Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty politico’s will be markedly different.
seems like the pla ce is blowing up.
“When 2009 rolls around, and if HillBama is in office, you better
believe the reporting by the MSM and the talking points from lefty
politico’s will be markedly different.”ABSOLUTELY!
MALIKI was unable to reach any of his stated objectives ALL MSM reports this as something much less than a great victory for MAliki even the Wall Street Journal. Sadr controls more of Basra than he did before according to CNN
Well, now we’re getting mortar fire and Americans killed in the Greenzone. I suppose that’s progress. We’ve also had as nearly many Americans killed in Jan/feb march as in all of 2005. I suppose that’s progress or a sort, too.
You said, “Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life.”
And it’s none of our business, we do not belong there, it is not our country and despite what Baghdad Bush says, the oil under their sand is not our oil.
Then you said, “There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.” Anyone who believes Baghdad Bush’s propaganda that we are fighting a-Qaeda there, or that AQ would have a snowflake’s chance in hell of “taking over Iraq” is a fool or a liar.
Why do right-wingers hate America so much they have become so contrarian that they are incapable of making any decisions that help our nation? Only damage.
this whole incident just shows how tenuous any reductions in violence in Iraq will be. We haven’t defeated any major players in Iraq…just struck deals, paid off, or segrated them away. Even if we achieve substantial gains in security, they can be reversed in a flash without continuous pressure applied.How long are we supposed to keep these people from killing each other?
And why are we now protecting the Iranian-backed set?Is 100 years in Iraq acceptable to you? is it worth the cost? Will the US military remain at reduced effectiveness for the benefit of Iraqis? isn’t the US military supposed to defend US interests? You must say it’s doing so by backing the Iran-supported government… really?
All you can ask for is one more year, six more months, etc… How many extensions do you want?If you are not willing to define failure (because presumably it is not “acceptable”), and success is not possible, then this war will never end.
So because you believe there is something called “success” in Iraq, even though it can’t be defined in any meaningful way, you are willing to wait, while others fight and die, for “success” to appear.
It’s actually quite simple:
Let’s define this thing called “failure” as what happens when we have to leave because we realize we can’t achieve our mission without significantly damaging our own strategic interests. Doesn’t matter what that is exactly.
Then let’s define this thing called “success” as what happens when Iraqis all agree to stop fighting to we can leave without feeling “icky” about having turned the country into a flaming hole in the ground. (and lets note that this version of success has been significantly reduced from our original idea of “greeted with roses”.)
We all agree failure is possible. I don’t think there’s much to argue there.
You think success is possible, I don’t.
Let’s say we do what you want to do and try to stay until the job is “successful”
If I’m wrong, and success is possible, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and pacifying a country, they won’t be killing each other as much and Iran will still be a powerful influence.
If I’m right, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and failing to pacifying a country, they’ll still be killing each other and Iran will still be a powerful influence.
How large does x have to be before it wasn’t worth it? You have to admit, at least hypothetically, that there is some value for x for which this war will not have been worth it, and for which continued death and destruction would not have been worth it.
Furthermore, is there some value for x that would convince you that success is not possible? If not, you are saying you would have the US fight this war forever if that’s how long it took to do the mission. I would say that’s not very serious.
The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
I find it odd that a philosophy which has considered america “exceptional” and uses the concept of personal responsibility to deflect against acusations of bad behaviour towards others (ie, Castro, not the US, is personally responsible for the embargo that has helped to keep cuba impoverished), or who rail against those who “blame america first” when it is the terrorists who are personally responsible for the atrocities they commit on our soil, is unable to apply that concept to the Iraqi people vis-a-vis their own security.If we leave and peolpe continue to die, it won’t be us doing the killing, it will be them. They can be personally responsible for that too.
I wonder what progress you’d like them to admit to? You’re SO intent on propping up this failed action, that YOU never admit how precarious the situation has become – in today’s news. we find that Sadr is setting terms for a cease fire! A cease fire in a country NOT at civil war? Flopping Acces should just be renamed – major FLOP!
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/31/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Let me refresh your memory.We were told the war would take a few weeks and cost a few tens of a billion dollars.
Now, it’s over five years later; thousands of American dead; trillions pissed away; no end in sight. Talk to boots on the ground, they’ll tell you that it’s a long time since we made any progress at all. What’s funny is that you and people like you have been telling us about “progress” for five years!
Tell me, do you really believe that we’re so stupid that we’ve just forgotten all the claims you guys have made over the years, that we can keep believing your promises that something will happen in the future?
I had an employee once who seemed energetic and full of positive energy and gave me great progress reports. Almost a month into it I said, “These progress reports always seem encouraging, but you’re really going to have to deliver some actual work pretty soon.” He never did; he vanished, leaving most of the work he’d said he was doing undone.
Tell us when you get actual, real progress; when Iraqis and Americans stop *dying* by violence; when American soldiers have left Iraq; when there’s reliable power and water in Baghdad; when Iraqis stop dying from medieval diseases like cholera that had all but vanished from the country before the invasion.
Otherwise, please don’t insult our intelligence and your own by constantly claiming that some intangible “progress” has occurred. It’s been five years.
This whole shell game by the right-wingers is becoming ludicrous. So, the leader if Iraq, who is more in bed with Iran than any other faction, is ordering an assault on another faction in Iraq . Somehow that is not a civil war and there seems to be no problem among the neocon supporters that it is the US troops who have to actually carry out this offensive. So now, after more bloodshed, we are right back to where we were 1,2,3, etc. Friedman’s ago. Explain to us again how that is progress?
A parliamentary delegation from Maliki’s own coalition defies him going to Iran to let them broker a negotiation with Sadr: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story32055.html
In essence, Maliki was ignored in Basra while negotiations in the conflict were directly with made with Sadr as Iranians underwrote them.
Lots of typical leftist, anti-Bush/”anti-war” talking points and rhetoric from the usual stereotypes, but NO SUGGESTIONS on the future. Nothing but blame Bush, it’s all Bush’s fault, yada yada yada. ok, fine. Ya all sold me. I promise I will not vote for him in the fall. I’ll vote for the candidate who has the best plan for Iraq:Sen McCain: fight to win and make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorSen Obama: withdraw forces on the ground, but leave enough to make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorSen Clinton: withdraw forces on the ground, but leave enough to make Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terrorOne thing remains clear: force INCREASES have led to stabilization, but premature evacuations like the one the Brits did leads to destabilization.Suggestion: quit your whining and pony up to the reality that this fall you-YOU will be voting to continue the war in Iraq. Who do you want to lead that fight against Al Queda?
Typical “sky is falling” chickenlittling hysteria everytime another “setback”, challenge, or incident occurs. Basrah will be just another comma in the history books.
According to Bill Roggio:
Almost every hawkish blog on Iraq I read posts Roggio for their insights into Iraq. Since Roggio’s argues Sadr’s casualties evidence his losing, I thought I’d go contra Roggio’s calculations: http://greggrant.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/in-counterinsur.html
Now if Roggio’s numbers are meaningless in this kind of conflict, what else is left that posits the claim that Sadr was ‘getting his butt kicked’?
Doug wrote:
And almost every anti-occupation lefty willfully ignores what comes out of Iraq from Roggio, Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Matt Sanchez, and milblogs who don’t share your interpretation of the facts.
I actually do place value on Greg Grants insights, so thank you for providing the link.
Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell. Throughout conflicts, there are ebbs and flows, successes and setbacks. The question is: Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?
The anti-war left have been a ball-and-chain to a successful prosecution of this war as much as the strategic mistakes that are a part of any conflict, and which happen in all wars. They’ve been this way from day one, magnifying, spotlighting, underscoring, highlighting, and underlining any and all negative news as if it were the end of the world.
This is just one more challenge posed and it won’t be the last.
Let’s see. Scott has asked a question as I have before. What do you guys on the left want to do???? How are you going to stop both Al Queda and Iran from taking over Iraq and making it a terrorist’s paradise???The only hing I hear is to leave and let them take over. Do you really think that that is a good idea??? And what happens when we have to goin there in 5 years or so with a much bigger and better motivated enemy.
And I am with Scott, I am not voting for Bush either this november. Who will be your boogie man then?????
Here is another question to all of you lefties out there. Do you think it was agood idea o stay in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Balkans for more than 10 years after the conflicts were over???? Was it agood idea to stay in Germany and quell the Wolves that assasinated people for the Reich???? If you haven’t noticed we are still there to this day and WWII ended in 1945. What about the fanatics that were in Japan at the end ofthe war, should we have left the Japanese government to go after them themselves??? Or should we have left South Korea to get overrun bythe North???
Just wanting to know what your thoughts are on those????
Another good question is do you know how long it took the USA to write the Constitution after the Revolutionary War???? It does not happen overnight.
“Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?”Here’s better questions: Does america have the correct amount of troops and endless supply of money (or does china, which is who we borrow from) to win wars anymore.Let’s start with a draft. One with NO exceptions. Everybody goes to fight the greatest threat to this country EVAH! Yes, even Bill Kristol’s and John Bolton’s kids.Then we revoke the tax breaks to the richest 1% of americans, and throw-in a 2% across the board tax on corporate profits to pay for the war and to support the troops.How about it, righties? Willing to put your money and lives where your mouths are.My prediction: Never gonna happen. When push comes to shove, the Right will back down and admit the whole clusterfuck isn’t worth THEIR lives and money!
“Will they admit progress”?
Judging by the majority of anti-free-Iraq posts on this thread, I guess one can safely say the answer to that is “no”….
Greg Grant’s post points out that Sadr taps into the pool of “Iraq’s “no future” generation. Young, disenfranchised men who grew up during the embargo period with no future and very angry.
Well, there is no more embargo. The new Iraq has the opportunity to lessen the numbers of “no future”, disenfranchised men…. thereby reducing the numbers of recruits for Sadr. It is a goal worthy of pursuing. But that goal has been slowed because of lack of security, oil smuggling, slow political progress, and the flight of many of Iraq’s professionals.
These are all things the Iraq govt is striving to reverse, and as Stix points out, none of this stuff happens overnight.
It took quite a while for Vietnam to recover, and their largest gains came after they were granted membership to the WTO in 1996. Iraq requested membership in 2004, but has not yet been granted entry. Saudi Arabia became a member in 2005, after decades of negotiations. I’m not a huge fan of the WTO, but a formal entry into int’l trade promotes internal reform, and builds confidence of potential foreign investors in Iraq. Those opinions are what yields results, where my personal opinion does nothing.
Too bad so many Americans prefer to predict Iraq’s failure, based on some sort of self-declared crystal ball skills, instead of cheering them on to success. All merely to promote their political agendas. It exhibits a narcissism in this country that I find saddening.
Yada yada yada Robert. Same suggestion that somehow only poor leftists get sent to war. Newsflash, the Pentagon doesn’t want a draft because a volunteer army is better than a conscript army. Today’s soldiers and Marines aren’t mindless drones who get “stuck in Iraq.” Further, you can rant all you want about “righties”, but Hillary and Obama aren’t sending their daughters to war either. Neither do most Dems (btw, Congressional Dems have a lot more money and are a lot more corporate-tied than Republicans anymore).Back to the question: what’s your plan? I promise I won’t vote for GWB in the fall. So, who’s gonna make life happy-go-lucky in Iraq and fullfill all the socialist pipedreams you listed? Senator Obama’s gonna do that?Senator Clinton’s gonna do that?A Democratic Congress would do that if they controlled the House and Senate, right?Stop whining, start planning.
Scott,NOBODY. Your boys fucked this thing to a fairly-well. There is no short answer.But, if you believe that we should stay forever, then YOU pay for it.Screw the Dems, Obama, and Hillary as well. They can’t solve this mess, because NOBODY can. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, good luck putting it back in.BTW, without the draft, where do we get the troops to fight forever?There is no plan. You vote for Mr. 100 more years of Iraq War, I’ll stay in Argentina and laugh my ass off about the most powerful nation in the history of mankind being brought to it’s knees by a handful of guys with box-cutters.Hilarious!
100yrs? Who said they want the war to continue for 100yrs?
Ya know, come to think of it, I’ve been hearing about how they’re gonna have to start drafting people for…well, since mid 2003 when Scott Ritter said the US was gonna bomb Iran in June 03. Has that draft started yet?
Also, when you say “your boys…” do you mean Senator Clinton too? After all, she
promoted the invasion of Iraq
had unique access to the finest intelligence assessment on the other side of her bed
authorized the invasion
funded the occupation
supported the occupation
called for more troops
and now she vows to continue till 2013.
Is she one of “my boys”?
Oh my, Robert. Speaking of “on your knees”, I’d sure hate to be you – beholding to Chavez for the $3.5 bil in bonds to bail out Argentine debt.
McCain says 100 more years.Surely Hillary is one of your boys. Anyone stupid enough to follow the lead of a dry-drunk fratboy who couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag deserves scorn and ridicule (that includes Hillary AND you). I didn’t vote for him. i didn’t think the war was a good idea. I saw what Colin Powell showed to the UN in 2/03, and figured Iraq was no threat to the U.S.She’s all yours. Just like the moron decider is yours.Enjoy what the half-wits you followed brought you.In a real world the whole lot of them would be tried for war crimes for attacking and ruining a country that was of absolutely no threat to them.I’m not a Dem, and never supported Clinton. Tough break for you, there goes your entire argument.In the meantime, explain to me where you get the soldiers and money to fight a never-ending war of choice.Good luck sucker!
Gosh Robert. Here I thought the withdrawal started back on Sept 14, 2007, was expected to continue till July 2008, and then get re-assessed with the hope that perhaps it could continue even more. I had no idea Senator McCain pledged to wage war in Iraq for another 100yrs.Do you have that quote where he says he’s willing to see people killed in Iraq for the next 100yrs?…the whole quote?Thanks,Scott
Wow, Robert, you have no clue how the economy works. If you have a %2 tax cut on business, you will have more jobs and the economy will grow faster than if you didn’t. Man we need economics lessons for people,along with history lessons.
And I never heard anyone say that the war would last 100 years.I heard we might be in Iraq for 100 years helping them, kind of like Japan and Germany, but no one ever said 100 years of war.
Spoken like someone who wants to go back to the 9/10-mentality. You go on fighting yesterday’s arguments, trying to rewind and stuff your toothpaste back in the tube. I’ll just brush my teeth and smile at’cha without the cavities.
Context and honesty matter, don’t you think?
Bottom line questions about this topic, since you war supporters continue to dodge them:
1. Why have we decided to back the Badr Brigade in its civil war with the Madhi Army?
2. Why are we propping up the Iraqi faction with the most substantial ties to Iran while continuing to blame Iran for everything we don’t blame AQ on and for trying to use some nefarious tie between Sadr and Iran to make him the enemy?
3. Why are we allowing Maliki to declare war on his enemies and then have the US armed forces fight that war for him? I thought that was the whole reason why conservatives hated NATO.
4. What will the situation in Iraq have to look like specifically before we can finally declare victory and leave the area?
5. Do you think that the US building permanant bases on the largest oil fields in the country will help or hurt out long-term relationship with the people in the region?
6. Do you think the US forcing through Iraqi parliment a bill that allows Chevron, Exxon, BP, and Shell to extract oil from the land and kep the profits will help or hurt our long-term relationship with the country and the region?
You can continue to avoid these questions and then run around like toddlers shouting “BDS” and “surrender” all you want, but until you can answer these questions, you will continue to be pushed to the fringes of the conversation on what the hell we are going to do over there.
stix1972,
How do you pay for the never-ending war, cut taxes? That doesn’t make economic or common sense.
I’m against the war. The easiest way to stop it, is to challenge war supporters to put their lives and money where their mouths are. When Kristol and his kids lives and wallets are threatened, they’ll find a way out in a matter of minutes. The answers on how to get out will come quickly when Congress people and their constituents (corporate America) have to pay with blood, lives and money. Until then, they put politics (yeah team!) above the people.
Don’t believe me? Make them pay in lives and money, then you’ll see who’s hopelessly naive about the threat in Iraq.
1) I’m not sure how dramatic the “backing” is, but the goal of backing any group in Iraq is to have that group support the govt efforts to bring stability to the nation
2) Whether one group or another has ties to Iran, Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, etc is debatable and fluctuating at all times. Backing a group “tied” to Iran could very well be backing a group “tied” to Iranian opposition
3) Pretty sure the US forces aren’t the ones doing most of the fighting in Basra right now
4) The situation will have to be one where Democrats and political opponents of the war in Iraq stop opposing it. When that happens, victory can be declared.
5) US permanent bases? Seems odd. I’d have to see some pics and more reports on it. To my knowledge Iraq already had PLENTY of major bases built by Saddam (in fact, UNMOVIC called them “hyperbases”). I suspect that the reports of building permanent bases have more effect than the bases themselves.
6) I don’t know about such bills, but Iraqi oil’s gotta get sold to somebody, and I’m sure it’s not just to American companies. Besides, the US wasn’t even allowed to import Iraqi oil until late 03 early 04, and that didn’t stop the “No Blood for Oil” rantings or prevent opponents of the war from pretending it’s all about America’s interest in oil and not other nations’ interests which were far stronger.
Here’s one for you Jeff….
They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge
When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams
Robert,
Sen McCain’s sons have already fought there, but I do agree. Chelsea and Sen Obama’s kids should be sent. Great idea.
Still waiting to see that quote from Sen McCain where he says he wants to continue fighting for 100yrs. Got it yet?
Break up Iraq, undo the British Empire’s border-making mistake, and let everybody run their own damn show. That’s real democracy. I realize that there are diplomatic problems to such measures, but I don’t think anyone would disagree that diplomacy beats violence.
Heck, even if the new nations go to war, we can let the UN figure it all out. Let some other nations help pay for this.
Edit: you want a 100 years link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Ok, well here’s an idea to stabilize Iraq — alluded to by both Hillary and Obama: Bring in the rest of the world, as in a real coalition. To do so might entail incentives, such as allowing other countries to invest in oil in Iraq. It’s also in the very best interests of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all the neighboring nations to have a stable Iraq — allow them some, if not MOST of the profits in stabilizing the nation.
As it is, there’s no profit in any nation helping out the US right now. Why should they fight to protect our monopoly on all the Iraqi oil?
There is one problem, I will admit. The Iraqi themselves do not want privitized oil companies but a nationalized oil policy.
Nevertheless, the conservatives have proven they are incompetent warriors, totally inept at carrying out military strategy, and intractable idiots and cowards at admitting their mistakes and changing tactics to seek success. Yet, they remain optomistic that war is the answer. As George Bernard Shaw said “Blessed are the optomists, they shall be buried alive.”
Scott,
Of course it’s a great idea. You should have been listening to me all along. If you had, we wouldn’t have to draft Chelsea, Obama’s kids, John Bolton and his kids, you, Bill Kristol and his kids, etc. (You know, the phonies that support the war from the comfort of their own living rooms). They’re bad enough, if you really want to see the fake war supporters, ask them to pay the trillions to fight the war themselves. You’ll hear every excuse they can think of.
Here’s McCain saying he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
You might remember I said the plan was to build US military bases in Iraq back in 2003. I was laughed at as a “dirty F’n hippie”. Of course, I was right (we dirty F’n hippies always are). Just like I’m right when I say we can stop the war in a matter of days if we make the supporters put their blood and money up for the war they support.
Life is tough when you’re born with common sense, but it’s just a burden I have to live with.
Are you still waiting? Don’t know how to use google?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Listen to the lunatic yourself. He would like to maintain a “presence” there for 100 years, as long as we’re not fighting or getting hurt (HUH!?! LOL!) He’s divorced himself from reality since the S&L scandal that SHOULD have ruined his political career. Instead the media (yeah, that thing all you right wingers LOVE to hate) has given him a pass on everything.
And while you’re talking about sending Democratic candidates’ daughters to war, why don’t YOU address what was mentioned earlier, namely why don’t all you cheerleaders send YOUR kids first to show all the rest of us how important it is to you. Encourage them to join the forces, please! Lets increase the enlistment age to 50 so that geniuses like Kristol can join too, and of course send their kids.
If there’s one thing I can say for McCain, he’s not a hypocrite when it comes to war mongering, and I at least appreciate his consistency on THAT issue. Too bad he’s such a moral coward and hypocrite on EVERY OTHER ISSUE. Please ask me for examples! Please!
You mean like some of the groups that are negotiating with the Iraqi government right now like Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, and BP…all foreign owned oil companies. Iraq makes the decisions on who to allow to invest in oil in their country, we don’t. Your tin-hat is showing.
Monopoly? Yeah, thats why our gas is sooooo cheap nowadays.
One of the most ignorant statements I’ve seen in a long time…probably since the last time Salon linked to a post here. These “incompetent warriors” have done the impossible, brought democracy to a country in the middle east, with the lowest casualty rate ever for a major war. They have adapted when one strategy didn’t work out, The Surge, and proven all you “the sky is falling” liberals wrong once again.
I know, tough pill to swallow, so go back to Salon with your tin-hat in tow and keep screaming “its all for oil!” Sooner or later someone, somewhere, will listen.
Yeah…who would think there wouldn’t be any fighting going on in places like Japan and Germany…the fool!
Robert, please show me the entire quote of Sen McCain saying he’s willing to have the Iraq War continue for the next 100 yrs. TIP: he doesn’t say that. It’s yet another half quote that opponents of the war promote as if it were truth.
The part that gosh…somehow just got left out:
“As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge
When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams
Curt,
High comedy. Loved the crack about bringing democracy to a country in the ME. You’re a hoot.
Sadly innocent people are dying due to the actions of the Decider and his (5 deferment) Veep, who are closely tied to the war profiteers.
You are right about McCain (Senator-Media) being a fool though. Did you hear him confuse his ass with a whole in the ground yet? Thankfully Joe Lieberman (Senator-Israel) was there to whisper in his ear. Of course, it’s been years (4) since the GOP nominated someone this clueless as President.
Sadly I can’t say the same thing about you except that you and your friends are quite sad and pathetic. Denying reality in your BDS circlejerk at Salon.
Great idea-getting allies to come to Iraq by offering them oil contracts. 2 problems:
1) been there, tried that, failed
2) gosh, for some reason there’s a political movement that does everything it can to dismiss the reasons for being in Iraq. It’s kinda hard to turn to nation X and say, “Hey, c’mon send thousands of troops to Iraq because we’re against the occupation.” Maybe if those opposed to the war supported it instead, other nations would be lured into coming instead of following the ideals of the anti-war “movement”
Yeah, I still don’t see Sen McCain saying we should fight in Iraq for 100yrs. Sounded like he said there shouldn’t be a problem being in Iraq if no one’s dying. I agree. Hey, if it’s a peaceful deterrent like in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea…great.
I’m surprised at the rah rah rah Bush=bad rhetoric. I mean, the guy’s a lame duck. The Democrats’ Congress controls the purse=the war, and don’t tell me that they need more seats to get something done because it is simply not reasonable to suggest that a party “needs” unchecked power to get something done. No one should advocate unchecked power.
Here it is Dems…step up. Tell us how Senator Obama is gonna succeed in Iraq or get US forces out without having to invade a 3rd time to prevent/stop a genocide? Forget Sen McCain for a while, and tell us the magic plan from the annointed one. I dream about this ethereal whisp of Disney-like pixie dust that settles between Syria and Iran and makes everything better.
Rand, if you aren’t an Iraqi elected official, I suggest you, US Congress, or the US military, dictating Iraq’s future as a carved up nation is a far cry from democracy. It’s up to the Iraq’s to decide their fate. Not you.
psMarc93. US “monopoly” on Iraq oil fields? You are misinformed. Iraq’s oil ministry has been accepting registrations for service contract bids on the Iraq oil fields even up to Jan/Feb of this year. The negotiations are direct – between the oil companies themselves and the Oil Ministry. There is no “US only companies” restrictions.
Unofficial sources say BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total are the current registrants. ExxonMobile is a merger of both US and UK subsidaries. BP, British, of course. Total has main offices in France. Shell is Dutch. Chevron American.
Altho all these companies operate in multiple countries with subsidiaries, and therefore hard to nail down to one country’s interests.
And frankly I hope one gets it that has distribution in the US, and not awarded to Russia or China. If we are continually forbidden to drill for our own, I would welcome another source being opened to our market. Oil is necessary for survival… whether anyone likes it or not.
They are still battling it out as to who has the final authority to sign oil deals. Kurds, of course, aren’t waiting and busy entertaining contracts for their area. Since it’s central Iraq who stands to lose the most since they don’t have the resource location, the oil sharing bit (especially for undiscovered caches) is certainly still an issue. However the plan is for some agreed upon national sharing of revenues.
Jeff, why are you insisting the absurd and now defunct notion that the United States Armed Forces are in Iraq specifically for the purpose of helping our nation’s politicians obtain power over Iraq’s oil fields? After all, those gas companies that you had mentioned earlier, are companies whose interest rates are controlled by Russia’s oil industy(Shell in particular) and the last time I checked, Russia is one of the four countries that own the contracts to Iraq’s oil fields. If you want to promote the false mantra that the U.S. is in Iraq to take oil revenues then do it to someone who is gullible. Not someone who is informed!
Also, it really is funny to look at all the vitriol and ignorance in this thread from the comments. People ask, why should we continue to fight for Iraq? Well, the answer is pretty simple. We have a moral obligation to stay with Iraq until they can fight the insurgents in their country alone with little or no assistance. That is what happens when you remove the government that was previously in place. However, some would question whether we should have removed Saddam’s government from it’s position in power. That’s a different story. Still, it is one that is deserving of attention.
Answer this, why shouldn’t we remove a government who had WMD’s illegaly, links to international terror organizations(including Al Qaeda), and who violated international protocols? Some would falsely assume that he had or did none of these things, but nothing could possibly be such a farcry from the truth. A good example to prove this would be the thwarted VX nerve gas attack that was susposed to be carried out in Amman, Jordan. This was a terror attack that Al Qaeda had planned, and was trying to execute with the help of the Ba’ath military. The terrorists who were captured after failing to conduct the attack had participated in terror attacks plotted by Al Qaeda before this one and were on the terror watch list in airports and seaports all across the world.
In the Jordanian trials against these terror suspects, which is now in text and available on the internet, the terrorists confessed that the material they used to try and make VX were from Saddam’s military. They confessed to the fact that they had acquired the material to make the VX from a Ba’ath hideout in the Al Anbar province. The U.S. troops in Iraq didn’t know about this hideout until they heard the confessions, and when they went to search the hideout that the terrorists claimed to have gotten the chemicals to make VX, they found(guess what?) chemicals to make VX. This event proves that Iraq had WMD’s and that they were willing to help terror organizations carry out their attacks. So tell me, how is this not a threat to my security? How is this not a justification to remove Saddam from his position of power?
Another funny incident is how the recent Pentagon report trips over their own talking points when trying to prove that Saddam had no “Operational Links” with terror cells in the Al Qaeda network. The report says that the only terror groups that Saddam had ties with were the ones that were created in Iraq, the Ansar al Sunna(not to be confused with Ansar Al Islam) terror group, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The thing is, those last two; Ansar al Sunna, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad are terror cells that are apart of the Al Qaeda terror network. Zawahiri, the number two man of Al Qaeda, is an Egyptian Islamic Jihad member as well as more than 2/3rd’s of his subordinates. Coincidence, I don’t think so. Now, going back to the “war for oil” debacle.
If the United States government wanted to help the Oil Companies here make a higher profit off of Middle Eastern oil, then wouldn’t they make sure that the U.S. imported more Middle Eastern oil than less than ten percent? At the same time, wouldn’t they pull our troops out from the Middle Eastern countries that they operate in? Given that the spike in violence that would result from such an event would cause petroleum prices to sky rocket higher than they already have as well as cause the currencies of Middle Eastern countries to plummet farther than they already have. Which would ultimately benefit the revenues of oil companies because of how we’d be paying more for oil products than we do. Yeah, I think the silly “war for oil” debacle along with the “Saddam wasn’t that bad enough to be removed” notion(myth would be more accurate!) can finally be put where they belong…The gravesite for all the absurd idiocies!
LINK?
“In the Jordanian trials against these terror suspects, which is now in text and available on the internet, the terrorists confessed that the material they used to try and make VX were from Saddam’s military. They confessed to the fact that they had acquired the material to make the VX from a Ba’ath hideout in the Al Anbar province. The U.S. troops in Iraq didn’t know about this hideout until they heard the confessions, and when they went to search the hideout that the terrorists claimed to have gotten the chemicals to make VX, they found(guess what?) chemicals to make VX. This event proves that Iraq had WMD’s and that they were willing to help terror organizations carry out their attacks. So tell me, how is this not a threat to my security? How is this not a justification to remove Saddam from his position of power?”
Surprised at the rah-rah-rah Bush=bad rhetoric.
If only the problems he created were going away in January 2009. This POS has saddled the US with problems it will take them decades to get out from under.
Meantime, Curt thinks it’s all BDS. Talk about clueless. You can’t find ANYONE on the Left or Right with a plan that might work in Iraq, but Curt’s sure BDS is the reason we’re all against the moron in chief. Clowns like Curt have been backing the moron for 8 years, to the total detriment of the country (but at least Curt’s team is winning, “Yeah GOP Team”). If people like Curt cared about his country as much as he did about “his team”, we wouldn’t be in such a mess without a way out.
Iraq will be a disaster for everyone involved for years. The least we could do is hold those who got us in the situation accountable. War crimes trials will be a nice start (unless you think letting them walk away with the profits is the right answer). C’mon America (and the world). Make believe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the poor. Hold them accountable for their actions.
Bahahahahahah….who’s the clown again?
Rofl….you guys are always good for entertainment man.
Robert, the 2004 election was the moment of accountability for President Bush. Senator Clinton’s is now yet somehow I don’t hear a lotta complaining about her.
War trials? On what grounds? That Pentagon rpt last week totally documented regime ties to Al Queda making the war legal based on the authorization to use force post 911. The occupation is legal under UN 1483sec1-4 (even mandated if you read it).
Nah, the real liars are the ones who oppose the war as a catalyst for political opposition. If 8 million people had marched in Feb03 against Saddam instead of against the US, there’d have been no war, but no one dares march against the dictators do they? Nasty habit of filling mass graves with protesters in those kinda countries.
Oh, and don’t get mistaken for a moment that if somehow invasion had been avoided in 03 that it wouldn’t have happened by now anyway. Shoulda happened in 91.
Discussing the war can be an emotional gig-especially when based on the mammoth amounts of propaganda and false information put out by the war’s opponents. It’s too bad more people don’t read the investigations into wmd, regime ties, 911, intel, Iraq ops, etc., and instead get their “news” from Commondreams, Mother Jones, Truthout, Buzzflash, Bartcop, and other nutjob sites that will literally post anything as long as it’s anti-Bush (as if being anti-Bush isn’t a flashing red light that says,”what you’re about to read is aimed at replacing GWB with a Democrat, and it is not necessarily the truth”
Hang on Scott, let me get the links to them.
Scott, here they are;
1.)Info on the trial.
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/12162004001.htm
2.)Terror suspects’ confessions.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=20579
Monopoly? Yeah, thats why our gas is sooooo cheap nowadays.
Thanks for giving your complete lack of economics understanding away. Because monopolies lead to LOWER prices in your world right? Not to mention the supply/demand thing, but then you might be better served going back through one of your old college textbooks…you did go to college right?
Answer this, why shouldn’t we remove a government who had WMD’s illegaly, links to international terror organizations(including Al Qaeda), and who violated international protocols?
You obviously live in an alternate reality too. Keep reciting the tired old talking points of the neocons (yeah, I saw your side’s lame attempt with the recent documents ya’ll had translated), but who do you think provided him with not only the WMDs (that he NO LONGER HAD) and the biological agents (that he NO LONGER HAD), but the logistical information on how to use them on Iranian soldiers? Hint: Read the Riegle report. Answer: US, stupid primarily under Republican administrations.
I don’t want my tax money going toward forcibly opening up markets in third world countries via CIA fomented coups (read globalist class wars), under the false premise of instilling democracy (see Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.) and when those coups fail, as in Iraq’s case we just declare outright “pre-emptive” war.
FYI – I’m sure all you wingers know that the governments we’ve overthrown throughout the past 50 years have ALL been democracies with democratically elected leaders who were hugely popular in their countries. They just made the mistake of taxing the uber rich in their countries to the point that they embraced radical laissez faire capitalist goons like Milton Friedman and his cronies in the CIA, then with “our” help put his theories into place via bloody, terroristic coups which made use of torture and murder- ALL FINANCED AND OVERSEEN BY THE USA/CIA at YOUR EXPENSE as a taxpayer.
Your idea of a foreign policy is just absurd. First it was the commies (see above paragraph – THERE WAS NO COMMUNIST THREAT IN ANY OF THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WE F’D UP!) and now it’s the “islamofacists”. Your credibility is zero at this point. Democrats and Republicans alike have been responsible for this. But not until 9/11 did people with your distorted and bizarre paranoid worldview have the balls to rear their heads in public and actually advocate for pre-meditated pre-emptive warfare, again PAID OUT OF YOUR POCKET.
So now you all have the audacity to incredulously ask “well we know we f’d up (funny you didn’t admit that during the last prez election) but we can’t just leave! what do you lefties propose we do other than “cut and run”??!!! Pathetic.
Socialists would never see or acknowledge or recognize a communist threat (let alone any threat).
man…gotta say, someone really yanked the nutroots chain tonight! WOWZERS!
Let me clarify my last post.
Iraq, while a democracy in name, was not. It was the only exception.
And all of the governments we backed (including Pinochet’s Chile) were brutal in repressing dissent, and all of them ran torture chambers, regularly “disappeared” people, and functioned as dictatorships after we meddled in their affairs.
There was never a single credible communist threat in any of them, they were all devoted capitalist countries, and all democracies (except Iraq, which was in name only). Oh, and did you know whose side the US was on when Saddam took power? Take a guess.
Socialists would never see or acknowledge or recognize a communist threat (let alone any threat).
Tell us, genius – just how would a communist (or islamofacist…SCARY) threat materialize, especially here in the US? In the form of labor unions? Healthcare? Where are all the “communists” hiding dude? Are they just waiting to come out and take away all your money and nice stuff and make you work on a potato farm?
Talk about tinfoil hat nonsense. The right wing in this country is as delusional as it’s ever been.
Wowza is right.
Oh yeah,
For those of you dredging up thin WWII and Japan post war occupation as an analogy to what we face in Iraq now, I have a question:
What was the Japanese or German equivalent of Sadr’s militia or of any militia (of which at least two exist) for that matter? Tell me about the civil wars we had to quell in those countries after WWII. Thanks in advance.
Umm we have no monopoly adn China and Russia have contracts with the Iraqi government for oil How can we have a monopoly when US companies do not een own the rights. Kind of strange when facts get int he way huh.
Didn’t Saddam say that he wanted everyone to know he had WMD and that when the sanctions were over he would start up the factories again. Kind of takes a little out of your talking points.
don;t want my taxes to go to programs that help no one and just eat away at our self reliance. This war is a fraction of all the social programs that our Dear Lord government spends every day. Do you know that we spent a half a trillion on our failed school system, but you want us to spend more on a failing system.
So Cuba isn’t communist, the whole Communist influence in Latin America was made up. I guess you should ask all the jailed and murdered people down there and. They might beg to differ with you.
And I guess Chavez was really elected on the up and up, I mean come on Carter said so.
If you haven;t noticed he has made himself dictator for life down there, ala Castro. reall democracy down there huh.
And I guess Reagan, the Pope and Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with the fall of USSR either???
Talk about delusional
Let me tell you we had a group called the Wolves in Germany killing people left and right. We did not quell them for years after the war. And some Japanese in the hinter land never got word that the war was over, and continued to fight afterwords. They had people that were at their posts up until the 90s. And would fire at any one that was not Japanese for decades. All wars have a nasty ending. Every war has had guerilla fighting after the war was over.
So Cuba isn’t communist, the whole Communist influence in Latin America was made up. I guess you should ask all the jailed and murdered people down there and. They might beg to differ with you.
Again with the alternate universe. DID WE DEPOSE CASTRO? Ok.
But regarding every other latin American country I referenced, the regimes we supported killed and tortured thousands more people than any preceding democratically elected government did. See Uraguay, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.
You’re reciting old red scare memes and aren’t adhering to reality.
As for your “examples” re: post WWII, those were FRACTIONAL, MARGINALIZED groups. NOTHING like the situation in Iraq, but nice try. I respect your wingnut credentials.
So havng roving bands of thugs killing people, kike Mookie Malitia is not the same. Huh, itersting. The Wolves were more organized than any of the Militias in Iraq right now. They might not have had as many men, but did a great deal of damage.
Yes the REd Scare was just made pu and no communists were trying to take over the Latin American countries. That is really good. Where did you read that from Che Guevera. FARC is a MArxists oraganiation that has been around for years, adn they were just caught with plutomium.
All the Narco-Terrorists organizations were bankrolled by Russian handlers. So was the IRA. They hand their hands in a lot of places. After the Wall fell and the USSR was no more, many documents there proved that the Red Scare was true.
These are what the typical leftists who are commenting on this site look like:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R_Dd8cRIhjI/AAAAAAAAMf0/m_fmtzjR5og/s1600-h/mac+mn.jpg
It’s no wonder they have completely naive views, live in a world of fantasy, and refuse to condemn the real monsters in this world.
It’s sad — what you leftists do with the freedom our brave men and women died for is completely disgraceful.
Pingback: Pros and Cons » On Basra and Sadr City
Excellent Post, Richard Romano, I agree completely.
Scott, were you able to link with the website’s fine?
KC, Curt’s “sooooo cheap” monopoly reponse was sarcasm. Tho you demonstrate manners devoid of social civility, I’m positive you can’t possibly be that dense.
Much of what has gone done in Iraq is a direct result of the actions of a stateless enemy, calling no country home, hitting US shores Sept 11th. This makes this war completely unique by comparison to those of the past generations. This also makes some comparisons to previous wars completely absurd. One fact cannot be refuted. New governments and their mark of efficience do not happen in the span of 22 months.
Deposing Saddam was US policy attitude since Clinton’s 1998 Iraq Freedom Act. However the likelihood of it actually being implemented was probably zip, nada, nil. But it sure made for “feel good” legislation… like the Darfur resolution and so many others that accomplish nothing.
No change of implementation until, of course, 911. That’s when we “bombed” the human cockroaches out of their Taliban/Afghan nests and knew they would merely run to friendlier digs to continue proliferation. Raised in Florida as a youth, it’s not hard for me to make the jihad movement to cockroach analogy. But, if you’re not familiar with the critter, for some uncanny similarities, you may want to check out the five steps to killing cockroaches at the bottom of this pesticide site… assuming at least the common bond between us is that you are not a supporter of the global Islamic jihad movement’s agenda.
You give no credence to translated IIS documents. So we won’t even go there. However I find the the credibility you freely grant to Senatorial reports (Riegle), while you give none to Joint Forces Command, incredibly partisan, Thereby you lose viability simply because you pick a report because it best suits your particular beliefs and close your mind to anything else. I reject your counterpoints here as nothing more than anal attitude that we cannot surmount.
Your constant references to past administrations support of despotic factions tell me that you have a surprising naive black and white view. While I believe mistake by leaders have been make (and will continue to be made) thru time, reality dictates that we don’t always have a choice between good and bad, but between worse and worst. This holds true to most POTUS elections as well. Picking the lesser evil with which to deal until further in the future, and other actions and events push it over the edge of tolerance.
This lesser evil theory applies mightily to dealing with Muslim nations, of which their visions and those of the west, will never truly gel. The “hate Musharraf” campaign is a perfect example of demonizing a leader and ally who’s had to tread a fine line to aid the US with intel, and tacitly approve joint military strikes in order to keep a semblence of peace in Pakistan. We will be dealing with a world without Musharraf’s help soon enough… a not-so-distant future problem to face.
Last, while I don’t apply the “communist label” to many of the proposed DNC programs, they dance ever so close to the edge and are socialist in structure. So I do not support them, and suspect that if they are implemented, they will indeed alter life in this nation…. and not to the benefit of the ambitious. If, however, you prefer mediocrity as your life’s financial rewards, it’s gonna be heaven.
But then, I’m entering my golden years… such as they may be. So my concern lies for my granddaughter’s future in this nation. I’m sorry to be handing her the reins to a country filled with ungrateful, unambitious types that refuse to fight for all we hold dear, and prefer the government hand them everything from cradle to grave. Such a life holds no joy nor adventure. Merely a false “guarantee” that one pays for dearly.
KC, read my entire post! That fact that you responded to one small aspect of my post with the notion that I had already debunked in the rest of the post proves that you suffer from selective hearing/reading(I guess, for this case since we are blogging), and that when you find the very meat and potatoes that you are looking for so desperately to use in your absurd response, the rest of the post that you are responding to means nothing. So tell me, after having looked at the confessions made by the terror suspects(in the links I had provided) of the thwarted VX attack, how was Saddam’s regime not a threat to my security? How was an agent that was supposed to be used to kill 80 thousand people and wound 160 thousand not a WMD?
In your response, you called me stupid. No, I am not stupid, for a 19 year old who has peers that aren’t as concerned about political issues, I am well informed. I also have a good understanding when it comes to economics and military affairs. I also am active in my community when it comes to helping solve problems. I also am someone who is perfectly ready for the Navy Seals after I finish school, and I know the difficulties that await me. Your comment only exemplifies your ignorance, and your short attention span, given that you didn’t read my entire posted comment.
Also, the Reigle Report holds no water and lacks credibility. Given that it doesn’t mention the fact that the very countries who opposed our removal of Saddam have given him WMD’s in the past. In fact, these countries had deals to help Saddam with acquiring more WMD’s when the U.N. sanctions were lifted. Hell, even they don’t contest this. I should also add that I hope you have the integrity to restrain yourself from setting up double standards based on your own biases. It wouldn’t make any sense for you to use the “we gave Saddam the WMD’s” argument against the WMD rational that helped justify Saddam’s removal from power, and not hold the people who oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom accountable on the same standards when they commited the same crime, right?
It’s also pretty damn funny how the report claims that the radioactive material we supposedly gave to Saddam was causing brain damage in our troops, yet not one of the other countries who have had troops in the same areas of operations as the U.S. troops who got sick didn’t have the same health issues. Not one Italian, British, Danish, or Czech soldier who was in the Persian Gulf had anything like the United States troops did. Yet, they drank the same water, and operated while collaborating with each other. This leads me to conclude that the radioactive material which supposedly came from the United States that the Reigle Report blames for sick troops with malfunctioning brain tissue in their Basal Ganglias doesn’t exist. Therefore, the causes for the damaged Basal Ganglias of U.S. troops must’ve come from a different cause. Probably the impact from the blasts that come from the bombs which insurgents use, which are also helped paid for by people like Code Pink.
If you want a report that has some credibility in it, then read the one from Richard Butler who is a former U.N. inspector. His report didn’t undergoe the political crucifiction that the Reigle Report did. Also, I am not a winger. I have no political party. Apparently, you are because you are willing to cite old news agit-prop that has been discredited only because it helps you advance your talking points. This leads me to conclude that your political views mean more to you than anything. It is this type of behavior that is exemplified by someone who is going to try and win at all costs no matter how many good reputations they step on. Now, I am not going to call myself a victim, because I can defend myself. However, I have seen some nasty stuff in the blogosphere coming from people of all political views and I have to say that you are no exception.
Please, go showcase your seperation from reality some place else.
Robert in BA #28 wrote:
As Scott indicated, do you think it’s just lefty “kids” being forced to go to war? Do you think serving on the frontlines in combat infantry is the only way to serve your country? Regardless of whether that plays to one’s strengths or not?
Not everyone is suited for the military. Not everyone within the military is suited to being an infantryman. Everyone has their talents, everyone has their roles where they can best serve their country; where they can best serve in winning this war.
When you talk about money, who do you think donates to military charities more? The anti-war left? Or the pro-victory right?
Here’s some food for thought:
Rand in comment #31 (and Robert in ##33 and KC in #34 linking to the same exact cherrypicked line)? Your link validates my point. I’d say “nice try, though”; but then….I’d be lying. My link trumps yours.
psmarc93 wrote #32:
As wordsmith types, “Cursed are the pessimists, with shovel in hand they shall bury alive the optimists in a mountain of shit.”
KC writes:
Maybe you hippies should allow military recruiters onto school campuses? Make Marines feel welcomed in Berkeley?
Maybe you lefties could actually honor our war heroes, rather than make it seem like a sin to be soldiers in this war.
Do you support fighting fires? Stopping crime? Why don’t you volunteer yourself up to be a firefighter? Or force your children to join the police academy? How can you say you support the police and fire depts in fighting fires and fighting crime from the safety of your living rooms, with nothing at stake yourselves?
What do you say to the gold star parents who are the anti-thesis of Cindy Sheehan? What do you tell the majority in the military who want to win in Iraq?
I’ll say it again. Draft Bill Kristol’s kids, and have Marty Peretz pay for the war. That’ll make Kristol and Peretz leaders in the anti-war movement.
Don’t believe me? Try it!
Elect John McCain for President and then draft his two sons into the military. That’ll make him the leader in the anti-war movement.
Oh….wait.
Do you support fighting fires? Stopping crime? Why don’t you volunteer yourself up to be a firefighter?
now you’ve crossed the line. i AM a firefighter, a-hole!
bring it on any time chickenhawk. your webmaster can give you my IP whenever.
Thanks again! in advance sheep!
Hippie? are you kidding?!
I know plenty of “hippies” that woud eat your lunch big guy.
and i’m FOR the right to bear arms.
you psychos have taken control of our foreign policy for too long…i.e 50 years.
and you’re asking for it “tough” guys. seriously. call me a “moonbat” on the street and see how many teeth you’ll soon be missing you little armchair-war-quarterback-pussies.
Seiously. Bring it you litlle pussies. I’m NOT a troll and do expect to be banned, but you chicken hawks are DONE spending my TAX dollars fighting your gift for the MIC wars.
Again, find me and back up the tough talk….better yet….enlist tough guys.
God damn. I’m one hearbeat away from giving all you psycho wingnuts my physical addy. You’d be really sorry to come knocking on my door. Go on. dare me to divulge. Really; dare me.
Bring it on to a man who believes in the Constitution; unlike you pussies who kowtow to bush and his gay-ass cheney who claims to be the intellectual.
I have no doubt you whimps will report my IP to the CIA or FBI…in the mean time. how’s about a fist fight between the tough ass “wing nuts” and the rest of us?
I am not a democrat, but you’d be insulting me to all ends by calling me a republican in this day and age…you people need to learn to think for yourselves
serious: one legitimate post and I’ll throw my addy out there. I’m waiting…..
Maybe you hippies should allow military recruiters onto school campuses? Make Marines feel welcomed in Berkeley?
Maybe you lefties could actually honor our war heroes, rather than make it seem like a sin to be soldiers in this war.
Again, I will gladly divulge my phizzy addy. Stop erecting straw men to support your armchair philosophy. Bring it to the octagon tough ass. I am SOOOO waiting. pussy. pussies. I’ll keep my identity silent for now, but please yell in my face. please. PLease?
Wow, such violent, threatening, dander-raised rhetoric from people who oppose the removal of a dictator. Interesting. Useless, but interesting. Reminds me a lot of the violent peace protesters we see so much of lately.
Yeah, Ryan, those links worked, but I didn’t see anything that said they used vx from Iraq. I’d heard that before, but must’ve missed it in those articles.
Ya know, last week Al Queda (which was in Iraq before the invasion according to Al Queda, AQ detaineess, regime detainees who worked with them, and captured docs), took over a village in N Iraq, killed all the women and children including a 15month old baby. It didn’t get any msm coverage (someone daring to ask Chelsea about Monica was more important). I have to wonder:
-why people don’t protest against Al Queda?
-why people advocate leaving Iraq to Al Queda’s free reign (keeping counter-terrorist forces, support forces, and forces needed to protect Americans=current force levels)
-why people don’t unite and applaud the amazing efforts that people are going to in Iraq to fight and kill Al Queda?
Oh yeah, doing that wouldn’t help prevent GWB from being re-elected.
How do Conservatives spin this one?
We’ve been hearing for more than four years that “90,000 Iraqi police have been trained” (or 50,000, or whatever the “we are turning the corner in Iraq” story of the week was.
It appears we were training and equiping them all right… for the Sadr militias.
And you know that if this may turnovers happened in front of the cameras, how many more are happening every day.
The “Surge” may have succeeded militarily. However the occupation has failed, and is failing, and will contiue to fail.. as long as itis being mis-managed by the Bush Administration.
http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/552387.html
Iraq’s new army is “developing steadily,” with “strong Iraqi leaders out front,” the chief U.S. trainer said.
That was three-plus years ago, and the trainer was David H. Petraeus, now the top American commander in Iraq. Some of those Iraqi officials at the time were busy embezzling more than $1 billion allotted for the new army’s weapons, according to investigators.
The 2004-05 Defense Ministry scandal was just one in a long series of setbacks in the five-year struggle to “stand up” an Iraqi military as President Bush has promised and allow hard-pressed U.S. forces to “stand down.” The latest discouraging episode was unfolding this weekend in bloody Basra, the southern city where Iraqi government forces — in their toughest test yet — were struggling to gain the upper hand in a battle with Shiite Muslim militias.
…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/sadr-militia-defies-iraqi-call-to-disarm/2008/03/30/1206850706025.html
Representatives of the Sadrist Movement, meanwhile, said dozens of Iraqi police and soldiers had offered them their weapons, saying they would not use their arms against fellow Iraqis.
One apparent handover took place in Baghdad’s Sadr City. About 40 police were seen walking through Sadr City’s streets to lay their automatic weapons at the feet of Salman Furaiji, director of the Sadrist office there.
Most of the soldiers wore dark glasses and covered their faces to hide their identities. One of them said he was a second lieutenant in the national police and would not use his weapon against fellow Muslims to support the current offensive.
“We came here to tell our brothers, the followers of Sadr, that we will not be against you,” he said. The man said the group would not fight the Sadrists, but neither would it join the militia.
Wordsmith, when you cause someone to unravel, it ain’t pretty.
Well, I’m a wife, mother, daughter, niece and aunt of veterans that have fought in a number of our wars and none of them have ever mentioned that you lose your right to free speech if you or yours haven’t served. Knowing them as I do I think I can speak for them in saying that they would appreciate voices from home that support their mission.
In a recent conversation with my nephew who returned from Iraq in October and is now waiting for orders to return, said he was disappointed with the way the press has twisted the Iraq story. He saw specific incidents where troop’s conversations with reporters were so mangled that they didn’t even resemble what the troops said. He’s a big Michael Yon fan, btw. Even though Yon spends quite a bit of time in Iraq with our troops, he provides a similar, more detailed message of what many supporting the mission from our shores do. You know, those that should not speak because they don’t have a child serving.
Ryan #60:
Hopefully some that have found their way in here will go back and read your posts, they are excellent. You are a mature young man we can all be proud of, best wishes for your future goals.
we had a group called the Wolves in Germany killing people left and right
You are thinking of the Werewolves. And they were not ‘killing people left and right’; they were actually quite ineffectual, not just by comparison with the Wehrmacht that preceded them but also compared to later guerrilla outfits. German culture I think does not lend itself to secret insurgencies.
some Japanese in the hinter land never got word that the war was over, and continued to fight afterwords
Yes. Of course these guys couldn’t communicate with each other and were basically bandits. I think the question was about organized militias.
at their posts up until the 90s
Really? The last one I know of was Hiro Onoda (surrendered in 1972). I think there was one guy who was revealed to be a Japanese soldier in the 1990s, but he had integrated into Filipino society.
However Donald Rumsfeld (the “Greatest Secretary of Defense in History” – Dick Cheney) used these comparisons to declare there was no insurgency. And that was the spin for quite a few Friedman Units.
“Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell.”
Hmmm….examples? Are there differences between “insurgencies,” “guerrilla movements,” and “terrorists?” Our experience in South America, alone, would seem to contradict this assertion; FARC has been fighting in Columbia for roughly 40 years, and Shining Path (or, at least, elements of that group) are still active in Peru after 25+ years. The mujahideen in Afghanistan saw 15 years pass from their original fight against the pro-Soviet regime through the rise of the Taliban (who were insurgents themselves, yes?). There are still insurgents in Kashmir, 60 years after the boundaries were drawn. The Phillipines has been dealing with Islamic insurgents for 30+ years (Abu Sayyaf, anyone?).
define “quell”
It seems the definition wavers depending on its potential value in political discussion.
KC #64
You’re also an April Fool and a joke.
Don’t you have that backward? Isn’t it “a-hole firefighter”?
My analogy’s lost on you as well as the merits of my argument because you invest too much of your own ego into your comments.
I don’t give a rat’s ass who you are nor what a badass you think you are. Your personal background doesn’t qualify nor invalidate the merits of the discussion we are having. Your “expertise” in any given field will speak for itself in a well-reasoned argument.
So far all you’ve given are emotional outbursts and temper tantrum-driven ad hominems.
In coming here and attacking us, you ignore that one of the contributors is still currently fighting in this war; and the head sheriff here is a former Marine and currently in law enforcement. I myself have been working on getting into the military. So what?
The chickenhawk “insult” is nothing more than a ploy to shut down debate.
We’re all “chickenhawks” when it comes to something; but it doesn’t disqualify one’s beliefs regarding the importance of a profession and the role it fulfills to a society; nor support for the profession.
It is because there are those brave enough to serve and sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us who aren’t, that we are in awe of those in the military, in law enforcement, in the fire department….a-hole firefighters being the one exception.
Internet bullying is lame. The funny thing is, I spent a good chunk of my life in combat sports. But unlike you, I walked softly and carried a big stick. You’re a blowhard and a dick.
Come back after you’ve shaken the sand out of your vagina.
wesmorgan,
USA Today (by way of the Air Force Times): Insurgencies like Iraq’s usually fail in 10 years
They’ve been dealing with it a lot longer than that if one considers that the Moros have never really been pacified for over 500 years. But the Philippine Insurrection officially lasted only about 4 years. Pockets of fighting and skirmishes never really stopped though.
Re: ““Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell.”
Hmmm….examples? Are there differences between “insurgencies,” “guerrilla movements,” and “terrorists?” ”
And what is the timeline when the “insurgency” is really a civil war in which the United States has inserted itself as the trainer, equipper, financier, as well as the second favorite target, of all sides?
What I find amusing is the implicit assumption that being against the current war gives moral high ground and absolves the adherent from any responsibility for national defense. And the vast majority of such commenters are not veterans, nor do I believe there is any conceivable scenerio in which they’d enlist themselves. (And not to put too fine a point on it, in my 20+ years in the Marines, I met damn few who were of like mindset.) Those who do enlist tend to be a bit more conservative and hawkish (go figure), and surprisingly idealistic.
Moreover, the contention that one must enlist in a particular conflict ignores some basic realities. When I signed up, the gathering storm was the Soviet Bear. By the time I was trained and somewhat competent (a few years later), we were looking at other threats, and my only combat tour (a couple years later yet) was in a wholly unforeseen fracas in the desert.
People tend to join an all-volunteer military because they believe national defense is worthwhile. And if the contention is that those people bring a special perspective and expertise to such a discussion, I agree. If the claim is that being anti-war is so congruent with non-service that it gives a special cachet to such folks’ opinions, well . . . not so much.
Re: Firefighting.
America is struggling to put out fires? We don’t have enough firefighters on staff to keep the blazes from getting out of control? Housefires are burning for weeks on end? The US needs to pay privately held companies just to put out fires around the country?
Links please.
Surely, i will volunteer to be a firefighter if the situation is as big a clusterfuck as the Iraq war. (BTW, clusterfuck is the right word to describe the Iraq situation. Calling it a quagmire is just sugarcoating it).
Lots of talk about who won the battles in Iraq. Maliki? Sadr? Sadr? Maliki?
One thing’s for sure: The surge didn’t work.
Maybe Patraeus, who lost over 195,000 weapons he was charged with securing in Iraq, trained the Iraqi military–who just “changed sides” in the war, and has sullied the military brand by becoming a political hack, isn’t the great and brilliant General he’s been made out to be. In fact, scratch the word “maybe” from that last sentence.
To wordsmith, Re: chickenhawk insult.
And you can be against the war without “hating America”, “being on the side of terrorists”, or “loving Saddam”. In fact, most who criticize the Iraq War do so because they love their country and are disgusted by its actions.
The surge didn’t work
It sure looks to me like it worked, in the sense of dramatically reducing violent death across a wide swath (basically all) of Iraq. People who want to say ‘it failed’ do so by setting the bar unreasonably high, or by piling lots of non-military requirements on Petraeus’ plate. And I speak as someone who has never thought this war was worth the cost. Of course it’s reasonable to say ‘OK, the surge succeeded: what’s our next step, what other problems do we have?’, but saying the surge failed just because we didn’t magically turn Iraq into Switzerland is wrong.
Robert, that’s actually a very good counterpoint. Well done.
Of course.
What a bunch of morons.
It’s amazing to hear you wingnuts repeat all the tired horsesh*t you’ve been fed the last 6 years. Just one example:
“Umm we have no monopoly adn China and Russia have contracts with the Iraqi government for oil How can we have a monopoly when US companies do not een own the rights. Kind of strange when facts get int he way huh.”
this guy’s a genius! he’s totally debunked the “blood for oil” rationale for the war!!!
except that these documents are real and their source and veracity are irrefutable. The source is dick cheney’s office. The time was before the Iraq war:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
If you can read those documents and still claim that this war had nothing to do with oil (and the companies that drill it), I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You wingers are hopelessly naive about what truly drives our foreign policy, and watching you get played for rubes has just gotten sad and depressing. I pity you guys at this point.
Yes, but more to the point they were two months before this document came out (National Energy Policy, May 2001). If you want to see where the data from those documents went, try chapter 8 (Strengthening Global Alliances: Enhancing National Energy Security and International Relationships). If that’s your proof of “Blood For Oil!!!” well . . . not exactly compelling.
wow, lots o loons today.
Strange how silent they are on which Democratic candidate’s plan to stay in Iraq they’ll be voting for, or whether or not nations should just let this kinda thing go on and say screw em-they’re not Americans/not equals
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/04/01/another-killing-field/
Hmm, so let’s see if I’m following you (ME) correctly in #79:
Because Cheney had documents that said there was oil in Iraq, prior to the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq MUST be for the purpose of taking said oil. “Because these documents are real and their source and veracity are irrefutable.” This despite the demonstrable fact that the majority of Iraq’s oil has been, and still is contracted to non-American companies. And the fact that the referenced documents aren’t evidence of any sort of wrongdoing…
Yes, he had a map and a list of companies with interests and potential interests in Iraqi oil. This seems to me like a good bit of homework in preparation for an action that had potential to impact those foreign interests. Consider: Companies whose interests have been impacted may well seek compensation. Wouldn’t it be prudent to have an idea who those potentially damaged parties might be?
Then again, I should know better than to try and reason with someone who leads off with “What a bunch of morons.” I just find it interesting that your real documents to back up what you’re saying don’t really say a lot… Did I miss the subtitles or something?? “Super Sekrit Blud 4 Oilz WAR PL4nX0r3Z” scrawled in invisible ink in the margins? What????
Lots of anti-war ranting, conspiracy theories, etc., but about 200 days from now…these same people will be pulling a lever in a booth for a candidate who will continue the war until 2013 if need be-or more if the Bush Admin objectives are not met.
Sen McCain has military experience, and called for a shift to counter-insurgency operations years ago.
Sen Obama has no military understanding at all, and while he opposed the removal of a dictator who we now know was planning to attack the US (see also captured documents), he has zero ideas on how to handle Iraq today. Whether one likes his ideas from six years ago or not is irrelevant since he’s not running for President of the United States six years ago, but rather for the NEXT four years.
…and misled fools will vote for him just because of a letter D next to his name.
Hoodwinked and bamboozled?
Cecil Turner wrote:
That is undoubtedly true for many, but there are also many for whom military service is a job, benefits for one’s family, educational benefits, or even a path to citizenship. (We have more than 40,000 non-citizens serving on active duty, with another 15,000 or so in the NGR.) I do believe that enlistments/reenlistments since the invasion of Iraq are likely to have been prompted more by a sense of duty than by more pedestrian interests.
So, what about those of us who both served our country AND see major problems in the planning, execution and future of this operation?
Wordsmith wrote:
Nice headline, sure, but here’s the article’s lead:
It goes on to state:
This doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence, especially since we don’t know what percentage are “still going on.” I’d love to see that study; does anyone have any pointers to it?
I don’t think that we can make a blanket statement that ‘stuff like this takes 10 years.’
Whoa… talk about regurgitating tired horsesh*t, guy… You’re stepping into that pile willingly with the “war for oil” mantra.
BTW, this may be a good subject to move onto the 200 billion barrel oil field thread. That is if you boys are done with the bar room brawl here.
I, for one, have no problems with evil “big oil”. History is filled with tribes and civilizations waging war for the essentials of life. I’ll wager any of you here if, under emergency conditions, found your family in need of drinking water and living next door to me – who was hoarding a supply and refused to share – you’d go after me with nary a second thought. So let’s knock off the pious “no war for oil” feel good crap and consider that concept in the context of reality.
Certainly the US wasn’t yet in the “kill the neighbor for water” scenario, so logic dictates it wasn’t the prime reason for deposing Saddam.
But when it comes to the 4th largest identified world oil reserves, who would you prefer is in control of that coveted resource?
1: A despot, plotting against not only his fellow states for a Pan-Arab empire, but who also views the US as a target?
2: The Islamic jihad movement?
3: Or a nation … not culturally akin to ours, but a form of democracy with freely elected govt… who trades with the rest of the world, a partner in terror intel, and is western tolerant?
It was never good idea for Saddam to control, and exploit oil fields for personal gain. It was merely a tool for him to thwart sanctions. I’ll assume we can all agree on #2… it’s *not* an option for the fields to be controlled by jihad groups.
That leaves door #3. So while it may not have been the prime reason to depose Saddam, I frankly consider it a perk of a free Iraq.
Wordsmith wrote:
Incidentally, anyone looking for a solid “military charity” should consider Army Emergency Relief. I’ve donated to AER ever since my own days in the service. It’s uniquely integrated with the chain of command, so there isn’t a great deal of bureaucracy; company COs and 1SGs can approve AER interest-free loans of up to $1000 for soldiers/families in need. They also help widows and children of those who give their lives.
Whether you’re “pro-war” or “anti-war”, this is a good way to truly “support our troops.”
Gee Matahary. You make Saddam sound like he was terrible. How bad could he have been, when Cheney’s company was doing business with him throughout the 90s?
Yes, the 90s.
Speaking of the powerful VP, it always makes me laugh that his supporters have no problem with the government spying on it’s citizens (the old “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide” mantra), yet he can’t let us know what was discussed at his meetings with the energy execs in early 2001.
Probably because he works for us, and we don’t work for him. Huh?
BTW, using your points, shouldn’t middle eastern countries have some say over the US’s natural resources as well, or is this a case of we can do what we want-screw everyone else?
I don’t want to misunderstand you, Robert BA. Are you suggesting that you equate US elected government bodies and our rule of law, plus US privatized business governed by federal regs in international trade, to the self-absorbed and brutal regime of a despot/dictator …Saddam Hussein?
Robert’s made a good point. The US has as much a right to order Middle Eastern countries how to sell their oil as Middle Eastern countries do to tell the US to break up into 3 semi-autonomous states (the Biden plan for Iraq). ‘Course, the US isn’t “ordering” Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan to sell their oil this way or that, and if that were the case, then American oil’d be a lot cheaper while Russia, China, and EU’s oil would be a lot more expensive.
Not only are we not dictating how Iraq handles their resources, Scott. US resources are not held hostage by a lone dictator, who gained and maintained that control/power by fear and violence while oppressing the citizens, and holding bogus elections.
The world has intervened before on such regimes, sans oil fields. I just happen to consider prying Saddam’s hands off that country’s wealth, and letting them decide how to handle it as a nation, a perk of his removal.
And totally agreed on a meddlesome Congress trying to mandate how Iraq’s govt should be formed.
Dunno, but it probably makes it a lot easier for you to get a spot on any news program, because they seem to like to hear from folks like you. Is there some magic in the combination? Not sure why there would be. And I suspect that it’s hard to find a military operation, let alone campaign, where one can’t find “major problems” . . . and that if we poll a cross-section of military personnel, they’d be disproportionately likely to support the war effort.
Wow, this topic sure seems to have churned the waters! Looks like we could break the 100 comment mark here without much trouble. I’m feeling a compulsion today to put down a left-wing argument; you know, that one about how those who support the Iraq War should either send their children off to battle, or join up themselves, or be derided as “chicken-hawks.”
This argument fails on two fronts; one is philosophical / ideological, and the other is what I will call a highly realist / economic count on which it crashes and burns. The United States has an entirely volunteer military (and without the threat of invasion, I think we will never need the draft again); meaning that all those who enlist do so because they have all done the internal math to sort out whether the risk of being called to battle where-ever our elected officials might judge necessary is equal to the monetary, citizenship, or status benefits of joining the military. As such whether a supporter of the war has a personal investment in the conflict or not, that should have no effect on the veracity of their support, since all the troops chose to be there.
If my first argument doesn’t satisfy the Michael Moore’s out there, so be it; but my second point is unassailable from any logical position. Economics teaches us that comparative advantage and specialization are the means by which any individual, company, or country gets ahead in the world. War being the most dangerous and weighty of human enterprises, it is imperative that our decision making in this regard remain cool and calculated. To elaborate on Wordsworth’s point earlier, there are those not best suited for the military who still choose to serve their country. A complete war effort requires not only soldiers, but intelligence gathering and analysis, creation of effective strategy, and of course the production of arms and the money necessary to continue the effort. Employing individuals in the careers where they are best suited is all part of this. Thusly, the U.S. would be foolish to simply ship off all those who would support the war into the battle itself, without first considering their best aptitude. Goodnight folks!
machiavelli,
All good points, which begin to fail miserably once you factor in that we will be fighting this war for “however long it takes”, and we don’t have nearly enough soldiers to do so.
Also, it seems the best aptitude of some is to make blanket statements on the web (and in the media) about how tough they are to support the never-ending war, puffing out their chests as if they are being brave by doing so (the true sign of a “chickenhawk”), and questioning the patriotism of those who point out the folly of fighting the war to begin with. To these supporters I ask again, if it’s so damn important to you (and to the country), why aren’t you putting your lives and money where your mouths are? Certainly a country running low on soldiers (and thus overextending the brave soldiers they do have), could use their bravery on the front lines of “the most important war evah”.
Also, I look forward to your take on where the money should come from to fight the war and support our soldiers. I hear a lot about who supports the troops, but returning veterans should get lifetime healthcare (physical and mental) no questions asked, adequate training and job search assistance to get them into the workforce, and assistance with home ownership. It’s the least we should do for those risking the ultimate sacrifice. I’m willing to raise my taxes to do so, but then again I’m practically a communist who hates our troops. Do you think we should rescind the tax breaks for our richest 1% (those who have the most to protect by sending troops to save their way of life), across the board 1% tax increase for all Americans, and a special tax on war profiteers? Or are you a good conservative who supports the troops with lots of talk about how you support the troops (what I call supporting the troops as pawns in the pro-war argument)?
I’ve had someone point out to me (upthread) how raising taxes might be bad for the economy, but is money more important than those who risk their lives for all of us?
Yeah, right after I posted, I decided to read it again (I read it when it first came out) and saw I misremembered that it was “after 10 years”, things tend to improve. Winning only 59% (or being inconclusive aren’t great odds).
I did a cursory look at the Dupuy Institute site and could not find it.
This might also be of interest: Small Wars Journal Reference Library.
A while back, I picked up the The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, but have not read through it yet.
Conclusion of the USA Today article:
You said, “Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life.”
I say, let me get on with my life, here in America. I just lost half of my retirement because Bush chose not to regulate the mortgage business (his trope is, I guess, that I should have either known better, regulated them myself, or they, the greed hogs, would regulate themselves). And I can’t continue my business because basically, the US has run out of credit, having shipped billions to China for the war.
Bring the troops home, stop the bleeding and bleeding money.
I want to get on with my life.
Yeah, blame Bush for your decisions. Is responsibility a bad word?
btw, bringing the troops home….
1) Bush is already doing it
2) The next President will end the occupation
3) Even if they all drove and flew out today, they’d just have to invade a 3rd time at an even higher cost
4) the war in Iraq has cost about $150bn a year. That’s a lotta money, but it’s cheaper than the cost of a 3rd invasion
btw, I lost all of my retirement savings thanks to President Clinton’s failure to regulate dot-com investment. Should I blame him like you do, or should the responsibility for MY investments be MY responsibility?
MataHarley said: It was never good idea for Saddam to control, and exploit oil fields for personal gain. It was merely a tool for him to thwart sanctions. I’ll assume we can all agree on #2… it’s *not* an option for the fields to be controlled by jihad groups.
That leaves door #3. So while it may not have been the prime reason to depose Saddam, I frankly consider it a perk of a free Iraq.
Define free Iraq. I think you mean one managed in some way by the US, because once its free, it will become, eventually as free as Gaza under Hamas. Or Saudi Arabia under its monarchs. Iraq is an islamic country and can be expected to act like a muslim nation, i.e. no separation of church and state. Which to me, means sharia law, et al. If we are in it for the oil, then lets act like it. Send more troops. suppress the population. Manage the politicians. Or whatever needs to be done. And by the way, I would like to hear what the plan is from our own political nattering classes. Is it about Oil? Freedom? Democracy? I submit those are in a practical sense contradictory goals.
Not that it makes any difference now, but Saddam, for all his brutality, ran a more secular society without most of the trappings of Islam. I think we should have tried other means to get rid of him before destroying Iraq to save it.
Lets do it right or get out. Another 100 years of the current crap, with no definition for “winning” is not a solution.
Just a few posts ago you were saying get the troops out, now you say the US should flood the place with troops and take the oil. You’re clueless-especially if you think Saddam didn’t have Islam all over the place in Iraq. He built more mosques and bigger mosques in Iraq than any other country in the world, added Allah Ahkbar to the flag, and even had one mosque surrounded by a man made lake with an island in the shape of his thumbprint. Yeah, secular. Ok.
Oh, and you’re 100yrs of war thing is a lie that you’re gullible enough to believe
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php?page=all
“I would like to hear what the plan is from our own political nattering classes. Is it about Oil? Freedom? Democracy?”
Hmmmmmmm, what could be the objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Gosh, dunno. Can’t figure that one out.
Muslims aren’t capable of liberty? I thought all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to live and live in liberty? Is there Sharia in Turkey?
Scott: I offered up my own situation as an example. Its happening to millions, and will effect you and yours as well. The banking and mortgage industry as I eleuded to, should be something regulatied by the govt for the common good. Just as the Fed is now bailing out the economy for the common good, we are told. I am not saying that my investment was Bush’s fault, I am saying the athe structural failure was his, and that the war has drained credit sources from our economy. Another of the unintended consequences of this war. My own in vestments in the dot com bubble were also lost, and I have only myself to blame. What aspect of investment should be regulated in that regard? Truthful financial statemts are a legal requirement. Believe them if we will.
My point was that the war is proving itself unsustainable.
Why would we have to reinvade?
Good to see you’re only blaming Bush for making your investment failure possible, and not for the investment failure itself.
“Why would we have to reinvade?”
I bow to DNC Chairman Gov Dean for that one (though I can drop similar quotes from Sen Clinton and Sen Obama as well)
“Dean: “Because if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos. ”
http://newsbusters.org/node/8944
That chaos in Iraq (which would make today’s violence look like a scuffle) would turn Iraq back into a terrorist safe haven (today, terrorists are chased and killed/captured by the thousands there). It’d also lead to genocide (screw em, let em die?), and it could lead to a full on regional shia/sunni war with Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and the Gulf states all involved=no oil for the world=no world economy. That’s just what the Dems tell us though.
The war is not indefinitely sustainable, but it’s not indefinite. No war is fought on a timeline with a date of success scheduled, but the trend and historic efforts are being made to end it despite opposition to those efforts by so many terrorists and others.
So the Governemnt needs to protect us from ourselves. Wow what a concept. Maybe they can pay my creditr card bills nad rent also. If you are so worried about governmetn spending, look at all the Social Programs that take a lot more of our moneythan the war ever will.
We would have to invade again becasue Al Queda would have a spring board to attack us and our allies from. Not only would they have a country to have training camps, they will control all the oil fields and get all the proceeds for buying more weapons. DUH
And as Scott said it would be an all ou war between the Shia and Sunnis. then the Mahgdi will come down and kill all Jews and Christians along with Jesus. Just ask Iamanutjob.
Scott: Men are created free, but then they grow up believing in Islam, and that has its consequences, many of which do not translate to freedom in our sense. As I said, where they are really free to vote, they vote sharia/Islam and for all that entails.
I think Turkey provides a much better object lesson for us. Secularism was initicated nearly 100 years ago, and todya it is not free enough to gain entry to the EU. Its islamic party is being taken to court as we write, and it has outlawed the prohition of head scarves. Freer than most Islamic countries? Yes, I agree. What’s your point about Turkey? My point is that its hardly democratic or free in our sense after 100 years.
My own study of insurgencies/civil wars points to two ends: total suppression with overwhelming strength or both sides just wear themselves out. I am opting for the US to do one of the other. Mainly I believe that oil rich nations need to sell their oil and developed and developing countries need to buy it. Get out of Iraq, send in the oil companies, let Iraqis sort out their own politics, which they will have to do some time, now or in 100 years, and we will eventually, probably within five years find a much improved oil exporting economy there. The tribes and sects have no real incentive to find ways to live together. As for Al Qaede, the tribes and sects already hate them, they will deal with them. We need to take our targets for AQ out, then they will have little excuse for being there.
As for your remark: “Hmmmmmmm, what could be the objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Gosh, dunno. Can’t figure that one out.” Should thata not have been named Operation Weapons of Mass Destruction? One snide remark for another.
“Operation Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Why? Only political opponents of the President told us that it was only about WMD. He made it very clear there was a long list of reasons-freedom and wmd among that list.
Wow what a plan. Leave Iraq to the terrorists and let them deal with the Oil Companies. that will sure do good for our security.
If we leave now, Al Quedawill takeoverthe Northern partof Iraq and the Quds force will take over the South. Then we will have 2 areas there that are free to train terrorists to attack us.
A great plan. Then we can start bowing to Mecca 5 times a day also.
Stix1972 and Scott:
We only invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Why is Al Qaeda not free to establish sites all over the ME now? Why would leaving Iraq mean they now have free access to all the other countries?
One reason is that most of those countries have no use for AQ, in fact fear it as a very destabilizing force within their societies. The ME is not one big amalgam of people all thinking alike. They have their own personal, religious, national, etc, interests. Learn about them, don’t lump them together. As one point, remember that Iran was one of our first and biggest supporters in our war in Afghanistan? If you read about that and understand why, it will help you understand the ME better.
Though no one can prove it, I would submit that many of the attacks on US troops in Iraq during the war have been by other than AQ. I also submit, again, that by the nature of the fight between AQ and the US, we can fight them where they chose. Again, there are many Iraqis, even Sunnis who have forsaken AQ. It is destabilzing the tribes and sects. Iraqis can deal with them, As Mao said, the Guerilla lives in the sea of the people who supports it. AQ is not a force for good in Iraq, and the Iraqis recognize that. Before they were supported because they were helpful to those who wanted to evict the invader. As long as we provide the reason for them to be in Iraq, by our presence AQ will have a base, diminished not by our resistance to it, but because with us gone, they have no base. I asked why we would have to reinvade. There could be good reason to send some forces back to Iraq, and one of the best, probably only one would b e if we could identify, find and fix a real military target, and one that the Iraqi military could not handle. We could then enter legitimately, do the job, and go back to the ships in the Gulf, to Germany, whatever.
By your logic, why have we not invaded Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where we know in fact that there are AQ supporters of significance?
Stix: Get a grip on the facts, man. The Kurds are in northern Iraq. They are the toughest, meanest, most warlike tribe in the ME. They do not have a country of their own because Britain feared them most of all in the area. Kurds will never let AQ into their area. They are the guys who kicked Al Zaquari out of the area just before the war started. Xenophobia is not good for your health.
Scott: Bush used freedom as the reason for invasion well after it because apparent that there were no WMD. There have been a whole raft of reasons since. The reason given to the UN, the Congress and the American people was that Saddam was bad and he was going to invade us and use his WMD to attack us. All BS as we know now. Democracy, freedom, were not salable reasons before the invasion, but afterward they provided some semblance of reason for the US to stay, like we could train them to like apple pie.
Iran was an ally during the invasion of Afghanistan? As I recall they denied US overfly rights and put their military on alert.
As to why the US doesn’t invade Pakistan…
1) they’ve got nukes
2) the terrain makes it impossible and historically it’s never been conquered
3) Pakistan’s rounded up thousands of AQ for us (not enough, but they’re one of the top 3 in capture/kills of AQ)
The US doesn’t invade Saudi for a similar reason-they’re in the top 3 capture/kills of AQ already.
Fighting the enemy on ground and conditions of their choosing as you suggest is in complete contradiction to any and all logic-whether it’s fishing, hunting, war, or a sport…you always want to have the home field advantage or the advantage of choosing the ground.
Reality check:
no matter who is elected, your plan to turn over Iraq to chaos and let AQ fight the oil companies just isn’t gonna happen.
“Scott: Bush used freedom as the reason for invasion well after it because apparent that there were no WMD.”
So, Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn’t about Freedom until late 2003? No. Check your Bush quotes. He started his diplomatic and military pressure on 91202. From that point until 031703 he listed numerous reasons-so many in fact that his opponents claimed that he was searching for a reason. Also, be careful re the “no wmd” bit. The ISG report showed (heck, just the pics showed) that there was a wmd threat from Saddam, just not in the form of stockpiles.
Stix: Also, in the south its the Shiites. They hate the Sunnis, who were the AQ supporters until even they got tired of their presence. Why would Moqda Al Sadr like to share power with AQ? Again, your lack of knowledge about what’s going on over there, and for the diversity of the Iraqi society, tribes, sects, and culture is leading you to conclusions that will not result in meaningful solutions, to say nothing of meaninful discussion. Much Later…
Yes many of the attascks were instigated by Iran. Justlook at Mookie. He is backed by Iran in the South. And then in the Central part you have Al Queda and it minions, you knowthe Al Queda in Iraq people. And mostof them come from SAyria, Saudi Arabia and various other nations. Many are dropping out because theycome to find out they aret kill fellow Muslims. AThey just wanted to kill Americans. Al Queda is trickinmg these people into being matyrs.
The Madhi Army is being financed by the Quds Firce in Iran. Many IEDS are made with Iranian factories.
Pakistan has got an ally of sortsioffice right now. He has to balance hjinmsel so they do not getkilled bythe Silamists. But they aregiving us intel on the terrorists inside thier coutry. Alongwith Saudi Arabia.
By you Logic weshouldhave never joined with with Russia in WWIIYesI know my Middle East history, and it is plagued with violece and tribal warfare from the beginnig. they have over 20 differnt ssects of Shi’a and many sects of Sunnis.
They also have the Sufis and the Salafis in both Shi’a and Sunni. The Sufis are non-violent (st least most)and have moved into the 21st century. The Salafis have not and live in the 7th century. They still believe in canversion by the Sword, and believe in a 1 world Caliphate.
HighPlainsJoker wrote 107#
A couple of years ago the Chicago Tribune ran a series regarding the case for war, then and now:
President Bush’s “freedom agenda” has always been at the core; not something new cooked up.
Nicholas Lemann wrote the following in The New Yorker before OIF in 2003:
Lawdy, Ace’rs… you may as well make this an “open thread” that bumps to the top daily. LOL
High Plains, to respond to your “define free Iraq”. No sir, I did *not* mean one “managed in some way by the US”. The Iraqis chose their Assembly by party in the prior elections. That Assembly chose their leaders. The US had nothing to do with it. And the upcoming provincial elections are yet another step in their process.
Simply put, a free Iraq is an Iraq of their own choice by their elections (not to be confused with Saddam’s me-or-the-point-of-a-gun election). A Muslim country’s democracy will not resemble ours. It doesn’t need to. That’s part of “democracy”. THEY chose how it looks… not us.
__________________________________
Also, to your own particular home equity scenario… you said:
and a few posts later
Yes, when you obligate to borrow a substantial amount of cash, you should know better, make an effort to research and learn, or get with a real estate professional you trust that gives you a heads up on stupid moves. None of us are responsible for our neighbors bad decisions and lack of knowledge when it is so easy to acquire. And BTW, Congress regulates. Admins just sign or veto. So all whining should be directed to your local Congressional representatives instead.
Govt has no business regulating loan guideliness for individuals. Nor should lenders be forced by Congress to accept high risk deals to meet discrimination goals (ala ACORN’s extensive lobbying to Congress). Is this not some of your suggested “regulation” by Congress? Yet you still believe legislators – who know nothing about you, your credit, work history or personal life – should decide if you can have a loan, and on what terms? Okie doke…
It was easy cash that got us into this mess, combined with ambitious seller prices driving values up unnaturally. And now the mortgage industry has overcorrected the other way with tightening up too much, and tossing away some very stellar loan packages. Overly tight cash hurts the economy as otherwise good risk borrowers and contractors can’t purchase and build.
Had there been the same # of defaults from “too easy” of cash, and the home values NOT been driven up astronomically, we would not have this problem. Because the collateral would not be over mortgaged, and those houses would merely change hands to new buyers.
Do a bit of calculation for your own piece of mind. Take a home value purchased before the “boom”… say $300K. In our area we had 3-7% annual appreciation. Yet over say two years of absurd pricing, that $300K home became worth $417,725 instead of $343,470
Now the doom’n'gloom media says we may find our house values falling 15%. That’s 15% from the over inflated value of $417,725 in the above example – or $355K. Actually just about where the house would be under normal conditions. So I consider this a market correction… and a much needed one.
Last touch of reality – you cannot lose home equity that you never had … unless you physically cashed out with a sale at that moment. Equity and gain is a constantly fluctuating value, based on market trends – which have always gone up and down. That’s like banking on the eggs your chicken will hatch next week.
High Plains said:
Really? Tell that to the Pakistanis, High Plains. Or did you not follow that election?
Scott: I say again, Iran was a supporter of our actions against AQ. Look it up. They changed when we called them a “evil empire”.
Are you saying tht Iraq is the ground of our chosing? Why? We don’t understand the culture. We have done a terrible hob on that ground so far, and in fact my point was that in an insurgency the containing force seldom has the choice of where to fight. By Mao’s dictum, they will fight were they understand and can expect support. Why would we, if we knew what the hell we were getting into, would we want to fight them in Iraq? Its not because that is where they were. Its where they decided they had targets of opportunity. We could guess that we have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Can you tell me how many AQ members we have killed? The only lesson we seem to have learned is that we don’t want to do body count like VN.
My posit is that we are fighting out of our “sea”, element, in Iraq. For the GWOT, to use the Bush term, which I do not agree with, I contend that AQ is out of its element in the US. IF we pay attention, as we have started to do. “The best defense is a good offense” may work for the NFL, but for America, not so much. We had no defense before 9/11, and now we are working on it. That is where we need to concentrate, before we spend trillions fighting about ~75,000(I don’t know the nrs, and who does) so called AQ, who will be kicked out if we let the Iraqis do it, and we aren’t a target source. Unforetunately, the Bush group cannot get out with honor because they have not done the correct assessment prior to going in, and have staked too much on a total misunderstanding of they wanted to accomplish, raising expectations too high. You still have them. Get over it. We need to concentrate on how to get out, because now, that is in our national interest. An unending war, anyplace in the world, without an exit strategy and definition of winning, is severely detrimental to our nation. Bulling ahead is not the solution. Combine war, diplomacy, business, some attempt at mutual solutions, is the only way.
I wish I were prescient and could provide an exit solution: I am not. I want to hear from our leaders what their solutions are. If you have a strategy, lets hear it. What I do believe, is that staying 100 years is stupid. Ten years is stupid. This is not Germany. Its not our culture. Liee Turkey, let them create their own democracy. Its wine time…. enjoyed the conversation.
High Plains… per your
You may feel victimized by lies. However the Congress had their own reasons for authorizing force. And only about 7 or so of them were WMD related.
Read the text Congress passed.
And if you believe their lies that they said “we didn’t think it meant actually go to war”, have a second look at the title of the resolution.
mataHarley: Good point. Also India. And Gaza?
Sam Harris make my point much better than I ever could in his book, End of Faith. He took some pains to point out that Islam is 500 years behind Christianity in learning to adapt their religion to become tolerant. Christians do not totally adhere to biblical directions, may I say “thank god”, because to not strictly adhere to any of the ten commandments requires death by some form, even stoning. We got over it. Today the internet is full of rants by Islamics to kill the author of FItna. Point being, many of these folks do not believe in freedom as we do. With the influence of western culture, as in Pakistan, India, by Britain, some others, we may see advancement to tolerance. Forcing it did not result in success, leaving brought success. The Iraqis are not stupid, they can work out their own solutions politically. Let let them.
I hear from both the Democrats and Republicans that is we leave there will be total chaos, blood baths, etc in Iraq. Why? They are doing that now, and we don’t seem to have much control of it. And I submit that much of the bloodletting has bee done, while we are there. They are wearing themselves out on our time. Let them do it on their own time and with their own deals and consequences This administration has shown virtually no talent in managing the fray. Its not our job. We aren’t managing the fray in Darfur. We didn’t manage the fray in several other potential hot spot, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon.
Whether I have been as articulate as ya’ll in stating my point, let me just say, the US should get all in or get out.
Wine time. Gone.
Wordsmith:
I care not who thinks now or stated then that “building a democratic state in the Mid East” was a goal or not, its a stupid idea. Or if its not, just do it, and stop the pretentiousness. Saddam is gone. WMD are under control, I guess. Elections have been held, democracy is in place. Lets get out while we still have an economy extant. I resent that my grandchildren, and yours, but less so, will have to pay for this idiocy. But then, as I alluded above, its past my wine time.
My cut-and-paste was a response to your contention that
w(s)md were not the only reasons stated in the beginning.
Go revisit the “Mission Accomplished” carrier speech if you’re appalled by the shift to “nation-building”.
And as far as your “get out now” argument, you don’t believe in the “pottery barn” rule? You don’t feel we have a responsibility, now that “we broke it”?
How is that comparison any less “flawed”, than your statement that “this isn’t Germany”?
Japan didn’t resemble anything like our culture either.
I did. “Scott: I say again, Iran was a supporter of our actions against AQ. Look it up. They changed when we called them a “evil empire”.” They may have been a supporter on paper, but in reality, they denied overflight rights, put their military on alert and in a posture that made ops in Afghanistan more difficult, supplied the Taliban, gave safe harbor to hundreds of AQ that fled Afghanistan, and allowed hundreds of AQ to pass through Iran into Iraq…all before the 1/02 Axis of Evil speech (lo that Americans should call a govt “evil” when that govt stages protests that chant DEATH TO AMERICA every week, and when that govt still has the words painted on the US embassy that they overran in 1979). No sir, Iran was not an ally. How many Iranian troops and aircraft were contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom?
…and yes, I am saying Iraq was ground of our choosing. Better to fight them there than here (heard that before?).
Still clinging to the 100yrs of war idea, huh?
Condi Rice in September 2002,
“We wouldn’t want the proof to be a mushroom cloud of un-free Iraqis over American cities.”
Quick, point me to the 151 million Americans who wanted to spend $3 trillion and 4000 American soldiers lives , so Iraqis could be free. OK, how about pointing me to the 151 Americans then.
BTW, Army Vice Chief of Staff, Richard Cody, says bring back the draft or accept the disintegration of the Army.
C’mon tough guys, your country needs you.
Send me your zip codes, and I’ll point you to an enlisting station in your area.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. ”
-Sen Hillary Clinton 10/2002
$3trillion? Wow, what exaggerated estimate is that one from? Last I’d heard the war’s opponents were claiming $2trillion and $2million dead.
Amazes me every time when opponents of the war who are glued to the BUSH LIED mantra rant away with the most incredible lies, half truths, and distortions possible.
“[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything…”
-Saddam Sept 20, 2001
“Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem. ”
-President Bush Outlines the Iraqi Threat at Cincinnati Union Terminal Speech, October 7 2002
Robert,
I AM active duty and I FULLY SUPPORT our fight against these agressive islamofascists. I have 14 years of service and counting.
Curt is a former Marine.
Any other asinine comments you wish to add?
As for knowing where recruiting stations are, yes, we do. We see them attacked and bombed by “peace” ativists.
Robert: Don’t you know that raising the idiotic chicken hawk argument is a sure sign that you don’t the intellectual integrity to be taken seriously?
Thanks for letting me know I need not bother with any other point you may wish to raise. Once a fool, always a fool in my book.
Wordsmith #118
Japan was not an insurgency. We completely defeated them. What’s your point?
Scott: We are creating more AQ than we are destroying in Iraq, and you have no logical argument that those over there could or would attack us here, unless of course they could be fulfilling OBL’s promise to ruin America, through using us against our own best interests, which is happening. We are using a sledge hammer to kill fleas and still missing most of the time. Can we afford $3 trillion to battle a relative few AQ in Iraq, which they replace as fast as we kill them, inspired by the very example we set by invading a muslim country? The way we are proceeding now, we surely will be there 100 years. Its just a question of whether our money runs out before the muslims are all dead. And, are you saying that because we are “FTTSWDHTFTH” that there will be no attacks in the US, or the rest of the free world? It only took OBL and 19 guys to do 9/11. I think that OBL thinks that the war is cost effective for him, its getting us to ruin ourselves with a minimum commitment of AQ martyrs.
Re: “And as far as your “get out now” argument, you don’t believe in the “pottery barn” rule? You don’t feel we have a responsibility, now that “we broke it”?”
I did not know that Conservatives were permitted to say “we broke it”. I thought all Conservatives beleive that Colin Powel was wrong and, as per VP Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld was “The Greatest Secretary of Defense in History”.
Or are Conservatives now allowed to admit that, under Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration the occupation of Iraq was botched (even though we were told “we are turning the corner in Iraq” for three years) and America now has a massive job undoing the damage that happened on “its watch”?
HighPlainsJoker has described the situation above as well as I ever could.
C’mon Mike’s America, be serious.
Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that those against the war from the beginning don’t hate America, love Saddam, and are on the side of the terrorists.
BTW, the surge didn’t work. (Not that you need anyone to point out the obvious!)
“I AM active duty and I FULLY SUPPORT our fight against these agressive islamofascists. I have 14 years of service and counting.”
Thanks Chris G.
Me too.
Always good to have an active duty service member who can differentiate between agressive islamofacists and Iraqis. I salute you. Keep up the good fight against America’s REAL enemies.
Yes Robert, I am keeping up the fight against America’s REAL enemies: the islamofascists and their “useful idiot” “anti-war” allies on the left that support them while targeting recruiters and other Service Members.
ChrisG,
As long as it’s not Iraqis, who just want to rule their own country. Who could blame them. It’s like the movie “Red Dawn”.
I assume when you mention useful idiots you mean Mike’s America, who dismissed Army Vice Chief, Richard Cody, because Cody says we need a draft or the Army will disintegrate.
BTW, as an active service member I’d love your take on my support the troops post (#93).
Also, don’t be so angry with the “anti-war left”. After all, they were 100% correct about the disaster that attacking Iraq has led us to. And like you, they were brave enough to say it back in 2002-2003, when doing so wasn’t popular. I realize it’s a different kind of bravery, but it’s always tough to go against the grain of the majority and speak the truth.
Finally, I’d also like your take on military man, Gen. Patraeus, acting as a political hack for the Bush administration. My friends who are service members are disgusted with him. Hopefully he will redeem himself next week and just admit that the surge hasn’t worked. (As if it isn’t obvious to everyone at this point).
Anyway, always good to hear from an active service member who’s not afraid to lay it on the line.
Keep up the good work. We’re proud of you guys, we just wish you hadn’t been thrown into the unwinnable “meat-grinder” situation in Iraq.
Maybe next time, the citizens will listen to “the hippies” who know what they’re talking about.
Robert,
As you sit in Argentina, let us get one thing straight: We stand diametrically opposed on these issues. The “anti-war” left is a treasonous, moronic group of “useful idiots’ in the fashion Lenin described them. They are pathetic and like you WRONG on every account. I have no issues with GEN Patraeus and neither do any officers and NCOs I know. The “anti-war” left does and you gleefully are clinging to the “surge failed” mantra is telling of many things.
I FULLY SUPPORT this war and the reasons for waging it. I wish the left had opened up on AQ and Saddam in the 1990s, but that is past. The “Hippies” have YET to be correct on anything and I back up my support of the GWOT and our defense against islamofascism with my life. The left just runs in fear and stabs those of us defending them in the back.