Thursday, October 19, 2006

Blog Round-Up

I read a lot more blogs now than I used to, and I'm always running across things I think others might find interesting. I don't have time to blog about them myself, so here's some things I think are worth taking a look at.

I've been "collecting" various blog posts on the Lancet study on casualties in Iraq. Crooked Timber, in my opinion one of the best blogs around (if you can understand what they're writing about) has quite a few posts on the study, all of which I recommend. There's this one on why that many casualties isn't that hard to believe, why the issue of death certificates does not undermine the study, and how the U.S. military's reliance on airpower has probably resulted in many of these casualties. And Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has a good post on why you can't simply choose not to believe the study because the numbers are so big. And here's an Iraqi's thoughts on the study.

Billmon has a post about his thoughts on the Iraq war and the "failure" of those opposed to it to stop it from happening, given the scale of the tragedy we've inflicted on the country. However, what his post really demonstrates is how those who opposed to the war feel the most regret over it happening, while those who supported it are as stupid and clueless and responsibility-free as ever. Oh, and still in charge.

R.A. Lenhardt over at blogs about how courts should seize the opportunity to strike down laws banning gay marriage, just as they did to strike down anti-miscegenation laws (I agree, and that will be a lengthier post at some point, I promise.)

That's all for now. Enjoy.


Fan Boy said...

What about a post concerning the take over Amareh in Iraq, and they are not calling this a full blown civil war?

We need to get our boys out, this no longer is about keeping the peace, but limiting the damage.

Xanthippas said...

Here's a link to that story for anyone interested:

Sniper One said...

How does pulling out and watching the country destoy itself on CNN do the Iraqi people any good?

Hardly a humanitarian move. Pulling out really shows how bad we must feel by leaving the Iraqi people to the chaos that we have caused.

Whats your plan to stablize the country, or are you just speaking out your ass without thinking.

Xanthippas said...

No one at this blog is dismissive of the disaster that will befall Iraq if our forces leave. But the disaster seems to be befalling Iraq even now, as our forces sit there in the midst of it. The question at this point is, can our forces even bring stability to the country? As of late it hardly seems as if they are even a check against the violence, given how things have gone in Baghdad since the stabilization plan was implemented in July.

As for a plan to stabilize the there a plan that will work? If you read more, you'll see my plan for stabilization involves sending 360,000 more soldiers to Iraq, but where are we going to get them from?

Reality is reality. Our forces are not bringing peace to Iraq, the plans thus far aren't working, and it's hard to imagine how they will. They seem utterly swamped by the violence.

That makes it absolutely clear what our options are.

Sniper One said...

As long as we keep with the "quagmire" talk, we aren't going to win.

How can we win if we don't beleive in it?

I would much rather hear:

"We are going to win in Iraq, we have a plan, and this is how we differ from George Bush", than to hear Iraq and our involvement is fuqed up, and we suck.

I'm all for more troops, I'm all for leveling Warizastan with as many nukes as it takes. I don't beleive that war is something you should "play to lose". (Play is a bad word, but I can't think of another)

Xanthippas said...

Well, no one here really prefers that word, but I understand what you mean by the concept in general. But the point is not simply to say that Iraq is in a "quagmire" and then keep repeating that ad nauseum. The point is to acknowledge the fact that things have gone badly wrong, and then figure out what to do next.

I would like to hear too that we are going to win in Iraq. I wish someone would tell me that, and then explain to me why they think that in such a way that convinces me that they are right. So far, no one has done that, from Bush on down to the lowliest blogger supporter of the war. The evidence simply does not bear that belief out.

Again, my strategy is to send more troops. However, given how the American people feel about this war, I seriously doubt they will line up in droves to fight a war simply on the premise of "we broke it and now we own it", nor will they support a draft for that reason. Nor will any political leader, from Bush to the next President whoever that is, call for such a thing. That says a lot about who we are as Americans, but that's how it is.

Sniper One said...

(On the Draft)... there is such a motion the floor... only it's not called a draft... and it's not a Republican bill...

Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)-H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.