Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Three Questions for the Pro-War Blogosphere
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, September 30, 2004

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr asks three questions of the pro-war bloggers. They are, I think, very important questions for those of us on this side to address. So, in order:
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?
I am generally of the opinion that it was a good decision given the information we possessed at the time, and the strategic problems we faced. The only information likely to disabuse me of that notion--the eventual marginal success or failure of the venture--lies in the future, untouchable.

So, really, this question is a two-parter:
  1. Was the decision to go to war "a good idea" based on the information we had then?

  2. Will the war turn out well for the US?


In both cases, I think the answer is "yes". Aside from the WMD/terrorist/humanitarian arguments, there was--and is--another argument for war....a strategic argument.

Simply put, without a) a credible threat of force to back up diplomatic pressure and b) the extension of democratic institutions--both a free media, and governments disposed towards democratic principles--into the Middle East, we have virtually no leverage to change the paradigm currently creating jihadist terrorism.

Without those changes, we are forced to play containment and reaction games....and that is far less effective against assymetrical methods like terrorism, than it is against Nation-State conflicts.

So, regardless of the difficulty of the past ~18 months, there have been some fundamental changes that will work towards our longterm benefit. And Iraq was the only place in which we could hope to effect such changes. I think that is--and was--a good argument for the war.

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?
While each death is an individual tragedy, I'm not sure that casualties, unrest and insurgency can be a measure of how successful the war in Iraq will be from a strategic standpoint. Certainly, "0 Deaths" is preferable to "1000 Deaths", but casualties are only tangentially related to our strategic goals, and an insurgency--even a strong one--against the US is not quite the same as the failure of a democratic Iraq. In fact, an antipathy towards the United States presence is neither evidence for or against eventual Iraqi self-government.

The real question--the only real question, as far as I can tell--is whether an Iraqi government will be able to a) incorporate the insurgent leaders into the political process or b) eliminate/marginalize those who will not.

At this point, that's a hard question to answer, but I don't think it is impossible. In fact, it may be a prime opportunity for the bulk of US troops to move away from contentious areas, and only move back in to deal with specific problem-groups. (similar to a solution--prematurely, I think--suggested by Stratfor some time ago)

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?
This is, perhaps, the toughest question. Over the course of years, the criteria is as follows:
  • A roughly democratic Iraq.

  • The extension of democratic principles into the Middle East.

  • The propogation of free media in the Middle East. [perhaps most important of all]

  • Arab and Islamic concessions--even in small parts--to demands for democracy.

  • The continuing willingness of fence-sitting nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to lean towards alliance with the US, rather than with our enemies.

  • A reduction in WMD proliferation, below the levels at which we might expect, had Iraq not been invaded.


The more difficult question is what the criteria for success should be over the next few months. I'd volunteer these points:

  • Elections moving forward, roughly as planned.

  • The incorporation of important insurgent leaders into the political process.

  • The continued assurance of protections for minority political groups.

  • A final resolution for those who will not participate.

  • An Iraqi security force that can deal with minor insurrections, and maintain the respect of the populace, by ~April of 2005. Followed by the gradual withdrawal of US troops to positions out of sight. (and out of mind, hopefully)



(via Beldar blog, which is quickly becoming indispensable)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jon,
I respect your answers and the points you make but you've provided a more detailed 'plan' than what Bush has shown us. As far as how Bush sees it (in my opinion), this seems to be almost an eternal war. I don't even know his exit strategy. Maybe I'll hear something tonight on the debates but I can't say that one has been explicitly laid out for us.
 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
I'm not qualified to give answers to the three questions but I'd like to offer an observation on the issue of metrics for victory. If the metric for victory in Iraq is U. S. military casualties in Iraq, there is exactly one approach: complete unconditional withdrawal. The casualty statistics include both deaths in action and deaths due to accident. Based on historic experience with any U. S. military force the size of the one in Iraq there will 200 or so deaths due to accident. This metric is intrinsically defeatist.

Similarly, numbers of kidnappings, attacks, and so on are a misleading metric. The baseline should not be zero but the numbers of such incidents before the U. S. invasion. Remember that kidnapping (either by government forces or government-fostered thugs) was a commonplace in Iraq before the U. S. invasion.

Without adjusting the baseline both metrics are intrinsically defeatist.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
DANNY:
I respect your answers and the points you make but you've provided a more detailed 'plan' than what Bush has shown us.
I agree. It's been a longstanding position of mine that one of the biggest failures of this administration was rhetorical. They just can't seem to make their case, even when they have a good case to be made.

I am, frankly, dissappointed that they went about the Iraq transition in a fairly backwards manner, but I'm even more dissappointed that they are not being more publicly clear about their position. I consider that a failure. Of course, Kerry's "plan" amounts to very little more than the empty promises and wishful thinking that marked Bush's pre-war announcements.

DAVE: I essentially agree with you regarding the uselessness of those metrics. I'm not really sure that we need a "baseline" measurement of casualties and kidnappings, though, to measure the success of our operation.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
And for anyone discussing negotiations with the 'insurgents' - they just blew up 30 kids in another attempt to prove how righteous their cause is.
Meanwhile the French have helped out tremendously by negotiating with their people's kidnappers - to whit, those 'insurgents' just took another 10 people hostage.

Meanwhile, I must admit, I wish I better understood our plan for the peace as well. My only feeling on it is that stumble and fall though we may, Bush will see it thru to stability. Kerry will see it thru to hasty withdrawal.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
In the third question do you believe there should be a concession to the premise that Isreal has a right to survival and not be pushed into the sea? This would be as part of the overall plan for the entire middle east.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
That would be an important eventual step. I'm not so sure it should be pressed as a criterion for the upcoming months, though. The last thing we need is a data point to add to the middle Eastern suspicion that we are merely doing this for our Israeli Masters. Such a concession would fuel the belief that the new government is merely a puppet.

It's a point and a concession that needs made, but perhaps not this quickly. I would prefer to see it done gradually, and perhaps through the Arab League, inasmuch as that is possible.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not

I still do. There were several good benefits. 1) An example of our muscle flexing was set for Libya, who learned the lesson. 2) We didn't find WMDs BUT Saddam was still a major destabalizing force in the region and he would always be a threat for getting and using WMDs, so I feel happy he's gone 3) Another client state for terrorists or other rogue nations like N. Korea is gone. There are more, these are just 3 of them

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above

I say that for every bad story, there's good going unreported. I say the violence is still relatively done by a small percentage, and I also say that we absolutely have to REACT STRONGER. Sadr should've been in a pine box by now. Fallujah should've been pacified. And I also say that Pres. Bush probably didn't forsee this, but I am not convinced that he could've/should've forseen this.

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success

Proceed with giving the country back to Iraqis as much as possible. That means elections, a police force, an army. It also means acting stronger and putting guys like Sadr away when we have the chance.

I wonder if the left side of the blogsphere ever bothers to put questions to themselves...
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
As for myself, The answer is Yes, the invasion was a good idea.

This war was going to happen eventually. Even though no large stockpiles of WMD were found, the evidence from the latest Iraq Survey Group report was that Saddam was had not given up plans to create WMD including nuclear, and he was not hurting under the sanctions program. He believed like I did that the sanctions program was almost dead and would soon be removed. If 911 had not happened, we would be seeing them lifted soon. His WMD scientists were so expert at creating programs for nuclear weapons they believed they could have a working nuclear weapon ready within months of the sanctions coming off. And based on previous behavior, who here who believe he would not use them and then dare us to do something. Especially against his enemies such as Iran. We would have to live with it. Do you think the ME would be safer that way? We would all be waiting the inevitable nuclear war between Iraq and Israel. Off course, Europe would be spending all efforts to blame Israel for the problem.

We were never going to get old europe's support. Most of old Europe was quite happy with the lucrative deals going on with Oil for Food. They believed that their positions with Saddam would translate into excellent post sanction business ops.

Surrounding arab governments were always going to be unhappy about it. Arab estime requires a strongman and Saddam was the best candidate. Intellectuals may argue he is a bad example but he is the only example.

This war was going to happen. this was the best time for it to happen. The american populace was ready for a committment, Saddam was weak enough to be hit before he had significant WMD power.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
As for myself, The answer is Yes, the invasion was a good idea.

This war was going to happen eventually. Even though no large stockpiles of WMD were found, the evidence from the latest Iraq Survey Group report was that Saddam was had not given up plans to create WMD including nuclear, and he was not hurting under the sanctions program. He believed like I did that the sanctions program was almost dead and would soon be removed. If 911 had not happened, we would be seeing them lifted soon. His WMD scientists were so expert at creating programs for nuclear weapons they believed they could have a working nuclear weapon ready within months of the sanctions coming off. And based on previous behavior, who here who believe he would not use them and then dare us to do something. Especially against his enemies such as Iran. We would have to live with it. Do you think the ME would be safer that way? We would all be waiting the inevitable nuclear war between Iraq and Israel. Off course, Europe would be spending all efforts to blame Israel for the problem.

We were never going to get old europe's support. Most of old Europe was quite happy with the lucrative deals going on with Oil for Food. They believed that their positions with Saddam would translate into excellent post sanction business ops.

Surrounding arab governments were always going to be unhappy about it. Arab estime requires a strongman and Saddam was the best candidate. Intellectuals may argue he is a bad example but he is the only example.

This war was going to happen. this was the best time for it to happen. The american populace was ready for a committment, Saddam was weak enough to be hit before he had significant WMD power.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
sorry, slow refresh rate so I push twice
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
capt joe,
You do realize that everything you just talked about had nothing to do w/ alQaeda or terrorism in the sense that we know today. You don't think that this war could've waited considering the new threat we faced?
 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
While I agree that the war "could have waited", I have to ask: what then?

What were our options in the Middle East, had we not moved on Iraq? How do we start the gradual democratization of the area? What do we actually DO?

The anti-war crowd speaks lovingly about teaming up with our allies to "fight terror", but...how? Do they imagine that the non-Coalition nations would have been helping us in a way that they are not now? Which way would that be?

And I don't think any of the antiwar crowd would have been pulling for an invasion of (pick one) Syria/Saudi Arabia/North Korea, etc. I certainly wouldn't.

So, in the absence of a proactive "Next Step", what would we have done? I just don't see that we really could have done anything but form a few committees, spout some heartening rhetoric and hope to god that the Middle East would reform itself on its own, because, by gosh they just want to.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
"How do we start the gradual democratization of the area?"

Did you really believe it was going to be easy to go into any of these ME countries and shower them w/ democracy? Their cultures are so totally different. Why do you feel it was necessary to have to attack someone? We had alQaeda to deal with.
I hear so much of "the left wished or act like 9/11 didn't happen" and it's a total crock. We remember dearly, and as far as we're concerned, the perpetrators are still out there. Just today I was thinking how Bush was like "dead or alive, we're getting him." I was so amped about it, on Bush's side w/ no problem. Then he turned his attention to Saddam. How can you guys not be mad at Bush for this major error? And I ask because when Saddam was caught, it was like "HOORAY, WE GOT HIM." Yeah, we got him but he didn't do anything to us, it was OSAMA, remember??? Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11. If Osama isn't the 'measure' of how we do in this war, why all the glee for capturing Saddam? I mean, he has Saddam's gun as a trophy for christ sake, what the hell is that about? And I'm not defending Saddam, don't spin it that way. It's just that people attacked us and got away w/ it. That irks the hell out of me and I don't understand how people on this site, who are definitely more pro-war than I'd ever be, don't get bothered too much on that.

Now, we're stuck in Iraq, we have to find a way out, at the same time making sure it's left somewhat stable. This was a MAJOR blunder. MAJOR. And to say that you'd still agree w/ it knowing what we know today, doesn't make sense.

And yes, there were bigger problems w/ Iran and N. Korea. They were listed in Bush's 'axis of evil.' So, obviously, he knew they were up to no good.

"And I don't think any of the antiwar crowd would have been pulling for an invasion of (pick one) Syria/Saudi Arabia/North Korea, etc. I certainly wouldn't."

That certainly didn't stop the invasion of Iraq.

 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
DannyBoy... I don't know how to begin to answer you in a way that you'll be able to accept as an answer, because we're coming from such different perspectives.

But here's my best shot:

Let's play pretend. Let's pretend that we stuck with Al Qaeda. Let's pretend we flood the entirity of Afghanistan with troops, and also end up invading half of Pakistan, since that's the least we'd have to do. Through some miracle, no nuclear hassle has resulted from that. Somehow, Musharraf is still in charge and on our side, the ISI hasn't deposed him yet. But Khan's network is still alive and going, because we didn't have Saddam's papers to track things.

So about three months ago in this pretend world we got Osama. Last week we got the last of his lieutenants, although there's a few dead-enders on the grunt level, but we say, "Good enough."

Now, a few weeks from now, exactly one week before the election, a new group makes themselves known... by blowing up Chicago.

They got nukes through the Khan network from Saddam and Khaddafi, you see - we had no excuse to keep sanctions going, the French kept pressuring us and since we couldn't invade Iraq to despose Saddam, we caved rather than see innocent Iraqis suffer under sanctions about a year ago.

Six months ago Saddam's weapons programs reached full steam, and about a month ago that new group of Terrorists got their nukes.

Does that sound like a plan for long-term survival to you?

To address a few specific points... yes, Saddam had been doing something to us for about, oh, 10 years: Shooting at our pilots. Remember the no-fly zones?

Remember, we didn't declare war on Al Qaeda only. We declared war on all terrorists and the countries that supported them. That includes Saddam, by the way.

Why the glee for capturing Saddam? Well, in part because we kept being asked (by most of the Left), "How can you be so incompetent as to not have caught Saddam yet?"

On a pedantic note, the people who actually attacked us are dead - it's just that the group they claimed allegiance to still exists.

Heck, how do you know that Osama is still alive? We never hear the man speak anymore, let alone in sync with a video that would let us know it wasn't pre-recorded, or what kind of shape he's in.

Are we stuck in Iraq? 'Stuck' only if you start from the assumption that Iraq was not at all, in any way, a forward step in eliminating the seething mass of terrorist-recruits.

Let me repeat Jon's questions:

What were our options in the Middle East, had we not moved on Iraq? How do we start the gradual democratization of the area? What do we actually DO? ...in the absence of a proactive "Next Step", what would we have done?






 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://www.thepatriette.com/dangerous
Globalsecurity.org puts the current combat deaths at 798 KIA plus 254 non-combat. Chicago had 599 murders in 2003. The murder rate this year is about 40% lower, i.e. 360 by 12/31/2004. The number of Americans murdered in Chicago is essentially equal to the number of KIA in Iraq. Do you think the Democrats, including Mayor Daley, would recommend pulling the police out of gang-infested neighborhoods due to the high murder rate? These gangs amount to domestic insurgencies. Note that the murder rate is declining precisely because of increased policing of these neighborhoods. And 2003 was a peak year for use of deadly force by the police (17 incidents). Fighting the insurgents isn't pretty, but the long term goal is to eliminate violent deaths whether in Chicago, Iraq or at Ground Zero.
 
Written By: DrJukebox
URL: http://
Dr Jukebox: I think you've got some statistical problems with that analysis. For starters, the population of Chicago is in the millions. The population of US soldiers in Iraq is ~130,000.

If we assume that the KIA in Chicago and Iraq are similar, and that Chicago has 3 million people, then that would make Iraq about 20-25 times more dangerous.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
Danny: as usual, you ask good questions and make good points. I'm glad you're here. I'll respond in order:

Did you really believe it was going to be easy to go into any of these ME countries and shower them w/ democracy?
Easy? Of course not. Not at all. In fact, my expectation prior to the war was that it would be a very difficult, messy, problematic post-war, and that the best we could reasonably hope for was a sort of semi-democracy.

Why do you feel it was necessary to have to attack someone? We had alQaeda to deal with.
Yes, but how do you deal with Al Qaeda, without attacking somebody? And, as incestuous as the Middle East terrorism problem is, where do you start? If you start AND finish in Afghanistan, then--like cockroachses--they scurry away for a moment, banished from one room and nothing more. (in fact, per the 9/11 report, Iraq was the likely fall-back country for Al Qaeda. I'm not completely sure I buy that, but there you go)

The antiwar crowd likes to talk about "root causes", but I think they are still thinking of symptoms. "Poverty" and "the Israeli conflict" and "US support for [fill in the blank]" are not "root causes". They're merely symptoms of the kind of governments pervasive--and accepted, because they know nothing else--in that region.

That's what we had to address.

I hear so much of "the left wished or act like 9/11 didn't happen" and it's a total crock.
I think it can be a crock sometimes. However, I think the general intent of the statement is that the Left seems to want to go about dealing with Al Qaeda with the same calculations and risk-aversity that we had prior to 9/11. I'll grant that it's a polemic way to make the point.
Then he turned his attention to Saddam. How can you guys not be mad at Bush for this major error?
Well, Danny, because some of us don't think it was an error. And because we don't think our attention can be on one thing at a time. And because we think that addressing Osama Bin Laden is a far-too-narrow approach. I'd love to see him dead, but he's been marginalized and that's a strategic point in our favor. In fact, a good argument could be made that it's best that OBL stay alive, and in hiding. But that's an argument for another day.

Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11.
I agree. I would note, though, that contrary to popular recieved wisdom on the Left, the American Public believed Saddam was "likely" behind 9/11 FAR before the Bush administration made a squeak about dealing with Iraq. Just two days after 9/11, in fact, 78% of them thought so, according to a WaPo poll.

I mean, he has Saddam's gun as a trophy for christ sake, what the hell is that about?
Soldiers sent it to him. What would you suggest he do with it? Turn it in for a reward? What do you suppose Truman would have done, had he recieved Hitler's [whatever equivalent thing Hitler had]

And I'm not defending Saddam, don't spin it that way.
Of course you're not, and I wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.

It's just that people attacked us and got away w/ it.
Well, I'm not really sure they did. Many are captured or dead, and the fact that OBL is alive is largely due to the fact that he's isolated and marginalized himself in one of those countries we can't really invade.

That certainly didn't stop the invasion of Iraq.
Well, no, but Iraq was a very different case, for a variety of reasons. The short answer is that Iraq was "do-able".

I understand you don't think it is. I think you're declaring preemptive defeat. I think it's very much being accomplished, though it's undeniably difficult and dirty. It's not going to be perfect, but it doesn't have to be.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
Jon,

If you are going on a per capita basis, Chicago is nearly an order of magnitude more lethal than New York. But that is not the issue. The stated concern of the critics is in absolute numbers, "each life is precious". In absolute numbers Iraq & Chicago are comparable.
The 2002 election for Illinois Attorney General provides some insight. Ex-Gov. Ryan made a parlay for his legecy by commuting the sentences of all Death Row inmates. The Dem. contenders up & down the ticket took up the cause of the unjustly convicted. Rolando Cruz was their posterboy. Their candidate, Lisa Madigan, had as her principal strength the fact her father in the speaker of the Illinois House. She dismissed the criminal law enforcement duties of her job as minor. She won. Her Republican challenger was Joe Birtkett, state's attorney of DuPage County. He played to his law enforcement strength. Now one interesting fact totally escaped discussion in the media. In 2000, the last year for which crime data was available, DuPage county had ZERO MURDERS with about one third the population of Chicago which had 666. The safest county in America separated from the deadliest by the line painted down the middle of the road! So how about eliminating wrongful convictions by eliminating the wrongful murders? The Birkett (law enforcement) vs. the Madigan (consumer protection) solutions.
 
Written By: DrJukebox
URL: http://
A somewhat related book is now available, When Corruption Was King: How I Helped The Mob Rule Chicago, Then Brought It Down by Robert Cooley http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786713305/qid=1096582488/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1626423-0140930?v=glance&s=books

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations, how about years of accepting the title, Most Murderous City USA?
 
Written By: DrJukebox
URL: http://
Again, DRJukebox, you're conflating very dissimilar data. To make a roughly equivalent comparison, you would have to account for ALL the deaths that occurred in Iraq, and not just those among US troops.

You can't say that Chicago--which has multiple millions of people--is equivalent to Iraq....so long as you can exclude the vast majority of deaths that occur in Iraq.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
Jon, I did go over your post and your points were taken. It wasn't directed solely at 'you' but glad you picked on it. I have to admit, I kind of went in a rant on my posting, hate when that happens, got caught up in the 'fighting' mood, not the most effective way of debating.

Just two days after 9/11, in fact, 78% of them thought so, according to a WaPo poll.

This is why I can't by into the leftist media bias. They are cited when it helps, when it doesn't they are bias.

The short answer is that Iraq was "do-able".

I think it turned out to be the exact opposite.

I know, my response is kind of short but wanted to let you know that I acknowledged your reply. Now I'm caught up in the new stories been blogged w/ people's reactions to last night's debates.
 
Written By: DannyBoy
URL: http://
This is why I can't by into the leftist media bias. They are cited when it helps, when it doesn't they are bias.
I'm not sure how that data point leads to the conclusion you reach. The poll was taken on 9/13/01, before we had confirmation of who all was behind 9/11.

Regardless, I generally agree with your point. That's why I always say I don't believe in a monolithic media bias. There's *plenty* of data points to suggest a media bias in any direction. So, partisans will always be able to find evidence to back up their premise.

I do think there's a subconcious bias towards Democrats, and there's certainly a Statist bias, but that's very different than the kinds of bias that are alleged.

I think it turned out to be the exact opposite.
Why is Iraq "un-doable"? I've often heard about the bad things that keep happening in Iraq, but I just don't see how they will translate into a failed state. Especially when the US pulls back to a lower profile.

As this drops farther, you or I may not see replies. Feel free to email me, though. I'm interested.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net/blog
Jon- The pop. of Chicago is 2.8 million, Iraq is 28 million. Therefore, approx 800 Chicago murders equates to 8000 Iraqi, which is in the ballpark. Of course we don't consider Chicago a war zone with tanks, bombs, RPGs etc. Yet the average Iraqi has about the same chance to be murdered as the average Chicagoan!
The question is how do we respond? Send in the good guys to end the violence, or accept it as not our problem? Closing one's eyes so as not to see seems to be Kerry's advice.
 
Written By: DrJukebox
URL: http://
Dr Jukebox, I see what you are trying to do with the Chicago comparison, but I think you have unwittingly come up with an arguement against sending our young people (and less importantly, our money) thousands of miles away to fight and die. If the chances of being killed in Chicago are the same as they are in Iraq, what does that say about our country? I'm sure you know the correlations between violent crime, to poverty, to jobs, etc... so I'll save that for another board. How about this administration working on THAT first? Should a country that can't protect it's own people, really be trying to take care of Iraq's people too? We, the greatest, most powerful country in the world, full of freedom, democracy and resources has it's very own war zone (according to Dr Jukebox's numbers) right in the middle of it. That's pretty sad.

I am new to this site and I admit, I lean toward the left, but I enjoy reading many of your (right) posts. Unlike some, I welcome the thoughts of the "other side". I have to say, many of you are far more eloquent than your leader, Bush, especially you, Jon. And THAT is really unfortunate. It's a little scary that I feel more comfortable listening to the thoughts of a stranger on a message board the leader of the free world.
 
Written By: Palolokid
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider