Democrats & Liberals Archives

It's Easy to Stop the War

The Democrats were elected to Congress last year in order to stop the Iraq War and they are not doing it. They tried all sorts of ridiculous resolutions and legislation with silly timetables of one kind or another. All efforts were vetoed by Bush. There is only one sure way to end the war. Deprive it of funding.

Funding is the oxygen that keeps the war alive. If Democrats are serious about stopping the Iraq War all they need to do is stop funding it.

Recently, President Bush has asked for a $196 billion supplemental. What are the Democrats going to do? Give it to him? This is not acceptable. They were elected to stop the war, not to continue it. If they give Bush the money, they become warmongerers like Bush and the Republicans.

I don't go for this phony argument that they are concerned about the troops. If they are so concerned let them do something to bring the troops home. Instead they let the war drag, drag, drag.

They are making a big fuss that they do not have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes. This is not true. If Democrats do not introduce the $196 billion funding bill for the war they do not have to defend the funding against a filibuster. If someone else introduces the funding, all Democrats must do to prevent the funding is

SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER WITH ONLY 41 VOTES

How can Democrats, who are in the majority in the senate, say they cannot do this? They definitely can if they want to. To help your senators make up their minds, sign the

Petition calling on the U.S. Senate to filibuster and end the war in Iraq
Posted by Paul Siegel at October 30, 2007 10:00 PM
Comments
Comment #237263

Perhaps Democrats aren’t willing to sign on for filibusters to stop the war because they don’t want to go the way of Harry Reid, who is most likely serving out his last term in the Senate as a result of such behavior.

With an approval rate of 32% in his own state (lower than George Bush’s), they don’t want to find themselves on the wrong side of history as Harry Reid has done.

Posted by: Liam at October 30, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #237268

Paul,
Agreed. The War in Iraq was lost a long time ago. There is no way the Democrats should have funded it. The only thing keeping a cap on it is not the surge, but the drastically increased use of air power.

The good news about bombing so much is that it minimizes American casualties by ending firefights very quickly. It also prevents the various factions of the civil war from operating in larger units.

The bad news is that air strikes in urban settings inevitably kill innocent civilians. I do not doubt for a second that the USAF does everything possible to minimize this. But no matter how small the CEP, bombing urban areas kills innocents in the vicinity.

Both the Al-Maliki government and the leader of Afghanistan, Karzai, have protested the US use of air power.

We stayed the course, and it has been a disaster. Not only has Iraq been transformed into a failed state, but by diverting resources to a losing cause in Iraq, Afghanistan is going down the tubes too. A prominent British politican says Afghanistan may already be lost. The southern portion of the Afghanistan is out of control. The Taliban now control it, they are funded by record breaking poppy harvests, and they are working to destabilize Pakistan.

Meanwhile, we pretend Iran is the cause of problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a stupid propaganda ploy. The Iranians detest the Taliban. They have their own allies. The Taliban are supported by Pakistan. NOT Iran.

Turkey launched attacks against the PPK in Kurdistan. The Turks are pissed. The Kurds are pissed. What a mess.

This is the most screwed up foreign policy… Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #237271

And the Democrats deserve blame for letting the Worst President Ever continue pursuing such a disastrous foreign policy. The liberal Democrats tried to stop it, but there were not enough of them. Republicans voted in lock-step, Bush used a veto, and enough “moderate” Democrats subsequently folded to enable the ongoing debacle.

The theory is that Democrats do not want to be responsible for the miserable failures of George Bush, so they let the Bush continue failing.

Ugh.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #237273
The Taliban now control it, they are funded by record breaking poppy harvests, and they are working to destabilize Pakistan.
The Taliban are supported by Pakistan. NOT Iran.

Talk about a dysfunctional relationship—according to you, they’re trying to destabilize their supporter.

Not only has Iraq been transformed into a failed state, but by diverting resources to a losing cause in Iraq, Afghanistan is going down the tubes too.

Afghanistan is supposed to be a joint NATO and UN effort. It’s supposed to be a campaign that not only enjoys virtually full US domestic support but the support of the entire world.

If Afghanistan is allowed to fail because the rest of the world can’t do a damned thing to fill any of the gaps left by the US, then we might as well withdraw from NATO. And after that, bulldoze the UN and erect a nice parking garage in its place. Or maybe a laundromat and a Burger King. Something that would at least have some practical value.

Posted by: Liam at October 31, 2007 12:35 AM
Comment #237277

Liam,
The Pakistani Intelligence Agency, ISI, supports the Taliban. There was a recent incident where 250 members of the Pakistani Army were supposedly killed in fighting in Wajiristan. There is suspicion they deserted, and went over to the enemy. The fighting went badly, so Musharref declared another truce. The army will no longer go into northwestern Pakistan. It belongs to the Pashtun, allies of the Taliban, and yes, the Al Qaida of Osama bin Laden.

They seek to destabilize Musharref and the Pakistani government, because it is supporting the US- or, at any rate, not actively opposing us. And they really, really dislike Bhutto. They do not want to see a western democracy. They want to establish an Islamic state.

There are a total of roughly 50,000 troops in Afghanistan. Half of them are from NATO, half from the US.

Our military is bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq. Other NATO allies do not have militaries or economies which allow large, long-term troop deployments.

Unlike Iraq, we have international cooperation in Afghanistan. There is still at least a chance that we could pull the Afghan chestnut out of the fire, and maybe take down Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida in the bargain.

Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for the US to exert leadership or moral authority with most of our allies. Bush squandered that moral authority, and failed as a leader.

It is not the fault of NATO or the UN that Afghanistan is going down the drain. None of our allies want to be associated with anything Bush does. That may be the wrong attitude to take in Afghanistan, since Bush will be gone soon, but nevertheless… that is where we are today.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2007 1:07 AM
Comment #237280
Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for the US to exert leadership or moral authority with most of our allies.

LOL, the comedy just keeps coming.

WHEN did the US ever enjoy the ability to exert leadership or moral authority with our allies? The best we’ve ever been able to do since Korea is convince our ‘friends’ that we have common enemies from time to time, with caveats and limits…

Bush being involved in Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with why no one wants to touch it, no one wants to touch it because like the US, most democracies can’t engage in a long term military encursion. ‘War Weariness’ exist and is a reality that, to be honest, is the biggest reason that people are upset with Iraq now, not that we shouldn’t have went there, but because we are still there.

And the UN, if they had any real leadership or ability to do anything without the US, should be able to get those countries in Afghanistan (and Darfur) and let the US pull back to deal with Iraq. It won’t happen, but what’s new?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 31, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #237282

Rhinehold,
“WHEN did the US ever enjoy the ability to exert leadership or moral authority with our allies?”

The best example came under Bush #41. He did an outstanding job of garnering international support for ousting Iraq from Kuwait.

“… Most democracies can’t engage in a long term military encursion.”

That is a very interesting observation. I can think of exceptions, such as Bosnia, but that was on a relatively small scale. I can think of other cases, such as WWII, but that involved a direct threat to the national security. I would generally agree with your statement, though. Unless national security is involved, democracies do poorly with extended occupations, or trumped-up invasions that result in occupations & guerrila warfare.

I think your underestimate just how much the Bush administration philosophy of unilateralism has harmed our relationships with allies. Torturing people undermines our moral authority. invading Iraq based upon misinformation, pretexts, and outright lies has harmed us a great deal. Demanding the Iraqis only sign oil deals with American, British, and Dutch multinationals- specifically, Exxon, Royal Dutch/Shell, and BP- discourages anyone else from bothering to support us. You know this is true, right?

But to return to the original topic- the Democrats do, in fact, deserve condemnation for funding the war in Iraq.

Congressman Obey wants to impose a war surtax to pay for Iraq. Everyone would pay at least a 2% surtax, and the rich would pay a surtax of up to 15%. Pelosi wants nothing to do with it. She is afraid it reinforces the perception that the Democrats are only about raising taxes. Heaven forbid we should actually pay for this war; instead, we’ll just borrow more money, and watch the increasing national debt depress the dollar further and further and further… Criminy, what a mess!


Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2007 2:11 AM
Comment #237284

Paul

We are stopping the war right now by winning it. Success will bring troops home a lot faster than the chicken run some lefties are proposing. They fail to understand the nature of the conflict and have been reading too much of their own misguided information.

The world is a dangeous place. It cannot be secured by singing songs of peace. Peace must be secured,sometimes by force and violence. The new strategy in Iraq hounded the bad guys out of their secure zones and then kept pushing them. That is how Anbar, the worst place in Iraq, has been transformed into a relatively safe place and that is how it will happen in the rest of Iraq.

The civilian population does not want to choose sides. They sit on the fence waiting to see who will prevail. As we clearly come to dominate the bad guys, they are coming over to the right side. They CANNOT do this w/o the security we provide, but we CANNOT succeed unless they do. We need to solve thse equations simultaneously and now we are doing it.

Your information about the war is so 2006. Back a year ago, it looked bleak. Now the situation is full of hope for a better Iraq.

If the Dems pull the rug out from under our success, they will be doing the America and the world a great disservice. Fortunately, Dem leaders are smarter than than their lefty money masters. They will play the politics, but they are not going to pull the rug out.

Sorry to the netroot lefties, but your time has passed. We have moved on.

Rhinehold

It is very difficult for democracies to maintain a long conflict. The bad guys count on that. They think they can wait us out. They think they can wait until the “peace” movements convince everyone that we cannot win. They will be wrong this time.

Posted by: Jack at October 31, 2007 4:38 AM
Comment #237296


We are winning the war. Just wait till 2025, you’ll see. How does the 1000 person embassy and the permenant bases fit into the win the war and bring our troops home senario.

Posted by: jlw at October 31, 2007 8:21 AM
Comment #237305
[…] after that, bulldoze the UN and erect a nice parking garage in its place. Or maybe a laundromat and a Burger King. Something that would at least have some practical value.

The site of the UN Headquarters has extraterritoriality status, like embassies.

Beside, stop hidding yourself behind a pseudo, Mr Boltom, everybody have recognize your usual rant against the UN building….

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 31, 2007 10:36 AM
Comment #237306

Jack,

It is very difficult for democracies to maintain a long conflict.

More generally, it’s very difficult for aggressors to maintain a long conflict.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 31, 2007 10:38 AM
Comment #237307

Jack,

The world is a dangerous place.

And the world #1 superpower doesn’t contribute to that with warmongering everytime they could, right? The World is a dangerous place since forever, and even when the “good guys” rules the world, it’s still the case, worst being even debatable!? How the situation have improved then?

I wonder where on the planet are the most dangerous weapons in the most large amount. No, don’t tell me. What? They’re just for deterrence? Like in Iroshima and Nagazaki? Like with Naphalm and Orange agent over Vietnam? Did it work? Why it doesn’t anymore, if not?

Yeah, more weapons in fewer hands make the world less dangerous, that so logic. Not.

Peace must be secured, sometimes by force and violence.

Where do you put the trigger then? If more years (and lives) are wasted to secure a few years (and lives) of peace, does it make sense to you anymore?

Does being in perpetual war a good price for short-term peaces?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 31, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #237308

Philippe

Actually, it is easier for aggressors to maintain long wars because they are getting something from it.

The easy, but wrong, course would be for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq precipitously. It would save us money in the short term and make us more popular with the chattering classes … in the very short term.

But as soon as we got our boots off the ground, the bad guys would be back, murdering, raping, maiming and intimidating the good people of Iraq. I do not think that is the moral course, no matter how easy it seems or how much public opinion thinks it wants it.

What we are doing in Iraq is hard. It is costly to the U.S. in terms of both blood and treasure. But if we leave, nobody will step in. Iraq and the whole Middle East will descend into a bloody mess for at least a decade.

Think of Iraq like a bad neighborhood beset by violent gangs. Most people do not like the gangs, but they cannot do much about them by themselves. Young people join gangs as the only way to protect themselves and make some quick money. At first when the authorities try to establish order, it is hard. People do not trust them. But when they prove that they are serious about keeping order, people start coming around. This is where we are now in Iraq. In Anbar, the worst of the worst only nine month ago, we have driven the bad guys into the desert. They can come in and murder civilians, but they no longer have the initiative. This success is spreading to the rest of the country.

In Anbar (“lost” nine months ago)we are now to the point of reconciliation. This is very important and I doubt you will read it in the media, but let me give you a little background.

When Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, the erstwhile rebels went home. Officers kept their private side arms and horses and nobody was persecuted for what happened during the war. Unlike most other countries, we did not cut off head, line people against walls or send them to Siberia-like exile. These generous terms were part of the reason that the bloodiest war in American history did not result in permanent hatred or discord. Such a result is rare in the history of the world. We should take the lesson.
Some people in the late insurgency were/are evil terrorists, but others were/are “legitimate” fighters who fought on the wrong side. There are two options for them. You can hunt down and eliminate the enemy by killing them or imprisoning them, or you can eliminate the enemy by reconciling them with society. There is a time and place for each strategy. Reconciliation gives hope to all sides and by seeking and accepting reconciliation the former insurgent recognizes the legitimacy of the societal structures he raised his hand against and now wants to reenter as a productive member.
In W. Al Anbar, the tribes (within the law) decide who can be brought back and who stays in the desert, whether of not the things the person has done are beyond the pale or if they can be forgiven. The tribal leaders vouch for their prodigal members and get the agreements of leaders from other tribes. Since tribes are very much like extended families, the reconciliation is also among the members who may have had what amounts to a blood feud based on the transgressions of particular tribal members. Essentially the Hatfields and McCoys need to accept that further revenge is inappropriate.
We Americans can watch it happen, but it is not our process. It clearly is based on traditions that go back thousands of years. But we can see from our own history (I mentioned above) the usefulness of ending bloodletting by avoiding more of the same.

This is now the reality in half of Iraq. Soon it will be more. THEN we can leave, when the job is done.

Saddam was a hideous dictator. It is good that he is gone. But in removing the cancer, we caused a lot of bleeding. We have the duty to sew up the wound. It is the moral thing to do.

Posted by: Jack at October 31, 2007 11:07 AM
Comment #237318

Jack
Ah,Jack. An very admirable position except for the incredible amount of doublethink and self-inflicted blindness involved.
We are the agressor by definition. Iraq was a soverign country,thousands of mile from the US. We invaded it. That makes us an agressor.You can source that in any dictionary.
We are not getting anything from it? Pleeeeze…Lets just forget about control of oil supplies.What are you growing on your”defensible mountain top” anyway?
The “good people ” of Iraq have largely fled.Pitably few have been allowed into the US for “security” reasons. Read racist.
Our continued precence has led to a situation where various factions try to allie themselves with us for the purpose of gainning a military edge on their opponents rather than any kind of reconciletion.They will not stop this until we show them we are withdrawing by starting to do exactly that. It is OUR precence that is attracting forign fighters. Our shift to bombing is killing more civilians,making us more implacable enemies.
Our incursion was an imperialist action. You may argue that American imperialism is a good thing.The moral thing even.Many do. But lets not pretend it is selfless .To do so only fools ourselves. The rest of the world knows better and has seen it many times.
The best and only way to do the moral thing and help bind the wounds is to remove combat troops from the situation. Get along or perish should be the message. We start by removing 40,000 immediatly and withdraw all but a handful of embassy gards within a year. We should cooperate with regional forces ,including Iran, to bring stability on a short term basis but most importantly we should make it clear that we do not intend to control Iraq or its oil and repudiate the neo-con empire builders.That would be the moral thing.

Posted by: BillS at October 31, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #237320
There is only one sure way to end the war. Deprive it of funding.


Paul, many of the red-column bloggers have been saying this for nearly a year now; yet, the blue-column bloggers have just deflected the notion and kept blaming Bush. Maybe now some of you will finally admit that the Dems don’t have the gonads to cut funding to the troops!! They won’t do it!!! And shame on anyone that wants to cut off funding; we’re winning this war and will (eventually) WIN! Get used to it, (and) get that through your heads!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at October 31, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #237324

BillS

Let me give you the story of the “Anbar miracle” and you will see the interactivity of the forces, the reason for our success and the way for the future.

Our counterinsugency strategy is clear-hold-build. But we not carrying it out until recently.

A short time ago, we were hunkered down on big bases. The insurgents were free to intimidate the local population. Things were bad. The insurgents and Al Qaida, however, managed to annoy the the local people. One of the big tribes in Western Anbar, the Abu Mahal, decided they had enough and started to fight back. Unfortunately other tribes and most people sat on the fence. They did not want to stick their necks out and who can blame them. The insurgents were better armed and they were winning against the Abu Mahal. They almost pushed them out of the country. Many of the leaders fled to Jordan.

Then the tribal leaders asked the Marines for help. Together they pushed the bad guys out. Success lead to confidence; more tribes joined in. Young men started to join the police and Iraqi army. Pretty soon the bad guys were in the desert eating dirt, with snakes & scorpions their only friends. Although they can still cause damage, make life unpleasant & dangerous sometimes and fire the odd angry shot, they have not had the initiative since. If you look at a map of what happened, it is the ink blot idea of spreading security, each month, more territory in the hands of friends. The Marines are working with local Iraqi army units and police and soon they can give some of the places entirely back to them. They can defend those places and some of our Marines can come home.

Look at the pieces you need in place. You need the local initative, but that is not enough. The bad guys can divide and intimidate. You need the Marines, but that is not enough w/o local allies. You need Iraqi security (ISF) but you cannot have them until you can recruit and you cannot recruit until you have security. If you remove any of parts, for example remove the Marines BEFORE the job is done, the whole thing falls apart and AQI wins.

We do not need to let that happen. We are winning. We have the initative. If we carry through, the people of Iraq will have a secure place and for the first time in most of their lives, they can live in reasonable freedom.

The rest of the world, BTW, permits Gulags, Darfurs, Rwandas, Kosovo, Tibets, Burmas …Do not be too surprised if they permit a bloodbath in Iraq. If you wait for the “world community” to save you, you will surely die while they theorize and chatter.

Posted by: Jack at October 31, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #237325

“The Democrats were elected to Congress last year in order to stop the Iraq War and they are not doing it. They tried all sorts of ridiculous resolutions and legislation with silly timetables of one kind or another. All efforts were vetoed by Bush. There is only one sure way to end the war. Deprive it of funding”. Posted by Paul Siegel at October 30, 2007 10:00 PM

Really Paul? The Republican seats taken by Democrats were the result of them running as conservatives…not because they spoke of bringing home our troops. I followed many of the house and senate races and you’re just plain wrong in your assessment.
Now, many of the liberals are counting on Hillary or Obama to do what your democrat majority knows is fool-hearty and dangerous. It won’t happen and you’ll be disappointed again. Keep pouring your money and heart into these candidates and hold your nose if, and when, one of them is actually sitting in the West Wing. And by the way, in addition to holding your nose, get a very tight grip on your wallet. No one will be safe as evidenced by Hillary’s remark last night that “I am going to take $10 billion away from these industries.” And previously she has stated, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” She won’t even bother with our inept and disgraceful congress, she’ll just order it done in keeping with the values of our constitution we all honor. The stock and bonds of many of these industries she intends to raid are in my retirement portfolio as well as that of millions of other Americans. Too, bad, we’ll just all suffer in silence for the common good. I don’t think so. In my entire 66 years of life I have never heard any politican with such arrogance. Fatigue with both the Bush and Clinton dynasties will not allow Hillary to step foot in the White House…even if she promises to bring back all the government property she and Bill stole when they left (for good).

Posted by: Jim at October 31, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #237332

For those who say we have lost this war, I have only one thing to say…NUTS!

Posted by: tomd at October 31, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #237348

The Democrats deserve their record low approval ratings. They are nothing more than a lameduck Congress. They have the majority thanks to the american people, yet they cannot pass a single bill. It is pathetic, unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. This country is in desperate need of real leadership, in both political parties for that matter. The White House is lead by a monkey in a suit, followed by a bunch of bannana heads.

The Democrats better shape up and grow some balls, or they will be voted out of the majority as quickly as they were voted in. I am sick and tired of hearing the whining and complaining on Capital Hill that Bush keeps veteoing bills, and then the Democrats only comeback are senseless attacks on the President and the republican party. What is the Democratic Congress agenda? Do they even have a plan of change? I have not seen it! All I have seen are a bunch of ridiculous bills sent to the President’s desk that have no chance of being signed. And, the Democrats know this….they continue to stay the course in Congress…supporting George Bush and the neo-conservatives in Iraq, Afghanistan, illegal immigration and border control, taxes, wasteful spending, healthcare, medi-care, and taxes. For a Congress that is supposed to be the majority, you would never know it. I have never seen a political party so divided over so many issues that when it comes time to get the job done, they cannot work together for the common good. All Congress, republican and democrat are concerned about is pleasing special interest groups. That is why they are in office, and that is why they will continue to stay in office.

Posted by: Tom at November 1, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #237351

Tom,
I share some of your frustrations with the Democrats in Congress. But you are missing an important aspect of what is going on. The Republicans in Congress are filibustering spending bills. Then Bush holds press conferences, and denounces the “do-nothing” Congress. What a joke! It would be laughable, except that most people do not realize what is happening.

As a result, we are “staying the course” through continuing resolutions in Congress, and watching the War in Iraq drag on.

Iraq is much worse than most people realize. The corruption is mind boggling. And here is a very interesting account of what is going on:

“Without control of the oil exports and ports of entry, Maliki is just Mayor of the Green Zone…

The Kurdish militias sit astride the N. piplines, waiting the propitious time to take Kirkuk and hoping to straighten their zone of control SW to the Tigris river, absorbing the Northern production area and Kurdish areas from Ninevah to Diyala.

The Sunni tribes and Marines control the upper Euphrates river and road to Amman, all the way back to Baghdad city limits. No Dawa need apply out West. Iraq’s southern oil capitol and only port is contested by opposition Shiite parties and miitias. The ‘fired’ governor of Basra is still holding the governate, months after Maliki threatened to move in with the ‘Iraqi’ army. The Basra chief of police is unable to command his troops reliably. Tens of millions in oil revenue is flowing to whoever has the guns to put deals for $90 bbl crude delivery together.

Baghdad is essentially under lock-down, the war zoned into neighborhoods and barrios, for the time being. Electricity, food and fuel are being rationed, traded and used for collective reward or punishment by this or that faction.”
from www.juancole.com

According to one Sheik, hundreds have died recently in fighting in Basra. The Iraqi police (i.e., the Badr Brigades) have been ousted, and the Mahdi Army now controls the city center.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2007 1:17 AM
Comment #237388

Tom said: “They have the majority thanks to the american people, yet they cannot pass a single bill.”

The ignorance or lack of accurate information in your comment is astounding. Thomas is a great place to start to get educated on the legislation that has passed in this Congress, and should also include legislation vetoed by the President. The Congress cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Presidential veto.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #237435

Regardless of whether you think we should be engaged in Iraq or not, it would irresponsible to leave abruptly. Since the war started, 2 million Iraqis have become refugees around the world, thousands of soldiers have died, and billions of dollars have been “wasted”. Those soldiers shouldn’t have to die in vain, nor those innocent men women and children unvoluntarily be forced to restart a new life abroad. I vote democrat mostly and carry some of the same disapprovals. I’m still waiting for an adequate explanation for the accusation that Iraq posed a threat to homeland security. Terrorist support and policy?? If that’s the case, I can name many other countries that need to be addressed as well- Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iran, Cuba. I don’t think Congress will ever have the answer. That’s the problem with the situation- politics!! Regardless, Iraq has been a disaster. George Bush’s legacy will pay for that, but we must support our troops and those civilians over there. This is the U.S., not the U.N. Someone should tell Bush that, so he stops policing the world.

Posted by: Louis at November 2, 2007 1:39 AM
Comment #237440

Paul,

Y’all just keep telling yourselves Democrats won last year to stop the war. As a matter of fact, pull out all the stops on that next September! And while you’re at it hand out as many drivers licenses as you can to illegal aliens, especially in the most liberal states in the country (ignore the polling), and ram through legislation that gives back door amnesties to the rest of them! Go for it!

Oh! While you’re at that have Hillary say what she REALLY BELIEVES.

Just keep telling yourselves you’re winning the war of ideas and act on that faith.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at November 2, 2007 9:16 AM
Comment #237443

Jack,

The rest of the world, BTW, permits Gulags, Darfurs, Rwandas, Kosovo, Tibets, Burmas …Do not be too surprised if they permit a bloodbath in Iraq. If you wait for the “world community” to save you, you will surely die while they theorize and chatter.

You miss Gitmo in your list.
Anyway, I agree.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 2, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #237447

Jack,

When Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, the erstwhile rebels went home. Officers kept their private side arms and horses and nobody was persecuted for what happened during the war. Unlike most other countries, we did not cut off head, line people against walls or send them to Siberia-like exile. These generous terms were part of the reason that the bloodiest war in American history did not result in permanent hatred or discord. Such a result is rare in the history of the world. We should take the lesson.

Don’t underestimate the cultural aspect in such terms. That was a war between people of christian culture. Islam don’t push that much the pardon, and revenge is part of its culture.
Just check the Israel/Palestine conflict to see this difference at work.

I’m not advocating christianity here, the guys who know me knows I’m atheist so I don’t care that much. I’m just outlining that muslims, by their religion culture, are more often to look for revenge than for pardon. Which is very visible in Middle East in particular.

Saddam was a hideous dictator. It is good that he is gone. But in removing the cancer, we caused a lot of bleeding. We have the duty to sew up the wound. It is the moral thing to do.

It doesn’t remove any responsibility to the oncologist clueless about cardiac surgery but practice it illegally!

But, yeah, save the patient you almost killed first.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 2, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #237448

tomd,

For those who say we have lost this war, I have only one thing to say…NUTS!

At least it change us from the previous one: WMDs!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 2, 2007 10:00 AM
Post a comment