We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The long slow slide to victory Iraq is still in a descent to normalcy according to this DOD report:
Weekly attacks in the Baghdad security districts for the past 15 weeks matched levels last seen consistently in 2005. Bombings increased last week, but remained below the long-term average for the 23rd week in a row, he said. Throughout Iraq, weekly casualties decreased by three percent last week, continuing to remain below the long-term average for the 21st week in a row, Anderson said. Civilian casualties have dropped from 1,700 in January 2007 to 170 this month.
I think I can speak for the rest of the Samizdatistas when I raise my glass and say to our armed forces: “Well done lads!”
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Yes, this deserves a “hear hear”.
As the avarice of the hard men of Belfast and Armaugh exhausted recruiting, and the returns in Corsica diminished, the Arabs of pillage are running out of martyr heroes and turn to the deficients.
Not that diminishes what these marvelous lads have done.
But Bush Lied and People Died!!! I think.
A pyrrhic victory if there ever was one. From what I gather, most of the regulars here regard the Iraq enterprise as a worthwhile expedniture of state funds and young men’s lives. Might some of you inform as to who, in your opinion, has gained from our victory.
The Iraqis? Tens of thousands of whom (atleast) have perished over the past five years, while the rest of whom are left without electricity, water or even shelter? How many of them would have preferred a quite, if somewhat unfree, life under Saddam?
We the Willing Allies? After earning the enmity of much of the world, and angering Muslims resident in the West? And that isn’t even mentioning the Western lives and monies wasted in Iraq – which one can expect in a war situation, but which is only all the more reason to avoid such situations.
Or perhaps was this a war to obtain oil? Don’t make me laugh, the price of oil rocketed up since the start of hostilities, whilst Iraqi production has good as disappeared.
And at the end of it all, we have an Iraq dominated by Islamic radicals to a much greater extent than under Saddam, with consequent retardations of social freedoms and indeed safety from some over-zealous stoning.
Victory? At most, we haven’t lost as mcuh as we might have done.
Sadly Saddam had turned to Islamic radicalism years before he got overthrown.
Not just funding various nuts (most of whom still despised him), but even demented gestures like donating his own blood to be used as ink for a copy of the Koran.
As for the war – win or lose I still think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in 2003 (yes I am still demented enough to think containment could have worked).
However, I am glad we are winning.
This is the big gap between people like me and the “Bush lied” trash.
To almost echo Paul’s sentiments, we’re there now- we might as well focus on that and be mindful that it has been worse- this is progress.
You seem more interested in Saddam’s publicity stunts and “gestures” than in the actual contents of what he did (btw, what nuts did he fund?). I suppose by those lights Iraq was a splendid success, as it was certainly a memorable “gesture” – in theory, we sure did show those Islamic extremists.
If by winning you mean achieving our original objectives (a peaceful, democratic Iraq) or benefiting ourselves or others, than no, we aren’t. We just haven’t lost quite as badly as we might have done (e.g. as we might have done if those “nuts” you keep banging on about seized control of the gov’t rather than merely indulging in the occasional drive-by stoning).
tatty,
“what nuts did he fund” – all of them, including the people who said he should be killed (go figure).
A democratic and peaceful Iraq.
It is democratic – simple statement of fact (actually I am not a wild fan of democracy).
As for “peaceful” – well it is more peaceful than Detroit (not that this saying much).
Paul,
The most popular candidates are Islamic radicals. Is it still a democracy if the people vote for a dictatorship? Moreover, is it worth sacrificing the bones of a single British fusilier for such a self-defeating arrangement?
Is Detroit to be the new standard of peacefulness against which all other places will be judged? Besides, it’s a silly comparision: the choice wasn’t between turning Iraq into Detroit and leaving it as it is, the choice was between invading it on the one hand and leaving it be on the other. Given that Saddam would have had to break the habit of a lifetime to cause as much violence as has been unleashed by the invasion, one might suggest that leaving Iraq be would have been the better option.