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.
See author page
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.
RBA said:
Sorry pal. I didn’t dismiss Gen. Cody. I DID dismiss YOU. You’re not a serious individual and we’re overquota here for lefties who suffer a deficit of intellectual integrity.
Treasonous? For what? Telling the truth? Being correct?
Get yourself to a Vet Hospital Chris, I think you’re suffering from shell-shock.
No one REALLY believes the surge is working. They just say that shit, so they won’t have to admit how wrong they have been all along.
You’ve been lied to so often, you have no idea what the truth is anymore.
Sad. Truly sad.
Robert,
I have been to Iraq and seen the media make up lies in front of my face. You want to know who has been lied to? Look in the mirror and know the left has lied to you from day one.
Treason: Sending money and supplies to the enemy in Fallujah. Attacking recruiting stations across the country. Calling for the deaths of US troops during their protests and providing aid and comfort to the enemy with open signs of support.
The left has done nothing but lie and has not been correct on anything. The are cowards and too timid to stand up for their own freedoms when threatened by islamofascism, let alone the freedoms of others.
Mike is correct. You are a waste of time. As usual I see how fast the ‘supportive’ “we care about you poor soldiers” words of the left evaporate when we Soldiers disagree with you and support our efforts despite your mind-numbed ranting points.
I’ve got more intellectual integrity then you’ll ever have. You still cling to the fantasy that the surge has worked, despite ALL evidence to the contrary.
So are you dis-honest or just incredibly stupid? It’s hard to tell from here.
HighPlainsJoker #124 wrote:
My point was exactly what I quoted from you:
Perhaps what you inferred was that it is not our country so we have no business caring and investing blood and treasure. But how I read it was that our efforts won’t succeed in Iraq because unlike Germany, Iraq and the Middle East are just too different from western culture to make democratization work. My point was that the same was said about Japan.
There’s no way of honestly saying that Iraq has created more terrorists without knowing how many terrorists there were before the invasion. Besides, it’s not the actions of American forces that’s firing people up as much as it is the political opposition to the war and the lies that opposition is based upon:
war will last 100yrs
war cost $3trillion
war killed 2-3million Iraqis
no wmd threat
no ties to Al Queda
Bush lied
it’s all about oil & American imperialism
the list goes on. Opposition to the war is based on lies, but it fires up people-first to take political action, then to take more and more extreme action until wala….suicide bomber.
btw, ignoring the fact that opponents of the war still claim the war will last 100yrs (something John McCain never said, and only the gullible believe), I find it incredibly amusing-honestly-that the opposition to the war remains focused on President Bush rather than on any of the three Presidential candidates all of whom have basically the same plan for Iraq: continue withdrawing troops depending on conditions on the ground, leave large numbers there to protect Americans, support Iraqis, and fight AQ. Why focus on the lame duck instead of the choice ahead? Which focus would have more of a chance of making a CHANGE? Sorry, I know it’s not pc to question one’s party if a Democrat, but I’m a Democrat, and I do question the authority.
No Robert, you are just one more lied to/brainwashed leftist who spouts tired rehashed party talking points and revels in any supposed US/Coalition setback while believing the lies of the left hook, line, and sinker. From here, it appears you really believe the crap your though leaders push on you and are incredibly stupid for believing it. Either that, or you really are a “true believer” who, when not camping out in South America, is attending Berkeley rallies calling for the deaths of US Soldiers, killing of Jews, and destruction of the United States (replaced, of course by an authoritarian socialist government as described in the “anti-war” protests and their literature).
Back on topic,
This action by the sovereign Iraqi government against Sadr’s Iranian backed thugs is one more step in moving away from both Saddam and Iran and towards a more stable region. The Sunnis “awoke” now it is time for the Shia to also wake up and throw Sadr to the curb as AQ was.
Wordsmith: And my point was that we completely subjegated the Japanises, and then with some foresight, kept Hirohito on the throne as figurehead, but MacArthur put democracy in place. There was also no religious animosity toward democracy in Japan, as there is in all Islamic countries, mostly to a greater degree, but in the case of a couple, Turkey for instance, to a significant degree.
Scott: I disagree to some extent in each case with your contention that the list you present are lies, but frankly, I don’t think I could change your mind so lets just agree to disagree.
What I disagree with is that you say the three candidates are alike in their approch to ending the war. I think the Democratic candidates are similar in that they have a rough timetable to get out, but not McCain. He thinks the surge is working and he wants to stay until we “win”, but will not define that. I want that definition. If he is going to spend $2billion a day our our maney he owes us that.
I agree, McCain did not say the war would last 100 (or 100000) years, but our presence would or could, or may not, or may, or, or. Take a look at this over at Carpetbagger today and tell me what you think that he really thinks. I am confused about that…
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15085.html#comments
High Plains, I suggest that in Gaza, Hamas was voted in not for their devotion to violence, but to their generous welfare programs. So I don’t count that as a vote for Shariah law. But I do consider it a problem. But ya know, with democracy, ya takes your chances as to what you end up with.
However also, theoretically, in democracy, when you figure out you made a mistake, you vote them out in the next election. And now, I’ll brace myself for the Bush = mistake comments…. But then, I do consider anyone elected “my President” as well… even if I don’t like he/she. I’ll just reserve the option to vote them out next time, and brace myself for what their policies may bring.
INRE “creating more AQ than we are destroying”… I beg to challenge that. I found this article interesting from a female Saudi journalist – a story on a ex OBL/Tora Bora/Camp Gitmo jihadi. Good story all around, but this particular quote caught my eye…
Subtle progress – mostly ignored – in battling the ideology is the decline of admiration for the jihad movement because of their rules of engagement. It is also creating internal battles and rifts. Sadly it took a scenario in Iraq where they had ample opportunity to show their disregard for innocents, including fellow Muslims, for them to start losing favor.
I do not limit the bad guys to those who carry the AQ membership card. The global Islamic jihad movement is comprised of those who seek to implement Shariah/Islamic law by means of violence and fear. AQ is merely an “association” with morphing members. However they often bond with non-members of like values, i.e. the neo-Taliban. The original Taliban as well, until they had a recent falling out for internal power battles.
BTW… pour a glass for me. May be early, but I think I can take it!
Robert in BA. Why are you so quick to pronounce the Surge and it’s effects “over” and failed? I see no fat lady singing on stage INRE Iraq’s future.
HighPlainsJoker:Wordsmith: And my point was that we completely subjegated the Japanises, and then with some foresight, kept Hirohito on the throne as figurehead, but MacArthur put democracy in place. There was also no religious animosity toward democracy in Japan, as there is in all Islamic countries, mostly to a greater degree, but in the case of a couple, Turkey for instance, to a significant degree.
And as I said in my previous comment, it’s not the way I read your original point; with your clarification, there’s really no disagreement. Consider this, however: if there had been an insurgency in Japan, with suicidal acts of defiance that cost thousands of American lives as well as the lives of Japanese innocents and police forces, post-war, would you have said “it’s not worth the effort?” The comparison is superficial and definitely imperfect with strong differences in situation, but I’m just curious to know.
Scott #121:
The figure comes from Joseph Stiglitz’ new book, and all the lefties are touting the number.
It’s slanted to find the worst possible figure you can dream up.
MatHarley,
I’d like to know what makes Robert in BA label (libel?) General Petraeus a political hack.
MataHarley,
Another article which backs up your previous one.
Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics
I dunno, Wordsmith… Since I doubt Robert’s position in proximity to Petraeus and his strategic plans, I’d have to consider his response nothing more than a concoction of platitudes, founded in a difference of opinion on performance.
And on this coast, it’s a bit early to mar such a beautious day with such a spew of talking points!
But I’d sure like to know who said the clock’s run out, and the game of “Surge” is in checkmate. Strikes me as Iraq is early on in it’s battle to control and police itself. I could be wrong, but isn’t Basra the first major battle done solo?
Thanks for the link, ChrisG. I’ve always said our ultimate success lies in the youth. If they can surmount sermons and schools of “hate”, see a future in a country that allows personal and financial growth within their religious beliefs, why would they need jihad?
And it is the youth in Iran where we place our greatest hopes.
Which brings us back to the reality that the majority of Muslim nations do not “vote” to make Sharia/Islamic rule the law of the state.
I’m just an average joe who did my duty during Vietnam and served in the military. I never questioned why we were in Vietnam and still don’t care about the reasons. My country called and I answered. I never amounted to much, did my job and worked to earn an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. I’m retired now and my wife and I live in Texas. Today I’m just a casual observer of internet blogs but reading the comments on “Will they ever admit progress?” is bewildering and I’m doing something rare, speaking out. How can anyone deny that the current Basra conflict is humiliating for the U.S.? Whatever your views on the Iraq War, America’s leadership in Iraq, from the rationale, to the planning, and to the current state of progress in Iraq was at best ill-conceived and incompetently led. I’m not blaming Bush entirely although he is the President. I think the entire country shoulder’s more blame from the cheerleaders for and against the war who put political party above politics to the folks who sat on the sidelines and just let it happen. Shame on all of you.