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

War is about killing the enemy

Donald Sensing has a fine post on the need to kill in war.
Of all the failings of the previous “strategy” in Iraq, directed by the commanders whom Gen. David Petraeus will very soon replace, the main failing was not keeping the main thing the main thing. In counterinsurgency, as with any other kind of fight, the main thing is killing the insurgents, for which civil assistance to Iraqis must play the supporting, not primary role.

Actually Donald, "we" will be killing the Sunni murderers more and more, if "we" includes pro-gov't (pro-democracy?) Iraqi forces.

It was always going to be the case that only Iraqi forces could win in Iraq (and only S. Viet force in S. Vietnam).  The biggest Bush problem was in continuously suggesting that the "US" could win.  No. Never.

The US can choose which group of Iraqis it will help to win, but only Iraqis can win -- by killing all who oppose that group.

And it was/is our not-quite-allies, the Shia death squads, who are making the Sunnis realize that they have lost.  And which young Sunni wants to be "the last Sunni to die for the mistaken idea of minority Sunni rule in Iraq"?

The Shia death squads, killing for justice (death squad justice is better than none), will lose their reason for being when the Sunnis stop killing Shia.  Which will happen much sooner if a) they're tired (and know they will lose), and b) they see the Iraqi gov't fighting the Shia death squads, so that c) the Sunnis have reasonable expectation of protection.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/28/07 04:36 | link | comments (1)

More dishonesty by anti-war folk

I'm joining a new Frihost Forum, to look at a possible free webhost.  But don't have time for there or here.

In response to an entry, I get some reasonable arguments.  I think they are lying, but they are reasonable lies.

1) On intentions:  Either the intention of the US to set up an Iraqi democracy counts, or it doesn't count.  Either the terrorist intention to kill the innocents counts, or it doesn't matter.
It seems not to matter to you: if your relatives are murdered or die in a car crash, they're still dead, no difference.
Intentions matter to me.
US intentions are superior, pro-democracy for Iraqis, than are the intentions of the terrorists you dishonestly support.
2) You are being dishonest because you say:
[quote] I do not support "pretending to be a civilian [in order to] murder your targets",[/quote]
but then you equate Iraqi terrorist murderers with US revolutionaries:
[quote]The US terrorists did not engage with the British according to the rules of engagement,[/quote] -- you equate them, so either you support Iraqi terrorists or you oppose US revolutionaries.  Again, ignoring intentions.
Your statements are equal to "I do not support x actions, but such actions are justified by reason y.  Plus heroes in the past did similar to x actions".  The British colonizers did NOT let the colonies write their own Constitution, and elect their own legislature.  The revolutionaries did NOT target civilians for murder. 
Your argument is dishonest.
3) I argue that the US is MORE in favor of human rights.  You don't honestly disagree, but instead disagree with a straw man:
[quote]Did the US undertake "Operation Iraqi Freedom" purely out of the goodness of our collective heart,[/quote]
In answer to your question, of course the US liberated Iraq for different reasons, including supporting Iraqi freedom AND other US national interests; you seem incapable of accepting that Iraqi freedom IS a US national interest.  As is freedom in Darfur; and Sudan also has oil (which is why some 4000 Chinese are there).  Bush decided to invade Iraq for the total reasons; he called Darfur genocide, which is more than Amnesty, HRW, or the UN has done.

What about my question -- are US soldiers supporting the lesser evil of an elected Iraqi gov't, or would the lesser evil be allowing the militias to take over?  Or who do you think would take over if the US leaves?
4) Your alternatives might well be general possibilities for a general strategy -- most evidence shows the US doing pretty little imperialism.
The real US imperialism is support for democracy and human rights, with violence against those who oppose democracy.
Joshua quotes you:
[quote]In this we cannot condemn them because their culture values something more than we value liberty.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure you're being dishonest here, unless you refuse to condemn slavery, or child prostitution, or wife bondage/ beating/ widow-burning.  Not to mention Jew-hate genocide.
"Universal Human Rights" means we can, and MUST condemn those cultures which value other things more than human rights.   Whether we fight a foreign war against tyrants is less necessary, but mostly more noble.  The failure to fight in Darfur, as I advocated in 2004, is a stain against the US, and against all anti-war "peace" folks.
In Darfur, the choice is war or continued slo-mo genocide.
5) You don't mention Iraq choices. In Iraq, the early choice was: war or accepting Saddam.  All against the US Iraq war implicity support more Saddam, more of his secret police, more rape rooms and real torture in Abu Ghraib, not just real humiliation and mistaken torture (which has resulted in punishment for the guilty).
You speak an untruth again:
[quote]Just as you cannot be forced to be free, a nation cannot be forced to be free. [/quote]
Post War Germany and Japan and, after a couple decades, S. Korea were all forced to be free.  Your quote is not true about "nations".

Today the main Iraq choice is for the US to stay or go. 

6) Again you speak falsely:
[quote]I admit I do not know the best way to support a free Iraq and reduce international terrorism, I do, however, know that our current way is far from being the best. [/quote]
You are false if 85% is not far from the best (what is YOUR score, how did you get there?), and is compared with 10 & 20% of other countries.  Compare the UN's support for Congo, or Sudan; or the anti-apartheid folks of the 80s and their support for Zimbabwe (and against Rhodesia).

What you know is that our current way is not perfect, and is not cost-less.  Anybody who expected it to be "free" AND to succeed was silly.  Our Darfur "way" is almost costless, like Clinton's Rwanda "way" -- but I'm certain that those ways are worse.  Where are examples of a better way to turn a mixed Sunni-Shia Arab country into a democracy?
Bet you can't find a single better example on Earth or thru History.

Lots of folks thought man would never fly.
Lots of folks tried lots of times and had lots, and lots, and lots of failures.
Man can fly.
Iraq can become a free democracy.

Does America have the will to stay there until it succeeds?
I support victory for freedom.  Do you?

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/20/07 01:55 | link | comments (1)
iraq, politics

Mid East Rules

15 good rules for understanding the Middle East.

Excellent that JUSTICE is a huge part of the explanation of the problems.

Blaming Stupid America for being non-responsible is an excellent point.

What is missing is what the US should do in Iraq -- choose a local tribal leader and back him with troops and cash, as long as he's pro-democracy & pro-human rights.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/16/07 08:13 | link | comments
iraq, islamofascism, israel palestine

Mostly full or a bit Empty?

Donald Sensing writes about Gloomy Months Ahead:

I am, for the first time, deeply pessimistic about the future of this country.

In my studies of American history, I cannot identify another time when both political parties were of such small ideals, little intellect, less vision and greater selfish interest than both parties are now.

So Donald, Mr. Sensing -- when are you going to run for office?

Seriously.

I ran in 1986 & 1988 (OK, Libertarian, not so serious); I'm be considering opposing Jerry Lewis of CA, unopposed Republican, but from Slovakia it's pretty hard.

Your commenter Carl and the optimists above are correct -- these are the "best times" in history! Especially for poor Chinese & Indians, the other two countries with more than 300 mil. people; and even the EU, the quasi-country of 450 mil.


The real reason you're so depressed is this: you think Tel Aviv is going to be nuked by terrorists who secretly get a nuke by an Iran who denies everything everybody knows they're doing.

I fear Israel will be nuked in the next 10 years. Everything else is going pretty well (maybe too well?).

Our future's so bright, we gotta get nuclear shades.
--

The real problem is that Iraq needs time, and the Iraqi people need to understand and act on their own responsibility.

Bush and Iraq need Time, not a lot more (nor certainly not less) troops.

The impatience of Americans with "stay the course" to win is the problem.

Bush needs to emphasize this is a Long War, and a Limited War. In a Limited War, the Loser decides when the war is over. The Loser, not the winner, controls the time. The only way to control the time is to be the Loser.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/16/07 08:05 | link | comments
blogs

Iraq thoughts -- 71 murdered

Via Patterico, A Gruesome Look at Things to Come,
“at least 71 corpses were found in the streets of Baghdad” (from LAT) yesterday. 

Tell me: if we simply abandon Iraq to the enemy, will these death squads stop?

If you believe that, you are living in a fantasy world.

Good comments.

The Dems have yet to be honest in answer to the questions (which the anti-Bush/ anti-capitalism press doesn't ask): do you support Iran getting a nuclear weapon capability, yes or no?  (assuming some kind of "no")... are you willing to fight Iran to enforce their signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Big mistake is for Bush to accept too much responsibility for Sunni murderers to be allowed by the non-innocnet Sunni community to lay bombs and murder Shia -- or to accept responsibility for the Shia death squads who, in a revenge/ justice response murder non-innocent and innocent Sunnis alike, in response to unpunished Sunni injustice.


Majority rules means Shia death squads are, most likely, democratically accepted by a majority of "Iraqis".  Only the USA is stopping Iraq from enjoying the kind of post-war community that Czechs had with Sudentenland Germans -- ethnic cleansing.

The Shia death squads stop when either Sunni terror murder stops, or the Shia become the Iraqi Army and "kill terrorists" rather than act as "death squads".


What the US can and should do is to get the US majors and colonels in close local contact to choose which local strong tribal leaders for the US to support -- and US aid to Iraq should go to the chosen local leaders, not to an ineffective Maliki central gov't.  Security "cantonization" should still be attempted, even though political cantonization/ districtization is now too late (a big mistake was accepting Proportional Representation).

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/07/07 22:58 | link | comments
iraq

Fantastic Fotos

Not from me, from Kenneth Parker. (via Glenn, very rightly).

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/04/07 04:27 | link | comments
blogs

More Bibles EVERY YEAR than Harry Potter

I knew that the Bible was the biggest selling book.
Ever.

But what I didn't know was that it's the biggest selling book EVERY YEAR.

25 million each year.  Amazing.

Half a billion dollars.

My idea (why would I blog something, even as amazing as Jet man, unless I had my own ideas?) (In Jet Man's case, it was mostly awesome, but I wanted to be the first to tell Glenn at Instapundit!);
my idea: 12 months of the Bible.  12 little monthly books, each a part of the bible.  So that one could pick it up and start reading, sort of accidently. 

Perhaps it's not so strange, but I *DO* have a desire to read the Bible again, more.

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/04/07 03:38 | link | comments
christianity

JET-MAN : THE INCREDIBLE FLYING MAN

Here's the link to YouTube about Yves Rossy, the Swiss Pilot with his very own Jet Wings.

Awesome 5 minutes.

From Slashdot:
"A Swiss airline pilot and self-described adrenaline junkie named Yves Rossy has developed a working jet-pack and flown it more than 30 times. Actually, it's a pair of rigid carbon fiber wings strapped to his back, with two small kerosene-powered jet engines on each wing — essentially a small jet airplane using the pilot's body as the fuselage. His flights have lasted up to 6-1/2 minutes at speeds over 100mph. Rossy's website and YouTube have some pretty cool videos of him flying around over the mountains like Buzz Lightyear. He is working toward ground takeoffs and landings, but currently he jumps out of an airplane, unfolds the wings and flies until he runs out of fuel, then parachutes to the ground."

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/04/07 03:22 | link | comments

Happy New Year -- now what?

Michael Hyatt of Thomas Nelson writes about Writing Out some goals, especially 90 day action items.

1) Complete the Access automation of report generation at my new work, Dell
2) Complete the Hayek.Sk /english web site (but work conflicts with blogging!)
3) Clean up my gmail inbox
4) Clean up my desk at home
5) Popularize my Employment Maximizing Company idea
6) Keep looking for sponsors for my Tax Loan idea
7) Fewer, better (thinking?) blog posts

Hmm, some 90 day goals...

Posted by: TomGrey at 01/04/07 02:29 | link | comments
blogs