Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Nathan, the point that you miss, is that the enemy is only partially found in Iraq. The enemy also comes from a host of other nations replenishing our enemies in Iraq. Escalation will do nothing to win the war in Iraq - it will only create vastly larger numbers of filled body bags.

To win the war, as in Viet Nam, one must halt the replenishment of killed enemy. We couldn’t do it then without alienating the rest of the world and turning it against us, and we can’t do it now.

Rumsfeld is right, this war will not be won for a decade or much longer. And it will not be won by Americans. If it is won, it will be an international effort in which the war is undertaken by most, if not all nations, and directed toward the conditions and organizations that sponsor the replenishment of terrorists.

The war is afterall against terrorism, not Iraqi’s and their small contingent of terrorists, which are continuously replaced from outside Iraq’s borders. Terrorism is a human phenomena and has been with the human race as long as the human race has existed. The best one can hope for, is a global effort to vigilantly suppress terrorism and prosecute its sponsors.

“The war is afterall against terrorism, not Iraqi’s and their small contingent of terrorists, which are continuously replaced from outside Iraq’s borders. Terrorism is a human phenomena and has been with the human race as long as the human race has existed. The best one can hope for, is a global effort to vigilantly suppress terrorism and prosecute its sponsors.”

I think, to the ever-growing number of terrorists, it’s a war against the U.S. and American influence. I don’t think you can win a war on disagreement, you can only leave well enough alone or, I suppose, eradicate as completely as possible your adversary. In the words of better men than myself:

“Good luck with that.”

The late and great Gen. Douglas MacArthur was to have said—“In war there is no substitute for victory”. To achieve victory in any war, I believe all the stops must be pulled. That is not to say nuclear. There are many things short of nuclear weapons that can and must be used to seek a sure and concise victory.

Happy Birthday USA 229 years and counting!!!!!!

I agree Nathan, we are not being agressive enough.
We need to stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and complety wipe out the insurgants and their terrorist buddies.
The hell with the UN and everyone else that don’t like it.

On Monday we will celibrate the 229th birthday of this great nation. But lets not forget those who are fighting for us. If you know anyone who has a loved one serving in harms way or has been killed while serving their country. Tell them you appreciate their and their loved ones sacrifice.
To ALL US military personnel everywhere.
THANKYOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!

You are welcome, Ron Brown.

I will support our troops by calling for their removal from harm’s way as soon as is practible. As a former Army seargent trained as a combat medic, I hoped for nothing less from civilian government here at home. And demand nothing less of it today.

Everybody wants to win this thing in Iraq. The question is how. Killing more innocents probably ain’t the answer. The insurgency is already growing, and more deaths will lead to more folks joining the insurgency. So what alteratives are there?

I think many are missing the point of the conflict in Iraq… currently.

Iraq is the chosen “killing field”. Chosen by the US. The more targets we can suck into, and onto, the killing fields the more target rich the environment there and the
more “insurrgents/terrorists” we can, and will, kill. The more we kill, the closer we come to ending to this thing. I think the word is “attrition”.

No matter what the Left may think, this war will last even longer than a decade. I expect it will equal the Cold War in length.

I have a 3 year old grandson, and I fully expect him to be fighting, in uniform, in the Middle East, in about 15 years.

Let’s face it, our troops are fighting, not only the terrorists, but the Main Stream Media, in the US, as well. Not to mention the political Left.

Frankly, I’m all for restoration of a re-written Sedition Act… one that will pass Constitutional Muster.

Mac was right. There IS no substitute for VICTORY… ever.

“Longstreet”

A bit of a factcheck is in order.

The real question here is whether Bush is willing to do what it takes to win, if it means a major policy reversal and the attendant political headache.

I am curious as to what “Pull all the Stops” means for you Conservatives. The most effective method of squashing violent dissent is to force the general public to stop the insurgents. The best method for this is to randomly kill a certain number of the general population every time violence occurs. Let’s say, 100 Iraqis for every American Soldier killed will be rounded up and shot.

Is this your brilliant plan?

Thank you, Stephen, I was just about to post the factcheck analysis when I saw your postings.

As the factcheck analysis indicates, the insurgency is composed of almost entirely Iraqi’s, and not foreign fighters. So, unless one is willing to state that the Iraqi insurgency is equivalent to a terrorist operation (which is stretching it, at least according to the factcheck analysis), the idea of fighting in Iraq for the sake of global freedom becomes somewhat less credible. I do not want to diminish, however, the efforts by our troops; the U.S. Military needs to be honored. I am, however, saying that the political interpretation of this war needs to be rethought.

Do we want to continue to fight a war in Iraq that is beginning to look like internal factions fighting for dominance? I think we owe our troops better. Why don’t we refocus our efforts on Afghanistana? Why don’t we refocus our efforts on UBL? This failure of focus is a problem for the administration, and one which those in Congress facing re-election will need to contend with soon.

Sorry, I meant Afganistan, not “Afganistana.”

And that is where we disagree David Remer, this war will not be won by us or any other nation, I believe it will be won by the Iraqi’s, and it will take time. UBL said himself that this is the battle that they will either be victorious or be defeated. I vote defeated. But it is paramount that we train the Iraqi’s in accelerated numbers so that they can begin to turn this into a law enforcement issue themselves. If it is our law enforcement issue, it will persist. If it is their law enforcement issue, it may just die a slow death. And we’re getting closer to that point. Stay focused.

Bah… You are all defeatists!!!

We must stay the course in Iraq. Regardless of how many lives and treasure it takes, the American people will pay it. We cannot lose to a bunch of terrorists!!!

I am sorely disappointed at the whining coming from Republicans on this. They are already blaming other people for the coming defeat!!! Blame the media. Blame the Liberals. Blame the UN. Blame the Iraqis. Whine, whine, whine. Blame YOURSELVES!!! You are the ones who got Bush elected. Now suffer for your lack of vision.

Jay, we don’t disagree at all. I agree the war in Iraq will have to be won by Iraqis. I said the war on terrorism, if it is won, will have to be won by international global efforts.

If you are equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror, I think you are missing mounds of news and stories and analysis that have been ushered forth in the last couple years.

Aldous
You are reading into statements your own wants and desires. You are not a prophet. I did not see anybody propose killing 100 Iraqis for every American killed. That is a delusion. There are people in the mideast doing their best to gather intel on not just UBL but other “infidel” haters. I personally believe that our military knows more where UBL et al are. I also believe UBL et al are providing much intel to be used throughout the war on terriorism. I have no proof of those two thoughts, just a hunch.

David — Thank You. Not only for serving this country militarily, but for always being a voice of eloquent Reason in this blog.

Aldous — you rock!

Happy Fourth of July to you All!
Sincerely and Liberally,
Adrienne

In a theoretical, purely one army versus another sense, considerations of human rights and cleanliness of war is a disadvantage. However real war is not so simple, especially against an abstract concept such as terror, which is an army with no borders and no uniforms, and we are a Democracy, which allows for public differences of opinion.

Our actions and the perceptions of them by our allies and our citizens at home are critical to consider in this highly complicated modern warfare. We are not in a position to crush terrorism single handedly, we need support. We are overextended, soldiers are being sent out with poor standard issue equipment, often opting to buy their own if they can afford it. Every month the army falls shorter and shorter from having the needed new recruits. It has gotten to a level were recruitment officers are under such pressure to meet quotas some have out right lied to high-school students and pressured them into joining with threats. At the current rate of recruitment shortfall it wont be much longer before the war cannot continue without reinstating the draft. If such were the case I for one would sooner go to jail then bloody my hands, and I know many of my generation would stay in protest or flee the country. A scenario that sounds eerily familiar…
Winning a war in our age of information requires careful consideration of how we are influencing hearts and minds at home and abroad. If we do not take the moral high ground, then our perceived malice (which will no doubt be exaggerated for effect) will only fan the flames of terror and dissent. Some of have said any humanitarian accommodations in this conflict are signs of weakness and that enemy organizations will scoff at us. However these groups grow greatly by the fuel of our hypocrisy, and if we lose sight of ethical conduct we will be perceived as evil dominators of their land rather then the liberators we like believe we are. What the citizens think of us is critical to our mission. If the citizens of Iraq (or any nation that we attack) are not behind us then we will surely lose. One of the influential causes for our defeat in Vietnam was the lack of support by the southern Vietnamese people, who we were there to liberate. Despite what anyone else thinks of us, even more importantly (in a strategic sense) is what the citizens and soldiers of America think and feel, as that directly impacts morale, which significantly influences the effectiveness of our army. Recent polls do not suggest that citizen support for the war as it is conducted currently will last much longer.

As was mentioned earlier, our actions are futile without the aid of a global effort to stamp out terrorism. America is one country out of many, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking we can go in blazing on our own and purge the world of the evil doers. This is not Hollywood, our soldiers are not John Wayne, this is a real world with dynamics far beyond our control, and lives are at stake. If we say screw the UN, lets “Just Do It,” then we will cement an inevitable defeat.

David,
If you don’t think the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror, than you are too partisan. Borders mean nothing to these guys, remember Abu Nidal, he pushed Mr. Klinghoffer to his death off of a boat for the crime of being a Jew. Mr. Nidal was living in perfect comfort in Baghdad for many years. Many of Al Qaeda’s top people frequently received hospitality and medical attention in Baghdad. A policy of Saddam was to encourage and to pay for suicide bombers and these are just three small examples of the trouble emanating from Baghdad. Now before you go on and say this was an illegal war, Saddam violated 17 UN cease-fire resolution, specifically #1441, which indicated “serious” consequences if violated. Now, in thie history of nations, whenever a country violated cease-fire agreements, that was a call to action. However in this current political correctness society we live in, we apparently need more than that or we might offend someone. And yet we still disagree, this will not take an international effort, as soon as the Iraqi’s have their security and military forces in place, the US and every other nation needs to leave and let them turn this into their own law enforcement issue. Nobody wants these terrorists, not even the good people of Iraq, and once they are able and equipped, they will protect their own country. And hopefully that will begin the slow death of terrorism.

Longstreet,

Let’s face it, our troops are fighting, not only the terrorists, but the Main Stream Media, in the US, as well. Not to mention the political Left.

Frankly, I’m all for restoration of a re-written Sedition Act… one that will pass Constitutional Muster.

How un-American and traitorous of you. If your opinions and actions can’t take the heat of a little criticism, then maybe you need to rethink. Cowardice in the face of criticism is not the American way. Maybe you should move to China where your absolute support of the government will be more appreciated.

/mocking the Right

Joseph:

What really amazes me is the idea that Longstreet has that any form of sedition act could pass constitutional muster, since by nature a sedition act bans a certain range of ideas from being expressed based on the content of those ideas alone, a clear violation of our constitution.

The war in the Middle East will continue as long as America allows our citizens to enjoy freedoms protected by law and the Constitution. Which I fully support.

People in the Middle East, almost without exception abhor the lifesytle and culture practiced here. The war will just switch from country to country with us continuing to classify huge numbers of people as “innocent”(which makes any conflict more difficult to win) when in fact everybody who has a weapon or backpack is our enemy because of the hatred they harbor for us.

We are up against a culture wherin the populace has no regard for human life. In fact, they live only to sacrifice themselves for martyrdom.

We argue amongst ourselves about whether or not pictures of naked children are permissible by free speech, desecrating the Flag while demonstrating for a cause, corruption in government, is there a GOD or not, gun control, accusations without revealing sources etc. I could go on forever. If we can’t agree on this kind of stuff, what do you think people in the Middle East region think about Americans.

I don’t have every detail about Middle East countries in terms of culture. I do know that for the most part women are oppressed and denied a number of rights, laws are inconsistent, punishments for crimes are severe, under certain conditions a man can kill his wife for an indiscretion, etc. You can’t eat certain things, you can’t say certain things, you can’t wear certain things. It’s wrong, all of it is wrong in our minds but, they seem to like it.

I have posted here many, many times that we need to be very agressive and end this thing once and for all. I went as far as to say “we should leave a big hole where the country used to be”. I later qualified that to exclude nuclear weaponry.

As you can imagine, I came under severe criticism for taking this position. My opinion has not changed. Yes, innocent people will suffer but, that is a consequence of war.

Forget the economics lessons about OIL. We need the oil and we should take control of the oil.

Steve:

It truly amazes me that you can find simply burning a flag in protest un-american, but advocate hatred of an entire culture and war to admittedly STEAL a resource from them for our own use as patriotic.

Dissent is DoublePlusUnamerican.
Aggression is Security.
Ignorance is Strength.

Jarandhel,

I reread my post and cannot see where I said I hated anyone. I did state that certain of the culture/customs IMO were wrong but I also said they seem to like it.

The resource you speak of is one that we sorely need. I believe that it is a benefit and tactic of war to seize that which the enemy can use against you.

steve smith said: “People in the Middle East, almost without exception abhor the lifesytle and culture practiced here.”

What a patently absurd statement. Care to provide a link to some Middle Eastern polls that support this statement steve. If such a statement were true, we would not have the very large Muslim communities we do in the U.S. now would we?

Steve:

Oh, gee, no… saying that the whole culture has no regard for human life and lives only to practice martyrdom, and suggesting that we need to “leave a big hole” where they used to be, though of course not using nukes (as if that made it so much better) doesn’t imply hatred… what was I thinking?

David Remer,

I have no link to support my statement. It is an observation that I make very time I see someone from various locations in the Middle East being interviewed, the same negative/anti USA remarks are made.

The Muslim communities we have here in the US are the “almost without exception” group I alluded to.

I am sure that you are aware that many of the Muslims in those “communities” are students. We have this very attractive law that allows people to stay in our country as long as they are students.

As a result, I can tell you for absolute fact that before I became disabled and was in a position to interview job candidates I had resumes of XXXX individuals with Middle East heritage. Most were were well over 30 and, with minor exception were still taking classes while already possessing degrees from between 3 and 6 Colleges and Universities.

Moreover, the degrees earned by most as individuals were in several unrelated disciplines.

I suggest that a great many of individuals in the Muslim “communities” that you refer to are students, families of students and, very possibly are here not out of a love or appreciation of America but for the freedom to get a solid education.

Note : the XXXX above is a figure which is senseless for me to provide since you would not believe it anyway.

Jay:

You really need to stop watching Fox News. You made so many Republican distortions of history its embarassing. Here are a few of them:

1. Resolution 1441 DID NOT authorize war. If you ever bothered to rewatch the News at that time, 1441 was intended to trigger the Security Council Meeting to authorize Action. That’s why the word “Serious” was used. That’s why the other Members allowed it to pass. Remember Blair and Powell trying to get the Second UN Resolution? THAT Second Resolution was supposed to authorize the War not 1441.

2. Saddam Hussien paid the Suicide Bombers in Palestine. He DID NOT pay Al Queda. Equating all Terrorists as Al Queda linked is ridiculous. Does the IRA have ties to Al Queda? How about ETA?

3. OBL and Al Queda DESPISE Saddam Hussien. OBL considered Saddam a bad Muslim. It is ironic that Iraq under Saddam was the only Secular Country in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has more ties to Al Queda than Iraq. Why don’t we bomb them?

4. FYI. Israel has violated just as many UN Resolutions. Look it up. There would be more if the US did not veto them all the time. In case you don’t know, the Occupation of Palestine is ILLEGAL under International Law. So when will we invade Israel?

5. Lastly. This perversion of history is the main reason the entire planet hates BushCo. Even after the 9/11 Commission declared Iraq had NO CONNECTION TO 9/11, DICK CHENEY goes on TV and says it does. 40% of Americans STILL think Saddam did 9/11.

Do YOU think Saddam did 9/11, Jay?

steve smith:

Once again, you use vague rhetoric to describe “aggressive actions” to “end this thing”. I earlier described a method proven to be effective against Insurgents. What exactly ARE your proposed methods? I would like to hear more than the standard chest-thumping, he-man, macho nonsense.

I want specific procedures. Can you give them?

Aldous,

Let’s see “specific procedures”.

1. Establish perimeters or zones around every
city. (A few cities at a time is practical)

2. Cut off :
a) vehicles entering or leaving
b) weaponry
c) people who are not already in the city
d) anyone from leaving
e) all forms of communication

3. Conduct an extensive search of the city with
a show of force in terms of weapons (tanks,
choppers, jets flying over, etc.)
[a] destroy all vehicles, weapons,
communication devices
[b] conduct house to house search, upon
entering ask who does not belong there or
for identity of insurgents
[c] if someone identifies an insurgent or who
does not belong there, capture or shoot
him, if the person you asked does not
respond, capture or shoot him

4. After 1 through 3 above has been completed
remove everyone from the city out into the
desert. GUARDED CLOSELY. All men over 12 are
now in the Iraqi Army.

5. Call for the bombing/strafing run on the city
and level it, in a sense leaving a big hole.

The obvious alternative is to ask all insurgents and terrorist to please stand up so we can capture or shoot you. If that workd you can skip steps 1 through 5.

6. Repeat the process for the next city

Aldous

Your point #4 above re: Israel. If a resolution was vetoed, then what is the violation about? There is no resolution to abide by. International Law?? If you are a legal scholar and expert I will listen to your argument. If not, just rhetoric.

This is in reply to Nathan re: Let’s fight the war to win.

You said:
The liberal press pounced all over him like vultures on a dead carcass. All we heard about was his references to 9/11. Sure he made references to 9/11 but did he ever say that Iraq was linked to 9/11.

George W. Bush said:
“And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”
Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

“This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda.”
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).

“He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.”
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.”
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

“The regime … has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

“He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).

“One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.”
Source: President’s Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

“Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner.”
Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.”
Source: President Bush: “World Can Rise to This Moment”, White House (2/6/2003).

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”
Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own.”
Source: President Delivers “State of the Union”, White House (1/28/2003).

“He’s a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint.”
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

“He’s had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates.”
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).

Appears, Nathan, President Bush received a lot of criticism for his speech on Iraq last week, for DAMN GOOD REASONS!!!

I will add one more. He said we should honor the dead by creating more dead to follow them. That is one helluva a salute to our troops, don’t you think? He spends America soldier lives like an LBJ. Only difference is, LBJ’s conscience got the best of him. How likely is that of Bush? Hah!

Where will the US find more troops to support increased aggressiveness? Sorry, the thrust of this post just doesn’t make sense.

Aldous said…

“5. Lastly. This perversion of history is the main reason the entire planet hates BushCo.”

I said…..

“People in the Middle East, almost without exception abhor the lifesytle and culture practiced here.”

David Remer said….

“What a patently absurd statement. Care to provide a link to some Middle Eastern polls that support this statement steve.”

I now would respectfully request Aldous to produce a link validating that
the entire planet hates Bushco.

Alduos,
Don’t ever reply back to me without actually reading my statement.
1. I never stated #1441 authorized war, simply that it stated “serious” consequences.
2. I never said Saddam paid members of Al Qaeda. I stated that he encouraged and paid suicide bombers.
3. I never even suggested that Saddam and Al Qaeda were chummy (you are right, Saddam and UBL did not see eye to eye) though members of Al Qaeda routinely received favorable treatment in Iraq.
4. Iraq is the only country in history to receive such a resolution as #1441 from the UN. Many other nations, including Israel, have violated resolutions, but none like #1441.
5. Who’s perverting what again?
For the record, I watch Fox, but also enjoy CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and maybe most importantly the History channel.
Jeez man, read and digest the article before responding.

Oh and finally your last retort, did I think Saddam did 911? Seriously, that is such a typical piece of condescending liberal BS that I might suggest that you should stop reading the NYT. Advice to the Dems, don’t underestimate the intelligence of the voting public. They’re more informed than you realize.

Perhpas it is time to revisit the Powell Doctrine:

1) Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target.

2) The force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy.

3) There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public.

4) There must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

Compare this with the actions of the Bush administration in Iraq:

1) The use of military force was not a last resort. The invasion of Iraq was a pre-emptive war, waged by choice. There was no clear threat to national security.

2) While there was sufficient force to overwhelm the Iraqi military, there was clearly insufficient force to prevent looting, secure weapons stockpiles, defend the infrastructure, & defend the borders.

3) Unlike the invasion of Afghanistan, a substantial portion of the public opposed invading Iraq. Today, a larger percentage, perhaps a majority, has lost faith in the war.

4) There is no exit strategy.

The Powell Doctrine originated in the lessons the US military learned in Vietnam. We would do well to recall this doctrine now, & in the future.

phx8,
We debated this very issue for two solid years and that argument lost, remember?

Jay-
You must learn to tell the difference between losses in a debate, and losses in the real world.

Also, how do you reconcile what Bush said in those quote posted by Professor Weirdly, and the notion that Terrorists and WMDs weren’t the driving reason for the war? There seems to be a whole lot of noise coming from your side of the aisle on this issue, and I think it’s hurt the war effort that we couldn’t get an admission from the president that this war is a setback in terms of fighting terrorism. Without such an admission the president is forced to act as if nothing’s wrong, which is the surest way to see nothing be done for our problem in a timely way.

Jay,
It’s been debated endlessly. The topic of Iraq continues to be debated. When you say “that argument lost,” what are you referring to?

The one interesting difference this go around is the level of support for the troops. While support for the Bush administration steadily erodes, and criticism is rampant, support for the US military is nearly universal. Democrats and liberals try to raise the patriotic bar & embarrass the president by demanding more veterans benefits, not less, by demanding armor for humvees, and so.

Yet supporting the troops does not seem to include large numbers of civilians volunteering to serve.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty: The real question here is whether Bush is willing to do what it takes to win, if it means a major policy reversal and the attendant political headache.

It looks to me as though he has shown that he is. Remember when he said that he wasn’t planning any nation-building? American military intervention followed by abandoning the scene once the initial stage of “defeating” the offensive regime had reached a stopping point.

At the time, I thought that policy would leave a much worse mess than the one which the invasions were intended to remedy.

Fortunately, GWB recognized his error. It would appear that he is not so in love with his plans that he can’t be convinced that he needs to do more / other than he’d originally expected. He does tend to go off half-cocked WRT preplanning, but at least he’s willing to reload, track persistently and aim more carefully thereafter, rather than throwing up his hands and leaving the wounded predator to rage about.

God send him more precise marksmanship, and a clearer view of the forest and everything in it!

ET

steve smith:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-23-world-poll_x.htm

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States’ image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that China, which is ruled by a communist dictatorship, is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many countries, an international poll found.
The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating Dec. 26 tsunami.”

jay said: “Advice to the Dems, don’t underestimate the intelligence of the voting public. They’re more informed than you realize.”

Seems to me from the polls, you might aim that advice toward Republicans. It is still sound advice for Democrats though, too!

Aldous,

Is there a point to your quote other than my plan would further inflame world opinion and undermine the effort to win us back acceptance in the international community.

Stephen,
That was a real world loss, and I am very thankful, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, et al are not in the White House. Secondly, I have no real issue with the words from the President. You are completely dilusional if you think that there were no ties whatsoever between terorist groups, whether it be Hamas, Al Qaeda, or Saddam. Do you think they all operated in a vaccuum? This war has put a huge dent in the terrorist cause, have we been attacked in America? Has suicide bombing in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict been reduced almost to zero? Is Libya still pursuing their WMD’s? We now also see many of the Arab countries taking part in training the new Iraqi peace keeping forces. Stephen, I had met an Iraqi woman in Phoenix a couple of years back and she pointed out a difference between our two cultures that was extremely interesting. That difference is in the way we perceive time. Americans have a very short attention span to the effects of time whereas the people from the middle east think in terms of hundreds of years. We feel like two years of war is an eternity and a “quagmire”. They perceive that time as just getting started. The tide is truning Stephen, it just won’t happen in the next half hour.

Jay,
There are several ways to resolve conflicts, including: 1) annihilation, 2) displacement, 3) assimilation, and 4) co-existence.

For now, let’s skip the US approach towards terrorists and insurgents.

What do the terrorists seek? What do the insurgents seek? Why do so many Muslims seem to support them?

First, an understanding of ‘jihad’ is important. There are several forms of jihad, but the most important two forms are the offensive jihad & the defensive jihad. The offensive jihad involves Muslim attacking non-Muslim countries, and can only be declared by a Muslim leader with the type of authority which has not existed since 1924, when the Ottoman Empire fell. There is no one in Islam today with the authority to declare offensive jihad.

Today we face a defensive jihad. When Islam is attaced, it becomes the responsibility of every Muslim fight for Islam.

OBL declared this type of jihad against the US for several reasons, most importantly because of US support for Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, US support for apostate rulers over Muslims, and for other reasons as well.

If you consider the two or three dozen major conflicts going on in the world today, most involve Muslims.

Muslims are not attacking other non-Muslim countries. In every case I can think of, when Muslims fight they are in a struggle for self-rule & and an Islam-based government within their region: Aceh, Phillipines, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. This is defensive jihad.

OBL extended defensive jihad to the US through various terrorist acts, culminating in 9/11. He is wrong, and must be brought to justice.

What do you think the absolute worst possible US response could be to his declaration of defensive jihad?

The absolute worst possible response would be for the US to invade Islamic countries. Fopr his fellow Muslims, the US occupation of two additional capital cities justifies everything OBL said. Terrorism succeeds through polarization, and that is precisely what Bush allowed to happen; he responded to an extremist by going to the other exteme. Forced to choose, too many Muslims are opting to side with their fellow Muslims & countrymen, the fighters of defensive jihad.

We offer enormous bounties for OBL, Zarqawi, and others, and with the notable exception of the sons of Saddam, no one will turn the jihadist leaders in. No one. Think about that.

Even worse, OBL & al-Zawahiri are alive, and their words continue to reach & inflame the world of Islam.

You’re right, no attacks have occurred within US borders. I believe Bush deserves credit for that. Personally, I think it’s unlikely any will happen anytime soon; not for the lack of desire on the part of OBL, but for lack of reach.

You’re right about time, & you’re also right about the tide turning, but not the way you think.

In the beginning I mentioned several types of conflict. The only way the US will win is through annihilation. And we won’t do that.

Karzai, the ‘Mayor of Kabul,’ and his Tajik-supported government will fall the moment the US withdraws. Perhaps the US will stay in Afghanistan for a few decades. That is what is what it will take to keep a puppet government in power in Kabul. The warlords, the Mujahideen who fought the Russians and won, now oppose the American puppet. Don’t get me wrong- Karzai seems like a good man- it’s just that he doesn’t have a chance. He cannot trust fellow Afghans to guard him. He cannot go anywhere without a US bodyguard. Karzai doesn’t stand a chance.

Why do you think the Russians lost?

As for Iraq…

Nathan,

The war in Iraq has turned into a nightmare of a badly planned and poorly supplied experiment in stupidity. Let us not forget who did the research for this misadventure(D. Cheney). Look who is in charge(D.Rumsfeld). The reasons for failure are many. In my opinion the success or failure of a war depends greatly on whether you are just in waging it.(We were not) That the people who are waging war be competant do do so.(No) Lastly, you have the support of the people you are waging this war for.(54% say no)
Bush’s focus was on convincing us to go to war and gathering made up intell and lying to his allies and the American people to do so. He knew an attack was not just. It hurt him twice. He lost the ability to gather the support from around the world and at home. It also took away from the neccessary planning that should have been done.(Exit Strategy).
Bush’s administration ignored some of their best generals in the planning stages(The lack of an Exit Strategy). They went to war without the proper equipment and supplies.
More than half of the people he waged war for think he was wrong to do so.
I wish that so many of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens did not have to die because these guys suck at what they do.

I’m glad to see steve smith has come to terms with genocidal tactics. And he backs it up with such thorough reasoning. We need the oil so we should take the oil. The Middle East hates the US for our culture and is mostly violent and he has confirmation of this from TV interviews he’s seen. Because of these, we should do whatever it takes. The ends justify the means. I hear that once you come to terms with mass murder it becomes a lot easier to do and to justify. Congratulations, steve smith.

Thank you Joseph Briggs for your acknowledgement of my position. Actually I have tempered my position somewhat as can be seen from my 6 step plan above. My original position was to simply go the Enola Gay method.

At least we have not imprisoned all the Middle East people in this country during this conflict as we did the Japaneese in WW11.

I am glad to see that someone has the interest in responding. Most ask questions and then when the answer doesn’t suit their purpose, do not respond. (See my response of 7/2 at 11:41 am)

When every American citizen has indoor plumbing, food, acceptable level of health care and health maintenance, a place to live and a job I will start to be a little more sympathetic to those in other parts of the world to whom we are sending billions of dollars to acquire.

Actually I have tempered my position somewhat as can be seen from my 6 step plan above. My original position was to simply go the Enola Gay method.

Tempered, huh? Well, good for you. I’m glad to see you think that city-wide home invasions and killing uncooperative innocents are examples of tempered policy. And that evacuation of cities, one after the other, and relocation to desert ghettos is a preferable alternative to nuclear strikes. They say progress requires baby steps.

The tempering of position I alluded to was not a baby step, it was rather a quantum leap.

We are in this war so we need to fight it to win. We don’t need it to turn into another Vietnam or Korea. And we back here in the U.S. need to stand behind our soldiers over there unlike the way we treated them in those war’s. I heard it said on D.James Kennedy’s program once that we want things so fast in this country that we are unwilling to put in the time to do the things that are necessary like our ancestor’s did and I think that may be true the way the public is looking at the war on terror. Look at what happened in England. Terrorists will not quit. They wait and plan wait and plan and then hit. We have to stay in this war until we have rooted every last terrorist and their leader out and brought them to justice or every soldier who has died in this war has died in vain.

Steve Smith,

As a conservative, I’m ashamed to see you as the champion of the conservative view point here. First of all, the idea that all Muslims hate Americans and the American way is not true. I have met several Muslims and I’ve actually read works by Muslims. The extremists hate us, true. But, that seems rather fair because our extremists, you included, hate them. Slaughtering their people as you’ve described will make them hate, universally. However, there would be more immediately problems. America would face civil war. Our society is too knowledgable and too aware to resort to such brutality. Part of the reason some Muslims hate us is because we’re a Christian nation. Another reason they hate us is because we’re a Christian nation that often doesn’t act the least bit Christian. Think about it. What you’re proposing is one of the least Christ-like things we could do.

As for you liberals. Try this on for size. Bush won. He won the first election. He won the second election. Bush is our president. In order to be patriotic you have a duty to support him. You don’t have to agree with him. You can argue his policies. You can work towards electing different people next time who share your views. BUT… Every time you bad-mouth our president, every time you call him stupid and call his strategies stupid you are doing to main things. 1) You decrease the morale of our soldiers. 2) You prove to those who hate us that we deserve it, because obviously we hate ourselves.

Were it up to the world Bush probably wouldn’t be president, but it isn’t up to the world. It’s up to Americans. Americans voted. Bush won. You don’t have to like it, but by being sore loosers you loose any chance of sympathy you might have had from the swinger voters who chose Bush.

Stephanie

“Let’s fight the war to win”.

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Wave your flag and yell “FREEDOM”!

This is what I really hate about America. Pure egotistical denial. The truth is America has been directly or indirectly killing Muslims for more than 50 years. We’ve armed Israel with every weapon known to man so they could kill Muslims. We put the Sha of Iran in power so he could kill Muslims. We help Saddam into power so he could kill Muslims. Why don’t we just leave these people alone. They never bothered us until we bothered them first. What’s the score so far? We’ve killed millions of Muslims and they’ve kill a few thousand of us. Then we have the audacity to call them “uncivilized”. We use to call the American Indians “uncivilized” as well.

Stephanie,

Obviously every situation has an exception. The hatred I speak of is not simply because we are Americans but, as you point out, a Christian nation, a disgustlingly permissive society (pornography, same sex unions, critical of our own government, corruption at every level, women’s rights, just to mention a few).

I didn’t say I would slaughter all of their people, just the cities. Those that go into the desert will be free to return and rebuild.

I don’t claim to be the champion of anything or anybody. I am only speaking for myself when I post.

There is precedent for “slaughtering” people by the way, this would be Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A terrible but very effective action. I believe that stopped any further action against us by that group of folks.

Extenze,

The on-going war between Muslims and Christians goes back a LOT longer than you seem to realize. It goes back all the way to when the Islamic faith first began and Mohammed spoke out against the then-current Christian practices (which were also not very Christian as they involved the priests “selling” the right to sin by giving the sinner forgiveness before the act was committed, usually involving murder or other significant crimes, amongst other depravities). Christians and Muslims fought from the very beginning, as did Muslims and Jews and Jews and Christians. Religion has been a volatile argument in just about any disagreeing people for as long as people have existed. The war we fight with the Middle East now can be traced all the way back to the Crusades. There are Muslims who make that connection. I couldn’t find the reference (it might have been in a different blog with at least some of the same participants) but somebody made the comment that Americans are short-sighted compared to the people we’re fighting for and against. Which is true. Some Muslims don’t see any difference between us and the ancient English kings who attacked their ancestors. We’re still Little England to some Muslims (obvious a testament to their lack of geographical education, but that’s not the point).

So while I agree with your statements that we have no right to call them uncivilized (and I personally do not) the statement that we started this war fifty years ago is simply not valid. Not to them. This is an ancient war and in some senses it will never end. This isn’t a defeatist attitude. This is a statement about human nature. Here in American where our ideals are oh so high we still fight the war for religious freedom (as our judges try to take it away by legislating from the bench), we still fight the war for equality (as people judge and penalize others for things they have no control over such as race, gender, age, ethnic heritage and the class they were born into) and we still fight the war against tyranny (as Corporations take away more and more from the American people with the help of both political parties, as judges who were not elected by the people take on more authority than they were ever granted by the Constitution, and as the Bureaucracy takes on more and more control of our lives across the board). It is human nature to oppress and it is human nature to fight back against that oppression. I believe that America is the best nation in the world, but we’re all still human and we all still fall short of the ideal. No, we’re not truly any more civilized than they are. We’re still sinners, just like them. Or in the words of scientists, we still retain way too much of our animal-instincts. Just look at the playground of your local elementary school during recess.

If you except the killing to just stop by saying, “Let’s all just get along.” You’re wasting your time. The only way for these Crusades to actually stop is if we (as a whole) work together with them (as a whole) and truly get to know each other. When you get past our many differences, with full intention to accept each other, Muslims and Christians, Americans and Middle Easterners can be friends and allies. Is that going to happen in our life-times? Probably not. Not as whole nations and cultures.

Stephanie

Steve,

Slaughtering the cities won’t solve our problems over there. The people left would just “bounce back” over decades or centuries and raise their children and their children’s children to hate us. Your idea would just perpetuate terrorism even more. You cannot go through Iraq destroying cities and expect that to end things. The terrorists are everywhere and they would retaliate. America is not so safe as you might think that we could save ourselves from that back-lash. We would have no allies. We would have no friends. We would have no hope. And, frankly, if we did as you suggest, we as a people would get what we deserved when the terrorists come for us. America is not that kind of people. Sure, we have an ugly past. Every nation does. But, we are more aware and more knowledgable now. (As an example, were the majority of people aware, at our country’s birth, how we were getting the land from the Native Americans, they would have been outraged and it would have been stopped. Oh, wait, that happened.) Think of how incited the liberals are against Bush now. Bush would lose the support of Christians by doing this and gain nothing. He can’t afford to do that and, despite the back-biting of the liberals, he’s really not that stupid.

Stephanie

Quick correction:

In the time of Mohammed Christians were just persecuting heretics, not offering indulgences. Not that that’s any better, it’s just good to be factual.

It?s humorous how we squabble over these issues even though we have no freedom of press in that region or any region for that matter.
Why couldn?t our President be honest with us about this invasion?
The truth that?s all, our allegiance with Israel, our expulsion from Saudi, our corporate interests in that region. With the exception of the latter I would fully support the ” nation building”.

Steven Smith,” kill them all and let god sort them out”?