< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Idiot moves goal-posts into the neighbouring province


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Idiot moves goal-posts into the neighbouring province

After having carped on about failure in Iraq since before the actual invasion, trying his best to turn ~1800 US deaths (includes non-combat deaths) into some sort of quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam (~60,000 US combat deaths, 100,000's wounded), ignoring studies of Iraqi civilian deaths which contradict his agenda, and ignoring evidence suggesting foreign arab terrorists caused numerous civilian deaths since 2004, Idiot Savant of No Right Turn is now gloating the Iraqi constitution in its final configuration may not resemble something written by the Libertarianz.

This is surely the worst case of goal post moving I've read in recent days.

No-one suggested Iraq would turn itself into a libertarian wonderland overnight. Such a fantasy could only happen if Iraq was indeed a US puppet state. And just imagine the whining from Idiot if that had been the case: "They're trampling all over the Iraqi people" "Yet another example of US capitalist imperialism" etc.

Now for the reality.

On the 18th of October, 2/3rds of Iraqis in each of the 18 Iraqi provinces must approve the not-yet-completed Constitution. Any one Iraqi province can scupper the vote, and its back to the drawing boards for the leading negotiators. The Constitution must appeal to the overall majority of Iraqis, or it's back to the drawing board. That's a level of self-determination New Zealanders have never had.

Unmentioned by Idiot - of course. Living up to his name, as usual.

UPDATE: Idiot has problems with statistics.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 8/24/2005 03:32:00 AM


Blogger Chris said...

And what are you going to say when the constitution becomes dominated by the Koran and curtails the rights and freedoms of women?

8/24/2005 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Roger, I suggest Helen is sent to the Iraqi parliament to "debate" them into submission.

Naturally, I'd clear this idea with Choudhary first. As Labour MP and leading thinker on the rights and freedoms of Women in other countries, his advice would be useful.

Why, you are not suggesting we reinstate Saddam, are you?

8/24/2005 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Keith said...

I'm still waiting for your constructive ideas on dealing with genocidal thugs, Roger. Or do you just hang around sniping as a substitute for putting your own thoughts out there for others to evaluate?

8/24/2005 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

We aspire to have the freedom to choose. That was not possible when Saddam was in power.

Iraq now has that opportunity. That doesn't guarantee they will make the best decision, only that they were able to choose where there was once no choice. That is freedom.

It has been purchased with lives.

Mocking it is like saying the opportunity should never have been given.

8/24/2005 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Keith said...

If Iraqis end up with sharia law and a repressive islamist state it's going to be seen as a failure on the part of America, unfortunately.
It's difficult to see how any amount of post-war planning could have helped change the outcome`whatever the 20/20 hindsight mob may claim, given the roles of Iran and Syria in the destabilisation of the country.
I can see a time when a war against all three simultaneously will be the only option.And Europe will have to do some of the heavy lifting in that case.

8/24/2005 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

"If Iraqis end up with sharia law and a repressive islamist state it's going to be seen as a failure on the part of America, unfortunately."

You said it keith.

8/24/2005 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Agreed, but the keyword is IF.

There was no IF involved in Saddam's Iraq. It was WHEN.

* If he kills his people in the 100,000's
* If he gets WMD
* If he funds terrorists to take the spotlight of his own goals
* If he makes a play for Kuwait
* If the UN remain ineffectual
* If UN corruption is ever discovered
* If the people don't get the food that was exchanged for Oil.

8/24/2005 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Keith said...

Zen, I think that going to war against Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do and should have happened much sooner than it did.
But what we're seeing now (major infiltration by thugs from Syria and Iran, some towns and villages effectively under the control of radical islamists, complete with public beheadings etc) is the result of "semi-warfare". Where a lying and hostile press and the screams from the left result in waging something less than an effective war for fear of its effects on the electorate at home.
In the end, we get half the job done and the left get to call it a failure, having conveniently overlooked their own part in it.
If we in the West are going to resort to war, let's do it properly and stop the killing when the job's done, not when the left scream and whine.

8/24/2005 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Agreed. I have yet to see a sensible and viable withdrawal policy from the left that will not result in much greater Iraqi bloodshed.

I also think the war against the Iraqi government ended when Saddam was captured, and his army defeated.

This new phase of foreign terrorist radicals working with a small minority of barbarian murderous thugs is totally distinct from the original conflict. All deaths since have been attributable to terrorists, not the peacekeeping forces.

8/24/2005 01:18:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Total delusion ZenTiger and you know it. You can't be that stupid to think an insurgency of this scope is the work of a small minority and totally distinct from the original conflict.

8/24/2005 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

The extremist part - a relative minority, but I am not, by that, trying to discount the tensions and plays between the different players.

Of course I think there is a relationship between the original conflict and today's situation.

However, to say the current situation was totally expected is a little far fetched. To say the war cannot be further dissected into distinct phases, each with their own significant factors would ignore the turns taken in the Iraq situation.

Post war Iraq could have been different in a number of scenarios, and I think the Bush administration was caught a little flat footed by the turn the war took.

8/24/2005 02:34:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

You guys must have missed the constitution updates. The insertion of Islamic law into the constitution has been altered to now say 'it's only one of the sources'.

Federalism is now a given, the only big problem to sort out now is the distribution of oil revenues.

After that I believe they have a period to make minor changes. I'm not sure if there's a period for amendments after the referendum. Will look it up. For comparison, the US Constitution took what - five years to write? I know McArthur had the Japanese writing theirs for many years. I think the Iraqis have done quite well to get to this point, despite all the violence from groups which stand against it.

And Ackers, saying "You must be stupid to not think what I think" isn't an argument likely to gain you any sympathy.

8/24/2005 03:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home