The Shotgun Blog

« Now that the President has noticed Iran and Syria . . . | Main | Larry Zolf gets it »

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Clueless & Dangerous

Iran, Syria Denounce Bush's Iraq Plan as do some clueless US Senators

I was watching how some idiot senators like Chuck Hagel, John sKerry, Hitlery Clinton, slow Joe Biden and Turbin Durbin sandbagged Bush, Condi and company yesterday and today over their new strategy in Iraq and I am stunned with the amount of stupidity and cluelessness among them.

None of them are interested in winning this war and none are willing to show resolve in the face of the most brutal enemy of the western civilization since the fall of communism. If the US loses this war on terror thing, it is solely fault of these bunch of clueless politicians whose blind hatred for Bush and America has driven them to side with the enemy. These few senators and representatives are enormously dangerous by being blind in this.

I only have this to say: Shame on you!

Cross-posted @ The Spirit of Man

Posted by Winston on January 11, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834d66fc953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clueless & Dangerous:

Comments

The only thing you forgot to mention is that the U.S.A. has no business being there in the first place. Do you honestly think they would be if not for oil ?.Also remember that life,as it was ,was far better under Sadam than it is now. No one asked the people of Iraq if they wanted democracy.Sadam was a piece of work but at least the people knew the ground rules to daily life.They had the essentials of life and some hope that things would improve when he finally kicked the bucket.Now things are far worse with very little hope for the future.Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It had a lot to do with greed.

Posted by: peterj | 2007-01-11 9:51:58 PM

Hey Winston,

give me a step by step plan please how we will win this war on terror. Who do we have to nuke, Assissinate or invade in order to bring this all to an happy end for everybody but the terrorists?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-11 10:16:11 PM

None of them are interested on winning this war? Funny, I thought this war has been won long ago already and the issue now is not winning the war but stabilizing the country.

Is/was Iraq the brutal enemy of Western civilization? How was that manifested? Did Iraq attack or threaten any Western country?

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-11 10:40:04 PM

The moonbats are flocking tonight. Even the Arab countries are worried about Iran.

Qatar, and 4 or 5 other Gulf countries are preparing for war against Iran (mostly in case they are attacked). If the U.S. doesn't attack Iran's nuke sites in the next 6 months than Iraq is lost as well as any hopes for that whole region. (Though at least Israel will do the dirty work if the U.S. doesn't)

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-11 11:06:47 PM

Petej:

Could you explain to me how spending $500 billion US is about getting cheaper oil?

Maybe I'm a bit dense, but what are the total oil reserves and how much a barrell are they spending?

Since you seem to know that the US is in Iraq for the oil, divide the number of barrels by $500 billion.

Yep, that's purdy cheap oil, all right.

Cato:

A series of UN resolutions, culminating in 1441 (available on the UN website) will explain the rationale.

The weapons of mass destruction Saddam promised to reveal are now in Syria, as an Iraqi air force general wrote in a book.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-11 11:07:41 PM

Sorry, in case no one follows my previous comment, the problem with Iraq is Iran. A few tactical nukes to their nuclear program with some carefully co-ordinated attacks against Sadr and the Shia militias and Iraq will settle down rather nicely I would say.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-11 11:08:58 PM

1. There was no UN resolution to attack Iraq. Resolution 1441 required Iraq to give a report on her weaponry, and Iraq complied. The US did not accept that report, as it turned out, unjustly.

2. There were countless UN resolutions on the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel. When will the US attach Israel to liberate Palestine? (There is no UN resolution to invade Israel because of this, but that's a negligable nuissance, isn't it?)

3. An Iraqi air force general's testimony re the WMD is about as much worth, as Chalabi's turned out to be, who successfully fooled the US administration into invading Iraq, for he wanted a regime change in Iraq, with himself as the future leader (though this was an easy task, as they wanted to be fooled).

I wonder, what prevents some people from asking following questions:

why has not the Iraqi army used any of their secret weaponry? England was one of the invaders. They could have attacked London by chemical weapons, right? Beside, Israel is very close, they could have sent over a few rockets with anthrax, could not they?

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-12 12:14:40 AM

holy "bat fest", and here I am without my tinfoil....

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-12 12:23:08 AM

Witless Winston, making fun of peoples names makes you look stupid.

Posted by: Mike Jones | 2007-01-12 2:46:30 AM

Shit! Am I in Rabble.ca? I must have hit the wrong key.

Posted by: Anon | 2007-01-12 4:01:00 AM

Democrat Politicians are playing to the anti-war
US Media, and public apathy in the US, Democrats
think they will form the next US Government, don't bet on it. As a matter of interest General and PM of Israel Sharon "Arik" warned President Bush that
Arabs would never accept "Democracy, meanwhile the
US is just beginning to accept the fact that their real enemy in Iraq is Iran and it's muderous Mullahs
who have financed and supplied "the Insurgency" from
Day One. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-01-12 6:46:31 AM

PJ I think that the US has always accepted that Iran was the enemy as demonstrated by their backing of Saddam in the early days. The usefulness of Iraq as a counterweight to Iran began to dwindle as Saddam took on aspirations to going nuclear. The odds of him doing something stupid were rapidly shortening as he started rattling sabres and indeed invaded Kuwait. The idea that the one and only person in Iraq ,who was becoming more and more aggressive and possibly less stable , could trigger a nuclear war , became unacceptable . He set fire to Kuwait , who`s to say he wouldn`t do the same to Iraq , down the road or start using dirty bombs throughout the world ; when he decided to get seriously annoying by demanding euros for his oil , that became the tipping point . So it became a twopher for the US , stabilize the oil situation , [ and the dollar ] and decrease the chances of more attacks , in NYC and elsewhere , by putting the brakes on the region . Of course it wasn`t WMD s , it was the threat of WMD`s in the near future and threats to world ' stability ' , as imperfectly defined as it was , by the Americans . Someone had to do it . And BTW 3000 people are slaughtered every month or so on the highways , so as cruel as it sounds , maybe that argument is starting to become a bit of a red herring.

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 8:45:12 AM

Exactly daveh. Friends in both Jordan and Israel
have reached the same conclusions your have so
effectively defined in your post. "Saddam was out of control, and had to be stopped, Kuwait being the final straw" - The US War College published Papers
defining an "insurgency in Iraq" after the defeat of Saddam's Army, but concluded it would be undertaken and motivated by the Kurds" no significant US think Tank considered in Public that Iran would commence
a process of murdering US and Allied Soldiers. I am surprised that Iran was not turned into a cinder covered parking lot by the US and it's Allies. The USSR would have had no hesitation.
MacLeod

Posted by: jack macleod | 2007-01-12 9:10:21 AM

"Bush Condi and Company" can chase all the global boogy men they want but if it costs me a single civil freedom or dollar they got lots of s'plainin' to do....and the New Dem house is aligned with the Strausian GOP...hawkish on war and unrestrained spending to support it.

Knee-jerk support for every policy of the Bush administration is nit justified when you look at the realites with your partisan/ideological rose colored glasses off.

I'm not a US tax payer so I don't care that this costly expanding military entanglement into Islam grinds up 10 billion $$ a month of Government borrowed credit and that the over extention threatens to tank the over inflated US dollar supply....I have no US bonds or Fed Reserve notes in my savings so I could care less....I do not have to live in the virtual police state surviellence grid the US has become...and their demands that I get a Canadian pass port to cross to the US while they give "guest worker" status to 30 million illegal immigrants from the leaky southern border doesn't bother me.

Frankly, from a purely civil and economic perspective the US is being turned into a mobilizing military camp under quasi martial law (patriot acts 1,2,3) and total civilian surveillence( domestic warrantless spying on US citizens) ... all on borrowed credit and unbacked fait money creation....no other reckless policy could make the US more poised for a fall from the economic perch than a government on such a course....over extended, unrestrained paranoid military expansion and entangled in expanding foreign conflicts they can't afford in the long term nor win decisively in the short term.

If, OTH the plan is to propell the nation into a constant multi generational state of war ( on terror)reduce labor costs with manditory conscription, a depression and open the southern border to cheap 2rd world "guest worker" labor to fuel a military industry economy after other market segments have been depressed due to currency contraction and deflation....they seem on track.

As a Libertarian and populist conservative it is really none of my business how the American people allow such desparately reckless behaviour from their duely elected regime in Washington....until it effects me.

All I can do is advise the bank of Canada to dump their over inflated US currency reserves before Whitehouse economic/monetary neglect impacts our dollar as it has the Greenback....and urge PM Harper to keep a friendly business attitude towrds the American people but keep arms length from the flakey economic and foreign policies of the current reckeless Washington regime ( both Dems and GOP..they're both nutz)

All I can see is that there is a huge economic reconing on the horizon for the free spenders on Washington's capital hill who are maxing out the national credit card....I just don't want my nation to suffer from such finacial

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2007-01-12 9:31:12 AM

Cato:

It's interesting how the original topic was about US involvement in Iraq and your post at Posted by: Cato | 12-Jan-07 12:14:40 AM would like to blame Jews for being who they are.

Thanks for showing your true anti-semitic colours.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 9:39:35 AM

The real problem is not Irak but the lack of resolve in western nations including USA. The same conditions existed in democracies in 1935. In USA, there was a very large opinion not to get involved in war.

One could try a simulation. Let's assume Irak would have been left with Kuwait. No gulf war, no US invasion after 9/11. No invasion of Afghsnistan either.

Where would we be now? Would the world be any better, a safer place?

I suspect Irak would have nukes by now. There would have been many more terrorist attacks. And on and on.

So what choice did we have? We are faced with a similar situation now. But how can we find the courage to face it squarely? Should we do like UK and France in 1935 and try to appease the crocodile until it eats us?

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-12 9:46:16 AM

Remi:

Or, like Cato, we could always blame the self-authored misery of the middle eastern peoples on the Jews.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 9:55:55 AM

Set you free,

whenever I am called anti-semitic, I know I touched a nerve - or someone is simply intellectually challenged by the discussion.

Anyway, I am not impressed by this accusation the very least.

I didn't intend to divert this thread towards the discussion of Israel's action; those deserve some discussions on their own. Let me make only one note:

you (YOU) used a resolution of the UN (which DID NOT authorize nor condemn any invasion of Iraq) as the "explanation" of Iraq's invasion, but you suddenly turn to the worn-out accusation of "anti-Semitism", when pointed out, that such resolutions had no effects on the US policies in other, well-justified areas.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-12 10:08:20 AM

"Bush Condi and Company" can chase all the global boogy men they want but if it costs me a single civil freedom or dollar they got lots of s'plainin' to do.... NOW WHAT CIVIL FREEDOM HAVE YOU LOST ?? and the New Dem house is aligned with the Strausian GOP...hawkish on war and unrestrained spending to support it. THE NEW DEM HOUSE IS MORE ALIGNED WITH THE BARBARA BOXER , NANCY PELOSI BATHHOUSE $ PARTY TILL YOU DROP WING OF DEMOCRATS

Knee-jerk support for every policy of the Bush administration is nit justified when you look at the realites with your partisan/ideological rose colored glasses off. TRY TO ANALYZE THE SITUATION WITHOUT MENTIONING BUSH

I'm not a US tax payer so I don't care that this costly expanding military entanglement into Islam grinds up 10 billion $$ a month of Government borrowed credit and that the over extention threatens to tank the over inflated US dollar supply.... I MIGHT ARGUE THAT PART OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE WOULD BE FORCING CHINA TO CO EXIST WITH THE WEST BY MAKING THEM A PARTNER IN CAPITALISM have no US bonds or Fed Reserve notes in my savings so I could care less..YOUR DOLLARS AND NOTES WOULD BE MORE WORTHLESS THAN THEY MIGHT BE NOW IF WE WERE TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE OVERRUN ..I do not have to live in the virtual police state surviellence grid the US has become...and their demands that I get a Canadian pass port to cross to the US --TRY LIVING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD , IT`S NOT AS BAD AS THE MEDIA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE while they give "guest worker" status to 30 million illegal immigrants from the leaky southern border doesn't bother me. THEY WORK HARD AND GUESS WHAT , DUE TO ABORTION AND A PREFERENCE TO HAVE FEWER KIDS AND MORE TOYS , THE WHITE BIRTH RATE IS ZERO OR LESS

Frankly, from a purely civil and economic perspective the US is being turned into a mobilizing military camp under quasi martial law (patriot acts 1,2,3) and total civilian surveillence( domestic warrantless spying on US citizens) ... all on borrowed credit and unbacked fait money creation....no other reckless policy could make the US more poised for a fall from the economic perch than a government on such a course. BONDS ARE STRONGER THAN EVER AS IS THE STOCK MARKET ...over extended, unrestrained paranoid military expansion and entangled in expanding foreign conflicts they can't afford in the long term nor win decisively in the short term.

Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 12-Jan-07 9:31:12 AM

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 10:19:43 AM

Cato:

If you check back, it was you who brought up the canard of Israel as an unrelated counter-argument.

Just check out the language of UN Resoultion 1441 for yourself. It's readily available on the website.

If you're too lazy to even do that simple thing for yourself without listening to distortions put into your mind by others, then you do not even deserve a shred of basic respect.

1441 spoke of consequences and was an ongoing issue long before 9/11.

If I wanted to hear a parrot, all I would need to do is head down to the pet shop.

In your case, I can only conclude that you do not want the fact stand in the way of a good conspiracy story.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 10:22:23 AM

Is it about the oil?

It had better be. If we lose our oil imports in the West ... we won't get our food shipped here and we won't be able to drive to work. The wheels of industry will grind to halt.

Further, there will be a general collapse of the Western economies which will then destroy the economies of China, and a few others who rely on our consumption for their survival.

Oil is the life blood of the modern world. If anything happens suddenly ... there will be chaos and anarchy ... that is not in anyone's interest.

By the by ... you moon-bats think you will get by on your bicycles and Birkenstocks, but it won't be safe out there and you still won't get food delivered to your favorite organic market.

So far all displays of anarchy in the West have been your own punks in destructo mode breaking the windows of fast food restaurants.

I have not figured out what your problem is with people who sell junk food for minimum wage. They feed the poor don't you know.

Real anarchy will also involve people from the right who are pissed and pissed mostly at you ...

Unlike you leftist with a pathological fear of firearms ... Much of the right is armed and know how to shoot more than the shit.

When enough good people get pissed off enough ... lot's of stupid and/or bad people will start dying.

There is no violence like domestic violence. Let all get some family counseling now and present as a united front against Islam and even perhaps the kleptomaniacs in China.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-12 10:36:45 AM

SYF: Ignore the trolls, as they can't even see the facts when they are printed in the New York Times. Saddam was one year away from an active nuclear bomb before the U.S. attacked him. He had WMD, as has already been proven.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-01-12 10:39:12 AM

Some potential good news from yesterday:

"But so far, so good. We're off to a great start. For openers, at the very moment Bush was giving his speech last night, in which he promised to "seek out and destroy" the networks of Iran and Syria supporting insurgency in Iraq, five US helicopters landed on the consulate of Iran in Arbil, Iraqi Kurdistan, disgorging US soldiers who told the Iranian occupants in three languages to surrender or be killed.

They proceeded to seize all the consulate's computers and documents, then turned the building over to Kurdish "Peshmerga" security forces.

Now that is cool. And Bush has just begun. "

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-12 10:40:07 AM

Brent: Let's hope he has finally taken off the gloves...

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-01-12 10:41:59 AM

Clueless & Dangerous?

Oops,sorry...I thought this thread was about Bush.

Partisan & Traitorous!

I think that better describes the selfish actions of the Dems.

Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2007-01-12 10:43:35 AM

CO:

Let's wait and see how this plays out ... making sure we remember ALL the facts along the way.

That way we can use the truth to challenge the inevitable fabrications of the marxist activists.

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 10:46:58 AM

Markalta:

It is too early to tell yet but it is a start...

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-12 10:48:10 AM

Go to DEBKA FILE to day 11 January for some very interesting news about what sources in Israel consider the US Strategy in the Middle East to
isolate and neturalize Iran. It is a consensus in
certain Military sectors in the IDF that the main target will be the Lebanese Based Hezbollah, the
idea being if you destroy Iran's surrogate army of God, Iran will get a very pointed message. At the same time Iran's senior Mullah appears to be heading to Paradise thanks to a possible stroke. Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-01-12 12:05:30 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are oppossed to the US being in Iraq, ignore totally the horrific things that Saddam and his sons did, including mass murder, rape, pillage, the utilization of chemical weapons of mass destruction and the stock pilling of these weapons, plus the stealing of monies intended for food and medicine.

And yet, if you just say the word, "Palestinian" they are all up in arms, claiming that none of them could do any wrong, that butter would not melt in their mouths, and they are such nice people, who would never hurt a flea..., all the while claiming Israel is mean to them while they train their children to be suicide bombers.

Thing is, the ones who are against the US working to stabilize the region, are actually backing the insurgents and terrorists. We know where their money goes, when no one is looking. And I bet if you followed the money, you would find it as far away as China, having been used to buy arms through Iran and Syria.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-12 12:08:18 PM

Is there really a "new" plan for Iraq? Does Bush actually look like a leader who could achieve success in Iraq? Neither of these things seem apparent to me. So, why should these senators line up to support Bush? Simply lining up behind the flag (as was the case a few years) did not work.

Posted by: ALIO | 2007-01-12 12:15:15 PM

Says the Duke:

> Is it about the oil?
>
> It had better be. If we lose our oil imports in
> the West ... we won't get our food shipped here
> and we won't be able to drive to work. The
> wheels of industry will grind to halt.

True, unless we seperate ourselves as much as possible from the dependence of oil.

> Further, there will be a general collapse of the
> Western economies which will then destroy the
> economies of China, and a few others who rely on
> our consumption for their survival.

Little difference there. If the US would go away (and their thirst for oil) China would lose a huge single market but:

1. They still have the ability to manufactuer.
2. They can suddenly get all the oil they want.

Also, they only need the west as a dumping ground for their goods until their internal markets (and India) can drive the engine, both markets combined hae 2.5 billion people compared to the wests 1 billion.

> Oil is the life blood of the modern world. If
> anything happens suddenly ... there will be
> chaos and anarchy ... that is not in anyone's
> interest.

Let's rephrase this: This is not in the interest of us in the West because we would lose our comfy lifestyle.

> By the by ... you moon-bats think you will get
> by on your bicycles and Birkenstocks, but it
> won't be safe out there and you still won't get
> food delivered to your favorite organic market.

Why wouldn't I be safe out there? Because people like you will shoot people off their bikes?

> So far all displays of anarchy in the West have
> been your own punks in destructo mode breaking
> the windows of fast food restaurants.

Point being?

> I have not figured out what your problem is with
> people who sell junk food for minimum wage. They
> feed the poor don't you know.

One problem I could see is that it is not cheap food, it is just that the cost for it is pushed off onto some other schmuck in another country.

But hey, out of sight, out of mind. Isn't that the same principle that NIMBY employs?

> Real anarchy will also involve people from the
> right who are pissed and pissed mostly at you
> ...

People on the "right" are always pissed because they always feel threatened by someone or something. This Blog is a good example of this.

> Unlike you leftist with a pathological fear of
> firearms ... Much of the right is armed and know
> how to shoot more than the shit.

Good, and if they have to chose between defending themsleves against another nutjob with a gun or rather save a bullet by not shooting someone without a gun I would guess they consider the other gun the bigger threat.

> When enough good people get pissed off enough
> ... lot's of stupid and/or bad people will start
> dying.

I see, so murderers are good people in your book? While victims of crime are stupid or bad? Wow. Thanks for the honesty, helps to slot your other comments in.

> There is no violence like domestic violence. Let
> all get some family counseling now and present
> as a united front against Islam and even perhaps
> the kleptomaniacs in China.

Maybe we should clean house at home first before we try to fix other peoples homes.

Or to quote the Bible (you know, that book that is suppoosed to be the basis of our Western "values"):
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" -- Matthew 7:3

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-12 12:23:49 PM

Snow -- the whole ridiculous Kyoto sham has been taking a viscious pounding lately and I hate to pile on but I suggest that the Harper - Ambrose philosophy of taking incremental steps in cleaning up the Liberal mess will produce side benefits . Namely as these technologies are researched and refined , brought into reality and patented , that the rest of the world might start beating a path to our door for these technologies ; that means high tech jobs and favourable trade ratios. This somehow makes more sense to me than sending money to China in boxcars .

If China wants to start selling their crap to themselves ,fine , we`ll be there to sell them the minerals , wood and oil and the pollution control devices that they will be begging for . We`ll take some of that US paper . But the US .isn`t folding its` tent just yet . The only hope there is , is to cooperate with China and over decades tackle problems together. But I assure you that they , just as the Moslem fanatics ,are not about to accept the liberal sewage which is incessantly being marketed here and abroad.

The people riding bicycles in Birkinstocks a la Jack and Olivia , will not have to worry about the Dukes out there , driving by with bullet proof windows , they`d best worry about getting a flat tire in the neighbourhoods they are busy creating .

And absolutely let`s clean house first at home ; more abortion and daycare , more porn and pot , vote Dion , that`s the way to go .

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 1:19:52 PM

Snowrunner Says:

|
| Says the Duke:
|
> Is it about the oil?
>
> It had better be. If we lose our oil imports in
> the West ... we won't get our food shipped here
> and we won't be able to drive to work. The
> wheels of industry will grind to halt.
|
| True, unless we seperate ourselves as much as possible from the dependence of oil.
|

How? And what do you propose to use to move goods from seaports to the interior of the country?

> Further, there will be a general collapse of the
> Western economies which will then destroy the
> economies of China, and a few others who rely on
> our consumption for their survival.
|
| Little difference there. If the US would go away (and their thirst for oil) China would lose a huge single market but:
|
| 1. They still have the ability to manufactuer.
| 2. They can suddenly get all the oil they want.
|
| Also, they only need the west as a dumping ground for their goods until their internal markets (and India) can drive the engine, both markets combined hae 2.5 billion people compared to the wests 1 billion.
|

"Dumping Ground"? Or only source of hard currency?

> Oil is the life blood of the modern world. If
> anything happens suddenly ... there will be
> chaos and anarchy ... that is not in anyone's
> interest.
|
| Let's rephrase this: This is not in the interest of us in the West because we would lose our comfy lifestyle.
|

And other countries would loose their largest source of business. Which means that they lose their lifestyles too.

> By the by ... you moon-bats think you will get
> by on your bicycles and Birkenstocks, but it
> won't be safe out there and you still won't get
> food delivered to your favorite organic market.
|
| Why wouldn't I be safe out there? Because people like you will shoot people off their bikes?
|

It won't be safe simply because people like us won't be around to protect you from those people who like to take what you have and redistribute it to those that they feel are more deserving.

> So far all displays of anarchy in the West have
> been your own punks in destructo mode breaking
> the windows of fast food restaurants.
|
| Point being?
|

That it's less likely to be people like Duke shooting you off your bike, and more likely to be gangs of your ideological compatriots knocking you off your bike...

> I have not figured out what your problem is with
> people who sell junk food for minimum wage. They
> feed the poor don't you know.
|
| One problem I could see is that it is not cheap food, it is just that the cost for it is pushed off onto some other schmuck in another country.
|
| But hey, out of sight, out of mind. Isn't that the same principle that NIMBY employs?
|

Huh? If the cost is based on the lowest price, then it would seem to me that is best served by using local produce and sources. In other words, why get beff from Argentina when it can be more economically sourced from the slaughterhouse in Brooks?
Maybe that should be out of mind, out of sight when talking about your ideas...

> Real anarchy will also involve people from the
> right who are pissed and pissed mostly at you
> ...
|
| People on the "right" are always pissed because they always feel threatened by someone or something. This Blog is a good example of this.

Actually, studies have shown that people on the right are happier than people on the left...

|
> Unlike you leftist with a pathological fear of
> firearms ... Much of the right is armed and know
> how to shoot more than the shit.
|
| Good, and if they have to chose between defending themsleves against another nutjob with a gun or rather save a bullet by not shooting someone without a gun I would guess they consider the other gun the bigger threat.
|
> When enough good people get pissed off enough
> ... lot's of stupid and/or bad people will start
> dying.
|
| I see, so murderers are good people in your book? While victims of crime are stupid or bad? Wow. Thanks for the honesty, helps to slot your other comments in.
|

I think Duke's point is that there will always be some "bad apples" who may do stupid things, and after a while the general populace will find that they need to do something about that.

> There is no violence like domestic violence. Let
> all get some family counseling now and present
> as a united front against Islam and even perhaps
> the kleptomaniacs in China.
|
| Maybe we should clean house at home first before we try to fix other peoples homes.
|
| Or to quote the Bible (you know, that book that is suppoosed to be the basis of our Western "values"):
| "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" -- Matthew 7:3
|

Frankly, I think that western civilisation is more civilised than that in the ME. And with the last election removing the Liberals from power we have cleaned house here...

Posted by: Another Sean | 2007-01-12 1:32:44 PM

"Set you free",

if you are challenged by your own posts, it is not a good idea to challenge others'. Try to find the way back to the subject: you reasoned the invasion of Iraq by the UN resolution 1441. That was a red hering.

Posted by: Cato | 2007-01-12 1:35:43 PM

Daveh,

You have missed my point about China, there seems to be this idea in the West that the world can't do without us, when in reality we can't really do well without the rest of the world.

The 1 Billion people in the "west" are spread out over Europe and North America and our numbers are tiny. If we want to continue as comfortable as we are we have to realize that:

a.) We rely on others outside of our "sphere" to have this standard.
b.) We are abusing this privilege.

People like Duke are a good example of "elitist" thinking in this regard as this comment and others show over and over.

As far as the bike riding masses go (to which I belong, though I do not own any Birkenstocks) I doubt very much that anybody in the neighbourhoods that you are painting is going to try and go after the guy on the bike, not enough to get there, they rather go after Duke in his Hummer, in which he will feel invincible until someone finds an RPG somewhere (think Baghdad).

As far as Kyoto et. al goes, I hear a lot of lip service on both sides, what neither seems to do is having a plan that starts NOW instead of 30 or 40 years down the road.

Even IF the current Harper Government's plan has more meat (as in fixed deadlines) it's still a scam. The deadlines are so far out that the current administration and the next ten won't even remotely be affected by what it will do.

What *I* want to see is politicians that are willing to make painful decisions now instead of doing baby steps that don't solve anything nor bring us in the right direction. IF we want to keep something akin to our current lifestyle we have to change NOW and yes, that will involve hardship, invest in things like mass transit and stop the "me me me" crowd who wants to drive an armored hummer.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-12 1:37:12 PM

Dudes like Cato should be somewhere in the Middle East, wherever his heart lies and fighting for his cause. He would find he wouldn't have a forum for his opinions but he'd be fighting for the cause, whatever that is.
There seems to be no understanding of all the positive contributions to our World by the United States of America. It is ongoing. They are among he first, if not the first, to send aid to any and all trouble and disaster spots in the World.
We are incredibly fortunate to have them as a neighbor and Ally.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-12 2:09:39 PM

daveh:

You get the picture!

Olivia and Taliban Jack riding their bikes, could be a tandem, crunching on granola and wearing Birks with socks, driving through neighborhoods they created, filled with friendly, thankful folks, ya right.
It's the Socialists' dream, but a societal nightmare. Sad.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-12 2:36:36 PM

Another Sean:

Snowrunner Says:

| True, unless we seperate ourselves as much as possible from the dependence of oil.
|
>
> How?

Couple of things come to mind:

- Energy efficency
- Mass Transit
- Less centralized and more distributed production (close to the consumer)
- Higher Density.

> And what do you propose to use to move
> goods from seaports to the interior of the
> country?

How about electrified rail? Electricity is the perfect solution actually because HOW it is generated is not limited to just one source of energy. You can convert wind, water, tide, oil, gas, coal into electricity.

You still have to bridge the "final mile" but there are trucks today available that make use of things like regenerative breaking and there are concepts where trolley buses instead of relying on overhead lines use a capacitor that can be charged very quickly and allows for quite a bit of radius.

Of course none of this comes cheap, but then freedom never was cheap.

| Little difference there. If the US would go away (and their thirst for oil) China would lose a huge single market but:
|
| 1. They still have the ability to manufactuer.
| 2. They can suddenly get all the oil they want.
|
| Also, they only need the west as a dumping ground for their goods until their internal markets (and India) can drive the engine, both markets combined hae 2.5 billion people compared to the wests 1 billion.
|

> "Dumping Ground"? Or only source of hard
> currency?

Where does the "value" in a hard currency come from? The USD is only desirable because everybody accepts it, based on promises made by the US treasury. There are enough indications that the "hardness" of the US Dollar is pure make believe, there isn't really anything anymore that is backing the USD, much less since the US has been printing money like it's going out of fashion since 2003.

> And other countries would loose their largest
> source of business. Which means that they lose
> their lifestyles too.

No, they would lose EXISTING business but as I said before there is only 1 Billion people combined in the "west", China and India combined have more than double that. All they need to do is bite their time until they have a market there.

> It won't be safe simply because people like us
> won't be around to protect you from those people
> who like to take what you have and redistribute
> it to those that they feel are more deserving.

I wonder what people want with all my books or CDs, they are hardly good to eat (though I guess you could burn the books and stay warm, but the book burning thing is something I guess you (as in "us") are already all too familiar with.

> So far all displays of anarchy in the West have
> been your own punks in destructo mode breaking
> the windows of fast food restaurants.
|
| Point being?
|

> That it's less likely to be people like Duke
> shooting you off your bike, and more likely to
> be gangs of your ideological compatriots
> knocking you off your bike...

What is my ideology? No-one I know who thinks like I do would shoot anybody off of anything unless it's the last option remaining.

> Huh? If the cost is based on the lowest price,
> then it would seem to me that is best served by
> using local produce and sources. In other words,
> why get beff from Argentina when it can be more
> economically sourced from the slaughterhouse in
> Brooks?

You assume that transportation actually makes up a large part of the cost of the meat, which is usually not the case.

There are other reasons why buying your beef in Argentina may be cheaper:

- Labour
- Subsidies
- Taxes

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/foodtravel112202.cfm

BTW, this "shuffeling around" of food is my biggest gripe with the Organic movement. People go "out of their way" to buy Organic out of all kinds of ideological reasons, but where a bit of pesticide on the local produce is shunned those same people don't have a problem having their tomatoes trucked in from Mexico.

> Maybe that should be out of mind, out of sight
> when talking about your ideas...

Maybe you should do a bit of reading on modern Agriculture.

> Actually, studies have shown that people on the
> right are happier than people on the left...

Link?

|
> Unlike you leftist with a pathological fear of
> firearms ... Much of the right is armed and know
> how to shoot more than the shit.
|
| Good, and if they have to chose between defending themsleves against another nutjob with a gun or rather save a bullet by not shooting someone without a gun I would guess they consider the other gun the bigger threat.
|
> When enough good people get pissed off enough
> ... lot's of stupid and/or bad people will start
> dying.
|
| I see, so murderers are good people in your book? While victims of crime are stupid or bad? Wow. Thanks for the honesty, helps to slot your other comments in.
|

> I think Duke's point is that there will always
> be some "bad apples" who may do stupid things,
> and after a while the general populace will find
> that they need to do something about that.

As in shooting them? How's that better than the "anarchistic left" that Duke decries a bit earlier?

> Frankly, I think that western civilisation is
> more civilised than that in the ME. And with the
> last election removing the Liberals from power
> we have cleaned house here...

I think we're just better in hiding our cruelty. I haven't lived in the Middle East so I can't judge their society. But I do see enough wrong with ours that could be fixed instead of being transfixed events half way around the world.

Here's a question. If our lifestyle is so superior, if we are so much more enlightened, better smelling and better human beings. If we have created $Insert_Prophetic_Place_of_eternal_bliss how come we seem to be brewing terrorism in our own society?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-12 2:37:55 PM

Hey Cato -
It's the WAR on TERRORISM.
Stop thinking so small.
It isn't limited to Iraq. That's why we're after guys in Afghanistan and Somalia, etc.

Peterj - Mr. "Life was far better on Saddam" - you're an idiot.

Posted by: Yikes | 2007-01-12 3:08:00 PM

Snow are you on drugs ? As an example of our ' cruelty ' as compared to let`s say Saddam , if we were to properly analyze the Abbu Grabe fiasco , without liberal attempts at scoring cheap soundbite points , the guests at this place were forced to wear panties on their head , oh the horrors ; sadist , Saddam fed his own people to shredders , c`mon , get serious. You should be thrilled that we went in there with the , at least secondary purpose of liberating these poor bastards. And we are not ' brewing terrorism ' . In Detroit and Lackawanna and about a thousand other Moslem enclaves , the only way we are brewing terrorism is following the Dion - Layton - Kerry concept of turning the other cheek , while we are being black -mailed out of our socks to appease dunderheads on the left - a left that is slowly becoming more the norm through osmosis and heredity , just as Chretien , Trudeau and Martin , Trosky , Lenin and Layton envisioned it.

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 3:15:12 PM

The comments on this thread demonstrate just why the US has lost in Iraq.

You people are totally divorced from reality.

The invasion of Iraq represents the biggest strategic blunder in US history. It's a clossal blunder. Some serious thinking needs to be done but the best you people can do is slobber over how great it will be when the US attacks Iraq.

What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Posted by: Estupidos!!!!!! | 2007-01-12 3:20:18 PM

daveh-

Great post.

Cultural relativists (like peterj) see no difference between photographs (Abu Ghraib) and shredding humans. It is a sad commentary on the immorality of today's left. They simply don't have the guts to admit that our (western) society is vastly more humane, generous and honest than any of the dictators and theocrats they seem to admire.

Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-12 4:23:29 PM

Posted by: coldfeet | 2007-01-12 4:55:24 PM

Daveh,

Abu Graibh is a nice example just showing how thin the polish of our "enlightened" society is. But that's not even what I am refereing to.

There are ample enough examples in the last half of the 20th century showing how the west brought cruelty to others, not in the least throubh Proxy wars with the Soviet Union.

But what I am refering to more is the tendency to decry "The Republic of Canada" by people who have directly or indirectly benefitted greatly from the Society that was build here since the 1950s.

My cruelty aims towards a lot of posters on here who decry everybody who does not blindly agree with them and who (if they could) would probably spit on the person sitting on the street asking for change.

That kind of cruelty, the pushing aside of things / people we don't want or need. We may not stone them in a public square but we just "kill" them in the society.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-01-12 5:30:19 PM

...and the violin began to play...

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2007-01-12 5:59:36 PM

Snow . it`s a cruel world , but some worlds are crueler than others . I understand that Abbu Graab is a poor example ; I sense that you are bemoaning the loss of dignity which such a materialistic society as ours promotes ; and yes the west is guilty of many imperialist deceits when it comes to ' liberating ' the great unwashed . OK we`re sorry , but is Germany better off , how about Japan and Italy , even Russia ; don`t forget Stalin was 15 times worse than Hitler . Yes Africa has been taken advantage of , as has China and India , but are they better for it ? You tell me . I could argue that the U.S. is somewhat responsible for all this conflict , but the alternative , without a ' policeman 'seems to be much worse conflict . And Mr. El stupidos , what is your solution ? The entire Lawrence of Arabia-- Shah of Iran -- Saddam Husein construct managed to hold the place together , albeit at the loss of millions of people fighting among themselves , as if to say they wouldn`t be killing each other anyhow . Now let`s turn them loose with nukes ; that makes sense.

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-12 6:02:57 PM

snowrunner

it's too bad we aren't up to your standards. perhaps we should just return to town square hangings, burning witches, leeches, and what not seeing as we just can't win with you. why not? we aren't any better than that as you seem to be trying to say.

Posted by: frozenlungs | 2007-01-12 6:23:26 PM

daveh:

In answer to your question to whether snowy is on drugs.

Once you've been here for any length of time, you'll realize snowy is ALWAYS on drugs.

How else can those fantasy-laden posts be explained?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 7:05:16 PM

Posted by: Cato | 12-Jan-07 1:35:43 PM

Are you and snowy doing the same memory-erasing drugs?

Posted by: Set you free | 2007-01-12 7:09:22 PM

"Here's a question. If our lifestyle is so superior, if we are so much more enlightened, better smelling and better human beings. If we have created $Insert_Prophetic_Place_of_eternal_bliss how come we seem to be brewing terrorism in our own society?

To answer your question, coldfeet:

"We" are not brewing terrorism in Canada. Muslims who approve of terrorism are. Simple as that. They are continuing their mission of converting the world to Islam, and we are next on the list.

Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-12 8:34:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Clueless & Dangerous

TrackBack

Comments