My most recent article for The Weekly Standard (co-authored with Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail) details the alarming rise of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Somalia. On June 5, the ICU won control of Mogadishu, and it has steadily made strategic gains throughout the country since then. The transitional federal government (TFG) is now hunkered down in the south-central Somali city of Baidoa. The situation in Baidoa has been precarious for some time, as the ICU has demonstrated its capacity to take the city. There are now signs that the ICU may be beginning its final push into Baidoa to crush the transitional government.
Members of the ICU have indicated that this final push is coming. Today the number two leader of the ICU, Hassan Turki, announced the group's intention to chase the transitional government from Baidoa. SomaliNet News reports that Turki promised to bring all of Somalia under the ICU's rule, and that he declared war on the semiautonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland, which have been resistant to the ICU's rule. Adnkronos International reports that unnamed members of the ICU leadership told the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that an attack on Baidoa is now planned.
Although the presence of Ethiopian troops protecting Baidoa may have previously deterred the ICU's advance, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys (the head of the ICU's shura council) has now declared war on them: "We have been asking the Ethiopians to leave our country for a long time. This is the end of that request. We are now telling them that from now on, their graves will be littered everywhere in Somalia. . . . We will now start fighting. I am calling on all Somalis wherever they are to start jihad against the invaders and those who support them."
My sources in military intelligence also believe that the ICU's final drive toward Baidoa is coming. This is an important situation to follow. If the ICU is set on taking Baidoa, they will in all likelihood not be stopped. There are, however, two critical questions when their final push comes. The first is whether the ICU ends up triggering a war with Ethiopia in the process: there are reportedly around thirty Ethiopian armored vehicles in the vicinity Baidoa, as well as Ethiopian roadblocks designed to protect the city. The second question is whether critical TFG leaders are captured or killed by the ICU, or whether they are able to escape to Ethiopia or another friendly country. It is clearly preferable that TFG leaders escape alive to serve as a thorn in the ICU's side. In fact, the Ethiopian armored vehicles may be stationed around Baidoa not to serve a defensive purpose, but rather to whisk away the TFG leadership when the attack comes.
THE distinguished anti-apartheid novelist André Brink has shocked many of his politically correct countrymen by warning that footballs World Cup, coming to South Africa in 2010, threatens a potential massacre which could make the Munich Olympics of a few decades ago look like a picnic outing.
Brink, whose novels were banned by apartheid governments and who has twice been nominated for the Booker Prize and shortlisted several times for the Nobel Prize for Literature, is no everyday scaremonger.
In one of a number of articles he has written about the crises facing South Africa, he said: For 12 years after our first democratic elections [held in 1994, resulting in Nelson Mandela becoming president] I went out of my way to assure people inside and outside the country who had doubts about the new South Africa that we were moving in the direction of democracy, truth and justice, and that the darker by-products of the change were temporary and superficial accidents. I can no longer do that.
#1
The worst part of this for the rest of the world is that South Africa has one of the best developed and innovative arms industries in the world. Lots of SA designs are now being produced in the West {especially the US} by Western companies that have purchased the rights to the SA technology. The problem for the rest of the world is that the ANC has shown some restraint in arms deals in the past, but there is no guarantee that they will continue to do so in the future, especially if some of the hardcore "comrades" take over. SA could easily become the arms bazaar of choice for every terrorist, drug dealer, and thug in the world, under the rule of the ANC's "comrades". Just as a point of information, the new USMC 6-shot grenade launcher is a SA design, so are most of the better mine-proof APCs, along with a couple of very nice anti-tank missile systems, an excellent sniper rifle, the best towed/self-propeller howitzer in the world, and a whole range of light infantry weapons, including mortars and light machineguns.
#2
I'm convinced that it's only a matter of time before SA is forced to admit they can't host the World Cup and the US or the UK will be pressed into service. Colombia did so in '86 thus Mexico hosted.
According to SA friends (both black and white), SA is a mess. As the joke goes, "The difference between SA and Zimbabwe is ten years."
#3
Like many South Africans, Brink is appalled by violent crime levels that are seemingly out of control he finally felt impelled to speak out when his own daughter, son-in-law and their children were caught in a restaurant hold-up of the sort that has become a near-everyday occurrence.
Problems get worse when people only care if it hits their own.
The World Cup is going to be a complete mess. I wonder how the MSM will approach reporting on a violent country that has been disintegrating since the end of apartheid.
#7
JDB is right. I was there less than two years ago and all I heard about was crime from every non-black person I spoke to. Almost all the white people I spoke to were talking about how dangerous it was to be out at night and their plans for emigrating. It's a real pity to see this happen to what once was a beautiful country. Call me racist and bigoted if you will but I believe apartheid, for both black and white, was better than the Zimbabweism that's coming--and make no mistake, it's coming, and soon.
Posted by: mac ||
10/25/2006 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I wonder who the engineers will be that will continue to make all the wonderful weapons in SA Shieldwolf. Oh, they will have left. So the scenario you paint does not worry me.
But this is an incredible tragedy and another signpost that Africa is closed, unworthy of attention, an unsolvable mess.
The two most prosperous countries on the continent are now either in ruin (Zimbabwe) or heading there fast (SA). And at this point it is essentially irredeemable. Think of the lengths you would have to go to restore order. You'd have to have the gallows running night and day for years, and we know the elites of the world would not stand for that. Better to let all the people die a miserable death than exert "control" over local cultures. No no, certainly can't do that.
#9
Colonialism is the best thing that ever happened to Africa. Country by country the native Africans have demonstrated they are incapable of governing themselves at a national level.
In small groups/enclaves, maybe, but not at the nation/state level. Time for recolonization, or seal the place and let them kill themselves off.
When I start feeling sorry for Africa, I just read du Toit's "Let Africa Sink" article, that cures me right up. Either we (the West) retake control of these failed experiments, or we cut all ties and quarantine them. I'm tired of pissing more and more money down a bottomless rat hole called the 3rd World.
So... them brits are european, after all. By Melanie Phillips
Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism have poisoned British politics. In a world of terrorism, the timing couldn't be worse
Everyone knows that Europe is a continent stuffed with craven, terror-appeasing fromages who loathe America. Britain, by contrast, led by the lion-hearted Tony Blair, is full of stalwarts who stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the defense of the West. Right?
Wrong. Fury at Prime Minister Blair for being President Bush's "poodle" has reached such a pitch that the most successful Labor prime minister in memory is being forced out of office because of his support for U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Labor's members of Parliament say his refusal to break with America by calling for an earlier cease-fire in Lebanon was the last straw. The disturbing fact is that Britain is consumed by a rampant anti-Americanism and an allied hostility toward Israel, which are driving public debate into irrationality, prejudice and appeasement.
#1
Its not the first time that Brits are digging their own graves.
Many Brits are outright anti-semitic and many others are just plain Pro-arabic (Arabophils, as in Lawrence of Arabia).
They will eventually get burned by their own Islamic hoards festering in Londonistan Manchesteristan and other English cities.
The only question is: will a new Churchill arise in time to save them from themselves or will the free world have to invade the smoking ruins of the former great empire after its too late ?
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
10/25/2006 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Tony Blair played Cassandra in his "going away" speech to Labour and the British people:
But understand this reality.
Little of it will happen except in alliance with the United States of America.
And here am I, told by the pro-Europeans to give up on America and the Atlanticists to forget about Europe.
And yet I know Britain must be at the centre of a Europe now 25 nations reunited after centuries of conflict the biggest economic market and most powerful political union in the world and I know that to retreat from its counsels would be utter self-defeating folly.
And I know to cast out the transatlantic alliance would be disastrous for Britain.
And I believe so strongly that if Europe and America could only put aside their differences and united around a common cause, the future could be different and better.
So the decisions I've been called on to make are stark.
When I hear people say: "I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares", I tell you something.
I don't think as a human being, as a family man, I've changed at all.
But I have changed as a leader.
I have come to realise that caring in politics isn't really about "caring".
It's about doing what you think is right and sticking to it.
So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain's future security depends on it.
#3
That's okay. The UK isn't long for this world. Scotland will be independent within 2 years, after that how long will Wales last?
England will be left alone and be subsumed into the EU lock stock and barrel (the only exception will be their "separate" UN seat on the SC).
America needs to remove from all multilateral organizations such as the UN & Nato and build a separate set of bilateral agreements with the likes of Japan, Taiwan, India, Israel and Austrailia.
If anyone wants to speak with us, fine. Just don't expect us to put up with anti-American BS.
#5
As though it were yeasterday I recall watching the evening news just a few days after 9/11. I vividly recall watching (and hearing) the news that the Coldsteam Guard had been ordered to play the Star Spangled Banner during the changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace. I believe (though I might be mistaken) that this was on the same day that Article 5 of NATO had been invoked, and that the West would go to war united. I recall reading her Majesty the Queen stood in St. Paul's Cathedral and for the first time in the recorded history of the British Empire an English monarch sang the National Anthem of a foreign country. A subperb irony given that that anthem was written some 187 years earlier when the eastern seaboard of the USA was under sustained attack by one of the Queen's forefathers. I had tears in my eyes. In part due to sadness, but in part due to anger. And I smiled thinking: You f**kin'stupid muslims don't yet understand what you have unleashed. I felt proud to be American. I felt proud to be Western. That same day ( a Friday as I recall) the CIC spoke at the National Cathedral and when he finished they sang The Battle Hymn of the Republic. And I thought: Now to war. The West united.
But I was wrong. The West did not stand united. Had we (the West) done so, five years on, I think so much would have been...could have been accomplished. The barbarians at the gates could have been crushed for generations.
We have many friends and allies in England. I implore our friends there to make arrangements to get out while you still can. Perhaps the day will come when your children or children's children will return to reclaim your Island. I surmise you have less then 10 years to decide if you will stay, stand and fight (I don't blame you if you do) or leave with a view to return to fight another day. Those of you who wish to fight know that we will stand with you.
(While you decide your course of action may I make one small request? May we have your nukes? Now. Today. The sooner the better. Just in case...)
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/25/2006 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Most Brits support America over the Muzzies.Only the left wingers are antiAmerican.John Smith on the Street hates any immigrants who dosent accept the British way of life and do not integrate fully ie Muzzies.
The only thing that gets up our nose is the lack of understanding/respect Americans have for other countries.
Check your news and see if anything is shown that is not National news or Iraq????I meet americans who think we all speak like the Queen and have Butlers!!!!Americans are very insular and over 75% dont have passports ffs!!!!.
Being in Britain i am aware by BBC etc what goes on in the rest of the world.Are Americans???How many Americanc bar Rantburgers have a clue what goes on in Europe,Afica,Asia etc??????
Let's see. We have a number of retired military among the regulars here at Rantburg. They've served in places many Europeans cannot even spell. TW's husband is a corporate executive whose work has taken the family to live in a variety of locations, including on the continent. .com worked in the oil business in Saudi Arabia. Our esteemed host Fred, regulars Old Spook and Old Patriot all have had ... interesting international experiences which they don't/can't talk about much.
I've not lived abroad for extended time, having travelled both for pleasure and on business instead. I do speak and/or read several languages besides English, though, including Spanish, French and a little Arabic. I've worked with British, French and German colleagues, have done business in Japan, Latin America, Canada and several countries in the Middle East ....
And now I work with our military and some members of allied country militaries as well.
As far as the passport issue goes, my experience is that most Brits and Europeans simply do not really realize just how big and diverse the US is all by itself. I've driven all over Britain in a couple days. From Thurso to Cornwall is a couple hundred miles. From New York to San Francisco is over 3000 miles. North to south, the US averages 1500 miles. But it's not just the physical size, it's the great diversity of geography, history and culture that is striking. Even the small town in which I grew up had families that were bilingual in English and the language of their parents or grandparents: German, Polish, Russian/Ukrainian, Italian, Spanish, some French, some Japanese.
I meet americans who think we all speak like the Queen and have Butlers!!!!
Well, there are ill-informed people everywhere. I've met more than a few in the British Isles. It's a bit sad to realize how *provincial* many Europeans and Brits are and how naively they assume that what is shown on TV is all or most of what the US is all about.
#10
The British elites turned on the US long ago. The elites control information so it should be no surprise that slowly their message has slipped in.
If the US is wrong about the global war on terror its no loss. If the US is right it is a matter of time before the Britts see the error of this turning.
I'm saddened at the anti-Americanism (and the anti-semetism/anti-Westernism that usually go with it) but will gladly welcome them back to the fold when and if they are ready.
#11
It's funny that someone thinks that the BBC is actually informative.
The BBC's institutional socialism causes it to rail against the west.
I blame it most for any harm that befalls the U.K. I showed the amazingly lie-filled and lefty-paranoid "The Power of Nightmares" before 52 people where murdered by Koran motivated terrorism.
Slowly the blogs are having an effect. It's slow work and one person at a time. But people NEVER trust the MSM after.
#12
Last weekend I watched the new movie "Queen," which depicts the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Tony Blair during the first two months following the death of Princess Diana. This was a period when the Queen's popularity sank into an abyss while Blair's popularity (he had just been elected) soared.
The entire movie is excellent but the last scene is especially thought-provoking. The Queen and Prime Minister meet privately for a meeting to formalize Blair's official assumption of power, but most of the conversation is a frank discussion of the Queen's attitude and action during the week following Diana's death. The Queen admits that she recognizes that much of the population has come to hate the monarchy in general and her personally.
Blair assures her that the popular hostility of that one week eventually will be forgotten when people look back at the much larger perspective of her entire, long reign. This thought cheers the Queen, but she remarks basically that the experience has been a bitter pill to swallow but that such experiences happen in many famous people's lives.
Then she remarks something like, "You know, Mr. Prime Minister, one day they will hate you too."
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/25/2006 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
--Americans are very insular and over 75% dont have passports ffs!!!!.--
we didn't need them to travel to Mexico and Canada, or Bermuda, IIRC and other places close to us until now, can anyone argue they're like the US?
I spent 1 summer traveling in Europe, my papers were stamped.
#15
Scottish independence solves this problem. time to dissolve the Act of Union. Let the Scots jump back in bed with the French and the alliance with England be strengthened.
#16
--Americans are very insular and over 75% dont have passports ffs!!!!.--
-more likely 75% of Americans can't get 30 days off to go fuck off on holiday - yes, we actually bust our ass and go to work, or 75% of Americans don't want to shell out the money it would cost to see Europe/Asia etc. /OR/ more likely as lotp mentioned, there's so much of our own country we've not even seen yet that getting a passport is the least of our priorities.
BTW - I remember a french guy lecturing me on how so many Americans are not bi-lingual - I said most Americans don't see the point. Unless each state had it's own particular language or dialect like in europe, why would we need to learn another language? Get over yourselves europe, by proximity and geography europeans are forced to learn other languages - that doesn't impress me. Being from Detroit, if Ohioan's spoke some other language I'd prolly have to learn it as well - not a big f*ck'n deal. If most Americans do not care to really travel abroad to non-speaking english countries then why would they really need to become multi-lingual?
BTW - europe seems to be dying a slow death. The socialist state is a failure and it seems most europeans have no spine. I'm afraid we'll be back there in 50 yrs to un-f*ck their mess again because they lack the balls to do it now. P.C. pussies.
#5
Ah. Well. If we don't mind a little mixed up history, there's some good music to be having along these lines. For instance:
As I cam in by Auchendoun
Just a wee bit frae the toon
Tae the Hielands I was bound
Tae view the Haughs o' Cromdale
I met a man in tartan trews
Speired at him what was the news
Quo' he, "The Hieland army rues
That e'er we cam to Cromdale"
2. We were in bed sir every man
When the Engligh host upon us cam
A bloody battle then began
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale
The English horse they were sae rude
They bathed their hooves in Hielan' blood
But oor brave clans they boldly stood
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale.
3. But alas we could no longer stay
And o'er the hills we cam' away
Sair we did lament that day
That e'er we cam' tae Cromdale
Thus the great Montrose did say
Hielan' Man show me the way
I will over the hills this day
To view the Haughs o' Cromdale.
4. Alas, my lord, you're not so strong,
You scarcely have two thousand men,
And there's twenty thousand on the plain,
Stand rank and file on Cromdale.
Thus the great Montrose did say,
I say, direct the nearest way,
For I will o'er the hills this day,
And see the haughs of Cromdale.
5. They were at dinner every man
When great Montrose upon them cam'
A second battle then began
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale
The Grant, Mackenzie and MacKay
As Montrose they did espy
Then they fought most valiantly
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale.
6. The MacDonalds they returned again
The Camerons did their standards join
MacIntosh played a bloody game
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale
The Gordons boldly did advance
The Frasers fought with sword and lance
The Grahams they made the heids tae dance
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale.
7. MacLeans, MacDougals, and MacNeils,
So boldly as they took the field,
And make their enemies to yield,
Upon the haughs of Cromdale.
The Gordons boldly did advance,
The Frasers fought with sword and lance,
The Grahams they made the heads to dance,
Upon the Haughs o' Cromdale.
8. Then the loyal Stewarts wi' Montrose
So boldly set upon their foes
Laid them low wi' Hieland blows
Played them all on Cromdale
Of twenty thousand Cromwell's men
A thousand fled tae Aberdeen
The rest o' them lie on the plain
There on the Haughs o' Cromdale.
With a nod to Clan Cameron. And a note that upon a time, your clan was pleased to place its few survivors on the battlefield under the command of the MacDonalds. ;-) If, of course, the song is to be believed. LOL
The twin fizzles of North Koreas attempted long-range Fourth of July rocketry and its semi-successful nuclear test encourage those who favor procrastination as a viable foreign policy. In the long run, it affords little comfort that North Koreas weapons dont work well, because it cannot stop Kim Jong-ils patience and marketing of more and better rockets. After 15 years of stalling, lying, and cheating his way through nuclear negotiations, Kim Jong-il could be the subject of a Country & Western song. We must accept the fact that he is faithful to his nuclear weapons programs, and unfaithful to anyone who would take them away from him. As Ambassador Christopher Hill put it, North Korea can have nuclear weapons or it can have a future. Kim Jong-il has chosen; he means to build the Arsenal of Terror. Now, we must choose whether we will let him.
Can we disarm Kim Jong-il at less risk of a catastrophic war than the risks of continuing with the present course? We think so, but not through conventional diplomatic or military means.
Continued on Page 49
#1
The Skoreans, the people who should be the most upset about this don't seem to care one way or the other. They seem to be a jaded bunch of assholes to me. Afraid that this is going to cost them 2 cents.
#2
Repeatedly, when the U.N. has considered resolutions condemning North Koreas atrocities against its people, South Korea abstained or refused to vote. Now, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon, who presided over this shameful diplomacy, is about to become the new UN General Secretary.
Why am I not surprised? Since Kofi, a blind eye or passive complicity in the most horrific evils seems to be a resume requirement for the post.
Are we turning into the Ned Lamont Republicans? No, Im not talking about Republicans racing for the exits in Iraq. Im talking about the Ned Lamont-style party pure-o-crats of the Right: the folks who hope to punish insufficiently conservative Republicans by handing over Congress to the Democrats. At least Ned Lamont supporters once believed they could win the general election. Pure-o-cratic Ned Lamont Republicans, on the other hand, openly hope to lose; they are destroying their insufficiently pure party with eyes wide open, seriously intending to hand Nancy Pelosi the speakership, actually expecting to see the presidents hands tied by a dovish Democratic congress, perfectly willing to sweep away the last remaining barriers to unrestricted immigration, and doing it all in the belief that well sail through all these calamities no worse for the wear.
say Ned Lamont, but I really mean Eugene McCarthy. The purifying began for the Democrats with the anti-war presidential candidacy of Eugene McCarthy in 1968. That year, anti-war Democrats were angry at Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic presidential nominee, for his refusal to repudiate President Lyndon Johnsons war in Vietnam. Humphrey was a classic liberal, and a vice president who simply wanted to stay loyal to his president. If elected, Humphrey would very likely have followed a more dovish foreign policy than Johnson or certainly than Richard Nixon. Yet by staying home on Election Day to punish an insufficiently dovish Humphrey, the Eugene McCarthy Democrats handed the presidency to Richard Nixon. Clever, huh?
Besides obtaining the worst conceivable election result from the standpoint of their own policy preferences, what did the McCarthy Democrats achieve? Well, in addition to handing the country over to their bitterest Republican foe, within four years, the liberal McCarthy Democrats succeeded in taking over their party. Not only did these dovish Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate named George McGovern for the presidency in 1972, the McCarthy-McGovern Democrats instituted a set of race and gender quotas for convention delegates that insured left-wing control of the Democratic party for years to come. Brilliant. (Except for that whole issue of winning elections, that is.) . . . .
Our country is now so deeply divided that a huge number of Democrats, and vast sections of the mainstream media, are actually rooting for the United States to lose a war. Thats not a wild accusation; its a simple fact, as anyone whos been paying the least bit of attention understands. Ever since our army got a day or twos worth of indigestion early on in its rapid and spectacularly successful military invasion of Iraq, the media and the Democrats have been aching for a failure to tout. Now that we face genuine problems in Iraq, the doves are in seventh heaven. And unfortunately, this all-too-public rooting for defeat in Iraq tends be a self-fulfilling prophesy. There may have been a moment when thoughtful conservatives could afford to send a message to their Republican leaders by handing the country over to the Democrats. This is not that moment.
Two years. That is more than enough time for this country to be drawn into a decisive showdown with emerging nuclear powers of North Korea and Iran. A Democratic Congress gives Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a giant-sized green light to go nuclear. And it surely ties the presidents hands if he determines, at any point in the next two years, that weve got to take aggressive action to halt the proliferation disaster we now face.
But hey, no worries. We can restore deterrence in the face of North Korean ICBMs with that huge anti-missile system Speaker Pelosi will surely agree to pay for. Illegal immigrants? No problem. We can depend on a Democratic Congress to put a first-class border security operation in place, with a fine new fence, and a substantial force of crack immigration agents. And besides, even if things dont work out that way, well all have fun getting really, really angry at that nasty old Speaker Pelosi. And, of course, that will guarantee the election of a wonderfully conservative president and Congress in 2008. Right?
Yeah. for sure. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
10/25/2006 10:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Bill Quick and other Idiotarians "libertarians" who are fed up with the "Religious Right" and other Republican elements are arguing that point. They are in effect saying:
"Putting Democrats in office wouldn't be any worse than the Republicans we now have in there"
Look at this and see if you can tell me that again with a straight face:
Speaker Pelosi.
Majority leader Murtha.
Chairman Rangel.
Chairman Conyers.
Chairman Waxman
Chairman Hastings.
Now answer these questions:
Can you see that bunch rejecting the massive illegals amnesty the way the Repub House did this summer?
Can you see that bunch passing even the partial 700 mile fence we got from the R House?
Can you see that bunch extending the tax cuts that have had our economy booming?
Can you see that bunch letting the various idiotic gun bans expire without renewing them?
Can you see that bunch keeping the FCC from reimposing the "fairness" doctrine on radio - and doing so on the Web as well?
Can you see that bunch passing the "pork transparency" rules and laws that the R Congress did?
NO!
Do you honestly believe that giving power to Pelosi and company would punish just REPUBLICAN politicians?
NO!
It punishes AMERICANS!
Why in hell would you vote to bring about such a disaster?
The Liberals have made a bet - they are betting that people are stupid enough to vote in anger without thinking about the consequences of giving things over to the Democrats.
Thanks to the spiteful and self-destructive "Contrarian Libertarians" like Bill Quick who would de-facto abandon liberty in their rage against the current crop of R's, the liberals are getting exactly the kind of useful idiot help they need.
If you value your liberty, its time to WAKE PEOPLE UP - especially the "Bill Quick"s of the world, and get them to get out there and vote against the absolutely worst of all outcomes. Let the Idiotarians know they will be held accountable for allowing evil to happen by failing to oppose it.
Remember:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
#3
In the '90s, our vacation from history, I flirted with libertarianism and made various "protest votes." There was room for it then; nothing particularly urgent was happening then. It's different now. Quick and his commenters have a September 10 mentality in a September 11 world. It's not time to stay home, it's time to crawl over broken glass to vote for the GOP. There's still time -- do what has to be done!
Posted by: Jonathan ||
10/25/2006 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Jonathan, I'm right there with you.
I voted libertarian in 1992 when the "real" choices were among Lips, Slick Willie and the Texas Troll.
Unfortunately, I can still cast protest votes in all federal elections if I want cause I live in Massaholia and any vote other than a D ain't gonna matter 8^(
#5
I lost a lot of respect for Bill Quick over this and no longer keep his blog on my short, clickable menu.
He can be as angry as he likes; he can hammer GWB as he wishes. He's more than occasionally right.
But it's completely irresponsible for someone to say that he can no longer vote Republican, knowing that the alternative that WILL be selected is the Democrats. Let me be clear: if you're a Democrat, if you like the Democrats, if you agree with their positions (and if so please tell me what they are and where they can be found), then fine, vote Democratic.
But you understand what you're getting.
Bill Quick thinks he's teaching Republicans a lesson. He's simply willing to let this country descend into brute nastiness and decline to soothe his ire.
Screw him.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/25/2006 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
In the Federal government, the people are represented by the House of Representatives. Each of us gets to vote for our Representative every 2 years. If you don't want representation, don't vote.
Personally, I want to send my current Rep. back for 2 more years. And my senator, Santorum.
#8
Ask a Dem if he wants to win the war in Iraq. See if he'll answer yes with a straight face. I consider them traitors to the nation---flat out. How anyone on the right could even consider voting for them or staying home is beyond my comprehension.
#9
What they further don't consider is that if the Trunk do retain control of Congress, why pay any attention to the spoilers. Just another mutated version of 'Kos BDS' infesting another loud self important group of bloggers. Not that would apply to us. Nope, nada, not here. :)
#13
I couldnt agree more with the author that there is definitely a greater of the two evils. But it seems to me he took Quicks opinion too literally and therefore missed the larger point. Current political demographics will tell you that the Democrats need the swing voters for a victory. I believe the total Libertarian vote is approx. 20%. If the Democrats are able to capture enough of that block (Highly doubtful) it wont come by seduction from the left it will be by disillusionment with the right. In other words, if that occurs, the Republicans will have lost control rather then a win for the Democrats. Perhaps thats just the Idiotarian in me speaking.
#15
I like my rep (McCotter (R)) overall, and will vote for him again when it comes up. My state senators are Stabenow (D) & Levin (D) - I'll never vote for them - total wimps.
I'm a little upset w/the house repubs but overall, the senat repubs have been worst. If I was in Arizona it would be hard for me to vote for McCain. I'd prolly have to vote libertarian.
A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal claimed that about 655,000 Iraqis were killled as a result of the war in Iraq during the first three years and four months -- from March 2003 to July 2006.
As a comparison, the American Civil War lasted four years, from April 1861 to April 1865. Studies have concluded that during those four years about 620,000 people were killed as a result of that war.
On the Confederate side about 94,000 were killed in battles and about 164,000 were killed by other causes (disease, deaths in prisoner-of-war camps, military accidents, executions, etc.). On the Union side about 110,070 were killed in battles and about 250,152 were killed by other causes.
Here is a list of some Civil War battles, showing the numbers of combatants and killed in combat.
Battle of Gettysburg
Confederate soldiers: 75,000 killed: 4,708
Union soldiers: 82,289 killed: 3,155
Battle of Chickamauga
Confederate soldiers: 66,326 killed: 2,312
Union soldiers: 58,222 killed: 1,657
Battle of Chancellorsville
Confederate soldiers: 60,892 killed: 1,683
Union soldiers: 133,868 killed: 1,574
Battle of Spotsylvania
Confederate soldiers: 50,000 killed: 2,725
Union soldiers: 83,000 killed: 1,467
Battle of Antietam
Confederate soldiers: 51,844 killed: 1,546
Union soldiers: 75,316 killed: 2,108
Battle of The Wilderness
Confederate soldiers: 61,025 killed: 1,495
Union soldiers: 101,895 killed: 2,246
Second Battle of Manassas (Bull Run)
Confederate soldiers: 48,527 killed: 1,553
Union soldiers: 75,696 killed: 1,747
Battle of Stone's River
Confederate soldiers: 37,739 killed: 1,294
Union soldiers: 41,400 killed: 1,730
Battle of Shiloh
Confederate soldiers: 40,335 killed: 1,723
Union soldiers: 62,682 -- killed: 1,754
Battle of Fort Donelson
Confederate soldiers: 21,000 killed: 1,127
Union soldiers: 27,000 -- killed: 1,976
Battle of Fredericksburg
Confederate soldiers: 72,500 - killed: 608 killed
Union soldiers: 114,000 - killed: 1,284 killed
This list could be extended to include many more large battles.
How many battles in Iraq have involved such large numbers of combatants and casualties? How many platoon-sized firefights and car bombings would it take to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/25/2006 02:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Facts! Always with the facts!
How dare you let soomething as trivial as facts get in the way of my n-a-a-a-a-a-rative!
/sarcasm off
Posted by: no mo uro ||
10/25/2006 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nice response. Those figures are a joke. Even al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't admit those high figures.
http://press-release.blogspot.com/
I had always read that there were 13,000 fatalities at Antietam and close to 20,000 fatalities at Gettysburg. Picket's charge was said to have resulted in over 1,000 Confederate fatalities. I'm questioning the numbers as being low. I'm certainly not arguing the Lancets gross exaggeration of Iraqi deaths. Please advise if there is a link for your stats, I was taught and seem to remember reading differently.
#4
It's WikiWeedia. A "collaborative" effort toward defining truth.
I have the Shelby Foote 3-volume set of the Civil War. Awesome read. A source I believe and recommend without hesitation. If the urge strikes, I'll see if he consolidated such battles and stats somewhere - I'm not going to wade through all 3 vols, though, lol.
#5
Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricial L. Faust:
The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.
Detailed studies of Union and Confederate military casualties are found in Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65 by Thomas L. Livermore (I901) and Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1867-1865 by William F. Fox (1889).
http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm
N.B. the number killed in action and the number killed by disease. Nothing remarkable for pre-WWII warfare for most casualties occurring as a result of non-combat causes.
#6
Strategy page had a good article on deaths in Iraq. First of all, approx 550,000 Iraqis have died from natural causes since the war began. Second, 10,000+ Iraqis die from crime in a normal year.
My suspicion is that deaths from all causes = 620,000 and Lancet blames the United States for all of them.
P.S. regarding natural causes: It is interesting that disease and accidents cause a majority of American casualties in Iraq. Apparently the germs in Iraq are industrial strength.
Al
Posted by: frozen Al ||
10/25/2006 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The problem in Iraq today is not that 650,000 might have been killed. (This is highly unlikely) The problem is that 2,650,000 haven't been killed. To staunch this internal war, something on the order of 10% of the population must be extinguished just to get their attention. Unfortunate, but true.
#8
Re: #3, Rightwing << had always read that there were 13,000 fatalities at Antietam ... >>
I'm no expert on the Civil War, but here is another site that looks authoritative about casualties at Antietam. It says 1,550 Confederate and 2,100 Union soldiers were killed there.
For this list I used only numbers of deaths, not numbers of casualties (including wounded, desertions, missing, etc.)
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/25/2006 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Many folks, especially if it's convienent to their cause, confuse casualties (including killed, wounded, and missing) with deaths.
In the previous wars, where deaths from disease were so high, they were not counted as 'killed in action', right? When did the distinction between KIA and 'just dead' really begin?
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/25/2006 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
National armies of the type in place since the 1600s have been keeping records denoting military dead from disease and those from combat. That distinction was important to the awarding of honors for battlefield operations, like medals and knighthoods. It really started becoming an important item during the birth of the Sanitation movements of the 1830-1860s, since they were trying to sort out preventable deaths due to sanitary conditions or lack thereof. The horrors of the Crimean and US Civil Wars were the big push behind the development of sanitation and cleanliness of medical personnel and facility; as well as the basis for the first Geneva Convention on the treatment of sick and wounded combatants. WWI is the first major war where disease is NOT the major killer of combatants, but even then, the number killed by disease was massive.
Forbidden Truths
by James Dunnigan
October 25, 2006
The war on terror is all about defending innocent people from Islamic terrorists. Or is it? In much of the Islamic world, the war on terror is seen as a smokescreen for all-out war on Islam by infidels (non-Moslems.) How did that happen? It's all got to do with paranoia, lies and incompetence in the Moslem, and particularly, the Arab, world.
Let's start with the basics. Like economics and being able to feed yourself. The Moslem world contains some of the most economically backward and inept nations on the planet. Despite all the oil wealth, economic growth in the Arab world is at the bottom of the list (just above sub-Saharan Africa, which has much less oil.) This is no accident. Islam has, over the centuries, evolved into a religion that discourages education, critical thinking and technical progress. Islam also has large sects, like the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, that are violently intolerant of other religions (no other religion can have a house of worship in Saudi Arabia, for example), and openly preaches hatred, intolerance, and the use of violence, against infidels. Moslems tend to downplay all this, and blame their lack of performance on the machinations of infidels.
Islamic media tends towards the sensationalistic, paranoid and dogmatic. It's taken as a given, for example, that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a Jewish plot (even though al Qaeda has proudly admitted to it) and that the West is bent on destroying Islamic culture? What's to destroy? The Islamic world doesn't produce any new medicines, agricultural concepts or technology that benefits all of humanity. Even educated Arabs admit that something is wrong here. But these critics are in a minority, and are persecuted for such clear thinking if they become too vocal about it.
The Arabs are the authors of their own misfortunes. Take their inability to govern themselves. While the vast majority of wealthy and technically advanced nations are democracies, the vast majority of poverty stricken and suffering Islamic states are dictatorships. While this inability to create responsible, efficient governments is often blamed on cultural factors, Islam is a major component of all those cultures. Remember, "Islam" means "submission," and it's not just a cliché that Moslems will respond to a challenge with, "if God wills it." This drives Western technical experts and teachers, brought in to Arab countries to train and educate, nuts. Students simply have a difficult time accepting the fact that things will not take care of themselves. Machines have to be maintained, difficult problems have to be solved, work must be done. If it isn't, you get the backwardness and poverty so frequently encountered in Moslem nations.
This "God wills it" lassitude is most apparent in Arab nations with lots of oil wealth. Rather than take all those billions in oil revenue and build an economy, most of it has just been spent on consumption, and avoiding any real attempts to deal with social and economic problems. And why not? Islam, strict Islam, forbids the use of basic economic tools like interest and risk management (which is often condemned as "gambling.") "God's will", indeed.
Diplomacy is more difficult as well. While haggling is considered good manners in the Arab market place, when it comes to larger matters, bargaining gives way to inflexibility. Consider the case of Israel. For about the fourteenth time since the Jews first took control of eastern coast of the Mediterranean over 3,000 years ago, there was a change of management in that area when the state of Israel was established in 1947. This led to a series of bad decisions, by Arab governments, that is setting records for failure. Although the UN tried to broker the creation of Israel, Arab nations misjudged their own power and told Arabs in Israel to flee their homes, so that the Arab armies could come in and kill all the Jews. When that didn't work, the Arabs refused to absorb the 600,000 Arab refugees, and continues to treat (actually, mistreat) them as refugees. At the same time, the Arabs expelled 600,000 Jews who had been living among them for centuries. Most of these Jews went to Israel and become Israelis, and prospered.
In 1967 and 1973, Arab nations again believed that they could gang up on Israel and destroy it. Same result as in 1947. After the 1973 war, Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and have benefited greatly from it. But consider, if the Arabs had not fled Israel in 1947, Arabs would now be the majority in a democracy. If the Arabs had not attacked in 1967, the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza would be run by Arabs today. What a difference a little clear thinking can make.
Yet Arabs get away with calling themselves victims. They blame it all on "European colonialism." But a look at the record shows that to be absurd. Turks occupied the Arab lands for centuries before the Arabs were liberated by Europeans a century ago. A generation later, these Arabs were established as self-governing nations. And what did they do? They quickly evolved into dictatorships, where it was Arabs oppressing Arabs. The West bought their oil, and anything else of value they had (which wasn't much), and sold them things they could not (see above) build themselves. This gave rise to accusations that the West cheated the Arabs. Actually, it was Arabs cheating Arabs, as the Arab government officials often demanded bribes from Western salesmen. The West didn't just seize Arab oil as the price rose. The West paid its bills, and got accused of making everything go wrong.
Moslems proclaim they are the religion of peace, yet all over the world, wherever Moslems and infidels live close together, it is Moslems who do the attacking. This is no secret, but Moslems just ignore it, and insist they are victims. It's been this way for a long time. For example, the war on the Bosnians (Moslems), by their Christian neighbors in the 1990s was mainly about past Moslem oppression. As recently as World War II, the Nazis recruited Bosnians into SS units, to go kill Christian guerillas, and civilians. Several divisions of Bosnian SS troops were raised. That was nothing new. The Bosnians, who were Christians who converted to Islam over the centuries for tax breaks and jobs, did the same dirty work for the Turks (who controlled the Balkans into the late 19th century.) Or how about Chechnya. In the 1990s, the Russians pulled out, after getting beat up by independent minded Chechens. Rather than leave well enough alone, a faction of the Chechens, who were all Moslems, got into the Wahabi form of Islam, and began invading southern Russia, the better to found an Islamic republic in the area. That's what the Russians have been fighting for the last decade. Who's oppressing who?
In Darfur, (Arab) Moslems are killing (black African) Moslems, and the Arab world looks the other way and declares any Western attempt at intervention, to stop the killing, as "Western Imperialism." Or what about Iraq. Most of the deaths there, in the last three years, have been the result of the Sunni Arab minority attempting to take back control from the Shia Arab and Kurd majority. But it is never described that way in the Arab media (which is controlled by the mainline Sunni sect of Islam). It's infidels making war on Islam.
All this is complicated by a fundamental difference between the U.S. and Europe on how all this should be interpreted. Many Europeans believe that the Moslems are misunderstood innocents and that, if we just leave them alone, things will work themselves out. Many Americans were willing to go along with that, until September 11, 2001. Now many Americans understand that there is more than a simple misunderstanding going on here. But the truths of the situation have become too unpleasant to admit. History, and facts on the ground are being ignored. Moslems cannot control the religious fanatics among them. U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan see that first hand. Many people dismiss the testimony of troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. The troops know what they are seeing, and know that it is a war that must be, and can be, won. That's why the reenlistment rates are so much higher among troops who have been over there. The troops know that there are many Moslems who want to enter the 21st century. But those Moslems who are intolerant and bent on murder have to be dealt with first. You can't wish them away.
#1
About time for a forum. If it's successful, it should be presented around the US. For a culmination, it could be held in Detroit. When the street riots start, all cops should be dispersed so some real corrective response could be applied.
#2
I can't be there in person though I wish I could be. Perhaps the forum sponsers will be able to make a video or audio CD available (at a reasonalbe price !!!!) for those who cannot attend. You guys claim to be the epxerts. Your job is to educate. You have a duty to get your message out to the entire English speaking world.
One can buy the collected speeches of Osama and the Friday sermons of the radical imams cheap (they're on sale in mosques here in the USA when not being given away for free). I note tickets to the two day LV forum would cost over $200.00 (yeah, lunch and dinner included). I'm not saying you guys should not be reimbursed for your time. But for Christ's sake if your message is that important then get the word out using modern technology and make it available to the masses.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/25/2006 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
With this event being held in Las Vegas, I'm sure the jihadis are quarreling amongst each other as to who will infiltrate the conference.
WHILE MOST of the worlds attention has naturally focused on the catastrophe of Iraq, the nuclear showdown in North Korea and the electoral nemesis approaching for George W. Bush on November 7, it has also been an interesting week in Europe.
Hungarians marked the brutal suppression of their democracy by Soviet tanks 50 years ago by rioting against their elected Government. In Italy, the Governments credit rating was reduced to the same level as Botswanas, and Romano Prodi seemed on the verge of losing a vote of confidence, just six months after sweeping his reviled and derided predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, from power. The British Home Secretary welcomed Bulgarians and Romanians into the European Union by restricting their ability to seek jobs.
The Iraq invasion, disastrous though it has been, may not go down in history as the greatest political blunder of the past decade. That dubious honour will probably belong to an event most people still regard as a triumph: the creation of the euro. What we see today, not only in Italy and Hungary, but also in the other relatively weak economies on the southern and eastern fringes of the EU, is the beginning of the end of the European project. And if the euro project does turn out to be the high-water mark of European unification, then history will judge it a far more important event that anything happening in the Middle East.
But what does the euro have to do with the political troubles in Hungary and Italy? And how can I compare the technocratic financial problems connected with the euro to a moral and humanitarian disaster such as Iraq? These two questions have a very clear answer: democratic self-government or, more precisely, its denial.
What we see in Eastern and Southern Europe today are the consequences of the EUs transformation from a union of democratic countries into a sort of supra-national financial empire in which the most important decisions affecting EU citizens are no longer subject to democratic control.
In Italy the Government is on the brink of collapse because of Signor Prodis insistence on implementing tax increases and budget cuts demanded by Joaquín Almunia, the EU Economic Commissioner, under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. In Hungary, the riots began a month ago because the Prime Minister showed his contempt for democracy by publicly admitting that he had lied, morning, noon and night about the tax increases and public spending cuts that he had promised Señor Almunia before a recent election and after the election was over, he naturally felt that his promises to Brussels were far more important than the ones he had made to Hungarian voters.
The resulting budget cuts of 7 per cent of GDP over two years would be roughly equivalent in Britain to closing down the entire NHS. And Hungary, remember, is being forced to do this to comply with the Maastricht treaty, without even being admitted to the eurozone.
There is now almost no chance of Hungary, or any other new European country, being admitted to the euro-zone in the foreseeable future. This was demonstrated over the summer when Lithuania and Estonia was refused permission to join the euro on the flimsiest of grounds. This EU decision attracted little attention in Britain but was hugely controversial in Eastern Europe. It effectively meant that the accession countries would continue to have their economic policies set in Brussels and Frankfurt without even being able to enjoy the modest benefits of using the single currency.
The political consequence of this asymmetry of power is growing disillusionment in the East, not only with the EU but even with the concept of parliamentary democracy. The economic effect of forcing Central Europe to abide by deflationary policies designed for the mature economies of the eurozone is the weak demand growth and mass unemployment experienced by the accession countries. This unemployment has been the main driving force behind the huge flow of labour out of Central Europe. And that flood of workers, in turn, has provoked the hostile and ultimately self-defeating rhetoric of the British Government against Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants.
The Maastricht treaty has turned the Eastern Europeans into second-class citizens. The belated recognition of this fact is starting to have the predictably ugly impact on the politics of Europes eastern periphery. But before getting too indignant about the injustices to Eastern Europe, let us spare a thought for the citizens of old Europe who are privileged to enjoy full membership of the eurozone. The latest budgetary crisis in Italy may well be averted and the Prodi Government will probably survive for a few more months. But as Signor Prodis huge tax increases begin to bite, the Italian economy is almost certain to sink back into recession. Moreover, there will be no chance of Italy tackling any of its real economic problems once unemployment starts rising next year.
What Italy needs today is competition, privatisation of grossly inefficient state-sponsored utilities, deregulation of the financial system and changes in labour laws. Such reforms can be hard to implement even in a booming economy. In a stagnant or declining one, they will become impossible.
To make matters worse, Italy will be tightening its budget at the same time as Germany implements the biggest tax increases in its modern history also in deference to the Maastricht Treaty, if not under quite such direct compulsion from the EU. These simultaneous fiscal blunders in Italy, Germany and Eastern Europe will almost mean another lost year for the euro zone, with economic performance falling far behind America, Britain and Japan. But the long-term consequences could be more far-reaching.
At some point the people of Europe will realise that there is something rotten in a political system that leaves them forever in the world economys slow lane and which cannot be changed by any democratic process, regardless of how people vote.
Within about 4 years, new member countries will realize that they've been had and swim from the sinking ship as fast as they can. At that time, it will be clear that leaving EU would be beneficial not only economically, but also politically--some of the countries of Western Europe will be on a verge of collapse and a grab by mohamedans would shortly follow.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Let's start with the basics. Like economics and being able to feed yourself. The Moslem world contains some of the most economically backward and inept nations on the planet. Despite all the oil wealth, economic growth in the Arab world is at the bottom of the list (just above sub-Saharan Africa, which has much less oil.) This is no accident. Islam has, over the centuries, evolved into a religion that discourages education, critical thinking and technical progress. Islam also has large sects, like the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, that are violently intolerant of other religions (no other religion can have a house of worship in Saudi Arabia, for example), and openly preaches hatred, intolerance, and the use of violence, against infidels. Moslems tend to downplay all this, and blame their lack of performance on the machinations of infidels. 
In 1967 and 1973, Arab nations again believed that they could gang up on Israel and destroy it. Same result as in 1947. After the 1973 war, Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and have benefited greatly from it. But consider, if the Arabs had not fled Israel in 1947, Arabs would now be the majority in a democracy. If the Arabs had not attacked in 1967, the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza would be run by Arabs today. What a difference a little clear thinking can make. 
All this is complicated by a fundamental difference between the U.S. and Europe on how all this should be interpreted. Many Europeans believe that the Moslems are misunderstood innocents and that, if we just leave them alone, things will work themselves out. Many Americans were willing to go along with that, until September 11, 2001. Now many Americans understand that there is more than a simple misunderstanding going on here. But the truths of the situation have become too unpleasant to admit. History, and facts on the ground are being ignored. Moslems cannot control the religious fanatics among them. U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan see that first hand. Many people dismiss the testimony of troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. The troops know what they are seeing, and know that it is a war that must be, and can be, won. That's why the reenlistment rates are so much higher among troops who have been over there. The troops know that there are many Moslems who want to enter the 21st century. But those Moslems who are intolerant and bent on murder have to be dealt with first. You can't wish them away. 
