Dave: If you had given the unabridged version, you would have quoted this, or at least provided a direct link to it:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it."

You don't even disagree with this statement, Dave. I can quote you, you've said the same thing a hundred times on my blog and in other places. You just didn't insert the word "muslim" very often, although I'm quite certain if I looked hard enough, especially early on when you and I were both advocating going to Iraq, I could find you saying it. Because it's entirely true: we were killing Iraqis--which by definition means primarily Muslims--by the hundreds of thousands with that sanctions regime.

A sanctions regime you deplored.

You know Rauf's statement is the absolute truth, and that you've endorsed it yourself.

Rauf, interestingly enough, admits to being friends with people who did this. Because he's trying to build bridges. What is it you think you're doing, except tear down and destroy, rip people apart by quoting them out of context, assassinating their character? That's all I see you doing.

Dean,

Like Sherrod's statement, it doesn't read any better with context.

That blood isn't on our hands, it's on Saddam's. I didn't think the sanctions regime was the best route to go, but it was Saddam's choice to play three-card WMD monte, not ours. It was his choice to starve the Iraqi people to generate sympathy, not ours.

People who say things like this are part of the problem, not the solution.

Rauf won't condemn Hamas, equates U.S. policy with terrorism, and wouldn't even consider moving the mosque somewhere less offensive. He gives every indication of being the sort of ideologue who wants to build bridgeheads, not bridges.

If it doesn't matter, Dave, then why don't you go ahead and amend your post to provide the unabridged text?

Sure, I'll trade you an amended post of mine for one of yours: you alter your last post to provide the "context" of Rauf's heinous refusal to condemn Hamas, and I'll add the "context" of Rauf's full remarks.

Let's accept that million dead Iraqi babies. Stupid as it is.

Whose fault?
The people who imposed it on a vicious dictator?
Or the vicious dictator for not keeping the deal he made after he raped Kuwait to keep his throne? Which dictator twisted the "Oil For Food" into "Oil for Weapons, Palaces and Mercedes" while also stealing the health supplies.

You can't blame the ills of the world on the US and defend Al Quaeda and expect me to think that you want to build your Victory Mosque to "build bridges".

BTW, Dean, did you catch his wording? He says "innocent" non-Muslims. The obvious implication is that he considers U.S. servicepeople killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to NOT be "innocent."

You backed the wrong horse.

Also, your post is wrong. Rauf was critical of U.S. policy post-9/11, including Iraq. He did attack us for liberating the country from Saddam.

He also endorsed the concept of Vilayet-i-faquih that the Iranian regime uses to justify its brutal, illiberal rule.

A moderate Islamist is still an Islamist. Do you understand how offensive it is for theocrat apologists to build on the ruins around Ground Zero created by theocrats?

Dean, I know you want the best for Muslims, but I think your slow leftward drift has led you down a blind alley here. Maybe you think you're doing Muslims a favor defending this guy -- hey, after all, he's only kind of a scumbag, right? Well, I think Muslims can do better, and I think it's an insult to the truly liberal Muslims who oppose this mosque to embrace Rauf's "Operation Piss Americans Off At Islam."

You expect Dean Esmay to admit he's wrong when he's been doubling down on this topic every chance he gets?

From the site The Rule of Reason an article by novelist Edward Cline on August 17, titled A Nexus of Nihilism:

"...Islam...is fundamentally viral, vitriolic in its position on non-Muslims, and destructive. There is nothing “extreme” in how terrorists practice it. Their actions are not antithetical to it. It is as Islam is meant to be practiced. Run-of-the-mill, non-violent Muslims who do not practice Islam in its essentials are “sham Muslims,” who wish to have their mysticism and banal anonymity, too, passively content with their “submission.” It saves them from the task and responsibility of thinking.

"Islam does not require agreement with its tenets, either with its violent or with its “pacific,“ esoteric ones; it demands mindless agreement with them. It is intolerant of internal dissension (witness the feuding between Sunnis, Shiites, and other Islamic sects), and of other religions. It cannot be “reformed” without destroying it. If it admitted disagreement, “reform” of Islam might be possible. But it forbids disagreement or dissension. So, there are no redeeming elements in Islam whatsoever. It is a moral code for manqués, for men and women who are human but who have voluntarily dispensed with their volition. It is for people who willingly surrender their minds and their identities to mysticism, either from fear of retribution for questioning it, or from a comfortable pragmatism...

"Islamic or Sharia law commands that Muslims who convert to Christianity or otherwise become apostates must be killed (Redda Law); women found guilty of adultery must be stoned to death; men can beat and rape their wives as disciplinary measures; homosexuals should be killed. Several Muslim texts declare that Jews are pigs and monkeys; killing them before the end of the world is a religious duty for Muslims. Muslim texts, approved by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Shafeii, Hanbali, Maleki, and Hanafi) state that Muslims must declare ceaseless wars against non-Muslims to spread Islam and those they conquer must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or be killed.

The two brands of jihad -- violent and stealth -- must continue until the whole world is contained in the Islamic Ummah. Then there will be peace. An Islamic, totalitarian peace.

"This is nihilism. Islam knows the good, and wishes to destroy it for the sake of its destruction. To replace it with a form of mass, universal zombie-ism, a society of the living dead."

The whole article, and several others on the subject of the Ground Zero Mosque can be
found at: ruleofreason.blogspot.com/

It is unassailable fact that the US military has killed far more non-combatant Muslims over the last couple of decades than al Qaeda has killed non-combatant Americans.

Primarily, this is because we are really good at blowing things up. It also is because our culture places much more worth on the lives of American warriors than it does on people on the ground in foreign lands. Our European allies in WW II noted this with some alarm as we razed towns in Normandy after D-Day. And our carpet bombing in Korea should, by any measure, have been considered a war crime.

Now, after killing from afar in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan we are moving on to killing people from the air in Pakistan. Sometimes we even hit our targets.

Fritz, that is not so.

We take great care in trying not to kill the innocents the brave jihadis are hiding behind.

The last time we just indiscriminately bombed from on high was Kosovo. And that was with the EUniks okay.

Your history is bad too, our European allies thought we were crazy when we didn't blow up that monastery at Monte Cassino, for instance, as the Germans used it for observation.
Sure the Germans were upset that we blew up their cities, they were less upset at the cities they blew up.
Read up on "Operation Punishment" and then come back and talk about blown up cities.

By blocking any comments on this subject, Dean proved himself to he a gigantic pussy and huge crybaby.

Simply pathetic.

It is unassailable fact that the US military has killed far more non-combatant Muslims over the last couple of decades than al Qaeda has killed non-combatant Americans.

The number of non-combatant Muslims deliberately targeted for killing as U.S. policy over the last two decades is zero. You cannot ignore intent.

And our carpet bombing in Korea should, by any measure, have been considered a war crime.

Oh please. The Norks launched a totally unprovoked invasion of the ROK at a time when the latter didn't even have a military! In occupied areas, they rounded up and executed every educated person they could find -- academic, religious, or governmental. Carpet bombing that regime out of existence would have been a great service to humanity.

I think Hitchens explains the problem nicely.

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter...

I think the larger point here is not Islam, but Shariah -- which I consider a horrible form of theocratic authoritarianism completely incompatible with freedom.

Rauf (at least, so I have read) is an advocate of Shariah law:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Mosque-near-Ground-Zero-a-gateway-for-Sharia_-533542-101175669.html

***QUOTE***

Imam Rauf's efforts to advance Shariah law, which sanctions stoning, have involved Iran's "human rights" chief, a public advocate of stoning. What next sprang to mind was the polished and educated form of Tariq Ramadan, the celebrated European Muslim "moderate" and grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

Why? Infamously, Ramadan has refused to condemn stoning, calling merely for a "moratorium."

Once, Ramadan's "moderate" stoning position stood out; now it fits into the nightmare - only not for Ramadan, or Rauf or Larijami.

For them, at ground zero and elsewhere, the Shariah dream continues.

***END QUOTE***

Eric and Dave, you seem like reasonable humans. But you totally don't understand al-Islam. May I attempt to explain? Im going to use pure evo bio and EGT (evolutionary games theory) and not religious terms, if i may. In the beginning of the Abrahamic religions in the tigris-euphrates river valley, there were the jews. membership in their CSS (sulturally stable strategy, from Maynard Smith --Evolution and the theory of Games) was determined mostly by lineage and in-marriage. Jews could marry captured brides but jewish women could not out marry. Next came christianity which evolved a strategy that included proselytization and evangelism (means preaching). With these reproductive and conversion strategies Christians could increase reps by converting jews and pagans. Then came Islam. Islam became the numerically dominant CSS in the reason because (for one reason) it was the most progressive strat. The doctrine of the People of the Book included christians and jews as congregants, coopted the sacred texts and the prophets of the older religions. The reason muslims believe all humans are born muslim, is that obviates the neccessity of being "saved by the Christ" or born jewish. Islam was more inclusive. Islam also evolved defenses, counterstrategies against the CSSs of judaism and christianity. Islam evolved to be immunized to proselytization. You see, the Caliphate had freedom of religion-- christians and jews were citizens. But proselytization and preaching were illegal. The result is Islam is immune to proselytization in situ. This is why COIN and the Bush could never work, since both were attempts to proselytize western-style (judeoxian) culture. This is also why there will never be a megachurch in Mecca.
In the US, of course proselytization is legal under freedom of speech. What christians need to realize is that muslims don't really care if christians want to believe in the jesus godhead-- muslims care a lot that christians want to make them believe it too....a lot of shariah contains defenses against proselytizing.
The problem with COIN and the Bush Doctrine, is that when muslims are empowered to vote democratically, they will vote for shariah. The case in point is Iraq, an islamic representative state with shariah law in the constitution, religious political parties, and where the imams and ayatollahs still call the shots.....and where a lot of muslims hate us. 150000 Iraqi citizens died during OIF. That is approx 1 out of every 200 souls...at a cost to the US of 5000 soldier lives and a trillion dollars.
Eric... the only way shariah could happen in the US is if more than 96% of the citizenry reverted. You are totally blowing smoke.
:)

So you Eric, in the US it doesn't matter what muslims think of shariah....it can't happen. But in MENA shariah is ALL that can happen.

one more thing....Tariq Ramadan is an islamic pluralism. Here is a review of his book-- The Quest for Meaning.
Faisal Rauf is a Sufi, which means he follows (at a minimum) the teachings of Muhyyidin (scholar of scholars) Ibn Arabi.

"Beware of confining yourself to a particular belief and denying all else, for much good would elude you—indeed, the knowledge of reality would elude you. Be in yourself a matter for all forms of belief, for God is too vast and tremendous to be restricted to one belief rather than another."

These guys are OBL's worst enemies.
He calls them maftoons ....do you know what that means?
It means a muslim seduced by western culture....like an uncle tom or a kapo or a gunga.
Sadly, it seems Greater America can not tell the difference between al-Qaeda and al-Islam.
which why we have already lost the war.

an islamic PLURALIST.
sry.

Defenses against proselytization are totally incompatible with a free society.

I don't know if Islam can survive free speech, but I do know Muslims won't achieve any kind of prosperity without liberalization. And I don't believe for a second that Muslims will necessarily reject liberalization even if the imams don't like it. Christianity was not always tolerant of dissent either.

It doesn't matter if Osama doesn't like Rauf. He doesn't like the Iranians much either. The theocrats all have to go -- Sunni, Shia or Sufi.

Talldave. that is not the point.
you can't dictate what happens in dar ul islam.
in america, we muslims have terrific defenses against proselytization. :)
i just tell the jehovahs and mormons ima muslim....they run like scalded cats. :)
in islamic countries defenses against proselytization are part of islamic jurisprudence----the clergy ARE the lawyers...there is no secular substrate.
there will never be a megachurch built in Mecca or Median, Qom or Karbala, as long as those countries are islamic.
and i am a liberal muslim. membah? the heart receptive to everyform? im an amerimuslimah and my parents are rich republicans.
and dubai and KSA are pretty prosperous. Erik Prince even said so, lawl.
you can't do anything about free speech in MENA...we just tried lol.
a trillion dollars and 5k dead soldiers we got an islamic state with religious parties where a whole lot of muslims hate our guts and 200 people were wounded or died today in bombings.
it does no good to meddle there.
we should work in our own garden, Candide.

Eric... the only way shariah could happen in the US is if more than 96% of the citizenry reverted. You are totally blowing smoke.

I said that Rauf is an advocate of Shariah law and that I don't like Shariah. I think it is inappropriate for an advocate of Shariah to build a mosque there, but I never said that Shariah will happen in the U.S. I think such thinking is paranoid.

Any "smoke" is not mine.

it is inappropriate for an advocate of Shariah to build a mosque there

why? shariah is part of Rauf's religion. America was founded on the principle of religious freedom.
what do you think shariah is?

TallDave, over time you have earned my respect.

Of all the anonymous people on the internet that I have never met, you are the one whom I feel I know the best. If I were president, I'd extend you an unsolicited employment offer within my first few days.

Not that I'd ever want to be president...

Anyhow, keep up the good work my friend.

what do you think shariah is?

I think Shariah (a tyrannical legal system grounded in religious theocracy) is precisely the antithesis of religious freedom.

That Shariah supporters have the right to build a mosque there does not make it appropriate. I think it is wrong to build it there.

I would also oppose building a Burger King in front of the Taj Mahal.

the antithesis of religious freedom.

but Islam has freedom of religion. it just doesn't have freedom for christians to proselytize in MENA. you are talking about freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. otherwise my religious right as a muslim of not being proselytized is overridden by christian proselytization.
you are convolving al-Qaeda with al-Islam.
that means Bin Laden wins.

the antithesis of religious freedom.

but Islam has freedom of religion. it just doesn't have freedom for christians to proselytize in MENA. you are talking about freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. otherwise my religious right as a muslim of not being proselytized is overridden by christian proselytization.
you are convolving al-Qaeda with al-Islam.
that means Bin Laden wins.

and this is a true statement.

The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.

150000 iraqi muslims have died in Iraq. at the height of sectarian violence in 2006 Iraq suffered a 911 on a population of 26 million every week. 1 out of every 200 iraqis died under American occupation.
You people need to admit....America LOST in Iraq, just like America LOST in Viet Nam.
Iraq is an islamic state MORE terrorists than when Gulf II started, Viet Nam is a communist state.
Mission fail.
the Cordoba house protesters just want to punish amerimuslims because al-Islam just kicked our AMERICA-FUCK-YEAH ass in Iraq and is kicking the same ass in Afghanistan.

and this is a true statement.

The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.

150000 iraqi muslims have died in Iraq. at the height of sectarian violence in 2006 Iraq suffered a 911 on a population of 26 million every week. 1 out of every 200 iraqis died under American occupation.
You people need to admit....America LOST in Iraq, just like America LOST in Viet Nam.
Iraq is an islamic state MORE terrorists than when Gulf II started, Viet Nam is a communist state.
Mission fail.
the Cordoba house protesters just want to punish amerimuslims because al-Islam just kicked our AMERICA-F*K-YEAH a*s in Iraq and is currently kicking the same a*s in Afghanistan.

apolos for the double post...i thot i was being filtered.
;)

instead of Cordoba House (which is basically radar chaff) could we start haveing the discussion about how we americans, ALL of us, have just lost in Iraq and are losing in Afghanistan?
The discussion we NEEDED to have post Viet Nam?
And can we talk about why we lost?
Because if we dont the oligarchs are going to push another war on us again, as soon as the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have gone down the memory hole.

Islam has freedom of religion

What about death penalty for apostasy under Shariah law?

BTW, Nat Hentoff has more about Rauf here:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff082510.php3

***QUOTE***

Imam Rauf said was interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" (Sept. 30, 2001) by Ed Bradley. (I have the transcript.) Asked how he felt as a Muslim "knowing that people of your faith committed this act," Imam Rauf spoke about Muslim reaction throughout the world "against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries."

"Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?" Bradley asked.

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," Rauf answered, "but the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. … Because (the United States has) been an accessory to a lot of -- of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it -- in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A."

***END QUOTE***

quell,

We didn't lose in Iraq, we won a great victory over a Stalinist regime and left behind the most liberal, democratic state any Arab country has ever seen. The number of people killed is actually comparable to the violent death rates in Venezuela -- and are a huge improvement over the Saddam-era rates of violent death. And the people killed were killed largely by other Iraqis, not the U.S.; we actually did our best to protect them from each other, but 30 years of Saddam left a lot of pathology behind.

And we know why we lost in Vietnam -- the post-Watergate Congress abandoned SV to Communism because they thought "agrarian reformers" would be no worse for SV than capitalism.

kzin,

Aside from oil, KSA is actually quite undeveloped. They can't even make their own drillbits to drill for the oil. What wealth they have is nothing more than an accident of geography that left them sitting on something the West would pay for, and as the Ghawar fields are depleted the country's finances and standards of living will collapse. Tiny, relatively liberal Dubai is a transportation and financial hub. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iran are more representative of the area: poor, repressive, stagnant.

in islamic countries defenses against proselytization are part of islamic jurisprudence----the clergy ARE the lawyers...there is no secular substrate

In some of the more backwards countries, this is true, and problematic. Eventually people will demand secular reform and the standard of living reforms bring.

but Islam has freedom of religion. it just doesn't have freedom for christians to proselytize in MENA. you are talking about freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. otherwise my religious right as a muslim of not being proselytized is overridden by christian proselytization.

The notion of a "right not to be proselytized" makes a mockery of individual choice, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. It's utterly incompatible with a free society. Islam can't expect to thrive while hiding from religious debate behind thuggery.

ConservativeScientist,

Thanks! I'm not that anonymous, though -- I'm the Dave Price who wrote the post. Confusing, I know. But I was TallDave first, so I keep using that.

quell,

If you think we "lost" in Iraq, you really need to read the Brookings summary of conditions in Iraq. GDP has tripled, basic services have doubled, 60% of Iraqis say things are "very good," and 51% expect things to improve further in 2010 vs. only 18% who expect them to get worse.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20100630.pdf

The main problem Iraq has now is that, like U.S. leftists, the terrorists really want the New Iraq to fail. But to this point, they've mostly only succeeded in exposing themselves as violent lunatics -- if America is unpopular in Iraq (and this is really only among the Sunnis, because Saddam showed them a lot of favoritism; Kurds love us and Shia are ambivalent) then AQ is utterly despised.

Hey...Rauf was classy enough to point out that we didn't kill more "innocent" Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent non-Muslims. Purely accidental, I'm sure.

Nevertheless - he's right because any "innocent" Muslim blood that was spilled by the U.S. can be blamed on either a terrorist Dictator like Saddam or terrorists hiding amongst civilian populations.

This Imam is nothing more than a snake oil salesman and anyone defending this huckster is either criminally stupid or dangerously naive. Take your pick.

Eric, Dave, et al, what you need to understand...IS--you simply cannot do anything about shariah in MENA.
Islam is immunized to proselytization in situ.
when muslims are democratically empowered to vote, they vote for shariah IN MENA.
Our mission failed. we spent a trillion dollars and 6000 lives to make another islamic state where a lot of muslims hate us. it is an ISLAMIC democracy because of the consent of the governed. this is empirical data. why try to spin it?
How is that not a loss?
In Afghanistan 30k talibs are pwning 430k coalition/afghan govt forces. the Taliban will be part of whatever govt we leave behind. How is that not LOSING?
What is the mission? reducing terrorism? all we have done so far is squander blood and treasure to make more terrorists.

quell,

The goal of OIF wasn't to make us popular, it was to

1) remove Saddam (do you see him around anymore?)
2) leave behind a fairly liberal democracy, compatible with Islam

We accomplished both those things. That's a clear victory.

The notion we "made more terrorists" is ridiculous. The country was owned by terrorists before OIF; Iraq was vying with Iran for the title of "leading state sponsor of terrorism."

The Taliban aren't pwning anything, except in the dreams and hopes of lefties. They lose nearly every engagement and we control >95% of the country. The only reason they still exist at all is that we've stupidly ceded them the drug trade, which is 90% of Afghan GDP.

Islam can't expect to thrive while hiding from religious debate behind thuggery.

but Islam is thriving. 1.8 billion muslims, over half are under 30. judeoxian democracy is impossible to proselytize in MENA. it cannot be done. consider PEW.

Some of the most interesting results relate to attitudes toward religion, law, and society. According to the findings, "Pakistani Muslims overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their country's politics. Nearly nine-in-ten (88 percent) of those who see Islam playing a large role say that is a good thing." Moreover, many Muslims in Pakistan say there is a struggle between groups that want to modernize their country and Islamic fundamentalists (44 percent), and of those who see a struggle, most identify with the modernizers (61 percent). At the same time though, a solid majority of Pakistanis polled said they would favor making gender segregation in the workplace a law in the country (85 percent), as well as punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery (82 percent), and stoning people who commit adultery (82 percent).

it doesnt matter that you think judeoxian/western style democracy has moral superiority over shariah. when empowered to vote, muslims vote for shariah. Iraq is 96% muslim. Turkey is 98.6 muslim. Afghanistan is 99% muslim. (CIA factbook) the consent of the governed.

we failed to "implant western style democracy". “The mistaken mission creep in Afghanistan during the Bush years was moving from counterterrorism after 9/11 — to destroy Al Qaeda — to nation building and the objective of implanting Western-style democracy,” said Robert Blackwill, who coordinated the policy for Mr. Bush at the National Security Council.

Mission FAIL. Game ovah. Can we go home NAOW?

Islam can't expect to thrive while hiding from religious debate behind thuggery.

but Islam is thriving. 1.8 billion muslims, over half are under 30. judeoxian democracy is impossible to proselytize in MENA. it cannot be done. consider PEW.

Some of the most interesting results relate to attitudes toward religion, law, and society. According to the findings, "Pakistani Muslims overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their country's politics. Nearly nine-in-ten (88 percent) of those who see Islam playing a large role say that is a good thing." Moreover, many Muslims in Pakistan say there is a struggle between groups that want to modernize their country and Islamic fundamentalists (44 percent), and of those who see a struggle, most identify with the modernizers (61 percent). At the same time though, a solid majority of Pakistanis polled said they would favor making gender segregation in the workplace a law in the country (85 percent), as well as punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery (82 percent), and stoning people who commit adultery (82 percent).

it doesnt matter that you think judeoxian/western style democracy has moral superiority over shariah. when empowered to vote, muslims vote for shariah. Iraq is 96% muslim. Turkey is 98.6 muslim. Afghanistan is 99% muslim. (CIA factbook) the consent of the governed.

we failed to "implant western style democracy". “The mistaken mission creep in Afghanistan during the Bush years was moving from counterterrorism after 9/11 — to destroy Al Qaeda — to nation building and the objective of implanting Western-style democracy,” said Robert Blackwill, who coordinated the policy for Mr. Bush at the National Security Council.

Mission FAIL. Game ovah. Can we go home NAOW?

talldave this is spin. the mission was.
1) find and secure WMDs
2) that "the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism"
That is what Black will said in the NYT.
Double FAIL.

LTG Barno in the FT explicitly says that 30k talibs are pwing 430k coalition forces. the Wikileaks docs explicitly say that we are creating more terrorists than we eliminate.
have you read any of them?
Afhganistan is immoral, unjust and unwinnable.

Can we go home NAOW?

the reason we can't leave yet is that people like you, Talldave and Eric, cannot yet admit that we LOST in Iraq and are LOSING an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
and that is why we are pouring more blood and treasure into a bottomless pit when we have no hope of accomplishing the 'mission".
If we can admit we lost, just like we lost in Viet Nam (for whatever reason)....then we can leave.
why should more american kids and innocent muslims have to die in service of an impossible goal?

Islam isn't thriving, it's poor and repressed. If you judge by pop. growth then Africa is doing great too. The most vibrant economy is in... Iraq! It's forecast to grow over 10% in 2010.

I should point out too, the Venezuela comparison is only for the MOST VIOLENT years in Iraq. It's actually much safer in Iraq than in Venezuela today.

Sharia isn't all beheadings for apostasy and stoning homosexualsl; it's been common law in the region for centuries so it's pretty ridiculous to define success by their willingness to throw the whole thing away. The Iraqi sharia is from the Najaf quietist school so it's mostly benign; al-Sistani explicitly rejects the Vilayet-i-faquih.

Iraqi democracy is far more liberal than most of the Arab world. They have hundreds of independent TV, radio, and print media, real elections, and you can even openly buy pr0n in Baghdad today. It's hardly "Islamist" and anyone claiming that is just ignorant of the facts, which are well-documented.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20100630.pdf

The goal wasn't to "find and secure WMD" it was to remove Saddam because he wasn't complying with WMD inspections. And we didn't create any terrorists -- but we DID create a 500,000-strong Iraqi Army that continues to actively fight terrorism. As a bonus, AQ discredited themselves by attacking Iraqi civilians. Triple WIN.

Sheesh, calling a goal we've already achieved "impossible." You do realize almost no U.S. troops are even being killed in Iraq any more, and that virtually all security is being handled by Iraqis under their elected government? What strange little leftwing information box are you living in that you don't know these things?

And whatever mischaracterized Wikileaks docs may say, the facts are that the Taliban loses pretty much every engagement. The only reason they have any relevance is the drug trade.

dave, you are spinning.
answer my question then....since we 'achieved victory' in Iraq why cant we leave? why are there 50k troops still there?

and Iraq is an ISLAMIC democracy, with shariah law in the constitution, religious political parties, and the ayatollahs and imams still call the shots, even if Sistani doesn't dirty his hands. Sure we made life better for Iraqis in that they can have shariah gov't now.....but we killed 150k of of them to do it. was it worth it?
a trillion dollars and 6000 american soldier lives?

"the Taliban loses pretty much every engagement."
nope, they melt away and pop up somewhere else.
is that losing? that is how the viet cong kicked our ass.

just wait until Assange releases the Garani massagre video.
the jihaadi websites will run the youtube 24/7 for recruitment. 92 dead muslim children.

No, that's not how the Viet Cong kicked our ass.
We destroyed them during their Tet Offensive, militarily, but our fine media gave the win to them.
So even though Tet was a huge tactical loss, it was a strategic win because people who know nothing about war decided who won and sold that vision.

Whenever we fight the Taliban, they die. The ones who survive are the ones who ran first and the fastest.

As for leaving troops in Iraq, question for you.
Did we win WWII? I think so, then why do we still have troops in Europe?
Huh, that's a head-scratcher.

why do we still have troops in Europe?
you tell me :)

Whenever we fight the Taliban, they die.
nah, they fight and run away, to pwn our ass another day.

our fine media gave the win to them.
so what? winning is winning.
WE LOST.
the Awesome America-Fuck-Yeah Super World Police got their asses handed to them. Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
bleeding and dying for the oligarchs.
:)

You don't know your military history very well, kzin.

In truth, we won the Vietnam War -- then abandoned Vietnam. Years after we signed a peace treaty, South Vietnam fell to a single armored column, which invaded because we publicly reneged on our promise to resume bombing/mining if the treaty was violated. It was the most cowardly act in American history.

You can spout this moronic anti-American "WE LOST" mantra all you like, it won't change the facts an iota. We're still the world's sole superpower, and the Taliban can't hold an inch of ground or win a platoon-level fight. Afghanistan is ours as long as we want it, and if our leaders wise up on the drug war the Taliban will evaporate like the dew.

since we 'achieved victory' in Iraq why cant we leave? why are there 50k troops still there?

Training and logistics. The Iraqis do pretty much all the fighting. We have troops in Germany and S Korea too.

Anyways, we aren't fighting for "oligarchs," we're fighting for the basic human rights of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan who deserve a shot at building decent countries.

we're fighting for the basic human rights of 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan who deserve a shot at building decent countries.
yes, by killing them...like in Garani. you dumbass, i cant wait for the next wikileaks shoe to drop.

Afghanistan is ours as long as we want it
keep whistling past the graveyards cudlip.
we are GTFO.
our teeth are broken and our purses are empty.
and Assange is preparing a ginormous kick to the warpimps nads.
you stupid cudlips just shut up and swallow. the history books will call it out.
we elected a WEC retard in Bush.

you are the chattel slave of the oligarchs.
Bush, Murdoch, Prince Talal and FOXnews are all in the same fucking club.
the oligarch club.
and you retards just shut up and swallow.

Guys.... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust, immoral and unwinnable.
Talldave.....Eric.....were you ever young?
No War But the Class War. No War but the Age War.
we have enough problems right here here.
we need to come home.

Guys.... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unjust, immoral and unwinnable.
Talldave.....Eric.....were you ever young?
No War But the Class War. No War but the Age War.
we have enough problems right here here.
we need to come home.
you should not call meh kzin....call me speaker to animals.
you don't speak the hero's tongue anymore.
game ovah.

Amen,

quantumghost hath spake.

Anyone who whines about "oligarchs" in America is a charter member of the retard club. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sergei Brin, Steve Jobs, Graeme, the kid who built YouTube -- they all started with nothing, and now they're billionaires. There's tens of thousands more who work their way to millionaire status. This is the most dynamic society in the history of the Earth.

In this society, you become rich by providing value to society.

Anyone who wants a six-figure income in America can achieve it if they're competent and willing to work hard. People who whine about "oligarchs" are usually neither.

yes, by killing them...

Right, just like we did in Korea and Japan and Germany and Italy. That's all we do, is kill people, not build liberal democracies with high standards of living. "Dumbass," indeed.

wallah....talldave....we made liberal democracies in Japan and Germany the oldfashioned way-- genocide, invasion, occupation, reconstruction....none of this bullshytt democracy promotion/proselytizing....which btw al-Islam is immune to in situ.
free market capitalism is a failmeme except for the oligarchs, cudlip. the bankstahs are back to billion $ profits and 10% of american familes are jobless.
the invisible hand of the market just punched american families in the face.
amg, you are a forty percenter?
the 40% below the mean of IQ and above functional retardation?
hahaha

Okay, that's funny.
As it's calling you a retard it accuses the US of genocide.
Funny, there still seem to be a lot of Japanese and Germans alive. We're just not very good at genocide I guess.
Invasion? Yup. Germany invaded the rest of Europe and Japan invaded the rest of Asia.

America didn't actually invade Japan, the closest we came was Okinawa.
We nuked their asses because we didn't want to.
When I see something graphic about the Holocaust I usually wish we had made our nukes earlier so we wouldn't have had to invade Germany either, but cest la vie.

Occupation? Damn right, we found that was the only way to keep Europeans from killing each other, unfortunately we had to deal with WWII to really learn that lesson.
It was also a good way to ensure that the Japanese stopped being all invasiony.

Reconstruction. Yup, we are just pieces of garbage for rebuilding the very countries that started the war (discounting Russia, they helped start the war but we didn't rebuild them). I mean, we should have blown their genocidal, invasionistic asses up and told them if they tried it again we would just make the rubble bounce.

yup, the world just hates America.
Why, the world is terrified that we are going to invade them next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared

I'm assuming that fool is a 10%er, the 10 percent who can work a keyboard but have no cognitive abilities.

LOL It certainly does have some strange beliefs.

al-Islam isn't immune to progress, it's just a bit slow, and violent. Another 50 years and we can all laugh at the bad old days together.

The free market has given the West the highest living standards in history. Even the poorest of us live better than 90% of those in Islamic theocracies -- and to be poor in the West is usually a conscious choice. Muslims aren't dumb enough to accept grinding poverty forever.

Islam didn't have the 30 Years War.
That pretty well proved to Christians that religious wars aren't fun.

Maybe, but I would expect Mexico to reform first.
They have so many advantages like oil, fishing, natural resources and tourist stuff like their fantastic beaches and ruins from at least three civilizations, that the only thing keeping them down is their crap gov't.
They see what a real country looks like.

Eh, if they can be made to hate the US enough they don't worry so much about their own country.

I think what they really missed was the Enlightenment, and the notion of tolerance that came with it.

After becoming the world's greatest civlization, producing groundbreaking treatises on mathematics and optics, Islam ossified into dogma because everything became codified, unquestionable, and stagnant. The sack of Baghdad by the Mongols was probably a cultural turning point, given the terrible loss of accumulated knowledge.

Since the Second Siege of Vienna Islam has been in steady decline. They only survived the 20th because we no longer cared about retaking the Holy Land and lost Roman provinces. The Islamists seem determined to push their decline all the way down to 7th century standards.