Thursday Highlights

Gotta be quick … oh, hi! Good morning.

  1. Six bullet points on Iraq/Afghanistan that the President’s supporters likely either wish would go away but should defend (and likely won’t/don’t).
  2. Mr Mom’s beginner mistake is a classic.
  3. History lessons … answering 3 questions.
  4. I think the argument that the level of fine is not excessive is the harder, err … frankly impossible, one to make.
  5. And more government overreach.
  6. Speaking of government malfeasance and overreach … Democrat shenanigans that likely won’t make the (biased) mainstream news.
  7. Opposite day.
  8. Materials sciences.
  9. Meta-ontology.
  10. Two separate arguments that right-to-work is not a libertarian notion, here and here.
  11. Drones and the law.

One Response to Thursday Highlights

  1. 6 bullet points to defend:

    1. ‘Arbitrary end to combat’ in Iraq. Why should combat continue after victory?

    2. Confronting PM Maliki on domestic use of courts against rivals. This may be a fair point but it’s not clear to me how important it really is. The US should pay lip service to ‘best practices’ but the reality is gov’t in most of the Arab world is very corrupt. Iraq does have a democratic gov’t and got one before most other Arab countries. Deeper ‘nation building’ is problematic because it generates its own blowbac as domestic good government types are then seen as simply being aligned with a foreign power rather than having Iraq’s interests at heart.

    3. “Having expressed no interest in the importance of Parliament for the 18-month stalemate ….” Why exactly should we have intense interest in Iraq’s legislative disputes? Would we appreciate foreign gov’ts having an intense interest in, say, our fiscal cliff debate or debt ceiling discussions?

    4. Not sure what’s ‘extravagant and unexecutable’ about our civilian presence post-military withdrawal. Need a bit more detail before I can address that.

    5. Sounds kind of subjective but neighboring states are mostly dictatorships of one sort or another. Saudi Arabia is against democracy in Iraq both because they fear Shi’ites there will align with their enemy Iran and because they want to discourage their domestic population from pressing for reform. Syria’s a mess. Jordan has pretty good relations with Iraq.

    6. We entered Iraq on the premise that there were WMD that would likely be used either by Saddam or by terrorists he provided them too. We then were told the elimination of the Bathist regime was required to provide stability to the ME. We never signed up to make Iraq the 51st state and ensure domestic security there until the end of time. The war has indeed ended there for the US. If in the future Iraq descends into civil war then that’s no different than civil war erupting in any other country on the globe. Those who feel we should have remained in Iraq longer are obligated to provide us with the end goals they think such a stretgy would have been useful in producing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>