Robert Jamieson had a thought provoking column yesterday about the thinking of one soldier in support of the fight in Iraq.
A passage from Jamieson jumps out in the course of his discussion of Lt. Ehren Watada's refusal to deploy to Iraq:
What struck me was the pervasive and troubling tone in the majority of the pro-Watada messages: a sense that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are unthinking cannon fodder with little understanding of why they're fighting -- or who they're helping.
If you read much in the liberal blogosphere, or if you've ever read a thread here at Sound Politics heavy on comments from David Mathews (like this one), you know exactly what tone Jamieson is talking about.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 18, 2007 04:59 PM | Email ThisLets let Average Joe see the full face of the left. Let's let America see what David Mathews and others have in store. If Secular Progressives and Anti-man Nihilists are so confident of their ideas, then they should speak them loudly. Let's give these folks a soapbox so they can tell Average Joe what they want to do to his life.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2007 05:11 PM> a sense that U.S. soldiers in Iraq are unthinking cannon fodder with little understanding of why they're fighting -- or who they're helping.
I have never said anything at all about the troops in Iraq, and especially nothing derogatory against them.
American troops are just people who have a job to do. I have met plenty of people who either are or were in the military and these people are good, thoughtful people.
I disagree with the President and the policy. But I have respect and sympathy for the troops.
I am sick of American soldiers dying. I am sick of American soldiers suffering. I am sick of Iraqi civilians dying. I am sick of Iraqi children dying.
There is nothing at all that I like about war. I especially hate this war and want it to end swiftly.
There are plenty of conservatives who are defending the war and not the soldiers. The see 3,000 dead soldiers and say, "That's really not a lot of dead soldiers. In World War II we lost that many soldiers in a day!"
Such an attitude renders America's soldiers as little except expendable cannon fodder.
As for myself, I notice every soldier who has died, and each and every death appears like a terrible tragedy to me.
That is why I want this war to end. That is why I want this war to end now.
I care about the soldiers and I want them to stop suffering, stop losing limbs, and stop dying. These soldiers are too valuable to waste in an unjust, aggressive, ill conceived war.
George WMD Bush has already killed too many Ameican soldiers.
Let's bring the soldiers home. We can appreciate them better over here rather than way over there.
Let's end this war and bring the soldiers home. It is time for the Iraq war to end. Let's not wait another day.
For those who care about the condition the wounded soldiers I recommend the following article:
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
Those who truly love the soldiers must bring an end to this bloody war.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 05:24 PMIt's that key point that will revert many a reader to the emotional side of their mind. But if we are to understand any war, and indeed any idea, we need to stick to the rational side of our minds. Would it were that we could retreat to some sort of isolation where there would be no need to confront evil. But evil does not sit idle.
Those who lament a death total, show an ignorance, and usually a willingness to ignore history and focus on emotion. Compared to the total number of soldiers in and who have passed through theatre in Iraq, the percentage of those who have died is quite small. Obviously, we would prefer the number were zero. I personally know 4 soldiers who went to Iraq. All 4 who I know are still alive.
The point is to focus on the facts and the wider context of radical Islam and not the emotion as those on the left, and Robert Jamieson want.
Iran, Syria and many other authoritarian forces in the Middle East are fighting the specific nature of Western Civilization that has lead us to our culture which values persuasion and debate as superior to force for solving differences. In short, we value life. We will not be able to have the debate with Islam as long as it is holding a gun to our heads, a knife to our necks or terror to our open society. What of a people who view suicide as a means to accomplishment. They value death. And for 40 years, every time we have "turned the other cheek" in appeasement of violent Islam, we have only been met with more force.
Soldiers like Mark Daily understand what confronts us and have chosen to confront that on behalf of the rest of us. Others like David Mathews have chosen to rant for peace. The beauty of America is that each of us gets to make that choice, and if we want to preserve that ability, then some of us will have to take the risks.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2007 05:39 PM> A word about the Jamieson piece. If you follow Jamieson, you know that he leans left, and I believe that this piece is actually a bit of a back hand attack. The story if of course compelling, which makes for selling newspapers in today's world. However, Jamieson could have just has easily chosen a soldier with the same message, same eloquence, same conviction, same understanding of his own choices, etc. but one who did not die in a roadside bomb attack.
I noticed that myself. But why should patriots object to the portrayal of a patriot who happen to also die for the cause which he championed?
> Those who lament a death total, show an ignorance, and usually a willingness to ignore history and focus on emotion. Compared to the total number of soldiers in and who have passed through theatre in Iraq, the percentage of those who have died is quite small. Obviously, we would prefer the number were zero. I personally know 4 soldiers who went to Iraq. All 4 who I know are still alive.
3,100 soldiers seems like a lot to me. Thousands more are suffering permanent disability because of the Iraq war.
How many more soldiers are you willing to sacrifice for this cause?
> The point is to focus on the facts and the wider context of radical Islam and not the emotion as those on the left, and Robert Jamieson want.
The Iraq war has nothing at all to do with radical Islam. Saddam Hussein was a secularist and an enemy of radical Islam.
> Iran, Syria and many other authoritarian forces in the Middle East are fighting the specific nature of Western Civilization that has lead us to our culture which values persuasion and debate as superior to force for solving differences. In short, we value life. We will not be able to have the debate with Islam as long as it is holding a gun to our heads, a knife to our necks or terror to our open society. What of a people who view suicide as a means to accomplishment. They value death. And for 40 years, every time we have "turned the other cheek" in appeasement of violent Islam, we have only been met with more force.
Undoubtedly you are speaking in an ironic manner. Over the last forty years the United States of America has killed millions of people -- we don't seem to value life so very much.
And who is threatening whom? The United States of America has held a gun to the Middle East's head since World War II. Don't you know that every time an American aircraft carrier approaches the Persian Gulf it sends a signal to the Muslims that America is ready, willing and able to kill them at a moment's notice.
The United States has an arsenal of nuclear weapons that would make the Devil himself proud. How are we the peaceful people of the Earth?
The United States of America vaporized 100,000 Japanese civilians with one bomb in Hiroshima. How then are we less evil than Osama Bin Laden?
The United States of America killed over 1,000,000 civilians in the Vietnam war. How then are we the good people of the Earth?
Americans need to wake up to notice their own bloody hands. For every civilian than Osama murdered the United States has murdered at least a thousand.
Yet we still call our nation a "peaceful nation"! The hyprocrisy of it all!
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 05:57 PM> I think David Matthews is an idiot.
I am fond of you, too, Manco.
> However, I do agree with him on one point. Iraq is a mistake, and we should pull back to Kuwait/UAE immediately.
Iraq is not simply a mistake. Iraq is George WMD Bush's mistake, and also an American terrorist act against the Middle East. The United States of America has murdered over 150,000 Iraqi civilians and George W. Bush is responsible for all this bloodshed.
> Let the Sunnis kill the Shias and vice/versa to their hearts content. I don't care if they slaughter each other in the millions. So be it. I can live with it.
This is a typical genocidal thought which I have discovered is very common among conservatives. The Muslims know that the American conservatives hate them and would prefer that they all die.
I imagine that this is the main reason why the Sunnis and Shias agree that America is their mutual enemy. They may hate each other but they hate America even more.
So they fight against us and want to drive us out of their country. Who can blame them? We would do the same if some other country occupied the U.S. of A.
Don't you see why the Muslims distrust America's promise to bring freedom & democracy to the Middle East? The Muslims have every reason to distrust those who would rather see them die.
I don't know what America's intentions are in the Middle East and that is why I want this war to end immediately. America is the destabilizing force in the Middle East right now.
Once America leaves, I am confident that the Muslims will work out their differences without resorting to killing each other by the millions. America isn't solving this problem, and America isn't helping either.
America should leave and allow the Muslims to work out this problem on their own. The Muslims are adults and undoubtedly they will find a solution.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 06:29 PMAccording to data at disastercenter.com, between 2003 and 2005, pick any group of US states whose population adds up to Iraq's and our non-terrorist, non-war, peaceful cities kill more Americans than we are losing in combat.
(All not counting 2006 numbers)
Washington D.C. - 642 murders
New York State - 2697 murders
New Jersey - 1215 murders
(3464 murders)
or
Michigan - 1871 murders
New York - 2697 murders
(4568 murders)
or
California - 7302 murders
(California is larger than Iraq, so if we scale it down proportionately, we come up with 5673 murders.)
My point is, as tragic as the losses we have suffered in Iraq are, just living in this country doesn't seem to be a guarantee to save any more lives. On the national news, we hear about every single soldier that dies. It would be only fair if the national news also report every single murder that occurs in our country - just to keep all of this in perspective.
ANY time we send our troops into harm's way, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.
Regardless of who sends the troops into harm's way, once they are there, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.
The Democrats have shown that they apparently have more important things to worry about than actually supporting our troops - in every way - while they are in harm's way.
There is no excuse. The country deserves better, the troops especially deserve better.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2007 06:46 PMI can see that the deaths of our troops is a matter of no concern for you.
This is a perfect demonstration of conservatives treating America's troops as expendable cannon fodder.
Southernroots, you are loving our troops to death.
Your principles are clear:
> ANY time we send our troops into harm's way, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.
> Regardless of who sends the troops into harm's way, once they are there, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.
I would hope that our primary goal when sending our troops anywhere is that they will get back home alive, well and in one piece.
Is this the reason why George WMD Bush avoided having to serve the military in Vietnam?
George W. Bush has sent troops to die for our country, the very thing which he was explicitly unwillling to do!
How many more troops must die for the sake of George W. Bush's ego?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 06:54 PMHere's a question for all the troop-loving conservative patriots up there in Seattle:
3,100 American troops have died in Iraq so far. Do you love the troops so much that:
a. You are willing to wait until 6,000 have died.
b. You are inclined to wait until 9,000 have died.
c. You will wave your flag and salute the 12,000th dead American soldier.
d. You will keep on fighting this war until the death toll exceeds the Vietnam war.
Please do tell me, conservatives, how much you really do love America's troops.
Here is case in which we can measure your love for the troops in their own blood.
So how much do you love those troops, conservatives?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 07:22 PMThink what you want. Believe what you want. You're wrong and, apparently, no amount of discussion with you will change that.
I could play your little game with you , but you bore me.
However much you bore me, I do believe that it is important that you continue your rants - just for the sake of others to learn the depth of your depravity.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2007 07:23 PMPerhaps Dave can clean up Florida and make it a safer place to live.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 18, 2007 07:30 PMI don't care if the sand monkeys trust us or not. We have the big stick.
Posted by: Manco_Dollars on February 18, 2007 07:39 PM> I don't care if the sand monkeys trust us or not. We have the big stick.
1. I love it when conservatives reveal their prejudice, bigotry and irrational fear to me. When you say "sand monkey" I just know that the Muslims will continue to greet the Americans as their lovers & liberators.
2. As to America having the "big stick": Don't you know that the Muslims have the oil and that without oil our "big stick" will become impotent very fast?
America is murdering Iraqis and also threatening to murder Iranians on behalf of oil and for no other reason.
America never went into Iraq for the sake of bringing freedom & democracy to the Iraqis. America's neocons invaded Iraq for neocolonial reasons.
Those 3,100 American soldiers have died for the sake of oil and cheap gasoline. I hope that makes you proud every time you fill your gas tank: Gasoline is cheap because human lives are cheaper!
America cannot leave Iraq for the same reason: Once the threat of American military violence ceases the Muslims might decide to cease exporting oil to the good ol' U.S. of A. and that would mean that a lot of obese American SUV drivers will go bankrupt at the gasoline pump.
Those American soldiers are dying for the sake of the SUV and obese American consumerism. Americans don't care about Iraqis. Conservatives don't want to give the Muslims freedom & democracy.
Everything that you were told about the Iraq war was a lie. The President lied to the American people. Those soldiers are dying because of the President's lying.
So let's end this war now. No more soldiers should die on behalf of oil and cheap gasoline. No more Iraqi children ought to die for American neocon neocolonialism, either.
Let's bring the soldiers home. Let's stop the bleeding. The Iraq war needs to end now.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 08:01 PMAs a result, you are two things for sure: 1. Beneath contempt. 2. Not worth the time or trouble to read.
You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon or Republican disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.
And I pray to God that your twisted vision never becomes our reality.
Posted by: Hinton on February 18, 2007 08:18 PM> Sorry, Dave, but you want us to lose in Iraq... and the sacrifice of our soldiers to be proven worthless.
America has already lost the Iraq war. How many soldiers have to die before you begin waking up to reality, Hinton?
Thousands of soldiers have already died. Do three thousand more soldiers have to die before you wake up?
Patriotism, nationalism and zeal for the military has blinded your eyes. America has lost the Iraq war, and (more importantly) the Iraqis have lost their nation, their infrastructure, and any hope of living in a peaceful society.
The Iraq war has to end. The Iraq war will end some day. The only question is: How many more soldiers will you allow to die?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 18, 2007 08:30 PMWhile I am unhappy with the way Bush and the White House/Pentagon have performed, it is a slap in the face to our military to have the constant undermining of the war effort. Matthews and his ilk show that they have no conscience and their actions show that they don't care about the welfare of our troops. The challenge is for them to say that they want us to win in Iraq, which they cannot demonstrate.
At the same time, it is time for the Democrats to step up and hold Bush's feet to the fire, and use the power of the purse and limit funding. The non-binding resolution was really a vote of no-confidence for the sitting President and deservedly so. I may actually favor a parliamentary system in times like this.
Posted by: KS on February 18, 2007 08:38 PMIn the US, we may as individuals disagree, but collectively we have elected the government that is an extension of our free individual right to choose. No one held a gun to our heads or forced us to vote for a particular candidate as they do in Venezuela or in Saddam's Iraq. Our government is simply an extension of our own individual right to ourselves and our freedom to choose our own way of life. Collectively, we have chosen to address fanatical Islam and the repressive tyranny that refused to grant Iraqis the same rights that we have. As one of the few legitimate governments that recognizes the individuals right to exist for his own sake, we the people expressly hold the moral right to obliterate any government which does not recognize individual rights, at any time we choose.
Practically, we don't need to obliterate every tyranny in the world, or for example in Africa, because we'd never be done fighting if we did, and they pose no immediate threat to our freedom as individuals. But as we did in Bosnia, we could go into Darfur under only the auspices of restoring freedom to a people who live under oppression, and we would be doing justice and ultimately reducing the number of deaths that would occur in the tyrannical regimes under which they live. Deaths under tyranny that occur either through the neglect of authoritarian rule, or through government sponsored slaughter. This is the situation today in Darfur and it was the situation in Iraq under Saddam and continues to be the situation in Iraq under insurgents sponsored by Iran.
The reason we are in the Middle East is because fanatical Islam has vowed to destroy The Great Satan as they call us, and destroy our ally Israel, The Little Satan. We can stand by idly and watch as we have done for 40 years as the escalation to violence progresses, or we can do something to prevent more large attacks against Iraqis and Americans, on both countries soil. Either way, there's going to be a lot of people dead, but it can be Americans in limited numbers that have chosen to fight, or it can be untold civilians in the Middle East and in the US that are killed in terror or in genocide, or in whatever neglect, because we refused to confront a tyrannical regime that does not value individuals.
The mere fact that we can have this debate in a rational (well mostly aside from the left leaning commenters) manner and without force or bloodshed is testament to the government that we have built and maintain. This is a government of individual freedom and choice, despite the Bush Derangement with which many on the left suffer. If they don't like it, they can use persuasion to try and convince the majority that we are better off ignoring Islam and with a Democrat President. And if they win, then we all live with the choice. But irrationally calling for withdrawal, especially when that is not the policy of the current second term administration, is not going to bring a conclusion to the Middle East matter with LESS loss of lives.
Because ultimately, radical Islam has done nothing to recall it's clerics who preach a daily hatred and calls to Jihad. That's not a sign of peaceful diplomacy. And until we get an express commitment from the governments of the Middle East to contain their violent and state sponsored Jihad against the west, we should not back down.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 18, 2007 08:57 PMDavid Mathews is a windbag. He speaks on here to provoke a response and this site gives him a soap box. He has no personal experience in which tyo draw his conclusions. On the contrary, he reads websites, newspapers, and editorials from which he parrots as if he is learned in the subject. Im sure he will reply in my direction, go ahead.
I am interested in this subject greatly as it effects my life directly. I find it interesting that the left has sidestepped this question everytime its posed, and the right fails to push for an answer. The question is this: What do you think the position of the insurgents is? If asked whether they think that the U.S. Military should leave Iraq, what would they say? I think that we all know that they would say that we should depart immediately, in fact, that is exactly what their goal is, right? The point of roadside bombs and bringing down helicopters is to inflict sensational damage. blowing up a HumVee with four people in it or a helicopter with two people in it is not militarily significant. BUT IT MAKES HEADLINES. It gives the anti-war group ammunition. My point is that the "insurgents" are trying to make headlines and the left wing faction of america, the senate, the house, all are giving them a platform. David Mathews is working for the insugents, he is a soldier in their army even though he doesnt realize it.
I have a few questions for David Mathews et al:
You wrote:
"I am sick of American soldiers dying. I am sick of American soldiers suffering."
You and people like you are giving the "insurgents" hope. The insurgents read american websites and rightly come to the conclusion that if they keep the pressure up, the Americans will leave. You give them hope. You are contributing to the deaths of americans.
"I am sick of Iraqi civilians dying. I am sick of Iraqi children dying."
How would the Americans leaving Iraq accomplish this end? Do you think the violence would end and they would spontaneously spring ino the arabic version of Kum By Ya?
"I have respect and sympathy for the troops."
You are disrespectful to me. You discount my opinions and supercede it with your own, sympathy? Please, you only show your ignorance.
"As for myself, I notice every soldier who has died, and each and every death appears like a terrible tragedy to me."
Really? Do you know anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you known anyone who has lost their life in this conflict? I do and I have. The MEN that I have served with live with the understanding that they may die fighting, but the risk is worth it.
"The United States of America vaporized 100,000 Japanese civilians with one bomb in Hiroshima."
Thank God America had a president that had the huevos to pull the trigger. Imagine the number of Amercan soldiers (whom you claim you care for) who would have died invading Japan.
"The United States of America killed over 1,000,000 civilians in the Vietnam war. How then are we the good people of the Earth?"
Where do you get such figures?
"Iraq is not simply a mistake. Iraq is George WMD Bush's mistake, and also an American terrorist act against the Middle East. The United States of America has murdered over 150,000 Iraqi civilians and George W. Bush is responsible for all this bloodshed"
Where do you get these figures? Even "Iraq Body Count" http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, hardly a right wing organization, only puts the maximum civilian death toll at a little over 62,000. I dispute that america has responsibility in the VAST majority of their deaths (most of the deaths are at the hands of the "insurgents"), but nonetheless their number is almost 1/2 of yours.
"This is a typical genocidal thought which I have discovered is very common among conservatives. The Muslims know that the American conservatives hate them and would prefer that they all die."
Im a conservative and I hope that they dont die. I dont want to nuke them, I dont want to steal their oil. I want them to live in peace with us and themselves. Most of the Iraqis want that as well.
"Don't you see why the Muslims distrust America's promise to bring freedom & democracy to the Middle East? The Muslims have every reason to distrust those who would rather see them die. "
The biggest reason that the Iraqis and the rest of the world have for distrusting America is because we have bailed out on them in the past. Frequently. The Kurds after the last gulf war for example. And what is it you want to do again?
"Once America leaves, I am confident that the Muslims will work out their differences without resorting to killing each other by the millions. America isn't solving this problem, and America isn't helping either."
You truly are delusional arent you? Im not sure your paying attention, we are discussing the middle east. Men kill their sisters for walking home alone with a man who is not related to them. They hang 16 year old girls who have been raped because they defended themselves, ETC ETC
American troops are in Iraq. The quickest way to bring them home is to win. Support the troops, support the mission, bring them/us home winners and then if you didnt like the fact that we went there in the first place, vote the leaders out of office.. But stop fighting with the enemy
Posted by: hookr23 on February 18, 2007 09:42 PM
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=46348938
Its a bit difficult to read without paragraph breaks, but the truth he speaks about both the war and his liberal ideals makes it worth the read.
DM is far too typical of the left. They have abandoned altruism, and with it the truth, in favor of expediencey.
The "I support the troops, but opposed the war" mantra is just words to lull what the left believe to be the stupid Middle Americans who really do support the troops but have grown weary of what is too often portrayed by their MSM allies as a losing battle.
We are not losing the battle in Iraq, but if we are not vigilant we will lose it here in America.
Spread the truth of what Mark Daily wrote.
Posted by: deadwood on February 18, 2007 10:17 PMWhat are your sources for claiming that:
1. "America has murdered over 150,000 Iraqis"?
2. "The United States of America vaporized 100,000 Japanese civilians with one bomb in Hiroshima"?
3. "The United States of America killed over 1,000,000 civilians in the Vietnam war"?
No sources I have been able to locate come anywhere close to your figures for the first two listed above. Not to minimize the significance of the events, nor their human cost - but if you're going to bandy about "facts," you should back them up. Consider the following:
1. Iraqi fatalities since March 2003 include 6,000 military/police (see Brooking Iraq Index, http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex) and a maximum estimate of 62,296 civilians (see http://www.iraqbodycount.org). Note that the latter makes no distinction between civilians killed by Coalition forces, and "collateral damage" inflicted by insurgents (since they "blame" all such casualties on the US).
2. The Yale Avalon Project (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm) estimates a total of 66,000 deaths in Hiroshima.
Estimates of civilian deaths in the Vietnam war range widely, in part because they include different populations and even different conflicts. Before throwing out a number, you must define your terms.
The point is, if you want to make your case, at least include the basis for your claims.
Posted by: Patrick on February 18, 2007 10:20 PMIf only we weren't in the middle east:
the Palestinians would establish a working government and stop shooting each other;
The Sunnis and Shia would stop killing each other to revenge centuries-old hatred;
Muslims would stop blowing up their fellow citizens (none are Americans) in Thailand, Pakistan, India;
The mullahs of Iran would free their people and allow the rights they once had;
Gays and women would live openly in Muslim countries, with no fear of death by Sharia law.
All this because we are in Iraq. Kind of makes you wonder.
Maybe at some point, when their own wealthy dictatorial leaders let their own people have access to the Internet, and give them middle class jobs, then they can blog about it.
The problem with Libs is they are unwilling to face the problem. It's easy to sit in their living rooms, burning lots of wood in pot bellied stoves on Orcas Island -- wood which creates some of the worst air and unbreathable pollution in the Puget Sound -- and blame the United States.
What is hard is going there, as the soldiers do, and fighting down the evil criminals who pose as leadership in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and yes, in some of our allied states as well.
Posted by: John Bailo on February 18, 2007 11:29 PM> The question is this: What do you think the position of the insurgents is? If asked whether they think that the U.S. Military should leave Iraq, what would they say? I think that we all know that they would say that we should depart immediately, in fact, that is exactly what their goal is, right?
The goals of the insurgency do not revoke America's democracy. Americans are sick and fed up with this war, this crime against the Iraqi people, and that is the only important factor in the discussion.
> You and people like you are giving the "insurgents" hope. The insurgents read american websites and rightly come to the conclusion that if they keep the pressure up, the Americans will leave. You give them hope. You are contributing to the deaths of americans.
I doubt that the insurgents visit SoundPolitics or read American websites. The insurgents are involved in a war and that is enough to keep them occupied and concentrated upon their enemies.
> How would the Americans leaving Iraq accomplish this end? Do you think the violence would end and they would spontaneously spring ino the arabic version of Kum By Ya?
I am certain that the United States is the destabilizing force in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. We haven't solved the problem and we are not going to solve the problem, so we ought to leave.
> You are disrespectful to me. You discount my opinions and supercede it with your own, sympathy? Please, you only show your ignorance.
Uh ... we do live in a democracy, sir, so my opinions can differ from your own and even supercede them if necessary.
> Really? Do you know anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you known anyone who has lost their life in this conflict? I do and I have. The MEN that I have served with live with the understanding that they may die fighting, but the risk is worth it.
I don't know these people personally but I do pay attention to their suffering and dying. The soldiers might be eager to die fighting but the American people are no longer eager for this war to continue.
> Thank God America had a president that had the huevos to pull the trigger. Imagine the number of Amercan soldiers (whom you claim you care for) who would have died invading Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts committed by the United States of America. World War II could have ended without the murder of 100,000 Japanese civilians.
> You truly are delusional arent you? Im not sure your paying attention, we are discussing the middle east. Men kill their sisters for walking home alone with a man who is not related to them. They hang 16 year old girls who have been raped because they defended themselves, ETC ETC
This is pure bigotry and nothing else. There is violence in the Muslim world but there is also plenty of violence in the United States of America.
Violence is a human problem, not a unique trait of any particular culture.
America is plenty violent enough and our military activities have killed millions of people.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 19, 2007 06:07 AM"All this because we are in Iraq"? I've got a news flash for you: everything you've listed was already going on long before we entered Iraq, and several since before there even WAS a United States. Your statement demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the region and its history.
Posted by: Patrick on February 19, 2007 07:31 AMLike Janet S says above @25, makes you wonder.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 19, 2007 07:31 AMAt the end of WW-I, the world devided into only two types of nations: Those governed by a secular government and those governed by religious nut jobs. That set in motion WW-III which we are now approaching. Going back to the Ottoman Empire, this process just repeats and repeats only this time on a much bigger scale.
Posted by: Walters on February 19, 2007 07:55 AM"Uh ... we do live in a democracy, sir, so my opinions can differ from your own and even supercede them if necessary."
Actually, we live in a Republic. The left wants us to live in a democracy as it is easier to chage laws on a whim, but since our founding fathers saw that as a fault, they wisely decided it would be bad to repeat those mistakes.
"I doubt that the insurgents visit SoundPolitics or read American websites. The insurgents are involved in a war and that is enough to keep them occupied and concentrated upon their enemies."
If you watch or listen to Al-Jazeera, you would see them talk about American TV, radio and websites in their broadcasts. they listen more than most Americans.
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist acts committed by the United States of America. World War II could have ended without the murder of 100,000 Japanese civilians. "
Recent documents have shown that the Japanese in WWII not only had nuclear capability given to them by the Germans, but had made a crude nuclear device that they were planning to explode over San Francisco in August of 1945. It was built in Nagasaki and destroyed by our second bomb.
So your terrorist argument would be an act of defense, correct?
Lastly, what is you plan for keeping peace in Iraq after pulling out the troops. surely you must know that any persons that helped the US would be killed in the streets and other innocents would be massacred so that the terrorists can rule with an iron fist.
So how would you keep peace in the region? Or would you just leave them to fend for themselves?
> Liberals like Matthews never join the service and never serve this country.
You must be thinking of George WMD Bush, serving our country during the Vietnam war safe & sound in the National Guard.
If George W. Bush had served in Vietnam he would have an entirely different opinion of military service, I suspect.
> So your terrorist argument would be an act of defense, correct?
No, not in the least. The bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the ultimate acts of terrorism ever committed by humankind throughout human history ... regardless of what accusations people have concocted against Japan in order to justify the atrocity.
> Lastly, what is you plan for keeping peace in Iraq after pulling out the troops. surely you must know that any persons that helped the US would be killed in the streets and other innocents would be massacred so that the terrorists can rule with an iron fist.
Odd that you would say that, Ken. I had the distinct impression that the Iraqis would love us. If someone had informed the American public about what would really happen in Iraq I am certain that the public would have opposed the war back in 2002.
> So how would you keep peace in the region? Or would you just leave them to fend for themselves?
America is not keeping peace in Iraq. America is presiding over a slaughter. For that reason, America might as well leave.
The Iraqis can sort out their problems more effectively once America is gone. America is Iraq's destabilizing force.
Support the troops AND the mission.
Educate yourself by talking to actual servicemen.
Keep in mind that men like Watada are a disgrace, not necessarily for their views, but their unwillingness to accept the consequences of the actions. Take the hit, LT, if you're a man. Don't hide behind lefty-sponsored lawyers and sympathetic celebs.
Keep the pressure on the MSM by patronizing good blogs like this one. I actually read a positive story on the Al Anbar province in a mainstream "old media" pub. If you demand balanced news, the old media will get it out (albeit VERY grudgingly)
And above all, keep the faith with the men and women in Iraq AND Afghanistan (Afghanistan being the next front the left will try and undermine us on if the succed in Iraq)
Posted by: JW on February 19, 2007 08:48 AM> Keep in mind that men like Watada are a disgrace ...
And how is George W. Bush's behavior during the Vietnam war not a disgrace?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 19, 2007 09:02 AMPolitical correctness sucks and needs to be repudiated now ! It is a guise for losing free speech and was practiced previously in the Soviet Union.
Have a nice President's Day, which is really no President's day (Lincoln's Birthday is Feb. 12th and Washington's Birthday is Feb. 22nd)
Posted by: KS on February 19, 2007 09:06 AMI'm sorry you don't accept that people can support the troops and pray for the troups everyday and every night (as I do) and yet not support the reason they are there. We still believe in you and your families and your sacrifice. I wouldn't feel that leaving would be a waste for the lives hurt or lost. You got rid of a dictator sooner rather than later (he would have died sometime and the very civil war that is playing out would have undoubtedbly occurred then). I'd bet a lot of Iraquis are grateful for that.
But I read a very sad piece in the NY Times that asked Iraqi civilians how they thought it was going and what should happen. It was mostly, could the Americans just go home and let us figure it out however that happens? One said, just kill us all and be done with it because most of us are dead inside by this point and all the Americans really came to do (and it's the truth) is to get the oil. It's about money, kids, not WMDS, not Osama, not Saddam. It's about money. No one should die for money.
Posted by: westello on February 19, 2007 09:52 AMHow important is victory in Iraq?
42 % very important
37% somewhat important
17% not very important
13% not important at all
How hopeful are you that we will succeed?
35% very hopeful
23% somewhat hopeful
21% not very hopeful
19% not at all hopeful
As you see the poll shows that 79% say victory in Iraq is at least somewhat important which is far from the American people being sick of the war. Now it is closer, 58% to 40%, are hopeful that we will succeed. This tells me that most Americans want to win, but they see that the strategy we have been using, and the manipulation of information by the MSM, is not working. If this surge works you will see the numbers of support for the war go through the roof and that is what the Democrats can't allow happen.
Westello, I think you need to pay more attention to actual history than what you have heard in the MSM. We did win the Tet Offensive and were on the homestretch to winning the war when Walter Cronkite made his famous newscast where he told the American people that our GI's were slaughtered at the Tet which just was not true. Sure lots of soldiers died during the Tet, but it was the North's final push and our guys held out. If the MSM had not seen that they could affect the outcome of the war by misreporting the American public would have never lost hope in Vietnam and we would have won hands down. Also, I have no problem with you having your opinion, but myself and most of my fellow brothers and sister at arms do not see how you can claim to support us and not support our mission. As far as we are concerned it is one and the same. If more Americans would realize this and start fully backing us and our mission and stop listening to just the sexy headlines of violence then maybe the public would truly see Iraq through our eyes. I personally blame the Bush administration for not getting the information out as they should. If I may suggest to you and DM try to temper you consumption of the MSM on Iraq by going to some milblog's such as http://www.blackfive.net/main/, http://powerlineblog.com/, http://op-for.com/. These guys give pretty good perspective of how the troops tend to see Iraq, the war in Iraq and the war of the media. I fought for you to have the right to say what you want, but remember that when I say you do not support me that is my opinion and the opinion of most of the soldiers in the Military.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 19, 2007 10:28 AM1. The war has been running hot and cold for about 1300 years.
2. The crusades were not the beginning of the war, but an escalation.
3. The US has been involved in this war since we separated from Britain.
4. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, beginning in the 1850's and completed in 1920's was a huge defeat for islam that they only now rebounding from.
5. Our insatiable desire for cheap oil has allowed islam since the 1970's to spread its war throughout the muslim world.
6. The koran has given explicit support to muslims for this war from the beginning and continues to do so now. Osama does not make up stuff on his own, but quotes directly from the muslim holy book to justify killing Americans and anyone who disputes what is written in the koran.
7. We will not win this war if we constinue to buy the crap about "moderate muslims". There are only the muslims at war with us now and the muslims who will wage war when it suits them.
Posted by: deadwood on February 19, 2007 10:33 AMCould you explain why you believe that statment?
Is it possible that Gen Giap, Col Bui Tin and others in the North Vietnamese military leadership
missed that message?
story
From Col Buc Tin's answer about the Tet Offensive;
"Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was."
We, the American military, did our job in Vietnam,
and are doing it in Iraq.
The problem was and is the American leftist terrorist supporters.
In Vietnam it was Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, John Kerry and their supporters.
In Iraq, it's Sen Rockefeller, flying to Syria to warn them in Jan 2002 that the US intended to attack Saddam. What possible reason does a US Senator (on the Intel Committee, yet) have to warn Syria about our intentions. Sen Nelson (D-Fl)
Sen Dodd, Sen Kerry-He's already cost us one defeat-- have been to Syria in the past months. Why,who do these Senators work for? Congressman Murtha, and his supporters have done the same thing in this war, as John Kerry and his supporters did to us in Vietnam. They have given the enemy their assurances that they will help defeat America. The Iraqi terrorists will not be able to defeat our military, only the American left can defeat America.
> I notice that David Matthews never answered demands for evidence of claims that US has killed 150K Iraqi civilians. *crickets chirping*
Okay, Manco, let's start this discussion in as simple a manner as possible:
1. Would you say that the American military has killed at least 3,000 Iraqi civilians since the Iraq war began?
Thanks.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 19, 2007 07:29 PM> A few thoughts on the war between islam and the west.
If you can call these actual thoughts ...
> 1. The war has been running hot and cold for about 1300 years.
Throughout most of these centuries European Christians was full-time devoted to the task of killing each other.
> 2. The crusades were not the beginning of the war, but an escalation.
What could you possibly mean? Please clarify.
> 3. The US has been involved in this war since we separated from Britain.
a. During America's first century the Americans were busy committing genocide against the Native Americans & engaging in aggressive war of conquest against Mexico & engaging in bloody civil war.
b. During America's second century America's been involved in two European global wars & The Cold Wars and its associated wars.
c. How then as America spent the last two centuries fighting against Islam?
> 4. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, beginning in the 1850's and completed in 1920's was a huge defeat for islam that they only now rebounding from.
During this period Britain, France and America were engaged in aggressive colonial wars throughout the Middle East. The Muslims were the victims of Western aggression during this time.
> 5. Our insatiable desire for cheap oil has allowed islam since the 1970's to spread its war throughout the muslim world.
What do you mean? Please clarify.
> 6. The koran has given explicit support to muslims for this war from the beginning and continues to do so now. Osama does not make up stuff on his own, but quotes directly from the muslim holy book to justify killing Americans and anyone who disputes what is written in the koran.
Since the United States of America did not exist while Mohammed was alive I think it extremely unlikely that the Qur'an would contain any explicit commands for Muslims to kill Americans.
> 7. We will not win this war if we constinue to buy the crap about "moderate muslims". There are only the muslims at war with us now and the muslims who will wage war when it suits them.
An excellent display of conservative irrational fear, prejudice and bigotry.
I wonder why the Muslims don't trust us? I wonder why the Muslims want our military out of Iraq?
The answer seems very obvious. Americans want to fight a war with all Muslims. America is threatening to commit genocide against the Muslims.
Shall we commit genocide against the Muslims?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 19, 2007 07:40 PM> David M: I guess that must be why our military was in Bonsia and defending Kosovo, to kill Muslims, huh?
One single good act does not erase decades of aggression and colonial oppression.
> My brother-in-law was there, protecting their lives. Was that part of your imagined genocide?
America's genocidal wars are limited exclusively to the wars against the Native Americans, whose civilizations were destroyed and whose populations were nearly eradicated.
America ended WWII by threatening Japan with nuclear genocide. Japan took that threat seriously after America vaporized two cities in cold blood.
America and the Soviet Union avoided direct conflict throughout the Cold War by virtue of both countries threatening each other with nuclear genocide and possessing a stockpile of nuclear weapons sufficient to exterminate all of humankind from the Earth.
So you see, the Muslims are not nearly as violent as the Americans. Americans are a great deal more violent than even the radical Muslims and the terrorists.
Osama's ultimate evil act murdered 3,000 people.
America's ultimate evil act would have exterminated humankind from the Earth.
Who then is more violent, America or Osama?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 20, 2007 03:47 AM