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

The Princess Bride plan for Iraqi Peace -- revenge

“Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.

You killed my father. Prepare to die."

-- The Princess Bride

The (non-Iraqi) Arabs in Iraq who are terrorizing folk, are killing Iraqis.  This will not be allowed to continue.  There has been over a year when the Iraqis were not happy with the Americans’ excessively free liberation, and not sure whether terrorist intimidation might not win.  And Iraqis who survived Saddam DO know how to survive – support the future winner.

 

But always remember to take revenge, when you can.

 

The Iraqi Police will win in Iraq.  The job of American soldiers is to make sure the IP win every battle.  This won’t stop all ambushes, or all mortar attacks, or all kidnappings.  But as the criminals and terrorists keep intimidating, as it becomes more clear they won’t win – the anti-terrorist backlash against the terrorists gets stronger.

 

And more revenge-inspired “fighting for freedom” Iraqis will be looking, and gunning, for the killers of their relatives.   

 

And the terrorists will be, at some near term tipping point, ALSO guilty of the deaths caused by the coalition – since the coalition response is because of the terrorist violence.  No T-violence, no response.  In fact, although “both sides are partly guilty”, because only one will win, the loser will get most of the blame.  The blame is getting more strongly placed on the terrorists, and criminals.

 

(Blaming America has long been felt as supporting the Americans losing, and this after- conflict blame division is a good reason why blaming America IS support for America losing.)

 

[Hey Omar, isn't that Zarqawi the terrorist? 

Shh, yes.  He and his filthy terrorists killed my brother.  Now, we kill him.  In the back.  Boom]

 

“Hello Zarqawi, my name is Omar.

You killed my brother. Prepare to die."

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/29/04 22:34 | link | comments (7)

Swift Vets Times 5 for Truth

Beldar does great in linking the last, prolly final 5 Swift Vet Ads.

I actually think they're "great" -- but a bit long.  I'd like a simple ending, like:

Vote for Kerry, a good Liar.

(Anybody voting for Kerry knows they are voting for a man who has repeatedly lied, throughout his career.  And he doesn't think it matters.  Christmas in Cambodia?  A lie.  Against gay marriage?  A "lie".  If you favor gay marriage, and therefore favor Kerry because of this -- you favor him because you know he's lying in his opposition to gay marriage.  You favor him BECAUSE he's lying.  You favor -- "tell folks what's popular, then do as you wish -- make excuses afterwards".  Sullivan likes such a liar.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/29/04 22:29 | link | comments

John Kerry is Peter Pettigrew

Really – he’s been a rat for 33 years.  Since about February of this year, there has been an organization of Veterans who do not support John Kerry, led by his fellow officers on Swift Boats, the small combat craft used on rivers in Vietnam.  They have an organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is now getting enough 527 money to get ads run in major media “battleground” states, the states whose electoral votes are “in play”.

 

The US election is full of 3 kinds of states: solidly Democrat (blue), solidly Republican (red), and those states, like Florida, that are close – the states in play.  Recall the representative part of American democracy – a vote for Bush is actually a vote for a slate of Electoral College representatives who pledge to vote for Bush.  In each of the 50 states, the candidate who gets the most votes in that state will get ALL the electoral college votes from that state.

  

John Kerry has written about his experiences in a book, Tour of Duty.  It seems that in some cases his book memories are a bit different than the official action reports which he submitted.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/29/04 21:47 | link | comments

Marc Cooper joins in the faint support for Kerry:  In voting, I will not be “taking back America,” or even “taking back my democracy.” Nor do I believe I will be choosing hope over fear, smart over dumb or right over wrong. …

Nor, when I mark Kerry’s name, will I tell myself the lie that in doing so I am somehow rejuvenating, reforming or rebuilding the Democratic Party. The same old execrable machine is still firmly in place, with the Chief Con Man Terry McAuliffe still at its head. The Democrats remain a “stale party of ideas,” as the Service Employees International Union’s president, Andy Stern, put it on the first day of the DNC this past summer — this from the leader of a union that has given $65 million to defeat Bush.

Big smile for Woody (unsure to vote FOR Bush, or AGAINST Kerry)!  Bush IS competent -- low unemployment (lower than Clinton, 96), low inflation, low interest rates.  Um, at 4% GDP, deficit too high (prolly means unemployment is TOO low).

 Internationally, Afghanistan is now a democracy.

Afghanistan.  The country the British Empire couldn't tame; the USSR couldn't tame (when the US supplied the proto-Taliban weapons) -- but the Taliban could tame.  And maim.  And mangle.

And now it's a democracy.  A far bigger, more important, and long term significant foreign success than Clinton had in 8 years.

 

Oh, too much success -- THAT's why you don't hear about it much in the PC Bush-hating press.  (Which has more coverage, Red Sox win or democracy in Afghanistan?)

 

Iraq.  Oh, yeah, THERE's the mess. The Bush mistake. Over a 1000 Americans have died in booting Saddam, the egomaniac murderer of hundreds of thousands, including hundreds of women and children shot in the head.  In hundreds of mass graves.  Bush-haters say Iraq proves Bush is bad -- but aren't quite comfy claiming that leaving Saddam would have been better.  Why is that?

 

William M -- great post (copied from Wretchard?  not sure where else I've read most of it; but it IS good, and relevant).

 

This election is the most important since 1968 -- when the racist Dems supported Wallace, letting Rep. Nixon win, and let the 60s youth blame the Reps for their econ establishment (true) AND Vietnam (2/3 not true). 

 

But the election's main importance prolly IS external, to the world, and the message it sends.

If Bush -- America WILL fight evil, even if alone.

If Kerry -- America will only fight if attacked first; except for fairly safe high altitude bombings.

 

Iran and Israel are watching.

 

If Kerry wins, Iran will continue developing a nuke, whatever they say at the big Table they'll sit at with Kerry.  Prolly won't even bother to lie, but they might have intermittent stoppages (while studying research), to pretend that Kerry has leverage.

 

I don't believe Israel will allow Iran to get nukes; so a Kerry win means Israel will have to bomb Iran to stop nuke development.  (I think Sharon's push on Gaza, now, under Bush, is partly to prep for this.)

 

The race is between Islamofascists getting nukes, and the ME getting democracy.  With Bush there's a good chance of the ME getting democracy BEFORE a nuke is used.

With either, democracy will be forced if a nuke/ WMD does kill thousands (I'm sure Kerry will "defend" after an attack ,too).  And even under a far more aggressive Bush, the terrorists might get and use a nuke; no guarantees about the future.  (Well, always a good future in computer maintenance!  At least until rat-brain controlled robots take over...)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/29/04 02:47 | link | comments

Rat Brain Power!

Vie Brad (!) and Dean, this cool story on rat brains flying a plane.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/28/04 23:37 | link | comments

Jihad and the actions of nation (leaders)

Donald has a good discussion of Islamic jihad.

 

for Muslims to wield weapons in a war in which Islam itself is defended is literally an act of worship. The Muslim jihadi has the right to expect reward proportionate to his sacrificial worship. In military jihad, the ultimate sacrifice is to die, which deserves the ultimate reward, immediate entry by the slain jihadi's soul into Paradise. This belief springs from the words of Mohammed himself,

 

Read it all for understanding jihad and Mohammed’s way of winning, and its connection to Saudi Arabia.

 

The Saudi royal family, ruling the country, embraced the fatwa probably less from religious fervor than as a means to enhance their Muslim credentials. Long criticized by other Muslim countries and their own people for pro-Western, secular politics and extravagant lifestyles, the royals saw the Afghan war as a means to deflect criticism. Self interest always guides foreign policies of nations, and Saudi Arabia's was no different. The Saudi royals were careful to instruct the country's clerics to issue a jihad against only the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan, not against the whole Soviet Union.

Like Azzam, who seems to have originated the idea of an Afghan jihad, the Saudi clerics expected that once the infidel invaders were defeated and expelled from Afghanistan, the jihadis who answered the call would pack up and go home. However, said Saudi Islamist Saad al-Faqih, the war in Afghanistan dragged on for much longer than anyone expected and so "created a longer-term 'mentality of jihad' which some found hard to abandon."

One of the men who decided never to give up the jihad was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi man of privilege whose family had amassed an enormous fortune in construction contracts paid for by the luxury-loving Saudi royals.

 

 

But, I have my own nit to pick: Something quite bothers me about the statement: Self interest always guides foreign policies of nations, and Saudi Arabia's was no different.

No "nation" has ever gone to war, or signed any agreement -- or taken any action. Only people make decisions. The Saudi Royals are not "Saudi Arabia".  Nations are not selves, so cannot have "self interest." I'm sure if pressed you'd be willing to amend your statement to be "guides foreign policies of national leaders,"

This is important because the self-interests of various humans inside any government are not always aligned together -- more divergence is possible with more freedom.  This is true of the Bush Adminstration, like every US government.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/28/04 20:26 | link | comments

Why the US invaded -- and why it was good

Let's recall (via Donald) what Bush said (at AEI):

And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the middle east and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it.

[Applause] This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country and america will not permit it. The danger posed by saddam hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the iraqi regime will meet the demands of the united nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

[Applause] The safety of the american people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the middle east. A liberated iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and america's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction. To a free and peaceful iraq.

[OK - let's review why again]

Greatest danger -- outlaw regimes with WMDs.  Goal, to stop it.  Results: Afghan stopped; Iraq stopped.  Good. Still some left.

In Iraq, a dictator that could dominate the Middle East, and intimidate the world.  Stopped.  Good.

Saddam had ties to terrorists.  These regime ties have been stopped. Good.

Danger of Saddam can not be wished away.   Only his genuine surrender, or military loss.  Danger of Saddam gone.  Other Islamofascists, prolly down a bit.

If Iraq does not disarm fully, meeting ALL demads of the UN -- we invade.  Saddam chose to try for "minimum" meeting of demands, never ALL; and missed. *** we invaded because the previously guilty Saddam was on parole with burden of proof to show disarming.  He did not.

Long term safety and stability of the world; example of a free and peaceful Iraq.  Goal is in process, on track for success.  Will be great/ good -- depending on how many terror incidents before and especially after Jan. elections.

Finally, the weak point on WMDs.

A dictator is building and hiding weapons.  Oops, half wrong.  Not building this year.  But hiding.  AND hiding that he's not building. But "regime change in Iraq" became official US policy in 1998, under Clinton.  Regime change in Iraq (wink wink?).

Kerry says he is against abortion (wink, wink).  Saddam said he had disarmed (wink wink).  The Leftists support Kerry's total hypocrisy today; and have since he was elected 20 years ago (or so).  Saddam was offerring the same "say one thing, do another".  Bush refused to buy that.

Yes, best US defense reason, WMDs turned out to be not true.  Saddam never proved this.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/27/04 16:09 | link | comments

Mistakes on sites -- costs and benefits

Wretchard at Belmont Club has a lot on missing/ lost hundreds of tons of explosives, as does Marc Cooper from a negative view.  Who knew what, when?  What does "control" mean?  Marc's comments.

"Can you imagine if a democrat got us into an unnecessary war and botched the job over and over?"

"Unnecessary war" is a part of a neo-religious belief that most folks who are serious about addressing the root causes of terrorism don't accept, and is unprovable in either direction (like most robust religious beliefs).

"botched the job" is another belief.  I believe creating democracy in Iraq within 3 years (Kosovo in 5 with the UN and it's lousy as one standard), at less than 2500 American casualties, would be worth an A -- great job Mr. President.  Bush is ON TRACK to do a great job.

I don't know how bad the generals fumbled this -- but I *do* know  that what it means is more Americans dying than if the generals had been "perfect".  The measure is not the tons of stuff, or hundreds of tons, or even dozens of thousands of tons (Wretchard says 600 000 tons spread around) -- the measure is how many American deaths.

Let's say this was an 800 death mistake; 600 so far, and another 200 before Iraqi elections.  Of course, maybe with better American tactics and Iraqi informants it will only be another 100; nobody knows.

But the point is that EVEN IF this is a mistake, and it looks to me like at least a small mistake, the measure of the size of the mistake is in American deaths.  And THAT measure is already being fully counted by the media, day by day, week by week.

With no standard to say what is "great" "good" "bad" or "terrible".  (<2500; <5000; <10 000; <20 000)

Bush-hate silly critiques has driven out a reasonable discussion of costs and benefits.  American lives; Iraqi lives; Billions of USD (from US taxpayers; from Iraqis; from others).  Democracy in Iraq.  Increase in Iraqi GDP; and Iraqi happiness. Culture shock, and then culture change, in the Arab Islamic world.

Roger  "found confirmation for what I already suspected - that the New York Times report of 380 tons of escaped explosives published this morning was so much progandistic drivel timed to encourage the defeat of a sitting president in favor of a candidate, I am almost certain, the paper's publisher and editors do not even care for in the first place. How pathetic is that! How deeply reactionary!"

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/26/04 21:20 | link | comments

Christian Libertarianism?

Joe, this is an important thread.  Why don't you know of Father Sirico and the Acton Institute?

http://www.acton.org/

 

Towards a Free and Virtuous Society.

 

For myself, I've moved from an agnostic Libertarian (Cal. candidate for state assembly, then Congress, 1986, 1988) -- to become a rededicated Christian small - l libertarian paternalist.  (See AEI - Brookings paper).

 

In the UK, there is an active Libertarian Alliance, which is NOT a party.  In the US, Lib Party politics sometimes gets in the way of philosopher discussions.

 

Boaz, or at least many CATO folk, will be supporting Kerry this year (so I've read).  Many LP members are small-o objectivist supporters, quite loving the romantic vision of Man's Greatness that Rand wrote about so passionately.  The main fellow-traveller status needed to be an LP person is the feeling that government is too big.

 

But lack of due consideration to Original Sin is a big problem -- most/ many Libs are atheist/ agnostic, whose "moral superiority" is based on adherence to Libertarian Principles, and the non-initiation of force.  Inside the Lib Party, there was an active "purity police" mind set.

 

I see Mercy, like Christianity, as a very personal thing, and extremely important to human happiness.    Mercy never requires force.  Justice, on the other hand, is more impersonal, and more necessary for "social" functioning.  And imposing justice, after an injustice, DOES require force.

 

Government is the agency of legitimate socially applied force.

 

A huge confusion among many Christians, or perhaps willful blindness, is the non-acknowledgement of all government actions as forceful, NON-peaceful actions.  Whenever the government solves a problem, it is a non-peaceful solution. 

 

Libertarians want society to be more run by honest social contracts and responsible, strict, enforcement.

 

I think the real practical problem of Libertarianism is that it offers too much honest freedom -- with responsibility.  Freedom to ruin your life with legal drugs, for instance -- and demonstrations of the actual effects.  This means bad lives for those who freely made bad choices.  Such folk, and their families, usually do not want to suffer the bad consequences of the bad decisions -- and are willing to give up freedom to avoid those consequences.

 

And with about half of Americans below average in intelligence, I no longer blame them in wanting to trade some little used freedom for more security (gov't).  Most Libs, like Leftists, ARE elitist.

 

I suspect that the "optimal" gov't for above average intelligence folk is the not the same as for below average intel folk, but this is FAR beyond the scope of this post, yet crucial in a social critique of Christian Libertarianism.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/25/04 23:45 | link | comments

Preacher or Professor

A VC thinks the choice is a Preacher vs. a Professor choice.

And he doesn’t trust believers.

 

I think on the economy, Bush looks pretty good: low inflation, low unemployment.

Remember Reagan's Misery Index?  Bush today is better than Clinton in 96.  Deficit IS too big (4% of GDP); but there IS a war on, and dot.com bubble pop.  If the US was a company: good growth, good profits, definitely high on debt but at very good rates.

 

On social issues, Bush and Kerry both say they're against abortion, both against gay-marriage.  But we all know that Bush means it, and Kerry is just mouthing the words.  If you favor abortion or gay-marriage, support Kerry, because you know he's lying about being against them.

 

That's the Dem Party idea of "Leadership" -- being a good liar. (BTW Clinton has joined the Kerry campaign)  Electing Bush means a good chance that late, third trimester partial birth abortions will somehow be made illegal, despite elitist (professorial?) judges calling such killing of human fetuses a Constitutional Right.  It perhaps means there is an actual vote on some form of Marriage Amendment.

 

On Afghanistan, Bush has already proved far more competent in 3 years than the UN in 5 years in smaller Kosovo.  Elections a big success, we have a New Democracy in the world!  What, no big headlines? ... oh, I forgot, big Afghan success supports Bush, the PC press wouldn't want to do THAT.

 

On Iraq, lots of criticism that there wasn't a lot more OCCUPATION troops, with US GI jackboots stomping on any and all Iraq terrorists, and their sympathizers -- without killing a single innocent.  Unrealistic Perfection.

 

In fact, the only long term way to win in Iraq is for a majority of the Iraqi people to WANT freedom -- not in an academic (professorial?) way where they choose the right answer on a test.  In a real way, where they are willing to fight, to kill, to die; yes, even to kill some innocent Iraqis -- in order to get Iraqi freedom.  They have to BELIEVE in freedom, and also believe that they deserve freedom.  The price of Iraqi freedom is eternal Iraqi vigilance.

 

Bush's Liberation, and the on-going fight against Iraqi and Arab (non-Iraqi) terrorists is creating that belief in the Iraqis.  Yes, Bush has said, and acts like he believes, that Iraqi freedom is NOT America's gift; it is God's gift.  That all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator ... 

America's gift was booting Saddam from power.  To allow space for Iraqis to create their own democracy; with LOTS of American support and influence.

 

Finally, Iran and nukes.  What is the chance that Iran will get nukes in the next 4 years?  I've often said under Kerry 50%, under Bush 10% -- because Iran won't obey, nor believe, any Kerry ultimatum.  Iran WILL believe a Bush ultimatum, and likely accept verification rather than invasion.

 

Maybe you don't care that Iran gets nukes.  Recently, I've written that Israel will NOT accept Iran getting nukes -- meaning a vote for Kerry is a vote favoring an Israeli-Iran war.  Prolly after Iraq elections.

http://tomgrey.motime.com/1098656895#362715

 

A VC on Supreme Court appointments

++ I think this IS an important issue -- and if you look at gay marriage referendums, voters do NOT want gay marriage.  So the only way it happens is through elitist (professorial?) judges.

 

You claim "it's fairly moderate" today.  What decisions, other than allowing Florida to be recounted for Gore, would you think a radical Leftist Court would make differently?

 

If it does become a real issue, it's likely to hurt Kerry-- who will likely appoint judges forcing gay marriages to be legal.

 

Funny how the "democrats" want more law made by the least democratic branch of government.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/25/04 23:24 | link | comments

Hari addresses Iran in a MAD and anti-MAD way

Johann Hari talks about MAD – and Iran getting nukes.  Johann makes the important point that MAD doesn't work with folks willing to die to go to heaven.  It's the problem of suiciders, in general.  Yet when it comes to solutions, Hari has little or no imagination.

“Let's take a tour of all the people who are about to force nukes back onto the political agenda - and into your dreams. Iran's mullahs are about to get a nuclear bomb. This isn't a scaremongering Saddam-will-get-you-in-45-minutes piece of nonsense. Everybody - from France to Germany to the Arab countries - agrees. Iran has been noisily testing its shiny new Shahab ballistic missile, and simultaneously enriching uranium.

Israel is preparing for a pre-emptive strike, but doesn't know how to judge the timing. What if they misjudge and attack after the Iranians have a weapon ready for use? In the next year, there will be a pre-emptive war, a nuclear stand-off or even a nuclear exchange in the most volatile region of the world.

…

I can only think of one long-term answer to the danger: phased, tightly monitored multilateral disarmament, reducing all the world's nuclear arsenals one step at a time. Right now, this is so far off the political map it sounds crazy. But what is the alternative?”

 

Well Johann, I HAVE the alternative. Read my title -- a World Without Dictators.

Phased, but active, force-fed democracy in the Middle East. Sudan needs to become a Human Rights respecting democracy, NOT under Shari’a. So does Iran. So does Syria. And Palestine, prolly w/o Arafat as leader. And yes, Egypt, and finally, Saudi Arabia.

 

“Problem” solved. The Project for a New Century. At least this decade. 2-3 per presidency?  Sudan, Syria, and Iran; possibly Palestine, in the next 4 years under Bush. Iran gets nukes under Kerry / or Israel fights Iran to stop that (so say I).

 

But thank you, Johann, for noting the logic of an Israel pre-emptive strike. Too bad you didn’t have the intellectual courage to differentiate between a Kerry and a Bush Presidency. If Kerry wins , the Israelis will strike. If Bush wins, they may not have to; and prolly won’t – because under Bush, the Iranians will prolly agree to verifiable inspections.

 

And by the way why hasn’t this issue gotten more air play? Because of Bush-hate. Because Bush is taking the steps to reduce this very threat, while Bush-hating enemies of Saddam’s enemy question whether it was really good to fight Saddam’s evil. And put up unrealistic expectations, which are never specified and of course not met, so that every death is not only an individual tragedy, but also silly proof that Bush is wrong.

 

Donald (is back?) sent me to Hari, and refuted Johann:

“Hari, however, seems to think that the cause of proliferation is Western hypocrisy:

[T]here is the neoconservative solution, which is to keep thousands of nukes ourselves but deny them to everybody else through raw force. This is not a tenable long-term solution. ... How can we sustain such hypocrisy without making more countries eager to get nukes to spite us?

This is a thunderingly wrong-headed notion. Iran didn't develop nukes from atom-envy of the Great Powers; it wants to destroy Israel. North Korea wants to dominate South Korea and ensure neither the South nor America will invade it, a real though unreasonable fear. India developed nukes because it and Pakistan are bitter enemies and so did Pakistan for the same reason.”

 

Johann DOES point the envy worm in the desire to have nukes by most other nationalist countries. The regimes that want to destroy others need to be changed. To become democratic, with a free press. Free and Fair Elections, and a free press, and time will eliminate the need for nukes.

 

It could help if Iraq started offering Learning Prizes, like the X prize (for flight), but for specific pro-Iraqi issues – perhaps better manufacturing of cars? Better synthetic tires? Why isn’t Iraq pushing to become the ME producer of cars? And of high tech computers?

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/25/04 21:14 | link | comments

Watcher of Weasels

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

My current entry post is that Israel will attack Iran if Kerry wins

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/25/04 08:30 | link | comments

Iraqi blood, payment for freedom

The Iraqi Freedom Operation becomes a success when, and only when, the Iraqi people decide they are willing to fight, kill, and die for freedom.

This kind of Iraqi decision is not something Americans can force -- but terrorist murders DO encourage it. There is NO evidence that more Occupation troops, more responsibility on Americans instead of Iraqis, would get there sooner.

Liberation was successful. Iraqi hero-making freedom fighting is going to be successful. The Iraqis being murdered by terrorists while waiting in lines to sign up as Iraqi Police; the IP killed in action; the gov't leaders and those who cooperate with Americans who were killed -- THESE are the future heroes of Iraq's great war, against terrorists, for Iraqi freedom. Yes, helped by the Americans -- but fought, and won, by Iraqi blood.

Iraqi blood, spilt for Iraqi freedom.

Iraqi blood, worth it for the Iraqis, proof of their desire to be free.

Iraqi blood, payment for freedom.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/25/04 00:28 | link | comments

“Democrats” against Democracy – Kerry’s brownshirts

[Updating with links, and adding just a bit]

I am angry at voter fraud, like Hugh Hewitt is talking about, but I am enraged at actual violation of property rights sign stealing, and become nearly berserk at the idea of voter intimidation, as recorded by Powerline.   And Bill Hobbs.  And the Penn plan to reduce Military Votes. (Blogs for Bush)

Pres. Bush needs to send a letter to John Kerry to urge free and fair elections, everybody honestly register once. And call on each campaign to take responsibility for their side NOT harassing anybody else, or committing fraud, or supporting the commitment of fraud.

What is happening? Bush-haters who support Kerry are acting like PC brownshirts. Standing in “vote early” voting areas, and yelling at voters who don’t accept the PC directions to vote for Kerry.

In Slovakia, under totalitarian rules, there were “elections”. A ballot was printed, with various communists listed; everybody was forced to vote. You usually got the ballot, and dropped it in the box. There was a curtain optional, that you could go behind. And write in another candidate’s name. If you DID go behind the curtain, you would find yourself punished – you might get fired from your job; your children would fail to get accepted to their chosen college or high school, you would very likely get a visit from the police inquiring about your life. The commies called this “free” elections.

Daley did it in 1960; Kerry will do it now.
The 2004 US elections are about to be stolen by the Democrats, through massive voter fraud, and through extensive intimidation tactics. Dem brownshirts are stealing signs. Not all Dems, not even most – but enough so that many folk feel uncomfortable about having a Bush/Cheney sign on their lawn, and especially even more feel uncomfortable about a sign on their car. To “key” a car means to use a key, or some other sharp object, and scrape the paint on the car. Property damage. Intimidation. And then physical action against individuals.

Individuals who are peacefully disagreeing. Today, those who support Bush instead of PC Kerry. In 1933 in Berlin, those who didn’t support Hitler. Bush-hating Dems using intimidation.

What can be done?
This needs to be publicized, and legally stopped, before it gets too ugly. Is it already too late? The national guard need to be alerted, and to go to places where there have been complaints.

Every county should have a place for complaints, and both Dem and Rep local organizations, as well as the press, should automatically get copies of all complaints. Every local campaign headquarters needs a local (state?) telephone hotline for complaints. Preferably with a quick response team of volunteers who will go check it out – Protest Warriors? Or other College groups? Local housewives? The Reps need to organize to execute a fraud reduction plan. Both sides should have listed “whistleblower” testers, who go into various places and see the conditions. With tape recorders and cameras. And collect real evidence.

There should be specific voter fraud testers – testing the county on its capabilities; and especially on similar frauds of Rep & Dem to see if they result in similar results.

Because of the tradeoff between secrecy and accuracy, absentee, and vote early ballots, need to be less private to improve the accuracy. The actual ballot needs to be related to the registered voter, so that if there are questions about the registration, the questioned early/absentee ballots can be quarantined.

Reps need to push legislatures to make clear rules about voter registration – and increase punishment against systemic fraud. Groups that submit more than 10 false registrations need to have all the groups registrations held, checked, and for each false registration error pay some $100 fine. With founders, workers, and major funders (those who donated more than $1,000 ) all having some proportional liability for the fraud penalty. Possibly with bounty hunting reward for whistleblowers who turn in a fraudulent org (first, before an investigation.)

Every campaign to have access to precincts and voter registration handling – publicizing the truth about it. Tape recorders, digital cameras, video recorders – and mace.

More later, but this is so sickening.

It's understandable that the Reps respond in-kind, which is bad, but I hope very few do so.  Some Dems, of course, think it's Bush's fault.  The BushDevil made me trash that sign.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/24/04 23:59 | link | comments (11)

The immorality of the case against war.

Norm Geras, a pro-Iraqi Freedom “Marxist”, has a great post on the lack of any moral justification to oppose Bush’s war to save the Iraqi people from Saddam:
“There was no persuasive moral case against the Iraq war. There were creditable moral reasons for entertaining doubts about it; and some people have articulated such doubts in a creditable way; but this is something different from a compelling case that the war was wrong. …
[Saddam's regime] was one of the very worst of recent times, with the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on its hands, …

A lot of what was in fact put in the scales on the other side was either piffling from a moral point of view or well short of the kind of substance needed to match up to the moral weight of that immensity. Piffling was the question, 'Oh, so you'd be in favour of going to war against every dictatorship?'; and the warning, 'This will inflame the Arab street'; and the insensate brutalism to the effect that most of Saddam's victims were already dead; and the fact that the UN did not authorize the war (since the UN could have authorized it, so ensuring that the war had been authorized by it, and it should have authorized it if for no other reason than the immensity set out in the previous paragraph but one); and the fact that there were no WMD, or we didn't know for sure that there were any; and that George Bush isn't a good person; and that the regime might in due course be dispatched some other how. There may be those shocked that I should call these reasons piffling, but it's a comparative matter. That is how I judge them in relation to the thing - the moral immensity - on the other side of the scales. Not piffling, but still carrying insufficient weight against that immensity, were the arguments from the principle of national sovereignty and respect for international law. These are both important considerations, but as I have said before, the principle of national sovereignty has its limits, and the Saddam Hussein regime had long ago gone beyond them; and (essentially the same thing reformulated) if international law didn't permit the overthrow of the Baathist regime - which is a moot point - then in this respect international law needs to be shifted forward, something that happens partly by custom and the practice of states.

The sole convincing moral case against the war would have had to demonstrate, either for a certainty or else as being highly probable, that the consequences of a regime-change war by the coalition of the willing - a coalition that could, it should be noted, have been bigger but for the opposition to the war - must be a state of affairs even worse than the one the war was supposed to remedy."

Please read it all, though Norm leaves out Iraqi Freedom from the Moral Superiority War. Norm fails to note that to Leftists, Peace (and genocide) are Morally Superior to (the USA) fighting evil. (My comments in italics on this post -- I usually prefer it the other way)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/24/04 23:31 | link | comments

Bush is very competent -- as judged by actual results

Please consider Bush's competence:
low unemployment
low interest rate
low mortgate rate
med-high deficit (due to production increasing tax breaks, with lower actual deficits than ealier projected. In times of war; after dot.com recession.) 3 out of 4 on economy.

On Afghanistan and Iraq:
huge success on Afghanistan; less than 3 years after 9/11 response, reasonably good national elections.
reasonable success on Iraq: on track for elections after 2 years, with less than 1500 Americans killed. (Less than 2500 great; 5000 good; 10000 fair) Anybody honest with other numbers?
Only Bush-haters, who have NOT mentioned a standard for Iraq success in time or people, claim Bush is less than competent (yes, less than ideal, Unreal Perfection of 0 losses, democracy in a day, was really silly. WHAT is realistic? In actual numbers -- yeah, "certainly better, yada yada").

Kosovo, 5 years after UN, elections which 10% Serbs boycott. THAT's Kerry's idea of "winning"? If not, why not? What is?

Bush results show competence at the macro level, which is where Presidents (including Clinton), should be judged.
(to Jane http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004969.html)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/24/04 23:04 | link | comments (4)

Israel will attack Iran if Kerry wins

There. I said it. Israel will attack Iran if Kerry wins.

While reading Armed Liberal at Winds of Change, I was thinking of Mystery Achievement, and the recommendation for Meryl Yourdish. And the elephant in the debate.

 

Iran is my elephant -- what is the chance that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?

 

I have long been saying: Kerry - 50%. Bush - 10%.

 

But actually, both are much less, and maybe I’ve even known this -- since Israel will go to war to stop the mullahs. Israel will, at least, attempt a serious bombing campaign to disrupt Iranian progress. I’d guess they would actually go after the mullahs directly, but I’m not sure of this. They only occupy by using quite brutal methods – although the US Army could step in and assist.

 

I don’t even want to think of this. I can’t stop myself of thinking about this. 

[and so rewrote the following, a bit.]

 

A vote for Kerry is a vote for war, war between Israel and Iran.

The only ways to stop Iran from getting nukes are

1) an ultimatum that Iran accepts, or

2) an ultimatum that Iran rejects, which is followed by military action. 

(3) Not stop. Allow Iran to get nukes (within the next 4 years).

 

I think the most likely is the ultimatum that Iran rejects, and their rejection triggers a military response.  But Kerry would never pull this trigger. Which Iran knows.  Which means no (1), no ultimatum that Iran accepts.  And Israel, too, knows that Kerry won’t back up an ultimatum with action if it’s not followed; and knows that Iran knows; so knows that Iran won’t disarm.

And, therefore, under Kerry, it’s either Israeli military action, or else let Iran get nukes.

 

I don’t believe Israel will let Iran get nukes.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to send Sharon after Iran.  Perhaps with a short detour in Syria?

 

I'm terrified of such a world.  Go Bush.  Please win. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/22/04 20:07 | link | comments (2)

Liberal support for Liberation -- future Iraqi Heroes

Interesting take on an anti-war Liberal Paul Street, Why They Might Hate Us, back in Sept. 2003, who has a note on moral standards, and is wrong about Palestinian invisibility:

 By what moral standard, moreover, are the deaths of 8000 Iraqi civilians and the injury of 20,000 more a "low" level of "collateral [that is, human and innocent] damage?" By the same racist moral standard that makes a few hundred American victims (including military casualties) a fit subject for detailed reportage and somber reflection but turns tens of thousands of dead Iraqi men, women, and children (including only civilians) into faceless, forgotten road-kill on the masters' march to world domination. By the same standard that led Madeline Albright to claim that the "price" of 500,000 dead Iraqi children - killed by the aforementioned sanctions (Albright did not contest the youthful body count) - was "worth paying" to advance the noble and humanitarian objectives of America, the "indispensable nation" that "stands taller and sees farther" (Albright) than all other states.

It's the same vicious and racist standard that renders Palestinian victims of Israeli state terror invisible but elevates Israeli victims of non-state Arab terrorism to the status of full-blown martyrs in the dominant media. This standard makes Rachel Corrie, who died while trying to defend an Arab village from Israeli bulldozers, into a forgotten footnote (in the mainstream) but makes Jessica Lynch, injured while serving (on orders) in a war against Arabs, into a nationally celebrated heroine. It permits US and British policymakers to exempt Arab people from John Stuart Mill's famous argument in On Liberty [1857]) that people need to fight for their own rights to truly cherish them and that "freedom" imposed by foreigners inevitably reverts to slavery.

Such Leftist lies!  The huge one of 500,000 dead Iraqi children - killed by the aforementioned sanctions is a terrible lie -- they were killed by Saddam, perverting the sanctions and Oil-for-food into Oil-for-bribes and palaces.  The Left refuses to blame Saddam for killing Iraqi people! 

And yet -- it seems to me that 8000 dead, 20 000 wounded, in order to SAVE 500 000, is a pretty reasonable moral standard.  As far as morality goes.  Paul Street's anti-Americanism is at least not mere Bush-hate; though he doesn't mention Clinton's acceptance of Rwanda genocide. 

Nobody who watches any global news would say that Palestinian victims are invisible -- although anonymous comes to mind, racistly viewed as non-responsible animals, like those on farm factories, would seem true.  In fact, Street's own racism shows when he mentions Corrie, a pro-terrorist Westerner whose provacative protests against Israels right to exist got herself killed.  

Why do so few Palestinians have names, why are there never any press questions about choices they have, and decisions they have made?  Because Street is right in his article, it's NOT about the Palis.  It's all about the West -- and Street adds to this focus.

Yet I repeat Street's great support for Bush's light Liberation instead of stormtrooper Occupation: "people need to fight for their own rights to truly cherish them and that "freedom" imposed by foreigners inevitably reverts to slavery."

I don't think Street means to support the Liberation, but I think he's totally right here.  The Iraqis need to fight for their own freedom -- and America is there to make sure the pro-freedom Iraqis will win.  But the Iraqis being killed by terrorists today are the future heroes of the Iraqi Liberation War -- which is being fought mostly by Iraqis, for Iraqis, and with mostly Iraqis dying.  And those Iraqis willing to fight are destined to be the future leaders of Iraq, just as WW II soldiers were America's leaders after that war (the vast majority of whom will survive).

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/22/04 00:13 | link | comments

The right strategy -- Liberation, not Occupation

The Bush-hate standard is Unreal Perfection.  More than 0 casualties is too many! This is insane.

 

Tom Friedman says of a truth Bush fails to acknowledge We are really on the wrong track. ... right now Iraq is a terrible mess because of the criminal incompetence of the Bush national security team.

 

Right now Afghanistan has had an election, Iraq is scheduled to have one. Not "swimmingly", but after less than two years, pretty darn good. Most importantly, Iraqi people are lining up to become Iraqi Police; risking death in line just to have a chance to stop the anti-Iraqi terrorists.

 

Increasingly the Iraqi people are being forced to choose: accept terrorism, or fight back. It was never the case that American military, or more troops (= heavy handed Occupation of US GI jackboots dominating every Iraqi's life) could create enough love of freedom for Iraqis to fight for it.

 

I oppose, in theory, deficit spending -- but think Bush's tax cuts were almost perfect for the short and mid term US economy. Low unemployment, low interest rate, low mortgage rates -- the important standard measures.

 

I also support Iraq security; but now feel increasingly certain, because of Iraqi enlistments into the Iraqi Police, that Bush/ Rumsfeld light Liberation forces was the right long term strategy.  Not Occupation, but Liberation.  And the post-Saddam problems are because Iraqis failed to keep Iraqi peace after liberation –because America was NOT an occupier.

 

Of course, Friedman (and Andrew Sullivan), like most Bush-haters, pretty much ignores the Iraqis on the ground in Iraq, like the press ignored Allawi, like Kerry insulting the leader of sovereign Iraq.

 

The only anti-terrorist ally we really need in Iraq is the new Iraqi Police. And it looks like we are getting them -- from their own opposition to terrorism, NOT puppet pulling by America.  (via Roger)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/21/04 22:40 | link | comments (6)

Vote for Bush -- or Kerry

On Dan Drezner's site, lots of comments against Bush like: "I'd be halfway more forgiving of neocon pipedreams if they weren't so wholly incompetent when it comes to the nation-building they love so much." 

Wholly incompetent -- what rubbish. Afghanistan had an pretty free, pretty democratic election, with little violence!!!   Oh, that doesn't count, it's not worthy of consideration; if we looked at results it would favor Bush.

 

Bush policy results demonstrate competence; but not perfection.

 

Iraq will have January elections -- despite Bush-haters trying to say too soon, or too late, or too little security.  Less than two years after invasion, whoever wins here, Iraq will have elections.

 

 

But what is the message for the world if Kerry wins?  Oops, no more action for awhile.  Anybody who gets an ultimatum or resolution from the US or UN better obey or else they get ... another resolution.  And maybe a third, a fourth, heck a dozen or more!  They're cheap, they save lives, they prepare for ... apologies later for not acting!

 

Just like Rwanda!  Like Sudan, when the Arab killers decide they've done enough!

And AFTER the Iranian mullahs get nukes!

 

What is the probability that Iran gets nukes in the next 4 years?

Under Kerry, 50%.  Under Bush, 10%.

 

Dan (you still there?) What's your guess?

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/21/04 22:31 | link | comments