September 25, 2007
It's official, the surge is a success...
The UNITED NATIONS says so, and what could be more authoritative than that? They scooted once it got dangerous in Iraq, and now they want to come back. "To help," you know.
UNITED NATIONS -- Iraq's prime minister said his government would provide any necessary security for an expanded United Nations presence in his country...
That's good. We wouldn't want the UN to have to try to protect itself....with those, uh, "peacekeeping forces" I think they call them. I mean, those are very useful in the sex-trafficking and gold-smuggling line. And if you need a crew to extract sex from starving teenage refugee girls in exchange for food, well, the Blue Helmets have been doing that job happily for decades now.
But when it comes to using savage violence to kill terrorists and protect the innocent......well, you gotta understand which side those guys are on. They are "peacekeepers" like Quakers are peacekeepers.....that is, go ahead and kill anybody, as long as you don't help Republicans get elected.
Posted by John Weidner at September 25, 2007 12:13 PM"Nouri al-Maliki said that the "'Baghdad of today is different from the Baghdad of yesterday.'"
I'll say! Especially after the ethnic cleansing that has left half the population dead or displaced...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at September 25, 2007 01:34 PMAndrew: Exactly what does your comment have to do with the post on the United Nations and their "Peacekeepers?" Typical lefty - if you don't like what you read, change the subject. The UN "Peacekeepers" are, and have been for the last 15 years, roving bands of thugs. Exactly what you would expect from that corrupt, disgusting institution. As Borat said when he toured the UN in his pre-movie comedy skit, "Why do you let s*** countries like that vote?" They're irrelevant to any serious foreign policy and have been for years.
Posted by: Charlene at September 25, 2007 05:28 PMI think M'dear you misunderstood Andrew's point. He's attacking the US, not supporting the UN. And the salient points to me are:
1. As usual, leftist attacks are in the form of sneers and jabs. No principles, no policies, no real debate. We both live embedded among leftists, and what's very noticeable to me is this constant stream of little sneers and snippy comments about all things American. but you can't argue with them. "Hey I was just making a joke. Cantcha take a joke?"
2. The goal posts are always moving. If (as I expect) Baghdad settles down and people move back to where they were, and Andrew's statistic turns out to be bogus, he won't apologize or express any happiness. There will just be some new thing to charge the US with. (And of course if we leave Iraq the subject will vanish from his radar, and 10 million Iraqis could be chopped in little pieces and fed to goldfish without him noticing.)
When you take the road of selfishness and nihilism, you automatically start to hate the USA (and similarly the Church) because it is a thing that makes demands on us.
Posted by: John Weidner at September 26, 2007 07:51 AM"Ethnic cleansing"? What on earth is he talking about? Sunnis and Shias aren't different ethnic groups in Iraq. The only other major ethnic group that I can think of there are the Kurds, and all the "ethnic cleansing" of those people was done under Saddam.
Lefties are confused and ignorant.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 27, 2007 04:16 AMYes, yes, yes…but all of the ethnic cleansing done under Saddam was different because we didn’t support him and thus we are not culpable…oh hell, that’s right; according to the left we did support him. You know, once one adopts a leftist point of view it’s almost as if America is damned no matter what she does.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at September 27, 2007 06:42 AM
