessarily make it true. We need to demand hard evidence so that we don't delve into deadly and non-progressive battles with countries who are more valuable as allies.

You can contact me at axion_101_43 at yahoo dot com

Thanks,
Russell

Anonymous said...

You mentioned Occam's Razor. That metaphor is generally applied to scientific reasoning. I would suggest that it is absolutely not a good guide when considering human motivations.

Sockless Joe said...

Russell,

While stockpiles of new WMDs were not found, that in itself is not an indication that the Bush administration "lied". In fact, every nation involved (irrespective of their opinions on invasion) thought that Iraq was in serious violation of its UN restrictions - this includes France and Russia. Even Hans Blix, firmly opposed to invasion, testified that Iraq was not complying with the inspection process, and that he felt they were probably hiding something.

HuffPo and antiwar.com? Come on. I'm seeing a lot of "reported to have" and "said to have".

But regardless of what mistakes were most certainly made in our relations with Iran, my point is broader than you indicate. Pelosi's response to the possibility of direct Iranian involvement in killing our troops is to permanently handicap US foreign policy. Forever. The justification for this (avoiding an ill-conceived conflict with Iran) rests on the premises that (1) Bush has no reason other than his warmongering messianic complex to point the finger at Iran, and (2) that the Iranians are pure as the driven snow, and (3) physical evidence of involvement must have been manufactured by the Bush administration.

I would like to point out that other Democrats are saying that we've known about these weapons for years. This is in fact a very damning statement about the administration, but it conflicts with the idea that we lack evidence.

Regarding the apparent conflicting statements made by the administration and the General Pace, the question is not whether the bombs are real, or whether they came from inside Iran, but the specific level of involvement at the highest levels of government. This has been adequately explained in Tony Snow's appearance on "Meet the Press", and in other venues.

You write: "My point here is that just because Bush and company tells us something doesn't necessarily make it true. We need to demand hard evidence so that we don't delve into deadly and non-progressive battles with countries who are more valuable as allies."

Is the appropriate Democratic response to, as you suggest, make sure we have our facts straight, or would it be to assume treasonous intentions of Bush and to tip the balance of strategic power to our declared enemies, in the process permanently disabling future US Presidents?

Russell said...

What I'm getting from nearly your whole response is that you think I have some kind of personal vendetta against Bush and Co and that I'm not using any logic, and that basically its all just ad hominid. Do you have anything to say about there being little to no evidence in Iran? What about the disregard, by Rove and Rice, of the Iran proposal for negotiations? This is typical of someone with your stance to say instead of responding directly to my argument and only that. So, its okay, I'll let it go like I always do.

In response to:
"Is the appropriate Democratic response to, as you suggest, make sure we have our facts straight, or would it be to assume treasonous intentions of Bush and to tip the balance of strategic power to our declared enemies, in the process permanently disabling future US Presidents?"

Of course we need our facts straight, and we dont have any, and have never had any regarding iraq or iran, and until we do, we should keep to ourselves.

I do have a hypothetical question though, why do you think that by confronting a president with potential treasonous intentions will "tip the balance of strategic power to our declared enemies, in the process permanently disabling future US Presidents?" If a president has treasonous intentions, and we have the facts to prove it, then how could it possibly be more beneficial to the welfare of 300 million people to leave a selfish, arrogant and power hungry monster in charge of 100s of billions of dollars worth of potentially deadly resources? I bet you still think we're in huge amounts of much danger from a bunch of poor, resourceless people stuck in a vast desert 10s of thousands of miles away. Well we wouldn't be if we'd keep our troops out of that area and stop thinking we can run the world.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are 100s of thousands of people in iraq currently working to build oil facilities to take control of iraq's oil. Have you ever noticed how we already have ties with Saudi Arabia, we're in Afghanistan, and Iraq and we want to invade Iran, and coincidentally they are all huge resources for oil, and they all border each other. Does this mean nothing to you? Of course we dont WANT their oil, we want to profit from it (http://uruknet.info/?p=m31166&s1=h1), by selling it to the rest of the world, this isn't about anyone's freedom or safety. Those people don't care about middle easterners, they couldn't give a flying shit about any of them and you continue to tell yourself this so you can feel better about supporting a few selfish and greedy people who don't give one iota of a fuck about you, to them you are a mear disposable resource for their empire of power and money.