July 26, 2008

Defining

As recently as the first half of 2007, the idea of an American victory in Iraq seemed like a fantasy to just about everyone, including me. General David Petraeus surged additional troops to Iraq, however, and he transformed the joint American-Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy into what nearly all observers now acknowledge is a remarkable and unexpected success. Few bother to argue otherwise anymore. What remains ambiguous and contested is the definition of an American victory.

It

Posted by Michael J. Totten at July 26, 2008 11:23 AM
Comments
Remember Tet?
AQI (or whoever)could have one last gasp left. With the right timing they could cast doubt on the U.S. military, demoralize the citizenry and influence the outcome of a presidential election election.
Posted by: bodo636 at July 26, 2008 8:01 pm
Remember Tet?
Yeah we have been 'remembering' Tet' for decades now. Tet this ;Tet that. History only delivers the goods once. Everything that follows is mere shadows of the original.
That was Then --- This is Now.
The War is OVER. And who knows what the Peace will eventually look like? Frankly it even now looks to be a whole lot better than it appeared even 6 short months ago. And that is not really because Al-Queda has been brought to its knees. It is basically because that fat stupid thug Al-Sadr has been brought to his knees. First in Karbala, then in Basra, then in Sadr City, and now in Amara and Kut. All that remains is to drive his Islamic goons out of the Najaf area, and soon that will happen as well. Still would like to see him decorating some (reinforced)lamppost somewhere, but one can always live in hope I suppose.
Only 6 months after the truth was obvious, AP declares VICTORY. Maybe now NBC and its even more cluelessly evil dwarf MSNBC can now report that their famous CIVIL WAR is over. Or maybe that they were wrong to have stated that it ever truly began. Yeah like that is ever likely to happen. That would be akin to Olberman declaring himself the 'worst person in the World'. Accurate to a fault to be sure, but just highly unlikely.
The 4 biggest losers in Iraq.
Saddam.
The surrounding Sunni Arab States.
Al-Queda.
The MSM.
Hard to pick which one of the above deserved it the most in the REALLY 'big picture'.
Good for America despite the defeatocrats.
Good for Iraq.
Good for the Region.
Guess all those crossed fingers and toes finally did the trick. Well that and General David Petraeus and his staff who might have had some small part in the final developments.
Posted by: dougf at July 26, 2008 9:38 pm
Remember Tet?
When the Viet Cong committed suicide and lost the war? Yes.
Do you understand Tet?
No national entity is directly supporting the anti-Iraq insurgency. Unlike Tet.
No anti-Iraq insurgency forces ever operated in brigade strength. No anti-Iraq insurgency forces ever took the field against Coalition forces in battalion strength. Unlike Tet.
Without Islamic Republic forces operating in the open marching on Baghdad, there is no Tet. Without brigade organization of insurgents, there is no Tet. Without a capacity to operate insurgents as a battalion against Coalition forces in the field, there is no Tet.
If the Islamic Republic of Iran crosses the border with troops in sufficient quantity to hammer the Coalition in Tet fashion, it will be such a raw act of war that even the Media will know it as a fraud. That the Islamic Republic will then receive an epic drubbing and go into its own civil war is a separate problem. The lack of a separate Iraqi national entity to provide legitimacy, organization, logistics, and confusion precludes an effective Tet.
The Sunni Islamists wanted a Tet. The Shia Islamists wanted a Tet. The media was begging for a Tet to report. The Coalition...not so much.
It turns out the good guys get a vote on history, too.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 26, 2008 10:47 pm
So if we've won, why are we not out of Iraq?
War is a negative sum game. No one "wins" in war. All sides come out losers. The only way you can "win" a conflict is what you do with the peace that follows. If you continue fighting, then you will have not won, but will continue to lose. The real winners are the peacemakers. They always have been and always will be. Warmongers are the losers. They always have been and always will be.
Make peace in the Middle East and you will be the winner.
Make war in the Middle East, and you will be the loser.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 27, 2008 5:07 am
So if we've won, why are we not out of Iraq?
This is one reason why people don't take Democrats seriously on foreign policy discussions.
War is a negative sum game. No one "wins" in war.
This is another reason why people don't take Democrats seriously on foreign policy discussions. War is a negative sum game that the side capable of enduring the losses more effectively survives. Study bloodsports; duck hunters can endure the loss of expensive ammunition better than ducks can endure the loss of ducks. Duck hunters preserve wetlands to keep a population to hunt. Figure the odds somebody's going to maintain a useful idiot preserve for you.
The real winners are the peacemakers.
Except if you count GDPs or bodies. How many thousand moderate Hutu "Peacemakers" died proving this execrable dogma wrong?
Name one time "Peacemakers" survived contact with armed enemies. Who kept them alive?
Ghandi used the morality of a moral culture to accomplish freedom that violence would not achieve. If the Japanese had been able to invade India, nothing would have kept the pacifists in India from being wiped out. The Bushido code would have viewed civil disobedience as extended sword and bayonet practice.
Get on a plane and visit Dachau. Until you start confronting evil like an adult, you will continue to sound like a moron.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 27, 2008 7:45 am
So if we've won, why are we not out of Iraq?
Because it isn't completely over yet, and peacekeeping troops are required.
You like peace, right? Do you want to keep it or not?
American soldiers are still in Kosovo nine years after the war ended to prevent it from starting again. Both the Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo want them to stay for that reason so they don't resume killing each other.
I suspect you're either more interested in isolationism than peace, or you don't understand what's going on.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2008 10:53 am
So if we've won, why are we not out of Iraq?
Present: Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Haiti
Absent: Vietnam, Somalia
We only leave when the politicians make us lose.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 27, 2008 4:04 pm
Well, I'm not going to bother commenting here again. We're clearly speaking past each other to reinforce our own preconceived notions. Silly me for trying.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 27, 2008 4:42 pm
preconceived notions
Speak for yourself. I work in Iraq.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2008 5:34 pm
Michael,
Speak for yourself. I work in Iraq.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It really doesn't matter where you are. Geographic location doesn't change your preconceived notions. They only get reinforced.
We live in a very sad world where we continue to think that violence solves our problems. This of course will inexorably lead us to that Armageddon prophesied by numerous Bible prophets. Sadly, all those who participate in the violence (including the Christians) are the bad guys.
It's ironic really. The real intractable, unchanging, unreasonable foe is not the Iranian but the American, so drunk on his own kool-aid that he just simply cannot comprehend a world without violence. So what does he do? He advocates more violence, using the exception (WWII) to the rule as justification for the righteousness of his cause.
Winnings big wars is a dangerous thing for a powerful nation. It turns the people of that nation into drunken fools, so full of themselves, thinking they have all the power, and that the rest of the world should listen to them. Hell, even losing Vietnam did not bring us back to reality. It, in fact, made us even more drunk and stupid. We said, how dare the vile, petty Viet Cong brownie stand up to us! We're the all mighty U S of A!
We really should lose more wars. We need to get our bearings back in reality, or we're in big big trouble.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Good Democrat: We live in a very sad world where we continue to think that violence solves our problems.
It does solve some problems. This is nothing new. It certainly doesn't solve all or even anywhere near most problems, but some can't be solved any other way. A terrorist insurgency is one of those problems. The same goes for genocide. This is our world.
This of course will inexorably lead us to that Armageddon prophesied by numerous Bible prophets.
I live in the real world, not a religious fantasy, but that's neither here nor there.
Sadly, all those who participate in the violence (including the Christians) are the bad guys.
You really are Exhibit A for why many of us no longer want to have anything to do with the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2008 6:42 pm
I'm sorry to be so dismissive, Good Democrat, but what you're saying here (whether you intend it or not) is that police officers also are bad guys. If you don't mean to imply that, you might want to consider your world view more carefully and write more incisively.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Michael,
It does solve some problems. This is nothing new. It certainly doesn't solve all or even anywhere near most problems, but some can't be solved any other way.

And who judges whether they can or cannot be solved with violence? It seemeth to me that those who have a propensity for violence are the ones who are making the judgment that violence solves the world's problems. Do you see an inherent contradiction in that? Those who tend to support the use of violence claim that "some can't be solved any other way." Those who support peaceful measures say otherwise. Who is to say who is right?
As you say, sometimes it does solve problems. But alas, you don't mention that new problems are created by the violence itself. Take World War II, for example. Would the world have gone on to create nuclear weapons if the Germans weren't pushing for them so badly? Who knows. No one does. But nuclear technology came thanks to our use of violence. And look at what troubles that has wrought upon our world. Yes, we should be glad we were able to rid the world of the Nazi scourge. Few doubt the goodness of that cause. But we should not let that blind us that our constant need to rely on violence somehow will make the world a more peaceful place. It will not!
You really are Exhibit A for why many of us no longer want to have anything to do with the Democratic Party.

Sounds good with me. Go hang out with those who want to kill each other. I am one who prefers not to kill Lebanese, and I will go hang out with the Lebanese who prefer not to kill me. I will go hang out with the Iranians who prefer not to kill me. You go hang out with the Iranians who prefer to kill you. Have a fun life.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 27, 2008 7:33 pm
Good Democrat: And who judges whether they can or cannot be solved with violence? It seemeth to me that those who have a propensity for violence are the ones who are making the judgment that violence solves the world's problems.
You yourself said you supported the violent resistance against Nazism, so don't give me this holier-than-thou pacifist crap. There were peaceniks during World War II (lots of them) who actually did believe Hitler should have been reasoned with instead of fought. What would you say to those people if you had a time machine? They said then exactly what you're saying now.
Go hang out with those who want to kill each other.
Do you even read anything I write? I work in conflict zones. I know better than you ever will what war does to people and places. If you think I like war, you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
I am one who prefers not to kill Lebanese, and I will go hang out with the Lebanese who prefer not to kill me.
Well aren't you a frigging genius. How many Lebanese have I killed? How many Lebanese died because of a policy I supported?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: zero.
I will go hang out with the Iranians who prefer not to kill me.
I have already done that.
You go hang out with the Iranians who prefer to kill you.
Don't be a jackass.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 27, 2008 8:05 pm
We really should lose more wars. We need to get our bearings back in reality, or we're in big big trouble.
Good Democrat,
The truth will out, I've always said. You only confirm what we already knew-- the Dems want to lose this war so America can get it's "bearings" back. Oh, and so the Dems can win the White House back too.
Posted by: carlos at July 27, 2008 11:26 pm
"But nuclear technology came thanks to our use of violence. And look at what troubles that has wrought upon our world."
In the only case in which nuclear weapons were used in war, they ended that war.
"We said, how dare the vile, petty Viet Cong brownie stand up to us!"
This shows a lack of knowledge of history. The Viet Cong were puppets of the mighty USSR, not a bunch of poor farmers like the Democrats try to portray them. We were fighting communism, not a bunch of illiterate fishermen. And we defeated them but were beaten by our own politicians--pacifists, as a matter of fact.
I have a brother in Iraq. I want him home as soon as possible. But I know he's fighting so that others can have peace.
Posted by: Jamon51 at July 27, 2008 11:30 pm
Good Democrat: We really should lose more wars.
But don't let anyone question your patriotism.
Put that on a bumper sticker and drive it around. I dare you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 28, 2008 12:38 am
Michael,
You yourself said you supported the violent resistance against Nazism, so don't give me this holier-than-thou pacifist crap.

Why are you stuck, also on the exception to the rule? When it comes to war, our struggle against Nazism is unique and doesn't happen very often at all. There is no Nazism today dude. Don't you get it? Stop breaking Goodwin's Law!
See, because of World War II, we cannot actually have a real discussion about warfare because it automatically colors the discussion. We cannot look at the horrors of World War I, for example, truly the forgotten war, and see how senseless and stupid it is to war, to go out and kill each other. Why? Because World War II hovers over us like a great aunt who demands to be respected.
World War II fundamentally changed the calculus of the world. We suddenly became the world's greatest empire. We now had permanent bases all over the world. We now became involved in every minor conflict imaginable (just look at how often you see the CIA having dirtied their hands in something---Indonesia anyone?). But all these involvements have not made the world a safer place, a more peaceful place. In the end, we've been making the world a more dangerous place when we really didn't need to. But alas, you will never see this because you AGREE with those actions. So to you, it is normal, and the responses we get from others around the world based on our actions you will never see as a result of our actions and thusly think that the rest of the world is just simply a violent place that needs to learn its lesson at the tip of an American machine gun.
There were peaceniks during World War II (lots of them) who actually did believe Hitler should have been reasoned with instead of fought.

Hitler is not alive today. There is no Hitler today. Leave Hitler to the past and deal with the people you have today. It is silly to do otherwise.
What would you say to those people if you had a time machine? They said then exactly what you're saying now.

No they are not because the situations are not comparable at all. You agreed earlier that they are not. Why would you once again compare them?
Do you even read anything I write? I work in conflict zones. I know better than you ever will what war does to people and places. If you think I like war, you have serious problems with reading comprehension.

You misunderstand (because we're still talking past each other). It is not a matter of liking war, but of accepting it as an acceptable "solution." What I am saying is that THAT solution is illusory and not really a solution at all.
I once again have to go back to the bombing of Lebanon in 2006. What exactly was its purpose? Did Hezbollah previously kidnap Israeli soldiers? Did Israel not find a way to negotiate their release? Why exactly did Israel NOT do the same this time? In the end, did they not resort to the peaceful resolution of that incident just recently? Did they NOT negotiate a trade? So, if in the end, through peaceful means you get the same result you were hoping you'd get through war, why would you go to war? Who lost in that conflict, Michael? Answer that question. Who lost?
Well aren't you a frigging genius. How many Lebanese have I killed? How many Lebanese died because of a policy I supported?

That depends. I seem to recall you were quite supportive of Israel's bombing of Lebanon (over 1000 Lebanese killed by a policy you supported). But my memory could be wrong. I won't bother trying to go back to find it, but if I'm wrong, then I'll admit this point wasn't good.
How armed exiles are working to topple Tehran's Islamic Government

Are you kidding me? You are making my point. You are hanging out with Iranians who want to kill. Com'on Michael. Show me where you are hanging out with Iranians who want to live life and enjoy good relations one with another. They do exist dude.
Don't be a jackass.

I'm not. I am making an uncomfortable point. I prefer to hang out with people who do not want to kill each other. You don't. You prefer to hang out with people who DO want to kill each other. That's not the kind of people I prefer to be in the party I belong to, so if you really are leaving the Democratic Party, then Auf Weidersehen. Tschuss. La Revedere.
Good Democrat: We really should lose more wars.
But don't let anyone question your patriotism.
Put that on a bumper sticker and drive it around. I dare you.

I don't drive a car. But it's clear, once again, that we are talking past each other. You prefer not to find out why I think we should lose more wars. Instinctively you reflex and throw up your defensive wall. "Lose," he said. "He must be anti-American." My patriotism is clearly the first response. How patriotic is he? He wants us to lose. We must win win WIN WIN WIN!!! But, well, what exactly is winning when everyone around you is dead?
Winning is sometimes more dangerous to a nation than losing is, Michael. Look at Israel, for example. They "lost" the war against Hezbollah. Sure they killed more Lebanese, but they failed utterly in their goal of eliminating Hezbollah, whereas Hezbollah merely had to survive in order to claim victory. Now, because they lost, they have a more realistic sense of the world around them, and, well, look at what is happening! They are trading with Hezbollah (which they should have done in the first place and avoided the deaths of thousands). They are looking strongly at making peace with Syria! I didn't see such overtures before 2006. It's nice to see them now. Because Israel lost, it brought a sense of realism back into their thinking. They realized that it was not worth the effort to try and kill every Hezbollah agent out there. They realized that Syria does not need to be invaded. In fact, peace should be made with Syria.
Israel didn't need to have to lose in order to see this, but because they kept being given Kool-Aid by the drunken Americans, they lost their sense of bearings.
America needs to lose, and badly. We need to get our butts kicked. We need to do so because we're so drunk with war and success that we can't tell when it is no longer reasonable to war.
But please, resort to the silly uneducated swipes at my patriotism. Let's continue talking past each other. Please, continue reinforcing your own drunken beliefs. Please, support a war against Iran. Let's go kill them. Let's show them who is boss.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 28, 2008 3:17 am
Jamon,
In the only case in which nuclear weapons were used in war, they ended that war.

Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 28, 2008 3:19 am
Good Democrat: America needs to lose, and badly. We need to get our butts kicked. But please, resort to the silly uneducated swipes at my patriotism.
You are completely incapable of seeing the contradictions in your own writing.
Think harder, and write more carefully.
Please, support a war against Iran. Let's go kill them.
Whose blog do you think you're reading?
You need to calm down.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 28, 2008 3:22 am
Wow...
"The real winners are the peacemakers."
And just how do you suppose peace is achieved while involved in violent conflict? And how has the seemingly innate notion of self preservation escaped your troubled soul?
"America needs to lose, and badly. We need to get our butts kicked."
For the anti violence pacifist you claim to be, this is explicitly advocating violent death upon people who actively seek peace. This goes well beyond hypocrisy. This is truly sick. You sir, are hoisted upon your own petard.
Posted by: anuts at July 28, 2008 4:41 am
Michael,
You are completely incapable of seeing the contradictions in your own writing.

That's because you cannot get past the "patriotism" question.
I love my country, Michael. It is a wonderful country. Its ideologies are vibrant and bring about much good. But, alas, my country has a very dark side. It wins too much in wars and so it thinks that making more wars will somehow bring more peace. Alas, it doesn't work that way. The peacemakers are the ones who END wars, not START wars. Prosperity and happiness come when there is NO wars, not when we FIGHT wars. Make peace with the enemy, Michael. You can't kill them all. It is impossible, because in the end you'll have to kill yourself because of the enemy you have become.
Please, support a war against Iran. Let's go kill them.
Whose blog do you think you're reading?

Your blog. You linked to an article that you wrote about a revolutionary group aimed at taking the Iranian government down. Twice you asked about what they thought about an invasion from America. The piece flows like a dream of violent change.
But my words here are futile, so this will be my last comment. 9/11 changed us indeed. It made us far worse than I could have imagined. I can only hope change comes for the positive, but I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by: The Good Democrat at July 28, 2008 6:10 am
"Well, I'm not going to bother commenting here again."--TGD
Many many MANY stream-of-consciousness comments later ----
"But my words here are futile, so this will be my last comment."---TGD
I guess English doesn't mean the same to some segments of the population as it does to others.
I blame the educational system. And the media.
Posted by: dougf at July 28, 2008 7:32 am
Are you kidding me? You are making my point. You are hanging out with Iranians who want to kill.
Good Democrat - Some Iranians want to kill, some Iraqis want to kill, some Chinese want to kill, some Russians want to kill. If you want to avoid people who want to kill, if you want to ignore them, you have to ignore most of what goes on in the world. Given the uninformed quality of your comments, I assume that's what you've been doing.
If you ever did read the news, you would find out that the world is full of killing and violence. Most of this killing and violence has nothing to do with America or the American military. As Michael noted in todays post, Saudi binladenites are spreading a philosophy of violence and grave desecration around the world. The Fascist-influenced, Wahhabi-supported Muslim Brotherhood is championing and financing religious murder in Britian, 'militant' Wahhaibis are killing Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims in the Sudan, Hindus in India and Jews in Israel.
In Africa, Congolese cannibals have eaten some of the UN 'peacekeepers' who were sent to monitor their war. About a decade ago, some Rwandans wanted to kill. The French encouraged this, the UN allowed it and hundreds of thousands were hacked to death (by their neighbors and former friends) with machetes. Shamed by their complete ineffectiveness in the Rwandan conflict, the peacekeepers have ignored the fact that the Rwandan war has spread to the Congo, and that approximately 2 million children have been murdered under the peacekeepers' watch.
This is what happens when you deliberately ignore people who want to kill.
I'm not going to try to list the many millions of people whose lives were saved by military action, nor am I going to describe the many conflicts that were made worse by making overtures of 'peace' to obvious aggressors. I don't think this or any site has the bandwidth for such a deluge of information. Information has no effect on the pacifist argument, since you can't reason someone out of an idea that he was never reasoned into.
Like the Shakers who believed that reproduction was a sin, like the Muti worshippers who believe that organs harvested from live children will bring good luck, Pacifists follow a faith that is not based on reason, pragmatism or natural law. There are some good things about this faith that ignores natural law and reality, there are some bad things, but the only fact that relates to pacifism here is that as a faith, it has no place in politics.
Posted by: maryatexitzero at July 28, 2008 7:46 am
Good Democrat,
"I seem to recall you were quite supportive of Israel's bombing of Lebanon (over 1000 Lebanese killed by a policy you supported). But my memory could be wrong."
Michael was quite against that war.
I say this not because it wrecks your whole argument. I say this as someone who has been reading here for years, who has posted occasionally, who has visited some of the places Michael has written about, and who has voted Democratic most of my adult life. I have been to blogs where commenters sling monkey dung. This site, while not gentle, is not one of them. I think you might get hammered on less if you slowed down just a bit.
Scott
Posted by: scottmoshen at July 28, 2008 8:49 am
MJT, I finally signed up for type key today, after many months of waiting!!!! ;-)
Good Democrat convinced me. I like you am not exactly enamored with either the Dems or the Republicans, although I admire a lot of people in both parties. But I must say, I know many Democrats, the large majority of them would be horrified by "Good Democrat." They would probably accuse him of being a Republican plant :LOL:
Good Democrat is obviously not a pacifist, but he should study actual pacifists such as Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi believed that all police should use Sathya Graha, with the full understanding that this would mean much more violence in the short run (since the police would not be able to violently stop rapes, crime and murder through violence). Gandhi felt, however, that Sathya Graha would transform the hearts of violent criminals over time and lead to a gradual long term transformation to a more compassionate, spiritual and righteous (Dharmic) society. (Similar to what the priest did at the start of Les Miserable.)
Good Democrat, Gandhi was not na
Posted by: anand at July 28, 2008 9:52 am
The comments at COMMENTARY Magazine are also quite good.
Posted by: anand at July 28, 2008 9:54 am
America needs to lose, and badly. We need to get our butts kicked.
I think I'm gonna go ahead and nominate TGD for involuntary human shield duty next time it rolls around. Maybe we can send him to Lebanon and let HA chain him to a Katyusha launcher?
It's mind boggling that somebody like this can claim he loves his country, and that he's a patriot. And yet, he actually seems to believe it. TGD, maybe you need to look up the word "treason"? I bet you couldn't even advocate those views in Berkeley without getting your ass kicked all the way down the street. I could be wrong though! Why not try it, and upload the results to YouTube?
Posted by: programmmer_craig at July 28, 2008 11:43 am
Craig, I went to school at Berkeley:
"I bet you couldn't even advocate those views in Berkeley without getting your ass kicked all the way down the street."
Well this is tricky. Many Berkeley students are foreigners. If a foreigner says this, most of us would shrug. But Americans student Democrats at UC Berkeley would probably explain to our good fellow Americans "the good democrat" that he can't claim to be a democrat "without getting your ass kicked all the way down the street."
Most Berkeley students laugh in derision at people like this and ignore them.
Posted by: anand at July 28, 2008 12:02 pm
I'm glad it wasn't just me. Sometimes I'm a bit sensitive on these things, but TGD is actually an ignorant, arrogant, and insufferable twit.
TGD, please take your toys and go home. I'm glad we ran you off. You're more annoying than Edgar the E-hole, and I didn't think that was possible.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 28, 2008 1:40 pm
Lassy: You're more annoying than Edgar the E-hole, and I didn't think that was possible.
It could be worse, you know. He could be homophobic, paranoid, and dishonest.
Lassy, nobody finds you remotely interesting or intelligent. Go back to finding "solutions" to lighting a room. You're better at that.
Posted by: Edgar at July 28, 2008 4:06 pm
Patrick lAsswell: You're more annoying than Edgar the E-hole, and I didn't think that was possible
I've been only surfing this site occasionally for the last few months and refraining from posting. However I couldn't ignore that particular comment. It was really out of left field and quite frankly, uncalled for.
It takes quite the Chutzpa for you to attack Edgar in that way when you've been one of the most misogynistic, homophobic, and belligerent people on this site. I think those are qualities that are tops on people's lists when they think of 'annoying' people.
Posted by: JohnDakota at July 28, 2008 4:37 pm
Uh, oh. Here we go again.
Just to preempt the inevitable "don't make me pull the car over," Michael...
I will cease and desist. But please examine the original comment and you'll understand why it prompted a reaction from me.
I have no idea why Lassy does this, or how he thinks, other than that it's utterly irrational.He acts like a bitch and then complains when he's slapped like a bitch.
Does not make any sense.
JD,
Nothing but love for you, but I can handle retired peacetime army wannabes pretty easily on my own.
Posted by: Edgar at July 28, 2008 4:46 pm
Fair enough Edgar my man! =P I was just reading the thread and saw that post. It really made me say "whoa" out loud, Keanu style.
I really should get back to changing over all the lighting in my house to energy savers. Any suggestions on brands from the resident lighting specialist (Cue Patrick)?
Posted by: JohnDakota at July 28, 2008 4:50 pm
Any suggestions on brands from the resident lighting specialist (Cue Patrick)?
I assume he'd recommend reinforced, bulletproof fixtures. I mean, he works in IRAQ and is no stranger to violence.
(Michael, I am so sorry. I'm done now, I promise.)
Posted by: Edgar at July 28, 2008 5:00 pm
It's nice to know that if you go to the trouble of inventing a new insult Edgar and JohnDakota are going to step right up to the plate to embody it.
And by their posts you shall know them, and they are E-holes (rhymes with T-rolls) and their annoyances are Legion.
Not quite trolls but not worth talking to: E-holes. Doing their best to create a stinky, itching, burning sensation on a blog that is painful, but not really worth the cost of removal surgery.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 28, 2008 10:37 pm
Good Democrat,
If you're still reading, let me show you a short and to-the-point article about mass-murder from the BBC. Note the sentence in bold font below. "Credible means of defence" means "men with guns and the authorization to kill."
---------------------------------
Srebrenica report blames UN
The United Nations must accept partial responsibility for the mass killings of Srebrenica in 1995 - Europe's worst massacres since World War II, according to a UN report.
An estimated 7,000 men and boys were slaughtered in the so-called UN ''safe area'' after the Bosnian Muslim town was overrun by Serbs.
In his report, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ''safe areas'' should never be established again without credible means of defence. [Emphasis added.]
And he said UN peacekeepers should never be deployed again where there is no ceasefire or peace agreement.
His 155-page report said the UN Security Council should have approved "more decisive and forceful action to prevent the unfolding horror".
"Not since the horrors of World War II had Europe witnessed massacres on this scale," Mr Annan added. "The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 29, 2008 12:15 am
Michael,
I've been following your work for some time. You are honest, you call it as you see it, and you write with moral clarity. I can't say the same for "good democrat" but he is driven by his convictions and must validate them or lose face. We all know that pacifists enjoy the exercise of their convictions at the cost of us warriors protecting them. I happen to be an Air Force chaplain and a former combatant (B-52 aircrew). Thanks for sticking up for us.
I have a fun theory as to when we can declare Victory in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we saw a glimpse of it when the first KFC opened up in Mosul the other day. I think we will know we won when the first WALMART opens! If that isn't an indicator of free commerce, an open society and a lack of fear regarding jihadists, I don't know what is. :)
Blessings to you my friend. I pray often for your safety, and for continued joy in your heart.
Posted by: Fr. Wes at July 29, 2008 12:44 am
And by their posts you shall know them, and they are E-holes (rhymes with T-rolls) and their annoyances are Legion.
I hereby declare victory over Lassy.
That's the lamest insult I've seen in many years. Jesus.
Posted by: Edgar at July 29, 2008 5:22 am
Patrick, why would you do that? Why did you have to start this stupid war again? So, wrong.
Posted by: leo at July 29, 2008 6:15 am
Patrick, why would you do that?
Trust me, he's going to regret this a lot more than you will.
Posted by: Edgar at July 29, 2008 6:30 am
Edgar, you know. Some time Patrick is not so wrong about you. Enjoy your arrogance.
Posted by: leo at July 29, 2008 6:59 am
heh.. Lassy you crack me up. You calling us annoying would be on par with Stalin blaming Hitler for being a genocidal maniac. Sure, you don't go around exterminating people, but you're a hypocrite just the same.
Honestly, are you going to force me to quote your homophobic, misogenistic, bigoted, and biligerent comments here and allow the readers of MJTs site decide who's more annoying? Under normal circumstances I wouldn't say anything, but lets not forget, you're the one who started this out of absolutely nowhere.
Could I make a suggestion? Go back to replacing light bulbs. It's what you're good at.
Posted by: JohnDakota at July 29, 2008 8:23 am
Yo guys ( and you ALL know who you are ) ----
Can civility reign here again ?
If you want to declare that the Media consists of totally tendentious MOFOS, or pile on the semi-educated rantings of such as TGD, it all makes good reading for me. That stuff just never grows old.
Similarly interesting discussions are all fine and good although I have a rather jaundiced view of the efficacy of 'debate' as a problem solving tool.
But the ' your mother wears Army Boots , or the ' I"m rubber any you're glue schools of conversation are rather tedious. Even the first time around. Never mind the hundred and first time.
Can't we all have a Rodney King moment and just 'get along' ? Can everyone just eviscerate the deserving 'others', and keep the schoolyard taunts to a bare minimum?
Please ?
Posted by: dougf at July 29, 2008 9:35 am
Victory in Iraq can be claimed when there are fewer violent deaths per 100,000 Iraqis than there are violent deaths per 100,000 Washington DC residents.
Possibly sooner?
Patrick, I almost always like your comments, and usually feel sympathy for your insults (with similar negative feelings for the object), but this was a thread when it was unnessarily provocative. My mid-son Daniel often is provoked by my daughter Bianca, but sometimes he does the provoking first. Sorry you started it this time.
Of course, Good Dem was also pretty silly. I think we 'pro-war instead of genocide' should be more constantly emphasizing how the world has been giving 'peace a chance' in Darfur.
The slo-mo Darfur genocide is continuing. The 200 000 murdered estimate from a couple of years ago hasn't been publicly updated by most news agencies, but some have said it's now over 400 000. About 2 years, 104 weeks, 200 000 more killed; about 2 000 a week being killed because anti-war pacifists prefer accepting genocide rather than war to stop evil.
When the genocide ends there, all killed, will the anti-war folk claim victory?
On Tet and Iraq -- there are Iranian Republican Guards who ARE supporting the anti-Iraq democracy insurgency, and have been caught, some killed, in Iraq. Iran is an enemy of Iraq.
I expect Iraq politicians to sometime play the 'get tough with Iran' card, and begin making louder noises against Iranian crimes. But I also know I hope for this, so I'm waiting for others to tell me if it is happening -- Michael hasn't reported any such sentiment yet.
More than a peaceful world, I'd like us to live in World Without Dictators. I think successful world gov't evolution in that goal would achieve world peace.
It's also important to know that for the last 15 years, overall world violence in wars has been going down. That's even less reported than slo-mo genocide in Darfur.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 29, 2008 10:04 am
dougf: But the ' your mother wears Army Boots , or the ' I"m rubber any you're glue schools of conversation are rather tedious. Even the first time around. Never mind the hundred and first time.
Yeah, I agree. But this is not heated argument that got out of hand, or anything like that.
Lassy decided to launch a personal attack out of the blue. Period. So he got slapped around a bit. And it's pretty obvious that he deserved what he got.
Blame him.
Posted by: Edgar at July 29, 2008 10:11 am
I never thought of the Iraq war in this way. I guess I just thought of it as an on going war. This is a very interesting and clear way of looking at these conflicts, and I hope the last war will be over soon.
Posted by: NYC Financial Planner at July 29, 2008 10:22 am
You calling us annoying would be on par with Stalin blaming Hitler for being a genocidal maniac.
That is an admission that you are worse than him, no? lol.
Speaking only for myself, I'm already tired of being told which commenters are homophobic or not. Just totally not interested.
Posted by: programmmer_craig at July 29, 2008 10:23 am
heh... I didn't consider the orientation of that analogy would say anything about Lassy or myself/Edgar. Nice observation though, but I'd consider that Stalin is only seen as 'better' than Hitler (if you can even say that) because Communism/Marxism is so loved by academics, and Hitler/Nazism is the universal Bad of the world.
Anyway, regarding the homophobic issue, if you object to us simply claiming Lassy is homophobic,misogenistic,bigoted etc.. I'd be more than happy to quote his comments that perfectly demonstrate those qualities. That way you can make up your own mind about the issue.
Posted by: JohnDakota at July 29, 2008 12:47 pm
I'd rather we discuss Iraq matters if possible.
Posted by: leo at July 29, 2008 1:05 pm
Post a comment

Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle









Sponsored Links

Buy a used boat

Shanghai Hotels

Yachts for sale


Recommended Reading