Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Victory or Defeat? Liberal Scoreboard:


My original post "Unite the Country" has gotten pretty far down the page, so here is an update with the "scoreboard".

Otter at "The Otter Limits" blog was first to "get it" (accepted the offer/challenge) and supports VICTORY in spite of his political differences with President Bush and his belief that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Otter now supports Victory and uniting the country.

Dave at "Oklahoma Lefty" blogs also "gets it" and even got past his distrust and disagreement with me (Red Stater) and joined us in supporting VICTORY in Iraq. Dave now supports victory and uniting the country.

Anthony from "Concerned Citizens of Today" blogs also "gets it", and supports VICTORY in spite of his disagreements with the President, the war and with conservatives in general. Anthony supports victory and uniting the country.

Again, I applaud them all.
It takes a brave blogger to even appear to change his/her opinion on anything...much less such a controversial issue such as Iraq.
It is my sincere hope that other progressive open minded bloggers will agree with Otter, Dave and Anthony and join us in supporting the troops by supporting their victory.
If you are an anti-war blogger (until now), take the challenge/offer for yourself and keep me writing pro-Democrat/liberal stories (uhhhggg) while helping unite the country.

Here is the disclaimer from the original post to make it clearer and easier for you.
Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.”

Oh, yes the rest of the scoreboard...

Here is aaron/avandeg at "Bombshell" blogs who supports the defeat of his own country and military. He doesn't believe we are in a war, doesn't believe the Islamic throatcutters really exist and if they do they are just a "few thugs with knives" and not a threat to America.
aaron took the challenge but said "no thanks" to the offer of supporting victory for his own country and helping America agree on on simple thing. (Victory)

And the latest is "Rodger" at Rodger A Paynes Blog, who also is in "Jihad Denial" and believes American troops are in Iraq to kill innocent Iraqi's.
Rodger writes... "US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail".
S0, (according to Rodger), the only way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi's and the world is for everyone to realize that our troops are the "bad guys", killing innocent Iraqi's for oil, fun and profit. Then they will like us? I doubt that very much.
Rodger is in DENIAL and for DEFEAT?

12/27/2006 UPDATE on Rodger A Payne: He is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville, where he has "taught" since 1991.
Now THAT'S funny... not ha-ha funny, the other kind.
It makes one wonder just what the good Professor Payne is teaching our college students about politics?
Or religion? It seems Rodger Payne is also quoted as saying that the south is backward and religion is largely to blame.
Corrected-12/28-A Rodger M. Payne teaches at Louisiana State University.
I mistakenly attributed a quote from Rodger M Payne of LSU as a quote from Rodger A Payne of Louisville University.
With apologies to both.
It was Rodger M Payne (LSU)who said ..."the south is backward and religion is part of it".
But I suspect (from his blog posts) that Rodger A (UL) might agree with Rodger M (LSU).
So, instead of "one" Roger Payne teaching kids that Americans are the bad guys in Iraq and Christians are backward... there are two.
Great...

Two moonbats for the price of... 2.

See my post Fake Journalism 101 about other liberal College professors/politcal pundits indoctrinating college students...
Stay tuned...
More to come on The Pontifications of Professor(s) Payne (next)...

So, the "score" so far is... Victory-3, Defeat-2
Who's next?
-red

Labels: , ,

23 Comments:

Blogger Otter said...

Hey Red, you get a chance to read my New Parable blog yet? If so, what did you think?

http://newparable.blogspot.com

3:45 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

Yes... great work,
Amen brother.

I encourage all red staters to check it out at http://newparable.blogspot.com

Lets see you're pro victory in Iraq, support a flat tax and eliminating taxes on groceries AND you are a Christian...
you had better be careful or they just might kick you out of the lefty-libs club.
If so, you are welcome over here,it's a big tent.

6:50 PM  
Blogger Rodger said...

The LSU religion professor is a completely different person who happens to have the same first and last name as me.

I responded to your Iraq challenge because I thought you were a serious person who wanted to debate policy (or perhaps ideas). I've since learned that you are someone who throws mud anonymously.

You know nothing about my classes -- and most likely nothing of my academic work. So why are you writing about it?

More importantly, why am I bothering with this?

12:11 AM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

I apologize for the error, it has been corrected and noted.

You may not realize it Professor Payne but there is a serious problem with teachers bringing their political opinions into the classroom and teaching it as fact.

After reading several Bush hating type posts on your blog(s) it is very doubtful that you would be able to restrain yourself in the classroom where you are the "authority".

Your comment here that American troops are killing the majority of innocent Iraqi's and your sole source link is to a post written by yourself...makes one wonder what else you make-up and tell students as fact.

As a private citizen you certainly have a right to your opinions (wrong or not) but you are not merely a private citizen when in the classroom.
Tax dollars pay your salary...and I pay taxes... students deserve to learn from someone without an agenda.

You sir have an agenda and from what i have seen very little self control with that agenda.

That is why I am writing about it.
As a concerned citizen.
I understand why you would have a problem with that, but unfortunately you can't flunk ME for challenging you on it.

I hope I am wrong... and if so, I will apologize.
I will certainly give you the space and opportunity to dispute my concerns.
-redstater

1:13 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

Actually Red, I didn't realize I WAS a part of the lefty-liberals club?
Oddly enough, I don't ever recall ever claiming to even BE a liberal.

8:47 AM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

well, on your blog you do say... "right wing, left wing or chicken wing...you decide"...
and according to those "conservative or liberal" tests you posted... you are pretty middle of the road conservative...so...
no wonder I like ya'!

BTW- i make the best chicken wings on the planet. (i'll be happy to share my recipe)
-red

(can you believe i turned up two college professors within a few hundred miles of each other that have the same name- rodger payne?)

One thinks Americans are killing all of the innocent Iraqi's and the other thinks the south is backward and religion is to blame...
makes me wanna go back to college just for the fight alone.

9:31 AM  
Blogger Otter said...

LOL! You are right! I did put that up there. Hmmmm.....sounds like I need a new headline. Don't want to give anyone the wrong impression of me.

1:00 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

Ok, I've got my headline updated now. Best I could come up with on short notice though.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Rodger said...

Literacy check.

You quote this sentence from one of my (probably hundreds) of posts about Iraq: "US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail."

You decided to put "responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis" in italics, as if I was claiming that Americans were killing innocent Iraqis for sport.

Please read more carefully.

I said that US troops were the "foreign fighters" responsible for killing the largest numbers of innocent Iraqis.

There are three implications of this that you obviously miss:

First, the US has had 130 to 150,000 troops in Iraq for 45+ months. The total insurgency is typically estimated at 20,000, though it may be somewhat larger. Say 50% larger, or 30,000.

Estimates vary a bit, but the foreign component of that is typically given as 3 to 10%.

It is not much of a leap for me to conclude that the 800 to 3000 "foreign fighters" -- who, incidentally, are primarily trying to kill American soldiers -- are responsible for many fewer dead Iraqis than the 140,000 US soldiers.

Second, given the almost completely erroneous justifications for the original war (WMD/Al Qaeda links), and the small size of the insurgency, the overwhelming majority of the 650,000 "excess" dead Iraqis are innocent.

Surely, you would agree that the US is responsible for the war.

Logically, the US can be held responsible for dead Iraqis even if American soldiers didn't personally shoot or bomb them. Would those people be dead if the US hadn't launched war in March 2003?

That's the entire point of using the word "excess" to describe the 650,000 victims of this war.

Third, just before writing about the foreign fighters, I noted that Iraq is now in a civil war. Most of the fighting in 2006 has been sectarian. Literally, most of the current killing is Iraqi-Iraqi (Sunni-Shia) and is not directly linked to the foreign fighters (whether American or Saudi).

However, ask yourself if Iraq would be in civil war if the US had not attacked.

Even US intelligence agencies now conclude that the US is likely contributing more to the violence in Iraq than it is stopping. What is so flawed about my conclusion?

The American generals say that this war cannot be "won" militarily. Frankly, the US doesn't want to win a civil war because it wants a relatively even-handed Sunni-Shia outcome, settled politically.

Honest question: in your mind, who is the opponent the US is fighting in Iraq? Saddam's army is long gone. The insurgency is primarily Sunni, but Shia militia are growing fast and potentially a much larger source of violence in Iraq.

If the enemy is exclusively those 3000 foreign fighters in Iraq, then the current strategy (going house-to-house in some cases) is a recipe for disaster. It will make the entire country hate the US.

The US is seeking victory against violence in Iraq -- not against a particular foe. Like the larger "war on terrorism" (a tactic, particularly a "weapon of the weak"), that framing may make for useful rhetoric, but it assures disastrous policy.

The US needs to be more selective and specific about defining its foes and purposes.

2:04 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

reality check:

sorry for the length but you covered a lot of ground and left a lot of holes behind so lets get started...

No,
I simply quoted what you posted here in my comments section word for word...not one of your hundreds of other posts on the subject.
I posted it exactly as you did.
(i generally put quotes in italics for emphasis and did not select one portion of your quote as you state.

Now you are dancing around your own words... attempting to "split hairs"... nice nuance, but your words speak for themselves.

That "leap" that you are so eager to make assumes that all the car-bombings, hit-squad attacks, deaths by natural causes and from the so-called "civil war" (sunni v Shia) deaths are minor but can be blamed on US Troops anyway and that US troops are killing hundreds, no thousands of innocents to get one terrorist without regard for innocent life.
That is a BIG LEAP sir, and requires you to ignore lots of facts including giving your own military the benefit of the doubt.
WHY? what evidence do YOU have that our troops are willing to kill innocent people without regard for numbers when in fact the opposite is true and that is why we don't have more troops in there and why we haven't bombed them back to the stone ages or beyond. To limit collateral damage.
You also ignore the fact that sunni extemists are attacking innocent shi'ites and shia extremists are attacking sunni innocents...you do claim there is a civil war going on don't you?

you said...
"Surely, you would agree that the US is responsible for the war".

Surely you jest.(never call me shirley)
Sure... responsible in the same way we were responsible for WWII, we were attacked (and not by Hitler)!
You ignore the fact that All Saddam had to do was say...
"come on in" like Khadafi (Libia) did and he might not be looking at the knoose right now.
16 UN resolutions, weapons inspectors deceived and thrown out.. final deadline after final deadline and a final-final offer rejected, we gave Saddam every possible chance to avoid war.
Saddam is responsible for what his country became and he is about to pay the price.

You wish to tie every death in iraq since 2003 to America and the troops... why then don't you attach deaths where America doesn't act to the tally?
If we don't act (like darfur) aren't we responsible for those deaths rodger?

How many people on the planet die from starvation when the American military could feed them all rodger? Your number seems a little low to me.

Just who do I think we are fighting in Iraq?
perhaps you should read my post "save the planet" or the one you commented on earlier "victory".
But for your benefit here ya go.
Radical Muslims rodger.
How many muslims are there in the world?
There are hundreds of islamic terrorist groups with thousands of members in each... Iran feeds the fight for Shia's in Iraq along with Syria and Lebanon.
Al Qaeda feeds the fight for the Sunni's in Iraq by way of Syria, Afganistan and Pakistan.
Both radical sunnis and radical shi'ites want sole control of Iraq. Do you know why they each want control of Iraq rodger?

Do you know the difference between "The Twelvers" and Al Qaeda?
If not, you are qualified to be the next Democrat intelligence committee chairman.

and finally, we don't always have the luxury of "defining our foes" but that statement accurately demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the term Jihad...and thus I correctly diagnosed you as suffering from "Jihad Denial".

No...you are right professor payne, Iraq would not be in a "civli war"... Saddam would be bulldozing more people into mass graves, holding children of political enemies in prison and paying the UN to look the other way while he built Nuclear weapons...you must ask YOURSELF, do YOU think he would let Iran get them without HIM having them? (hardly)

One word on civil war... had we not had ours, slavery might not have ended. yes?

great post professor payne, you made my points beautifully.
-red

3:41 PM  
Blogger Rodger said...

Saddam was a very bad dictator, no question. I'm not confident he ranked particularly close to #1 and his past killing of Iraqis didn't stop the Reagan (and to a lesser extent Bush I) administrations from cozying up to him when it was expedient.

That said, excess deaths are excess deaths. More innocent people have died in Iraq since March 2003 than would have died under Saddam. 650,000 more, as estimated by a credible, peer-reviewed article published in one of the very best medical journals in the world.

Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was a secular dictatorship with no ties to Al Qaeda. The State Department's 2001 report on terrorism said that it hadn't sponsored an act of anti-western terror since 1993.

If the US threw a dart at a map of the middle east and invaded whatever country that dart hit, we'd likely have a situation somewhat similar to what exists in Iraq today. A few foreign fighters would find their way in, but nationalist forces would be fighting American occupation. Iraq was a particularly bad target because of the ethnic division in that state. It made it prone to civil war.

None of this provided a particularly good reason for attacking Iraq. If saving innocents was the goal, then US policy has utterly failed.

I've blogged 1000s of words about the pre-war showdown with Saddam, so there's no point in rehashing that here. Only a fool would fail to admit that the pre-war justifications for war were paper thin. Numerous republicans in Congress now say that they would not have gone to war in 2003 (or voted to allow Bush the authority in 2002) had they known then what they know now.

The key question is why they didn't know then what so many know now. Why do anti-war voices have less credibility -- even though they were right in 2002 and 2003? I was one of those voices. On the first day of the war, I reminded a local radio station that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that it was not linked to Al Qaeda.

Had I been in charge of US foreign policy in 2002, we would have redoubled our efforts in Afghanistan (which is now going to hell, by the way) and devoted far more resources to the 1000s of terrorists you worry about. War in Iraq had made that harder and helped jihadi recruiting.

Approximately zero anti-western Al Qaeda terrorists were in Iraq in 2002 and damn few are in Iraq now. The foreign fighters are insurgents, the jihadi equivalents of grunts, not the kinds of terrorists that can secretly penetrate western societies and launch attacks.

I can be quite hawkish about US foes and purposes -- again, proving you know almost nothing about my personal politics -- but the US has screwed up royally by launching war on the wrong target and chewing up resources (men, money and machines) quite wastefully.

Can't I be angry at the administration for reducing American security? Why do you make assumptions about my politics?

By the way, I saw General Casey interviewed on CNN this past weekend and he said the US had no concrete evidence that Iran was significantly backing the Shia militia forces in Iraq.

Note: Have you see "It's a Wonderful Life"? Geoge Bush is kind of like George Bailey in reverse. Bailey saved his kid brother Harry, who saved those men on the transport plane in WW I.

Bush launched the wrong war, making the US responsible for needless costs in Iraq. Every car bomb that explodes now is one car bomb that likely would not have exploded under Saddam.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The US is cozy with Pakistan, which is ruled by a military dictator who has a finger on the nuclear trigger. Pakistan is in violation of various nonproliferation and anti-terror international norms (Kashmir).

If the US invaded Pakistan over these issues, it would likely spark a terrible war not all that different than what is raging in Iraq right now.

Would that war be correct just because some anti-American forces would go there and ally with the locals against US troops?

5:49 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

saddam was a bad dictator as opposed to which good dictator?

Thank God you weren't in charge of foreign policy and/or keeping Americans safe.
Saddam would be in an arms race with Iran (funded by oil for food) to see who could nuke Israel and the US first.

Ahmadinejad is the chief twelver and twelvers are in Iraq... you do the math.

One day when the middle east resembles europe or other free parts of the world perhaps you will have the chance to rethink your position... or one day when the sky glows over Israel and the US is forced to act...in a much bigger fasion than now, you will understand what you were missing back in 2006.

Until then... you have the luxury of speculation and partisan politics.
I prefer not.
-red

6:36 PM  
Blogger Rodger said...

Oil for food?

Please.

Yes, Saddam got some extra cash under-the-table, but as the Duelfer Report demonstrated, it wasn't buying him any wmd. It was small potatoes in the big picture.

Do you think Musharraf is a good dictator?

During the cold war, this was the operative phrase: "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

That's Musharraf today.

Actually, that's how international politics has traditionally been viewed -- and that's the traditional conservative position, I might add. It's been the policy of Republicans from Kissinger (Nixon) to Scowcroft (Bush I).

The current Bush talks like a classic liberal (all the pro-democracy talk is quite Wilsonian), but embraces military power like a Jacksonian.

That's the dangerous mix that scares the bejesus out of a lot of people.

When Clinton democrats used similar rhetoric in the '90s to justify use of American military power in places like Haiti, Republicans in Congress howled.

Party of my job as an academic is to point out hypocrisy. One of my most critical pieces about then-contemporary US foreign policy decisions was published during the Clinton years.

9:11 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

small potatoes...
12/23/2006-
"Iraqi citizens have filed a civil lawsuit in a US Court against the wheat exporter AWB. The citizens are seeking $255 million in damages from the company for its role in the oil-for-food kickbacks scandal. (the suit is for only 2 years worth of kickbacks from only ONE company!)

Bush (43) has changed foreign policy to a large degree. While you are correct about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy of the past, things are changing since 2001...Sept 11th to be exact.

Those policies have been determined to be bad policies for the most part... Democrat or Republican... whatever.
Having said that, if you have a country that is interested in moving toward democracy and is an ally against Islamic fascism (totalitarianism), and the only alternative IS totalitarianism vs a "dictator" like Musharraf, then who do YOU help? would you rather the taliban were running things because thats the choice.
Nice try... painting me into that corner, but no cigar.

So you agree with Bush when he sounds like JFK but get scared when he actually wants to back it up?
Typical modern day democrat rhetoric... all talk, but no action.

As far as part of your "job" being to point out hypocricy... would that be ONLY Republican hypocricy or is there no such thing as liberal hypocricy?
Because I missed those posts on your blog and in your "work".

How about pointing out the hypocricy of only pointing out Republican hypocricy.

Were you siding with the howling Republicans or President Clinton?

Pointing out Republican congressional hypocricy during the Clinton presidency hardly qualifies you as "fair and balanced".

Nor would one critique of democrats vs the 1,000 or whatever posts bashing Bush.

So, I forget... do you support Victory in Iraq or not?

9:55 PM  
Blogger Otter said...

"Do you know the difference between "The Twelvers" and Al Qaeda? If not, you are qualified to be the next Democrat intelligence committee chairman."

Well, the difference is the Twelvers are Shia and Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Do I just go down to the Oklahoma Democratic Headquarters to tell them I'm their next intelligence committee chairman now?

Should I go into more detail for them? Shi'ites believe that after Muhammad died, his family should have succeeded him while the Sunnites believe that after he died, Abu Bakr (who they consider the first male convert) was the true heir.

3:22 PM  
Anonymous avandeg said...

This is a great debate. It expresses exactly how neo-conservatives have to frame their debate in a narrow false choice argument and will not respond to the facts.

I'd like to apologize on behalf of rational people from Oklahoma. This red-stater guy does not represent a large percentage of people in this state. There are a lot of reasonable people who live here too. Look at our Governor Brad Henry. He would not have been elected in Alabama, Wyoming or Utah. Hopefully reason will win out in the end. The few people that are left screaming these illogical unsubstantiated lies are slowly being marginalized and will eventually be left behind.

Keep fightin' Rodger!

6:28 PM  
Anonymous avandeg said...

Censoring your comments now, eh?

It's Pravda! Come here for the truth!

6:30 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

whatever you say aaron...(lol), so you voted for defeat in the poll too right?
-red

7:14 PM  
Anonymous avandeg said...

It's sad that you (red-stater) support defeat in Iraq. We won a long time ago. Our military isn't a babysitter and we're not nation builders. Isn't that what the UN should be doing? We went in and kicked butt in 19 days. Right now we are a target in Iraq. We're not a stabilizing force, we're a uniting force for the Islamofascists as you call them. If we leave there will be chaos, but you can't say we lost. We set up a government which is more than they should have asked for. Would Americans require the British to stay and fight off an insurgency that didn't want a Democratic government? No, because we aren't a bunch of wimps that can't fight for ourselves.

We did our job. Let's leave and when it doesn't stick and some other madman takes over, we just go back in and clean up again. Put another government in power and see if that sticks. We can't save every woman and child (they can fight too) that hides in their house from the bad guys. Why should our soldiers die to protect these people who won't fight for their rights?

Genocide? Is that our problem? Why don't we keep it from happening in other places then? If they need help, they can ask the whole world (UN) for help and then we can go in with the support (troops and money) of the rest of the world if we want to build nations. Then we can all be targets.

Red-stater wants a victory that makes amends for our failure in Vietnam. He wants to prove that we can build nations by force even when the majority of their population says they don't want it. He wants to say, "Look! We can do something besides bomb and destroy with a machine that's built purely to bomb and destroy!" We don't not have an army of policemen!

Why is this victory (as you define it) so important to you? Why are you willing to kill our children for your victory? Are your kids in this army? Would you trade your child's life for the freedom of these people who won't even fight for it themselves?

1:50 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

does this even justify a reply?

maybe a short one...just for fun.

Look, if YOU choose to not "know" about (ignore) the "Religion of Peace", that's YOUR business... God bless our troops who are fighting in order for Americans like you to remain that blissfully ignorant
(if they so choose).

Yes, I have relatives in combat...
and the situation in Iraq has nothing to do with the sixties or 70's (farout man)...or Vietnam... where, (by the way) John Kerry served.

It's going to be difficult to have an honest debate about the war on terror/war in Iraq if you don't agree that either exists.

I'll be happy to debate strategy with anyone...
A=more troops in Iraq
B=Same troop level
C= zero troops in Iraq
i might be wrong about strategies... but God help us (you including aaron) if i'm wrong about debating for victory.
-red

2:22 PM  
Anonymous avandeg said...

It was kind of a vague answer, but I'll put you down for a "Yes, I (red-tater) support killing our children to force freedom on an ungrateful population of wimps."

So, red-tater supports defeat. Got it. Your definition of defeat assigned to me is no greater or more correct than my definition of defeat assigned to you, and I'd be willing to bet that your ignorance matches mine. But unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I'm ignorant about many things which is why I read (not just my own partisan hack sources, but even yours) and discuss.

Why do you keep using my name like you know some big secret about me? I know you live in Edmond (aka Redsville), but I'm not broadcasting it out to everyone because I thought you might want your privacy. Maybe privacy is a concept you don't understand though. Avandeg is my logon because Aaron was taken (surprise).

I'm trying to talk about the subject of your post and I'm not making fun of your grammar, or using any naughty words that you won't print, or even saying anything negative about you here, but instead of talking about facts or taking my points and trying to debate/refute them, you just call me ignorant and patronize me with your tone. Doesn't your position stand up on its own merit? Why do you just use rhetorical techniques?

2:50 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

aaron, you came here and posted over 20 one-word sequencial comments as well as copying the same "no thanks" comment over and over in post after post... now you are claiming to want to discuss issues that you aren't willing to admit even exist.

so cut out the cute attempts to draw me into some kind of pre-framed debate you have rehearsed in your mind...

Until you are willing to discuss reality, then there is no more discussion.

8:10 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

BTW- "Redville" only exists in the blogosphere, like Red S Tater... and YOU.

8:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home