A Year-End Look at the War
I confess, I've been really bad this holiday season about posting regularly. And once again I'm about to cop out by just telling people to read someone else's work. Sorry, guys.
Logic Times has run some good analysis in the past, and the new post is no exception. It takes on many various arguments as to why the US is "losing" the war in Iraq, and demonstrates that compared to other wars, we are doing extraordinarily well. Case in point: It not only took many years to squash insurgent movements in Germany post-WW II, but Germany could not ratify a Constitution until 1949 -- twice the time it took Iraq to form a new government.
What really made me smile, however, was the choice of links to the analysis. A "Conservatives Start Here" link took one directly to the numbers, but a "Liberals Start Here" link took liberals to
this preface which contained a few gems of its own. How about this one:
- Americans historically have not been concerned when Iraqi civilians die. You may be the exception, but it is unlikely. Between 700,000 and 1,000,000 civilians died between 1979 and 2003 and, if you are a typical American, you were unaware of this or lightly concerned. Keep this reality in mind when reading.
It's a great point that bears repeating: More Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam's government than in fighting post-liberation.
In any case,
on to the analysis. Read and enjoy!
Labels: iraq
FBI Monitors US for Radiation
Faced with angry complaints, U.S. officials defended an anti-terrorism program yesterday that secretly tested radiation levels around the country... Angry complaints? Why would anyone be upset to learn that the FBI had been monitoring radiation levels, in order to detect any radioactive material that could be used in a dirty bomb?
Because among the list of sites monitored, which included airports, government buildings, businesses, and warehouses, were a number of mosques.
Virtually every attack carried out by Islamic terrorists can be traced to a mosque at some point. Why? Because they're
Islamic terrorists. If there were a serious danger of clowns detonating dirty bombs, I'd expect the FBI to start nosing around circuses, too.
An unnamed official who spoke to a reporter about it (
Washington Post article) said "now it sounds like a crazy thing. But at the time it didn't sound like a very crazy thing." Hey Jack, I don't think it's a crazy thing. The nice thing about detecting radiation is that it carries out from the source, so it can be detected at a distance, e.g., the street. And since radiation is in itself dangerous, the FBI has a legitimate interest in detecting it on public property, even if there's no reason to suspect a dirty bomb is being built. And since Usama bin Laden has declared that he wants to destroy America, and we know he's expressed interest in dirty bombs... I only have one question:
Why was this program stopped in 2003?
Labels: personal freedoms, privacy
Judge Rules Against Religion in School
The closely-watched trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, is finally over -- and hopefully the precedent will carry over to similar trials in Kansas and Georgia. Calling the case an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources," U.S. District Judge John Jones delivered a 139-page opinion that leaves little room for doubt:
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute reacted with this quote: "The judge thinks intelligent design is a supernatural explanation, but it clearly is not. So the entire decision is predicated on a false perception of intelligent design."
American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines supernatural as:
- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
- Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
- Of or relating to a deity.
- Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
- Of or relating to the miraculous.
A force that cannot be explained by natural laws would be supernatural. A force that "guides" life without using laws of science would be supernatural. An omnipotent being would be a deity, and thus supernatural. Any being with infinite intelligence would wield divine power and be supernatural. And a being, unobservable by any scientific means, that can make things happen in violation of the laws of science, would be miraculous, and -- you guessed it -- supernatural.
Science class is supposed to teach natural science. That's what it's for. Honestly, I don't object to the teaching of religious concepts in a religious elective in public school. Nor would I object to comparative religion being a mandatory class. I only object to the idea that we should accept religion as being "science," when in fact it doesn't follow any established guidelines for science.
And for those who think that the judicial branch is ignoring the will of the people, recall that all but one of the board members who voted to require the teaching of intelligent design were ousted in the subsequent election. The new board has no plans to appeal or attempt to re-implement the policy.
William Buckingham, who introduced the policy before being voted out of office, said "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state."
He's right. The Constitution does not require a separation between Church and State. It does, however, prohibit the government from establishing an official religion. Not an official sect, but an official religion. Monotheism, which Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as, is a religion. I sure hope Bill Buck is reading this.
Labels: church, intelligent design
For Once, Let's Listen To The Liberals
The entire world has been riveted to the tragic story of four peace activists who have been captured in Iraq. No, I tell I lie. Jesse Jackson and Gerhard Schroeder have completely
failed to drum up sympathy for these members of
Christian Peacemaker Teams who have been captured in Iraq.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the US government, British government, and the Canadian government all stand fast in agreement that negotiating with terrorists is out of the question. If you reward terrorists, you give them both the incentive and means to conduct further attacks. One must only look to the coast of Somalia to see this feedback loop in action today.
So the terrorists (and their captives) were undoubtedly heartbroken to learn that the US would not be released hundreds of known terrorists, criminals, and hostage-takers in exchange for these four activists. In retaliation, they did the worst possible thing they could do to us:
Extend the deadline.
Can you believe the gall of a terrorist, to kidnap protestors who agree with them, and threaten to kill them if we don't do what the victims demand? On a "hostage video," on of the hostages declared "I ask Mr. Blair to take British troops out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to come to their own decisions." Another stated in the video "As a representative of Christian Peacemaker Teams, we feel that continued American and British occupation is not in the best interest of the Iraqi people."
We're not occupying a country, as I pointed out in a previous post. It's not called occupation when a democractically elected government requests your presence. And if you want to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, you support democracy, not terrorism.
Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole, but I'm willing to make an exception for these four morons. Let's show them exactly what life will be like if they get what want. Let's make no attempts to rescue them, or to attack their captors.
Be careful what you wish for, for you walk amongst snakes while cursing the boot salesman.
Labels: iraq
The Truth Behind the Numbers
It's not often that I blatently steal another blog's thunder, but every now and then a blog posts something so important that I need to ensure every reader of my blog has seen it too. This is one of those cases.
You've undoubtedly heard numbers touting the high level of civilian casualities the US "occupation" force has inflicted on Iraq? I use parens, because as my last blog entry pointed out, the sovereign elected government has requested that US Forces remain in country.
Those numbers are fake. There's just no way around it. The Iraq Body Count Project proclaimed recently that 24,865 civilians have been killed in Iraq. The project very carefully documented each death, rather than pulling numbers out of a hat. However, the characterization of these deaths as "civilian" is misleading. Eighty-one percent of the "victims" of US occupation are male, and over ninety percent are adults. Stray bullets and stray bombs hit men and women, adults and children alike. In a country with nearly fifty percent women and nearly forty-five percent children, these statistics reveal a telling truth -- not all "civilians" are random people.
In a war where only one side wears uniforms, but "victims" are primarily young adult males, one is forced to venture forth some theories. I'll leave the explanation of these numbers as an exercise for the reader, but you can hear some good ones
here, which happens to be the site (Logic Times) I'm hoping everyone visits and reads.
Want something more to think about? Even if these civilian casualties are the fault of US Forces, it doesn't matter. Why not? Because fewer Iraqis are dying today than died under Saddam's rule.
The numbers don't lie, do they?
Labels: iraq
Guess The Headline
Each of these facts was presented by Iraq Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer, an elected representative of the Iraqi people, at a press conference. Can you guess which was used to title the AP article that described the conference?
- Iraqi Vice President insists that the Iraqi people need US forces to protect them from terrorists.
- Iraqi Vice President dismisses calls for a withdrawal timeline, saying "I wish it were that simple."
- Iraqi Vice President asks US military to monitor polling sites to ensure fair voting.
- Iraqi Vice President says UN ineffective, asks US to take over UN duties
The correct answer?
None of the above. AP chose to the this story with the headline "
Training of Iraq Forces Suffers Setback."
I know what you're thinking. Of course Yawer wants the US to stay. He's a Shia Muslim that's finally been able to take control of the government with the help of the US. If we leave, Sunnis will overthrow the government and he'll be back on the street. Nope, Yawer is a Sunni Muslim, who advocates peace and secular politics. Despite being a Sunni Muslim, he's no fan of Saddam Hussein. The "setback" he referred to? Some of the newly trained Iraqi forces are using Saddam-era tactics, indicating it will take longer than expected to develop an army that fights fair, with minimal damage to civilians.
Come on, AP. How hard is it to write a headline that isn't full of negative spin? If you wanted to say Yawer disagreed with Bush's assertations that the Iraqi forces are growing strong, what was wrong with "Iraqi Vice President Asks US Not to Withdraw Troops"? A headline like that might convince people that staying the course is the right thing to do. A "setback," on the other hand, sounds like something bad is happening -- and maybe we should pull out.
Iraq is a sovereign nation ruled by an elected government. Since when has America turned a blind eye to free democracies asking for help from terrorists and those who wish to build dictatorships? Regardless of why we went to Iraq, it is our duty to protect freedom and democracy, wherever it grows.
Labels: iraq, media
AP Reports Good News (but backtracks in the article)
Suicide bombings fell in November to their lowest level in seven months. Yet the AP noting this fact felt the need to talk about the continued deaths, going so far as to specifically mention a US Soldier that died in a car crash in Iraq yesterday.
Tell me, when was the last time you saw an article in the US press that seemed optimistic about progress in Iraq? One that could be, by some stretch of the imagination, called "positive"?
The US is under attack for paying Iraqi media outlets to carry information provided by US troops. Information, not misinformation. We're talking about subsidizing media for printing the truth, not bribing papers to print lies. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement back home, too.
Who's for it? I'd pay a little extra tax money to provide funds to get CNN and Fox News to show all the facts, not just the ones that support their agenda. Is there a law against that? Not that I'm aware of, although our media apparently thinks it's wrong.
You can't pay a paper to print a good story, but they'll carry Zarqawi's propaganda and lies for free. God bless the "free" press, as long as they're on your side.
Want another look at Iraq?
Kevin Sites writes about a museum erected in Sulaymaniyah by Iraqi Burds, who want to ensure their children remember what they were forced to live through before America freed them. Does anyone else remember the Anfal campaign, in which 182.000 Kurds were killed? I wish we could send Americans to that museum...
Labels: iraq, media
Fresh political views and news from a Jeffersonian point of view, featuring both domestic politics and news from the war. For a good look at my political views, read my 
