Once again, Jack Kelly is spinning things (see here and here for more).
This erstwhile champion of supposed former human-shield turned pro-war activist Kenneth Joseph seems to blame the CIA for any failures in Iraq.
"The CIA can be excused for believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction"
As if the CIA were the main agency pressing this line.
"but the CIA failed to detect Saddam's plan for protracted guerrilla war (the sudden collapse of the Republican Guard ought to have been a clue)"
Of course all of the people fighting us must be former regime loyalists, because every ordinary Iraqi LOVES us. And of course the fact that the Defense Department and the administration were pushing the line that everyone would greet us with flowers and love had nothing to do with this.
"or that Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress was a spy for Iran."
At least the CIA resisted putting Chalabi in power. Just Google "CIA" and "Chalabi". It was the folks at Defense who were in love with the guy. Why don't they bear any of the blame?
Obviously, this guy is a nothing more than a two-bit hack.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Soldier Shooting Wounded Man
Sorry, too tired to find links.
My feelings on this issue.
I don't necessarily think that the soldier behaved wrongly. He may have had a justified fear that the man was booby-trapped. However, I am hesitant to say that the man was an insurgent until I know more about the situation.
Perhaps the stories about this mention reasons why we can be certain that the man was an insurgent. But I suspect that some of the talk-show hosts who call him a jihadi, or a terrorist, are simply labeling anyone who happens to be killed by our side a terrorist, because no innocent civilians could ever get victimized by "liberation," could they?
As for the embedded soldier taking the picture, I think that it is better that we see this and get it out of the way. Sooner or later, things like this are bound to come to light, and if the shooting was justified, let's not make it look shady with a cover-up (I'm not saying that thsi is what the military is doing, I'm saying that some of the war-bots want the military to do this).
In fact, the very fact that people want this to be swept under the rug would indicate that they think it is something to be ashamed of, or that they don't trust the American people to handle the brutal facts of war.
Of course, some may be concerned that Al Jazeera is using this tape to turn people against us. I don't really think that hiding footage like this is going to increase our popularity in the Arab world, primarily because if it comes out (as it will) that certain things have been censored, that will in the end turn more people against us than dealing with it will.
My feelings on this issue.
I don't necessarily think that the soldier behaved wrongly. He may have had a justified fear that the man was booby-trapped. However, I am hesitant to say that the man was an insurgent until I know more about the situation.
Perhaps the stories about this mention reasons why we can be certain that the man was an insurgent. But I suspect that some of the talk-show hosts who call him a jihadi, or a terrorist, are simply labeling anyone who happens to be killed by our side a terrorist, because no innocent civilians could ever get victimized by "liberation," could they?
As for the embedded soldier taking the picture, I think that it is better that we see this and get it out of the way. Sooner or later, things like this are bound to come to light, and if the shooting was justified, let's not make it look shady with a cover-up (I'm not saying that thsi is what the military is doing, I'm saying that some of the war-bots want the military to do this).
In fact, the very fact that people want this to be swept under the rug would indicate that they think it is something to be ashamed of, or that they don't trust the American people to handle the brutal facts of war.
Of course, some may be concerned that Al Jazeera is using this tape to turn people against us. I don't really think that hiding footage like this is going to increase our popularity in the Arab world, primarily because if it comes out (as it will) that certain things have been censored, that will in the end turn more people against us than dealing with it will.
Civilian Casualties in Fallujah?
According to this, we may have at least 800.
This would confirm a prediction I made a few days ago of at least 500 civilian casualties, but would not agree with the prediction I made a day or so earlier of 5000-10000.
This would confirm a prediction I made a few days ago of at least 500 civilian casualties, but would not agree with the prediction I made a day or so earlier of 5000-10000.
That Sinking Feeling
I have a feeling that the US dollar is going down in the next few years.
More on that later, with links and bells and whistles and analysis.
For now, that is all.
More on that later, with links and bells and whistles and analysis.
For now, that is all.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
A Draft?
Looks as if some people are looking into the possibility of a draft.
I don't think it will happen, because angry parents and college students would revolt, but it is disturbing that people are thinking about this.
I don't think it will happen, because angry parents and college students would revolt, but it is disturbing that people are thinking about this.
Kurdish Amazons?
This looks interesting. Kurdish women forming Pershmega? Whether this will be a one-page blog or whether it will be updated, only time will tell.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Looking at the Fatality Count
We are up to 72 hostile and 5 non-hostile Coalition fatalities this month.
I notice that the number of soldiers killed on November 13 increased today from 5 to 9. This means, as I have said before, that there is as much as a 48-hour lag time in reporting deaths, so it is not generally safe to assume that no deaths listed on a day equals no deaths that day until 2 or 3 days have passed.
(Day-by-day breakdowns can be seen by clicking on the month on the Military Fatalities by Month chart at the Iraq Coalition Casualty website. This is the current month (November 2004). The chart won't say when the deaths were added to the chart, so unless you check it frequently you won't notice how much delay is between a death and the reporting of a death. 2 days is actually pretty speedy, but if you check the site daily or more frequently, you should build that delay into your interpretation of the chart; for example, as of posting, no deaths are listed for November 14, but you shouldn't assume that November 14 was a quiet day until the 17 or 18, when enough time has passed for any deaths to have been recorded).
One thing that this means is that from Nov. 8 - Nov. 13, at least 9 Coalition forces have died each day. In fact, during this time period the only (1) non-US death and (2) non-hostile deaths occurred on Nov. 8, when 12 soldiers total were killed, so 9 Americans have died of hostile fire each day.
My prediction of hostile deaths for November 2004 going above 100 seems pretty accurate now, so I am now deciding to stick with it.
I notice that the number of soldiers killed on November 13 increased today from 5 to 9. This means, as I have said before, that there is as much as a 48-hour lag time in reporting deaths, so it is not generally safe to assume that no deaths listed on a day equals no deaths that day until 2 or 3 days have passed.
(Day-by-day breakdowns can be seen by clicking on the month on the Military Fatalities by Month chart at the Iraq Coalition Casualty website. This is the current month (November 2004). The chart won't say when the deaths were added to the chart, so unless you check it frequently you won't notice how much delay is between a death and the reporting of a death. 2 days is actually pretty speedy, but if you check the site daily or more frequently, you should build that delay into your interpretation of the chart; for example, as of posting, no deaths are listed for November 14, but you shouldn't assume that November 14 was a quiet day until the 17 or 18, when enough time has passed for any deaths to have been recorded).
One thing that this means is that from Nov. 8 - Nov. 13, at least 9 Coalition forces have died each day. In fact, during this time period the only (1) non-US death and (2) non-hostile deaths occurred on Nov. 8, when 12 soldiers total were killed, so 9 Americans have died of hostile fire each day.
My prediction of hostile deaths for November 2004 going above 100 seems pretty accurate now, so I am now deciding to stick with it.
Rice to Replace Powell?
According to "sources."
Remind me, please, what exactly was it that Rice did during the first term again?
Remind me, please, what exactly was it that Rice did during the first term again?
Good News from AntiWar.com
AntiWar.com made it once more, getting the $50,000 it needed to stay afloat.
I used to be a regular donor, but I am a little short right now.
No, I'm not trying to ask for donations myself. This blog, right now, is for my pleasure only. No ads or tips or anything.
I just wanted to say how pleased I am for them.
That is all.
I used to be a regular donor, but I am a little short right now.
No, I'm not trying to ask for donations myself. This blog, right now, is for my pleasure only. No ads or tips or anything.
I just wanted to say how pleased I am for them.
That is all.
And now Iran?
Amidst all the concern over what to do about Iran, Gordon Prather suggests that they are not violating nuclear treaties, after all.
I myself have at times thought that a strike against Iranian reactors might be necessary. (However, I have resisted the idea that we should bring about regime change, because I don't want to invade Iran, and Michael Ledeen notwithstanding, any attempt to arrange a coup will lead to all-out war; any attempt at regime change will lead to invasion. whether Ledeen knows this and is being dishonest or whether he is just very, very wrong I don't know. If I am wrong on that, that is good.
Is it possible that the Iranians want nuclear power even though they've got a lot of oil? There probably are reasons, and what those reasons might be should be discussed more broadly by those who doubt Iran's nuclear-weapon ambitions.
That is all.
I myself have at times thought that a strike against Iranian reactors might be necessary. (However, I have resisted the idea that we should bring about regime change, because I don't want to invade Iran, and Michael Ledeen notwithstanding, any attempt to arrange a coup will lead to all-out war; any attempt at regime change will lead to invasion. whether Ledeen knows this and is being dishonest or whether he is just very, very wrong I don't know. If I am wrong on that, that is good.
Is it possible that the Iranians want nuclear power even though they've got a lot of oil? There probably are reasons, and what those reasons might be should be discussed more broadly by those who doubt Iran's nuclear-weapon ambitions.
That is all.
Powell Leaving
Colin Powell is leaving. This is not good, especially since the neocons are going to push to get someone to replace him that thinks that we should conquer all of the Middle east.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
Rod Paige, Spencer Abraham, and Ann Veneman are also leaving, but I'm not certain that this will affect much of anything, seeing as I can't offhand think of any particular agenda that is heavily associated with any one of them.
That is all.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
Rod Paige, Spencer Abraham, and Ann Veneman are also leaving, but I'm not certain that this will affect much of anything, seeing as I can't offhand think of any particular agenda that is heavily associated with any one of them.
That is all.
Vital Links
for any Krull fan.
Krull Movie Archive
Krull the Arcade Game (a description, you can't play it on the computer)
Arcade Game with Quicktime Demonstration (still can't play, but can watch).
Nitpicks
That is all.
Krull Movie Archive
Krull the Arcade Game (a description, you can't play it on the computer)
Arcade Game with Quicktime Demonstration (still can't play, but can watch).
Nitpicks
That is all.
Boo Hoo Hoo, Joseph Farah
Farah excoriates Bush for betraying conservatives on illegal immigration.
Well, that's what you get when you are so irrationally afraid of Kerry that you refuse to consider a third-party candidate.
I have no respect or sympathy for the man.
Well, that's what you get when you are so irrationally afraid of Kerry that you refuse to consider a third-party candidate.
I have no respect or sympathy for the man.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Peroutka got 135,159 Votes
New data from the Washington Post (free registration required).
I'll crunch the numbers later to get a precise Peroutka percentage, but as Peroutka has added 3000 votes, and I am assuming that much of the increase comes from write-ins being counted, I think that his prcentage should have increased very slightly. (As neither Bush nor Kerry is likely to have received many write-in votes, being on the ballot in all 50 states). I say "many write-in votes" because it is always possible that someone for some reason did decide to write-in the name of a major party candidate even though he was already on the ballot. In an election where over 100 million people participated, there would have to be at least a few whackos.
I'll crunch the numbers later to get a precise Peroutka percentage, but as Peroutka has added 3000 votes, and I am assuming that much of the increase comes from write-ins being counted, I think that his prcentage should have increased very slightly. (As neither Bush nor Kerry is likely to have received many write-in votes, being on the ballot in all 50 states). I say "many write-in votes" because it is always possible that someone for some reason did decide to write-in the name of a major party candidate even though he was already on the ballot. In an election where over 100 million people participated, there would have to be at least a few whackos.
Constitution Party and the Vote.
Well, here is the map of the Constitution Party vote that I promised. As I understand it, 0.2% (for example) means between 0.15% and 0.25%, so remember that when analyzing. The good news, I guess, is that nowhere where Peroutka was on the ballot did he receive less than 0.05% of the vote.
The numbers I used were rounded number from USA Today, and the map was adapted from the Perry-Castenada collection at U Texas.
More War Nerd News
Civilian Casualties in Fallujah
A bit of news about Fallujah:
Civilian Cost of Fallujah.
Well, we'll see if my predictions of 500 civilain deaths seem to pan out, or if my more dismal prediction of 5000-10000 civilian deaths is closer.
Offhand, I 'd say that I am sticking with my earlier belief that there will be more than 100 hostile coalition fatalities, as we are now up to 62 (58 hostile American deaths, 4 hostile British deaths) plus 4 non-hostile deaths (all US). [From http://www.icasualties.org ].
Of course, 51 of the hostile and 2 of the non-hostile (all American) deaths occurred last Monday-Friday (Nov. 8-12), so how high the November total gets is greatly dependent on how much things die down now that we have taken Fallujah.
If the insurgency dies down to the levels of the first week of November (12 in 7 days), for the period from Nov. 13-30, we should end with 12/7 * 18 more deaths, or about 30, for a total of 92 more hostile deaths.
If the recent flare-up in the insurgency pushes the death toll much beyond that, there will be > 100 hostile fatalities.
In any case, I think that there will be fewer than 10 fatalities among non-American members of the coalition unless there is a single large-casualty attack, like the one against the Italians Nov. 12 of last year.
Civilian Cost of Fallujah.
Well, we'll see if my predictions of 500 civilain deaths seem to pan out, or if my more dismal prediction of 5000-10000 civilian deaths is closer.
Offhand, I 'd say that I am sticking with my earlier belief that there will be more than 100 hostile coalition fatalities, as we are now up to 62 (58 hostile American deaths, 4 hostile British deaths) plus 4 non-hostile deaths (all US). [From http://www.icasualties.org ].
Of course, 51 of the hostile and 2 of the non-hostile (all American) deaths occurred last Monday-Friday (Nov. 8-12), so how high the November total gets is greatly dependent on how much things die down now that we have taken Fallujah.
If the insurgency dies down to the levels of the first week of November (12 in 7 days), for the period from Nov. 13-30, we should end with 12/7 * 18 more deaths, or about 30, for a total of 92 more hostile deaths.
If the recent flare-up in the insurgency pushes the death toll much beyond that, there will be > 100 hostile fatalities.
In any case, I think that there will be fewer than 10 fatalities among non-American members of the coalition unless there is a single large-casualty attack, like the one against the Italians Nov. 12 of last year.
Are We Importing Antisemitism? And Other Concerns...
Ilana Mercer rightly expresses concern over the effect that immigration from Muslim countries (which, let's be honest here, have a high level of antisemitism, not in the sense that they don't completely trust Jewish people, but in the sense that they want them dead) might have on American Jewry.
The problem we currently have with immigration is that our policies are not based on any rational notion of what is best for the country; there is little attempt to make certain that immigrants assimilate, or even that they wish to assimilate or even that they have made any moves before coming here to assimilate. Moreover, constatnly streaming in new immigrants without a break makes it difficult to assimilate the ones who are here, because they can form a critical mass that can maintain enough of their culture to avoid assimilating.
Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing against people from Mexico or Africa or the Middle East maintaining some of their traditions. But we need to make certain that the American concept of government, the American concept of law and order, the American concept of how to relate to neighbors and to family (e.g. wife as partner) and the general American ethos firmly saturates their minds.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that only Americans believe in these concepts, but other countries often have a different conception of what they mean or of how to achieve them. Not necessarily every one of these things, but people from some other countries might have a different concept of family relationships (women as chattel) or of relationship to society (protect your own people first), or of government (the goal of goverment is to enrich family and friends through nepotism). Not that there aren't some Americans with these ideas, or that most non-Americans will necessarily have them, but we only need a small number of people with a vastly different idea of society to cause problems. This is especially true when we consider that a lot of the Mexicans who come to the US do not particularly like US culture, they are just looking for the jobs it produces. While I am sympathetic, such people will not necessarily make model pro-American citizens if they wind up staying here (and let's face it, the Mexican government would rather be rid of its poor by sendng them to the US than deal with the corruption, racism and other problems that make poverty such a common Mexican problem).
The point is that we need a more regulated system for letting people in the country, and for the next few years, should probably greatly decrease the number of people we let in and even deport some of those who are in here, as we assimilate those who remain.
And lest we think that Mexican immigration is unrelated to the topic of this post, let me remind you that foreign-born Hispanics have the second highest incidence of antisemitism of any ethnic group in the US (Yes, the title of this post is based on the title of that Steve Sailer essay).
The problem we currently have with immigration is that our policies are not based on any rational notion of what is best for the country; there is little attempt to make certain that immigrants assimilate, or even that they wish to assimilate or even that they have made any moves before coming here to assimilate. Moreover, constatnly streaming in new immigrants without a break makes it difficult to assimilate the ones who are here, because they can form a critical mass that can maintain enough of their culture to avoid assimilating.
Now don't get me wrong; I have nothing against people from Mexico or Africa or the Middle East maintaining some of their traditions. But we need to make certain that the American concept of government, the American concept of law and order, the American concept of how to relate to neighbors and to family (e.g. wife as partner) and the general American ethos firmly saturates their minds.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that only Americans believe in these concepts, but other countries often have a different conception of what they mean or of how to achieve them. Not necessarily every one of these things, but people from some other countries might have a different concept of family relationships (women as chattel) or of relationship to society (protect your own people first), or of government (the goal of goverment is to enrich family and friends through nepotism). Not that there aren't some Americans with these ideas, or that most non-Americans will necessarily have them, but we only need a small number of people with a vastly different idea of society to cause problems. This is especially true when we consider that a lot of the Mexicans who come to the US do not particularly like US culture, they are just looking for the jobs it produces. While I am sympathetic, such people will not necessarily make model pro-American citizens if they wind up staying here (and let's face it, the Mexican government would rather be rid of its poor by sendng them to the US than deal with the corruption, racism and other problems that make poverty such a common Mexican problem).
The point is that we need a more regulated system for letting people in the country, and for the next few years, should probably greatly decrease the number of people we let in and even deport some of those who are in here, as we assimilate those who remain.
And lest we think that Mexican immigration is unrelated to the topic of this post, let me remind you that foreign-born Hispanics have the second highest incidence of antisemitism of any ethnic group in the US (Yes, the title of this post is based on the title of that Steve Sailer essay).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)