Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

simberg calling a blogger deranged
is a case of the pot calling the kettle black

Posted by anonymous at February 4, 2007 08:05 AM

Anonymous Moron, are you so stupid that you can't distinguish between what I write, and what Mark Steyn writes?

That's a rhetorical question.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 4, 2007 08:07 AM

Amusing. Has anyone else noticed the mask of normality slipping from Democrat faces in the past month? They seem to be indulging themselves in the expression of the very opinions that they have for the past several years indignantly denied having (sneering bigotry against Christians here, Arkin's contempt for the troops who they "patriotically support", all the gussied-up talk of retreat coming from Congress, etc.)

Posted by T.L. James at February 4, 2007 08:19 AM

Next thing you know those religious fairy-tale pushers will be saying that there's a major nation in the ME that's trying to build an atomic bomb and threatening to destroy Israel and the US. Oh, wait ...

Posted by Jay Manifold at February 4, 2007 08:45 AM

Anonymous Jew-Hater will defend any leftist no matter how big a piece of sub-human garbage they are. He is the lickspittle of the left.

He has proved that time and time again.

When are you going to start your own blog A J-H?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 4, 2007 09:33 AM

T.L. James, your generalization from a few samples to the Democrat-ic party is rather unscientific shall we say? Anyway on the "retreat" thing todays WaPo has numbers on the number of Iraqi refugees, and we have also have the worst suicide bombing ever in Baghdad. Anyone who thinks the current strategy has any hope of working is delusional. The only hope for Iraq now is some form of partition. Advocating a different strategy isn't "retreat" except in the minds of a few very stupid commentators who refuse to face reality; such as for example the 2 million refugees, a huge crisis precipitated by the refusal to think things through. I am particularly concerned about the refugee crisis. We have an absolute moral reponsibility in this regard, much more so than for any other refugee crisis in living memory.

Posted by Offside at February 4, 2007 11:17 AM

We have an absolute moral reponsibility in this regard, much more so than for any other refugee crisis in living memory.

We most certainly do. But the executive branch is blind to it because of continued political masturbation. As the Post explains, they are too busy "winning" to help the victims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301604.html

Posted by Jim Harris at February 4, 2007 12:51 PM

Simberg

Don't hide behind Mark Steyn.

When you quote him and support him, you endorse his words.

So who did you cast your vote for president in 2004?

Posted by anonymous at February 4, 2007 03:02 PM

When you quote him and support him, you endorse his words.

Great Caesars' Ghost, you are a moron.

I quote many people on many things, including idiot leftists like you. It doesn't mean I endorse their words.

But for what it's worth, I agree with Steyn in this case, and you are certainly deranged.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 4, 2007 03:25 PM

Offside, my point is that after years of Democrats (many, not all) disavowing such positions with indignant charges that their patriotism is being questioned when those positions are imputed to them, there appears to be a sudden rash of attention-getting instances of Democrats actually advocating them.

Posted by T.L .James at February 4, 2007 04:23 PM

Gee Offsides, you think the retreat, retreat rhetoric coming from the media and the left might be emboldening said terrorists to step up their attacks? You know,"Harder boys, we've got them on the run!" type stuff? These groups all say they need to win the media war. Why do you think they post their repulsive videos? If you think these groups will recognize partitions, YOU are delusional. There is no solution other than victory. If the left treated our enemies(esp. Iran and Syria) the way they treat the President, things would be better. So you keep pushing that self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by Bill Maron at February 4, 2007 05:07 PM

"such as for example the 2 million refugees, a huge crisis precipitated by the refusal to think things through."

Absolutely, Offside; those refugees should have thought through their decision to give verbal if not material support to Ba'athist hardliners and al-Qa'ida fundies trying to substitute IEDs for plastic shredders.

But then, you, Jim Harris, and Foobarista are still trotting out the "Days of Rage" rhetoric, so what can you expect?

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at February 4, 2007 06:29 PM

Bill, why is it that the only way to "win" is to follow the path spelled out by Bush, who hasn't been able to "win" though having asked us to trust him for nearly four years on a particular path. There may be another way to achieve our real goals of containing terrorism and also providing a decent life for the Iraqis. To offer alternatives to Bush's failing plan isn't retreat. It's simply trying to be rational. Biden offered a plan of a loose partition of Iraq. The only retreat in such a plan is from compounding our failures.

John, you make so little sense in your assertions about the average refugee, your supposed knowledge about how they offered at least verbal support to whomever, that there is little point in arguing with you. Anyways, would you then argue that the Iraqis were to blame for "allowing" or "enabling" Saddam and the Baathists to commit the crimes they performed on them. I'm sure you didn't and you hence supported Bush's efforts to free the Iraqis. So could you be consistent and describe these people as victims of a rather horrendous sequence of events part of which was Saddam's rule? In particular I would draw your attention to the Iraqi Christians now scattered as refugees throughout the region - exactly what did they do to deserve where they are now?

Posted by Offside at February 4, 2007 07:07 PM

Offsides, Show me a "partition" that has worked and I'll give you a million bucks. The Koreas? Thousands of US troops still there 50 plus years later and Dear leader wants the South back as he pursues nuclear weapons. Vietnam? That worked out real well. How many millions died? India and Pakistan has been fighting a low grde mini war over Kasmir for 60 years. How's that 2 state soultion working out? We've been in Bosnia for 11 years, no end in sight. East and West Germany? Came close to being ground zero in WWIII a few times. That Iron Curtain snagged a few dead bodies. Give me one, please.

Posted by Bill Maron at February 5, 2007 01:29 AM

Bill, I would counter by saying that it is impossible at this stage to believe that the Sunni and Shia can live together in harmony in a unitary Iraq. The fundamental requirement for the current strategy to work is to have faith that the Sunni-Shia split in Iraq can be resolved. We may be able to suppress its expression through force but the moment we draw down or leave, the two sides will be at it again. Fundamentally there is no incentive for the Shia to share Iraq with the Sunnis, and if the Sunni don't fight they know they are doomed. Short of rewiring their neurons, we can't fix this; so we have to look at other solutions. Yes, a partition may require a troop presence for a while as well but it would allow the emergence of independent, more or less viable units: a heck of a lot better than the current chaos. I'm not saying it will be easy, nor do I know how exactly it should be implemented. I would add though that even Gen. Petraeus may have this in the back of his mind given that Ahmed Hashim of the naval War College is one of his advisers. Hashim advocates a partition.

Another way to argue this is to consider the effects of a compete withdrawal right now. I think we will see huge bloodshed, mass migrations and a de facto partition occur. Perhaps we can look at this forseable end state and achieve the same with much less blood, recognizing its inevitability, and in as orderly a manner as possible.

Looking at the Shia-Sunni discord and the extent of that violence is one reason I feel really duped by the administration. They ignored the advice of so many State Department specialists on the region who warned of the difficulty post invasion. Even those who opposed the invasion such as myself could have changed our minds had it been done with the most careful thought and practicality. I have no doubt at all that Bush was well intentioned, and not just with respect to our interests but genuinely interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people, unlike say John A. above, or many of the proponents of the war who really had no understanding of the region or concern for promoting democracy. This is why I have hope that the partition plan may take hold before Bush's term is over so that it gets a decent start. Those Democrats who want a full withdrawal, regardless of the consequences, are betraying the Iraqi people that we claimed to liberate; for its no longer Bush who will be shamed, it's the American people.

Posted by Offside at February 5, 2007 06:46 AM

I bet the State Department types are willing to push a "partition plan". Such a plan would guarantee long term employment. As Bill Maron requested, show me a partition plan that worked.

Maybe the State Department can draw up a partition plan for Southern Lebanon to help the Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians get along. Call it a "land for peace" deal, and I'm sure all parties would go along.

Posted by Leland at February 5, 2007 07:47 AM

When I first glanced at this post, my eyes semi-registered "fairy tales to the sheep". For a moment I was sure this had to do with homosexual rams :)

Posted by Ilya at February 5, 2007 08:10 AM

Leland, that was a rather ridiculous suggestion -State doesn't need to come up with a partition plan for Southern Lebanon. We haven't invaded Southern Lebanon last I heard, nor are we stuck there in a failed strategy.

Posted by Offside at February 5, 2007 08:53 AM

Rand, since the topic is gone completely astray, why don't you address "Offsides" comments about the Shia-Sunni conflict with some of your patented satire? I'd say substituting North and South in a Civil War (now there's an oxymoron) context would work. After all, them damn 'Feds and Yanks would never be able to resolve their differences, would they?

Posted by Dave G at February 5, 2007 09:20 AM

I'd say substituting North and South in a Civil War (now there's an oxymoron) context would work.

Let me tell you, Dave, Muqtada al-Sadr is no Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 5, 2007 10:34 AM

Christ, Rand, why not just ban the thing?

I bet it has a stable IP address or range thereof, and it sure isn't attempting anything but trolling (or if, God help it, it's sincere, it's too stupid to be talked to).

Keep the S/N ratio high!

Posted by Sigivald at February 5, 2007 10:49 AM

I bet it has a stable IP address or range thereof

It doesn't. Banning it would not be simple. All I could do is delete the comments after it posts.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 5, 2007 11:22 AM

What's ridiculous about expecting the State Department to try diplomacy prior to things degrading to war?

What I find ridiculous is claiming the State Department's role comes after the US invades a country.

Posted by Leland at February 5, 2007 11:55 AM

While I am far from being in full agreement with Offside -- I can't imagine "feel[ing] really duped by the administration" -- I don't think partition should be dismissed out of hand. And I'm not after Bill Maron's $1M, but there are partitions that are pretty stable ... see the present boundaries of Greece and Turkey, and of course Cyprus. Optimal? Far from it. Functional? Yes. (I of course recognize that there are other elements, and partition emphatically != US withdrawal.)

But the point is that "working" isn't a binary-valued question. Some parts of the US, in my opinion (cf the West North Central census region), "work" a lot better than others. That doesn't mean the others don't work, only that choosing between, say, Nebraska and Louisiana would be, for me, pretty easy.

The current violent death rate in Iraq is comparable to that of, for example, South Africa, Brazil, and the less pleasant sections of quite a few large American cities, including the one I live in. Let's keep the body count in perspective. I don't see Bradleys patrolling the Prospect Avenue corridor.

Posted by Jay Manifold at February 5, 2007 11:58 AM

Partition plan? Separate but equal, eh?

And here I thought Iraq was already pretty effectively partitioned: there are Shiite areas (e.g. the south) and Sunni areas. Indeed, I thought one of the big bitches of the Sunnis is that where they all are there's no oil, so if the oil isn't shared nationally they're out in the cold.

Baghdad itself is more mixed, but partitioned as I understand it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, kind of like East and West Berlin. And it would have to be that way in any national partition plan anyway, right? Can't very well award the capital (and largest city) to one side or the other and make 2 million of the other side move out to the sticks.

So, all in all I'd say a partition plan sounds like one of them bullsh*t fake alternative plans ("redeploy to Okinawa", "get the Iranians on our side") armchair theorists keep hastily trotting out whenever, after their incessant whining about the President's "incompetence", someone calls their bluff and asks them exactly what they'd do differently.

Iraq already is effectively partitioned, and it hasn't done a damn thing to stop the internecine violence. Indeed, if you believe all that affirmative-action, diversity-teaches-tolerance stuff, you would think partition increases suspicion and hostility between factions, because they don't get to know each other on a daily basis, don't work together much. By the same standard argument the left deploys to argue that every neighborhood, jury, and college faculty should have the same race percentage as the country as a whole, the only way to solve the violence and hatred in Iraq is to integrate the country. Forced busing, that kind of thing. Better call in the Supreme Court (snicker).

Posted by Carl Pham at February 5, 2007 06:38 PM

Gotta say, I'm at a loss as to what is so offensive about the quoted passage. Calling a particular, apocalyptic sect "wingnuts" is not the same as condeming all evangelical Christians. Unless you are in to all that "left behind, last dawn over Jerusalem, from daniel to doomsday" crap - in which case you are both a danger to society in general, Israel in particular and popular literature.

BTW, Rand, it looks you have your own blog scandel - plagiarizing The Nation's Danny Glover.

Shameful in multiple ways.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 5, 2007 06:39 PM

So much for Simberg's commitment to free speech.

Posted by anonymous at February 5, 2007 08:14 PM

Hey Analmous, you're still here so I guess you're the one full of shite(the rest of knew that already).

Posted by Bill Maron at February 5, 2007 09:01 PM

I'm sure Rand remains committed to the free-speech rights of socially parasitic Presidential candidates to employ frothing lunatics and thereby display their cluelessness to the general population. Think of it as evolution in action.

Posted by Jay Manifold at February 6, 2007 08:32 AM

> I'd say substituting North and South in a Civil War (now there's an oxymoron) context would work.

The South lost the Civil war first.

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 6, 2007 09:16 AM

BTW, Rand, it looks you have your own blog scandel - plagiarizing The Nation's Danny Glover.
Shameful in multiple ways.

Hmm.

The Nation's article is dated February 5, while this post seems to be dated Feb. 4th.

Now this kind of makes me wonder, why do so many liberals give Rand such a hard time, if the Nation thinks his writing is good enough for them?

Posted by Phil Fraering at February 6, 2007 09:27 PM

Phil,
The first comment is from the 4th - one would infer that the post date reflects the last update.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 8, 2007 05:29 PM

Post a comment