Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Saturday, March 21, 2015

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results 03.20.15

http://primitivehebrews.org/_Media/pasted-file_med-2_med.jpeg

The Council Has Spoken! The votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“”You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” – Adolf Hitler

“I studied the Qu’ran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself” – Alexis de Tocqueville

“All this talk of people who burn the Koran and nothing about the people who reacted in such a stupid way. We are always blaming the victim and not holding them — not most Muslims, but at least a large part of Muslim culture that doesn’t condemn their people… There is one religion in the world that kills you when you disagree with them and they say ‘look, we are a religion of peace and if you disagree we’ll f**king cut your head off, and nobody calls them on it — there are very few people that will call them on it. It’s like if Dad is a violent drunk and beats his kids, you don’t blame the kid because he set Dad off. You blame Dad because he’s a violent drunk” - Bill Maher

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiolc70upNJqTe-s5JsLUa85GSF1fC8W7z1FPeJS1uIpnq4vYMbGpb6ChdoMFpYijoLHNWz8zCtUiHjVwEeVsaM8Gr5BLqvGmYlTXf4AmoP5XAReNq76U2rsh1GxT0KTE7kj2il8QxG-nu-/s400/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg

This week’s winning essay, Joshuapundit’s The Chicken Or The Egg? looks at some elements of Islamic culture and asks: is it Islam that promotes the extreme violence and misogyny associated with Muslim societies? Or is that just [art of a tribal society that persists in spite of Islam? Here’s a slice:

Unless you’re in a coma, you’ve probably noticed that a great many of the violent and barbaric acts in our modern world can be attributed to followers of Islam.

In the Islamic world today, aside from homicide bombings, jihad and terrorism directed against dar harb ( the part of the world not ruled by Islam), honor killings, female genital circumcision and other forms of violence against women are commonplace, and homosexuals are routinely brutalized and murdered. Non-Muslims are treated as barely human in much of the Islamic world, if they’re allowed to exist at all. Warfare carried out by Muslims is done with modern tools of the trade provided by the despised infidels, but is a relic of the good ol’ primitive and tribal days. Hostages, beheadings and the deliberate killing of civilians are all fair game, and the language of jihad is essentially the same heady stuff used back in the 7th century against the infidel. And through it all, there remains the miasma of seething violent rage at things like the Danish cartoons that simply doesn’t exist in other religious groups.

The question nobody wants to ask keeps floating to the surface: Is Islam to blame? Or, to put it another way, are the perpetrators simply bad Muslims or are they actually good ones who are simply more in tune with Mohammed’s message than the majority? Does Islam itself promote violence? Or are the acts simply a product of primitive tribal society that persists in spite of Islam?

Actually, this is a trick question. I personally believe that Islam and the primitive tribal culture combined back in the day to sustain each other and can’t be separated by their very nature…even though some valiant attempts have been made in the past, and are being made today.

Let’s look at honor killings, for example. Probably the oldest recorded one is in Genesis 34, when Jacob’s daughter Dinah was seduced (or raped, depending on how you interpret the text) by a man from the town of Shechem (modern day Nablus). Afterwards, Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi instigated the killing of the town’s men in revenge. But the Torah also tells us how Jacob denounced the killings and actually took the time to bad mouth his sons for the deed from his deathbed. Not only that, but you’ll notice a profound difference from the Islamic way of handling this – the onus of punishment fell on the male, not the female.

his isn’t the only honor killing mentioned in the Bible, but they were never condoned or part of Jewish law, just merely reported.

Islam, on the other hand, not only sanctions honor killings but is quite clear about its position in the matter. Killing or flogging an adulteress or a female that has relations with a non-Muslim male are part of sharia ( Qu’ran: 4:15, for example) – provided an Islamic court orders the punishment rather than an individual male family member going off on his own.

Even at that, Islamic courts today in the Muslim world frequently view male family members taking the law into their own hands fairly leniently. In Jordan, for example, many brutal honor killings have been punished by as little as a three month sentence under Jordanian Public Law 340. Moreover, in the context of Islamic society such murderers are often celebrated and held up as role models. Just as homicide bombers and terrorists who kill infidel civilians often are.

But what if a Muslim feels himself disrespected and lives in say, Britain or New Jersey? If no Islamic courts are available, is it permissible to take the law into one’s own hands? Probably. There’s not much in the way of Islamic rulings or commentary on that particular subject, but the near silence of most Muslim clergy in the West when it comes to denouncing honor killings speaks volumes…one of those little inconvenient truths Western apologists for multiculturalism and Islam constantly run up against when a number of Muslim clerics themselves insist that honor killing, female genital mutilation, and stoning of adulterers are mandated by Islam. And, as you’ve probably guessed by now , that’s one of the unspoken reasons behind the push among many Muslims in the West for sharia courts to handle those messy domestic problems that come up with uppity females from time to time.

Violent death penalties for women caught in adultery is fairly typical of a primitive society, but only Islam continues the practice into the present day. No Christian court has ever condemned a woman to death for adultery. And although the death penalty for adultery is found in the Book of Leviticus, there is no record of such a sentence ever carried out by any Jewish court. The same is true of homosexuality; while both Christianity and Judaism consider it ‘a sin and an abomination’ only Islam clearly mandates the death penalty for such activities and carries it out in our present day.

So why does Islamic society persist in these practices ?

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Daniel Greenfield’s – Obama’s Treason Is The New Patriotism submitted by The Noisy Room. Daniel has some very hard hitting things to say about President Obama and a number of his questionable actions..and the tendency by the usual suspects to name anyone whom disagrees with the Regime a ‘traitor.’

Here are this week’s full results. GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD and Rhymes With Right were unable to vote this week, but were not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners
Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Sunday, January 12, 2014

The Wrap at Ask Marion 1.05.14 Thru 1.12.14

Its a Wrap

Our weekly wrap… Sunday to Sunday… Please share! Ask Marion

Quote of the Week: "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

Election 2014 and 2016… All Sewn-Up or the Battle(s) for Americas Life

Devil... Lies

Devil... Lies 2

Alert: Rand Paul Sues Obama… Join Class Action Suit

Also See:

Book of the Week – Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (Kindle)

Gates Book Puts White House in Defense Mode… And Conveniently a Christie Scandal Appears

Rush Limbaugh slammed the media on Wednesday for its coverage of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, saying “The focus on the bridge controversy only serves to take former defense secretary Robert Gates’ critique of President Barack Obama “off the front page.”

From the former secretary of defense, a strikingly candid, vividly written account of his experience serving Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before Robert M. Gates received a call from the White House in 2006, he thought he’d left Washington politics behind: after working for six presidents in both the CIA and the National Security Council, he was happy in his role as president of Texas A&M University. But when he was asked to help a nation mired in two wars and to aid the troops doing the fighting, he answered what he felt was the call of duty. Now, in this unsparing memoir, meticulously fair in its assessments, he takes us behind the scenes of his nearly five years as a secretary at war: the battles with Congress, the two presidents he served, the military itself, and the vast Pentagon bureaucracy; his efforts to help Bush turn the tide in Iraq; his role as a guiding, and often dissenting, voice for Obama; the ardent devotion to and love for American soldiers—his “heroes”—he developed on the job.

In relating his personal journey as secretary, Gates draws us into the innermost sanctums of government and military power during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, illuminating iconic figures, vital negotiations, and critical situations in revealing, intimate detail. Offering unvarnished appraisals of Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Presidents Bush and Obama among other key players, Gates exposes the full spectrum of behind-closed-doors politicking within both the Bush and Obama administrations.

He discusses the great controversies of his tenure—surges in both Iraq and Afghanistan,  how to deal with Iran and Syria, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Guantánamo Bay, WikiLeaks—as they played out behind the television cameras. He brings to life the Situation Room during the Bin Laden raid. And, searingly, he shows how congressional debate and action or inaction on everything from equipment budgeting to troop withdrawals was often motivated, to his increasing despair and anger, more by party politics and media impact than by members’ desires to protect our soldiers and ensure their success.

However embroiled he became in the trials of Washington, Gates makes clear that his heart was always in the most important theater of his tenure as secretary: the front lines. We journey with him to both war zones as he meets with active-duty troops and their commanders, awed by their courage, and also witness him greet coffin after flag-draped coffin returned to U.S. soil, heartbreakingly aware that he signed every deployment order. In frank and poignant vignettes, Gates conveys the human cost of war, and his admiration for those brave enough to undertake it when necessary.

Duty tells a powerful and deeply personal story that allows us an unprecedented look at two administrations and the wars that have defined them

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement – Benghazi IRS NSA 1-11-2014

NYT, Hillary & Obama’s War on a Mom 

Hillary and Bengahzi Facts

Anti-Hillary Campaign Bus

We are living in amazing times, good and bad, the kind of times that truly try men’s (and women’s) souls and that make or break countries and shape (or reshape) societies. Please get involved, pray for guidance, prepare for the worst (for yourself and to help others), then educate yourself and share what you learn with as many people as you can. All our futures depend on it!!

Its_a_Wrap

Be sure to come visit us here at Ask Marion regularly and subscribe to receive the latest posts first… as well as visit: Just One More Pet, True Health Is True Wealth!!, Knowledge Is Power, and the Daily Thought Pad.

Memorable Photos…

We Are All Waiting...

Dogs slaughtered for meat in Vietnam… Stop the Dog Meat Trade 

Stop the Pain… Get-Involved and Speak Up Whenever You Suspect Abuse, Of Any Kind 

True Meaning Of Family – Stray Cat Takes Day-Old Puppy Off The Streets

Sunday, January 5, 2014

The Wrap at Ask Marion 12.29.13 Thru 1.05.14

Its a Wrap

Our weekly wrap… Sunday to Sunday… Please share! Ask Marion

Quote of the Week: “Only in America can you find a movement of People who aren’t satisfied with the Freedom they have to Believe or Not Believe, but rather have to go on the attack against the beliefs of others.”

The Atheist War on Christmas and Religious Freedom – WoC 2013/14

Read this normally… and then read it again from the bottom up.

Atheist vs Christian View of Life

Also See:

Book of the Week – Lethal Engagement

“The Iraq/Afghani War Has Cost Nearly 3-Trillion Dollars and 51,778 U.S. Casualties, Including 4489 Killed…” So Why Would We Have Pulled Out Against the Advice of All The Leadership and Troops on the Ground?  It Makes No Sense!

Full constitutional rights for foreign Islamic terrorist detainees. Apologies to the Muslim world for American 'misdeeds,' and promises to make amends even if the security of the American people is placed in peril. Welcoming radical Muslim sympathizers into high positions of authority. Abridging freedom of expression. And much, much more. Lethal Engagement documents how in these and other ways President Barack Hussein Obama has forsaken the oath of office he took to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Lethal Engagement exposes how radical Muslims are re-branding their barbaric ideology to fool their gullible audience in the West and how they play the racism victim card, all with President Obama's help. Lethal Engagement systematically lays out the dangerous entanglement of Obama with the United Nations, which radical Muslims are manipulating to promulgate international law to their liking, and how his nomination of more activist judges willing to throw away the Constitution allows radical Muslims to subvert American law. Lethal Engagement also reveals the radical Muslim plan to destroy the value of the dollar and use the United Nations to replace it with a new global reserve currency, all helped along by the Obama administration's disastrous economic policies. After connecting all these dots, Joseph Klein explains the steps 'we the people' must take to rescue our country.

Iraqi Army Shells Fallujah As Street Fights Rage In Ramadi

Fallujah falls fully into hands of al-Qaida group 

McCain, Graham blast Obama for Al Qaeda-related takeover of ...

If You R Not Outraged...

If You Like Your Plan

 

We are living in amazing times, good and bad, the kind of times that truly try men’s (and women’s) souls and that make or break countries and shape (or reshape) societies. Please get involved, pray for guidance, prepare for the worst (for yourself and to help others), then educate yourself and share what you learn with as many people as you can. All our futures depend on it!!

Its_a_Wrap

Be sure to come visit us here at Ask Marion regularly and subscribe to receive the latest posts first… as well as visit: Just One More Pet, True Health Is True Wealth!!, Knowledge Is Power, and the Daily Thought Pad.

Memorable Photos…

Ameridcas Demon

Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’

Saggy Pants

Friday, December 20, 2013

28 Pages Later: Shrouding an Act of War

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton -  Cross-Posted at Right Side News

A scandal that spans three presidencies and more is coming to light. In a non-defined conflict against terrorism, we have lost over 6,750 U.S. service members who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. American blood spilled in wars that do not attack those who attacked us on 9-11. To put this in perspective, fewer died in Pearl Harbor and we nuked the Japanese. We were told after 9-11, that it was al Qaeda, with no other state sponsors. If the allegations prove accurate, 9-11 was nothing less than an act of war by Saudi Arabia.

“It’s classified because if it were released, the people would demand war against Saudi Arabia, and the entire US policy of having the Sunni Arabs price their oil in US dollars in exchange for supporting their dictatorships would fall apart.”
– Comment left at Hot Air (Hat Tip: The Radio Patriot)

According to the New York Post, Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch and Republican Rep. Walter Jones have come forward with solid accusations claiming that 28 pages from the 2002 report on 9-11, were not only redacted, they were blank except for an on-going ellipsis. The 28 pages were purportedly removed by President Bush when the report was released, but are now leaking out 12 years later:

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, the intel Sperry cites will eventually be discredited or the executive branch will be implicated in the interference with one or both reports.

Three Strikes And You Are Out

Buck Sexton at TheBlaze last night said that he thought that the redaction was either to cover embarrassment for incompetency on the part of our intelligence agencies (the fact that no one was minding the store), or that our government was complicit in aiding and abetting the Saudis. Here are some facts for you:

1. Clinton and his intelligence agencies knew full well what bin Laden intended. Bin Laden stated it in 1998 and carried it out in 2001. I see no way that our agencies didn’t know it was a grave possibility.

2. Bush put the Saudis on a plane right after 9-11 and sent them home. No questions asked, right after the murder of 3,000 Americans and the largest terrorist attack on US soil ever.

3. At least one Saudi was involved in the Boston bombing. He was hurt and hospitalized. Michelle Obama visited him in the hospital. He was given safe passage back to Saudi Arabia and he visited the White House afterwards.

Three strikes and you are out.

I believed in President Bush when 9-11 happened. He seemed a hero for his actions right after the attack. Now those actions are clouded and it would seem that those branded conspiracy nuts on both sides of the aisle, were in part right. I still don’t buy the wackier conspiracy theories that you will find out there and I will never be a Truther. But, I have for a long time pointed out the involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran as well in the attacks. Now there seems to be strong evidence against Saudi Arabia who has denied their involvement since the beginning. Denials that were suspect to begin with since 15 of the 19 bombers were from Saudi Arabia.

The New York Post has laid out the now expanding evidence that Saudi agents, officials and operatives in several states, including Virginia, Florida, California and DC, gave funding and/or intelligence to the hijackers in 2001. If true, explain to me how that is not an act of war?

Karl Denninger put it better than I can and got right to the heart of the matter:

It’s obvious given what happened, the logistical and funding requirements and where the hijackers came from along with inexplicable actions immediately following the attacks – unless our government explicitly let certain people flee.

Yet we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan while helping the Saudis — the very people who attacked us.

And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.

[...]

It makes a very convincing case that the Saudi Government was involved in an act of war against the United States. Not simply terrorism — remember, the Pentagon, a military target, was one of the locations hit. The other intended target for the plane that went down in PA was the Capitol.

You awake yet America?

You damn well should be.

It’s about damn time that the mainstream media started talking about this — you’re only a decade late, *******s. And no, people like myself who have been saying this all along are not nuts.

We’re right.

And American blood flows, while we protect those who kill us. Sheer insanity. Obama literally bows to the Saudi King and it would appear that Bush and Clinton did as well. I can’t get the image out of my head of Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia. That blood is as black as oil. No one has ever solved or revealed who made the killing in the stock market by shorting airline stocks during all this. That needs to be answered.

Eight Trillion has been spent on security since 9-11 and we are less secure now than we were then. Does anyone really believe this is not on purpose? Incompetency only goes so far; evil intent is forever. We have been lied to over and over and over again. We see it going on every day and feel helpless to stop it. We must put a stop to this. These elite Progressives are getting wealthy off the deaths of our people and are redistributing every last dime America has. By design, they are bringing us to our knees and forcing us into a dictatorship. They have no reverence for the Constitution, for our laws or our branches of government. Do you trust our government anymore? I don’t – not on either side of the political spectrum.

Inside The Saudi 9/11 Coverup

Read the New York Post’s investigative piece in its entirety: Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup. I would very much like to know what is in those 28 pages. I want to know if this is another contrived attempt to smear Bush and Republicans, or if they were complicit in aiding the Saudis. I want the truth:

Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “cover-up.”

Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a “cover-up beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.

Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.

Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a month-long letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.

But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant ­today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.

As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States.”

Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.

Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.

If any of this is true, America will never be the same. Our leaders should be forewarned that the public will not be pleased – the woodshed will have a long line on this one and tar and feathers will be handed out judiciously. We always knew that Saudi Arabia was involved, but this takes it to a new level. When a country’s government sanctions and helps with a terrorist attack of another country, ally or not, it is an act of war. Thanks to Obama, we are too weak after gutting our military to go to war. But if Saudi Arabia’s government was involved, then America needs to clean out our government now, beef up our military and go on a road trip to the land of oil and do a smack down of epic proportions.

The enemies within and without seem to have been shrouding an act of war and Americans need to wrest control of our Republic back into the hands of patriots. As Judson Phillips says, we should remember there are certain crimes that have no statute of limitations.

Glenn Beck: What Do They Have On Us?

Monday, April 15, 2013

Forum: The 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War just passed. Was the Iraq Invasion Worthwhile?

Forum: Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question:The 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War just passed. Was the Iraq Invasion Worthwhile?

The Razor:I’ll admit I was wrong about the Iraq war. I took the politically correct view that Arabs weren’t savages and was proven wrong.

That’s overly simplistic. I was wrong about Iraq because we weren’t willing to do two things we did in Germany and Japan after World War 2.

1. We treated the regimes we replaced as losers.

2. We discredited the cultures that lead to militarism. Neither Germany nor Japan had strong democratic roots, so instead we imposed superior cultures on them, particularly the British parliamentary system.

In Iraq we were doomed because of the politically correct view that all cultures are equal. Ditto Afghanistan. Sorry, but Arab states are based on corruption, violence and kleptocracy, and by refusing to impose a superior culture on them we allowed their culture to flourish.

In fact I would argue that at this time we cannot accomplish any nation building anywhere under our cultural relativist beliefs.

The Colossus of Rhodey:Well, let’s see: was Iraq under Saddam Hussein really that much of a threat? Sure, as long as he remained in power he could be a nuisance and a potential menace, but to what degree? The coalition from the first Iraq War had Iraq “boxed in,” so to speak, primarily via the “no-fly zone.” And, yes, Saddam had defied the UN upwards of over fifteen times since the Gulf War’s end in 1991. The US tried to make its case to the UN for military action against Saddam in ’02 and ’03, but Kofi and the gang wouldn’t go for it. So as a result, why does this mean that WE — the US — must do it alone? Why must US forces risk their lives because the weak-kneed, yellow-bellied and milksop UN refuses to act to enforce its own sanctions and edicts?

And this brings me to my primary reason why I am against the Iraq War: Removing a dictator and instituting democracy to a country that’s never had it is NOT — NOT — a job for the US military. Not a single US soldier’s life is worth it. It’s “nation-building,” after all. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be against ”nation-building”? Representative Ron Paul makes a good case conservatives should consider here. Furthermore, James L. Payne demonstrates that “nation-building” has been effective only 27% of the time since 1850, and he argues that these sucesses were not the products of military intervention. In addition, he notes:

One group of countries that seem especially resistant to democracy-building efforts are the Arab lands. There have been are nine interventions in Arab countries in the past century. In no case did stable democracy follow the military occupation.

George W. Bush himself declared that “We’re not into nation building. We’re focused on justice”shortly after the 9/11 attacks. And Claudia Rosett in the conservative Wall Street Journal opinion pages said about W’s claim (my emphasis):

That’s a crucial distinction. Nation building entails America trying to construct an entire way of life for others. And though building a free and democratic world would be a wondrous thing, experience suggests that for any nation it is a vastly complex project that must come mainly from within. America can serve as an example and an ally. But we cannot reliably reengineer other societies, and we risk enormous resentment when we try. No amount of social or political engineering can produce a paradise in which evil urges will never intrude, and though a more widely free and benign world order would produce fewer monsters, we can hardly arrange that within the week. But if we cannot quickly fix all creation, we can at least minimize the opportunities and maximize the penalties for evil actions–something we have not done for a decade now.

Of course, not too soon after, President Bush did a 180 on his above claim regarding Iraq. And, predictably, many — most? — conservatives fell in line behind him. This is understandable, certainly — the need to put up a “united front” — but it’s very intellectually and philosophically dishonest for conservatives. After all, didn’t conservatives flame Bill Clinton for his efforts in Haiti? Somalia? Kosovo? They sure did.

At least I believe I’m consistent. I’m against all instances of “nation-building,” whether they be attempted under a liberal administration or a conservative one. The only exceptions would be examples such as Japan and Germany which were utterly destroyed after total war and, frankly, needed a major degree of “nation-[re]building.”

US soldiers are there to FIGHT, not to police foreign lands or to engage in “building” democracy. Removing Saddam was a good thing, yes, but consider the long-term consequences.

Bookworm Room:I’m reading Paul Fussell’s marvelous The Great War and Modern Memory. It is a reminder of deadly wars, fought for stupid reasons, with disastrous consequences. Iraq wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last.

Rhymes With Right: As I noted over at my blog, I certainly understand those who look upon our nation’s military action in Iraq to have been a disaster. We discovered that our leaders had for at least a decade believed things that were untrue because our nation’s intelligence services had supplied wrong information. We watched as a quick victory became a much tougher slog due to a rising insurgency. And there was the financial toll on our country that weakened our government and our economy. One can make the case that the Iraq war “was not worth it”.

But while our media an opinion leaders are willing to look upon the question from a very American – and very political – perspective, what we don’t often hear is the answer to that question from Iraqis.
Take this response from one of Saddam Hussein’s many victims – Kurdish activist Barham Salih, who suffered in the torture chambers of the Iraqi dictator, who notes that:

“From the perspective of the Kurdish people — and I dare say the majority of the Iraqi people — it was worth it,” he said. “War is never a good option, but given our history and the brutality of Saddam’s regime, it may have been the only other option to end the genocidal campaign waged by Saddam against the Kurds and other communities in Iraq.”

So no, Iraq certainly is not the stable democracy and steadfast ally that we hoped for a decade ago. Acts of terrorism still take place there on a regular basis. But there are no government torture chambers in operation. There is a democracy of a sort, and opportunities for Iraqis that did not exist in 2003. So while maybe the most imperialist view of what “worth it” (ironically adopted by the Left who opposed the war from practically the beginning), the war ended up improving the human rights situation of millions of Iraqis. And if that doesn’t make the war “worth it” from an American point of view, doesn’t it at least constitute an improvement on what was in place before it began?

JoshuaPundit: Sorry, but IMO this is sheer horse manure. It’s what I would expect from Jeffrey Goldberg.

Since when do we engage in wars – let alone non-constitutional ones – for things other than our own national interest? If that’s the case, I guess I missed our invasion of Sudan to protect Darfur, or our taking out of Hamas or Iran.

And what did we ‘liberate’ in Iraq, exactly? Or accomplish, aside from building a brand new infrastructure and a shiny new Muslim army at the American taxpayer’s expense for a Shi’ite Islamic republic with its laws based on Sharia? Meanwhile we’re out a trillion dollars and over 4,000 lives.

We replaced a Sunni dictator with a Shi’ite one (read up on the last ‘elections’) who’s close to Iran and whose power base is militias like the Mahdi Army and Moqtada al-Sadr.Iraq is in the process of becoming an Iranian colony.

The Sunnis, including those who we bribed to fight with us in the Awakening movement have been completely marginalized, which is why al-Qaeda in Iraq is a growing force again.

Iraq’s Christians were horribly persecuted under our watch, and the majority have fled or are trying to.

We empower our real allies in Iraq, the Kurds.

We didn’t even ‘liberate’ the oil from the wells Halliburton saved after Saddam torched them. China got that.

So what did we ‘liberate’?

Things turned out badly because we set things up that way. We didn’t make Syria regret they ever let jihadis into Iraq. We didn’t put in place a firm military governor to enforce a real occupation for the time it took. We didn’t hang insurgents on either side – Moqtada al-Sadr for instance – when they caused violence and act ruthlessly to suppress it.Instead, we saddled our troops with ridiculous Rules of Engagement.

We didn’t empower women particularly, or work to discredit Islamism and because of Bush’s fetish for ‘Arab Democracy’ we rushed the Iraqis into an election they were in no way ready for.

Bush was unsuited to be a war president. And Iraq was a huge strategic. mistake.We would have done far better to not get embroiled there in the first place unless we were going to use it as a base to take on Iran, who actually was complicit in 9/11. Even the 9/11 Commission’s report mentioned that.

I give tremendous credit to Patraeus and Ordiano for allowing us a gracious retreat, but that was what it was.

The Noisy Room: I supported President Bush when we invaded Iraq. I still believe it was a terrorist pit that needed cleaning out, however… I said at the time and I still believe that it was the wrong initial target. Iran should have been first on our dance card. We did not deal with the ‘head’ of the snake and now the snake is threatening to devour the world.

Furthermore, we did not finish the job in Iraq. We were so concerned with not offending anyone, that we offended everyone. After the death of Saddam Hussein, we should have packed our bags and gone home. Instead, we stayed, training their military and rebuilding their country. Not only was that a financial black hole for us (and still is), it was militarily foolish and pointless. In the end, we are still ‘sort of’ there, but the real winners are Iran, who now basically control Iraq. War should be treated as well, war. You go in fight, kill, break things and leave. You don’t grovel and nation build afterwards. You only preemptively strike a clear and present threat as well. Such as, let’s see… North Korea or Iran, who are threatening to nuke us. But instead, we take the real threats to our country and either talk them to death or try and buy them off, both of which ALWAYS FAIL.

We have lost many, many of our warriors and we still don’t have a clearly defined enemy. We were never allowed to declare actual ‘war.’ The real perpetrators of 9-11 have not been brought to justice. Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the terrorists came from, received no punishment at all. Neither did the backers and primary instigators of the terrorism, Iran (I don’t consider ‘sanctions’ real punishment). The terrorist masterminds who were captured still sit in jail (if you can even call it that as every need and want is met for them) and there is a good chance under the Obama-friendly regime that they will wind up in U.S. courts, rather than military tribunals. This means they could walk, get greatly reduced sentences or wind up in Club Med for wayward Jihadist radicals.

Although I feel for the Iraqis and their plight, I now no longer believe invasion of Iraq was worthwhile. Their country is based on a theocratic and militaristic barbarism that is employed throughout the Islamic world. It is a mindset that the West cannot seem to wrap their viewpoint around: “You love Pepsi, we love death.” Our invasion did nothing to make us safer or bring closure to the murders of nearly 3,000 Americans. We spilled our warriors life-blood for little to no gain and ended up doing nothing but entangling ourselves in more pointless conflicts we will not be allowed to win and further bankrupting our nation. The current conflicts in the Middle East are engineered for wealth and power redistribution. I now believe the only way to win in the Middle East is with massive bombing runs and perhaps a judicious nuke or two. Even then it won’t end the threat, just delay the conflict to end all conflicts.

The Glittering Eye: Simply stated, no, it was not worthwhile. There were better ways of spending the money, lives, and time. Our failure to pacify the country harmed our reputation. A reputation for invincibility is hard to recover once lost.

Granted, it could have been worse, for example, if we had bolted in 2005 or 2006 when the
post-war was degenerating so badly. That still doesn’t make it a strategic victory.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Share

Thursday, December 1, 2011

"KISS" Performs in Iraq - You will love this!

By Marion Algier

This was filmed in Iraq at a USO tour of a US Marine Base. Play it and share it to every single person you know... cause you won't see it on the news.

Video Pop-Up:  “KISS” Performs in Iraq – Will put a smile on our face and bring tears to your eyes at the same time! (Reg Video format)

About 12-years ago as we were waiting to put our daughter onto a plane to Space Camp (great experience for her) we ran into the band KISS boarding the same plane.  They really were nice guys… our daughter had no clue at the time who they were.  But Gene Simmons and the rest of the band were really nice to her and are great supporters of our troops. MA

*For those that don’t know this, Gene Simmons was born in Israel in 1949. His mother was a Nazi concentration camp survivor, so he comes by his love of America and its military naturally, his mother (and others) having been liberated by them.

Honor our troops, honor our veterans with a handshake and a "thank you for serving” whenever you see them!

Ask Marion - h/t to Deonia Copeland

Friday, August 26, 2011

Congressman Allen West - Speaking the Truth. If you haven't watched or listened to his story please

Only two blacks were newly elected to congress this cycle, and both are Republican. LTC. Allen West is from southern Florida, a bastion of the Democratic Party.  He won in a walk.

It is worth the viewing.  This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq.  He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured.  At the same time his men had captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men.

This is not my account of the happenings:

Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner COL West took matters into his own hands.  He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken.  The prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired.  Then the COL told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss.  So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken.  The Americans were rescued.  Some one filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners.  COL West was forced to retire.  COL West was just elected in November 2010 to Congress from Florida. During the elections he was part of a panel on how to handle or how to relate to Muslims.  You will see his answer here.

Here is one of the new congressmen from Florida explaining very definitively in just over a minute the truth about Islam. Please watch and if you agree; please forward it to your friends

Video:  Sura 9:5 says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them

Must View! Islamic Infiltration of the US Government

By: Trevor Loudon  -  New Zeal  -  Cross-posted at the NoisyRoom

From 2010, but still highly relevant.

Bill Whittle interviews “whistleblowers,” who have some chilling things to say on the extent of Islamic infiltration into the US government.

Shocking, to put it mildly.

Video:  The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1:  Inside our Government…

Video: The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2:  From Influence…

And then what about the Russians, Chinese and Cubans?

Hat Tip: Ironic Surrealism

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Is Obama Hiding Hillary?

Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work? foxnews_190x107

Diplomatic hot spots are popping up everywhere, in spite of President Obama's "adopt an evil-doer" doctrine. We have real-live crises in Honduras, North Korea and Iran; things are dicey in Afghanistan, China is ever problematic and Mexico is a mess. Not to worry: the administration is on top of things. Joe Biden is trying to make Iraq's leaders play nice in their sandbox, President Obama is becoming the Russians' new BFF, Richard Holbrooke has been meeting with G8 foreign ministers in Trieste, and George Mitchell convened recently with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's last gig was...installing Jose Villarreal as the Commissioner for the 2010 Shanghai World Expo? Boy, has she been had.

Is a fractured elbow keeping Hillary out of the limelight, or are there more sinister forces at work? Could her virtual disappearance have anything to do with sky-high approval ratings -- ratings suggesting that Americans might favor Clinton over Obama in future scuffles?

Barack Obama, who campaigned as new to the whole partisan, "inside the Beltway" world of politics, is a fast learner. His cunning elimination of Hillary Clinton as a political threat will be a case study someday in the Handbook of Power Politics. Tapping her to be part of his administration was of course brilliant; she can't snipe from the sidelines, and she, moreover, will carry the president's baggage, at least in the realm of foreign policy. Placing in front of her several showy envoys to cover the big tasks was clever too. But recently, Obama has dug the hole even deeper.

Not only has Clinton been off center stage, some of her most visible moments of late have spotlighted her carrying out the world's most thankless assignment -- criticizing Israel. First she lectured our allies about treating Palestinians poorly and then she ramped up the pressure about its disputed settlements. Not one to mince words, she translated President Obama's gentle reproof into a harsh ultimatum, insisting he meant "not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions" -- in short NO settlements.

Think about delegating a New York State politician to chastise Israel and its leaders. Short of sending toddlers to undermine the siege of Moscow, it's hard to come up with a more daunting mission. If she continues as the heavy in this new relationship with Israel, Hillary Clinton can kiss goodbye to any future ambitions that rely on her raising money in the Jewish community -- or that is, almost any ambitions at all. Overcoming initial hostility due to her memorable smooching with the wife of Yassir Arafat, Clinton worked hard to woo the well-heeled Jewish vote. She succeeded. In the primaries, according to CBS News, she garnered 54% of the Jewish vote, compared to only 43% for Barack Obama. (Of course, it may have been the "Hussein" that threw Jewish voters off.) For President Obama, separating Hillary Clinton from the nipple of Jewish generosity is an insurance policy.

Why would Obama need to undermine Hillary Clinton? For starters, the public is beginning to warm to our Secretary of State as never before. In May, her polling topped Obama's. Clinton had a 71% approval rating, compared to 65% for the president. That's the kind of comparison that could furrow a brow or two.

Moreover, it is entirely conceivable that our ambitious young president could run into trouble. He has undertaken one gigantic initiative after another, potentially undermining the economic recovery. As investors have assessed soaring budget deficits, they have demanded higher returns on Treasuries. Rising interest rates have eliminated one powerful balm for consumers -- mortgage refinancing. Higher taxes are inevitable, and will further pressure any rebound in spending. Unemployment numbers are dreadful, businesses are apprehensive, unions are demanding payback for their support and our trading partners are grumpy about rising protectionism. It's not a pretty picture.

Though Obama has tried to make Congress the fall guy should healthcare prove disastrous or cap-and-trade disruptive, Americans are not so dumb. They know where this whirlwind of change is coming from, and they are increasingly uneasy. Should our Afghanistan adventures prove as punishing for our GIs as they have for every other power enticed into that miserable landscape, should GM come back to the people's feeding trough, should Chavez et al continue to make the president look foolish, Americans may seek relief -- and they may spell it HILLARY.

Reuters - by Liz Peek, financial columnist.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad