Thursday digest
- New Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien is batting 0 for 2.
First, there was the whole salary increase fiasco.
Now, the guy has cast the deciding vote to keep the proposed Ottawa north-south rail line intact AND has also endorsed a plan to build a tunnel underneath Ottawa's downtown.
What a mess.
This tunnel project is slated to cost $500 million dollars. Give me a break. I predict it will come in at three times that much, on top of the $800 million north-south line. This will do zero to alleviate east-west pressures in the city. Moreover, you can bet that al-Qaeda is licking their chops at the prospect of an underground transit system in the capital of a targetted country.
Well done, Lar.
- Florida Panthers C Joe Nieuwendyk has been forced to retire due to a back injury. Every hockey fan loves this guy, as he was a winner everywhere he went (except for Toronto and Florida, but no one wins playing for those teams). In addition, he was both a Conn Smythe and Calder Trophy winner and a great Olympian for Canada, winning gold in 2002.
A Hall of Fame guy on and off the ice.
- I haven't had a chance to digest the reams of material that has been written about the Iraq Study Group report, issued yesterday, but I will. As some readers of this blog enjoy holding me personally accountable for the actions of terrorists in the Middle East, repeatedly mistaking me for the author of the PowerPoint presentation that Colin Powell gave at the UN in 2002, I'll give it due consideration and report back shortly.
posted by Road Hammer @ 10:15 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
I don't hold you personally accountable for the actions taking place in the Middle East, just your opinions that justify (nearly) every single misstep the W. admin. has made in their war of terror ... starting with their first one.
Greener, I think it would be more accurate to characterize my commentary as laying primary blame for Islamofascist violence at the feet of Islamofascists and their enablers themselves rather than at the feet of democratically elected Western leaders like W, Blair, Howard and Olmert.
Criticizing the admin. for their obvious shortcomings and bungling of the situation over the course of several years doesn't excuse islamofascists.
Pointing out mistakes made by one party in any conflict doesn't mean that one endorses the other side. This is a pretty simple concept, but one the right seems unwilling/unable to grasp. Guess it doesn't fit the black/white, with us/against us world view.
BTW, is it just me, or have I noticed you are taking a softer stance on a U.S. exit strategy (we can call it that now, instead of just "cut and run," since the right is finally admitting that the shit show ain't working).
Note the term "primary" blame. By the same token, one could argue that especially in Canada and Europe, if you think the war in Iraq was justified given what the world thought at the time, you are a shill for Bush. Black and white indeed.
The war has not been a perfect one (as if there ever could have been). However, it can't be forgotten that the terrorists are counting on using a "divide and conquer" strategy to defeat the coalition because they don't think that we have the stomach to see things through.
There are more than enough commentators who have made names for themselves by poking holes without offering any kind of workable solution.
The other thing is that I think that too many critics ascribe rationality to the likes of terrorists, i.e. Bush's policies are the cause and terror is not only the effect but understandable at that. Not the case. Radical, violent Islamic extremism wasn't born in November 2000.
I've argued repeatedly as has Bobcaygeon that the McCain position on dramatically increasing the number of troops is the correct way to go.
Giving up would be an abdication of leadership, responsibility and accountability.
I'm all for the east-west expansion of the light rail system but the underground tunnel is going to be an absolute fiasco. You would think other civic leaders in North America would take a look at the disaster that has been the "Big Dig" in Boston and learn their lesson. Gladly Toronto has resisted the idea of putting the Gardiner underground to this point.
It's all moot if you saw this war as a terrible idea to begin with. And please, spare me the "you're a left wing moral grandstander" comment.
A lot of people saw this terrible idea for what it was before 10s of thousands had their blood spilled.
Terrible idea in hindsight since there haven't been any WMDs found, or terrible idea regardless?
A terrible idea regardless. I dispute your notion that the U.S. had no choice but to go ahead and mix it up with Iraq since they had bunk intelligence re: WMD.
There are those (self included) who saw the invasion as a bad idea regardless. This is considering they hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan (see current parade of Cdn. soldiers in coffins).
And was it really hard to fathom that bombing Iraq into a dust bowl would stir shit up all over the Mid-East? And no, that is not blaming the West for Islamofascism. It's thinking through a pretty predictable situation.
Even a neo-marxist, peacenik like myself can grasp that it's a bad idea to spread your forces around on several fronts. It's a recipe for disaster (see Russia in WWII). Once again, proving that W. has no grasp of history or the consequences of his cowboy antics.
Let's look at Iran right now. Do you think them develping nukes is good, bad or neither?
Greener, certainly you're not suggesting that the whole Iraq affair can be boiled down to the popular anti-war chant "Bush lied, thousands died".
Personally, I'd say shit has been stirred up in the Middle East ever since the Arab countries attacked Israel immediately upon its creation.
You're also comparing the US military in the 2000's to the Russian one under Stalin? Kinda apples and oranges, no?
I think Iran developing nukes is bad. I don't think starting a full-scale war on that front is a good idea. That would make 3 wars in the middle-east, while the initial 2 are incomplete.
Again with the with us/against us oversimplification of the incredibly complex issue of the Middle East. I suppose if I'm not for reducing Iran to rubble, then I think Iran developing nukes is good?
And no, I'm not boiling my stance on the war down to a slogan. Iraq was a bad idea. Period. The current state of affairs in that neck of the woods suggests so.
But was WMD even the reason for smoking Iraq in the first place? I thought it was to sever its ties with Al-Queda? Or was it to remove a ruthless ruler (why this one, and not one of other dozens in the world, I'm not sure). I need to do a straw man head count.
And you are absolutely correct. The whole Mid-east has been a mess since Israel was created. And what's happened since Georgie boy wieghed to clean things up? It's probably worse now than its ever been. Again, this proves he has no grasp of the historical significance of the whole conflict. If he did, he wouldn't think he could set it straight. You like to talk of people being in over their heads ...
My comparison of Russian and U.S. forces is to highlight a universal truth.
If you have finite resources (weapons, soldiers, support systems, $, etc.) and you spread them too thinly on several fronts, you cannot expect success.
I admittedly know jack about battle tactics, etc. But any rudimentary analysis of history shows that forces fighting on too many fronts get their asses kicked. Even I get it.
See, you Bush haters are so against the guy that you can't separate the man from the issues themselves. Plus, you only talk amongst yourselves, so you mischaracterize the positions of others to the point of parody. For instance, how does me trying to understand your point on WMD via an Iran comparison equate to calling for Tehran to be blown off the face of the earth, to borrow a phrase?
Blaming W for the violence in the Middle East is like saying that Serbs and Croats would have gotten along just fine if Communism didn't fall, thereby screwing everything up in that part of Europe during the 90s.
Of course Iraw was about WMD. If they just wanted to beat up on a Middle Eastern country and install democracy as an experiment, it would have made way more sense to go into Lebanon or reform one of the Gulf states (whacked out theories about W's daddy complex aside).
Afghanistan has more to do with Pakistan than anything else. If Musharaff handed over Osama, fundamentalists from Morocco to 5000 miles east of there would take over every country along the Equator.
Everyone has the answers in hindsight. If lefties spent more time pushing Islamists to reform rather than tearing W a new one at every turn, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't be as emboldened as they are today because they'd see that the West isn't going to allow itself to lose despite our own internal political differences.
Disagreement is one thing while undermining the war effort is completely another. While I'm not speaking of you personally, there are far too many people who are all to happy to line up alongside unsavoury types who hate us in a great big chorus of "I told you so" just because it makes them feel superior to the Texan in the White House.
And who doesn't enjoy feeling superior?
If Iraq is about WMD, and there is no WMD, WTF?
I'm getting sick of hearing that the left is gleefully rubbing its hands because the Middle East is a disaster and they were "right." My reasons for saying the war is a bad idea now are the same as they were before the whole debacle. So it's unfair to say people who were against this idiotic exercise from day 1 "have all the answers in hindsight." I take absolutely no glee in this. I respect human life, and think its a tragedy that 10s of thousands, including Americans, have died for no discernable reason.
If you want to think the actions of the U.S. have had absolutely no negative impact on the state of affairs in the Mid-East, then sell me some of what you're smoking. That's not blaming the U.S. for terrorism. It's acknowledging that the situation has deteriorated partly due to gross miscalculations and errors by the admin. If that weren't the case, Rummy would still have a job and W. wouldn't be hearing reports on high-tailing it out of there.
I said Iraq WAS about WMD. Not that it IS about WMD.
Similarly, I didn't say that the actions of Bush have had no impact on the Middle East but again I would point you to the fact that I put primary blame on the violence at the feet of the terrorists rather than at W's.
Libre, I have no idea how you cannot separate Ahmedinejad's development of nukes with his antipathy towards America, Israel and other non-Muslim countries. He is an Islamofascist. As for your incredulity that I can't see that Shi'a offing Sunnis in Iraq is good for the American-led project to democratize Iraq, well, that says quite a lot about your observation.
Frig, reading your last post again, I would have to be really stupid to actually have said what you think I did, Greener.
Comparing Franco to Ahmedinejad? No way.
As for what's worse, birds of a feather will shit together so even though they may not be allies, in the end, they have the same common enemy (us) and the same goals (an Islamic caliphate all across the Middle East) by and large. I take your point about distinctions between sects but those are minor in the final analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home