Sep 16 2006

Bringing Order To Baghdad

Published by at 6:43 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

The reason Americans are losing hope with Iraq is not because of Bush’s decisions (they have brought the country to the brink of a bright future), but more because the Iraqis and Muslims tend to run to violence to solve their issues and frustrations. The West long ago rejected the quick and easy violent response to the slow, pondering processes of working out differences. While frustrating to deal with, we in the West would never want to give up our laws for vendetta. But there are ways to try and push the Muslims into other avenues of redress. Step one seems to be to cordon off Baghdad, round up those unable to behave civilly and cool things down. It should work – but it will take time and a few rounds of this to bleed off decades of frustration and blood feuds. It is not possible to watch your children tortured or killed or threatened and not want to rip the people responsible apart. With that said, the bloodlust of the Islamo Fascists (something totally different) is a disease that cannot be allowed to feed on the emotional wounds of three decades of Hussein rule. It is good to see the US going to great lengths to work with the Iraqis to do what it takes to keep pulling Iraq into the 21st century.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “Bringing Order To Baghdad”

  1. Retired Spook says:

    Hopefully, the quality of life in this part of the world will become better and they will cease being envious of us and let us all live in peace. As far as I am concerned this is a worthy goal.

    Barbara, I could not agreement with you more. The most puzzling thing to me is the number of people, particularly in this country, who either disagree with your statement or simply do not comprehend it.

  2. Ken says:

    Barbara: they are not envious of us, they want us OUT of their
    regions. Notice all the historical examples you gave would not
    have been history had the US abided by its own Monroe Doctrine.

    For Enforcement-if you are right about the WMDs(about as likely as the 9-11 Truth Committee’s attempts to pin 9-11 on Bush, and as kooky) then your Dear Leader is a secret agent of the Democratic National Committee,as he conceded the WMD issue immediately after the release of the Kay Report, long long long ago.

    You Civil War description is also faulty reasoning. If the
    North had allowed secession (which even Walter Williams
    in his introduction to Thomas DiLorenzo’s blistering
    “The Real Lincoln” book asserts was the South’s right,) the
    war would have never come North. Just as your “Twin Towers”
    scare tactic citation would have never occured without the
    CIA initial funding of bin Laden against the Soviets. As al
    Qaeda would have never taken over Anbar Province in
    Iraq under Saddam.

    In three years, the US under the terms of the Geneva Convention,
    is responsible for about 150,000 innocent Iraqi lost lives.
    Multiply 50,000 by the years length of Saddam Hussein’s term and
    you will find what is meant by “pro-rated.” Let us only hope the
    occupation doesn’t stay as long as Saddam ruled, for it has
    enough blood on its hands.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    Ken, I see you are still trying to be a comedian, unfortunately you didn’t miss your calling because you clearly aren’t humorous.

    You really don’t have a clue, do you?

    Just because of why the civil war started had absolutely nothing to do with why the North almost lost it. Strange technique you have of trying to prove an argument by talking about something that had nothing to do with the outcome. But that’s how clueless people usually operate.

  4. Ken says:

    No go, For Enforcement. The “lesson” you were attempting
    to teach in your above post requires the student’s acceptance
    of the just initial action of Lincoln ,the just initial action of the
    funding of bin Laden against the Soviet and the just initial action of Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

  5. Barbara says:


    Please recall that the Monroe Doctrine was enacted almost 200 years ago. It took weeks or months for anyone to come to this hemisphere from Europe. It was feasible for us to be isolationists then. It is not now that transatlantic travel takes hours and missles can take minutes. We can no longer ignore the rest of the world. I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is desirable, but it is just no longer possible. People who think it is are not using their heads.

    Perhaps the word envious is the truth but not all the truth. The Islamofascists do not only want us out of ME, they want us out of life itself. If we give in to them and withdraw from Iraq or any other part of the war on terror, we will lose what is called face and they will become more aggressive than they are now because they will perceive us as a weak nation. I do not understand why you and your cohorts do not understand this. You libertarians are trying to get smaller government at a time when it is dangerous to do so. And to be an isolationist is to be far behind the times and are out of step with what most Americans want. As far as I am concerned, you people did enough damage when you voted for Perot and allowed Clinton in the White house. It is time for you and your group to grow and accept the world as it is and not as you want it to be.

  6. Ken says:


    Basic Political Philosophy 101. I am not a Libertarian,nor was
    Perot. Libertarians ran their own candidates when Perot, then
    Buchanan’s Reform Party ran in elections. No one said to
    “ignore” militant Islam, only not to give it reason to hate
    us by little gestures such as the CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953.
    And subsidizing Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. And
    intervening in their disputes, encouraging them in the
    case of the Iran-Iraq War and taking sides, as when Iraq
    had a quarrel with Kuwait.

    When we withdraw from the Islamic world, we can also halt Islamic immigration and send back any who remain militant here.
    As Buchanan predicts, we will either do it in graceful increments,or be forced out with heavy losses over time.

  7. For Enforcement says:

    “as when Iraq had a quarrel with Kuwait.”

    I like that statement, in fact so much, let’s see it again.

    “”as when Iraq had a quarrel with Kuwait.”

    So invading and occupying a country would be called a quarrel.

    All righty, there Ken.
    Aaaannnddddd…. your point is?