In Human Events this morning: jihadists and Islamic supremacists worldwide showed unalloyed joy at Obama's election.
Besides Democrats, one group has shown unalloyed joy at the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States: jihadists and Islamic supremacists worldwide.Achmad Sobry Lubis, the secretary general of a virulently anti-American jihadist group in Indonesia, the Islamic Defenders’ Front (FPI), declared that he “praised Allah for Obama’s win.” Lubis explained: “This is what we all wanted and we are now very hopeful that he can restore peace in the world.” Eid Kabalu of the Filipino jihad group known as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said that “as promised, President-elect Obama has to reduce U.S. involvement in war, which, in effect, will make global peace reign under his administration. That is good for us in Mindanao and the world.”
More mainstream figures in the Islamic world said the same things. Mohsen Bilal, the Minister for Information of Syria, another avowed enemy of the U.S., said that he hoped that “the victory of Barack Obama will contribute to a change in foreign policy of the United States and will allow the move from a politics of war and embargo to a policy of diplomacy and dialogue.” Sultan Fuad Kiram I of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo concurred, explaining that he was “optimistic that the U.S. under his administration would be friendly with the rest of the countries in the whole world, especially Islamic countries.”How can Obama make global peace reign during his administration and restore America’s friendship with Islamic countries? Ahmed Yussef of the jihad terror group Hamas said that Obama’s election gave the U.S. a “chance for a change, after his predecessor, George W. Bush destroyed relations with the external world.” But he emphasized that Obama would miss this chance unless he changed “United States strategy not only in Palestine, but also in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yusuf Ahmadi sounded the same notes: “We want him to change the policies of President Bush. He could end the years-long war by withdrawing U.S. and allied troops from Afghanistan.” Zaki Bani Ershaid, the Secretary General of Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, the country’s largest political party, hinted that the easiest way for him to do so would be to get American troops out of Iraq and stab Israel in the back: “A real change in the U.S. policies cannot materialize without rectifying the erroneous attitude considering Israel an ally, withdrawing troops from Iraq.”
Bani Ershaid appeared confident that Obama would do all this and even declared that Obama’s victory was “tantamount to an apology from the American people for the crimes committed by the outgoing Republican administration in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
Since so many Americans believe the Bush administration owes the world an apology for the American incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, it is worth noting that the Jordan’s Islamic Action Front is that country’s branch of the international Muslim Brotherhood movement, which in its own words is dedicated in this country to “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” That’s from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram that was released last year by Federal prosecutors.
Is the President-elect aware of this effort to destroy Western civilization from within and of the fact that among those applauding his election and stated foreign policy goals are members of the principal organization advancing this effort? Has he pondered the implications of this?
It is nice to be loved, and Barack Obama is certainly loved in the Islamic world. As President, however, he will very soon face the choice between continuing to be loved and acting to defend his country against those who would destroy it from both within and without. He almost certainly won’t be able to have it both ways.
Americans should be made decidedly uneasy by this Muslim enthusiasm for the new President. We can only hope that he will ultimately opt to reassure us even at the expense of enraging and alienating all these newfound friends he has won.
Obama and Biden promise to "restore America's standing in the world" ad nauseum.
Who records the rankings of "World Standing"? How far down the "list" did America fall during Bush's reign? And who cares if America's "World Standing" has fell according to Islamic Supremicists?
Italy, France, Germany, Poland, and Sweden have all elected Conservative governments where previously there were Liberal. I suspect these countries are all falling in "World Standing" now.
Dark days indeed. If muslims are happy, it can't be good. A Saudi-financed, muslim-backed President. Who would have thought it, seven years ago?
They have good reason to express joy.
Apart from the victory euphoria of the African Americans and the guilt ridden whites, look at what Mickey Mouse has told us about himself by his associations (is the guy's name Khalidi ?).
The international sharks out there smell weakness, obfuscation and vacillation.
How long will it take before disappointment is become palpable in his supporters ?
The light will possibly go on amongst a lot of stupid people who voted for the big O.
Black Marxist LIberation Theology. Sooner or later even Winfrey and Powell might get it.
“This is what we all wanted and we are now very hopeful that he can restore peace in the world.” Eid Kabalu .
Restore peace by giving the Islamists anything they want
if those with BushDeranged S. thought he was in bed with the sauds, good ol BO went to school with saudi money! BO will govern much like CLinton, send over a few bombs at pill factories and still piss off the islamists.
winfrey and powell also believe in it oprahs a racist a very bad one so maybe we need to start understanding that most blacks by into this not all but most
Yup, now that Obama's elected, markets are soaring, or is it soring?
Let them do their happy dance for now. This has not depressed or terrified me. It has given me the shot in the arm and rejuvenated my strength and will to fight.
Sometimes you have to lose some things to get clear about what's important and what you are willing to die for. My daughters and granddaughters will NEVER live under the oppression of the Islamic Good Ole' Boys Sex Club.
just wait for the newness to wear off. then what will they say about BO attitude. what if he disappoints his jihadi followers? i can't for them to be disappointed. BO, he will then be marked for death.
The Muslim world might be in for a surprise:
"With Emanuel, Obama Could Be Sending Signal to Israel
Barack Obama has reached out to Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a prominent Jewish congressman, to be his chief of staff.
"Emanuel is the son of a Jerusalem-born doctor who worked for the Israeli underground before the nation's creation following World War II. The congressman belongs to an orthodox congregation in Chicago and worked as a volunteer in Israel during the first Gulf War. "
Obama has said he understands how Muslims think. This may actually mean that he is no friend of Islam - at least I hope so.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/05/emanuel-obama-sends-signal-israel/
'Those who dance must pay the fiddler'.
While America dances, Obama fiddles.
This is going to be a very expensive dance lesson...
America's Jewish population voted in large numbers for Obama. Let's hope they don't regret it. THEY are the ones who "stabbed Israel in the back".
"This is going to be a very expensive dance lesson..."--duh_swami
And I have two left feet...
Two left feet
Two left feet
I love ya honey, you're so sweet
Just get rid of those two left feet
- Richard Thompson
I think it was Milton who said that if the Devil replaced God, he would still have to assume some divine aspects.
Since no one as really asked Obama what he actually plans to do, we can hope that he misled his followers and the media (is that one and the same?) as to what plans he has made regarding the global jihad that world civilization faces.
Based on everything that I've learned about Obama, there's no reason to believe this man will act in the best interests of the US or the West. He has associated with numerous anti-American and anti-Israeli individuals, it's not "guilt by association", it's guilt by multiple associations.
Mind you, since he is going to be the President, I sincerely hope I am proven wrong in my belief that his election is a disaster of monumental proportions. The Jihadis expect him to appease them and until proven wrong, I believe he will. For the sake of us all, I hope he's more pragmatic than ideological.
The chosen one, now annointed, will be recieving his first full national security breifing this morning. In it he will hear things you and I will never hear, and see things we didn't know we could see. He may find out that we have had hard intel on the actual location of bin laden, and also the reasons that no action can be taken at this time. He may see intel confirming the readiness of the "peacefull" nuclear installtions in Iran, and the details of our preparedness to attack these positions. He may learn of weapons systems that have been developed and on line for the last decade that the average citizen will never know existed.
He may age a few years in one morning, and come to realise that everything he has said leading up to his coronation was empty rhetoric, pretty words that mean nothing, and that his hands are tied, as were the hands of every president before him.
He may wish to reconsider his position, and prepare his resignation speech
Later
Albert
Good observations Albert...
From Albert... He may learn of weapons systems that have been developed and on line for the last decade that the average citizen will never know existed.
I read the the US has technology that is 150 years ahead of what most people know about...
Lotta wishing and hoping BHO is going to work out well expressed in the posts above. We're all reduced to this, since the mooring lines have been cast and the ship has now left the dock, with all of us aboard as captives. We'll all be keeping an eye on this new and inexperienced captain and the crew he has recruited to sail the ship. Remember, mutiny is always an option if the lives of the passengers are endangered by reckless actions of either the captain or his crew, or we see that the ship is headed into uncharted and dangerous waters.
if those with BushDeranged S. thought he was in bed with the sauds, good ol BO went to school with saudi money! BO will govern much like CLinton, send over a few bombs at pill factories and still piss off the islamists.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess
BO will govern like Clinton?
That is music to their ears!
All most of them remember is "the surplus" (which didn't materialize until late in Clinton's second term) and "the prosperity" (born of the tech bubble, which burst while Clinton was still in office). Those days are gone but Democrats seem to think they can be recreated.
Before the 1994 elections, the Clinton administration was forecasting "deficits, as far as the eye could see."
In Clinton's first two years, with Democrats in control of Congress, we got huge tax increases, NAFTA, WTO and the failed national health care plan.
What will we get in Obama's first two years?
"He may wish to reconsider his position, and prepare his resignation speech"
Posted by: GamblersChoice
LOL. He may sprout a few new gray hairs in one day over this, but his ego is too big to even consider resigning. We can only "hope" that the gray hairs will be accompanied by a few epiphanies about the true state of affairs in the world, as compared to the view he obtained from inside the leftist bubble he has been living in.
Obama has said he understands how Muslims think.
Posted by: FM
But Moslems don't THINK, they BELIEVE. If Moslems really thought about all the evil and nastiness in their "holy books" and "prophet", they would have abandoned Islam long ago.
Hey Bani Ershaid,
If the election is an apology, then please accept my having not voted for Obama as an extension of my middle finger.
ImNoDhimmi
"A Saudi-financed"
and Bush wasn't?
Bush threw the doors open on the southern mexico border, illegal immigration is rampant, the economy has just been socialized, a covert war could've taken out bin laden and co. Saddam could've been taken out and replaced with the help of the CIA and loyal pro US generals. A quiet covert war would not have inflamed your average "moderate" to strap on a bomb. Plus Bush flew out the entire Bin Laden family after 9/11. oh oh and Bush wanted the Arabs to handle port security in the US.
Wow, what a patriot Bush was. good riddance. Sadly, Americans replaced Bush with Barack Hussein Obama.
Still, whatever we do in the west will annoy the Muslim warlords, they just want to see us bow down to Islam, unfortunately "our" leaders are doing a great job leading us all in the direction of Mecca.
"This is going to be a very expensive dance lesson..." --posted by: duh_swami
The almost $600,000,000,000 wasted in Iraq (along with over 4000 dead troops, tens of thousands of injured and maimed) have been a pretty expensive dance lesson.
Not to mention being a great live-fire training ground for terrorists from a half-dozen countries.
Thanks, W!
Apology? Really? In that case, let's deliver our apology in person to the Organization of the Islamic Conference's anti-Islamophobia convocation coming here to America this Spring, thusly:
Just out of curiosity. What are your thoughts on the vicious crimes that the media ignores and most people remain oblivious to.
1) Mass arial bombings of Baghdad, other Iraqi cities and Afghanistan, bombings that have killed, maimed, orphaned and disposed millions of civilians, civilians that posed no threat to the US, and also Iraq could not even take down one US fighter jet so I doubt they could have attacked the US, but then again the administration new this and Iraq not having WMD's is what allowed your fascist country to invade and occupy it.
2) What are your thoughts on the use of MK77, which was primarily used on the civilians of Falujah, and basically turned human bodies(men, women and children) into charcoal, I can send you the pics, but you probably dont care.
3) what are your views on them cowardly filthy terrorist you call soldiers, the ones that humiliate, oppress and shoot unarmed civilian men, women and children, yet they cower and squeal when the Mujahideen appear and call for arial support as opposed to fighting like men. Again, I can send videos and pictures both when they play the big tyrant with unarmed civilians and when they cower and squeal when the faced with the Mujahideen.
4) What are your views on the wide spread, torture, rape and murder of countless detainees be they civilians or freedom fighters? Women repeatedly gang raped, humiliated and impregnated by those scum bag, criminal low IQ cowards you call soldiers and heroesm who infact were classed as criminals in your own country before being given the opportunity to rob rape and murder and be heroes in doing so. Again pictures, testimonies etc are available for any one of conscience that dares seek the truth, as opposed to being brain washed by US political and media deception.
5)What are your views about the old men who were humiliated, tortured, defecated and unrinated on and made to drink menstrual blood? What are your views on the children made to watch as their family and homes were destroyed by the self claimed good guys the USA?
Just because the Neo-con controlled media fails to acknowledge these crimes, does not mean they have, and do, not occur. The pictures and testimonies of both the oppressed and oppressors are out there. So how can you claim any sort of moral high ground? How can this hypocrrite Spencer and those tyrants even claim to be God fearing Christians. or people that do good.
Every US soldier on Iraqi, Afghan or Arab soil is a terrorist. You talk about the so-called stealth and violent Jihad to control the world, which infact is just a Jihad to liberate the Muslim world from American political, economic and military occupation. The only attempt to impose on others is from the USA through its stealth media, economic (eg forcing the dollar on other), political (puppet regimes) and overt military crusade.
If the USA is not an imperialistic tyrant, that controls and dominates overs through intimidation and straight up slaughter then why does the USA have military bases throughout the world, war ships in all the oceans and nukes pointed at every major city in the world? Because the USA is an imperialistic tyrant state, that controls the world at the barrel of a gun, and accuses others of doing what it has and continues to do, while hiding under the facade of righteousness and goodliness
To whom do we apologies. Certainly not to the block of voters who had the franchise to deliver him votes - And who only this time chole to use it.
Certainly not to the Muslim Brotherhood who have nothing but contempt for the process that gave Baraq his votes.
Certainly not for the corrupted system that shielded them from disclosure of campaign funds.
Certainly not for the subsidized proselityzers that live off our correctional institutions and preach hate for people who didn't qualify by criminal activity.
We certainly don't owe apologies for his Brother George who live in a tin shack or is aunt who is here illegally only two miles from where I write.
Saddam could've been taken out and replaced with the help of the CIA and loyal pro US generals. A quiet covert war would not have inflamed your average "moderate" to strap on a bomb.
Posted by: leon
Exactly. Bush and Rumsfeld were stupid in the way they dragged us into Iraq, trumpets blaring and flags flying. If Bush had been smart (I know, I know, oxymoron and all that) it could have been handled much differently than it was.
Remember that hamas and the syrian foreign minstry both endorsed the democratic ticket. No doubt they expect the new adminsitration to "engage" them a variety of issues such as the dismemberment of Israel and the acceptance of sharia law. It's nice to have so much to look forward to.
Benson - Remember, no taquiyya in front of the kids!
Benson, provide your proof...links to pictures, documents, and, if you have any courage, a link to yourself. Real name, general location, things like that.
My name is in my posts, my location in my link below.
Later
Albert
Benson, are you sure you're in the right blog?
More on topic, this from an article from today's Stratfor http://www.stratfor.com
_______________________________
"Obama's Challenge, by George Friedman
"...
"Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.
"Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.
"Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base
"U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.
"Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.
"Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.
"Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.
"Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq
"Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.
"Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.
"This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.
"Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.
"The Afghan Dilemma
"Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.
"Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.
"Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.
"He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.
"... (an analysis of problems with Russia and the the financial meltdown)"
"...
"We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.
"In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.
The almost $600,000,000,000 wasted in Iraq (along with over 4000 dead troops, tens of thousands of injured and maimed) have been a pretty expensive dance lesson.
Not to mention being a great live-fire training ground for terrorists from a half-dozen countries.
Thanks, W!
Posted by: give me doughnuts
Yeah, you're right...but the price of admission just went up...
Benson-
You are WAY out of your league here. JW/DW readers don't even waste an eye-roll anymore at such drivel as yours. We've heard the masters of Taqqiya.
yet they cower and squeal when the Mujahideen appear and call for arial support as opposed to fighting like men. ~ posted above
Baghdad Bob is that you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA
Benson...Are you John Kerry?
I heard some Somalian scientists cloned him...
Benson,
What are my views on all that?
Simple: They never happened.
You say you can provide proof? Then put up or shut up.
And what are your views on the stoning death of a 13-year old for the crime of being raped by three Somali Muslims?
Hurray for the Religion of Peace.
Two brief points: 1) It will eventually sink into some of those who voted for Obama, though not all, that America is hated by scores of Islamic nutjobs for just being America, irrespective of who is President. Millions of Muslims worldwide despise America and blame it and the West for their woes even though such woes are almost entirely self-inflicted. I see no prospect that this will change becaue Islam has built into its very make-up a vast capacity for delusion, self-pity and scapegoating. 2) Benson has drunk the Kool-Aid, an entire vat of it.
Were it not for the USA, then where would the free world be? Dominated by the tyrants of Islam, who only want to control and dominate others through intimidation and slaughter. That is why the USA has military bases throughout the world, and war ships across the free world. The USA is a defender of freedom, who is fighting against the terrorist and Islamic controls; the same terrorists who wish to control the world by "the sword", and who accuses others of doing what it has and continues to do, spread terrorism and hate, while hiding under the facade of righteousness and goodliness.
I love America!
Posted by: Benson
A recent thought at Little Green Footballs summed up, for me, the unwarranted election of Obama and it’s even more unwarranted jubilation.
When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.
— Lin Yutang
Energy and intelligence might be better spent in figuring out the ways in which, for other reasons, what an Obama Administration may wish to do can be made to dovetail with, to support, to objectively further, a strategy that deliberately seeks, while husbanding rather than squandering resources, to weaken the Camp of Islam.
The American government under Obama cannot leave Iraq without justification. One cannot justify leaving Iraq -- and the breakdown of the semblance of peace and tranquillity that is merely a temporary illusion, held in place by American power and the American presence -- unless one presents a justification likely to win the support both of those who might be troubled by "leaving Iraqis" to their own mess, and those, both American Infidels and Muslims everywhere, might assume such a withdrawal should be seen as a willngness to appease.
Those who think continuing to attack Obama, with a ferocity even greater than before the election, is the only conceivable and rational response to his election (never miind his quasi-beatification), are not allowing their heads to clear after the pain or anguish some may have felt on Tuesday evening. They need to demand more of their own brains, to find points of entry, points of possible agreement on policies, if not always the same reasons for supporting those policies.
Hugh's right.
Yesterday an Oakland politician proclaimed that the election of Barack Obama marked an end to "terror and fear". This is significant.
A lot of us have wondered how the US could possibly have elected a man with terrorist ties and a Muslim background at a time when we are threatened by, well, Muslim terrorists--but I think this is the point.
It is as though, following the disturbing rise of Nazi Fascism during the 1930s, America had decided to elect a nice man with a German surname and a trace of an accent.
Not a wild-eyed Nazi, mind you, but a sophisticated, soft-spoken Tuetonic fellow--who could put us all at ease. Oh, if you looked closely, you might find that he had some troubling ties to the German-American Bund, and had made a few odd comments about the Great War--but, really, who wants to look closely? And besides, unlike Roosevelt and Churchill, he had said he would talk to Hitler--without preconditions.
Of course, this sounds absurd--but we weren't quite that craven back in the 1940s. I think many agree with that Oakland politician--that Obama will take away the terror and fear. They don't want to think that there is a real threat--that's too scary to contemplate. It is much less disturbing to hold those who acknowledge the existence of a real, external threat as the *source* of the threat, instead.
So here's to an end to terror and fear--now, if only Obama can use his vaunted charm to convince the Jihadists of this. I wouldn't hold my breath.
The American government under Obama cannot leave Iraq without justification.
by Hugh
If Iraqis won't give us permission to have bases then what choice is there but to leave? The most recent gossip is that they want us out by 2011. Are we required to accept whatever they offer us, even if they are taking us to the cleaners? Are we supposed to pay zillions for the "right" to protect Iraqis? Thanks, but no thanks.
If Iraqis are their own worst enemies then there is nothing we can do about it. There are two choices: departure or OCCUPATION.
"The American government under Obama cannot leave Iraq without justification.
by Hugh
If Iraqis won't give us permission to have bases then what choice is there but to leave? The most recent gossip is that they want us out by 2011. Are we required to accept whatever they offer us, even if they are taking us to the cleaners? Are we supposed to pay zillions for the "right" to protect Iraqis? Thanks, but no thanks."
-- from a posting above
I assume you have read enough of my posts to undrestand that I meant leaving Iraq prior to the apparently agreed-upon date or "deadline" of 2011. I think the minute Obama takes over he should announce that American trooops will start being drawn down, and it will all be completed by the summer of 2009. And the Americans will take with them every scrap of their own weapons. As for the Iraqis, they'll "have to reconcile with each other for we are not their keepers or their peacekeepers." Something laconic, and even harsh. If the Sunni Arab states don't like this, let them contribute weapons,money, and volunteers to the Sunni side. Go ahead.
The American forces, whether or not they were sent in on a false pretext (as some think) or a mistaken pretext (as I think) should have started to withdraw by late February 2004 (you will find that is when I first began writing about the need to get out of Iraq). By then, Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons killed, his regime dismembered through the game of 52-pickup played by American soldiers. The country had been scoured for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. There was no reason to stay. Power had now been silently transferred, whoever was in the Green Zone, from those who ran the Sunni Arab dictatorship disguised as a Ba'athist open-to-all state, to the Shi'a Arabs, who make up nearly 70% of the population of Iraq, and had, in the months following the American invasion, assumed control south of Baghdad and, as well, in much of Baghdad, and would never give it up. The seeds for inevitable future conflict had thus been sown, not intentionally but inadvertently, by the uncomprehending Bush Administration, but simply, and inevitably, by the fact of Saddam Hussein's removal. It can still end in a victory, that is a victory defined as "a result that ends in weakening the Camp of Islam" but only if the Americans leave. And they should.
Hugh,
My apologies.
I read your post and interpreted it to mean something it did not - that we can't leave if the Iraqis don't want us to.
Mea culpa.
We owe "the Iraqis" -- that is the people who live in Iraq, some of whom wish us to go but tomorrow may wish us to stay, some of whom wished us to stay a year or two ago, but now wish us to go -- nothing. It was madness for Bush to say "we will go when the Iraqis tell us they want us to go." Really? They have kept us there, squandering men, money, materiel, and attention, long enough.
A previous article, one of many, on the subject:
Fitzgerald: We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing
“Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.”—from this article
The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities in Iraq. Those hostilities became inevitable because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise and naturally aggressive not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once American soldiers undid the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein.
Americans have spent or committed close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place. They have discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and to watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.
It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.
We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.
To those who say, as someone does in the article linked above, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical in every way to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.
Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.
And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states that are rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled regions in Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But examine the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35. Examine the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties or running away, or selling the weapons supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer. It is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.
But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.
The response of those officers and men should be instructive.
[Posted by Hugh at December 12, 2006]
Posted by Hugh:
Those who think continuing to attack Obama, with a ferocity even greater than before the election, is the only conceivable and rational response to his election (never miind his quasi-beatification), are not allowing their heads to clear after the pain or anguish some may have felt on Tuesday evening. They need to demand more of their own brains, to find points of entry, points of possible agreement on policies, if not always the same reasons for supporting those policies.
You're right, of course. Now, if I can just reach that reset button on the back of my head.
Two black friends of mine called Tuesday night after the election, to apply some gentle ribbing. I've never heard either of them so excited, so moved, or so enthusiastic about the US... which is a very good thing.
In spite of the sorrow and tears shed by us Republicans, Obama's
election has a bright spot!
Thousands of people all over the world are ecstatic about the
election! Not just Muslims but crowds of Danes, Japanese, Chinese,
Australians and others hailed his election as the proof that
Democracy is still alive and well in the U.S.
I may not agree with him. I may even be assailed by fear of his
hidden agenda,,,,,but I'll take a happy world approach any day over
the vile hatred spewed forth since 9/11!
In my opinion, Obama has not found any new friends. Instead, these terrorists are using Obama's race and name in order to lend lgitimacy to their plans. I hope Obama is aware of this fact. If not, he should surround himself with advisers who will make him aware that he has no real friends in these terrorists.
Furthermore, if Americans apologized for anything by electing Barack Obama, it was for the racism that existed in the United States for much of its history more than for the perceived failures of the Bush Administration in matters of domestic and foreign policy. This is especially true for whites in the American South who probably believe that they have much to apologize for whe it comes to their past injustices against African-Americans.
al-Benson bin Laden:
You might want to get back on your medications
There has been a lot of fuss about Obama being Muslim - and as anyone who follows this column will know - if he were an Egyptian - there would be no Rev. Wright to speak of - because Obama's father was a Muslim (or kind of - lets say in name), in the Islamic world Obama would have been forced to remain Muslim, he would have been imprisoned and tortured and the whole bit.
First of all it is a testament to America’s ideals that he is allowed to choose his own religion.
And goes it goes against everything the Islamic world wants to enforce - which is to ensure that everyone who would be Muslim remain so. By the mere fact that Obama is there - lets them know that their ideology of forcibility controlling the people in their regions - in the name of Islam - is on shaky ground.
But there is a finer point - and that is that Barack Obama's father - was a black African or a dark African - and in that part of the world there is a divide between the darker Africans - and the lighter or Arab Africans and the actual Arabs. The Arabs and the lighter skinned or brown Africans see themselves as better than the darker or black Africans. A saga which is being acted out in Darfur.
Where you can see that the darker Africans - even though they are Muslims are being wiped out - with hardly a tear shed in the Arab Middle East. This is why the issue was so close to Kofi Annan's heart - he understood the context of this racism or dire race relation.
Obama and Joe Biden have already talked about a no fly zone over Sudan - in order to protect the people of the southern state.
The no fly zone worked wonders in Iraq and helped the Kurdish people there immensely - of which they are still prospering from. If the same thing was done in Darfur - which is an oil rich region - it could prosper as well with some level of autonomy.
After the Rev. Wright Obama made the speech on race - and he talked about the tendency to blame Israel – while ignoring the radical ideology of Islam in that region. That showed me he understood.
I think it is a good thing Barack Obama won - because the Right in the US had become too extreme. In London when a Left leaning Mayor becomes too extreme - you put in someone on the Right. On top of that Bush's policies were bankrupting the country.
The Bush Presidency has been more about oil and how to get it than Israel - and Islamic radicalism. He talked about being addicted to oil - because he's addicted. Palin as little as she knew was bitten by that same bug.
Bush was cautious about going to the Israeli Knesset - because on the next flight he was going to see the Saudi's about the oil price and some sort of nuclear deal emerged out of that pathetic session - which I am hoping that an Obama administration will squash.
Recently the Iraqi oil contracts were auctioned off in London. It is much easier to extract the oil out of a responsible democracy.
And if McCain/Palin got in we would have been looking at the possibility of going to war - over some remote oil/gas pipeline in Georgia.
All this while US financial institutions tinker, sending reverberations around the world.
Something has got to go.
Barack Obama has quite wisely chosen to get rid of the war - where he can. And most significantly for the radical Islamic interests - he has chosen to get rid of the oil. If there are petrodollars pouring in - they certainly wont be coming from America – that is if Obama has his way. And technology could get the entire Western world out of this mess fairly easily.
There was a hearing in Congress - hosted by the Democrats - to look at ways to get us off this oil. Among others - the Israelis and the Danish were invited to speak. The Israelis are trying to go electric - the Israeli guy said something like once you go from chemical to mechanical - you never go back. Wanting clarification he was asked to explain - and he said once we got off the oil lamp and went to them light bulb we never turned back. And once we get off oil and turn to electric cars we will never turn back - electric cars are more powerful than gas, and they are 2¢/mile to run.
What are we doing?
With the Drill Baby Drill philosophy - we wind up in the same hole - and is self defeating, because the longer we remain dependent on oil – the longer we will have to bob up against a region, which is fundamentally against America. America is the land of the free - and to get this oil we have to depend on an area which has rejected freedom and is looking to reject freedom in the future.
Benson,
You're just a bit off topic. Take your meds and try to stay focused.