November 13, 2006
"Are Iraqi rebels cheering Dems big election wins?"

A provocative question. David Postman discusses here, based on coverage he heard on NPR. In discussing the issue, Postman essentially validates a portion of pre-election criticism of Democrats by the Bush administration. That criticism in particular being that assorted terrorist elements (rightly or wrongly) would view a Democratic victory as a sign of their own progress in defeating the United States.

I suspect many readers have heard previous news coverage the last few days on this topic, not without some annoyance. In the end, however, terrorists are likely to be left wanting by actual changes to policy that might be agreed upon by the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans, and prudent members of the incoming Democratic majority. Harry Reid for example has already made statements rejecting specific timetables for a withdrawal, a move sure not to please the near permanently anti-war left.

Surely, there will be much talk about Iraq policy in the coming weeks, but the true anti-Iraq war zealots seem to have long since forgotten there are no easy solutions at this point. Moreover, those same war opponents endorse the feel-good policy of rapid withdrawal, while ironically missing the psychological impact (not an inconsequential issue in an ongoing war) in the Middle East of a perceived American retreat. Even the much-ballyhooed National Intelligence Estimate used liberally by Bush critics prior to the Foley scandal becoming an all-consuming entity, noted that "jihadists" would be emboldened by victory in Iraq, and chastened by defeat (see the top of page 2 of the report for specific reference, and see a critique of the overall NIE here).

There are likely many takes to the question titling this post, and some of the information contained above. Please discuss.

Posted by Eric Earling at November 13, 2006 07:14 AM | Email This
Comments
1. As I said before, binLaden and the terrorists were the big winners in the last election. We have done the same thing the Israelis have done; get a good offensive and then turn around and get a new direction (i.e. prime minister) when the terrorists (Arafat) raises a fuss.

Hopefully, Lieberman can save the day. If he switches party, the count will be 49-48-1 for the Rs, but the 1 votes D, so we have a tie with Cheney breaking it.

Hopefully, the Ds self-destruct before my prediction of Thanksgiving. Maybe even this week. They are too emotional to carry a thought more than a week or so.

Posted by: swatter on November 13, 2006 07:23 AM
2. First of course- they are terrorists- NOT rebels.

...and yes Virginia, the Taliban is cheering this election. The majority of the Americans have said spoken loudly- just as bin Ladin predicted, that American's don't have the stomach for this sort of thing.

It's too bad, because there have been American presidents and congress through our history who COULD win...just none in the past 5 terms.

Posted by: Andy on November 13, 2006 08:31 AM
3. I really think the chances of Lieberman bolting are slim, very slim. In any case, I would not want it to happen because it reeks of political dirty tricks, like how the Dems promised Jeffords favors for switching. Let the D's have their turn, and use the filibuster liberally. (Pun intended).

Posted by: Palouse on November 13, 2006 08:33 AM
4. Gosh, too bad we live in a democracy where the will of the majority picks the representatives to rule. Regardless of who the terrorists, insurgents, rebels, etc. were rooting for, we voted and now we'll see if the Democratic Party can do a better job.

Posted by: Unk on November 13, 2006 08:52 AM
5. total non sequitor unk... the fact is that the terrorists ARE celebrating the "will of the people"... and yes we most certainly will see... at least those who survive will.

by the way, whne your side was defeated so soundly the last 14 years, werwe you cheering the "will of the people" then?

I thought not.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 09:09 AM
6. The Dems Plan: "Phased Withdrawal"

The Dem's Plan in Plain English: Run Away! Run Away!

Posted by: Jack Burton on November 13, 2006 09:21 AM
7. You sound like you're about 12 years old Rag. How do you know their cheering? Why do you care? Would you vote Democratic if they were cheering for the Republicans? Do you think our $400 billion spent in Iraq has been a good investment? How do you know how I felt 14 years ago (1992 when the Dems won the White House?) or what side I was on.

Grow up a little Rag. You sound very bitter.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on November 13, 2006 09:24 AM
8. Palouse @3: "I really think the chances of Lieberman bolting are slim, very slim. In any case, I would not want it to happen because it reeks of political dirty tricks, like how the Dems promised Jeffords favors for switching. Let the D's have their turn, and use the filibuster liberally. (Pun intended)."

This just shows Lieberman to be a dolt. Get screwed over by the Dems after 18 loyal years yet still caucus with them as an independant? Dolt.

Posted by: Jack Burton on November 13, 2006 09:29 AM
9. "will of the people" is not always the "wise thing to do." could be gut or emotional. could also be a result of not remembering one's history. or MSM not reminding people about history, as they once did.

remember the poor jumping souls on 9-11? no one shows them. no one remembers why they jumped. i'm sensing appeasement blood chumming for the terror sharks. sad day for projecting a leading country's image. Europe here we come.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 13, 2006 09:44 AM
10. unk, you just don't get it, do you? Of course we would be the same if the terrorists were toasting the Rs. This is a Clash of Civilizations and the Democrats and some Republicans think it can be won with diplomacy and rhetoric when the terrorists just laugh at us.

Again, Unk, binLaden was the big winner last Tuesday.

Posted by: swatter on November 13, 2006 10:05 AM
11. The question is, after Jan 1st, will we be working to secure victory in Iraq, or will we be like Spain and trip over ourselves to leave?

If the Dems agree to work for victory, will the terrorists increase their attacks to scare the Dems into changing their minds and into "cut and run"?

Plain and simple, the terrorists best chance at getting the US out of Iraq sooner, rather than later, is to have a Democratically controlled congress.

This is why the terrorists are cheering.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 13, 2006 10:14 AM
12. Conservatives should be careful about using these kinds of reports to make our point. We should not do what Democrats did and use the troubles with the Iraq war to weaken our country, even with Democrats in control. Yes, it is tempting to say the terrorists are dancing in the streets, but I really don't think it helps our counrty. What I hope we conservatives can do is endorse any actions the new leadership takes that helps our country in the war on terror, and criticize that which doesn't. I don't believe Americans voted to "lose the war" in Iraq or the war on terror. We need to hold the Democrats accountable, but not do what they did; which was to hurt the nation and embolden the enemy with their criticism, all for political gain.

Posted by: Scott C on November 13, 2006 10:20 AM
13. To jimmie I'm doin' just fine, thank ya.@9:

Invading Iraq because you saw some desperate souls jump out of a burning building sounds more like a gut reaction to me.

Howcome you folks always seem to project your own psychological shortcomings onto the rest of us?

Posted by: Unk on November 13, 2006 10:28 AM
14. unk--my 'shortcoming' is a desire to survive. a wave is building & wanting the destruction of America. look at Europe & it's 'riots.' papers there do not want to i.d. the instigaters.

you can be pithy here and elitist all you want in a comfy chair. but i want to live, not be taken over the appeasement cliff with your like-minded "thinkers." terrorists do not bargain. they lop heads.

we are at our version of the late 30's. want another piece of paper signed by all stating 'peace treaty?' sure worked in Europe.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 13, 2006 11:07 AM
15. The only thing that will change in this whole thing is....we will be shelling out BILLIONS of tax dollars to Greenpeace & PITA instead of Halliburton!!!

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on November 13, 2006 11:07 AM
16. Well lets see, the Dem's ran away in 1975 when the defunded Nam. Thousands died.

Now will the Dem's do it again in Iraq?

I'm betting yes!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 13, 2006 11:12 AM
17. when they


sorry

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 13, 2006 11:14 AM
18. Are Vietnam and Iraq really comparable?

James Carrol wrote in the Boston Globe:

"The Vietnam War dragged on for nearly seven more years after [the 1968] election. Why? Because public uneasiness with the course of the war was not enough. The only way out of the disaster was to accept defeat, and that America was loath to do... .It is one thing to feel uneasy about your nation's war, or even to move to a position of outright opposition. It is another to face the harsh fact that the only way out of the war is to accept defeat.... The general uneasiness with the war in Iraq is mostly tied to how badly it has gone."

But--

Did the USA ever conquer North Vietnam--occupying every part of the nation now called "Vietnam"? Was Ho Chi Minh ever on trial, convicted and sentenced to death? Did the Vietnamese hold elections and appoint new leaders? Was the Viet-Cong crushed and disbanded? Had all that happened, isn't it conceivable we would have seen Vietcong / Communist resistance, insurgent sympathizers, and foreign fighters undertaking terrorist strikes (from say, Cambodia or Laos)?

We left Vietnam before these developments, but had we quit Vietnam after them, would we have seen the same level of human tragedy, refugees and massacres that we did after our ignominious departure? I don't know --who could? The same nightmare would most likely have descended upon an unready post-occupation Vietnam, as happened when we broke our treaty and abandoned our South Vietnamese allies.

In Vietnam, we never conquered: the war did drag on. In Iraq, we have conquered: Saddam convicted, the Ba'ath Party disbanded, elections held, a new regime in place-- and we are in the reconstruction, post-war occupation phase. The ongoing attacks by insurgents and foreign fighters, ostensibly eager to become martyrs while fighting Americans, usually end up killing Iraqi civilians: so with whom are they at war?

Leaving Vietnam was a very different kind of defeat than a too-soon exit from Iraq would be, although the latter would have worse consequences. International, radical and insane Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by their "success" and appeal to the broad pool of potential recruits too cowardly to join at this point. And, we could lose Iraq as an ally in that fight.

Leaving Iraq before it is stable and ready for our absence would be a betrayal of the Iraqis who have risked their lives to birth a new democracy. Such abandonment would indeed be dishonourable, and evil.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative, Seattle on November 13, 2006 11:35 AM
19. A word of the wise to those who have been lured by unk's troll: When you argue with a fool, anyone who comes along to witness the spectacle will only see two fools arguing.

Posted by: Kent on November 13, 2006 11:37 AM
20. I believe that Islamic terrorists in the Middle East would be cheering the big democratic victories in last week's elections.

I am sure the terrorists are capable of understanding the debate in America regarding military action in Iraq, and which party tends to support withdrawal, and which party supports continued military operations; in this respect, the terrorists would likely consider a fundamental power shift from the Republican to Democratic parties to their advantage.

Further, I think that from the terrorists' perspective, considering their hatred for Israel, America, and modern western civilization in general (Islam: all infidels are to be killed; not Islamic? then your an infidel), any event that might soften America's stance on terrorism in the Middle East giving them breathing room to regroup would be cause for them to celebrate.

Said breathing room would encourage these Islamic terrorists to once again pursue and intensify their genocidal activities against Israel especially, and in general against all Western Civilization.

Posted by: Marty on November 13, 2006 12:49 PM
21. Kent @19:

Ahh, there you go again. Rather than discuss or debate the issues, you just start calling names.

Posted by: Unk on November 13, 2006 12:50 PM
22. To Bleed @18:

I believe there were voices back in 2002 that said don't do this. Do not destabalize Iraq and the entire Middle East by deposing Saddam. It will be far more expensive and complex than you can imagine. And yet we did it anyway, and now find ourselves in an intractable position. How do we resolve this dilemma? And what are we to do with those who got us into it?

Posted by: Unk on November 13, 2006 12:59 PM
23. Unk - because it was the right thing to do!

In 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 there 'were voices that said don't follow through on our commitment made in 1918' Eventually, after ignoring for all these years, we got bombed into the war and 40,000,000 people died. All because we didn't do what was right when Hitler walked into the DMS between Germany and the French boarder.

But it is far prefferable to wait until things get really, really bad (9/11 wasn't so bad) before we do anything, at which time the stakes will so much higher.

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 13, 2006 01:18 PM
24. It must be nice to live in your easy black-or-white world... where you're either with the president or your with the terrorists.

We, on the other hand, live in a world where there are more than 2 opinions. We disagree with the president, and we do not support the terrorists.

Posted by: TmZ on November 13, 2006 01:19 PM
25. You can be safe or you can be "liked", you can win or you can be "liked", but never both.

We were never liked, we never will be liked, the safe part and victory part are the only things w/in our control.

BTW- the dictators who will take our place won't be liked either, but they, just like the terrorists, will do what it takes to win. More Americans must die on our own soil at the hands of middle east terrorists before we figure out if we have the stomach to win.

Posted by: Andy on November 13, 2006 01:24 PM
26. TmZ - I think alternate plans have been asked for for quite awhile. Bringing the troops home (AKA redeployment) and leaving the Iraqis to a bloodbath in which everyone of the participants in the new government would be tortured to death reminicent of Saddam's days is NOT an alternative - especially if the US ever wants to be taken seriously again. Though the US being impotent is really the goal of the left.

So what is the other opinion? Please someone enlighten us.

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 13, 2006 01:26 PM
27. Sorry Right, but you are just wrong. Saddam Hussein was not Hitler, and Iraq was not post Weimar Germany. You guys are just making this stuff up. You've done far more damage to your own cause that you will ever know.

Posted by: Unk on November 13, 2006 01:41 PM
28. Saddam Hussein was not Hitler

Really? Gassing 180,000 Kurds doesn't qualify as evil in your book? How about invading a neighboring country? How about an assassination plot on a US President? How about rape rooms? How about running people through shredders?

Not evil enough for you?

Posted by: Palouse on November 13, 2006 01:46 PM
29. Unk--have to disagree--

history is a map and guide. ignore it if you will. of course hitler is not saddam. however, the lessons are the same as if the Huns were at the gates of Rome or otherwise. the people would not be debating. they would know the coming storm & what it implies for ALL them soon--soldiers and pacifists alike. i doubt the Huns separated peaceniks form soldiers. tyrants are many-named. their methodology is the same. conquer.

people today do not feel the threat because of their comfy lives here and lack of seeing the horrors up close constantly. but--ask our Friends in Israel how it feels around stores when suicide bombers are about. we can't wait to see if we were wrong in our concerns or irrational in our fears about fanatical invasions here. err on the side of survival.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 13, 2006 01:53 PM
30. jimmie - eloquently said.

My post (23) shows why I shouldn't rush, spell check is a handy tool, I will try and use it... :(

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 13, 2006 01:59 PM
31. Palouse, how many people died in Dafur? President Bush won't do a single thing about the genocide there. Somalia is overrun by a band of radical Muslims, do we care? Nope.

We only pay attention to Hussein because he's sitting on a vast reserve of oil. Would anyone give a damn about Kuwait if it didn't pump out 692 million barrels a year? Absolutely not.

Posted by: Cato on November 13, 2006 02:05 PM
32. You've done far more damage to your own cause that you will ever know. -Posted by Unk at November 13, 2006 01:41 PM

And your pals in DC are just beginning.

Have you ever had the opportunity to watch a supremely obnoxious and spoiled child have his tantrum rewarded? That child never, ever stops with whatever his tantrum was about.

Never.

When that tantrum has been rewarded he will cry whine and make everyone miserable until the NEXT tantrum demand is rewarded. And on and on until he is spanked, sent to bed and the whining ignored.

Your pals in DC are only still in the throes of their initial tantrum. They won't be satisfied, they won't learn.

Those moderate masks are already off and so it begins:
Hillary is re-upping her health care whine.
Soros is having a fit over the likely Murtha ascension.
Waxman is reviewing past slights and salivating over subpoena's.
The Iraq surrender has begun.

733 days.

We survived 40 years of tantrums and whining.

733 days will be a piece of cake.

733 days will certainly be a piece of cake if the GOP learned from the dems the fine art of digging in their heals with the FILIBUSTER.

Good luck to the tantrum throwers... there is a huge difference between whining about the consequences of someone elses decisions and being held responsible as the decision makers. I do believe that falls very well into the category of "be careful what you wish for".

Good luck to the tantrum throwers... they're going to need it.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 02:06 PM
33. We only pay attention to Hussein because he's sitting on a vast reserve of oil. Would anyone give a damn about Kuwait if it didn't pump out 692 million barrels a year? Absolutely not.

Posted by Cato at November 13, 2006 02:05 PM

Yessiirreeee bob! Whew I sure have enjoyed that 95 cent/gallon oil we've enjoyed these last few years, haven't you?

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 02:09 PM
34. Actually Cato, Bush was trying to get the revered UN to do something. And the UN jumped in with their usual speed, effectiveness and decisiveness that the Ds want us to follow.

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 13, 2006 02:13 PM
35. how many people died in Dafur? President Bush won't do a single thing about the genocide there. Somalia is overrun by a band of radical Muslims, do we care? Nope.

The difference in those places is that they are not developing or seeking weapons to destroy us. We could have let Saddam stay in power, and then sometime in the near future, we'd have another Iran or North Korea to deal with.

We only pay attention to Hussein because he's sitting on a vast reserve of oil. Would anyone give a damn about Kuwait if it didn't pump out 692 million barrels a year? Absolutely not.

Yes. Here's generally how it works in the western world - you can kill as many people in your own country as you want, and we are fine with that. But when you start killing people next door, then something must be done. Countries like Iran and N. Korea kill more of their own than we will ever hear about, but as soon as they kill some of their neighbors, it's on.

Posted by: Palouse on November 13, 2006 02:16 PM
36. "We only pay attention to Hussein because he's sitting on a vast reserve of oil. Would anyone give a damn about Kuwait if it didn't pump out 692 million barrels a year? Absolutely not."

And your car runs on water cato? Your good and services magically fly onto the store shelves by themselves where you can walk down from your urban apartment to get your granola and organic produce?

Please tell how all those things get to use without the use of one drop of oil.

Posted by: pbj on November 13, 2006 02:16 PM
37. Cato -

How many people died in Rwanda under Clinton? Where were all you bleeding hearts then?

Posted by: pbj on November 13, 2006 02:18 PM
38. --We disagree with the president, and we do not support the terrorists.--

Doesn't matter what you say, it's their perception, and you can read the statements and see the celebrating for yourselves - IF you care to look.

As to oil and Darfur, Sudan already sells oil to China.

Pulling out because we're getting killed in Iraq, the same is going to happen in Darfur. Can't go in, too dangerous. It happened in Somalia.

Or do you want to open another front in the war?


Posted by: Sandy P on November 13, 2006 02:30 PM
39. Unfortunately, the house of cards the dems have built will not fall on just them.

"End of Day"
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Monday, November 13, 2006

Validating Our Fears

A number of post-election polls have suggested that, as Newsweek put it, "Republicans lost the 2006 midterm [election] more than the Democrats won it."

According to the Newsweek poll, 85% of respondents cited disapproval of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq as a "major reason" Democrats won. Seventy-one percent cited disapproval of George Bush's job performance; 67% cited Republican spending habits; 63% said it was disapproval of the Republican congressional performance generally. Only 27% of those asked cited the quality of Democrat candidates as a reason Democrats won the election.

In other words, the American people were not voting "for" the Democrats as much as they were expressing their disapproval of the Republican performance of late.

That said, voters are worried about what the Democrats might do with their majority status. Fifty-one percent of those polled by Newsweek said they were "very concerned" that the new Congress will push too hastily for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while 43% said they were "very concerned" that the Democrat majority would hamper the administration's efforts to combat terrorism.

Those fears were validated with several headlines in the papers this morning. First, key Senate Democrats announced over the weekend that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq will be the top priority of the Democrat-controlled Senate, with legislation being introduced in January. Then, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco announced that she was
throwing her weight behind Rep. Jack Murtha in his race for House Majority Leader. Murtha is one of the most vocal anti-war critics of the
administration and a hero of the radical Left.

Not surprisingly, America's enemies overseas are also declaring victory. Two hundred socialist members of the European Union issued a statement saying that last Tuesday's elections represented "the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world," as though America - not Islamofascism - were responsible for the global war that is raging against
Western Civilization.

This is how Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, interpreted the results of our elections:

"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world. Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation. With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."

Abu al-Masri, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, evidently aware of Democrat plans to retreat, taunted us, saying, "We haven't had enough of your blood yet. We call on the lame duck (President Bush) not to hurry his escape the way
the defense secretary did [referring to Donald Rumsfeld's resignation]. Remain steadfast on the battlefield, you coward. We will not rest from our Jihad until we have blown up the filthiest house - which is called the White House."
In other words, leaving Iraq won't end the war - the jihadists will come to America.

If our enemies overseas are emboldened by the results of the elections, if they believe America is an "empty threat" on the world stage, then we must steel ourselves for dark days ahead, my friends. What I don't understand
is why leading Democrats have not taken to the airwaves to denounce these statements and dispel any misguided notions that America is a nation in decline, lacking the will to defend our values.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 04:14 PM
40. I think the policy question here is, "What will happen to the terrorists that right now are concentrated in Iraq?"

Right now thousands of terrorists are occupied with battling US/Iraqi forces in Iraq. If we pull out will those terrorists focus their attacks overseas producing more attacks on the U.S. and our allies? Or will the conflict stay in Iraq and disintegrate into civil war and terrorist-run territory. To me, these are the two possibilities of a hasty withdrawal.

Is the hefty financial and physical cost of life worth keeping the terrorists occupied? A "win" in Iraq doesn't seem likely any time soon. Staying the course and strengthening the Iraqi government to the point where they can take over in that area seems to me to be a wise investment. U.S. forces aren't going to win, but we can train enough Iraqis to take over the fight for us. It's not going to happen anytime soon, but it seems to be the only way we can eventually stop paying for what's going on over there and bring the troops home.

Posted by: chad on November 13, 2006 04:43 PM
41. good point, Ragnar. Now that you mention it, it is downright scary.

Posted by: swatter on November 13, 2006 04:52 PM
42. Cato #31 On Oct. 2nd Pres. Bush called for the U.N., with our support to move into Dafur. This would be a good opportunity for our friends in Europe to stand up for something they believe in. I guess Europe is waiting for an engraved invitation before they get their hands dirty.

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 13, 2006 04:59 PM
43. Comparing Zawahiri vs. Democratic talking points

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 05:15 PM
44. A Change in Direction

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 13, 2006 05:23 PM
45. "Surely, there will be much talk about Iraq policy in the coming weeks, but the true anti-Iraq war zealots seem to have long since forgotten there are no easy solutions at this point."

Our troops were greeted as liberators, with chocolates and flowers. Iraq's own oil money paid for post-war reconstruction, and the goal of a viable democracy in the Middle East was easily obtained. Everything the millions of anti-war protestors said before the conflict was proven wrong. I cannot believe that you people would DARE publish this vile slander against our great leadership, who accurately foretold that entire outcome. You almost-- almost-- make it sound as if they might have been wrong. You're a bunch of traitors, and you're encouraging the terrorists with your defeatist lies.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on November 13, 2006 07:30 PM
46. The cheerleaders are cheering the praises for the Democrats. Kennedy stood in the way of victory in Nam and not thousands, but millions were killed and he didn't blink an eye or shed a tear. Neither did Kerry, he was too busy throwing away medals collected from others. Democrats only care about power and control and nothing or no one else merits their considerations. Ask Lieberman. And the sad part is that Lieberman will be welcomed back into the Democratic fold. What a fool.

The Democrats are prepared to cut Iraq loose and accept the plight of the people that most certainly will follow. Power and control are all that matters to them. Lies and deceit are nothing more than talking points.

For example, any trolls mentioned the yellow cake uranium found in Iraq. Published in the NY Times. Hmm. Seem to recall a chap sent to Africa to check on that. Returned claiming no yellow cake to eat. Then outed his wife and claimed it was leaked by the mean R's. Well when you can't have your cake......

The Limo Libs ran a bunch of "conservative" D's to gain power. Make no mistake the Limo Libs have gained power and will exercise the control that goes with it. Let the investigations and destructions begin. The clowns are taking center stage once again.

Regarding Somalia, catch "Black Hawk Down", regarding Dar fur, argue with the UN. How many resolutions did the UN passed before the Allies acted in Iraq? Can any lib answer me.

The difference between Hitler and Saddam is degrees of success. Hitler experienced greater success than Saddam. Intent was the same. By the way, spies and saboteurs captured during WWII were captured and shot. They were not sent to prisons, fed and released. They were shot.

War is a ruthless business. It must be so, for your life and the lives of people you are defending demands it and deserves nothing less.

Does this country have the political will to win a war? That is the question. In Europe during WWII, the answer was Hell Yes. In Nam, the answer for many was the Canadian border. What will America's answer be today? Where will one hide. Europe is fighting for survival with the nice Muslims, Canadian is concerned about their Muslims, Mexico ushers them across the porous border, for a price. Perhaps, Australia may offer some sanctuary?

Prior to the invasion and overthrow of Saddam, it is clearly documented that terrorist of many stripes were supported with resources and training centers throughout the country. Families received payments from Saddam when their children committed murder and sucide. Life does have a price. It is clearly documented Iraq had an abundance of weapons including the nasty stuff that can kill many people taking a subway ride in NYC on an given day. Saddam was clearly violating the cease fire and like Hitler he was building up armaments and developing resources to wage war on his neighbors and his enemies. Fortunately, unlike Hitler, Saddam was stopped in his tracks. His armies were quickly defeated. A major war was avoided. Now we occupy the country and are rebuilding it. Various cliques of terrorist stand in our way. Are we to run and hide after defeating an army? Or are we to stand and stabilize the country? Although our armies still occupy them, we only have to look at Japan and Germany for models of success. Yes we must be ruthless. Yes we must execute terrorist. They are not fish to be caught and released. They are people who mean us harm. And when the job is done. The people in Iraq will be proud of what they achieved and we will have changed the course of history by stabilizing the middle east.

Any problem with that idea?

Posted by: Snuffy on November 13, 2006 07:42 PM
47. Well said, Snuffy. Thank you. I pray for the people of Iraq because I fear they in for a bloodbath.

Posted by: katomar on November 13, 2006 08:28 PM
48. I saw that CNN had a headline asking; Will Syria and Iran step in and help Iraq if and when we leave ?" What kind of a lame-ass question is that ? Does Wolf Blitzer really believe that they will help Iraq get back on their feet ? What universe is he living in ?

The Democrats will have to redeem themselves and demonstrate it to remove the reputation of soft on terror. That is why the terrorists are happy - they like the Dems better because they don't stand up to the terrorists by using brute force as Clinton did not. I hope that the Islamofascists will not have much to cheer about next year at this time.

Posted by: KS on November 13, 2006 09:38 PM
49. The Dems think they have diplomatic prowess to get Iran and Syria to help, have at it. But it's a fool's game. Those nations are far more interested in chaos in Iraq, because then they can get their hands on Iraq's resources, and get rid of democratic government which they want to show their own people that it does not work over there.

Meanwhile, Iran is completing uranium enrichment and production of nuclear weapons. And a new holocaust in Israel is approaching. We are going to see a nuclear attack, either by Iran on Israel or by a terrorist who got their weapon from Iran or NK, within 10 years, unless something is done. Israel is not going to wait around to get annihialated - they might strike first. What's coming in that region will make the Iraq war look tame.

Posted by: Palouse on November 14, 2006 09:19 AM
50. TmZ@24: "It must be nice to live in your easy black-or-white world... where you're either with the president or your with the terrorists."

"We, on the other hand, live in a world where there are more than 2 opinions. We disagree with the president, and we do not support the terrorists."

Tmz, who is this "we" that you refer to? Consider the words of Orwell in 1942:

"If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security."

This begs the question: Which segment of society is Orwell referring to?

Later, Orwell states: "If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow 'overcome' the German army by lying on one's back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen."

This is Orwell's definition of a particular segement of society: "Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

I believe the question has been answered.

Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on November 14, 2006 11:07 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?