I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

Casualties are still low

On the debates tonight:
I think the drip-drip of casualties needs to addressed.

Bush should say:

"2590 innocent civilians were murdered on 9/11, if Iraq becomes a democracy before 2590 soldiers are killed, it should be considered by everybody in the world as a huge success."

 

 

The criticism of Bush is based on an unspoken Unreal Perfection.  He should note some standard, and then the argument can be about the standard, first, before the actual results.  Which is how it should be.

 

Kerry should follow Blair's position.  "Regardless of anybody's feelings about whether it was right or wrong to attack Iraq and change Saddam's regime, the most important thing is to stabilize Iraq quickly.  With this plan ... "

 

But I don't believe he has, or will speak clearly of, his plan.

(Somebody had something good … but I lost the link!)

 

If regime change in Sudan can be done at an American casualty cost of less than 2500 soldiers, there should be a plan to do so if the Sudanese government does not stop its genocide.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/30/04 22:24 | link | comments

Attacks or questions?

Jay Rosen repeats a small Krugman smear about Bush attacking Kerry, without mentioning there is question about it.  I don't think a factual statement, like "Kerry did not sign Form 180" should be considered an attack.

 

"Bush lied about WMDs" is an attack, because Bush was repeating, and seemed to sincerely believe, that Saddam had them.  "Bush said there were WMDs, but [essentially] none has been found" is NOT an attack.  [OJ was not found guilty of murder, either.]

 

Dems have been lying and attacking Bush for so long, it might even seem OK, or accepted wisdom among the PC (see Bawa Streisand's Bush-hate web site, for instance).  Reps are getting sensitive about it and calling the PC Dem press on it.

 

I don't see the Swifties, with lots of eyewitness reports, quite in the same boat as the MoveOn Bush-haters.  And on specific issues of fact (was Saddam trying to get uranium in Africa? yes!), the charges against Bush have been far more comprehensively covered than about Kerry.

 

Do you know who signed Kerry's first Purple Heart?  If not, why not?

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/30/04 22:17 | link | comments

I’ll never vote for impossible

"I find EQUALLY absurd the argument that Kerry is going to abandon the world and the US and surrender to Islamic fascism. " - Marc Cooper

 

How about: 'I find EQUALLY absurd the argument that Kerry is going to abandon SE Asia and surrender to genocidal communism'?

Because, despite your claim that the genocide was the 'million' killed by US bombing (which I don't believe, but I do believe over 100 000, in opposing N. Vietnamese fighters), the Vietnamese commies killed tens of thousands of defenseless civilians -- AFTER they had won.  Then there are 2 million murdered by Cambodian communists in their Killing Fields (with the KR then being ousted by Vietnamese commies in ... 79?)

 

Frydek says that Vietnam shows US military as a failure. Looking at North and South Korea, I conclude the US military supporting democracy is better.  There are lessons still unlearned about Vietnam, we don't even agree on the facts, much less the meaning!

 

I support two A-bombs in Japan to get surrender, the 100 000 killed by Allied bombing in Dresden were terrible.

 

(My Slovak wife was at candlelight vigil and protests in 1988-89; her Christian father was sent to prison for having and distributing bibles.)

 

In late 91, I noted at an Oxford conference that Slovak unemployment of 12% vs. Czech unemployment of 3%, was based partly on Havel's ending arms trade, for tanks (made in Slovakia), but not aircraft (could be civilian, made in Czech Rep) nor small guns (made in Czech Rep).  Klaus and Dlouhy resisted any gov't or even USAID assistance to Slovakia, or even building roads there.  Politically, there were no "CSFR" parties, there were Czech parties and Slovak parties; even the Christian Democrats were two (then three, when a nationalist Slovak faction split).  National party lists and proportional representation AND true separate Slovak and Czech identification made the split desired by most folks (if the 5m Slovaks have to choose split or subordination; of if the 10m Czechs have to choose split or equality). I AM sure proportional representation in Iraq is a mistake.

 

I am NOT sure how to do Vietnamization better in 68-73; I'm doing too much blogging to have time to read Marc's books about Latin America, so it's natural I don't know how to do Chilification or Guatemalification better, the pre-89 "support OUR bastard" seems reasonable, but not particularly more moral; I'm also not sure how to do Iraqification better now. 

 

But a BIG American OCCUPATION force, to ensure security--with a US jackboot (like in Vietnam?)-- is also not an alternative I am sure about.  I note that the Iraqi problems which Bush-haters use to prove incompetence seem to be cases when the US gave Iraqis more freedom: to loot(*), to come and go into Iran & Syria, to set up terrorist cells, to kill opposing clerics without being arrested (**I'm certain THIS was a mistake; but it fits the pattern), to use Muslim shrines as sanctuaries for arms and attacks.  At some point, Iraqis must stop terrorism in Iraq.

 

Here's the intellectual problem about Iraq.  Most folk have an opinion on whether it was right or wrong to boot Saddam.  That opinion is based on an estimate of the outcome; whether Iraq becomes democratic/ human rights respecting, or not, or when (40 years is WAY too long!)

Marc: "You aint gonna win there..because victory as you are defining it is impossible."

 

You clearly said your objection here, Marc -- it is not possible for Islamic Arabs to have a democratic government that respects human rights (when based on US military sponsored regime change).

I'm just certain you're wrong. (MY definition of victory. Um, what's yours?  Maybe we disagree on this?)

 

I don't know how long, or how expensive, and I suggest a better political evaluation is to define progress points and cost.  If it costs over $1 trillion dollars over 4 years, I'll agree that it was incompetently expensive.  If it costs less than $500 billion (4 years) it was pretty good.  I mean, doing the impossible is supposed to be expensive!

 

But I know that you know, once one accepts the "goodness" of a victory, it does look petty to argue about costs.  One of my objections to Bush-hate is that the heart of their argument SHOULD be that it costs too much, it takes too long.  Where is the explicit discussion of how much is "too much"? 

 

And both sides are guilty here: Bush (/Rumsfeld?) scolded Gen Shinseki on forces needed, and was right that the regime change did NOT need more forces (but rebuilding DOES?), Bush wants to keep the costs down.  But the Dems fluctuate on whether the costs are too high, or whether it should be done at all (victory impossible).

 

Even most anti-Iraq war folk don't believe it will take as long as WW II, nor cost as much.  And yet, given that we allied ourselves with evil commies then, the victory outcome now is likely to be much less contaminated. And more Americans died on 9/11 than on 12/7.

 

I really wish the Dems would come up with a better plan for victory.  I'll never vote for impossible.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/30/04 20:10 | link | comments

Scenario for Human Rights in Arab Islamic ME

Here's a nightmare scenario: Iran gets nukes, terrorists get a nuke, terrorists nuke a Southern Russian city -- the USA and Russia declare that Arab Islamic countries have forfeited their right to oil revenues and forcibly OCCUPY Iran & Saudi Arabia (& Kuwait? others?), and begin monitoring/ controlling what is said. No country is allowed to have laws that restrict converting away from Islam. No Islamic clerics are allowed to hold any gov't office; and the negative UN Human Rights are enacted into law and enforced.

 

Limited democracy, based on parties that accept human rights, with allowance for local brutality and torture (it's "their" business). The oil revenue is recycled into security (HIGH local salaries and very high performance bonuses for NO terrorism; summary executions of terrorist suspects is "illegal" but winked at).  The ME gets human rights -- at a big, big cost.

 

TmjUtah says: Make no mistake about it: the war on terror will be won or lost in Baghdad. Won or lost in a way that will determine if Islam will continue to exist, I should say.

 

Not quite. If the US loses in Baghdad now, it means the terrorists will get nukes/ WMDs, and use them, and then at least one of the gloves will come off.

Only if America is successful at exporting a reasonable human rights supporting elected gov't to Iraq, Islam will have to face the internal modern vs. backward conflict Islam has been avoiding.

 

There's a good chance that, after Islamofascists get and use a nuke, ALL mosques will be seen as legitimate targets. And many many destroyed. I see Iraq as Islam's nearly last chance to avoid a real Civilization Clash that, if it comes, will mean massive Islamic destruction.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/30/04 20:07 | link | comments

Half a religion -- the same demonology!

Michael has a Nelson Ascher note that is fantastic -- about how the Left and the Islamofascists share half a religion, the same demonology.  They are called friends of the third kind.

 

I recall the Peace Now (and genocide soon) folk who opposed fighting evil in Vietnam; at Stanford I saw Iranian communist protesters calling for "Death to the Shah!"

 

Today the ABB Bush-haters are joined, only, in demonizing Bush.  What to do about Iraq, Iran, Sudan, health care, retirement, education -- there is nothing positive that unites them.  Oh, except for punish, er, tax the rich! 

 

See my blog: where I quote Porphy that "the great switch occurred ... when Liberalism's philosophical basis was re-cast from Natural Law theories onto Utilitarian grounds"

 

Those utilitarian/ secular philosophical thoughts have pretty significant ramifications.

(That post of mine also quotes your April TCS note on Europe hiding its own weakness)

 

I've called you a secular fundamentalist, but that's prolly a bit harsh, because such fundamentalists do hate the rich enough to support illiberal systems to punish them, and you don't quite go that far. 

 

However, on wanting to force Bible believers to accept gay marriage, for instance, your secularism is a "fellow traveler" to secular fundamentalists who demonize Bush for his sincere Christian beliefs. 

 

I fear your wife already hates Bush too much; I'd be glad to hear how I'm wrong.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/29/04 22:02 | link | comments

Bush-hate Leftists push out liberals like Hitch

Marc Cooper (among MANY others) on the Left missing Christopher Hitchens – because they’re not liberals anymore.

 

Bush-hate is blinding the Left to any serious discussion of alternatives. Get troops home, now/ soon. (and let the Iranians, then terrorists, get and use nukes).

Oh, no ... those Islamofascists wouldn't do anything that bad!

 

Right. Like the 1971 Kerry Leftist anti-Vietnam war Peace Now folk: it's a civil war in Vietnam; only some 2000 or 3000 would be killed if we left. Those arguing to stay and fight said it would be a bloodbath.

 

Kerry's Leftist arguments won; the US left Vietnam; and there was a bloodbath. The choice was Peace AND genocide, or stay and fight evil.

 

Tough choices. The Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson war mess that Nixon got in 68 (because the racist Wallace sucked away racist Southern Dems, most of whom are now Reps) WAS a quagmire. But there was too little reasonable talk about how to fight a good proxy war (perhaps requiring paying OUR bad guys to try to murder THEIR bad guys). Vietnamization (that O'Neill supported in the Cavett debate against Kerry) wasn't working.

 

But the Leftists have not accepted that their alternative of peace now meant they supported genocide -- because that's not what they "wanted". Each choice has good and bad points; Bush and Kerry, each has good and bad points.

The Bush-hate blindness makes it almost impossible for many liberals to publicly support Bush on Iraq, or almost any other issue.

Bush was right to attack Iraq. Those who think he was wrong have not put forth any consistent alternative way of dealing with the root cause of "missing democracy" in the Arab ME.

 

The choice was Bush invades, or Bush allows Saddam to continue ruling (just as the UN is allowing Sudan to commit genocide, today, even as I type.) Support war, or support Saddam. (But I don't like either! Can't be half-pregnant. Sorry.)

Once one is convinced that the attack was wrong, it's hard to now support the troops towards victory; because if there IS a successful democracy built in Iraq, in a very significant way this will prove that the Iraq attack was good -- and therefore opposition to the attack was, at least intellectually, bad.

Leftists rooting for, and actively encouraging, democratic failure in Iraq are doing so to avoid facing proof that they were "wrong" to oppose the war.

Um, nobody who reads my tomgrey.motime.blog will accuse this libertarian paternalist Christian supporter of being on the left -- but I think the point was that the increasing popular opposition to abortion (the Roe effect?) is being ignored by the Leftists, who are happy to use the SC to impose their idea of fetus killing as good, rather than adoption.

 

Finally, there is no case of an Arab Islamic society becoming a democracy through invasion in a way "better" than what Bush is now doing in Iraq. Claims of Bush incompetence are without much evidence; but seem based on comparison with an unspoken Unreal Perfection. I personally think more troops, and more firmness earlier, and especially more support to local Iraqi leaders earlier, would have been better -- but I can't show where my ideas worked better than what Bush is doing.

 

It might well be the case that some X thousand of Iraqis must be killed by terrorists before the Iraqis decide that Iraqis must stop the terrorists and Iraqis must create a good Iraqi state.

 

 

 Marc also claims:"I find it frankly absurd to place it at such a level that it consumes our armed forces and our national treasury. That dog just won't hunt. Sorry."

 

Were you sorry when the Kerry led Peace Now folk helped get the US out of Vietnam ... and let the evil commies commit genocide?

 

I'm sorry.  Actually I was only a little sorry at the time, having just voted for Carter (because Ford pardoned Nixon).  I'm truly sorry that Vietnam consumed so much, in lives and cash, but I'm proud the USA was trying to fight evil.  Even if we gave up and lost that Cold War battle.  And never seriously pursued nation building, so as to learn how to get it right.

 

Cuba is still waiting for elections.  The USA has done a lousy, lousy job of nation building in Latin America -- the old libertarian in me agrees with your pre-2001 idea of isolationism. 

 

But in the face of oil-money funded suiciders, NOT nation-building has become the threat.  The evil side of oil money plus Islamofascism will be fought by America, either before they use nukes, or after.  I want before.

 

Will you admit that if Iran gets nukes; and then terrorists get a nuke and use one, that you were wrong? 

It's an asymmetrical question though, I know -- I have the probability of Iran getting nukes (in 4 years) at 10% if Bush is re-elected; at 40% if Kerry is re-elected. 

 

Funny, if Kerry were to make stopping Iran from getting nukes a real issue, the probability goes down for both.  I wish he would do that. Creating a self-negating prophecy is one of the purposes of a democratic campaign.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/29/04 21:59 | link | comments (3)

Bloggers in Iraq

Great long post on Iraqi based military bloggers, plus a couple Iraqis.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/29/04 21:54 | link | comments

Map. Iraq. Look.

Great map of Iraq.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/28/04 22:30 | link | comments

Will Iran get nukes?

I do NOT feel Iran getting nukes; and letting terrorists get and use nukes, is inevitable.  But I do think it likely.  With a higher probability if Kerry is elected.

 

I suggest you consider defining a specific related question, and write your own guesstimate. My question: Will Iran successfully test a nuke in the next 4 years?

Probability of Yes:

Under Kerry, 40%

Under Bush, 10%

 

Quantifying one's probability can aid in finding differences.  Others might say, for instance,

Kerry = Bush = 80%; or 1%; or even 0.001%.

 

There are NOT correct or incorrect estimates.  But for me, my biggest fear is that Iran gets nukes, and terrorists get nukes, and Tel Aviv/ Moscow/ Rome/ Islamabad gets nuked.

I am MORE afraid of Islamofascist terrorists than of the Soviet Union.

 

UN impotence on Sudan adds to my fear. (See LaShawn)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/28/04 22:30 | link | comments

Kerry opens the Vietnam question

George Miller says Kerry is making this election historic for opening the Vietnam question.

As I said on my own post awhile ago:

 

3 main points about Kerry's Lie(s) and the Swifties.

1) Kerry is sunk.

2) The PC press is exposed as partisan.

3) The anti-war pillar of Political Correctness is questioned.  From 1971 on, Kerry, and the PC Left, supported Peace. Peace Now, instead of more war.

Peace and genocide instead of fighting evil.

 

And even after the Killing Fields, the PC folk believe they have the morally superior position.

 

It's a "Moral Superiority War" -- and the Left should lose it.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/28/04 22:25 | link | comments

The fine speech by Allawi

PM Allawi had a great speech, here on Fox.

Maybe I'll quote more later.  Kerry slings mud on him ... what a disgrace.

 

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/28/04 22:23 | link | comments

Facts don't answer the question of meaning

As said, "objective" facts, only, are boring.  Some 15 died in Fallujah, 150 died in Darfur, 300 died in the Congo, 1000 died on American highways.

 

I actually think there should be a daily auto death toll, to remind folk that every day huge numbers of people die in a voluntary, preventable way (which would have a huge, negative impact on their lives if they gave it up).

 

The Leftist bias is significantly what is NOT shown.  Why aren't their daily death tolls in Darfur, Congo, Ivory Coast (with 10 000 French troops, including bank theives)?

 

There are facts, and meanings.  Facts are only interesting if they mean something, but the interpretation of what the facts mean is where the bias comes in.  And usually "meaning" is focused on the future. 

 

Does this or that fact mean more or fewer people, or Americans, will die in the next year or the next decade.

 

The media is doubly bad: it has a bias that it denies, and it refuses to correct its obvious double standards.  Look at how CBS and Rather are going after Bush's record -- but even with the Swifties they have NOT investigated Kerry's record.

Did Kerry sign Form 180? (No -- this fact should be in every story about either candidate; Kerry refuses to release his records, despite his campaign promise to do so)

 

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas 1968?  (No evidence to support his fable; many say he is lying)

 

Was Kerry's first PH from a self-inflicted wound? (yes, bad medal)

How many days did Kerry spend in the hospital? (0)

 

 

In Iraq, how many provinces have NOT had any terrorist attacks in a week, in a month?  If you don't know, it's because the bias of the media is causing it avoid asking the important questions.

 

What is worth fighting for? 

 

Journalists are frustrated teacher/ politician/ evangelists -- they have their Dem oriented secularism and they want to convert everybody to that view of the Truth.  Plus, on a vast array of complex issues, there are specialists who know far more (the Lawyer bloggers on law, for instance), and analyze the "facts" for meaning in a more thorough and complete way than most journalists.

(See LaShawn)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:48 | link | comments

Leftist double standard critique of Hitch

Mr. Sour Dour Marc Cooper himself does a great job in showing the double standard the Leftist have about anybody who disagrees with them.  For now it's Hitch (Christopher Hitchens), who is about as Leftist as they come in terms of being anti-fascist.  But, because he supports Pres. Bush he is a "traitor" to the Left!

 

Long ago any pro-life anti-fascists were excommunicated.  Now it's any who support US military strikes against Islamofascists, or maybe it's only strikes ordered by a Rep?

 

In fact, anti-Iraq war has become a new Leftist Truth, and no matter how much somebody supports other fascists, if they oppose operation Iraqi Freedom, they can be accepted as Leftist members in good faith.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:45 | link | comments

Culture wars -- advertizing

Great post on morality.  Please consider how advertising is ruining morality, because all ads have multiple messages, and one of them is this: buying stuff makes you happy.

 

This is a lie in advertising.  Happiness doesn't come from buying stuff, because once you've got it (instead of being in the process of getting it), you're not so different than before.  Therefore, not much happier.

 

Getting rid of intellectual property rights would help eliminate poverty, and reduce advertising's influence in many ways (though increase it in other ways).

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:45 | link | comments

Pinochet, guilt, incentives

Marc reports that Pinochet is being questioned/ investigated.

I used to think that prosecuting former dictators has the huge problematic side effect of making current dictators less likely to give up power.

 

I'm much less sure, now.  I think, until China feels strong enough to invade and reuinte with Taiwan, there is a window of opportunity for America to lead the world into a higher level of democratic government as the primary legitimate government type.  If so, justice for the past abuses becomes more important than current incentives to current dictators.

 

And, yes, I don't think Pinochet is AS GUILTY as the Vietnamese and Cambodian commies of the 70s; and I do think in many economic policies he did a good job; but he's almost certainly not innocent. 

What is justice?  It's not so clear.

 

 

There are some 260 Viet Vets.  With names.  With real stories and eyewitness reports, and even conflicting eyewitness reports for the same activities (so  neither I, nor anybody, can be sure of the "truth"), and these guys say Kerry was smearing them.

 

Look at Kerry's Fulbright testimony (repeated on so many conservative blogs) about "war crimes ... Genghis Khan ... as a matter of policy".  Yeah, the purpose of saying his fellow vets were war criminals was to get Nixon -- but he still smeared them.

 

There's no proof that Iraq is "unnecessary"; and I admit at this point there can't be proof either way.  Christian Human Rights oriented civilization was either to fight Islamofascism, or lose to it.  I find this clash totally necessary.

 

But, just as the 1971 issue was stay and fight or get peace and genocide, the 2004 issue, AFTER the USA is in Iraq, is similar.  Stay and fight and get an "acceptably democratic" Iraqi gov't, or leave and let oil-funded Islamofascist terrorists establish a theocracy, like Iran; including a civil war with the Kurds, and quite likely between Sunnis and Shi'a.

 

I don't know what Kerry wants -- nor what anti-war folk want.  Even if they thought Iraqi Freedom was unnecessary, what is their policy now?

(see Marc on double blind)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:44 | link | comments

Where's the debunking of the Swifties?

Beldar’s challenge about the debunking of the Swifties – which hasn’t happened.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:42 | link | comments

Freedom vs responsibility, in media and life

Tim Porter reprints a quote that is very relevant to the question of media abuse: 'Real news,' said Richard Reeves 'is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms.'"

 

Freedom is always in conflict with duty, responsibility, and morality.  Insofar as journalists want to keep their freedoms, these include the freedom to avoid duty, be irresponsible, and act immorally (except when taking other freedoms away).  

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:41 | link | comments

Abortion debate

More Centerfield abortion debate.

Carla, imagine big, HUGE, graphic pictures of the truth -- the tiny little perfectly formed hands and feet that were sliced off in abortions; these true images are disgusting to look at.

 

BK, I don't believe any of the 15,000 were "medically necessary" today, to save the women's life.  Each should have been a labor, premature birth, c-section, attempt to save the life of the fetal baby, despite its mother's desire for it to be dead, and out of her life.  Doctors are supposed to save lives, remember; today, most 7 month premies and older live.

 

The insistence on a "women's right" to choose has allowed men to be as promiscuous as they want, and say, "hey, it's HER choice.  I'm outa here!"  [I support 21 years of 10% income withholding for all men who are the DNA fathers of babies -- AND of aborted fetuses.  Pretty radical, but taking cash from guys unwilling to wear condoms is better than abortions.]  Carla, please consider this feminist idea of the 60s:

sexual promiscuity was unfair; women had to be responsible but men could be promiscuous.  Women's equality wanted men to be more responsible; but it didn't seem to be happening fast, so chose to change to make themselves more equally promiscuous.  For equality of promiscuity, legal abortion is necessary.

 

But it still fails; women are hurt by abortion.

 

 

And yes, the US SC changed the Constitution in Roe, making abortion legal, stripping innocent human fetuses of their right to any legal protection.  A push for an anti-gay marriage amendment is partly fueled by Christian frustration at the US SC on abortion.

 

When abortion becomes known as too selfish to be polite or acceptable, and adoption becomes the norm, the abortion the numbers will go way down -- and there will prolly be an amendment to ban partial birth abortions.

 

Of course, demographics mean Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and other child-friendly, child-welcoming cultures will be having more babies than the Leftist pro-abortion feminists.  I'd guess that more than half of the over 40 million fetuses aborted would have been raised in Dem households had they been born ... seeing "evolutionary selection" in action is a little weird, isn't it?

(The Roe effect; prolly also a big reason for decline in crime starting some 18 years after Roe; prolly also a reason for fewer abortions, too)

 

And a note to Marc on Supreme Court appointments. 

Marc, I think Bush-hate on SC appointments is quite valid; I'm sure he'd be under pressure to appoint pro-life judges, and the country could have some nasty confirmation fights.

 

But: beholden to Antonin Scalia's agenda rather than the US Constitution   is REALLY funny; there ain't no abortion, ain't even no privacy written there; no reason that sodomy laws are a federal matter -- but most liberals are glad to get rid of anti-gay laws (I am; but I oppose pro-gay laws).

 

The SC has the power to make the US Constitution say whatever they want it to say, with respect to specific cases, one by one.  And while decisions are seldom fully overruled, new cases can and do move the edges, and directions.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 22:39 | link | comments

Euro idea is that terrorists are criminals

Boston News has the European strategy of terrorism as crime:

De Vries, of the Netherlands, said confronting terrorism needs to combine conventional military force, police investigations, and a political dimension that is "more than just hearts and minds, but truly analyzing the context and the conditions that create terrorism." He said the United States and Europe had cooperated very effectively in many ways, especially in criminal investigations, but that the United States had unnecessarily alienated many of its allies by relying too heavily on a military response and consistently undervalued the political dimension.

 

They also agreed to pursue a united approach to address the anger and despair among Muslims in the Middle East and those who come as immigrants to Europe

 

"Words in this debate matter. The world was fed fear to sell the war in Iraq, and the conservatives here tried to manipulate words to stay in power," said Jiminez, referring to the previous government's initial assessment that Basque separatists carried out the Madrid bombings. "We will not be intimidated by Washington trying to say we were weak on terror. In fact, we find it offensive."

 

How about weak on human rights?  Is Spain going to do anything about Darfur and Sudan?

Yes, I think good work against the terrorist gangs is wonderful -- I just don't think it's enough.

I see how successful the Eurocrats have been at stopping the drugs, when treating them like criminals.

(actually, the world needs to legalize consumer mood change drugs as part of the effort against terrorists, reduce the crime incentive.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 19:16 | link | comments

The Un stops the good action -- Darfur?

David Brooks writes about the UN, Iraq, oil-for-food, Sudan.

Another triumph for the UN.
Failing in Darfur.

Bush should include the UN as an institution that too often stops the good in favor of the legal.

Posted by: TomGrey at 09/27/04 07:32 | link | comments