Soooo funny some one keep fighting his war from his office come and telling misinformation or simply false tales, and the prove to you those Iraqi in southern who initiating their concerning about the Iranian dominated in Iraq with help by US nothing more nothing less to say.

To teach you about what Da’awa and Hakim/IISC (formerly known as SCIRI).

SCIRI had around 21 seats after the initial distribution and managed to pick up another 9 in the distribution of compensatory seats (an entirely undemocratic backdoor procedure over which voters had no influence). They ended up with around 30, the same as the Sadrists,
http://www.historiae.org/

Is that enough for your memory or you mind to fill?

Earlier he offered a very long and convoluted comment that included defense of the use of “martial law, executions, countering the domestic insurgency, or any other thing that might be necessary to ensure the welfare and tranquility of a state’s citizens followed by a strong defense of Presidential power. To this I responded that it would appear to be a good vindication of Putin’s rule in Russia. I went on to ask whether the Founding Fathers would have imagined American citizens preferring tranquility under martial law, etc. to freedom, law and Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Since a direct answer would not serve his needs, he flips it back on itself and pretends it was a direct comment about ongoing operations in Iraq. [At least, I think that's what he did, it is so hard to tell what he's really trying to say sometimes.]

Now, in this most recent comment, Y argues that the Founding Fathers, in choosing rebellion to gain their freedom, ‘proves’ that they did not value law. This is then flipped through a series of twists and turns to claim, yet again, that any views of patriotism or the ideals of America other than his own are wrong.

I think Y needs to go back and do a careful review of the comments I’ve posted here, because he seems to willfully or blindly misrepresent much of what I’ve said. Unlike many who opposed the invasion of Iraq before it happened, I have never maintained that we should withdraw immediately. All of my comments have recognized our responsibility and presumed that we need our forces to remain there until stability is restored. While I think much of the prosecution of OIF has been badly managed from the top, I have not criticized the overall tactical efforts of the commanders in the field who have done an excellent job in the main (and will add here that this is especially true under Petraeus). My problems have been with the way the White House seems intent on ignoring the political side of the equation, insisting that military success alone will solve the problems we face.

Furthermore, it remains my opinion that many of the actions taken by the Bush administration have weakened, not strengthened, us in the War on Terror. Also, that, in setting forth the idea that said War on Terror is equivalent to historic wars between states, and further using that to claim overly extensive war powers at home and abroad, beyond existing domestic and international law, is, at best, foolish and dangerous, at worst, a form of quiet revolution that will haunt us for decades. Among other problems their efforts to sell the WoT and OIF as a theater in that war have led to the idea that the existence of a virulent and abhorrent terrorist group using a radical view of Islam as its rallying point means that the faith itself is the cause of our conflict.

I’ll resist the urge to emulate Y by continuing to pile tangent upon tangent and end here.

This forms the basis of your ethics and thus your politics, Chris.

I don’t believe law can make any group of people cooperate in the long run. People work together because they want to work together, not because the law says they must. Nations in which people do things because the law says they must, are called police states.

As one counter- example, Petraeus and Sherman and MacArthur did not try to create laws. They set out to create security. Laws that do not create security are laws that will be broken.

Of course, arguing any kind of counter-insurgency program is seen as supporting vigilantism, for Chris’s faction.

Do not forget that there were laws, British laws, that proscribed rebellion. Yet the Founding Fathers chose revolt anyways. Not a recommendation for Chris White’s support of such unjust practices called “international law”.

Why do you persist in believing that your philosophy is compatible with mine or with the Founding Fathers? It isn’t.

Attempting to use an example of the Founding Fathers throwing off the shackles of unjust laws in another land, that did not secure American freedoms, in order to attack the need to do whatever it takes to secure the American people against foreign powers in the present, is a rather bad use of logic. Even if it didn’t expose your philosophy as being mutually exclusive with that of classical liberalism.

So Truth and Laura are advocating invasion of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia in order to depose the oil-rich sheikhs, mullahs, and petty dictators that are keeping their countrymen in poverty? Great.

And at the same time stop meddling in Middle Eastern Affairs.

The Badr Militia is absolutely not the backbone of Iraqi Forces. I have no idea where you got that from. The US is disbanding it.

Futhermore, the US Forces are finding and killing Iranian Al Qods troops in Iraq. The US does not want Iranian influence in Iraq.

Do you fool yourself again by listing those corrupted guys, omitting millions of people who have the will and the energy to serve their people , who need your help to stand in the face of these corrupted guys, .

Finding the people who have the will and the energy to serve their people and ‘helping them stand in the face of the corrupt arab leaders’ is exactly what we are doing in Iraq….

Much like Europe and Russia, Arabs have had monsters for leaders for thousands of years. Are you arguing that we didn’t invade and overthrow the corrupt leaders soon enough?

I have a lot of Arab friends and I appreciate and enjoy Arab culture, but it is a feature of the Arab mind that they can entertain and believe two contradictory ideas at once:

“Why can’t you stop dealing with our corrupt leaders and help the good guys overthrow them? Why can’t you stop helping factions overthrow our leaders and let arabs determine our future?!”

Really, you people are too much.

And jim, I’m sure that you are a loving, understanding and competent therapist (not to mention dynamite former law enforcer), who has loads of successful treatments and whose community involvement is unparalleled. That’s why the inner city of St. Louis is so healthy, I guess.

Good post Truth.

the basic quesiton becomes “which should come first, liberty or security”. We say security. Somebody else says jobs or liberty or prosperity or something else. -Ymarsakar

Here are a couple of salient points from Y’s long comment threads. If we didn’t know any better, they could have been written in support of Putin’s leadership in Russia. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the idea that Americans would prefer “tranquility” (based on martial law, executions and ‘any other thing necessary’) to freedom based on a system of laws and Constitutionally protected rights.