January 29, 2007
"Only Fools Support Bush's Escalation"
So says Daniel Kirkdorffer. Plus, he goes further:
How can Giuliani, McCain and Romney support a troop surge doomed to failure? Their very position on the matter should automatically disqualify them from holding the nation's highest office.
"Automatically disqualify," eh? That seems a bit much. Especially when there are some initial signs the early stages of the surge are having some notable success.
In fairness, the surge and accompanying changes in Iraq policy may not work as intended in the long run, and even Congressional Republicans on the whole seem increasingly ready to abandon the White House on Iraq absent progress in the next few months. But "automatically disqualify"? Please.
I suppose I'd have more intellectual respect for critics like Kirkdorffer if there was some consistency to their objections. They could start by proposing a substantive policy alternative instead of simply talking about non-binding resolutions. Better yet, such critics in Congress could have had the courage of conviction to vote to reject General Petraeus, the surge advocate who will manage its implementation, as the new commander in Iraq. Instead he was confirmed 81-0 by the Senate. If one is a serious opponent of the surge, how can one vote to confirm one of its key supporters, tasked with the mission of making it work?
Such absence of consistency from those who strongly oppose the current Bush policy makes me think even more Michael Barone is on to something:
What the resolution tells us is that most members of Congress, echoing what they think is the view of most voters, yearn to return to the holiday from history that we thought we were enjoying between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001. And that they have no idea at all of how to get there.
Inspiring leadership this is not.
UPDATE: Credit to Kirkdorffer for candor. He responded to my query during our discussion in the comments below by stating his support for Russ Feingold's pending efforts to make the anti-war crowd vote their rhetoric, as well as his support for the less interesting mush of the Iraq Study Group (which if it was so great how come no one has turned their report into a resolution in Congress for everyone to vote on?). I violently disagree with such a policy course, but at least Daniel is being upfront about what he truly believes. It would be nice if anti-Bush policy Members of Congress (Chuck Hagel et. al. included) would engage in serious policy debate to match their anti-Bush policy pronunciations. Anything else does the country a disservice.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 29, 2007
07:15 PM | Email This
Question: Why isn't the border (iran/syria) a human fly zapper right now?
This is a war- why are they not treating it like one?
Why the heck has there not been a draft of Iraqis? They need to take a few lessons from Stalin on winning against a ruthless enemy.
How long does the United States of America intend to stay in Iraq?
From the looks of it, I'd say that George W. Bush wants to prolong the Iraq occupation only as long as it takes for him to get out of office. He will let the next president inherit the mess and also the shame of retreat-defeat.
So how long do you people intend to stay in Iraq?
Five more years? Ten more years? Fifty more years? Forver?
Please say so. If you support the surge, please do explicitly say for how long.
And how many troops are you willing to sacrifice for this cause? America has already given 3,080 souls for this cause. Shall we stay in Iraq until six thousand troops are sacrificed?
Please provide some limiting numbers to your commitment, conservatives.
Hey, Eric, if you think this war's such a great idea, how come you aren't serving? You're what, 31? What, are you too important to put your a-s where your mouth is?
Come on, Eric, show the world what a great patriot you are.
4. Hmm... I seem to remember the left blamed Bush for not providing enough troops to do the job, now they are saying don't send troops? What exactly is the democrats' strategy? I also remember they said it was about cheap oil, then expensive oil. It seems the only strategy the left has is to flip-flop on issues just out of hate.
Kirkdorffer is just whining again because Darcy got beat. I think his opinion should be automatically disqualified until he runs for office and we can all take turns ripping him a new one.
By the way, anyone ever hear from Darcy anymore? I thought she was a community leader, oh that's right she is an Ames Lake Homeowners Association leader, for one meeting in an election cycle that is.
6. Ivan, apparently you did put your mouth where your a-s is and now you are a perfect sphere of the material that emanated from your hindmost orifice.
What exactly is the democrats' strategy?
I'm not a Democrat but I can tell you my strategy: America must get out of Iraq before Jan. 20th, 2009. George W. Bush must get America out of Iraq.
George W. Bush got us into this mess, it is his (and only his) responsibility to get us out. Is that too much to ask?
Thanks for sharing. My knees went south in college, leaving me unable to pass the running portion of the physical so no dice there. But since you raised the issue, does one have to be a soldier to have an opinion on war fighting? Does one have to be a teacher to have an opinion on education? Does one have to be a doctor to have an opinion on healthcare? Does one have to be an accountant to have an opinion on tax policy?
What plan out there do you support on Iraq policy? Or if you don't like one you've seen (there being so many to choose from on the Democratic side of the aisle), what do you recommend instead?
Come to the table with a real argument, not your strawman chickenhawk talking points. In the meantime you're just making yourself look silly.
David, I think one would be safe assuming that you suffer from a historical near-sightedness.
If Gore's Internet had been this progressed back during Clinton's excursion into Bosnia, I wonder what you and yours would have said about that mess and who should fix it...if you admitted to it being a mess.
Ivan, I doubt that you have any credibility to discuss who has and has not served. When you do not want military action, the troops should be at home safe and sound so that you can downsize them out of a job and onto government funded entitlement. When military action is "justified" in your mind, you don't care how far the military is stretched to satisfy your desire to provide "humanitarian" support.
You people will continue to amaze me. Thank God all you do is sit infront of a computer and pester those you do not agree with.
10. Eric - It really isn't a bit much. We're not working from a clean slate here. We have four years of evidence to the contrary that our troop numbers, and presence has not be able to stem the tide of sectarian violence and civil war, despite our efforts. We're banging our head against the wall attempting the same failed solutions over and over. It is one thing to have faith and hope that it will work the first time, it is something else entirely to think it will work the fifth, six or seventh time. Furthermore, the time to squelch the violence was most opportune in the first year. Things have only got worse since then. Bush would ask we give it a chance. We have already done so time and again.
I understand your point, but the "automatically disqualify" argument is still a bit odd. It's not like you'd consider voting for any of the three you critique anyway. More importantly, what's your proposed solution to current affairs in Iraq? Which plan in contrast to the new Bush policy to do you support? I'm honestly curious.
Chris @ 10:
"You people?" That's SEVENTY-EIGHT percent of the population. Tell me just what explanation we owe YOU!
Eric @ 8:
What's MY plan? Am I the president? What's HIS plan? Every single thing he has done in Iraq, including going in in the first place, has been a failure, and although your ever-dwindling cult continues to delude itself that there is a military solution, most of the voters and taxpayers have caught wise.
Is Chuck Hagel a traitor? Is Norm Coleman? Is Gordon Smith? They have all opposed this escalation. They have all questioned if the president has a plan. They are all Republicans in the U.S. Senate, but maybe not for long.
Bush is ruining our nation's reputation, ruining our military, draining our treasury, and wrecking the Republican Party, and you're asking me what MY plan is? Go Cheney yourself.
The Left's hypocrisy never fails to amaze me. They want us to go into Darfor to end the genocide and the want us to get out of Iraq so the genocide can SURGE. They also had absolutely no problem with the genocide that occured after they cut off funding in Vietnam.
Is the a Democrat Handbook on which genocides are ok?
Ok, Ivan...I'll bite. 78%???
Let me guess. A poll that asked if people (probably asked at Westlake Center) approved of the way the war is going.
Eric wrote, I suppose I'd have more intellectual respect for critics like Kirkdorffer if there was some consistency to their objections. They could start by proposing a substantive policy alternative instead of simply talking about non-binding resolutions.
I'm as pained as others about the non-binding resolutions currently being proposed. I'd like to see a more substantial bill that would limit funding of additional troop levels. I believe that Russ Feingold is going to try to push for a troop re-deployment, and funding cuts.
I would have liked to see the Iraq Study Group plan adopted. The bi-partisan group made a number of intelligent, reasoned recommendations, in particular with respect to diplomatic solutions, that have all but been dismissed by the Bush administration. There is no doubt that we have a strategic interest in a stable Middle East, but we've done little through diplomacy to make that happen in the past five years.
The anti war mongrels/anti Bush haters are only showing that they don't support this country! Plain and simply put! They want us to loose!
I'm just glad they didn't ruin my skiing yesterday! In fact I am glad that they pulled some of the loons from the slopes and into Seattle! Way to go LOONS!
18. #13 LOL! Love it ROB :D :D :D That about said it all too! Heh! Hehehehehehehe...
19. America must get out of Iraq before Jan. 20th, 2009. George W. Bush must get America out of Iraq.
George W. Bush got us into this mess, it is his (and only his) responsibility to get us out. Is that too much to ask?
Gee, the Democratic Senators and Representatives who voted for it don't hold any responsibility? You know, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc.
What about Clinton and Gore who changed the official policy of the U.S. toward Iraq as being regime change?
Saying "I take it back" doesn't rid them of responsibility for their actions. Matter of fact, that just makes it worse, it makes them irresponsible jerks who won't account for their own actions.
And yes, it is too much to ask. We are Americans, we should not be Republicans or Democrats come the waters edge. We should do what is in the best interest of America, regardless of who's 'mess' it is, it affects us all.
All people like you care about is trashing Bush, because of some weird psychological disorder that makes him the symbol of everything wrong with the world and I'm guessing your life. You don't really care about the welfare of America, or the Iraqis for that matter.
Your above statement is absolute proof of this.
Thanks for the thoughtful discourse and debate. I love you too.
Leave poor Ivan alone. He just got the latest news.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday that union membership fell by 326,000 in 2006, to 15.4 million workers, bringing the percentage of employees in unions to 12 percent, down from 12.5 percent in 2005. Those figures are down from 20 percent in 1983 and from 35 percent in the 1950s...
22. I am very appreciative for President Bullschitz surge in Iraq. With his help, the successful Shiite takeover will allow Iran to expand our influence throughout the Middle East. Thanks, Georgie Boy and your dumb Neocon supporters!
23. I am very appreciative for President Bullschitz surge in Iraq. With his help, the successful Shiite takeover will allow Iran to expand our influence throughout the Middle East. Thanks, Georgie Boy and your dumb Neocon supporters!
Haha! Awesome. Thank you for that.
Hey Eric, check out that link again to RealClearPolitics. The first indication that they list for the surge working is that al-Qaeda is "retreating" from Baghdad. WTF? Al-Qaeda hasn't been a factor in the warfare over there in a long time. I'd expect even you to know that.
Well, maybe not. You've really gone off the deep end on this one. At least you seem to be preparing yourself for having to come up with some bullsh*t to tell the lemmings for why the "surge" didn't work, but whatever Bush tries next actually will.
24. I guess "Al-Qaeda hasn't been a factor in the warfare over their for a long time." Means 72 hours to some folks. Just Google it, or Wikipedia search under Al-Qaeda in Iraq and see the latest entry under attacks attributable. That Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir fellow, AKA Abu Ayyub Al Masri is just blowing smoke when he claims credit for attacks and brags about 10,000 armed fighters, I guess we just needed to hear from a real informed source like a Seattle Progressive.
The Democrats have their political future tied up in a failure in Iraq. They will subvert every effort to win the war at every opportunity to make sure we lose and they regain the white house in '08.
That, my friends, is their strategy.
What's that old saying again? "If you don't read history, you are doomed to repeat it?" or something like that.
This is a War Against Civilization and these wars have been fought before. Other people say it is a 100 year war. I see this as a buildup of an enemy that has its victims fall asleep as they buildup- read WWI and WWII.
One solution put forward by the Dems is that we should negotiate with the other players in the region, and come to a settlement.
Let's look at this. It means we should "talk to" Iran, who wants to take over the country. How would that discussion go? Do we help them set a timetable on when they raise their flag over Baghdad? Do we help them set up a plan on executing all those who disagreed with them?
The Dems want to sell out the Iraqis. They don't care how many are murdered, they don't care if Islamicfascism spreads. They only care about winning political points.
If Hillary were truthful and not political, she would make it part of her Presidential campaign - "If elected, I will withdraw the troops by February 1." But she isn't saying that.
#2 and #3, Note how a conservative complains about the war vs how a liberal complains.
My complaints get us to victory- yours to defeat.
We don't have to win- we have to not lose. Look how long the terrorists seem intent on killing Isrealis.
Senator Lugar likened the feeble surge to calling a draw play on third down and 30. A low risk play that might get you the first down, but everything would have to work perfectly. More likely you'll gain 5 yards and have to punt.
I'm for a non-binding resolution against the surge. It's Bush's war. Let him lose it with his feeble "surge", too little, too late. The Dems and/or congress can in fact do little to stop the surge without creating even more chaos. Congress cannot manage the war. Bush drove the ship of state off the little cliff in pursuit of his imperial kick some Arab booty. Too bad our boot got stuck in the shit. We'll just have to wait until he's gone, before we can extricate ourselves. In the mean time hopefully, all those who have been cheering him on will reap the blame and discredit they deserve. The Republicans are praying that the Dems will reach up and touch the steering wheel so that they can share some of the blame. Fat chance.
Iraq was no serious threat to us and could have been contained at far less cost and chaos. It had no connection to the war on terror, except as a potential new battlefield for our notions of Arab "democracy". But the country wanted to kick some more Arab butt. Some Dems are too scared to say that, because they are afraid of looking weak or admitting they made a mistake. They still want to look "strong" and presidential. But if you're going to be strong, you should support the sacrifice needed to be strong - a larger army and more killing and dying to achieve your goals. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the American people don't think that sort of sacrifice is worth it any more.
30. Swatter, You are sooo correct! The current muslim "invasion" of Europe closely resembles the situation in 1915. (Today the number one name for a male child born in France, Denmark, The Netherlands and in England is "Mohammid".) The muslims controlled Eastern Europe until the outbreak of WW-I (which they caused). Even after both World Wars, Russia was left with militant muslim fractions throughout the region. (Think Bosnia and Bill Clinton.) This is a 100 year war we have to win and it starts with not letting 6 Imams be just another version of Snakes On A Plane. Let's kill them over there and let the Democrats worry about about the minimum wage and raising your taxes.
Iraq was daily shooting at our planes in the "no fly zone" established after the Kuwait invasion. Saddam was offering bounties to suicide bombers. He had already gassed the Kurds, and was wiping out the Swamp Arabs. In general, he was agitating to keep things unsettled in the area.
Was it a threat to the US? Bush had to look at where the next most likely attack would come from. Looks to me that he chose correctly. Now all those nutcases who want to destroy western civilization are in Iraq, not here.
If you want the US to lose, just say so. If you want millions of Iraqis to die at the hands of Iranians and Islamists, raise your hand. That seems to be the Dem plan.
Otherwise, I haven't heard one strategy except "cut and run". Then what?
Chew2 - am I mistaken, but I could swear that the Dems campaigned on getting us out of Iraq. Now your sage advise is to continue their policy of "No, 1,000 times No". What are the Dems going to do? What is their plan, given that Bush is wrong and they were elected to do something - "change direction"? I didn't get the impression that that something was to keep their hands off the steering wheel.
But then agin, me one of dem der red nicks dat is just two plane dum to undrstand all dat new-uns them sistikated Dems haz.
Can't help but think that the so-called surge is politically expedient. Many military experts, including Ollie North do not support it.
Neglecting all of the reactionary bloviating from the far left - who don't seem to care whether we lose this war by walking away or not, it should be incumbent on the President to rethink and revise his plan amidst high public disapproval. All the White House is doing is saying that it emboldens the enemy - to those who don't support, instead of attempting to understand why those believe that. I heard Bush say, "if you are against it, then come up with a better plan". That is just talk up to now, because I have heard of other "surge" or escalation options that have been put out on the table by public figures, but up to this point, there is only talk by the White House and no action !
34. Walters, I was referring mainly to the head in the sand world view (and my comparison is the isolationists in the States, including the left and Buchanan) and their desire to "just get along".
You are a scaredy cat and a hypocrite.
When Sadam gassed the Kurd and killed the marsh arabs where were you? The republicans (Reagan) supported Saddam even though he was gassing the Kurds and stood by while he massacred the Shia's after the Gulf War. That was all 15 years ago. Americans really don't care about what he did to his own people. What did that have to do with invading Iraq in 2003? He hadn't massacred anyone recently. So are you ready to invade Darfur to stop the massacres that are occurring now.
Shooting at our "no fly" airplanes? How frightening. He never hit one. And we blasted his air defenses into smithereens in return. And in case you missed the news, we **deliberately** attacked his air defense and other assets from the air as a lead up to the Iraq war. The "no fly incidents" were just a pretext for that.
Sadam gave money to Palestinian suicice bombers? So did Saudi Arabia. Hamas has never attacked the U.S. only Israel. They are only a marginal threat to America. Not worth invading Palestine for that, and certainly not invading Iraq.
Iraq was no serious threat to America.
The Dems are backing down on their campaign promise. Instead, they would like to block funding and not sign on to more troops, given a plan that would support stabilizing Iraq (which has not yet surfaced). Their actions seem to indicate that they are more interested in seeing troops leave the same way they left Vietnam, not caring about the consequences down the road here.
Maybe, this won't be the case, but the far left would love to see us tuck tail and leave yesterday, as was the case in Vietnam. They choose to be ignorant of the enemy (in the mid-East). If anyone doesn't think the Islamic Jihadists don't have a stake in the outcome, they would be morons !
Sure it is easy to blame Bush for putting us in this predicament, but that doesn't relate to righting the ship - it relates more to abandoning it, under the assumption that its Bush's war and therefore we want him to lose it. That wouldn't be a problem if he were the President of France - where many Secular Progressives of the left would prefer to be, but the rest of us have a vested interest in seeing America (he is president of) remain strong, even under these circumstances.
The Dems don't have the answer, because there is no good answer. America is not willing to pay the price for "victory" as dictated by Bush and the right wing. Even you right wingers aren't willing to call for that sacrifice: raise taxes, increase the army, and put a whole lot more troops into Iraq than this feeble "surge".
So at some point, in a few years, we will have adopt more realistic goals to match the resources we are willing to put into this fight. Maybe we can still call it "victory".
38. Hey chew, why do we need to raise taxes? Revenues are UP in DC due to a good economy. Or has that not been mentioned on NPR?
Another question for you is if more revenue is needed for schools to succeed, and more teachers (let's call that escalation) why won't that work in Iraq?
39. # 35 And in the 30s Hitler was no threat to the world. Is the Dem plan the same as it was then, give them time to build up and become a threat before Dems do anything? After all, its only a matter of a few millions lives.
40. chewie, you were called on it and backed away. Methinks you are the scaredty cat and hypocrite.
Hey Chew. I know that you hate for us to repeat this. But you DEMs were set to go in before Bush.
So drop that one. (Clinton, Gore, Kerry)
PS in case you either to young or just stupid.
The Dem's put us in Nam then cut off the funds to the South. Even though they say in the peace plan that they would support them. Their words and yours carry no weight!
The Dems campaigned on "A New Direction for America". Their "new direction" looks very much like their old direction - a lot of talk but no action! And they say Bush's plan (that is eliminating 100's of terrorists and having the cooperation of the Iraqi army in dealing with Sadr) is nothing new.
Does anybody have a copy of the Democratic Newspeak dictionary?
43. I'm still unclear on why we care what Daniel K. has to say. Watching the Left is like watching a rudderless ship. They float which ever way the wind blows. It is remarkable how truly stupid so many are. It seems that they have the Neville C. approach to looking at life. "If they say they won't hurt us, then it must be so...we're just a bunch of big ol' meanies."
If anyone in their right minds thinks that if we pull out of Iraq (Chew2) and the bad guys will leave us alone. Has not pull his head out of the sand in the last 12 years. Bill Clinton tried to ignore them and 9-11 came to our front door
Should I even start on Twin Towers before, the Cole and on...
Dem's need fear, it the only way they can rule.
45. Army Medic - I think that is the reason the Iraqis are hesitant in standing up. We encouraged them before (Bush 1) and then hung them out to dry. They know that the same anti-war bunch made promises to the South Vietnamese and quickly broke them (and Bush is the cause for the US loosing respect!?). With this same bunch getting all the headlines in the MSM, and the Dems in contol of Congress, would you stick your head up too high?
#45. Right said Fred
You hit it on the head. Plus I good friends over there. I know that the ROE should be dropped right now! Bad guy shoots at you where ever he is at. Drop a 500lb on him now.
No checking with 10 higher ups. You kill the bad guys as fast as you can.
Dems want a nice war. NO war is nice. They are fools.
Imagine the war on terror in a world where the American president wasn't fighting both overseas and domestically, against both the old media and the Demorats? Imagine the state of Iraq if Demorats and the old media had put this nation ahead of partisan power games, where liberal icons like Jim McDermott and John Kerry go overseas and suggest to the terrorists that they have friends in the Demorat Party and that America is the bad guy? How many American lives do you think Demorat collusion with our enemies are costing us? How's it feel to be aligned with a party that would be excited by the deaths of even more Americans overseas, if only to advance their political agenda?
Our difficulties in Iraq are not the result of inadequate resources, but the consequence of having an American president trying to wage a war with a national media and the other political party trying to undermine and resist his every effort. He's going it alone, and refusing to place his failing approval ratings above the safety and security of Americans. That certainly can't be said for hypocrites like Hillary, who like her Demorat allies will say anything on any given day to advance herself, even if that means lying through her teeth about her past actions, or placing more Americans at risk, and with the total protection of the old media that is determined to get her elected in 2008.
I can't even imagine what this world would look like if a Republican had been in the White House in 1939 and the Demorats of that period were as incredibly partisan and unpatriotic as the Demorats today. I suppose with our early failures in WWII the Demorats of our time would have called for us to abandon that war and run home, leaving Europe to be cleansed and absorbed into the Third Reich? I'm sure Hitler would have never had designs on invading us either.
The incredible stupidity of the left is astounding. Even fighting with our enemies to defeat this president is seen to be in a vacuum, with no other consequences to the American people. 9/11 and the relative ease in which 19 terrorists killed 3,000 Americans is all but forgotten. But if just one nuke was to be detonated within our borders, we'd not be talking about thousands of dead, but hundreds of thousands of dead.
Oh, but that's "fear-mongering." Another Demorat charge to discredit efforts to protect Americans. Better we're all ignorant to the threats so Demorats and their anti-everything, no ideas con can keep them in power. And should anything really bad happen, hey, at least we'll all be in together.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Right said Fred,
"I think that is the reason the Iraqis are hesitant in standing up.
Yup, the reason is so obvious. The Iraqi people don't trust us to stay around, as the Demorats have made totally clear is their position from the start. With every speech now, the Demorats are telegraphing to the Iraqi people that you'd better prepare for the day, as soon as the Demorats can make it happen, where you will be on your own, with no one to help you fight the war on terror being battled within your borders. The Demorats don't care what happens to Iraq, or the Middle East. All they care about is power and to hold that power they have to support the defeat of Bush and the United States under a Republican president.
This was/is Bush's war of choice. He pushed hard for it. He dragged the American Public and the world into it.
No Dems were for invading Iraq. They weren't that stupid or arrogant. Even Bush I wasn't that stupid. That's why he left Saddam in power.
How does anything we are doing in Iraq prevents the Jihadi's from coming after us. They have cel's all over the world. Invading Iraq just gave them one more place to set up shop, with oned added benefit - lots of American targets. But let's be clear here: 90-95% of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are local Iraqi's, only a very few are foreign jihadis. It's a pretty inefficent way of fighting terrorism, fighting 100 Iraqi's to get at 10 jihadis. And we can't even find them. Meanwhile, invading Iraq has created far more Jihadis around the world than we are able to kill and capure in Iraq.
But if you want to win there then you should be calling for raising taxes, far more troops, and a larger army. War isn't a no sacrifice free lunch....unless you're a Bush republican.
49. ....proving my point.
26, 46 with you 100%...only problem with military is same affliction with police in States--too many desk lawyers second-guessing the person on the line in harm's way.
take the legal shackles off. trust your police & soldiers. only a very few will screw up or not use good judgement. no battles were ever won with one hand behind one's back.
and most importantly, stonewall the press if they don't play fair & keep them the hell out of the action--no more embedding. they only aid the enemy. example? that CNN sniper scene. still makes me enraged at the traitorous media. stop the Hanoi Janes.
"Our difficulties in Iraq are not the result of inadequate resources.."
Free lunch no sacrifice denial at its finest. The war will be won on the ground in Iraq, not because of all your good wishes for poor old Bush.
The Islamic Jihadists are bidding their time. They know that Americans, as exemplified by Chew2 are weak in patience and ultimately perserverance. That is why they are waiting to see how America (the Great Satan in their eyes) responds in Iraq.
BS #48, There were some Dems for invading Iraq. So, if they were not for invading Iraq, why didn't they take any action in Congress at that time to pass any resolutions about that ? Typical reactionary response. The only presidential contender(s) who were against invading Iraq from the outset were Kucinich and Gore. Furthermore, there are a large number of Iranians and Syrians- who qualify as Jihadists that are fueling the insurgency in Iraq and doubt if anyone has accurate numbers on that.
The far left and the Jihadists would both like to see America change radically, but in different ways. Media propaganda by showing only the bad portions of the war emboldens both the Islamists and the reactionary far left. We all know that the mainstream media's agenda is to succeed by use of their negative propaganda and distortions in bringing home the troops - that is all about their own ego trip ! Never mind the message it sends about American being giving up when the going gets too tough - that's their attitude - narcissistic and irresponsible. Sure, there are other issues in play also, like the Bush administration's absymmal handling of the war and the small surge plan, which lacks public and congressional support. That is a large order, which will require mental toughness.
The current muslim "invasion" of Europe closely resembles the situation in 1915.
If the Muslims want Europe, I am inclined to let them have that continent. Why not? The Europeans invaded, occupied & made colonies of the entire world in the last five centuries. The downfall of Europe and its takeover by another race & religion is pure justice and I applaud it.
The Europeans once owned the entire Earth. The sun never set on England. Now the Europeans are losing their own land. Justice is served.
I am certain that Muslim Europe will prove a more peaceful place than the last thousand years of Christian Europe.
Actually the sun sets on England every day. If you are trying to say the sun never sets on the British empire, that is something else.
I assume you also feel it would be justice, once the Muslims have taken over Europe, that they come after all those renigade Europeans that expanded their empire and take over North America as well. Then that other band of Europeans that ran off to Australia, they need a bit of justice too.
The return to the good old days when everything is peaceful. If you try and disturb the peace there is a public stoning. A small price to pay for universal peace!
I was not precise. I do not believe any major Democrat if he or she had been president would have invaded Iraq. If Gore had been president he would not have invaded Iraq. Some Senate Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to use military force as a means to make the (fake) UN diplomacy more credible. I think they were wrong and in some cases cowardly covering their butts. Maybe some of them were just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, based on the fake intelligence and scare talk he was floating, or just because he was the President. But I don't believe any Democrat, except Joe Liberman, would have invaded Iraq had he been president.
It was alway Bush and the Neo-cons who pushed this war.
#53 - A secular progressive reactionary view of the world- George Soros would be proud !
Back to the topic at hand - this exemplifies my views on the surge (from Chris Ruddy)
"Clearly, there is no easy solution to the quagmire of Iraq.
One thing appears certain, however: A surge in troop levels is not the answer.
Instead, the United States should seek to create a multinational force or United Nations force that could replace American troops during a phased withdrawal, followed by the creation of a strong and secular military in Iraq, one with close ties to the United States and NATO. This has proven to be a successful model in Muslim Turkey, and would allow the United States to escape the Iraq quagmire, put Iraq on "the path to democracy" and concentrate on a potentially much greater threat: a militant Iran.
Indeed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in November called for more Iraqi control over security. And the Baker-Hamilton Commission noted: "Sustained increases in U.S. troops would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation."
The Bush administration needs to ask itself this fundamental question: Would the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq, say, within one year, be any different from the consequences if the United States withdrew in 10 years?
If the answer is no -- as I believe it to be -- then Bush needs to seriously reconsider current policy, which means to increase the American presence in Iraq rather than reduce it.
And to that I vote "no." "
Janet @ 31:
> Now all those nutcases who want to
> destroy western civilization are
> in Iraq, not here.
Well, except for the ones in Spain and the ones in the UK. And the ones in the United States that we don't know about. Yet.
The whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" didn't work for our allies. Why will it work for the United States?
#53 David M.
Dude I've said it once about you and will now say it again. YOU ARE ONE SICK PERSON!
Your statement shows that...
Europe, I am inclined to let them have that continent. Why not? The Europeans invaded, occupied & made colonies of the entire world in the last five centuries. The downfall of Europe and its takeover by another race & religion is pure justice and I applaud it.
Chew2.. Tell me please, what in hell does Taxes have to do with war? Our troops are not underfunded?? PLEASE PROVE IT.
What are you 15yrs old.
MJC @ 47 says:
"I can't even imagine what this world would look like if a Republican had been in the White House in 1939 and the Demorats of that period were as incredibly partisan and unpatriotic as the Demorats today. I suppose with our early failures in WWII the Demorats of our time would have called for us to abandon that war and run home, leaving Europe to be cleansed and absorbed into the Third Reich? I'm sure Hitler would have never had designs on invading us either."
You retard! The right wing was against going to war with Hitler in 1939! FDR was the one who wanted to help England and France. You might as well be telling us that the world is flat!
Hello Right Said Fred,
You are right, "the sun never set on the British Empire".
> The return to the good old days when everything is peaceful. If you try and disturb the peace there is a public stoning. A small price to pay for universal peace!
Need I remind you of what the British did as they assembled their empire?
Atrnocities and genocides were committed all over the globe. Including against the Muslims. If you look at the map of the Middle East you will lots of straight lines. These are the artificial boundaries which European nation created as they divided the land for their own exploitation.
In other words: The present day mess in the Middle East is a byproduct of Western crimes against the Muslims. The Muslims distrust and hate the West because of these egregious crimes which were committed against them, and for no other reason.
Regarding the comparison of Muslim violence to European violence: Remember the 20th century?
European wars of the 20th century claimed over 100,000,000 lives throughout the entire world. The Muslims have never behaved so violently.
And you do know that all of the WMDs were invented and first used by the Europeans against each other? Except, of course, for the nuclear bomb, which was invented by America for use against Europeans (Germans) but then Germany lost so the weapon was instead dropped on Japanese cities filled with innocent civilians.
You think 9/11 was evil? Then what would you say of a nation which incinerated over 100,000 civilians in a day?
So you see, Western violence greatly exceeds European violence. The Muslims are peaceful compared to the Europeans and the Americans. They are dying, too, every day because of the crime which George W. Bush committed against the civilians of Iraq.
weapon was instead dropped on Japanese cities filled with innocent civilians.
What school did you go to David. You really need to re-learn history. There was nothing innocent about the people in Japan. You may try learning about what Japan did to China.
You truly are a fool!
Don't waste your breath ArmyMedic/Vet. It's hopeless; I don't even read the posts anymore.
And chewie is on a bender from Postman's liberal blog site.
Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq; I know, but after 9-11 he would have initiated talks with binLaden and tried to figure out where the USA went wrong and try to correct it.
These guys are something else. They better not leave their basements.
Not safe for Moonbats you know! LOL
64. No - they set up governments, built railroads, developed trade routes. Nasty people the British. Just look how Rhodesia has flourished now that they got rid of those horrid people, not to mention Uganda. And of course India that collection of small groups is now a powerful country with an infrastucture and education system that is making them the powerhouse they are. Mean old British doing all that!
Hello Right Said Fred,
Nasty people the British.
Yes, the British were nasty. Believe me, you would have a completely different opinion of the colonizers if these European nations committed the same atrocities today in the United States of America. Millions of people were murdered, entire civilizations eradicated, on behalf of the European empires.
And Africa? Europe has committed so many crimes against Africa that it is nearly impossible to count them all.
Do you remember the slave trade? Europe did that. Do you remember Apartheid? Britain did that.
The Muslims are saints compared to the Europeans. The only reason why Europeans are peaceful today is because the Europeans exhausted their wealth, their blood, and their genocidal rage against each other in the 20th century.
Christian Europe was the most violent civilization which humankind has ever generated. Muslim Europe cannot help but be more peaceful than Christian Europe.
66. Since this bozo is a fan of the former co-president (hillary)..who was fully informed on intell along with the serial groper..all had agreed that Saddam was a threat...its just that bill was more interested in bj's and campaign mooey from communist china than in protecting our country. Does this country need bill back?...NO, NO and NO. This country has had a belly full of these two scumbags and the toadies who follow them.
67. European wars of the 20th century claimed over 100,000,000 lives throughout the entire world. The Muslims have never behaved so violently.
You really, really need to read a history book ... unless you believe it really was the Moops who invaded Spain.
And here's a hint for ya: Those evil, evil Crusades we hear so much about 700+ years after the fact? Care to guess who was occupying the Holy Lands at the time?
You're either willfully stupid, or nuts. Probably both.
Those evil, evil Crusades we hear so much about 700+ years after the fact? Care to guess who was occupying the Holy Lands at the time?
The Muslims lived in the Holy Lands, they were not occupiers. It was their native land. It belonged to no one else.
The Christians occupied the Holy Lands and committed extreme acts of violence in pursuit of that territory. Not only did the Christians commit atrocities against Muslims and Jews, they also attacked the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire along the way. They sacked Constantinople. Shed a lot of blood, raped a lot of women, and ransacked the city.
There's Christianity for you. Christianity may be a religion of peace but Christians are violent and often genocidal.
Do you remember what these same Christians did immediately after discovering the New World and finding civilizations and gold here? Millions of people were murdered as Europeans pillaged an entire continent.
It is an established fact of history that Christians were violent and committed atrocities all across the globe during the Colonial era.
Don't you know that one of the reasons why North American was originally populated was because of minority religions seeking to escape from the persecution and extreme violence of Europe?
First, Dave and Ivan need to learn some WWII history. FDR had to get a couple republicans to run the armed services for him as his cabinet was constructed to only deal with social issues. Try looking up Henry Knox, also known as the man that saved our butts in WWII.
Secondly, Japan had nuclear capability given to them from Germany in the closing days of the war. They had plans to float a crude bomb into San fransisco and blow it up over the city. Their planned date was August 18, 1945. We intercepted the message and felt we had to take them out before they blew a bomb in the US. Even the Discovery Channel did a special on this recently. Of course, if you were educated in leberal schools, they don't tell you that part.
Well Dave, the muslims must have been a great bunch... as long as you were muslim. Otherwise they didn't leave anyone alive. There used to be an old adage that the Turks didn't take prisoners. They just executed them on the spot.
Lastly, Europeans didn't invent slavery. They targeted a group that would stand out among the countryside. Not making excuses as it was a horrible practice, just stating facts. But the Greeks, Egytians, Muslims and even native Americans all practiced slavery long before the Europeans.
One last bit of history. Muslims hate the US mostly because they find our lifestyle full of debauchery. We export films that show women in various states of undress and don't to take religion serious. These are what most of the muslims find so offensive.
So you tell me. Will you stop Hollywood from exporting Brittany Spears, Madonna, and others from sending their music videos, stop films showing people in various stages of dress and then start praying aloud?
In secular Seattle, I wouldn't count on it.
"Tell me please, what in hell does Taxes have to do with war?"
In the real world more soldiers cost money. In the free lunch fantasy world inhabited by you right wing republicans, wishes are as good as ponies, and we can just borrow and spend. Oh wait that's only the Republican Congress.
General Petraeus our new Iraq commander has said that past counter-insurgency experience indicates we need 120,000 combat troops in Baghdad alone. Given our rotation policies, and the fact that only a fraction of total troop strength are combat troops, we probably need 3 times more troops or 360,000 troops to sustain that presences over the long term in Baghdad. That would likely cost $400 billion with an additonal amount on a continuing basis.
Bush was asked if its so crucial that we win in Iraq, why don't you ask for more sacrifice on the part of the American people. Bush's response? The American people are "sacrificing because they have to watch all the killing in Iraq on TV".
That's why I call you right wingers free lunch no sacrifice republicans. You don't want to pay for what it will take to achieve your goals. So you beat your breasts over a piddly 20,000 temporary and fake "surge". You realize that these "surge" troops were already in the pipeline don't you? We're just rotating them in sooner and they won't be able to stay long without breaking the army.
Just enought troops to loose? The American people won't support that anymore.
71. Mathews and Ivan are true secular progressives. Their vision of America will have a new motto; instead of E Plurbius Unium, it will be "Where's Mine" with the nanny state and socialism. They are the enemy within and would like to see them get flushed.
72. The Muslims lived in the Holy Lands, they were not occupiers. It was their native land. It belonged to no one else.
Really. So, you're telling me a religion established well after Judaism and Christianity was the true holder of the Holy Lands. Moslems weren't the occupiers, right? It was everybody else who wanted to horn in on Moslem land, despite being a johnny-come-lately religious cult bent on submission or death, right? Got it.
You are one, willfully stupid SOB. I believe you're this dense on purpose. There's no other explanation. Through wasting my time with you.
73. they also attacked the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire along the way. They sacked Constantinople.
I did a term paper on this, nardhead. The 4th Crusade contained far more complex issues than Christians kill/Moslems good. Throw Dandolo under the bus, and you'll get closer to the real cause.
Really. So, you're telling me a religion established well after Judaism and Christianity was the true holder of the Holy Lands. Moslems weren't the occupiers, right? It was everybody else who wanted to horn in on Moslem land, despite being a johnny-come-lately religious cult bent on submission or death, right? Got it.
Yes, JimG, that is exactly what I am saying. The crusades were an act of naked aggression by the Christians of Europe against the Muslims who were citizens (by birth) of the Holy Lands.
Those bloody Christians spilled a lot of blood on the way to the Holy Lands, too, and they spilled a lot more while occupying the Holy Lands. I am certain that Jesus was honored by their atrocities, raping and pillaging of the native inhabitants of Jerusalem in His honor.
Now, JimG, about the Christian conquest of the New World. Do you have any sort of opinion regarding the behavior of the Christians in the New World?
I mean, were these Christians saints as they committed genocide and pillaged an entire continent of its gold?
Yeah ... Christians love peace, Christians are peaceful, how then can you explain the millions of people murdered by Christians all over the globe?
Did you write a term paper about this subject?
"Yeah ... Christians love peace, Christians are peaceful, how then can you explain the millions of people murdered by Christians all over the globe?"
#74 - Where do you conjur up all of those lies ? you are a pathetic, religious bigot !
I don't think DM understands religion. It's not about genocide or plundering gold or oil for that matter, it's about doing God's will. If the religious leaders, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or what have you, convinces their followers that God wants them to murder non-believers, that is what will happen.
If the Islamic leaders want to bide their time and one day 20 years from now announce that it is Muslim's duty everywhere to blow themselves up and take as many non-Muslims with them, no amount of gold or oil will stop that.
There are three approaches the rest of the world can take, first we can ignore it an appease them and let it happen. Second, we can put money and resources into trying to identify those people and try to keep them from committing acts of terrorism. And thirdly, and coincidently most likely the best long-term solution, is to change the minds of Islam leaders or their support so that there is no desire to blow oneself up. This marginalizing of the radical Islamo-fascists seems to be the long term plan of Bush, and the war in Iraq is vital to achieving that.
> If the Islamic leaders want to bide their time and one day 20 years from now announce that it is Muslim's duty everywhere to blow themselves up and take as many non-Muslims with them, no amount of gold or oil will stop that.
I am glad you brought this up because it is a most important point.
Do you know that there was a time in which all the Christians of the world decided to blow this place up?
The Protestants of America and the former Russian Orthodox Christians of the Soviet Union built 20,000 nuclear weapons and announced to the world (and each other) that they were prepared to blow the entire planet up at the smallest provocation.
Several times throughout the time period of peak Christian insanity the world came only a few minutes away from the full ravages of Mutually Assurred Destruction. The Christians only avoided driving the species to nuclear extinction by virtue of luck, and nothing else.
You are painting this terrible picture of the Muslims but you seem to forget how violent the Christians were only a little over a decade ago. If the Christians had fought their nuclear war billions of humans would have died instantly.
And you want to know what is really ironic about this story? the Christian nation, the United States of America, still has thousands of nuclear weapons and still threatens to use them.
Do you understand the sick hypocrisy involved in Christian America trying to teach peace to the Muslims by killing them?
Needless to say, America is not qualified to teach peace to anyone. America has too much blood on its hands. America needs to learn peace before it begins attempting to teach peace.
"And thirdly, and coincidently most likely the best long-term solution, is to change the minds of Islam leaders or their support so that there is no desire to blow oneself up. This marginalizing of the radical Islamo-fascists seems to be the long term plan of Bush, **and the war in Iraq is vital to achieving that**."
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, Doug.
Before invading Iraq: a few suicide bombers aimed at the U.S. After invading Iraq: hundreds and hundreds of suicide attacks against the American invaders.
It doesn't appear that invading Iraq is helping to change those minds.
"You are painting this terrible picture of the Muslims but you seem to forget how violent the Christians were only a little over a decade ago. If the Christians had fought their nuclear war billions of humans would have died instantly."
What Christians are you talking about ? That is a lie - go tell it to Hezbollah.. You are Christophobe and throwing out pro-Islamist, Al-Jazerra propaganda without fact, troll clown !
Here's a couple paragraphs for the ignoramuses Matthews and chew2.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity--and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion--has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt--once the most heavily Christian areas in the world--quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Read the rest here: http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
> With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful.
Not successful enough. If the Muslims had conquered Europe perhaps the New World would have avoided the conquest. The Mayans and Incas and Native Americans might still possess their lands, and their civilizations would still remain until this day.
But the Muslims did not conquest Europe. Europe conquered the world. Atrocities, genocides, and the extermination of civilizations followed. the Christians got so good at killing that they invented the nuclear bomb and threatened to exterminate human life from the Earth.
The Christians discovered oil and burned it all up and polluted the oceans, land and atmosphere of the Earth. They melted the ice caps and changed the climate and eventually rendered the Earth inhospitable to human life. But long before that day came, the Christians attacked the oil-rich nations of the Middle East and killed over 100,000 Muslim civilians for the cause of "Freedom & Democracy". All the while, the Christians proclaimed themselves as the most peaceful, peace-loving people of the Earth.
God loved the Christians and sent them all to Heaven. God looked down upon the Muslims in mercy and brought them all to heaven, too. God decided to invite all the Jews, too.
The Jews, Christians and Muslims will spend eternity togather in Heaven. You might as well begin loving them now.
Wow. You guys really got David Mathews going.
What a piece of work, though trying to blame the nuclear buildup of the atheist Soviet Union on Christianity is really a rare treat one doesn't get to see everyday. If I wasn't so busy laughing the history major in me would be offended at such a distortion, among others.
DM theme--"bad bad Euro-descendants."
still waiting for you to move from this much-hated America to the more progressive countries you love like Yemen, anywhere in Europe, Turkey, etc etc. self-guilt and anti-patriotism is great from a comfy La-Z-Boy, with a nice job, in a pricey Seattle condo with a "view." why not vote with your feet & wallet if it's so bad here? Do a Madonna and vamoose?
> blame the nuclear buildup of the atheist Soviet Union on Christianity
Uh, Eric, as a history major you should know that Christian America invented the nuclear bomb, and that Christian America dropped these bombs on Japanese civilians.
I have a feeling that the Soviet nuclear build-up was motivated in part by the realization that Christian America could & would vaporize the Soviet civilians should the need arise.
We Christians are so very peaceful. We covered the Earth in blood but we're still more peaceful than those Muslims that we are presently killing.
85. *84 - you are no f**ing Christian, Mathews.
What, are you backing away from the claim of a Christian influence over the Soviet Union?
Moreover, since when is America a theocracy, or pure Christian monolith as your continued rantings describe? Many a prominent scientist in the pursuit of nukes was Jewish. How does that fit into your construct?
Furthermore, how does Nazi Germany's aggressive pursuit of the bomb fit your meme on Christianity being the blame of all the world's ills? The Nazis weren't exactly a stalwart example of the Christian faith in action.
Lastly, when has America ever expressed serious interest in using nukes after WWII except in its own defense? Even against Japan their use was to prevent even higher loss in both American and Japanese lives during the otherwise necessary invasion of the Japanese home islands.
Your passion is admirable, your understanding of history, religion, and politics is not.
I don't know about all this Christian/Muslim BS, but the U.S. has reserved the right to first use of nuclear weapons and even preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
"The former-Soviet Union, Russia, North Korea , India, and the People's Republic of China have pledged not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, while the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, France, and Pakistan have not."
"Many nuclear states have pledged not to initiate nuclear strikes against non-nuclear signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia reserve the right to respond with nuclear force to a conventional attack on their territory (or the territory of an ally) carried out by a non-nuclear state in association or alliance with a nuclear state."
One nation's "self defense" is another's naked aggression. Just ask Iraq. But significantly many other nuclear powers have given up the right to strike first even in "self defense". The U.S. is not one of those countries, even though we are the most militarily powerful nation on earth.
88. Dave Matthews wuld fit in quie nicely with Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. Communisism/socialism killed far more people in the world than any other religion. Islam is not a religion of peace but one of conquest...convert or die The Matthews of the world have thier heads so far up thier asses that they can't see the truth if it bit them. They are so anti American and anti-west tht they should move to the peoples paradise of Cuba or China. Either that or be droppped off a C-130 at 25,000 ft(sans parachute). That way, we'd have far less whiney, limp wristed latte drinking girly menand idiots in our country.
> What, are you backing away from the claim of a Christian influence over the Soviet Union?
Russia was a Christian nation for a thousand years before it became officially communist.
> Moreover, since when is America a theocracy, or pure Christian monolith as your continued rantings describe? Many a prominent scientist in the pursuit of nukes was Jewish. How does that fit into your construct?
Yes, Jews were involved in creating the atomic bomb. But they were working for a Christian nation in pursuit of the atomic bomb.
> Furthermore, how does Nazi Germany's aggressive pursuit of the bomb fit your meme on Christianity being the blame of all the world's ills? The Nazis weren't exactly a stalwart example of the Christian faith in action.
Germany had a fifteen hundred year history of Christianity prior to the advent of Nazism. One must wonder how a Christian nation could become Nazi ... except that hatred of the Jews and other minorities was common throughout the Christian era. Violence was also common, too.
> Lastly, when has America ever expressed serious interest in using nukes after WWII except in its own defense?
America threatened to use nukes aggressively against Iran last year. While those nukes still exist the potential remains for America to use them aggressively.
The reason the Soviets et.al. had the no first use policy is because they had a vast number of troops which could take over Europe. Their propaganda obviously worked on you as presenting themselves as nice people just wanting harmony. If we did give up the right to first use, the Soviets could have walked through Europe (on their way to the US) and we could not stop them due to sheer numbers. But it sounds good to liberals.
As far as Apartheid being British, not really. The Dutch were the main inhabitants at the time. The Johannesburg International airport was named after the founder. Also the Apartheid system was developed by a socialist. He studied eugenics under the Nazis and worked for the Nazis. Like most of the Psychologists that were leading the camps in Germany, they spread throughout the world to continue their work. Apartheid is a by product of that.
"If we did give up the right to first use, the Soviets could have walked through Europe (on their way to the US) and we could not stop them due to sheer numbers. But it sounds good to liberals."
So what's our excuse now? The Soviet Union has dissolved and the threat to Europe ended 10 years ago.
# 91 Well if my count is right China has one or two more people than the US. Even North Korea has a larger army than the US. Maybe that is keeping Kim Jong Ill from running across the border to steal all the scotch in South Korea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's our excuse now?". We not not need an "excuse", nor do we need to explain to the rest of the world what our defense policy is. What is it you don't like about it? It worked as a deterent against the wonderful Socialists in the USSR. Why do you want to give up something that worked? You want to give up in Iraq because you believe the US is a loser, you want to give up on a nuclear policy because it works. I don't follow the logic. You give up on working policies and on perceived failing policies. What policies do you support, other anti-Bush/Republican policies?
"You want to give up in Iraq because you believe the US is a loser, you want to give up on a nuclear policy because it works."
I never thought we should have invaded Iraq. But you did. (It turned out to be a monumnental miscalculation.) Yet you are not willing to endure the sacrifice needed to "win" your war. You know Bush's fake surge is far too little too late. You are willing to settle for defeat also. That's why your cheerleading for victory is dishonest. You just want to shift the blame for that defeat on the "lefties". But it is you Republicans who are responsible for this war. It is you Republicans who have given Bush everything he has asked for. Bush has never asked for enought to "win" and he won't do so now. You have only yourselves to blame.
94. Instead of spending so much money on the Iraq war ($340 billion) and the US military ($420 billion), we should be spending at least some of this on global poverty in order to discourage more terrorism and wars. In reality only .16% of our federal budget is spent on poverty reduction, the least among wealthy nations.
Oops didn't address your nuclear question.
Declaring no first use would not weaken the power of our nuclear deterrence. So I don't see what the problem is with that. It's not like we want to fight a land war in Asia, and we have the naval and air forces to protect Taiwan.
First use is an aggressive forward posture aimed at throwing our weight around and threatening other nations. It's useful for projecting U.S. military power in an offensive capacity. I think that it has has been counterproductive. I believe in speaking softly but carrying a big stick. Bush and you Republicans seem to believe in screaming at the top of your lungs at every little "threat" but then not having the force to back up those threats.
#93 I sure hope you are not giving out any classified information here as you know it is a "fake" surge. But how do you explain the unanimous vote by the Senate to put the architect of this policy in charge of Iraq?
Is this another 'Dems supported the war before they didn't, before they did, I think.... (psst, which way is the wind blowing?)' nuance?
I forgot the post that I said I am settling for defeat, please reference, but I at least have to congratulate you for admitting you want to settle for defeat. Do you know what the consequences of defeat are?
97. What do you consider a big stick, if not first strike? No one is yelling that, it is just known. What big stick do you want to carry, the UN?
98. Fred, you let chewie get away with a big distortion. He says their isn't a Soviet threat anymore. Tell that to Putin and he will laugh his head off as he continues spreading discord and plotting strategery.
Stop the BS. Do you believe this surge is adequate? 20,000 troops that were already scheduled to go to Iraq anyway, and won't stay long. We've surged like 2 or 3 times before. Has it worked? Give me a f*cking break with the fake questions. Petreaus has written that we would need 120,000 combat troops alone in Baghdad on a sustained basis. I'm going to put you in the free lunch no sacrifice blowhards now.
A big stick is a much larger conventional army so that we can carry through with our loud and threatening talk. Not the non-credible BS about "let's nuke Iran" if they don't kiss our ass BS that I hear on this website. But then I'm not for making all those loud breast beating threats in the first place.
I'll put you in the scaredy cat crew with Janet.
Russia is no threat to attack Europe conventionally. So we don't need to threaten first strike to deter a conventional attack. And we aren't going to attack them with nuclear weapons first because they will retaliate. Same goes for them.
And if Russia creates a little political mischief, threatening a nuclear first strike is an empty threat. You're just a scaredy cat. Any hostile move by anybody makes you beat your breasts.
What department of the Pentagon do you work in? I am not in a position to judge the tactics, and neither are you. We know nothing about what is really going on on the ground either militarily or diplomatically.
I had no idea that liberals were for a massive increase in the DoD budget, especially as Clinton slashed it. A conventional army is massively expensive, especially compared to the current options - but you at least stated a policy, which is more than the D leaders have done.
Taking the "let's nuke Iran" bravado from this site of, reasonably, frustrated people is a far cry from that being the policy. And it is not our ass that they are being asked to kiss, but the world community and the UN, hence the sanctions.
"I am not in a position to judge the tactics, and neither are you. We know nothing about what is really going on on the ground either militarily or diplomatically."
You had an opinion about Cold War military strategy. Why not the military situation in Iraq? You may be really ignorant as you claim or you may be dodging having to face the unpleasant truth that we haven't committed enough troops to win. (That's why I called you a surrender jockey btw.) But if you are so ignorant, how can I take any of your arguments seriously.
chew2. Enlighten us. Please give us the detailed plans, what has Iraq agreed to do as far as Sadr, what ulimitums have we given Iraq, what weapons and rules of engagement do we now have, how have we infiltrated, who are our moles. Please tell us all this classified information. The NYT doesn't get prosecuted for disclosing it, why would you?
I can't help in explaining the difference between historical military strategy and current conflict military strategy. You will need to go to the enlightened political elite for that insight. I just have full confidence in the US military's ability, if not restricted by polititians, to win this and make things better in Iraq. That is the difference between the left and the right.
"I just have full confidence in the US military's ability, if not restricted by polititians, to win this and make things better in Iraq. That is the difference between the left and the right."
Blind faith and good intentions doesn't cut it anymore. That is why the right lost the last election, and that is why it will lose the next election. The American people aren't willing to pay the price for the right's blind faith.
The U.S. military didn't sign up for nation building, but they are doing the best they can with far too few troops. Senator Webb is right that it may be a betrayal of their loyalty and bravery to have committed them to this job without the full means and strategy to achieve it. You can change the job, or you can give them the means to achieve it. What is wrong is to have them do the same job without the resources needed to achieve it. All so you can leave the mess for the next president.
The mess is Islamic terrorism, which will be every president's mess until it is resolved. Speaking of being blind, what do you think will happen if a band of terrorists can chase away the US. Specifically:
1. Will anyone ever take the US's word and commitment seriously again?
2. Will this show the terrorists that they can beat the US so they bring the fight back to us, with more 9/11s that they intend to do anyway?
And beyond that where does it say what the military is for and where is the list of things that fit that job description? Defending this country takes a lot, and involves a miriad of tasks. If making Iraq safe helps our security then it is part of their mandate.
I assume you disagree with the Marshall plan, and the 60+ years we have been in Germany and Japan too, or are those alright as a D planned those?
And what gives you (or any of us) more insight to the condition and tactics of what is going on there to make policy decisions more than the commander just approved by a unanimous vote in the D Senate? You have faith in the NYT, I have faith in the people that are deeply involved and with full available information on the situation. Call which ever one you want blind faith.
106. It seems that chew2 is a left wing loonie...he forgets that it was the groper in chief who decimated the size of our military forces, bragging on how much he cut the federal work force. Were there mistakes made..you bet, but having been under contract to the military for 31 years, the one thing you learn is that plans are only good until the first shot...after that, its improvise...with an over all strategy in place. When you have has beens from previous administrations involved, problems will arrise. The fact that human intell was decimated by the carter administration is conveniently forgotten by the left wing nut cases....It take a long time to build up good solid intell, linguistics, etc. The military also is under contraints that allow the enemy access from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. There should be NO SANCTUARY...follow and destroy. Take out the Alewite clan in Syria and good things will happen. Iran will no longer have a client state called Syria at its beck and call. Also, Hezzballa will find it much harder to get money, equipment and Iranian military trainers to there areas of operation. Syria can be had.....its dictatorial leadership can be wipped out with a few well placed ieds. Once the world see that we are indeed serious in dealing with terrorists and the states that support them, more countries will come to our assistance. That we mean what we say and will honor our committments to our friends and allies and not strand them the wwy the democtrats did in 1975. They were and now are the party of appeasement and gutless wonders. They can never be trusted with the security of our country.
Hey Allan, after you rightwingers do all that neat macho stuff can I get a pony too! I hope you don't need to get off your couch to do it.
Meanwhile back in the real world we'll watch Bush's wonderful "surge" for the next two years.
108. chew2: First off you piece of fecal matter, I have bled for my country and have the scars and steel in me for the rest of my life in order for you to make a fool of yourself, so don't tell me anything about getting off of any couch...you and others of your ilk are cowards and are unwilling to see that we were attacked...not only on 9/11 but the take over of our embassy under the peanut farmer....sitting around, drinking your lattes and keeping your collective heads up your butts so you won't have to face the real problems does nothing to solve the problem....that of the Islamo-fascist threat to us and the rest of the civilized world. Do you honestly think these nut cases will let you vent the way you do if shiria law is in effect?....You sir are a blathering idiot. So do us real americans a favor and move to Canada, France or better yet...Cuba so you'll be united with the rest of your sociaist/commie bretheren.
Here's the bottom line. If you right wingers want to kick some Arab butt then you have to be prepared to pay the price. No cheap "topple the Syrian Allawite regime" and all the Arab dominoes will fall. Personally I don't need to kick all that Arab butt. I'll be content with killing Osama.
And what's with the scaredy cat fear of Sharia law? Do you seriously thing a few thousand Jihadis with their car bombs can conquer the United States. Get a grip.
"Do you seriously thing a few thousand Jihadis with their car bombs can conquer the United States."
That is EXACTLY what you are proposing! Leave Iraq with our tail between our legs. Even Mother Pelosi, sorry Speaker Pelosi, has said that UBL is not that important, though that of course was before the election when the D paranoia comes up saying that Bush has him stashed away in a closet somewhere to pull him out just before the election. So who knows what she really 'thinks'?
Mother Pelosi, Fred? Wasn't it elRushbo who jokingly suggested we might see Pelosi breastfeed a baby in the House as she is presiding?
Wasn't it Drudge who jumped all over the Republicans for not creating a farm system of female Republicans to counter this new woman revolution? Just ask Gregoire, Cantwell and Murray.
chewie is one of those who likes Pat Buchanan's view of the role of the United State of American. That view is to bury our head in the sands like an ostrich; which is my view, too, except that view has gotten us into WWI and WWII. I hate the USA being the policemen of the world, but what is the option?
chewie is also not reading the news today regarding the radicals Islamists and the mosques in our own country. He is not reading about the negative birthrates in Spain and France of native borns and traditional Spaniards and Frenchmen and the mushrooming populations of radical Islamists in these countries.
Yes, chewie, you may be dead when the next big war hits, as may I, but I want the best world for my kids and that is defeating the radical Islamos.
chewie, read Jim Miller's discussion at Cedar Park above. I dare you. Neener, neener fraidy cat!!!
So are you a scaredy cat too?
How are a few thousand Jihadis going to conquer the United States? Explain that to me.
How does leaving Iraq, even with our tails between our legs, make it certain or even probable that those few thousand Jihadis can conquer the United States? Explain that to me.
You should get a grip also.
Winning or losing in Iraq is not central to our national survival and there will be no Sharia law in the United States because of it.
But if you really believe that paranoid fantasy then you should be calling for more than Bush's piddly little "surge", some real national sacrifice, a larger army, far more troops in Iraq, and raising taxes to pay for it.
113. Fred, do we call it "selective amnesia" or "head in the sand syndrome"?
114. swatter - sand? You are being too polite!
Swatter and Fred,
Can't answer the question, can you. Hww can a ew thousand Jihadi's conquer the United States and impose Sharia law on us.
Maybe you should leave "with your tails between your legs" now.
116. How are a few thousand Jihadis going to conquer the United States? Explain that to me.
By scaring gutless politicians (and weak knee'd liberals) into wanting to negotiate and compromise in the forlorn hope that the bombings will stop.
"By scaring gutless politicians (and weak knee'd liberals) into wanting to negotiate and compromise in the forlorn hope that the bombings will stop."
It seems that it's the rightwingers who are scared sh*tless here. Get a grip. Jihadis are not going to conquer the US and impose Sharia law.
Yeah, get a grip. National Socialists are not going to build up arms and take over other countries. Nothing to be concerned with.
Ooops - they did build up arms took over Austria, etc. and started WWII.
You've slipped off the deep end into paranoia land.
Better stay away from the 7-11. There are a lot of dark skin muslim looking people working there, They might spike your slurpy with polonium.
Seriously. And your point was what? Are there some Jihadis anywhere who are in danger of acquiring enough military power to conquer us. If so where and how many are there of them?
120. My point is that was the same appeasment excuse used with Hitler. Instead of taking care of problems when they are small, appeasers like to wait until they can no longer ignore them. As SR #116 pointed out "By scaring gutless politicians (and weak knee'd liberals) into wanting to negotiate and compromise in the forlorn hope that the bombings will stop."
Where and how many are these small number of Jihadis you are afraid of? Where are they going to grow? You are magnifying the smallest adversary into the maximum threat by your false Hitler reasoning. Of course we have to oppose the Jihadis. That doesn't mean they are any theat to conquer and enslave us.
And what does the fighting in Iraq have to do with them. The Jihadis are all over the middle east and Pakistan and the world. 90 to 95% of the people we are fighting over there are indigenous Iraqis not foreign Jihadis. Even if the Jihadis took over Iraq (the Shia will kill them all btw) they wouldn't be a serioius military threat to us.
Some good quotes in this article.
"As one of those Islamic clerics put it, as he took a stage on the campus of the University of California at Irvine after 9/11, "If you don't give us justice, if you don't give us equality, if you don't give us our share of America," he said. "We're gonna burn America down.""
Noone seems to question what "their share of America" is, the sleeping anti-Bush MSM and its appeasing followers don't think these type of things are too important to report. Or they are too scaredy cat, to use your third grade terminolgy, to report anything negative on Muslims because they are afraid of being attacked. Showing Christ in urine is fine and important, showing the pictures of Mohammed are not required to make the story. Appeasing whimps!
That is how they will infiltrate our society. No criticizing them. If anything happens screams of profiling/racism/anti-Muslim are used effectively to cower the masses and the MSM. This was clearly demonstrated with the 6 Imams on the NorthWest flight - praying together loudly at the departure gate, then spreading out throughout the plane. They got a response and cry profiling.
Now we need to be "more sensitive". They don't need to be more sensitive on how they behave and appear to everyone else. We have to be more sensitive not to offend them! They can do what they want and we have to comply.
123. chew2 and others of his ilk are like rabid dogs...they should be put down, one way or another. It would be justified as a matter of public safety.
Should we scare chewie and tell him how fragile Pakistan is and the potential his 'warm and fuzzies' can do in destroying the world?
My word, half of Pakistan caters to the radical image.
What does fighting in Iraq have to do with some muslim guy mouthing off in Irvine.
How does fighting in Iraq prevent Pakistan from going fundamentalist.
We could leave Iraq and it wouldn't make a difference to either. In fact it would probably help. There would be fewer angry muslims.
Are you saying we should keep on losing in Iraq so we can keep poking all those angry muslims in the eye? Or is staying in Iraq all about not losing face to you scaredy cats.
Well there are better places to spend our money and our lives, unless you guys are serious about winning. Americans won't support a piddly "surge" to defeat and stalemate. Give them victory or prepare to get out. But you guys are to chickenshit to call for victory.
And the boogey man won't get us if we do get out.
"There would be fewer angry muslims" In other words it would appease Muslims.
No we should keep winning in Iraq, get past the difficulties (which occur in every war, including D wars), and yes we need to save face so that the US is taken seriously, and a country that follows through on her word instead of saying it is inconvenient so forget what we said before.
Start reading - Bush and most on this site has been calling for victory, not cut-and-run. The cut-and-run advocates are Ds.
What does Hitler walking into the no-man-zone on the western border have anything to do with breaking the armistise of 1918? - other than the 50 odd million deaths caused by WWII. Take care of things while they are easy.
The dems are all for paying for mop-up activities (aka first response), the reps are more interested in prevention.
"the reps are more interested in prevention."
Earth to Fred: there were no Jihadis in Iraq until we invaded. Bush created more Jihadis and provided them a new battlefield. Meanwhile we're distracted from pursuing them in Afghanistan and elsewhere by having to fight the 99% of the Iraqis who are not Jhihadis. This was no cheap ounce of prevention. Our whole army is bogged down nation building in Iraq.
Plus there is no Hitler with massive armies out there waiting in the wings. Oh wait! I forgot about Osama. What happened to that guy anyway. Wasn't he supposed to be the new Hitler?
"most on this site has been calling for victory"
Most on this site are free lunch no sacrifice republicans who are great with slogans but not willing to call for the real sacrifice needed to achieve the "victory" they claim they want. Heaven forbid that they would have to raise taxes to pay for victory.
"In other words it would appease Muslims."
You seem preoccupied with some lone muslim American claiming victory in Irvine California, or some Al Qaeda website claiming victory. So the main reason we must continue this costly stagnation in Iraq is so a few crazies can't verbally insult you and claim they won. It's all about saving face and kicking sand in someone elses face. Grow up
America's power and influence will be respected if it's used wisely and effectively. Not because we gratuitously insult muslims or wastes its resources stuck in the bog of Iraq.
19 of them splattered in four airplanes just over 5 years ago. Now they are in "the new battlefield"
Hitler did not have massive armies in 1933. We allowed them to arm and train a massive army through appeasment.
The Irvine example is one of many. Again appease them, they can't harm us. Wait tuntil they harm us before waking up. Deja vue all over again.
So you claim no one is calling for victory, then you say there is no sacrifice for the victory, defined by you as raising taxes. So which is it? Calling for victory or not. I don't want to go back and forth on this one depending if you want to slam the tax cuts that are bringing in more money than ever to the treasury, or make out that everyone is a cut-and-runner as we don't want victory.
It is your opinion that we are in stagnation. The soldiers feel they are doing a lot of good building schools where girls can go to as well (where are the feminists supporting this, or are women's right subserviant to Bush bashing?), hospitals being built. Almost all of the 19 provinces of Iraq are doing quite well.
America's power and influence will NEVER be respected if we cannot carry through on our word.
Where is the new hitler Fred? Where is he? And why don't we kill him then? Who are we appeasing and how? Where is he.
There is no new Hitler out there. There is no new Nazi Germany out there. Tell me where its at. It's certainly not in Iraq.
As to "calling for victory". You are all being dishonest and hypocrites. Why? Because you won't call for the bigger army needed to actually achieve it and the taxes to pay for it. No one believes you free lunch no sacrifice republicans anymore. You are just as much surrender monkeys as the lefties.
"Our word". What was our word? You mean that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to the United States? I wonder why no one believes our word any more. What "word" are you talking about Fred?
You republicans are promoting a bankrupt incoherent stay the course in Iraq. The American people have jumped off that boat and will elect a new captain the next election.
Forget about it. I forgot you only know about WWI and WWII military stuff. You don't know about current military strategy. So you can't tell me where the new military threat is coming from or where the new Hitler is hiding. But I'll bet he is not the muslim guy in Irvine.
The threat is coming from Islamic fanatics. This has absolutely nothing to do with current military strategy. You have not once said what our detailed military strategy is - like how many and where our troops are going
to be deployed with what orders. With whom they are working and reliability of the internal sources. How the Iraqi government and various groups within the government are responding.
So, all knowing, tell us what our strategy is without the high level "send more troops to Baghdad". I mean real detail that the commanders can implement against. Something that will answer these types of questions, as you claim to be knowledgable onthe strategy to be able to make policy.
132. Chew2 is right in one thing. We need a much larger armed force. To pay for it is very simple...quit funding socialist programs such as national health, housing and other welfare programs. Eliminate the over abdunance of vaious departments such as education, eps, hss, energy, etc. The savings alone will more than pay for the increase of our militsry with more than enough left over to pay down our national debt. Put extra revenue from social security out of bounds...no more borrowing from these accounts to fund other gov't services. No taxes need raised. It would be interesting to see if left wing nut cases are willing to sacrifice some programs for our national securityor are they more interested in spending us and our heirs into bankruptcy.
"The threat is coming from Islamic fanatics."
You are the idiots who claim that if we leave Iraq, those Islamic fanatics will conquer us and impose Sharia law on us. You know they can't do that, so you make up some BS about a new Islamic Hitler lurking in the wings who will grow to a new Nazi Germany. Then when I ask you to identify that Hitler, you wave your hands about all those evil Islamists, especially about that guy in Irvine.
There are only a few thousand with no army. They can't conquer us. Don't you believe in the second Amendment? We have enough hunters alone to shoot them all. Get a grip and stop exagerating the threat. It's out there, but they are not going to conquer us.
Fred if you want to discuss military strategy with me then you better be prepared to answer my military questions. I'm not going to waste my time on your "blind faith" in our government leaders. They've done such a good job with this war already.
My first question: is accelerating the already scheduled deployment of 20,000 combat troops a real change in military strategy or merely a temporary increase like we already tried last July in Baghdad, a city of 6 million people, and which failed miserably. Isn't it more of the same?
And won't it have to be temporary since we haven't increased the size of the army sufficiently to allow for new rotations to maintain that 20,000 "surge".
"no new taxes needed"
Spoken like a true free lunch borrow and spend republican congressman. A republcian congress which increased spending like a drunken sailor and borrowed to pay for it.
You will find that all those wasteful programs only account for a small part of the federal budget and probably wouldn't be enough to pay for a new army even if we cut them to zero. But I'm with you about cutting all those wasteful subsidies to farmers.
"Bush to seek $245 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan this year and next"
It's starting to cost real money.
136. Chew2: First off you idiot. I am not a member of the democrat or republican parties. I am a social and fiscal conservative. To say there is wastfull spending during this administration wuld be an understatement. It should also be remembered that ever since the wasteful programs created in the mid sixties, gov spending and borrowing has gone through the roof. As far as defense spending, try, try to remember that we are at war....a very long one that will be much longer if you and other of your ilk keep supporting the enemy. If the libs would give up the socialist agenda, this country could be fiscally healthier in a very short time. That means useless gov workers will have to get a real job instead of mooching off the working, tax paying citizens. Perhaps if you ever get to KS, you can ask for a brain.
Not a republican? You could have fooled me.
So are you in favored of eliminating all those wasteful farm subsidies to farmers? At least $25 billion a year at last count.
138. You bet I am. Let the market determine the true price. There should be no gov subsidies at all, for anything. Wether its HUD, HSS, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Growing up in the midpwest during the forties and fifties, these programs were not around..no one starved, no one went homeless and bas medical care was provided. But then again there was by far less rules and regulations. Also, being from a poor family, I learned that no one owes you anything...there was no sense of entitlement. My parent taught me that if you want something, work for it. That thought process made me a far better man than waiting for handouts. Think of the different ways several states handled the Katrina mess. Texas, MS and Al just rolled up thier sleeves and started to rebuild...a can do attitude. LA on the other hand, a product of the welfare mentality, is still waiting for handouts. That alone should be a stark reminder of what happens when socialism take deep roots. It all boils down to attitude.