Here’s a place to do so…
A couple of readers brought it to my attention yesterday that the war began its Iraq phase four years ago today. They want to have a discussion about that. OK, even though personally I am increasing taking to heart messages such as the one from our own sometime contributor Reed Swearingen, who wrote yesterday to tell my colleague Cindi Scoppe:
Good Morning Cindi,
Have you an interest in running a blog? If so, I wish to encourage you
to do so.
I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on Brad’s blog, but would
love to participate in a blog that focuses on public policy at the state
level, which appears to be your domain.Sincerely,
Reed Swearingen
Columbia, SC
Well that’s sort of what I started MY blog for. Consequently, I’ve recently resolved, in my own oblique way, to concentrate more on Energy (as a critical part of the War on Terror) or on primarily South Carolina issues.
I’m edging in that direction. Now I have to edge back a bit.
But just a bit. Here are my thoughts on the Iraq War four years after the invasion:
By and large, needing only a few updates here and there, it’s the same as what I had to say on the third anniversary of that campaign, upon which I elaborated a few days later.
My thoughts on the current situation — the surge and such — have conveniently also been provided on this blog.
As the surge is just now being implemented, so it is certainly far too early to assess whether it will be successful. The only decisions that really need to be made now are on the tactical, political (Iraqi politics, not American) and diplomatic fronts. A great deal of improvement is needed on all three.
Anything you or I might have to say should have little influence on the situation, as the people on the ground who know what they’re facing need to and can call shots at this level.
So for me, the whole matter of war in iraq is a fascinating one to talk about later, when there’s something new to discuss. But if you have something new to say at this point — if you find this date on the calendar sufficiently meaningful to inspire you — go for it.
Related Posts
Brad, you meant far to early I assume instead of far to far above. The evidence is rolling in that the SURGE is working, Maliki announced that sectarian violence is way down, Sadr has fled the country, AQ is on the run, and downtown Bagdhad tea shops that have been closed for months are reopening. Iraq is turning the corner to being a major success. You have been a strong written force for support of the noble goals of this entire endeavor and my guess is your detractors on this blog, like Bud, Hurl, Steve Gordy, Phillip, KC, Randy, et. al. will grow strangely silent about Iraq as the success stories develop. I wouldn’t even be surprised if some jump on the victory bandwagon in some perverted sort of way.
Yes, thank you; I’ll fix it. I wrote that last night when I was extremely tired, and had taken one of those post-operative pain-killers. Knowing it was messy, I didn’t post it until today.
It was even messier than I had thought. I fixed most of the problems. Thanks for catching that one.
Brad, I think there is something new going on here. What we’re seeing is a change in approach, politically, by the Bush administration. (Even Petraeus has suggested we can’t win by military means alone.) What is happening is that internally the Bush administration realizes all is lost in Iraq so they need a way out. By pushing this “surge is working” story they’re hoping to create an environment that will allow them to save face. If they can convince enough people that it’s working (apparently Dave is already on board) then they can just say, again, “Mission Accomplished” and start bringing our troops home. By the time the whole thing collapses in earnest another president will be in charge. Hey it worked for Nixon. Many on the right still regard him as a good president.
But if saying we’re winning will bring the troops home soon then count me in. That’s really all I care about.
But if saying we’re winning will bring the troops home soon then count me in. That’s really all I care about.
What a difference a generation makes.
Bringing our troops home will, by definition, do one of 3 things to our security:
1. Make us more safe.
2. Make us less safe.
3. Have no effect on our safety.
No one knows for sure which of these is correct. But I give the odds as follows:
1. Make us more safe: 30%
2. Make us less safe: 1%
3. Have no effect on our safety: 69%
So for me winning isn’t what’s important it’s how it affects our security.
I don’t want to talk about the war in Iraq; I’d like to see some discussion about Nicolas Kristof’s superb editorial this morning on the Palestinian issue, which is at the heart of much of our difficulties in the Middle East. At least I can sigh relief that somebody has had the courage in this country to write it, and The State had the courage to publish it.
I am still curious as to why Brad would be opposed to drafting women, if a draft became a reality. Never heard back from you on that, Brad… anyone else have any thoughts on the subject?
“Over there, Over there, and we won’t come back till it’s over over there”!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I’m sorry, Lily. Here’s a really short, really unsatisfactory answer that will probably just make you mad at me. I really want to do a longer, thoughtful piece on it, but I’ve kept you waiting too long:
— Here’s the reason that will probably bug you the most, so I’ll start with it… I believe that a fundamental tenet of a civilized society is that women must be considered noncombatants. Yes, you need to contain violence of all kinds, but violence by men against women SHOULD be the most offensive to any civilized person’s sensibilities — alongside violence against children. The greatest crime in civil society, and the first one we should stamp out, is any crime that involves men hurting women (or, once again, children). When a society puts women in soldier’s uniform and sends them onto the battlefield, it is saying, on a fundamental, visceral level, “these are our warriors; it is just as legitimate for you, the enemy, to kill them as to kill our other soldiers.” Killing women should be a war crime, not a conventional tragedy of war.
This position is a corollary to another I frequently state to people who want to equate discriminating between sexes with racial discrimination: “Boys and girls are different; black people and white people are not.” How does that play out? Not in terms of better than, but simply different. It suggests different roles in society, which of course is wildly politically incorrect. To a great extent, I think all doctors should be women. Similarly, I believe if you can manage it, all soldiers should be men.
— Second reason: We CAN manage it, if we have a draft. If we have a truly fair, universal draft of men, the Selective Service can be as selective as it wants — picking the strongest, healthiest, brightest, toughest of men and leaving the rest if it chooses — and still have more soldiers than we could possibly need. Right now, the Pentagon can’t fill the billets without every volunteer man AND woman it can get. Bottom line: With a draft, the Army would have more than enough males. This is not Israel, beset with enemies all around and needing a totally militarized population. The United States has NEVER, even in WWII, had to go to total mobilization. We don’t need to now, either.
— Society would benefit, on every level from social to political, from having a male population that has spent part of it’s early lifetime in military service. If you’ve ever had occasion to study the differences between males and females in the real world, you’ll have noticed that young males are grossly lacking in discipline and self-control, to a much greater extent than females. One of the great canards of the past generation has been the one that young girls needed more mentoring to do well in school. Girls have always been more suited to the structure of schools, and of the workplace, than young males. Young men need intense training in groups that give them a sense of belonging, a sense of pride in shared purpose beyond their individual appetites. Military service would have made me a better man than I am. I look around and see that truth reflected over and over — but I don’t see that same need in women.
— When talking about such a broad, drastic thing as a national draft, I’m thinking about what WORKS and what benefits the NATION. I am not thinking about individual people and their aspirations. To some extent, society still functions along those lines. Even though female officers complain of their careers being held back because they can’t get infantry combat experience, we still deny them that, for the reasons I cite above — we haven’t needed them to in terms of numbers (at least, not until recently), by and large women are less suited to close combat than men, and the idea of women in hand-to-hand fighting on behalf of our society is still sufficiently repugnant to Americans that no amount of political correctness has been able to overcome the resistance. If we are going to have a draft — and I think we should — we must set aside the ridiculous notion that boys and girls have to be treated exactly the same at all times, whether the context makes sense or not.
Those statements are overly simplistic even though they are about extremely complicated concepts. (There is no greater complication in human society than sex.) But I give you this more-or-less bumper-sticker version rather than putting you off any more.
I still hope to return to, and elaborate upon, some of these points at a later date. But I’m not in a big hurry, any more than I was in a hurry to answer the question at all. Why? Well, we seem to be far from implementing a draft, unfortunately. That sort of renders considerations about whether to draft females moot, and not really worth arguing about.
> but violence by men against women SHOULD
>be the most offensive to any civilized
>person’s sensibilities — alongside
>violence against children.
Unless they’re Iraqi women and children… then it’s the justifiable cost of exporting democracy. They just fall under the “oops” category.
Yes, Doug, as ridiculous as you may think it is, there IS a moral difference between hurting someone intentionally and unintentionally. There is an even greater difference between hurting someone intentionally and your ENEMY killing them in order to run up the toll and increase political pressure on you to quit.
Collateral damage — which to me seems an appropriately descriptive phrase, not some deeply ironic joke the way it does to a lot of antiwar people — is horrific ANY time it occurs, and it occurs a lot. But not “a lot” in a historic sense. Compare the intentional slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents in each bombing raid because we “had to” in order to beat Hitler and Tojo to the small numbers of innocents killed at a time because our enemy chooses to hide in their midst. It doesn’t make me feel any better about their individual deaths, but it doesn’t make me feel any worse about the United States and its intentions.
You know how we could end the insurgency? Level Fallujah and several other Anbar cities, which we could do far more efficiently than we ever tried to incinerate Dresden or Hiroshima back in the GOOD war. We could do it with the push of a button. We could have done the same to Hanoi. BUT WE WON’T, because we believe IT WOULD BE WRONG. And our enemies use our decency against us.
If you think that’s ironic, you’re right. It’s also a commentary on just how evil our enemies are, and why we can’t let them get away with what they do. They have shown their willingness to kill every woman and child in Iraq to achieve their goals. All that holds them back is inadequate technology.
They will intentionally kill MANY more than we do accidentally, and they will keep doing it long after we leave — IF we walk away and leave them in a position to do so.
Such people must be opposed, with all our might. We can’t walk away and leave a country at their mercy. That does not exist as a moral option.
I’m sure the families of those Iraqi women and children grasp the subtlety of the difference.
I’ve read enough news reports of civilian casualties to know the standard procedure
of the Pentagon:
a) first deny it happened
b) next claim they were harboring terrorists
c) then blame faulty intelligence/technology
d) finally, express the deepest sympathy of the American public
Doug, I see your problem. You rely on reading news reports. Advice: go talk directly to leaders in the military and then see if you can denigrate them as you do.
Dave,
Like Pat Tillman’s leaders?
Can you provide a pointer to any civilian deaths that the military immediately took responsibility for? My comment was related to Pentagon spokesmen, not news reports. The same ones who claimed four years ago that everything was going great in Iraq until they couldn’t lie any more. The same ones who stage “Mission Accomplished” pep rallies. Pure propaganda.
I’m still waiting for liberals to take responsibility for all the Christians and Jews they killed and made homeless by aiding the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The carnage continues, yet Clinton declares his debacle a success, and the Complicit Media keeps the light of another liberal Democrat Genocide.
Nothing will change the opinion of those who oppose the war, because their opinion is not based on facts, but on their personal hatred of President Bush.
They want America to fail in Iraq. They hate it that we have killed 15,000 terrorists, and that the troop surge in its infancy has already decreased attacks by 80%. They cannot stand it that this administration has stopped over 150 terrorist attacks on America, after their clown, Clinton, had a pro-Muslim policy which encouraged attacks.
They will always be miserable, because they have such a hard time finding anyone worse than themselves for comparison.
I’m waiting for the day when we can stop hearing every Republican mistake tied back to Bill Clinton.
Did leveling Dresden bring the surrender of Germany? No, because the Hitler was willing to sacrifice every German to his madness.
Did nuking Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, of course) end Japan’s resistance? Yes, but only because most Japanese recognized the divine leadership of the emperor. Had the emperor not thrown in the towel then the Japanese would have fought to the last the breath– probably for another 30-40 years.
Are either of these examples parallel to Iraq? Not unless Mohammed returns and endorses democracy.
In Iraq, there is no uniting leader who will make a decision in favor of preserving the nation and saving lives. Killing every living being in Anbar Province will only do one thing: win Iraq for the Shia Islamic state. Think of an Iranian-style Iraq.
Your statement is so much hogwash, unsupported by analysis of history. But, you’re so enamored of “America-the-Saviour” that you’re willing to misuse history to keep sending Americans to die in a futile, deluded quest.
It’s a CIVIL WAR, Brad.
Had we maintained civil order and helped the Iraqis devise a political solution then MAYBE there might have been some hope.
By not maintaining civil order, we loosed the demons of sectarian/tribal hatred and violence.
From the personal level to the tribal and religious level the Iraqi culture fosters vendettas for generations. The Shia and Sunni have been fighting each other for thousands of years.
History demonstrates that this multi-sided conflict can’t be controlled by an occupying power– especially one that is so culturally and religiously alien.
As much as it pains your Boy Scout idealism and Western morality there are some situations which simply require the victory of one side or the other.
The Brits did what they could in a similar situation by partitioning Pakistan and India. Essentially they mandated ethnic/religious separation. And, it’s not perfect.
However, the Brits’ advantage was that they were realists instead of blind, ignorant ideologues like the neo-cons. The lions will not lay down with the lambs simply because we invade and give them a copy of U.S. Constitution.
It would be so easy to go point by point to refute Brad’s continued support of stay-the-course. But it is really rather pointless. I’ve given my odds of what I think will happen to our security if we leave the damn place. With 99% certainty I think our security will either stay the same or be enhanced. If you believe, in spite of the overwhelming and growing evidence to the contrary, that staying in Iraq makes us more secure then you will basically believe anything. The Brits have finally had enough. In about a year the American public will make support of stay-the-course untenable for any presidential candidate. Since the dems simply don’t have the votes right now we’re forced to wait it out until then.
Here are words from a real American hero, Max Cleland talking about our VP, from an interview on CNN:
“Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War? If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war. You can’t keep troops on the ground forever. You gotta have a mission. You gotta have a purpose.
“You can’t keep sending ’em back and back and back with no mission and no purpose. As a matter of fact, the real enemy is Al Qaeda, it’s Al Qaeda stupid, it’s not in Iraq.”
Amen brother Max.
You think the Iraqi sects are going to all join hands peacefully because America forces them to? We’ve still got people in South Carolina holding a grudge over the Civil War 140 years later. We can’t even take down a divisive flag celebrating a failed secession. And we’re going to mediate a centuries old religious battle?
Ha.
The insurgents are in their last throws…as in how far Dave throws a grenade, or whatever he claimed.
You mean, as opposed to “throes.” Not sure I get the pun.
Anyway, I’m disappointed not to hear back from Lily. I started this string in answer to her.
I give Max Cleland all the honor and respect I give all soldiers who served. However, while getting ready to go on a helicopter based beer run, he was goofing around and accidentally pulled the pin on a grenade, dropped it and it went off at his feet. This makes the guy a hero. What a joke. The people of Georgia retired this guy much to their credit.
Ok Dave this pisses me off! Ann Coulter’s sliming of Max Cleland simply cannot go unchallenged. Here’s the real account of what happened to Cleland while the VP was on his third (or was it fourth) deferment.
The True Story of Max Cleland’s Vietnam Injuries
by Christopher Crallé
I wrote last night in response to the column by Ann Coulter. My father, who has close personal ties with Max, has responded to me and I forward his reply.
What follows is the true account of Max Cleland’s injury in Vietnam.
———
Thank you Chris. I did not have the links to this, but Max called me about it in case I needed to tell the real truth should someone want to know. This Ann Coulter has written real slime. Only in America. Our service men and women fight and die to defend your right to a free press. The press needs to be aware of their responsibility to use this democratic tool in a responsibility way.
——————————
The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.
As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don’t leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of “ownership” went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.
Maury Cralle’
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan
—————————–
Love Dad
——
My outrage over this incident has not abated.
Christopher Crallé
Iraq is a civil war just like Vietnam was – the terrorists in both were financed and sent in from outside the country.
95% of the roadside bombs this year are not really improvised, but manufactured in Iran. We know that from the serial numbers on the electronics they purchased from US and Japanese microprocessor manufacturers.
I guess the people at Wikipedia missed the part about a “helicopter-based beer run” and “goofing off.”
Did Rush or Swift Boat Liars makeup those bits of the story?
BTW, the voters of Georgia replaced Cleland with a Rethuglican who avoided serving in Vietnam because of a law school deferment and an alleged bad knee. Oddly, Chambliss’ “bad knee” didn’t prevent him from playing baseball for the University of Georgia in his junior year– a broken arm did.
Chambliss displayed his sterling GOP bigotry credentials when he advocated Georgia sheriffs “arrest every Muslim that crosses the border.”
======================================
Cleland served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War, attaining the rank of Captain. He was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat, including during the Battle of Khe Sanh on April 4th, 1968.
On April 8, 1968. Captain Cleland was the Battalion Signal Officer for the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavarly Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division during the Battle of Khe Sanh[1]. During the battle, in which the Battalion was attempting to relieve besieged Marines defending the Khe Sanh Firebase, Cleland was ordered to erect a communications antenna on a nearby mountain top.
“He was in Vietnam, outside Khe Sanh, on Hill 471. Cleland reached down to pick up the grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. The blast slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm. He was 25 years old.”[1]
Due to the severity of his injuries, doctors amputated both his legs above the knee and his right forearm.[2]
RTH, I read the entire article about Max Cleland’s injury and his service in Vietnam. I’m sickened by the likes of Ann Coulter and Dave who berate this brave, dedicated American while they defend the chickenhawk cowards who support the ongoing killing and destruction overseas. Andrea Mitchell had a great article about the Iraqi refugees this morning (I think it was on MSNBC.COM).
With all the money we’re spending in Iraq very little humanitarian aid is actually reaching the people we’re supposedly trying to help. This scandalous situtation crys out for yet another congressional investigation of this diabolical administration.
Max Cleland’s service, injuries, and his favorite ice cream are all irrelevant to the facts of whether we need to fight Al Qaeda, where to fight them, when, and how.
Try to address those issues directly.
PS: It is not smart to ressurect the image of John Kerry lying about our soldiers in Vietnam committing specific war crimes that never occurred. He suckered you Democrats with his phony war record and cost you the election. Get over it. Move on.
Hey, Brad, in reading this Slate article I was reminded of you and the neo-cons.
Can you guess why, Rudyard?
==================
The Philippines had fallen into America’s lap during the 1898 war with Spain. President William McKinley decided, after some vacillation, to take the islands for the United States. There were other claimants. A Filipino army, led by revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo, was besieging Manila by the time American Army units reached the archipelago. Aguinaldo and the Filipinos were not pleased when the Spanish essentially handed the capital city over to the Americans in August 1898, and were even less pleased when Spain and the United States negotiated the Treaty of Paris, which included the sale of the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. It was enough to start a shooting war. On Feb. 4 and 5, 1899, American and Filipino forces clashed around Manila. The day of Feb. 5 ended in an overwhelming American victory that sent the Filipino army reeling backward.
The battle at Manila also produced a victory in Washington, D.C. President McKinley had found the Treaty of Paris a tough sell to the Senate. Ratification was not assured, despite the intervention of British poet Rudyard Kipling, whose poem The White Man’s Burden urged the United States to annex the Philippines and civilize its “new-caught sullen peoples, half devil and half-child.” Anti-imperialism warred with the messianic sense that it was America’s responsibility to bring the fruits of her civilization to a benighted and savage people. But the vote in the Senate was scheduled for Feb. 6, and when news of the outbreak in Manila reached the American capital, the wave of indignant patriotism gave McKinley the votes he needed.
Those Philippine revolutionaries were pretty dumb to launch an attack so close to the vote in the US.
Bud, Max Cleland never got a Purple Heart. Injuries that are self inflicted or not incurred in a battlezone area are not eligible. So stop whining about Cleland. Yes, his accident was horrible and all that, but here is what he did as a Senator.
Sponsored an amendment to outlaw any support for Boy Scouts.
Voted for Partial Birth Abortion.
Voted for Gun Control.
Voted to allow schools to give Morning After Abortion pills to students without any parental notification.
This is one nasty liberal from a Red State for sure.
Dave, George W. Bush never received the Congressional Medal of Honor. You can check the records. All you folks on the right who continue to push the idea that the president received that award should check your facts. I’ve thoroughly researched the record and cannot find any evidence that his service qualified him for the award.
Now doesn’t that sound pretty stupid? Of course no one has claimed our cowardly president was ever awarded the medal of honor. Not even the war-mongers are that brazen. But that’s exactly how stupid you sounded when you said Cleland was not awarded the Purple Heart for his injuries. NO ONE HAS MADE THAT CLAIM.
But Cleland does know about combat first hand. That experience gives him a far better grasp of the situation in Iraq than our chickenhawk leaders, especially Mr. “other priorities” Cheney. Cleland understands the depth of resolve in the Iraqi insurgency. He knows these people will never quit because they are fighting for their homeland. They regard us as occupiers. The coward that Cheney is can only hunker down in his spider hole and make all sorts of nonsensical claims about the insurgency being in it’s last throes, or whatever the nonsense of the day happens to be.
I’ll be so glad to see the end of Bush regime. They represent the worst America has to offer. A bunch of chickenhawk cowards who send young men and women off to fight in a war typical of the one they sought so hard to avoid.
The generals on the ground in Iraq know a lot more about the situation than Max Cleland, and they say we are winning. All they want is to be let off the lease so they can eradicate the last stronghold of Islamoterrorists in Baghdad.
Victory in Iraq is the last thing the Democrats want, because they bet on the terrorists to beat Bush for them.
But Lee, the generals in Iraq have ALWAYS said we are winning. That’s what generals say. That’s what Westmoreland said right before the Tet offensive in 1968. Besides, the question of winning is not the correct way to view this war. What’s important is to achieve the best possible outcome.
Dave, what a classless post.
If this is an example of how much “honor and respect” you “give all soldiers who served,” then I’m surprised that you’re not spitting on them when they return.
It’s obvious that you don’t give Cleland any respect because you disagree with his political positions.
Re-read the last paragraph of Maury Cralle’ letter above.
BTW, there is no such medical procedure as “partial birth abortion.” It’s a phrase cobbled together to engender opposition to all legal abortion.
Exactly what sort of constraints are the generals in Iraq operating under, Lee?
Are you outraged that they can’t nuke Anbar Province? Do you think that they’d get more intel if they interrogated with power drills and woodchippers? Do you think that they ought to threaten to rape, torture and kill the families of suspected insurgents?
Or should we simply send MORE American troops to this meat grinder despite that fact that they’re not ready?
Hurl, its your kind that spit on military and police personnel, not me. Just because Cleland allowed himself to act like the village idiot de jour for Kerry’s goofy campaign doesnt mean I cant point out facts. Classless post because I pointed out a fact?
Bud, Kerry’s famous or infamous line about Cleland was that “here’s a man who left his legs on the battlefield”. Not true and my chipped tooth wasnt left on a battlefield either. I wish Cleland the best but from what I have read he is a morose and self absorbed depressed person. Anyone would be in his condition but the people of Georgia booting him out topped it off I am sure.
Until Bush told the Iraqi government to back off, our generals have been staying out of the Baghdad neighborhoods controlled by wacko cleric/terroritst leader Al Sadir.
No more.
In the last 30 days, our sniper teams and blockoff teams have killed 1,500 terrorists, captured major leaders, decreased bombings by 78 percent and US troop deaths by 80 percent.
We control all of Iraq except this part of one city with 15,000 thugs. Kill another 13,500 and the problem is solved.
Meanwhile, the British troops we were told by the Lying Left Media were with drawn from Iraq, have moved to Afghanistan to rub out the Taliban.
Don’t you anti-American socialists just hate it when we pile up your dead comrades like cord wood?
Hello all! I am new to this forum and find the comment here interesting.
I, too disagree with the War in Iraq, and feel that we should have never went there in the first place, but instead should have kept our eye on Bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for 9/11.
I’m glad that some of the generals are now saying that this war cannot be won military, but instead we must proceed more dipomatically and economically in order to try to bring some stability to that region.
Here’s hoping that our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines will be able to come home soon!
To those of you criticizing Max Cleland: you are way off base. That man is an American hero, and deserves all of the respect in the world. How dare you say that he did not earn his praise. He did.
George Bush and some of the other neocons, did not go to Vietnam in the first place, but instead got deferments so that they wouldn’t have to go.
Lee, your explanation of how our forces have been kept on a “leash” is a wonderful example of how “Dear Leader” can’t err.
Exactly WHO made OUR forces subservient to the Iraqi government? Bush. (No, NOT Bill Clinton, Lee.)
Your own words box yourself in, Lee. It’s hilarious. YOU’RE hilarious.
Since the beginning of the war Bush has been hiding behind his generals. Bush proclaims that he’s just following his generals’ orders. Why, Bush just WORKS here– when his policies fail.
Anybody who doesn’t agree with der Decider either zips his lip or gets canned. The most famous case was Gen. Shinseki before the war even began.
Now, with over 3,000 American dead and tens of thousands wounded, Lee has the audacity to claim that an Iraqi pol who owes his very existence to Bush has been calling the shots to the detriment of our “winning” the war?
If Lee’s opinion is true then Bush is a weakling– an ineffectual pretender to being a “commander-in-chief.” If Lee’s opinion is true then Bush is a liar and allows his own generals to be trumped by an Iraqi Shiite who plays cozy with the militias.
If it’s false, then once again Lee is pulling excuses out his butt about why his precious leader has lied us into this meat grinder with out a clue towards “winning” or even getting us out without creating a terrorist incubator.
Yeah, Dave, every one of your posts concerning Max Cleland’s service has been disrespectful, insulting and classless.
Even if the grenade accidentally came off of Cleland’s belt then his injuries wouldn’t have been “self-inflicted.” But, it didn’t. A fellow soldier has stated that it was his grenade.
The officer who sent Cleland on the mission (not a “beer run”) says that the area WAS a “battle zone area.”
So your sleazy, slimy lies insulted a man who volunteered for Vietnam when your GOP chicken-hawk heroes tucked tail.
“Classless” doesn’t really begin to describe how low you’ll stoop.
I see Rosh begged its way back onto the blog only to immediately begin insults and personal attacks. Brad’s zapper must be jammed.
Enough about Cleland. Cleland himself wrote something like that if he hadnt had his legs blown off he probably would have come home and lived the life of a nameless school teacher. So life takes strange twists and he became a sort of celebrity and actually benefited from losing his limbs in some ways. Honor and respect him for serving (try serving Hurl,it will do you some good) but also separate his leftwing political stances from his service. The people of Georgia did and bounced him as they should have. BTW, he also voted over and over AGAINST Homeland Security.
As for Iraq, the left in Congress is still maneuvering like it was last September, desparately trying to hurry up and declare defeat and surrender in Iraq while the corner for victory has been turned. The additional disgrace is that the left is now trying to buy anti-war votes with amendment payoffs to special interests. How about $200 million for cleaner spinach, willthat get your vote? These people are beyond disgrace and shame.
Our economist/engineer friend Lee has a difficult time with numbers. He wrote the following:
**************************
In the last 30 days, our sniper teams and blockoff teams have killed 1,500 terrorists, captured major leaders, decreased bombings by 78 percent and US troop deaths by 80 percent.
*************************
As for the 1,500 terrorists and major leaders there really is no way to verify that. Sounds like some number pulled out of thin air. But as for the bombings and troop deaths we can check these figures. According to the ultra-liberal, hippy Department of Defense figures there have been 70 Americans killed in Iraq so far in March. That compares to 112 in December, 83 in January and 80 in February. Now how do you figure 70 deaths for a 23 day period is 80% less than the other months?
As for the bombings, there are still plenty of Iraqis getting killed, over 1100 so far this month, (with a week to go) not much different from the 1500-2000 killed in the previous few months. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Deciders latest variation of stay the course.
No, Dave, you’re mistaken. There is no Rosh. Notice that we’re getting some new, quite civil voices. I’ll not have my guests subjected to such.
Brad I think you scared Lily off with your answer to her question about drafting women. Your views on that issue verifies your creditials as a big government partisan. The draft is the ultimate in big government intrusion into peoples lives. And to exempt half the population simply exposes you as a patronizing, sexist partisan.
bud sounds disappointed that the Islamoterrorist bombers have only killed 1,000 innocent civilians this month, and that our military losses are down 78% since we went on the offensive.
Nothing scares the Democrats like us rubbing out the last remnant of Saddam supporters before the 2008 elections. That’s why they are now trying to withold ammunition, supplies, and armor from our troops.
Traitors.
I sense an underlying motive behind the war-mongers constant distorting of the facts about Iraq. They just plain enjoy war. It’s like a hobby to them. The casualties suffered are merely a part of the game. I point out a basic fact regarding the war, that is casualties to both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are running about the same as before the surge. This is denied. Yet the figures are based in large part on Departament of Defense compilations, hardly a source that would be inclined to overstate losses.
See this website for details: (http://icasualties.org/oif/)
And despite this airtight case Lee continues to falsely claim military losses are down by nearly 80%. No citation provided. No evidence offered. He either actually believes it (which I doubt) or he just likes to wage a war of words on the blog. So which is it Lee, do you actually believe American casualties are down 80% or do you just enjoy pulling my chain? Either way you’re a sick man.
Iraq Troop Surge Underway and Working
Monday , March 12, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258381,00.html
There are other indicators than just people who have been generous with their criticism in the past and are suspiciously quiet now. Muqtada al-Sadr cleared out of Iraq and is hiding in Iran because he didn’t want to get shot. His Mahdi Army commanders are also suddenly invisible, having got out of dodge and have just gone to ground.
Surge’s Success Going Unnoticed
March 19, 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/19/opinion/main2583232.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_2583232
* murders in Baghdad are down 70%,
* attacks are down 80%,
* Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has
reportedly made off for Iran,
* many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it’s safe enough to return.
* economy is up 25% in one month
Lee, the right-wing sources you provided did not back up the numbers you cited. Fact is the number of civilian deaths and American casualties is pretty much the same as before.
Doug, Ready to Hurl and Doug Ross:
I agree a lot with what you have to say.
Lee and Dave:
I think that you guys are way off base with a lot of your statements about the war and about Max Cleland.
I meant to say, Bud, Ready to Hurl and Doug Ross, I agree with you.
I made a goof in stating Doug’s name twice.
A good article on yet another cost to our bloody, imperialistic misadventure in Iraq. If included, civilian deaths would push the American death toll to over 4,000.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703260081mar26,1,5984421.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
I wish I could take credit for this list, but it’s from the Democratic Underground website. Our president is absolutely the worst ever:
*********************
Let’s do a quick recap of some of the rest of the “people’s business” that the Bush administration has spent the past six years working on.
Allowing wounded soliders to live in rotting, rodent-infested quarters when they return home from Iraq.
Outing a covert CIA agent and then lying about it.
Making sure that we lose three American soldiers a day for an indefinite period of time.
Throwing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at a war which most of the country thinks we shouldn’t be involved in.
Torturing people in secret prisons and refusing them access to any kind of legal representation.
Dramatically increasing the gap between rich and poor Americans.
Making sure that more children go without healthcare.
Ignoring the recent increase in violent crime.
Ignoring the very real threat of global climate change.
Doing nothing to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Tossing off while Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, showing up for a couple of photo-ops, and then forgetting about the whole thing.
Turning Michael Schiavo’s terribly difficult and private family decision into a nationwide media circus.
Unconstitutionally spying on American citizens.
Pursuing policies which have massively increased the threat of global terrorism and then pig-headedly refusing to change course.
Letting Osama bin Laden get away.
Hey, Lee, I thought that I smelled a rat when you cited CBS as a source. Sure enough, the “facts and figures” come from a commentary by William Kristol, chairman of original Iraq war mongers at the Project for the New American Century.
Kristol in turn cites a joint “study” from the Weekly Standard and a neo-con “think tank.” That’s great circular referencing because Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard, a money-losing ($1 mil/year) neo-con rag published by reactionary rightwing media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.
Here’s another Kristol citation that should permanently disqualify his opinions about Iraq:
As were other neoconservatives, Kristol was a strong advocate of the Iraq war. In 2003, just as the Iraq War was starting, Kristol appeared on the National Public Radio show “Fresh Air” and made the following statement: “There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America … that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.”
bud, could you repost the Chicago Tribune link? I think that it got chopped off.
RTH, try it again. I just copied and pasted into my address window and it worked fine for me. (I wish I knew how to get those link things to work, they sure come in handy.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703260081mar26,1,5984421.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Anyway, the Triubne article discussed the 770 civilian deaths in Iraq and points out how they are largely ignored by the media. It’s really quite heart wrenching. One man, a 56 year old retired fire fighter was killed in Iraq and his body shipped home without the benefit of a flag-drapped coffin or even the courtesy of getting cleaned up. The family of this man was very upset by the whole disgusting ordeal.
For the millionth time let me state the obvious: If the surge IS succeeding that does not in any way, shape, or form undermine what needs to be done in Iraq, WITHDRAW American troops. Or at least set a timetable to do so. The longer we stay, the more problems we create and the less secure we are as a nation. That’s true regardless of the success of the surge.
Since the surge is working, why do you Democrats want to set a timetable for withdrawing our troops?
And why before the next election?
Because Democrats don’t want America and President to succeed in Iraq or on any issue. They will sabotage any program in order to sabotage Bush. That’s treason.
If America abandoned Iraq to the terrorists now, the civilian death toll will be much higher than it has ever been.
The Democrats still brush off the millions they helped the communist to kill in Vietnam and Cambodia by cutting off funding to US troops, then to South Vietnamese troops.
Then there is always the socialist element in the Democratic Party that wants socialism and communism to prevail.
Bud, how does withdrawing troops that are killing Al Qaeda terrorists make us safer here. Pls explain yourself.
Bud, go to this webpage and scroll down to “Links” and you’ll get the commands you need to set the links in. Is that what you were needing?
P. S. I put the command for creating a link in autotext in Word, so I can do it quickly. Nice input from Mike Cakora on this–I’ve been grateful to him ever since!
Oops, just discovered that the link doesn’t work, for some reason. Maybe Firefox is messing me up. In any case, the URL is http://www.webmonkey.com/reference/html_cheatsheet/
Thanks Herb. I’ll give it a try.
Dave writes:
Bud, how does withdrawing troops that are killing Al Qaeda terrorists make us safer here. Pls explain yourself.
*********
In a number of ways.
First, we’re not actually killing many AQ terrorists in Iraq so the question is baseless to start with. Mainly what we’re doing is killing typical Iraqis who just happen to believe we don’t belong there.
Second, our continued involvement, in and of itself, gets Americans killed. About 3,300 American soldiers and 800 civilians have died over there. That’s significantly more than died on 9-11.
Third, our presence in Iraq verifies many of the claims made by the radicals in the region, ie, that we are an occupying power with hostile, imperialist ambitions. That serves as a great recruiting tool for the radicals. Given the increase in terrorist activity worldwide in the past few years the evidence is clear on this matter. We are actually creating more terrorists who otherwise would have no part of AQ.
Fourth, we’re expending huge sums of money on this tragedy. That makes us less able to manage security issues elsewhere. The soaring murder rate in the U.S. is clear evidence of this failure.
Fifth, we’re losing respect from everyone in the world. This will make it more difficult to work with other nations to fight terrorist activities and other security matters.
I could go on, but the bottom line is the war in Iraq is a failure whether on not the current surge has some short term effect. Even that is not supported by any real evidence, only wishful thinking by the already discredited right-wing spin machine. Our best course of action is to move all our troops out of Iraq immediately.
Bud, try this link, I think it works now. When you put in a URL, leave off the last forward slash.
Bud, I have to give you credit, you managed to be wrong on all of your points. You forget that its Iraqis killing AQ now, not just the US. That is what has turned the tide. And the soldiers. YOu dont think winning the WOT is worth the lives of less than 1000 soldiers a year. More than that are killed in training missions. Get real. Lets honor them for their sacrifice but we have a military so they can KILL, and do lots of it. So yes, we will lose some brave souls. As for Iraq, they may need to be occupied (in a nice sort of way). After all, if SC government leaders dont know how to run a government here after all this practice, how do you expect the Iraqis to be instant experts on it. Maybe we can send Jim Erwin over there to show them how to run PayDay Loan Shark franchises. So someday they will be like us, give them their due time. We arent losing any respect in the world except with commies and tyrants. Who cares. Let them whine on..
It’s no wonder that people like Dave are spouting such nonsense as Iraq being a principle battlefield in the WOT.
Report from Never-Neverland.
Click on the “Play” link to hear Brad’s favorite straight talking (out his butt) Rethuglican presidential candidate get slapped down thoroughly by a reporter IN Iraq.
Hurl, big deal. especially from a CNN reporter. The Iraqis know that CNN was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and its a wonder any of the CNN reporters stay alive over there. Also, I wonder how often Mr. Ware would stroll the streets of East LA, East St. Louis, inner city Detroit, or the public projects in Washington DC. What a joke CNN is with their Anti-American agenda and support for losing the war.
Dave, the fact that you and John McCain want the streets of Baghdad to be as safe as downtown Columbia doesn’t make it so. It’s a dangerous place over there. Even in the Green Zone there was a report of a mortar attack yesterday. As for the dangers of big city America, you just provided evidence to support my fourth point. The continued imperialistic adventure in Iraq is draining our resourses away from domestic issues, including crime in our big cities. During the Clinton years violent crime was dropping, now its “surging”.
As for point number 2, your cavalier disregard for our troops shows just how low the conservative movement will stoop to justify the madness of our Iraqi policy. Show me evidence that more troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan than in training accidents. This sounds like an “out of thin air” claim Lee would make. Even if that’s true it doesn’t justify additional deaths. Many of the survivors are ruined for life with debilatating physical and mental injuries. And because we’re accepting lower quality recruits the number of training accidents is up because the new guys are just not competent.
This has become a winning at all costs adventure for the chairborne rangers here in the U.S. It’s been clear now for over a year that we cannot achieve a positive outcome in Iraq. The terms winning and losing really don’t make much sense anymore. We should change our mindset on this so we can focus achieving the best possible outcome. After all, in a technical sense we’ve already won the war. Now it’s time to move on. There’s not one bit of evidence to suggest that would make us less safe. That conservative talking point is nothing but speculation.
Dave writes:
The Iraqis know that CNN was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein
*******
I didn’t know Donald Rumsfeld worked for CNN.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Why don’t you want America to defeat the Islamofascists as quickly as possible?
Because the Democrats failed so miserably for 8 years under Clinton, and Carter before that?
Because a Republican president cannot be permitted to clean up your mess?
Why do conservatives hate America? They want to throw away our freedoms – habeus corpus, speedy trial, speech, religion etc. are all under fire from conservatives. They send young American soldiers off to torture and kill innocent civilians who in turn resort to killing and maiming these soldiers. At the same time they ignore the perpetrators of the 9-11 terrorist attacks by allowing them to run free in the mountains of Pakistan. Conservatives create an environment for others in the world to turn against us.
Perhaps conservatives suffered some sort of rejection by their mothers when they were children? Or maybe their dads were over bearing and demanding? Whatever the cause conservatives clearly hate America and want to see it fail.
On the other hand liberal love America. They want to honor the memory of the founding fathers by holding our cherished freedoms in the highest regard. Liberals want to work with other nations to bring about security and justice for all the people of the world. Liberals want to track down the dastardly perpetrators of 9-11. Liberals want to protect Amerian lives by removing them from hostile regions of the world where their presense only serves to radify the claims of the radicals and further enflames our enemies. Liberals wish to move forward with a peaceful, pragmatic foreign agenda. Unlike conservatives, liberal love America.
Since when did socialists and pseudo-liberals care about our Constitutional freedoms? They only want free speech for themselves.
They bray constantly about “the abuses of the Patriot Act”, but they cannot name any innocent victims of it. They have no answer for the hundreds of detainees and defendents who were caught red-handed in terrorist acts and have confessed.
Liberals don’t want to work with other nations; they want to pretend that the same countries they put on list of “terrorist nations” can be “worked with”. Baloney. Libya, Iraq and Pakistan were building nuclear bombs to blow us up. Iran is still threatening to do so.
Facing up to the reality of our enemies would require liberals to face up to their own cowardice and ineptitude to do do anything about those threats.
Bud, you are getting silly in your pyschoanalysis of conservatives. Put in its most simple terms, people like you will not fight or defend this country, other than with trial lawyers and litigation. Fine, then stay out of the way of those of us who will fight with weapons. Just remember someday that its people like us warmongers who preserve the freedoms of America and the constitution. To you, George Washington would have been a crazed warmonger. So much better to sit down, have tea with the British, and resolve our differences. When will you ever learn.
An aside comment about Iran. Iran wants to provoke war with us to mobilize all the fundamentalist nutcases to do jihad against the west. They should be given three days to release ALL of the kidnapped Brits and then we begin blowing up every single one of their military buildings. It is time to stop the appeasement.
Only 10% of the American colonials supported Washington. There were many partisans who fought for the British. Most of the population tried to sit on the sidelines and just be subjects of whatever government ended up in control of their lives.
We have the same situation today. Those who do the right thing and make progress are always in the minority, and there will always be ardent traitors and supporters of doing wrong.
Dave, does this happen often in “the streets of East LA, East St. Louis, inner city Detroit, or the public projects in Washington DC.?”
Dave writes:
******
Iran wants to provoke war with us to mobilize all the fundamentalist nutcases to do jihad against the west. They should be given three days to release ALL of the kidnapped Brits and then we begin blowing up every single one of their military buildings. It is time to stop the appeasement.
********
Apparently Dave wants to give them what they want. We really should know ALL the facts before we start a shooting war. After all, we’ve already gotten into one quagmire based on flawed information. I bet within a week all the British soldiers will be returned safe and sound. If we start shooting thousands will die, including the British soldiers. But of course to the red-blooded warmonger a few million deaths are of no consequence provided it makes us safe.
RTH, what you describe sounds vaguely similar to the events of Northern Ireland from a few years back. I heard on Air American recently that the folks of that country have successfully concluded an agreement to share control of that troubled land. Much of the credit for this great success belongs to the Clinton administration who managed to achieve a miracle there. He was able to broker a successful cease fire that has apparently resulted in a lasting peace. It’s time for a new Clinton to take control of the White House so we can begin to bring peace to other regions of the world.
In case y’all missed this NBC report by Brian Williams recently– Are you going to believe your lyin’ eyes or…”
What was it that the press called the American version of Baghdad Bob in ‘Nam? “Friday Follies?”
I’d pay a lot of money to see John McCain walk unprotected for two hours in any Baghdad neighborhood outside of the Green Zone.
Of course, now Brad’s fave Forked Tongue Hack flip flopped once again…
Bud, I bet Clinton did grab a piece or maybe two while working on piece in Ireland. And predictably, with Iran, even though they illegally and criminally kidnapped 15 Brit citizens, you want to sit down and talk it over. Then what, maybe the British apologize and pay the Iranian mullahs some ransom money. But wait, the UN has to get a cut of that. Very predictable behavior by the liberals.
George Washington and his supporters had insight.
The modern socialist hate-America Democrats are crazy.
Dave, even Dear Leader has decided that negotiating only with your friends gets you nowhere.
Meanwhile, Lee apparently has decided that posting messages intelligible only to himself means a limited– but agreeable– readership.
Dave and Lee are poised to go to war over 15 British soldiers captured in the vicinity of Iran. This is a matter strictly between those 2 nations and absolutely none of our concern, period. If both sides want to use us as an arbitor that would be ok, but otherwise we should avoid this like a hot potato.
Dave, do you know for sure that “Iran illegally and criminally kidnapped 15 Brit citizens”. Or were they detained in Iranian territory. Photos appear to show they are well taken care of. Until we know otherwise we need to STAY OUT OF THIS.
Let’s reverse this. If 15 Iranian soldiers were caught off the coast of Britain would you now be advocating that we obliterate the United Kingdom? No, you’d be screaming about the threat of Islamo-fascism.
As an aside, the price of oil has hit a 6 month high because of this crisis. Imagine how high it will go if we do attack. In that case would you rather own a 44 mpg Prius or a 14 mpg Yukon. Ironic isn’t it. If we do what the neo-cons recommend they will be unable to afford to drive the cars they own.
CNN correspondent gives Sad Sack Lieberman a lesson in the Iraqi civil war as an eyewitness.
WARE: Well, Wolf, I was actually in that battle to reclaim Tal Afar, this city on the Syrian border, from al Qaeda. I was with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. I was with American Green Berets and I was with the Iraqi troops, the Kurdish Peshmerga, as they battled al Qaeda and took that city back.
Whilst that had a huge impact on al Qaeda’s operations there, no one for a minute believed that that was going to remove them.
The suicide bombings continued, a much lower rate, but no one imagined that al Qaeda would disappear.
What have we seen now?
We’ve seen al Qaeda hit yet another market, killing too many people. And then what we saw later that night is essentially Shia police from another Islamic sect go into a Sunni neighborhood and all but execute entire families.
So, honestly, the dynamics, the fundamental underlying schisms, what’s really driving this war all over the country, are not yet being addressed. We’re only talking about the surface.
—
Ware is saying that he situation demands a political settlement.
In the meantime, maybe Holy Joe can accompany McCain on his Baghdad stroll. You just know that they’ll be welcomed with flowers and candy.
Hurl, Terrorists are evil sick demented people who strap explosives to babies and blow up other innocent women and children. We disagree on the solution because with a “political” settlement these sub-human demonic pieces of crap live another day after the settlement. There is no political solution, they all must die and the sooner the better. McCain is correct in saying these demonic Muslims plan on following us home if the cowards have their way and surrender.
Liberals don’t care about 15 British being tortured and eventually murdered by Islamofascists.
They can’t risk missing their entertainment to ally with those who are trying to protect their freedom to goof off.
Just let them enjoy a few more years of sex, drugs and rock and roll. To hell with the next generation. Let them deal with Al Qaeda.
Jeez, Dave, simplistic solutions that include genocide seem to delight you. Predictably, you’ll claim that your “solution” means only killing “terrorists.” Unfortunately, terrorists come in all stripes– always have.
Wasn’t it St. Ronnie that said, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?”
According to intel reports, foreign “terrorists” makeup only a tiny fraction of the troublemakers in Iraq– less than 2%. The other 98% includes various Shia militias, various Sunni militias, criminal gangs, and a variety of strange permutations like those folk that we stumbled upon a couple of weeks ago near Najaf.”
I suggest that we ask the UN to hold a “peace conference” and invite all the combatants except the foreign fighters. If the Iraqis are faced with settling on some kind of accord or open civil war maybe they’ll get serious. If not, then let’m have at each other without Americans attempting to referee flying bullets and exploding IEDs.
Of course, we can continue trying to occupy the country and provide security in whatever area that 150,000 troops can occupy 24/7. That’s not much territory in a country the size of California. The Brits tried for 25 years and failed.
But, hey, nobody ever claimed that neo-cons were sane– and Iraq proves it. Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is the classic definition of insanity.
Mary, I delight in demonstrating their craziness.
America only fails with socialists and liberals are in control.
Historians will be fascinated to find out that Henry Kissenger and Richard Nixon are “socialists and liberals.”
Historians already recognize Nixon for being a great liberal – EPA, Earned Income Tax Credits, Medicaid, relations with Red China, abandoning the gold standard, alternative minimum tax, etc.
When you think of failed liberals, you have Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and those who turned Vietnam over to the communists.
Hurl, I guess we still occupy, as you say it, Japan. How about S. Korea, do we occupy that nation? And Germany too, let alone Bosnia. You don’t understand the meaning of occupy obviously. And suggesting that we get a conference sponsored by the U.N.? Do you think we could hire Kofi and his son as consultants to sort of manage it? There would be fees of course, maybe payable in oil futures, but that is the way the UN works. And further, you are the genocide promoter. Just like Vietnam was abandoned so that millions could be slaughtered in that region by lefty communists, the same would result if the duly elected government of Iraq is abandoned. Some friends the liberals are, walk away and later decry or ignore the genocide. But, that is your style. You live with it.
The ones moving the goal posts on Iraq are those who have opposed attacking Muslim terrorists on their own soil.
* First they say the war could not be won.
The Taliban was wiped out in a month.
Iraq was conquered in a week.
* Then they said America just broke everything and was going to leave. But we didn’t. We rebuilt the country and started selling oil to get the economy going.
* Then they went through a litany of short lies which were debunked and dropped by them – not enough body armor, not enough troops, torture of innocentn prisoners, our troops were like Nazis – all lies.
* Now they are cornered and revealing their core belief: they want to back off the terrorists and leave Iraq to Al Qaeda.
I saw on the evening news tonight that Forked Tongue McCain took his stroll around Baghdad.
He toured a market three minutes away from the Green Zone.
He was guarded by 100 troops with three Black Hawk helicopters circling above.
I guess that he thinks that he’s proved his case.
Actually, just the opposite.
You wanted McCain, or at least some more American soldiers to be killed, didn’t you?
Too bad, we are kicking the butts of the Democrat’s terror buddies.
What is truly and sadly comical about the defeatist left is that they want the USA to lose in Iraq to discredit Bush for all time. This is still all about Bush and the hate Bush and Bush Derangement Syndrome. BDS. As fortunes continues to improve in Iraq, and if by chance a Dem is elected in Nov. 0f 08, at some point in 09 or 10 the leftist press will claim that the new PRez has won in Iraq. All very predictable. The hate Bush crowd continues to root against their own country and their own military. For Shame!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave writes:
“Hurl, I guess we still occupy, as you say it, Japan. How about S. Korea, do we occupy that nation? And Germany too, let alone Bosnia.”
That’s a great point in favor of the liberal position. Once we get into a country it’s very difficult to get out. That was the prediction liberals tried to make in 2002/3 about Iraq and it’s coming to pass. All our troop involvements around the world cost us billions. But at least in Japan, South Korea and Germany the people aren’t trying to kill our soldiers.
I keep hearing all this talk of how the violence in Iraq is down. Yet the numbers don’t support that. Based on media reports there were more Iraqi civilians killed last month than in any other month since
September. Here is a summary since January 2006:
Apr-07 21
Mar-07 1889
Feb-07 1531
Jan-07 1802
Dec-06 1752
Nov-06 1864
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
These numbers are not definitive by any means (but are probably on the low side), but they do show clearly just how violent Iraq continues to be. Given the mass exodus out of the country the violent death rate for the remaining population is stunning.
Those civilians were MURDERED by the terrorists whom the Democrats want to control Iraq, according to their timetable for surrender.
Bud, initially they were fighting our soldiers. Werewolves in Germany for example. The idea is you get these terrorists under control, or dead, and then Iraq can and will be a wealthy, oil rich nation operating in freedom. You hate that thought, yes?
The history of the nation of Iraq is relatively short. Following WWI the British had a go at creating a modern democratic state starting in 1919. They expected to be treated as liberators (from Ottoman oppression) instead they faced a most unhappy populace intent on forcing the invadors out. They stayed for many years but in the end democracy never took hold. By 1958 their hand picked puppet government was overthrown by the Batthists and this eventually led to the rise of Saddam Hussein. In short, the British shed a great deal of blood only to lose out in the end.
(As an aside the British never suffered any dire consequences in the aftermath of this failure. The only consequences they suffered occured during their actual occupation efforts.)
It took the British a long time to realize they could not force their ideals onto the Iraqi people. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. But instead our deluded leaders continue with a policy that was proven to be unworkable nearly 80 years ago.
If we would just learn from history maybe we wouldn’t keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Perhaps we should find a president who is capable of reading something other than My Pet Goat.
Bud, so what you are saying is no matter how long we try to stay and pacify the Iraqi Muslims it will do no good. And you think that the Saddam Hussein methods of pacification were better. Well, in this case we kind of agree in that since we are dealing with Muslims, it may take a long time. That is why I would like to see Islam outlawed (first in America) after which the Iraqi citizens could be either agnostics or Christians or Jews. That is the only real hope they have to eventually survive. But step 1 is to first kill all terrorists and then we work on conversions as a second step. Remember that my perspective on this is like W’s, there is no END to this conflict. What has happened is that the crusades have never ended, just took a pause. Jerusalem can never be surrendered to Muslim control as one truism. The Pope was correct in issuing the dictum that began the crusades, as we cannot have Islamics desecrating the Holy Land. I am in it for the long run, and personally I don’t care if gasoline is $50 a gallon, or we are still at war ten years from now, which we will be for sure. My only goal is that the evil in the world do not prevail.
Mary, after Dave’s last post I’m having difficulty deciding who’s mayor and who’s vice mayor.
Dave hates America. He wants to abolish the first amendment (by outlawing a specific religion). He’s ok with $50/gallon gasoline. He wants to send more soldiers to their deaths in a continuation of a 12th century war. And to top it off he even praised Saddam Hussein, a man we fought a war to overthrow! Why does Dave hate America?
Mary? There is no Mary.
White liberals demonstrate a racist belief that the Muslim world cannot be civilized and modernized.
Some of them seem to consider the preaching of hate and violence to be “a religion”, protected by our First Amendment. It isn’t.
It’s amazing how illiberals can show so much contempt for moral teachings of mainstream Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, then defend mosques being used to build bombs and train mass murderers.
So now Dave is a racist, white liberal?
What a joke Lee is.
Actually, this time it was “bud” who claimed that the Arabs are incapable of acting civilized.
At other times, all the white “liberals” in this blog and others have expressed their opinions that blacks, illegal aliens from Mexico, and others are incapable of prospering on their own, without handout programs designed by white liberals. I really don’t care to revisit any of these elitist comments, because there will be a new one every day.
Talk about making stuff up. I demonstrated how the British were unable to push their way of life onto the Iraq people back in the 1920s. An all of a sudden I’m accussed of claiming the Arab people can’t act civilized. What I’m suggesting is the Arab people don’t want our western way of life forced down their throat. After all it’s the U.S. and Britain doing the occupying not the other way around. So who is it that’s acting uncivilized?
Lee writes: “Actually, this time it was “bud” who claimed that the Arabs are incapable of acting civilized.”
Less than five posts before, Dave declares:
“And you think that the Saddam Hussein methods of pacification were better. Well, in this case we kind of agree in that since we are dealing with Muslims, it may take a long time.”
Case closed.
Your mind is closed.
Some days your posts are just too easy to skewer, Lee.
Now that you know I was referring to bud’s racist comments, try to defend that, instead of playing your grade school pretend games.
Why do you people write off the Muslim world as hopeless? There are lots of Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians and others, here in America and back in their native lands, who are much more educated than you shallow liberals, and they want to raise their fellow countrymen to a higher level of society.
Instead of all that evasive talk about what you didn’t mean, why don’t you try stating plainly your underlying assumptions about the Iraqis, the US military, President Bush, etc, and we won’t have to read them from your comments which are obviously driven by these assumptions, because they have no factual foundations.
Hurl, and Bud, you really need to get some basic education here. First, Iranians are not Arabs. Second, Muslim is not a “race” of people. So, when I cite the fact that Muslims may be more difficult to bring to a representative form of government because of their political theology and their history and culture, that is not racist by any means.
The sad fact is that the noble Muslims who want to fight Al Qaeda and the evil terrorists would be abandoned by the likes of you two, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, et. al. only to be slaughtered soon after we leave. But, you did it in Vietnam and Cambodia and elsewhere, so why worry about Iraq.
The previous generation of liberals abandoned 4,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians to extermination in 1975.
They followed the same formula:
* Set a date for withdrawal of American troops in the appropriations bill
* Come back and reduce the appropriations
* Say they want a handover of military and police functions to the local government, then cut off the funds for that, so the terrorists can launch an offensive.
The horrendous events of the 1970s in southeast Asia were the result of years of imperialistic adventurism by the French and later the Americans, not because we withdrew our troops. That is perhaps the single most dishonest, distorted neocon spin of all. The death and distruction of this region of the world were ongoing WHILE we were involved there during the 60s and early 70s.
It’s true that the Vietnamese government had their own taste of imperialism in the late 70s with their invasion of Cambodia, that ultimately ended in failure. But in the end they realized their path to prosperity lay not in the use of the military but rather in terms of economic reform. In spite of many obstacles, including the loss of foriegn capital from the former Soviet Union, the Vietnamese turned their economy around and are experiencing something of an economic miracle.
All the gloomy scenerios of falling dominoes and a communist takeover of the far east NEVER occurred. The conservatives of the 1970s were completely wrong. Every prediction they made failed to pan out. And today Vietnam is a prime example of what people can do on their own when they don’t have to deal with foriegn meddlers.
Iraq will do the same thing. They are clearly glad to see the end of Saddam Hussein. The people of this war-ravaged nation are just hanging on now. Once we leave things will probably stay violent for a time (as happened in SE Asia 30 years ago). But in time the human spirit will prevail and the world will be a better place.
The healing can only begin once we leave. As long as we stay the course people will continue to die and prosperity will never be achieved. The greatest lesson we can learn from Vietnam is that peace and prosperity are never achieved as long as an imperialistic military power continues on a path of occupation. We need to apply that lesson to Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. That’s the formula for victory.
STUPID LIE: “All the gloomy scenerios of falling dominoes and a communist takeover of the far east NEVER occurred”
North Vietnam taken by the communists in the 1950s.
South Vietnam falls after Democrats lie and take away military funds in 1975.
Cambodia taken over by communist Pol Pot in 1976.
1,000,000 cilivians murdered by communist terrorists 1945 – 1975.
3,000,000 communists killed by US and allied troops 1959 – 1975.
4,000,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians, Chinese, Laotians, and Thais murdered by communists 1975 – 1985.
Clinton’s Intelligence Experts Testify that Iraq was Behind Sept 11 Attacks
Former CIA Director James Woolsey and Iraq scholar Laurie Mylroie offered sworn expert testimony in a largely overlooked lawsuit filed by the families of two people killed on 9/11. They are suing Iraq’s government, among other rogue entities and individuals, for allegedly helping to murder their loved ones.
“I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common effort in the sense of aiding or abetting or conspiracy was involved here between Iraq and the al Qaeda,” Woolsey said on March 3. President Clinton’s CIA chief from 1993 to 1995 added: “Even if one cannot show that…any of the individual 19 hijackers were trained at Salman Pak, the nature of the training and the circumstances suggest, to my mind, at least, some kind of common aiding, abetting, assistance, cooperation — whatever word you might want to take.”
Mylroie, a Pentagon terrorism consultant and Iraq-policy adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign (and author of The War Against America), also testified March 3. She believes “It took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11.”
Take the Pledge
All Presidential Candidates should make pledges like those below. If they refuse, then you should refuse to vote for them.
1. No More Oil Wars.
2. Work for independence from foreign oil on day one.
3. No more wars for corporate profit.
4. No more secret deals for $4 per gallon gas.
5. No more Chicken Hawks promoting wars of choice when they themselves avoided combat.
6. Make government green–if you can’t make what you have the most control over green, I don’t care about your plans to make the country green.
7. No more torture.
8. No more lying about torture.
9. No more re-defining torture.
10. No more drunken hunting.
11. No more secret deals with big corporations to divide up the spoils before the war even starts.
Just recently, David Kernell, the 20 year old son of Representative Mike Kernell (D-TN) was arrested. He was arrested for, according to CNN, resetting the password and gained access to vice presidential candidate Palin’s personal e-mail account. Allegedly, he read the contents, took screen shots of her E-mail directory, and got at some of her personal information. That information which has been compromised could include E-mail addresses and pictures of friends and family members, telephone numbers of family members including cell phone numbers, birthdates and more from her address book. After he turned himself in, he pled not guilty. He pled not guilty after he allegedly posted all of this to a public website. On top of all this, he also posted the password with which other people could access the account as well. David may get up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervision. Now think about this: $250,000 in $1,500 increments, the maximum amount a person can get with a payday loan comes out to 167 individual payday loans to free this turkey, before he gets made into Thanksgiving dinner by his cellmates.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/