My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.
Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.
Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?
Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.
Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?
By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.
If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.
It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 15)
16. You fail to mention the fact, that Iraq wouldn't have the significance it does, without the power vacuum WE created.
As it stood pre-war, Iraq was the "wild card." Saddam was the balance; All of the Islamic nations had to worry about the real and distinct possibility of his dangerousness. A great deal of their resources were reserved in the case of his expansionist agenda. The region was locked in a stalemate.
By Islamic standards, Iraq was relatively secular. Having the large amount of oil, it was fairly prosperous. Saddam used the oil wealth to modernize Iraq.
When Saddam invaded Iran, he surmised that the chaos of the Islamic revolution would give him the edge, but within 2 years, Iran had regained all lost ground. The Reagan administration sold weapons to both sides, until caught - but continued to supply Saddam with conventional and chemical weapons.
Wnen Saddam invaded Kuwait, he sent an envoy DAYS before he invaded. It's not a coincidence, he announced his intentions. After the first Gulf War, he was seriously weakened, but not to the point where he could be could be written off. One could conclude that weakening led to the strength of radical Islam.
Then, come's the sequel. An obvious possible doubling of the radical Shia movement, as Iraq is largely the same sect as Iran. You need to question the rationale for removing a secular dictator, when a "democratic" Iraq would naturally ally itself with it's "evil" neighbor. That rationale changed several times, when the original rationale proved to be lies. WMD's, connections to Al-Queda, "Saddam was a really bad guy," Building "democracy."
ex-christian at 3:22AM on Jul 16th 2008
17. Who cares if Saddam and Osamma "liked" each other or not? That's irrelevant. They had every reason to work together at some level because they had a common enemy who they hated more. America.
You know the Crips and the bloods have a common enemy too, so they must be working together right. Come to think of it the skin heads have this same enemy too, so they must all be working together.
We may see them all as Arabs(and they see us all as Americans) but they don't see themselves that way.
Invading Iraq to get Bin Laden makes no more sense than busting up the KKK to stop drive by shootings in the inner city. (Yes, I know they are both bad).
tmo at 3:24AM on Jul 16th 2008
18. DD: "I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire."
Two points, 1) many of the Christians didn't appear to get it either. 2) usually when a joke falls flat or people don't get it, the problem is with the teller and not the audience.
Ryan Anderson at 3:41AM on Jul 16th 2008
19. tmo: "Invading Iraq to get Bin Laden makes no more sense than busting up the KKK to stop drive by shootings in the inner city. (Yes, I know they are both bad)."
It makes even less sense than that. It's like busting up the KKK, while recruiting, training and equipping inner city gangs to stop drive by shootings in the inner city.
Ryan Anderson at 3:44AM on Jul 16th 2008
20. As for the joke. . .
Had your previous posts been full of wit, humility, and intelligence the contrast would have been much clearer and in turn the joke much more funny.
tmo at 4:33AM on Jul 16th 2008
21.
One fact that shouldn't be overlooked, is the fact that this entire powderkeg has a central theme.
RELIGION!!!
It's the dangerous "interpretation" of Islam that sparked all of it. If you die in the defense of Allah, you'll not only go to heaven, but get the extra reward.
The entire region is awash with cash, but the distribution is incredibly disproportionate. A few live in air conditioned palaces, while the majority scrape by. But the majority, who barely scrape by, don't even look at the palaces; they're told by the Imam's that America is the reason for their suffering.
The people who are there for the births, and funerals. The one's who tell them their suffering in this world will not be in vain. Don't look at the rich, they are doomed; your true enemy is "over there." They want to steal our oil, and destroy our religious freedom by imposing western standards on you.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (here,) we are told that the enemy is afoot. They want to destroy our way of life. Don't look at the rich; they are rich because they deserve it. Concentrate on your hatred of those who would destroy you. They want to impose their Sharia law on you. Don't let them win.
Our secularization is their evil - their religious law is our evil.
We're told by our media and government to fear them, and they are told by the Imam's to fear us.
ex-christian at 5:38AM on Jul 16th 2008
22. Politics again? ewwww
I had a pretty priceless moment last night. A guy I know kept calling someone he disliked a jew and attributing her bad actions to her jewishness. This went on for a while and while I was not defending her actions it bothered me that he was blaming them on her jewishness. He knows that I am an atheist so I said to him "I don't know....from my point of view you all seem the same to me." This had the effect of lumping him in the same category as her. I don't think I have ever seen him speechless before.
a born atheist at 7:19AM on Jul 16th 2008
23. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics.
*************************************
THIS is how you sum up the Afghanistan situation, and its remedy??? PATHETIC!
And do you not see the direct link between Iran beating its chest, going nuclear, becoming a world player, holding holocaust-denial conferences, AFTER we took down its biggest enemy. In taking out Iraq, we defeated the enemy of our two biggest enemies. That is not a smart strategic move, and you, dd, are too ideologically blinded to ever see it.
You consider yourself an intellectual, but you are clearly not an expert or even a student of middle eastern history or politics.
America's Most Gangsta at 7:36AM on Jul 16th 2008
24. I find it both funny and frightening that you use bin laden's own words to justify the war in iraq. Because bin laden thinks the central front in the war on terror is in iraq, you, dd, also do...and you think our country also should. bin laden also wanted oil prices to astronomical, and our economy to suffer greatly. Are you also aligned with bin laden on these issues, dd? Is george bush still aligned with bin laden???
America's Most Gangsta at 7:37AM on Jul 16th 2008
25. Iraq wasnt a problem until we invaded. While it wasnt the happiest place on earth, Saddam kept a kind of order that would not allow radical Islam to flourish. Afghanistan was the country we said Bin Laden was in.....We attack Afghanistan....Then before we get Bin Laden....We attack Iraq......What happened to getting Bin Laden?????
Iraq made no sense to attack when we didnt even find the person we set out to get in the first place......That would be like if we had invaded Germany during WW2 and then before we got Hitler, just went ahead and attacked Russia.
As much as you want to make Obama look bad, the fact is, is that he seems to want to get Bin Laden. This makes me wonder. If you dont want us to finish what we started....Why dont you want us to capture him???
CaptainCack at 8:29AM on Jul 16th 2008
26. I think that George W. Bush went to Iraq because he wanted to settle a personal score, due to his father being involved in the Gulf War, a decade earlier. But G. W. Bush could not, and would not, have been able to justify fighting Iraq until Saddam Hussein was dumb enough to literally bluff that he had Weapons Of Mass Destruction, AND Hussein defied the U.N. deal by refusing to allow inspectors to look around. If Hussein had not bluffed and refused the inspectors, we would not be in Iraq, and Hussein would still be in power there.
But that is old news. Where are we now?
Because 9/11 brought the full military force of the USA into the Middle East, we have NOT had another terrorist attack on US soil, since. Meanwhile, in Europe, where they denounce the USA for fighting in the Middle East, they actually have had terrorist attacks. The appeasers get attacked for being appeasers, while the fighters do not get attacked, because it brings a high price -- the US military in your backyard.
Who do the terrorists want to win the White House? Barack Hussein Obama -- an appeaser.
Rev 3:16 at 8:30AM on Jul 16th 2008
27. Fear is a facinating thing. It's the most base emotion, hard-wired into virtually every creature. The survival instinct.
It's used for conditioning. Conditioning can be deceptively simple, to extremely complex. What would cause an otherwise rational human being to voluntarily drink kool-aid laced with cyanide, or don some new shoes, fill their pockets with quarters, and then, drink whiskey and pop downers?
It gains it's strength from the connections between the concious, and the sub-concious. The concious is given the message, and through repitition, sinks into the sub-concious. Once there, rationality and reason can't touch it - but for maximum effect,it must be constantly and consistently reinforced.
One of the greatest examples of this is Nazi Germany. Not only was the depth of conditioning frightening, but the speed in which it occured. The constant bombardment of the evil of jews and communists, and the superiority of the German race.
The awe inspiring torchlit rallies of hundreds of thousands; the subtle shots in films and newsreels. The mandatory gymnastic clubs and youth organizations.
We see the same things going on today. the constant bombardment of the message - one paragraph of this installment has liberal democrats, Islamic Radicals, Al-Queda, war on terror, World War III.
Bang. There it is. All the terms needed to instill fear and anxiety, as the conditioning has told the masses that all are dangerous.
Then, you deliver the message you want to connect the fear to, and what can take the fear away.
ex-christian at 8:40AM on Jul 16th 2008
28. Rev, you sound like the president..........
They dont need to attack the US right now, they are killing our troops just fine over there. Besides, these terrorists are not stupid. They are well equipped, well trained, patient, organized, and most of all, didicated to thier cause.
They will wait for security to lax. They will wait for america to become complacent.
The full might of the US military will not be a deterrant. Otherwise they would not be fighting us in Iraq.....Still......For how many years Rev???
CaptainCack at 8:40AM on Jul 16th 2008
29. Rev: "Who do the terrorists want to win the White House? Barack Hussein Obama -- an appeaser"
Rev, I respectfully disagree. When you say terrorists I assume you are specifically referring to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda benefits greatly by our presence in the middle east. Sure, we might kill some Al Qaeda in Iraq, but we are giving them new recruits, indirectly helping them train, and worst, actually equiping them (remember the 190,000 rifles we lost?)
In short, I think Osama bin Laden (if he hasn't died from kidney failure) and Al Qaeda in Iraq would much rather see us elect someone who will continue our current policy.
Ryan Anderson at 8:47AM on Jul 16th 2008
30. As for today's hot steaming cup of stupid...the Bin Ladens were in a business bed with the Bushes (along with scads of Saudi families...y'know, the guys that actually flew the planes on 9/11) and for all we know, still are. The build-up of Taliban and Al Queda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is well documented. A couple of months this year have been deadlier for US soldiers in Afghanistan than Iraq. So you think Osama just might be, oh, you know....LYING? He's probably laughing up his turban now that gas has hit his goal of 140$ a barrel. D'Stupid, you siding with Bin Laden on that, as well?
As for "Pearls of Unwisdom," we have John McCain, the foreign policy "expert." The man who has - for two days running - talked about Czechoslovakia as if is didn't stop existing 15 years ago. The man who thinks he needs an Afghanistan Czar like being, oh say, Commander in Chief isn't good enough. The man who STILL confuses Sunni and Shia. The intellectual lightweight who makes Bomb Iran jokes and talks mirthfully about giving them all Cancer, a subject he, of all people, should know is not a joke.
Yeah, he's your man. A senile old child of privilege wife-dumping gold digging 5th from the BOTTOM of his class flip-flopper who misses the glory days of dropping bombs from planes when he wasn't crashing them. As for me, I can't wait to cast my vote for that other guy.
T.Brough at 9:09AM on Jul 16th 2008