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

Dems looking to win the House

Alabama Lib Front writes about:
How Dick Armey is too anti-Christian in his criticisms.  With examples.

Dick says "Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits." -- I don't believe any Dems have lined up behind any reduction in benefits.  The problem of huge spending is that Reps are trying to outspend the Dems, but the Dems WILL NOT BE OUTSPENT! 

There were a few Reps against a few pork items in a few bills, but amendments to reduce those portk benefits were NOT supported by the Dems, nor by enough Reps.


My 2004 3-d analysis shows: the breakdown on three
issues:             Bush   -     Kerry    -        Total

Iraq+WoT      21.2 mil.    21.2 mil.         42.4 mil.
Tax Cuts         8.5             29.8                 38.3
Moral Values  27                4.3                  31.3

Bush won 2004 because of anti-abortion / pro-life.
Bush won because 52% of Catholics voting voted Rep.

Armey is an idiot if he thinks low-tax Reps can win w/o pro-life Reps.

Niether Armey nor the fine Ali Bubba are mentioning the Media, the hate-the-rich capitalists biased reporters who also hate the Christians.

Ali mentioned Teddy K and a better list of losing items under Rep influence:
"That's who to blame for No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drugs, the failure of Social Security reform, the stupid Senate "comprehensive" immigration plan, and the mess in Iraq!"

The extremely weak NCLB Kennedy approved program, instead of real voucher reform, meant that Bush succeeds at passing an "incompetent", non-successful reform.  And Bush and Reps, not Kennedy, get all the blame.  Why not pass a real Rep reform, or nothing?



Yet Iraq is the real loser issue, and the Reps are silly not to place the blame correctly.

On Arab Muslim Iraqis (or is that Iraqi Muslim Arabs? or Muslim Iraqi Arabs? or Iraqi Arab Muslims? or...)

The Iraqi Muslim Kurds are doing OK -- this is reasonable evidence that the Bush-Rumsfeld Liberation was reasonably good.  The failure of the Arabs is not Bush's fault.
When an Sunni Muslim Iraqi Arab murders many other Iraqis, that's a Sunni Muslim Arab problem in Iraq, not a Bush problem; except in perception, in PR.

The Rep PR problem is that all the anti-Americans in the world, as well as Dem Bush-haters, want to blame Bush for the bad things bad Muslim Iraqi Arabs are doing.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/31/06 02:19 | link | comments
iraq, politics, christianity

Lancet and Lincoln

Easily Distracted discusses the meaning of numbers, as well as reason in arguments. He refers to the Lancet study, which suggests 600 000 civilians have been killed.  Civilians that were supposed to be better off.

"If that’s the objective, 50,000 or 300,000 or 600,000 all strike me as deeply worrisome numbers, "

Wouldn't 6000 also be deeply worrisome, and even 700, and even 80, and even 9, or 1? I'm pretty sure Cindy Sheehan would be upset if the 1 was her son.

Many good things have a cost, even a cost in lives. Sometimes, in retrospect, the cost in lives was much higher than expected. This doesn’t reduce the benefit of the good thing, but it does reduce the NET value, the benefits minus the cost.

There surely is SOME amount of civilian Iraqi deaths which a majority of voters would say is “too high” -- that the benefits aren’t worth the cost. Of course, US voters count American deaths as of much more voting concern than Iraqi deaths.

Because of this, Lancet inaccuracies are deplorable, but the meaning of the numbers is still in the mind of those thinking about it.

Was the D-day invasion worth the price? (If the June 44 alternative is to wait one more year, let the Germans and Russians fight more)

Was Lincoln's war to save the Union worth it? How many Americans would have had to die before you would say the US Civil War was NOT worth it?

Was it good to run away from Vietnam in '73, after signing the Peace Accords? Was it good to cut funding in '75 after the '74 elections, thereby almost guaranteeing the collapse of a corrupt, incompetent, cowardly, but human rights protecting S. Viet government?
How many Vietnamese and Cambodians would have to be murdered before you would claim that the "cut and run" which the Democratic Party supported was a mistake?




Most ideas, like the PC "women are equal to men", have certain consequences relevant to policy. They also are subject to certain objective tests: like the number of men vs. women who get 800 scores on the SAT (math or verbal).
I'm certain that more men get 800 math scores than women -- in this particular top-end math problem solving ability, women are NOT equal to men in a reasonably objective, fact based result.

Yet Larry Summers was driven out of Harvard by, not claiming this truth as true, but suggesting it might be true.


As a Myers-Briggs personality proponent, I'm pretty sure that some personality types hate homework more than others, and I'm certain that lots of difficult to do busy work is negative. But I'm pretty sure that some required homework is more good for more students than essentially none.

And thus to the culture war issue of one-size-fits all gov't central planning for schools -- I'm against this. There should be more choices for parents to make in finding a school with a homework policy that they, as parents, support for their own, specific child.

The reason so many on-line arguments degenerate into culture war positions is because those of us fighting a culture war have usually thought of lots aspects of our position, and have prepared arguments/ ideas (ammunition) to use in relevant context (targets of opportunity).

The distressing thing is when a comment mocks your own ideas with no alternative -- purely negative. If it includes offensive obscenities (thanks to PC & Lenny Bruce?), it's even worse. I try to disagree based on proposing an alternative policy.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/27/06 01:36 | link | comments (6)
iraq

Bad Reps, WORSE Dems!

Bill Quick lists why the Reps deserve to lose, how bad they are (I add numbers, and >* Dems promise to be worse, >? arguable that Dems would be worse):

1) Wild-eyed pork, earmarks, and increasing government size and power.>*

2) intentions to put Gonzales and Miers on the Supreme Court.>*

3) Failure to engage the strongest enemies of the US, in particular Iran.>*

4) Horrible mismanagement of the Iraq occupation.>?

5) Passing and signing the Campaign Finance Reform act.>*

6) The new trillion dollar entitlement program for Prescription Drugs.>?

7) The gigantic Katrina rathole.>?

8) The education bill.>*

9) Reneging on structural party promises about smaller, less intrusive government.-yes, politicians wanting power for themselves over keeping their promises.  Where was Bill for the primaries? >*

10) Accomodation of Kofi Annan and the biggest financial scandal in history.>*

11) An absolute failure to grapple with illegal immigration and open borders, with only the policy of amnesty and and increase of tens of millions of "legal" immigrants over the next two decades offered as a "solution." >*

12) Unarmed airline pilots.>?

13) Agreeing to sign the Assault Weapons Bill.>*

14) Needlessly intrusive "security" at airports.>?

15) A refusal to sensibly profile for terrorists.>*

16) The Ports Dubai fiasco in which critical parts of American ports are still owned by a foreign Islamic nation.>?

17) Making a general botch of our and Israel's efforts in the middle east.>*

18) A policy that will permit the world's most dangerous nations to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons.>*

19) Far too close and suspicious relationship between the families of our President and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, which has led to dangerous security breaches like permitting the huge Saudi private "charity' network to continue to function in the US and fund Wahabbi mosques and schools where hatred of America forms the heart of the curriculum, and allowed free passage of 15,000 Saudi "students" into our colleges and universities.>?

20) A general and comprehensive betrayal of just about every fundamental precept espoused by the Republican Party over the past fifty years.>-yes, the Bush led winning Reps have gone to the center, and won, on almost every issue. >*

21) Islam, the Religion of Peace (tm).>*

22) No, of course, none of that has anything with my decision to refuse to vote for any Republicans this fall. It must that terrible Foley scandal.>*

----
Let's track the score: 2 yes, 7 arguable, and 13 with the Dems worse.
9) The Reps voting for bigger gov't is a good reason to vote against them, BUT the Dems rhetoric is worse; is generally for more intrusive gov't.   The Dems haven't come out in favor of ending the war on drugs, for instance.
20) Betrayal of Rep principles; pretty unspecific. sort of like 9 (& 1) -- but such steps are smaller in the wrong direction than the Dems want to take.
4) Mismanagement of Iraq? It's quite unlikely that the Dems would have had less US deaths AND less Iraqi deaths AND less US cash spent.  Too much aid, not enough loans, is the cash answer -- but Dems don't support loans, Dems wanted more aid.  Most Dems say get troops "out now," meaning less US deaths BUT more Iraqi deaths; many Dems say there were too few troops to start and some Dems still say too few troops, meaning more troops to reduce Iraqi deaths BUT have more US deaths.
The Dems can't even agree on what a better plan would be; more more troops and fewer troops are more extreme responses and Bush's position seems the more centered.

5) Prescription Drugs? Dems wanted "better" benefits for older persons.
7) Katrina rathole? Dems had worse objective performance per $/ damage in Hurricane Andrew; what the Fed response should be after a Dem mayor and Dem governor fail & fail has not been fully agreed.
12) Unarmed pilots? Dems never suggested this, and would be more likely to block it.
14) Security at airports? No evidence that Dems would be better, but the Feds are stupid about it.
16) Ports Dubaj fiasco? Would it even had been mentioned were Dems in charge? Once mentioned in the news, quite possible that the Dems would cave to Rep pressure and increase protectionism -- violating one of the Rep principles.
16b) The steel tarrifs of Bush -- this was more of violation, and a worse issue.
19) The close relations with the Saudis, while a problem, were also too close under Clinton.  No evidence Dems would be better.

Dems are clearly worse on:
1) pork & earmarks, Dems were not voting to strip out pork in the ammendments,
2) wanting pro-life intellectual lightweight Miers is better than what the Dems would have wanted; if Alito & Roberts issue different opinions, Miers would have been better to reduce that SC problem (too many opinions). Not clear that pushing Miers and losing didn't make Alito confirmation much easier.  Had Miers been confirmed with Rep reservations it probably would be fine on the pro-life side.  Her beliefs seem stronger than her elitism; but I like her non-elitism.
3) No Dem is calling for stronger action against Iran -- in fact, the reverse.  Most want more appeasement.
5) Campaign Finance Reform might be a betrayal, but the Dems wanted worse anti-free speech power
8) Education bill, sponsored also by Kennedy -- perhaps this might be betrayal, but Bush got a bill passed
10) Kofi Annan, many Dem's favorite "moral authority"; inconceivable that Dems would be tougher
11) Immigration, an issue essentially absent from 2004 campaign, the Dems like amnesty
13) Assault Weapons Bill, perhaps another small betrayal, but Dems want total gun control; by state there are increasing concealed weapon permit changes
15) Profiles, Dems don't want any profiles!  And facts, like objective SAT differences between men and women, don't change their minds
17) Botch of ME -- that's the as yet unfought Muslim Reformation War we are caught up in.  The Dems want to talk, ONLY, until Tel Aviv goes mushroom
18) Policy allowing nukes -- Bush is pushing China faster than Clinton/ Carter; as well getting slow UN discussion on Iran.  The cut and run Dems are too against invasion to threaten Iran, so far, but it's the Iraqi Arabs who are doing the murdering, not the successful Kurds
21) Islam Religion of Peace is actually true -- Jihad until all other believers submit, peacefully, to domination by Islam.  This PR failure would be worse with Dems

Bill, where were you when it was time for Rep challengers to Rep incumbents in the Primaries?
The failure to challenge in the primaries is the failure of the pundits and the unhappy Republican base.

Today, voting Dems is terrible, worse than voting Rep. 
Voting for a Libertarian or some third party, so that a Dem wins, is sort of OK -- if the winning Dem gets less than 50% and the 3rd parties get more than the difference with the Reps, maybe the Reps will get the message.  But if the Dems get more than 50%, it's a positive rejection of the Rep message -- the voters choosing to reject Rep values.  So the Reps will be faced with the change message or lose choice.

I want the Dems to change THEIR message, and keep losing until they do.  Complaining about bad Reps, when Dems are far worse, doesn't make the Dems change.
In the same way, complaining about Bush in Iraq doesn't make the Iraqis get better -- and it's the Iraqis that need to change.
Rumsfeld was hugely successful with the Iraqi Kurds -- were the Iraqi Arabs as interested in peace and development, Iraq would already be a fantastic success.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/24/06 17:39 | link | comments (1)
iraq, politics, blogs, democracy

Dems & Reps & Iraqis

Michael J Totten says he will vote Dem.  Lots of Reps don't blame him; but he's wrong.

Bush, SOTU 2003: "Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

Are you against the war, do you claim this is a lie? Do you claim that outlaw regimes with WMDs are not a threat? Do you claim Saddam was following the 16 UN SC resolutions that Bush and the UN SC said he was violating?
A Leftist claims:"The invasion of Iraq was made under false pretences, no one today should question that."

Sorry, I still believe Bush was correct in 2003, that the US needs a better response to outlaw regimes. That we didn't find WMDs in Iraq shows that Saddam was a great liar -- with lies and half truths and deniability. Bush believed, as Clinton believed, that Saddam had programs working on getting nukes.

I'm glad he invaded, glad we've only lost some 3000 troops (now I give him a "B") -- very very sorry that the Iraqi people did not choose peaceful democracy and opposition to terrorists. Bush's Liberation, not Occupation, gave Iraqis that chance. Iraqi tolerance/ support for terrorists is why Iraq remains a mess.

The Iraqi mess is the mistake of the Iraqis -- note how the Kurds are doing what Rumsfeld and Bush wanted all of Iraq to be doing, but the Arab Iraqis, not Bush, chose otherwise.

Almost like parents who can't seem to stop their teens from taking drugs (a theme quite real to me as I contemplate my 10 year old).

I have yet to read from Michael or any Bush critic describe what a "competent" policy would have looked like and achieved -- though I have my own list of Bush errors: too few Arabic speakers; slow local elections; using proportional representation instead of local districts which supports extremists (as shown by our own tweedleReeps & tweedleDems); US controlled aid instead of local controlled municipal bonds; etc.

My own biggest fear is that Tel Aviv will disappear in a mushroom cloud. I believe that Bush's invasion of Iraq reduced that probability -- but that Iran's continued push to get nukes, along with the 3rd Axis N. Korea, means it remains a growing threat.

Will you only be convinced of the threat AFTER a terrorist gets nukes? Would you accept any responsibility then? -- or, like Nixon haters, blame Nixon and the Reps for the loss of Vietnam in 1975 after Congress cancelled funding (for the corrupt, incompetent, cowardly S. Viet regime, which was still better than the N. Viet alternative.)

Michael says "if you read the comment threads on LGF or Kos it looks like we’re heading toward civil war"

As I think about it again, it's not civil war I worry about.

It's nuclear war.

After some crazy terrorists get and use a nuke on Tel Aviv, or Miami, or Mumbai, or Moscow.

I think Rice & Rumsfeld & Cheney & Bush (who thinks like Rice on these things, I think), do worry about terrorists with nukes. And that worry is why they wanted to implement Clinton's '98 regime change policy in Iraq, even before 9/11.

Unfortunately(? NOT), we're very unlikely to see WW II style combat against the US. Military force means going in, decapitating the leadership decision makers of a regime -- and then picking up the pieces.

Nobody knows how to force folk to become freedom loving.
The successful Kurds show what Bush's Liberation could have been like -- IF the Arab Iraqis wanted it enough. The failure is not Bush, or else the Kurds, too, would be a mess.

The failure in Iraq is the failure of the Arab Iraqis, the failure of Sunnis to live in peace with Shia. Bush gave them a chance for peace and development, but too many of them chose terror. And now they're getting it.

And it's THEIR fault.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/20/06 00:09 | link | comments (6)
iraq, wot , responsibility

Peaceful regime change carrots - bribery

Austin Bay on North Korea
"As I wrote several days ago, we need to encourage North Korea’s nuclear test program.  It burns up fissile material."

Glenn Reynolds thinks this too.

We need to be thinking about carrots for peaceful regime change.

Bribing Kim's generals to have a coup ($1 mil each for up to 20? $100-500k for others who join late? $10-200k for other officers who join?), boot Kim, open for inspections/disarm -- and try to copy S. Korea's success.

The US should promise $25 000 000 000 in Grameen Bank type micro-loans to N. Koreans ($1000 each), especially Army folk, to open new businesses -- and to import Chinese & S. Korean products while setting up local production sites, especially for housing and local infrastructure.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/19/06 23:53 | link | comments (2)
politics, wot

Iraq is the fault of Arab Iraqis

Patterico notes a growing call to Bring the Boys Back Home.
“In theory, security should have improved with the development of capable Iraqi Army and police units. That did not happen. This is the central paradox of the Iraq war in fall 2006: we are making progress in developing the Iraqi Army and police, yet the violence gripping the country continues to worsen.”


The US did right in NOT giving Fallujah the Dresden treatment — and then going in the second time.

The US military is there to make sure the Iraqi Gov’t forces can win any battle they choose to fight. The US can take a huge amount of Iraqis killing Iraqis — reducing the US patrols seems a better idea than the Lt. Hegseth (?) WSJ idea of more troops (who don’t speak Arabic).

The comment where a guilty guy was picked up but then free again in a month, this seems the biggest problem. Rule of law requires punishment for the guilty.

Of the two errors possible, far too many guilty are wrongly going free; who then wrongly punish the innocent (thru terrorism).

There are two victory scenarios: either a single Iraq, or a “velvet divorced” Iraq. But with so many Shiites in Baghdad, a velvet divorce seems impossible.

In any victory, tourism is possible and foreigners must not constantly fear for their lives. Iraqis must be willing to turn in the terrorists — and such whistleblowers must not fear for their own lives. Protecting whistleblowers seems one of the best justifications for more troops — even tho more troops means more US death, and quite likely less Iraq responsibility.

The mess in Iraq is mostly an Iraqi mess.
The gov’t Iraqis will likely be increasing the death squads and their own torture chamber activity to reduce the violence.

All current “aid” should be converted to loans — which the Iraqis agree to repay but also have full authority and control over.

Also see this interesting list of 21 rationales for going to war in Iraq.

Full 2003 SOTU speech and video

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/18/06 23:56 | link | comments (2)
iraq, israel palestine

The USA should count bodies

Perhaps the anti-war Iraq Body Count reply to the silly Lancet would do nicely as a balance (see LAT prior post).

I certainly think the USA made a mistake in NOT keeping track of the Body Count of Iraqis.  Every human life is valuable, and every Iraqi who has been killed should have had at least a cursory investigation.

Enough respect for life to respect every death is part of what pro-life means.

I think the power of the names on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall is extraordinary.

In Slovakia, there are far more names from WW I than from WW II -- Tiso did a fantastic job of keeping Slovaks alive thru Europe's most horrible conflict.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/17/06 04:11 | link | comments (1)
politics, military

What would I do with the LAT?

http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/10/12/what-would-you-do-with-the-la-times/
Jeff Jarvis asks about the LAT, after noting a few points by others:
"Meanwhile, ex LATimesman Michael Kinsley writes a column in the paper arguing that it should become part of parent Tribune Company’s national newspaper, creating a national brand with national content wrapping around local content in company’s juicy markets — Chicago, LA, Long Island, Baltimore, Hartford, Orlando. It’s a neat idea. I like everything about it but the paper part. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to start a new national newspaper — online. But I agree that sharing the national (read: commodity) content makes a lot of sense. This also focuses the paper on what it should do — local."

Here's what I would do:

Hire at least one explicitly pro-Bush registered Republican as an editor, one who:
a) supports the Iraq war (with criticisms) and
b) supports the tax cuts (Dow record high! among best growth in G-8)
c) is pro-life.

Such a person should have the power to ask for substantiation of reporter’s reports, i.e. facts. And point out the anti-Bush bias/ spin on every front page article.
That would be his job.

Printing the Lancet study AND some criticisms of it, like the mismatch with death certificates

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/17/06 04:08 | link | comments (2)
media

Less than torture but tough interrogation

Prof Bainbridge quotes Mark Shea against torture: on the "cold, hard fact that the Magisterium says torture is intrinsically immoral. This is not 'fundamentalist proof-texting.' This is simply What. The. Church. Says."


I would be surprised if there was any real question about this.

However, is humiliation immoral? What about the threat of torture?

Letting dogs bite prisoners is torture, but what about having dogs in the interrogation room?

Mark Shea avoids these "fog" questions and notes that the Church teaches:

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Yes, and the Church clearly teaches that abortion is a sin. Which Mark notes as a slippery slope issue to compare.

But is 'not respecting' the prisoners as immoral as torturing them?

If Kerry and other pro-abortion 'Catholic Democrats' can ask for Catholic votes while separating their beliefs from their political policy, I don't see how the torture argument means vote Dem.

Bush and all Reps also explicitly condemn their version of torture. To oppose Bush on torture thus requires opposing his definition with another, which Mark fails to offer. While most elected Dems explicitly support legal abortion, most with no restrictions on late-term abortions which might even be viable were they delivered.

Similarly, if Bush's invasion of Iraq has reduced state-sponsored torture by 99%, as compared to pre-invasion, I'd say supporting Bush is the way to reduce torture.


Torture does work at both
a) occasionally, not always, getting actionable information, and
b) dehumanizing the side, our side, the US side, Bush's side, which is doing the torture.

But there's also c) torture in the service of tyrants means that fighting tyrants is more difficult and less likely to succeed (no "just rebellion/ war"). I submit that torture in S. Vietnam increased after the US left in 1973 and the South lost in 1975, as compared to the My Lai era of '64-'69.


My suggested definition of torture excludes treatment that 100 out of 100 US special forces volunteers are able and willing to withstand, which their compatriots are willing to give. Sleep deprivation and waterboarding included. No permanent damage.  (A commenter on the Professor's site has Fear Factor TV show criteria).

I also support explicit "comfy chair" only incarcerations, where interrogations are exclusively soft, long term, video-taped affairs asking for stories about what the terrorist did, rather than explicitly action oriented info.

Finally, as the violence in Iraq continues to increase, the gov't of Iraq will certainly be doing more torture of those it interrogates, just as the insurgents continue to torture and behead those who support the gov't. Such torture won't end until one side gives up fighting, and bombing, and killing Iraqis.

I don't think more troops will help; nor less troops. Steady pressure, with the US available for help, but Iraqis responsible

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/17/06 02:19 | link | comments (4)
iraq, torture, morality

Iraqis dying, how many did N. Viet commies kill

Marc Cooper notes the 600 000 Iraq death estimate, 655 000 Rorschachs

These are horrible numbers, horrific.

I do have trouble believing them, because Iraq Body Count has been trying to count the bodies, and coming up with far less than this number.

Death certificates are important, but 4 000 MORE deaths each and every week, for 3 years, needs a bit more.

The deaths under Saddam include many mass graves. These numbers are much higher than the Iraqi hospitals.

But even if the real numbers are a third, some 200 000 -- like Darfur. Horrible.

I, for one, certainly remember the 600 000 number in Vietnam -- that's the estimate of how many S. Vietnamese were murdered by the N. Vietnamese after they surrendered (after N. Vietnam violated the Peace Accords, with no response from Pres. Ford (R).)

What do these deaths mean?
a) that the US should not have invaded,
b) that if the US invaded, they should have planned for a US supported police state, er, puppet strongman state (e.g. Chalabi the new dictator),
c) that Liberation, instead of Occupation, gave the Arabs a chance for freedom -- and too many of them have used their chances to kill other Arabs (especially their Shia-Sunni counterparts).

For the last two years, most of the deaths have been Iraqis murdering Iraqis (or other Arabs supported by local Iraqis).

I do believe the 3000 or so number of US soldiers killed. I claim that if "more troops" had been used, that would have resulted in more US deaths, though quite likely less Iraqi deaths over the last 3 years.

Any Bush-bashers willing to accept more US deaths to reduce Iraqis murdering other Iraqis? At about what ratio?

There's still only three strategic choices:
More troops, fewer troops, about the same troops.
Since Bush-bashers can't even agree on whether more, or fewer, there's no big need to argue against either -- so Bush's "stay the course" still seems right.
And horrible.
For the Iraqis.

To be blamed on the responsible Iraqis. It's their sovereign country, they have to live with each other. Or kill each other. Or stop their own group from killing the other group.

And we remain there so that the elected Iraqi gov't can win any battle they are willing to fight (eg against a Shia militia) -- IF there is political Iraqi will.

The Iraqi - Iraqi murders are an Iraqi problem, and the Iraqis have to solve it.

Lt. Hegseth in WSJ calls for more troops; my analysis of our Vietnamization policy of supporting corrupt, incompetent cowardly S. Viet officers helped them lose in blitz fashion. The US needs to support brave competent Iraqis (2 of 3 is best we can do) -- and reduce corruption thru more transparency in reconstruction contracts.

Where are the Dems on anti-Pork transparency in the US? quiet. But such transparency should also be used in Iraq.
++The major critique of the Lancet estimate is that of the missing bodies -- most days do NOT have the 500 or so additional deaths by violent means required by the Lancet estimate.

In the last 1000 days, Lancet is claiming an average of about 500; over 3000 every week. The reported news notes a few dozens on bad days, hundreds in the week. Where are the thousands of bodies? They're not in Iraqi hospitals or morgues -- I wonder how many death certificates have been made (and who makes them).

M. Turner is right that I have found no source for my 600 000*(unsubstantiated) number; I'll note that status in the future talks on murders by the N. Viet after surrender. Implicitly he was looking for a better number, but also didn't find one.

As WJA points out, both McNamara and the Vietnam gov't have reasons to be less than accurate.

The US gov't should have been trying to keep track of all Iraqi deaths. I've always been uncomfortable about this lack, but it shows an excessive US-centric approach. (Same in Vietnam, 58 148 is official number of US soldiers killed, +114 in captivity.)

So tell me, somebody, how many civilians DID the N. Vietnamese kill thru the war, and after?

This statistics site says , thru 1973, they "assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499"
But this site doesn't continue after 1975, except in citing the 1996 Information Please Almanac that:
"There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam."

More about the Paris Peace Accord and other details is here, 25th Aviation.

In Iraq, the choices are: more troops, less troops, same troops (~what Bush+generals say).

I'm voting same troops, and the failure of the Dems to agree on either more (and more US deaths?), or less (and more Iraqi deaths?), is an indication of the problem -- wimpy Dem intellectual opposition with no coherent, consistent alternative.

Oops, there are two consistent threads: Bush is wrong (whatever he does), and American capitalism isn't very good (even if there's no offered alternative).

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/13/06 14:39 | link | comments (1)
iraq, vietnam, human rights

NoKo - fears of anarchy and dictators

Neo has some words about North Korea --between dictatorship and anarchy.

Zhou en-Lai (?), the Chi-com after Mao, seems to have directed the Chinese towards a fairly reasonable path.
Economic prosperity thru private property and increasingly free markets, first -- then political freedom.

The US supported general in S. Korea (Chun?), as well as Gen. Pinochet in Chile, also repressed political freedom while establishing private property.

Slovakia, in fearful response to market reforms, voted in authoritarian Meciar in 1992, leading to the split with the Czechs. Many Slovaks want to believe the promises of a Strong Leader, who will "fix everything".

I consider these feelings based on an Unreal Perfection standard.

(In Slovakia, women usually get an "ova" added to their names, so my wife's father is Hlavac >Hlavach< and my wife's birth name was Hlavacova. But hlavac sort of means head, a noun. The 1991 PM was Carnogursky, an adjective, so his wife was Carnogurska. My wife claimed an exemption, so did not become Greyova, though in some public appearances she is wrongly identified as such.)

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/13/06 13:47 | link | comments (1)
politics, democracy, reform

You must see the ad

OK, there's no Vietnam.  But the Drudge report has an ad that is "too hot" for any political party to show.

So, do not watch that ad.  It's too hot.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/11/06 10:23 | link | comments (1)
peace, wot

Dems support North Korea and Iran Nuke programs

As N. Korea and Iran get nukes, guess who I'm going to blame?
Dems against Bush. 
Because only ACTION, not words, can stop such regimes.  And the Dems want to have "rule of law" without enforcement action.

Actually, Dems against the Iraq war to enforce disarmament and to build a democratic nation.


The only real solution to a criminal regime is to stop the regime.  With force.

I suggest offering up to $1 000 000 plus US asylum and amnesty from prior crimes to all the top N. Korean generals (up to around 20?), for a coup to depose the Dear Leader and allow, peacefully, a US - Japan - S. Korea coaltion (democracies only) to set up a Provisional Government.

The Pinochet trial is a bad precedent for getting dictators to leave power after having been involved in criminal, murderous behavior.  The cost of trying to get "justice" against the N. Korean leaders is likely to be huge, continuous injustice.  Mercy and amnesty, without just punishment, is likely to serve the suffering N. Korean people far better.

Maybe a more complete plan later.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/10/06 10:26 | link | comments (4)
world cop

Greatest danger is outlaw regimes

From Bush's State of the Union Address in 2003:
" Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

I believe this was true, is now true, and will remain true for the rest of my life -- or until we have a World Without Dictators.

"America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world."

The process that Dems and other anti-Americans in the world want is the one going on at the UN about Darfur -- a "global test" process whose results allow genocide.

"The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

"over 25,000 liters of anthrax --  He hasn't accounted for that material."
"more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it...."
" The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
" The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving."
"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

3 years later, I still see no lies in the Bush speech. 

No advanced nuke development program was found after the invasion.  Saddam was bluffing his neighbors with misinformation and lies about what he had -- when he didn't have it.  When Saddam "denied" having weapons programs, wink, wink, it was taken by most intel agents to mean he was hiding them.  And the invasion did find many programs that were waiting for reactivation.

Bush, believing the same intel that Clinton believed, was wrong about the nuke threat of Saddam in terms of imminence.  Believing wrong intel, and acting on it, is not the same as lying.

What I see on the Left are folks who do NOT read the actual speech, but only twisted analyses of it.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/10/06 10:07 | link | comments (1)
iraq, blogs, wot

Life at Gitmo

Fantastic interview at Patterico's, thank you so much Stashiu, male nurse at Gitmo, for telling us what you thought you could tell us about how it is.

I think Michael Totten’s work is great; just found out he is putting out a Pamphlet!

One way to beat MSM, along with taping interviews, is to ask the interveiwer questions, too. And publish the answers.

Perhaps in a pamphlet — like Tom Paine did many, many years ago.

The most important thing about Vietnam is what it would have taken to win: staying 17 more years from 1972 (33 from Tonkin in ‘64) — until 1989 with the Wall falling.
Time.
We “lost” because in 1974 the US voters, disgusted with Nixon, voted for too many Democrats, who cut funding for our corrupt, incompetent, cowardly allies. (We lost even after previously sending 500 000 plenty of troops, no big battles lost.)

We will only win this Long War after a long time. What to do about dangerous detainees will remain an issue.

I like the idea, Cardinal Fang, of the Comfy Chair.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/06/06 23:08 | link | comments (4)
blogs, torture, wot , islamofascism

More notes on Norm

Explananda explains that Norm does complain about some bad things like torture, but then the bad things continue -- and what is to be done about it?
 
If his conclusion is to oppose the war, I totally disagree.
Bush's Iraq invasion reduced torture by over 99%.  Yep, it's not perfect.  To be against the war means to favor Saddam's torture rooms. 

The evidence from Sudan shows that those unwilling to fight Saddam after he violated 16 UN SC resolutions, are also as willing to watch slo-mo genocide in Darfur as they were to allow murder by Hutus in Rwanda.

My note to Tim Burke, who asks about my A B C criteria for grading Bush.
5000 US deaths for a B, 10 000 for a C.
What are YOUR standards?

How can one claim another is "incompetent" without having a standard of competence?

Now reading Explananda, and he agrees that Norm is against Torture; and has said Rummy should resign.  I, too, am against torture -- and note that Gen. Karpinski was fired BEFORE the fotos, and has been demoted.
Contrast with the UN -- I am against child rape and sex-for-food, as has been happening for years (Congo, etc.)
Who at the UN has been fired or demoted or punished in any way?

And if you're against torture, especially, if there's been a 99% reduction in torture in Iraq, that's a reason to be in favor of it.  One I support.

What are YOUR standards, and alternatives?  (Or are you, as are most Leftists, an intellectual coward?  )

In fact, the unspoken alternative most Leftists have is Unreal Perfection, with an enormous desire to keep their hands clean.

Explanada asks, graphically, about eating bad stuff-- well I prefer the little bit of Bush's Iraq rather than the big shameful bit of Darfur, or the huge bit of leaving Saddam's rape rooms operating.  The big silence is on the Left, what bad stuff are they more willing to eat? 

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/06/06 18:21 | link | comments
iraq, blogs, unreal perfection, torture

Bush-hate supports genocide

Pres. Bush called Darfur "genocide" over two years ago.  Yet Senator Kerry, in criticizing Bush's invasion of Iraq after 16 UN SC resolutions were violated, said there needed to be some "Global Test".

Using Kerry's idea and applying it to Darfur means: Sudan gets looked at, but passes the Global Test!
No genocide!  Maybe some international criminals, but NO genocide.

Amnesty doesn't call it genocide.  Human Rights Watch doesn't call it genocide.
If it WAS genocide, it would require UN action.  No genocide, no action required.

200 000 killed in 3 years.  Over 5 000 a month.  5000 every month. For 30-40 months. 5000 a month.
Why isn't it the lead story on the BBC? Or Reuters or CNN? Or the New York Times or WaPo or LAT?
Where is CBS, NBC, ABC, or even Fox?

5000 killed every month; minimal publicity.
Abu Ghraib is more important.
Gitmo is more important.
(False) Koran flushing is more important.
Danish Cartoons of Mohammed -- more important.
Pope quoting a negative idea about Islam -- more important.

5000 killed every month. 

Why arent' Leftists outraged?  Because ...
ALL THEIR OUTRAGE IS DIRECTED AT BUSH, ONLY AT BUSH, AND SOLEY AT BUSH. 
They can't be 100 percent anti-Bush if they use some outrage against Sudan and Darfur.
Perhaps the only thing that can really save the Black Muslim Darfur lives is if the US, led by Pres. Bush, invades Sudan. 

The UN might actually get some people there if the US seemed willing to do the heavy lifting.
I wish Pres. Bush would try leading on this more vigorously -- Darfur is one of the two examples of Dem leadership, letting the UN "do it", and it not getting done.

This follows my Fantasy Bush speech on Darfur as Genocide from July, 2004.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/05/06 00:15 | link | comments (2)
iraq, politics, leftist, genocide

Bush with Iraq vs anti-war Left with Darfur

Norm has had a nice disagreement with Tim Burke ( profile) about the pro-war left, and anti-war left.

 nice explanation/ response; but haven't gone to Explandia's yet.

Prior comments about the immorality of the Iraq War utterly fail to mention Saddam's prior criminality (invading Kuwait) and his "violations of parole" -- the 16 other UN SC resolutions he ignored.

If it's "immoral" to invade Saddam's Iraq, it's immoral to invade anywhere -- like D-Day could be considered such an immorality.

With now only one UN SC resolutions being leveled against Sudan, I wonder what the "cost" is of being anti-war?

When I look at what Bush has done in Iraq, vs. what the anti-war int'l community has been allowing in Darfur, I say the cost is worth it.  Well worth it.  Though my cutoff for an "A" was the loss of 2500 US troops, Bush is on track for a "B", a "very good" democracy for few American lives.


PUUULEAAASE don't mention Iraqis killing Iraqis like it means something -- when the N. Viet murdered 600 000 S. Vietnamese, the anti-war folk protested ... NOT.

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/04/06 23:48 | link | comments (8)
iraq, democracy, darfur

Some Vietnam and Iraq

Since my computer’s CPU fan is fixed, I can laugh at MarcCooper again, bloviating about Henry K lining up with the Bushes:
“At stake are the lives of our sons and daughters, the Iraqi people and our future relations with the rest of the world.”

Let’s put in Vietnam above and we get: after the Dems are elected in1974, and pull the plug to end US support for the corrupt, cowardly, puppet regime allies in Vietnam, the N. Viet commies take over and, AFTER surrender, some 600 000 are murdered.

“constantly evoking a non-existent light at the end of the tunnel”
The problem with your Left, is that all the US had to do was keep ENFORCING the peace accords Henry got signed (and got Nobeled for, along with a N. Viet liar), and at most 15 years later the US, and S. Vietnam, “win”.

The tunnel was 25 years long from 1964 - 1989. Maybe it’s 25 years for Iraq.

If we leave before there’s a stable Iraq, there will be another huge bloodbath. Of course, Leftists will blame Bush for that, too — just like most Leftists blame the Reps for the N. Viet murders that followed, very predictably and in well-publicized predictions, from the Dem cut and run policy of Vietnam.

The hypocrisy about “caring” about the Iraq people is pretty disgusting. Leftists who want the US out of Iraq don’t care any more about the Iraqs that they cared about the S. Vietnamese after 1974, or about the Cambodians; or the Rwandans; or the Darfur Muslims being murdered by the thousands every month. (240 000? in some 24 months is about 10 000 month).

It’s war or genocide, hard choices, and the anti-war folk refuse to acknowledge what the alternative means.

So they talk about the corruption, imperfections, and lousy speeches of the Reps.

Obviously with Foley, but others too (and not just Reps), it can truly be said: politicians suck!

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/02/06 23:03 | link | comments (1)
iraq, vietnam, democracy

Dust your computer before it's too late

My computer has been acting up.

I joined a free HP class on Windows XP, but there are LOTS of good classes, with a real live instructor. 

After doing a full back-up of My Documents, using Karen's Replicator Backup, one of those recommended on a geek site, I was ready to set System Restore points.  Which I did, and did do system restores, and restore to last known good system, and Safe Boots.

And the computer was kinda working, but still a bit flaky.  Until Sunday.  When it  started to stink, like burning insulation, and I got a blue screen that told me to shut down since it had already mostly shut down to save the system.  So I turned it off, and waited a while.

Turned i back on later, and restored to last known good restore point, and logged on -- and got the same screen, and smell.  Then I rebooted again, but went into Del- start-up CMOS screen, and checked the PC-Health.  The fan was not going and the temp was going wild as I watched, 78, 80, 83 (Celcius); it says the CPU fan is NOT on, and I don't hear it (hadn't in a while).  Oh no.  Please don't burn the CPU.
Too busy to mess with it on Sunday.

Today, Monday I took the computer apart -- and boy, it was really dusty.  MUCH worse, after 6 months near the balcony door, than a year in the middle.  Hmm, 9 monts since Christmas when I vacuumed out the inner space.  But much worse, still.  No wonder it stunk.

I use duck-tape and a straw to get the vacuum around the circuit boards, and I think it's safe enough.  I know an air blower is better, but the vacuum takes the dust away, and both Eva and I have a bit of a cough.

Cleaned it, tried it, no fan.

Decided I needed professional help; got my friends at Anasoft to exchange the fan (in a couple of hours), and then decided to exchange the small system fan which was also so clogged with dust/ gunk that it wasn't quite blowing, either. 

So far it looks like the CPU, 2001 AMD Athlon (I did work at AMD, after all); hope it stays good.  It's plenty fast enough for any work, and even for Age of Empires II.  The kids like the free Runescape adventure, though there's quite a bit of waiting (like many MMPONGs?)


So, a full day blown on computer repair.  But hope it's fine.  Now, to work.

Oh yeah, the Reps suck -- but the Dems are worse!

Posted by: TomGrey at 10/02/06 22:13 | link | comments
blogs