Friday, February 24, 2006

Good News From Iraq!

Where are those right wing foghorns when the fan's on full bore spraying faeces all over their disingenuous justifications for war? Been a while since we had images of GI Joe with garlands of flowers rubbed into our noses, hasn't it?

Quiggin asks why this has received so little attention:
It’s quite possible, in fact, that Sadr will emerge as the most powerful figure in Iraq’s new government. You remember Sadr–the guy the United States accused of murdering a moderate Shia cleric just days into the war. The guy who recently visited Iran and Syria to express solidarity with their anti-American dictators. The guy whose militia (which we tried–and failed–to disarm several years ago) periodically attacks British troops in the Iraqi south. Yes, that Sadr. Well, he’s now Iraq’s Dick Cheney.
All he needs is a few Sunni lawyers to shoot.

Just wait for the batwings to cut-and-run when the going gets really ugly...


Splatterbottom said...

I take the reference to "spraying faeces all over... as an attack on my fine name. I'll have you know that I have never resorted to such childish insults.

As for the TNR quote that has grabbed your attention, given the source and the smart-arsed way it is written I would not be placing too much weight on it, though I am not surprised Quiggin does.

Rachy said...

Just wait for the batwings to cut-and-run when the going gets really ugly...

If you mean the Allied forces, they'd better fucking not. I know people who totally disagreed with intervention in Iraq, but are of the opinion that we have to stay there. If we leave now, which some people like the moonbat from REM is advocating, the general Iraqi population are fucked.

The transition was never going to be easy, so let's put politics aside and not abandon the Iraqi people in this moment of extreme need.

leftvegdrunk said...

The Coalition forces in Iraq are just delaying the inevitable. Eventually the whole thing is going to degenerate into civil war. We've created a mess, and it's too late to go back. Strangely, some analysts and journalists - those most frequently ridiculed by the right - have been warning about this for a couple of years.

Ben Ze'ev said...

It would have a been a lot easier to deal with the whole Iraq thing, and still would be if the moonbats were not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The only reason that a viable resistance exists is because the Western media keeps reassuring the terrorists that their efforts are succeeding, and that pressure is building for a withdrawal.

If there was decent bilateral support in the West, with a left wing that understood the difference between enlightenment and fascism then Sadr would have been in a pine box long ago.

If the US do "cut and run" it only be because the Left insisted on engineering a failure by supporting the enemy, just as they did in Vietnam. (Yes, that was another situation where victory was all but inevitable, were it not for a fifth column determined to make us lose.

Of course a civil war between Sunni and Shia is not necessarily such a bad thing either. As Kissinger said, it is a pity they cannot both lose. And perhaps they can...

Splatterbottom said...

Hi Ben

You are spot on.

What you see here is the gutless ghoulish left cheering and celebrating every time something goes wrong for the Iraqi people.

Their main concern is scoring political points at home; they care not one jot for the Iraqi people.

If they think I am wrong, perhaps they can tell us exactly what it is that they propose to do to help the Iraqi people.

The one thing they are doing at the moment is stabbing their own troops in the back in the hope of bringing them home sooner. They do this only to be able to say that they were right (like Looney Latham at the last election.

These vile fools just sicken me.

The Vietnam analogy is right as well, only this time the left is taking its cues from al Qaeda instead of Madam Binh. The result there was that after our troops were denigrated by the left (this time round it is that moral cretin Leunig leading the charge on our soldiers) and brought home, a million Vietnamese were liquidated, and the rest have lived under the communist yoke ever since.

Looks like this sort of outcome is the best the left has to offer the Iraqis.

adam said...

"Their main concern is scoring political points at home; they care not one jot for the Iraqi people."

Oh my god, spare me.

Lessee… in the lead-up to the Great Dune Coon Cull of ’04, whose itchy little trigger fingers were unleashing daisycutter bombs on kids? Meanwhile, who were turning out in their droves to protest their respective governments’ decisions to go to war, whilst the Fighting 101st Keyboarders penned long tracts congratulating themselves on their ‘bravery’ and ‘strength’?

Ben Zeev’s comment said all there is to say about those who support the war. As FOX (all caps theirs) News wondered aloud: “civil war – could it be a good thing?” Do you lot honestly think it’s morally ok to destabilise that part of the world and then gleefully sit back to watch them all kill each other?

This was not a war of good faith. Since the pro-war Right has failed to apologise to those of us who were correct from the outset, I think it’s fair that we have a chuckle at their expense. And here’s the punchline: Sadaam’s regime had neither the ordinance nor the will to threaten us. Iran will soon, yet we can’t do anything about it. So you’ve left our arses bared whilst settling an old score with an ex-mate.

No hard feelings though, k? Just don’t expect me to renew my Quadrant subscription should, y’know, Iran manage to unite the other belligerent Shiite states and metaphorically fuck us the collective arse.

Armagnac Esq. said...

="These vile fools just sicken me"=

That would be including the author of this site you visit. I think you should engage a little more intellect and a little less vitriol when attacking this issue.

That said, I admit we're all prone to launching into it from time to time. But, dear batwings, this is a classic case of you were wrong and we were right, so I'm not surprised that there will be increased resorting to frustrated curses by those who believed they were right first time around.

Ben Ze'ev said...

H Adam,

one more time for the suicidalists:


You seem to think that practical things like securing oil supplies and answering hostile cultures are bad things. OK. Some of us disagree.

The war is, on any objective tactical and military strategic measure going well. The prospect of victory is still very strong. Nevertheless, in pandering to certain suicidalist and treacherous sensibilites the war is being conducted with kid gloves, and far from all resources are being brought to bear at all, let alone optimally. No daisy cutters in Iraq. Sadly. Door to door fighting instead of wholesale flattening of neighbourhoods by carpet bombing and artillery. The Hama solution is guaranteed. It has not been used, nor have far more justifiable measures because so many in our midst have forgotten where their security, prosperity and freedom come from.

Further, there are mistakes made in all wars. If WWII was fought with the kind of negative scrutiny and fifth column criticism we would never have won that one either.The key is knowing what side you are on and why, and supporting it regardless. The other option is capitulation. If this does not bother you, perhaps it is worth examining whose side you are really on and why.

Nor is Iran an issue. If only you and your suicidalist ilk would allow the West to untie its hands there would be no problem on either side of the Shatt-al-Arab, nor indeed in the entire Middle East, Maghreb, South Asia or Indian Subcontinent.
The only reason there is a problem is the lack of will caused by scarcity of diplomatic bandwidth caused by de facto allies of Al Qaeda and Iran to the left and extreme right preventing sustained, consistent appropriate action.
But even with both hands tied behing their backs the Coalition is still making a difference.

2. Morality

A civilised Iraq is preferable to Saddam's regime. This is a moral no-brainer. An Iraq subjugated by the West with bipartisan support would not be in the state of chaos, because there would be no repeat of Vietnam's defeat at home for the terrorists to hope for. They would be crushed. But then you and your buddies had other ideas.
So, it seems that you support anything but a stable, sane Iraq. You preferred business as usual under Saddam. Don't give me that crap about the Iraqi people bringing it about for themselves either.
Failing the status quo, you have done your best to support a viable insurgency and fundamentalist political establishment, and tie the hands of the Coalition military. You choose to exaggerate every claim of abuse and heavy handedness, while excusing the worst in the terrorists. Your analysis of the war is full of Abu Ghraibs, and short on victory stories.

Finally, the only reason any shitty little country in the ME can bugger anyone in the west in their collective orifices is only because YOU allow it.We have the economic and military means to deal with it in an instant, but we do not because YOU cannot countenance what has to be done. YOU spend all your energy condeming those who would try to solve these problems. And YOU provide no real alternatives.It would appear that YOU actually want us to fail. This is where the word suicidalist fits in.

The funny thing is, we may still win regardless. I see more lefties cross over every day. The Jyllands Posten affair has been a final straw for so many of them.

3. Reflection and Evolution

A final thought: many of us "batwings" are former lefties, woken up after 9/11. We know where you are coming from. Can you really say the same ?

adam said...

Well Ben, hard to know where to start with that really. The kind of conversation I haven't been able to finish in less than, say, a slab of Carlton's finest. (between 3 or 4, of course)

You've misrepresented much of what I was trying to say, but are plain wrong in one key regard: my politics.

I am actually a conservative in that I am for small government and individual responsibility. So the pro-war crowd have broken both my rules.

1. You say I don't support this war. Wrong - I already have, with the extensive amounts of tax dollars liberated from me each year by the faux-conservative Howard government.

2. Individual responsibility. The war in iraq has bolstered belligerent shiites from Iran to Palestine by destroying their common enemy. Those for the war take no responsibility for this, choosing instead (in many cases) to rant and rave and blame 'lefties', as though writing an unfavorable column in The Age is akin to poisoning the water in the mess hall. The pro-war crowd told so many lies, both to people back home and to Iraqis, yet expected to ‘win hearts and minds’.

Ben Ze'ev said...

Apologies Adam,

I mistook you for your more prominent allies. Please explain how this fateful error invalidates any of my argument, which you have not responded to in any serious manner. Otherwise, thank you for bringing up a mildly curious but irrelevant point.

I forgot to mention the so called "realist", isolationist or otherwise suicidalist minority faction of conservatives-in-name-only that you represent in my list of suicidalists, which did include the far right, like Le Pen and David Duke, happily allied with the Islamists.

But you stand with the moonbats, far right Fascists and Islamists, who are all congealing nicely into one big happy suicidalist mass. ("Blair's Law")
You call yourself a conservative but put your enemies' interests well above your own. You unjustly belittle the strenght of our socitey even as you help to undermine it, and simultaneously bemoan our apparent weakness for which you yourself are responsible.
We are not weak. We are strong but partly paralyzed, all because of you. As I said, we may still win regardless, no thanks to you.

The bolstering of the Shiites is, as I said before not necessarily a bad thing. A whole Gulf War 0 (for some reason Desert Storm is now GW 1...) was engineered to keep the enemies of our enemies at each others throats.
The Shiites are far weaker and less numerous than the Sunnis, who already have everything including nuclear weapons (remeber Pakistan?).
The classical game of divide and conquer means you support the weaker side.
Not that we could not just beat both sides outright in an instant, and take away their undeserved and dangerous stranglehold on a key strategic resource, and render them incapable of doing further harm to themselves or us, only you and your ilk would not allow it. So we are forced to play these silly little games of divide and conquer, when we should just be conquering.
As for your comment regarding "Hearts and Minds".
I and my allies are not trying to win "Hearts", only minds. Polls show that this is working. (See article on South Park Conservatives in latest Weekend Australian for example).

As for "hearts and minds" in Iraq: read Macchiavellis views on fear and love...

Splatterbottom said...

Armaniac: this is a classic case of you were wrong and we were right

This is precisely the point I was making. There is more to each new misfortune for the Iraqi people than the chance for the the left to score political points.

This is sickening because in doing so the left is increasing the chance that the Western troops protecting the Iraqis will be withdrawn prematurely.

We have seen that a majority of Iraqis are prepared to turn out for elections in spite of terrorist threats, presumably because they think that a democratic regime is their best option.

Would you please explain exactly what it is the left is doing to help these people achieve their ambition?

The only thing I have seen from the left is point scoring every time Iraqis are murdered by some terrorist outrage.

If the left has no more to contribute than that, the only decent thing to do is to shut up.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Of that's clever, YOU fuck it up but We're supposed to come up with the solution?

It's a class A monumental fuck up. As I and other - lefties? people who don't believe in making war every time you want to achieve an objective? - anti gulf war 3ers said it would be.

It isn't cheap political points- it IS the political point, and if it isn't drummed home hard enough then no lessons will be learned, ad nauseum.

When the right admits this was the wrong course of action and all those articles and posts ridiculing the anti war lobby were wrong, then the issue for us may be offering solutions.

We're not in power, you are, so fix it.

Seeing as you want the hypothetical I would have kept up the pressure on Saddam's regime, but not invaded to kick him out. I would have focussed on the war on terror, which has sweet fuck A to do with Iraq; except in the ants nest stirring sort of way.

I now have the bodycount on my side.

Mike Jericho said...

I really don't understand what is being advanced by this post.

I know that Armaniac isn't quite so removed from reality that he would actually be rejoicing over the prospect of religiously-motivated civil war in Iraq.

Further, I know that he is not so reptilian as to believe that removing Saddam's regime from power was a bad idea.

Further still, I know that he is not naive enough to suggest that that be achieved through the UN, who had spent 12 years doing nothing about Iraq, and recently showed a continuation of this toothlessness in dealing with nuclear proliferation in Iran.

I'm sure that no-one would be so childishly divorced from basic humanity that they would try to reduce the situation to "Ha! You failed to bring democracy and self-governance to tens of millions of people, wingnuts!"

Because that would kinda indicate a mindset that is entirely unprepared for the problems we all face in the Middle East.

As for Al Sadr, I said that the man aspired to lead Iraq when the US forces were surrounding Fallujah. That's why I argued for his termination. The US (swayed by humanitarian concerns) hesitated for a ridiculous amount of time before going in, and then, when they had him, let him go.

That's not bad politics. That's bad military strategy.

Splatterbottom said...

Armaniac, Oh that's clever, YOU fuck it up but We're supposed to come up with the solution?

If you go back over the old posts on your other sites you will see that I did not support going into Iraq.

The difference between us is that I would like to do something constructive now, irrespective of the reasons for going in, whereas you can only stand on the sidelines rejoicing in every tragedy that strikes the Iraqi people because it proves you right.

Personally, I would rather be wrong than be like that.

But it is worse. By undermining support you make it more likely that the west will withdraw earlier and in a manner more destructive to the nascent democracy in Iraq. You are betraying all those who risked their lives to vote, so that their suffering is greater and you are even "righter".

Who gives a damn whether some leftist egomaniac is right. It really isn't about you.