The Debate New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 12-29-04
The Debate
“. . . ‘the time has come for ordinary Iraqis to realize that they - not the Americans - will ultimately decide who prevails in this conflict” . . . . He warned against allowing the Iraqis to become too dependent on the U.S. military. More independence is what's needed, he said. "That's the only way," Rumsfeld said during a meeting with top U.S. commanders in Tikrit,. . .” --- Rumsfeld Says Iraqis Must Stop Insurgents Saturday December 25, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) (see also Army Navy Club No. 35)
“These insurgents are determined to have no representative government. They want to go back to a tyranny,” Powell told CBS News. “And so the insurgency will continue and the insurgency will have to be defeated by coalition forces.” --- Agence France-Presse --- 43 dead in attacks on security forces by Dhia Hamid in Samarra December 29, 2004
This is the debate: The Iraqis themselves or coalition forces? Now consider this: it is the end of 2004. We first entered Iraq in 2003.
Wouldn’t you have thought that this question would have been resolved by now? Wouldn’t you have thought that a reasonably prudent Commander in Chief, exercising due diligence, would have met with his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense and they would have come to an agreement on this fundamental question of who is responsible for the battle with the terrorists?
Regular visitors here at the College will recollect that we pointed out previously that since this Administration was not willing to do the things that are necessary to win this battle against the terrorists then this administration should turn the command over to the government of Iraq, the then Governing Council.
And after several months of vacillating and deleterious “negotiations” this Administration did finally turn Iraq over to . . . well not the Governing Council . . . this Administration ignominiously abandoned the Governing Council . . . and found a UN diplomat to determine the new leader of Iraq. Why the corrupt UN? Because the gentleman in the oval room thinks that the UN is “legitimate,” unlike the United States and Britain and the allies.
In any event the new government of Iraq was created, after years of delay by this feckless Administration. And one might have thought that this evidenced some strategy; some determination and agreement on the path we were to follow. Now we see that if one had thought so, one would have been wrong.
For proof you have this debate: here you have this pitiful spectacle of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense debating who is responsible for dealing with the terrorists. This nearly two (2) years later. And our Commander in Chief? Oh, he has “faith.” He has “faith” in “constitutional democracy.” He is on his knees asking God’s guidance for he has no idea what to do. His only idea is to have America send yet more troops. Take on a greater share of the burden. Ask for more sacrifice.
So, who should deal with these terrorists? A foreign Christian state, (see also Army Navy Club No. 29), ten thousand miles away, or the people of Iraq who must in any event live or die with the outcome. A decadent “liberal,” (really Post Liberal), society, (which “does not just round up people’), which is unwilling to take the steps necessary to win the battle against the terrorists, or on the other hand should the Iraqi people begin their birth as a free people, like most births, painfully, bloodily?
We see hear the Yale and Harvard educated Mr. Bush, scion of a wealthy powerful family, shifting the costs of establishing the government of Iraq onto the young men from Americas middle and lower classes. Where have we seen this before? The economy!
Our elite found it too painful to make the hard choices about Iraq so they postponed and procrastinated. And now in the event they seek to shift the cost off onto the lower classes. Have them run another 100,000 patrols while the details are worked out, and not by our elite, but worked out by Iraqis on their own schedule. Let them bleed. And doesn’t our national debt climb higher every year also because our elite is unwilling to make the difficult decisions? And don’t the Yales and Harvards also shift their cost off onto the middle and lower classes? And doesn’t this cause inflation to rise, and our interest rates rise, and our Dollar fall?
And see also how foreigners find this scheme agreeable. For example, see how the Iraqi finds this most agreeable. Let the Americans bleed while they debate constitutional niceties and decide how to divide up the oil wealth between them.
American blood is cheap. Blood for oil? Our blood. Their oil.
And the gentleman in the oval room straightens his tie, tugs on his shirt cuff, and postpones, and procrastinates some more. Waiting. Waiting for the election. Waiting for the new constitution. Waiting for the new elections under that new constitution.
Tic tock.
Four more years.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 12-29-04
The Debate
“. . . ‘the time has come for ordinary Iraqis to realize that they - not the Americans - will ultimately decide who prevails in this conflict” . . . . He warned against allowing the Iraqis to become too dependent on the U.S. military. More independence is what's needed, he said. "That's the only way," Rumsfeld said during a meeting with top U.S. commanders in Tikrit,. . .” --- Rumsfeld Says Iraqis Must Stop Insurgents Saturday December 25, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) (see also Army Navy Club No. 35)
“These insurgents are determined to have no representative government. They want to go back to a tyranny,” Powell told CBS News. “And so the insurgency will continue and the insurgency will have to be defeated by coalition forces.” --- Agence France-Presse --- 43 dead in attacks on security forces by Dhia Hamid in Samarra December 29, 2004
This is the debate: The Iraqis themselves or coalition forces? Now consider this: it is the end of 2004. We first entered Iraq in 2003.
Wouldn’t you have thought that this question would have been resolved by now? Wouldn’t you have thought that a reasonably prudent Commander in Chief, exercising due diligence, would have met with his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense and they would have come to an agreement on this fundamental question of who is responsible for the battle with the terrorists?
Regular visitors here at the College will recollect that we pointed out previously that since this Administration was not willing to do the things that are necessary to win this battle against the terrorists then this administration should turn the command over to the government of Iraq, the then Governing Council.
And after several months of vacillating and deleterious “negotiations” this Administration did finally turn Iraq over to . . . well not the Governing Council . . . this Administration ignominiously abandoned the Governing Council . . . and found a UN diplomat to determine the new leader of Iraq. Why the corrupt UN? Because the gentleman in the oval room thinks that the UN is “legitimate,” unlike the United States and Britain and the allies.
In any event the new government of Iraq was created, after years of delay by this feckless Administration. And one might have thought that this evidenced some strategy; some determination and agreement on the path we were to follow. Now we see that if one had thought so, one would have been wrong.
For proof you have this debate: here you have this pitiful spectacle of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense debating who is responsible for dealing with the terrorists. This nearly two (2) years later. And our Commander in Chief? Oh, he has “faith.” He has “faith” in “constitutional democracy.” He is on his knees asking God’s guidance for he has no idea what to do. His only idea is to have America send yet more troops. Take on a greater share of the burden. Ask for more sacrifice.
So, who should deal with these terrorists? A foreign Christian state, (see also Army Navy Club No. 29), ten thousand miles away, or the people of Iraq who must in any event live or die with the outcome. A decadent “liberal,” (really Post Liberal), society, (which “does not just round up people’), which is unwilling to take the steps necessary to win the battle against the terrorists, or on the other hand should the Iraqi people begin their birth as a free people, like most births, painfully, bloodily?
We see hear the Yale and Harvard educated Mr. Bush, scion of a wealthy powerful family, shifting the costs of establishing the government of Iraq onto the young men from Americas middle and lower classes. Where have we seen this before? The economy!
Our elite found it too painful to make the hard choices about Iraq so they postponed and procrastinated. And now in the event they seek to shift the cost off onto the lower classes. Have them run another 100,000 patrols while the details are worked out, and not by our elite, but worked out by Iraqis on their own schedule. Let them bleed. And doesn’t our national debt climb higher every year also because our elite is unwilling to make the difficult decisions? And don’t the Yales and Harvards also shift their cost off onto the middle and lower classes? And doesn’t this cause inflation to rise, and our interest rates rise, and our Dollar fall?
And see also how foreigners find this scheme agreeable. For example, see how the Iraqi finds this most agreeable. Let the Americans bleed while they debate constitutional niceties and decide how to divide up the oil wealth between them.
American blood is cheap. Blood for oil? Our blood. Their oil.
And the gentleman in the oval room straightens his tie, tugs on his shirt cuff, and postpones, and procrastinates some more. Waiting. Waiting for the election. Waiting for the new constitution. Waiting for the new elections under that new constitution.
Tic tock.
Four more years.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home