March 25, 2007
Back In The Saddle Again!
After a three month hiatus the Mighty Eagle returns to America and finds that the Democratic Party and those two nut cakes Pelosi and Murtha now control the House. What a revolting development! Now they want to cut funding for the war. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, this Eagle still supports the president..and I’ll tell you why….
Progress IS being made in Iraq but listening to the daily CNN "Situation Room" reports with Wolf "Blitz-Her" makes you think that this war is Custer's Last Stand revisited. According to him, an all-out civil war has taken place and the streets are awash with blood. Worse,his mantra (as well as the mantra of the network commentators) is that of a lost cause. They have brainwashed America, pure and simple.
You know why I know that?
Because what they say is NOT what the average returning vet says. Our heroes (my heroes) say that the cause is worth the fight and much good has taken place there. They puke when they watch "Blitz-Her" or worse... Murtha and Pelosi..talk the talk of a losers.
Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.
They know that, but why let truth get in the way of a good story?
The president really didn't stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are "losing" the war. Brainwashing at its subliminal best. Prime time brainwashing..brought to you CNN,ABC and the entire Democratic Party.
Thankfully, Murtha will become this election's Micheal Moore. Thankfully either Rudy or Mitt will pull the remaining sane Democrats (is there such a thing, I wonder?) into the Republican camp, and the White House at least will maintain a a semblance of normalcy.
Yes, the Eagle is back...and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends
Posted by Sicilian Eagle at March 25, 2007 11:25 AMSir, your post included no links to verify your point. It therefore is not considered credible.
By the way, do you know if a horse can get diabetis?
I’m joking but some on this site aren’t when they insist media bias must be backed up by media quotes.
Well then if what you speak is the truth the bill in question should be signed by W. Lets let the voters decide in Nov08. Seems the repubs should welcome this as it will be all but a shoo in for them, assuming you know of what you speak.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2007 01:25 PMSE,
“In all, at least 74 people were killed or found dead across Iraq on Saturday, making it the seventh deadliest day since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the security operation Feb. 14, according to an Associated Press tally.
The toll included at least 25 bullet-riddled bodies: 11 found in Baghdad, six pulled from the Tigris River south of the Iraqi capital and eight in the Anbar city of Fallujah.
Northwest of Baghdad, a man wearing an explosives belt blew himself up outside a pastry shop in a central market area in Tal Afar, killing at least 10 people and wounding three.
A man driving an explosives-laden truck carrying boxes of new shoes also blew himself up near a Shiite mosque in Haswa, 30 miles south of Baghdad, killing at least 11 people and wounding 45, police said.
Two suicide car bombers also struck a police station in Qaim, near the Syrian border and about 200 miles west of Baghdad. At least six people were killed and 19 wounded in that attack.
The Voices of Iraq news agency said there were three suicide car bombers that hit three police stations in the Qaim area, killing at least 20 and wounding 30.”
“Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, seriously wounded Friday by a suicide bomber, was moved out of a hospital intensive care unit and was in good condition, an Iraqi lawmaker said.”
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/03/25/25iraq.html
The Deputy Prime Minister is the highest ranking Sunni in the Iraqi government. These reports represent a typical day in Iraq. It is worth these represent only the reported cases of violence. A rule of thumb is that reported violence represents about 20% of what actually occurs. Note there are no reports of kidnappings or other, garden variety violent crime. But in the recent ORB poll, reported by the conservative London Times & Fox News, 14% of all Iraqs have had a relative kidnapped, and 26% have had a relative killed. (The typical size of an Iraqi family is seven). Unemployment runs 30%, and that is a very conservative estimate. According to the same ORB poll, 59% did not have jobs. Electricity is still below pre-invasion levels, and so is oil production (although revenues are higher, due to the more than doubling of oil prices).
Have you seen the video from last Thursday, where Prime Minister Maliki is briefing the UN Secretary General on the improving security situtaion in Iraq? The blast goes off @ 50 yards outside the buiiding.
Sorry, SE, but you will have to make a better case. Saying that some guy who was there thought it was going well simply does not cut the mustard.
Blame the media? Classic example of blaming the messenger.
Our troubles in this war are not an illusion. The NIE, definitive statement of the Intelligence Community’s opinion about the situation, and not subject to your wonderfully convenient claims of media bias, indicates that civil war is an insufficient term to describe what’s going on.
So tell me, If the intelligence community is saying things are bad, why should the MSM be saying things are good?
The Republicans have this foolish tendency to expect neutral or favorable coverage a hundred percent of the time. Truth is, though, nobody gets that, especially when they screwed up. This is especially true when the progress you’re trying to claim is moderate in comparison to the magnitude of your mistakes.
You’re not going to get good coverage without good policy and good results.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 01:30 PMCongress cannot dictate what the President does with his troops. Either fund the troops or don’t fund the troops. That’s the only choice the arrogant democratics have.
Snatching defeat from victory?
I almost forgot Bush declared Mission Accomplished several years ago…Why are we still there again?
Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2007 01:50 PMSE,
Welcome back.
I’ll bet you can’t wait to cast your faux pearls of wisdom to the great unwashed.
You’ve been sorely missed.
Posted by: Rocky at March 25, 2007 02:04 PMSic:
“Now they want to cut funding for the war.”
Actually, they aren’t cutting funding, they’re only attaching a few strings and some real accountability to all that money. The only one who looks like he wants to cut funding seems to be King George (and his courtiers) with the threat of the long-lost-now-found veto pen.
“Progress IS being made in Iraq”
Yeah, unfortunately all the progress is being made by the insurgents:
But who cares, right? It’s more important to puff out ones chest and keep madly spinning for King George’s fantasy war.
“why let truth get in the way of a good story?”
Haven’t we been doing that long enough? I think so.
“Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.”
Ha! You’re either with them or against them. It’s all black and white, which means it couldn’t be possibly be BOTH the GOP’s failed disaster of a war, and their mountains of corruption as far as the eye can see in every direction.
“They have brainwashed America, pure and simple.”
Brainwashed? Nah. Looks instead like America has finally opened it’s eyes and seen the truth about Bushco, and has digested the harsh reality of what they’ve been doing to this country.
“The president really didn’t stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are “losing” the war. Brainwashing at its subliminal best. Prime time brainwashing..brought to you CNN,ABC and the entire Democratic Party.”
R-i-i-i-ght. This failed war is all the fault of the Democrats and the damn Liberal Media! Bushco had absolutely nothing to do with it!
“Thankfully either Rudy or Mitt will pull the remaining sane Democrats (is there such a thing, I wonder?) into the Republican camp, and the White House at least will maintain a a semblance of normalcy.”
Rudy and Mitt, LOL.
What seems more likely is that a lot of former GOP voters will pull their heads out of their butts and try to restore some semblance of normalcy to the White House that we haven’t seen a trace of since the 2000 “election” of Mr. Chimpy and Friends.
“Yes, the Eagle is back…”
Welcome back, my Sic friend.
“and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends”
Looks like the blunt ends of your talons will once more be coated in your own blood as you scrape away in futile purpose …
:^)
Let me see if I understand correctly…Iraqi’s are mainly killing Iraqi’s and sometimes Allied forces. They kill each other and I am to believe that the polls indicate that the Iraqi “man-on-the-street” is pissed-off at us (U.S.) because we don’t stop the killing. Reports I’ve read seem to indicate that Iraqi forces are being trained by U.S. and our Allies at an ever increasing rate to defend their own country. Now, our House of Reps wants to pull the plug, either immediately or at some point within the next one or two years. It gets confusing for me at this point as there are so many pull-out plans floating around. As I understand, those voting in favor of pulling-out don’t care what the conditions are at the time of the pull-out or who pays the horrendous price for such an action. Folks, none of this makes any sense to me. Many in this country (U.S.) want peace at any price. The operative word here is “peace”. Is this a one-sided peace with our enemies still wanting our doom? Is this peace at any price? Not a good idea as witness the peaceful retorich of pre-WWII. What do we do? Well, my common sense tells me that when you have the best army in the world in place, among others, where global terrorism is being and has been spawned, why wait until another day and other place to kill the SOB’s. Sorry, I am having a bad spelling day.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2007 02:21 PMS. E.
I see the libs didn’t hesitate to jump on this one. Like I said in another post maybe they ought to go to Iraq and get first hand info instead of rellying on biased media.
Jim,
Please name the Iraqis who have launched attacks inside the United States since the invasion in 2003. Name one. No? Ok, please name the Iraqis who have attempted attacks inside the US. Name one. No?
The Democrats have settled on one option for ending the war, and presented it as a deadline for funding the war as of August 31, 2008.
You write: “… polls indicate that the Iraqi “man-on-the-street‎ is pissed-off at us (U.S.) because we don’t stop the killing.”
Partially correct. The majority believe we are occupying their country for our own benefit. Over half of all Iraqis believe it is acceptable to attack US troops. Only %3 percent believe we are there to establish democracy. The vast majority of Iraqis DO NOT want us in their country.
Global terrorism was not spawned in Iraq. Examples of terrorism originating in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were de minimis, no worse than other countries in the Middle East, and almost exclusively aimed at Israel. In fact, the Baathists of Saddam Hussein openly persecuted religious fundamentalists. It was a secular state. Remember? No? Oh well.
You write: “… when you have the best army in the world in place, among others, where global terrorism is being and has been spawned, why wait until another day and other place to kill the SOB’s.”
Because using the military to combat terrorism is ineffective. It is a matter for intelligence, Special Forces operations, and international cooperation- NOT the military. Afghanistan was an exception. It offered us an opportunity to attack Al Qaida while it was relatively concentrated. The opportunity to use the military to combat terrorism went away a long time ago.
Furthermore, the best troops in the world cannot be effective if they are commanded by incompetents.
Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 02:39 PMphx8
Yea we found that the best troops in the world could not be effective in Viet Nam with a democrat CiC
Let’s count the events in Phx8’s first Post.
Bad - 10
Good- 1 Can you find it?
Other developments in Iraq
A bomb went off
Two American soldiers died
Those were the “Other developements”
U.S. deaths in Iraq
The Associated Press lists 3,234 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, including at least 2,607 considered combat deaths by the Pentagon.
Let’s figure that statement out. 3234 dead as per the AP, but only 2607 as per the Pentagon.
Who is correct?
KAP:
“I see the libs didn’t hesitate to jump on this one.”
Duh. It was addressed to us.
“Like I said in another post maybe they ought to go to Iraq”
Personally I’d love to know why all you Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors haven’t gone yourselves. If this is so important, and such a noble cause, why haven’t you joined up to fight and win it? Too old? Why you could always become one of the many contractors there…
Let’s face it “loyal Bushies”, your heart is just not in this war either, but you just love to pick on the left, calling us traitors and every other horrible thing you can think of, simply to satisfy that mean streak.
“and get first hand info instead of rellying on biased media.”
By “biased media’ you mean all media both domestic and foreign — everything except Fox”News”, right?
Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 02:53 PMCIP,
The AP number of American deaths include all causes, including accidents such as flipping a tank into a river, or suicide. The Pentagon numbers list only deaths in combat at the hands of the enemy.
Adrienne
I have been,14yrs USN with 2 tours in Nam. ARM CHAIR HARDLY NOT. As far as biased media, I’m saying one that shows both sides of the story not just the bad and we haven’t had much of that from any media source including FOX.
KAP:
“I have been,14yrs USN with 2 tours in Nam. ARM CHAIR HARDLY NOT.”
Thanks for your service. No doubt they’d really appreciate the kind of invaluable knowledge and experience you have.
“As far as biased media, I’m saying one that shows both sides of the story not just the bad and we haven’t had much of that from any media source including FOX.”
But have you ever entertained the thought that maybe the story we’re being presented with happens to be the simple truth?
Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 03:31 PMAh…the taste of good discussion….especially blessed today with the likes of Stephen…Rocky…and the lovliest of all…Adrienne…
Let’s see…Not one word from anyone about corruption being the major issue in the last election. How did it get finnessed into the war?
By the way, this isn’t a term paper…I don’t have to quote sources…if you have concrete evidence to the contrary,show it. Don’t bother with the CNN exit poll that day by the way…it butresses my opening salvo.
74 dead today. That is a tragedy. No question.Democracy has a price,unfortunately. Check Germany post WWII..how many Allied troops died AFTER occupation?
What is the problem there? Finally, the fanaticial mullahs are are being reined in. Months ago I wrote here that radicial Mullahs, both Shia and Sunni ,hould have been eliminated. No way, you said. It would just create more enemies. Really? If you eliminate the veteran radicial leadership there, over time the replacements will be far weaker and disorganized.
Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.
Most importantly: take the kids and re-educate them just like we did in Germany and Japan.
If the military were left alone for 60 days, and if CNN and the screamers were kicked out of the counrty, the problem would disappear.
You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.
And don’t tell me that Murtha can do it. He is an absolute disgrace. He had those Marines convicted months before they were given their day in court.
That’s why it is called “war”.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 25, 2007 03:31 PMAdrienne
Most news sources only report what bad is happening because that’s what people want to hear. People are not interested in the good things our military is doing because it’s not sensational news it won’t sell papers or get listeners. While the bad may be true, there is still a good part that is true to. Just like Nam people heard the bad and not the good.
SE,
In the 2006 CNN exit poll, 42% listed corruption as extremely important, while something like 39% listed terrorism, and 37% listed Iraq.
Thank you for conceding the point that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Thank you. Finally, we straightened that out.
You write: “Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.”
That specifically falls under the definition of a war crime. Any other war crimes you would like to advocate? Maybe if, instead of “re-educating” them, we just shot every tenth child, that would settle their hash.
You also write: “You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.”
Wow. Right out of “Heart of Darkness,” by Conrad. In the margin of a textbook on civilizing the natives, the character Kurtz scrawls in the margin, “ELIMINATE THE BRUTES!”
Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 03:56 PMSic Eagle:
What is the problem there? Finally, the fanaticial mullahs are are being reined in. Months ago I wrote here that radicial Mullahs, both Shia and Sunni ,hould have been eliminated. No way, you said. It would just create more enemies. Really? If you eliminate the veteran radicial leadership there, over time the replacements will be far weaker and disorganized.Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.
Your problem is that you have been, and obviously still are, listening to the WRONG people in your party, Sic Eagle. Look at what Sen. Chuck Hagel said today on ABC’s ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about Iraq. You mentioned the House Democrats passed their bill. Their version of the Iraq war funding bill this week which imposed benchmarks on the Iraqi government but also set a deadline for the removal of all U.S. combat forces. Can you sign on to that?SEN. HAGEL: Well, I believe this, and I’ve said this from the beginning. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. The solution to Iraq will come as a result of a political accommodation by the people in Iraq, the Iraqi people, which will result in a political resolution. I have said also that I’m absolutely opposed to a further American military escalation in Iraq. That’s what’s going on here. And it’s one of these, oh, by the way — It’s one of these gradual incremental-type oh, by the ways. We first heard the president’s announcement on this a few weeks ago, 21,500 troops.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is how do you stop it?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, I think the Congress is going to play a role now like we have not played before. You’ve already seen the House play that role. We will debate it this week in the Senate. Senator Jim Webb and I are going to introduce some legislation that will, in fact, have the force of law in the future involvement of our military, in our country and what conditions that future will be.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So combining legislation, what kind of conditions are you going to try to impose?
SEN. HAGEL: It will be binding legislation, and it will be focused on deployment, redeployment, training, equipment. What we’re doing to our force structure in this country is disastrous. We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our Army. We’re destroying our Marine Corps. We can’t sustain this kind of not only deployment, but training tempo, and the consequences of that, you’re seeing at Walter Reed Hospital, for example and the consequences of that, for example, dumbing down your United States Army. We are now in a situation, we’re waiving criminal records, drug abuse records to entice people to join the Army. You are ruining a 30-year effort to produce, which we have, the best Army in the world.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m unclear on what exactly you’re trying to do. Are you going to be setting an end date for U.S. involvement? I don’t want to get too far ahead of Senator Webb on this. We have not announced what exactly those amendments will say. We will do that early next week, either tomorrow or Tuesday, but I would say that it does affect the outcome, the conditions of America’s military involvement in Iraq.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then, just to be clear, though, you cannot accept what the House passed, would you vote to strip those conditions from the legislation?
SEN. HAGEL: I would want to see what, in the end, I have to vote on. Let me put it this way, I will not accept the status quo. I will not continue to support with my vote the status quo. I am opposed to the president’s current policy. I am opposed to the president’s further escalation of America’s military involvement. We are undermining our interest in the Middle East. We are undermining our military. We’re undermining the confidence of people around the world in what we’re doing. We have, clearly, a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort. It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as far as —
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the White House has argued, Stephen Hadley was here last week, that right now we’re actually seeing the increase in forces actually start to deliver some results in Baghdad. Don’t you see that at all?
SEN. HAGEL: No, I don’t see that. In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital.
No, it isn’t getting any less dangerous, and the fact is that was predictable, the more American troops you flood into a zone, sure, you’re going to see some immediate effect of that but that has nothing to do with the long-term or lasting effect. This solution in Iraq is not going to come by continuing to put more and more Americans in there because we’re bogging ourselves down. We are further eroding our credibility and stature in the Middle East. It’s going to make it more and more difficult for us to get out because we are going to have to get out.
You know, we had the Inspector General testifying, our Inspector General, Mr. Bowen, he was testifying before the Congress this week. I met with him alone for an hour and a half. He reminded all of us that we have now spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq. We have put at least 40 billion in economic development there. Which we don’t know what we got out of it. There’s still no oil law. Billions of dollars have been ripped off, unaccounted for, and one more point on this — over $12 billion of Iraqi money still sits in the accounts of the Iraqi government that they haven’t spent. So something has to give here, George.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: It is clear to me that you are angry about this and you also gave an interview to “Esquire” magazine this month, the April edition of “Esquire” magazine where you were quoted as saying, “the president says ‘I don’t care’, he’s not accountable anymore, he’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment.”
SEN. HAGEL: Well, any president who says “I don’t care” or “I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else” or “I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed,” if a president really believes that, then there are, what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that. This is not a monarchy.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you think that would be appropriate in this case?
SEN. HAGEL: I didn’t say that. I didn’t call for it. I didn’t predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here. No president can dictate to this country, nor should he. This is a constitutional form of government. We have three equal branches of government. No president is bigger than the other two. There are three co-equal branches of government. Article 1 of the Constitution is not the presidency. It’s the Congress.
So what I was pointing out, George, is that there are ways to deal with this and I would hope the president understands that. I mean, his comments this weekend, yesterday in his radio address were astounding to me. Saying to the Congress in effect, you don’t belong in this. I’m in charge of Iraq.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re talking about the U.S. attorney controversy?
SEN. HAGEL: No, I’m talking about what he was referring to specifically in his radio address about what the House of Representatives did on Iraq.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Friday on Iraq, okay.
SEN. HAGEL: And essentially dismissing them. Now, he can disagree, of course. I understand that. That’s his responsibility. But to dismiss them, the Congress by saying, “you don’t have a role in this, you’re irrelevant to this,” he’s getting some bad advice and I would suggest they all go back and reread the Constitution.
Now, I don’t agree with most of Hagel’s positions or with his votes, but nevertheless, I can see that he is a Republican conservative who has America’s best interest at heart.
Rather than talk about GOP clowns like Rudy and Mitt, you should be talking about a guy like Hagel as being the kind of candidate that can restore some real integrity to the GOP.
It has become painfully obvious that if your party continues off the non-conservative Neocon cliff — flushing this country right down the toilet as a result, you are going to be history for a long, long time to come.
phx8
I forgot to welcome you…your comments always are insightful and passionate, and I appreciate that.
War crimes? Don’t think so. If a mullah is preaching that America should burn and if his mosque is harboring criminals and weapons, he is fair game. He should be elominated. Not talked to,reasoned with, cajoled…eliminated.
Same with family of suicide bombers. They give aid and comfort to the enemy. Their assets should be seized too.
Adrienne
Hagel sucks. He was in the first wave of Republicans who lost his gonads to the polls. Believe me, Rudy and or Mitt won’t flinch. That is the ticket I am predicting ,by the way…Guilliani/Romney vs Clinton/ Obama.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 25, 2007 04:17 PMSic Eagle:
“Hagel sucks.”
So, you’re saying that everything Hagel said in that interview is completely wrong, simply because you don’t like him?
That’s a serious problem I see with you “with us or against us” Bushie loyalists — every subject is always all or nothing with you people.
Folks on the left don’t tend to be like that. For instance, I personally can’t stand Hillary Clinton for being a Republican Lite, corporate protectionist and sleazy opportunist, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t sometimes make good points, and say things that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
“That is the ticket I am predicting ,by the way…Guilliani/Romney”
Well, I hope you’re right. Rudy is such a blowhard and an idiot, and has so many embarrassing skeletons in his closet, he should be incredibly easy to take down.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 04:35 PMSEN. HAGEL: No, I don’t see that. In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital.
Hey! Wait a minute!!
“Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, seriously wounded Friday by a suicide bomber, was moved out of a hospital intensive care unit and was in good condition, an Iraqi lawmaker said.‎
Which is it! Mortally wounded or in good condition.
I guess Senator Hagle couldn’t find the ONE GOOD THING in Phx8 ‘s article.
SE,
Punishing the families of insurgents (most suicide bombers are foreign jihadists, btw) by razing their houses specifically violates the Geneva Convention. The Israelis do it, using American bulldozers. Nevertheless, the US & the international community recognize it as a crime.
Fighting an insurgency is normally seen as a battle of hearts and minds. Killing people, so that there are fewer hearts and minds lieft to win, is usually counterprodutive. A scorched earth policy might work. However, I do not want to see my country scorching the earth. Is that why we are in Iraq? To eliminate all the Iraqis who do not want us in Iraq? The majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country. The majority approve of attacking US troops. Is there some sort of upper limit on how many people we are supposed to kill?
Posted by: Phx8 at March 25, 2007 05:20 PMWould someone explain to the fleeing Iraqi’s that everything is just fine?
Happy talk reminds me of the tower of Babel.
Somehow if this were Israel, I get the feeling that some of these folks would be bemoaning those horrid evil Palestinians. Not that Israel or the U.S. has anything to do with the violence going on. It’s just one of those things.
I thought the video of the Japanese diplomat cringing while the Iraqi barely blinked as a shell landed close by was very telling. Just another day of brightness and sunshine, in Bagdad. Ho-hum. No news here.
Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2007 05:27 PMKAP-
With all due respect to your military experience, don’t bring up bias unless you can demonstrate actual distortion. You can claim that the media’s getting it all wrong, but when the Intelligence community comes back with an NIE that says that “civil war” doesn’t begin to describe the situation, I think the claims of bias need better support than just this axiomatic treatment.
CIP-
Yeah, that’s right. Good call there. You’ve got total proof that things aren’t as bad as the Democrats are saying, because, geez, the bomb only nearly killed him.
What amazes me sometimes is how blase the supporters of Bush and this war get over these kinds of “minor” developments. I mean, imagine if the Bush’s chief of staff got blasted in his own home. Whether he died or not, somebody was truly trying to kill him. This in the Green (read: secure) zone. Reportedly, the guy who did this just walked up to him, through security.
SE-
I always get a little annoyed when people compare casualties between WWII and now. Why?
1) War was larger. Iraq, despite the bloviation of various parties, is not WWIII. With the Second World War, you had a conflict on two fronts, through many different countries, and most of Europe. Here we have… Well, Iraq. It’s the Iraq War. The world, versus one country.
2) 1940’s military technology. limits to communication, airpower and targeting make precise and thereby low casuality war-fighting difficult.
3) Equivalence and even superiority of enemy military technology. The Germans had some weapons that were even better than ours.
4) 1940’s medical science. Antibiotics were just beginning to be used. doctors were only beginning to learn how to deal with battlefield trauma. I think the figures are something like forty percent of the wounded dying. Now we see only ten percent. That’s two and half times less than even Vietnam.
5) The Guerilla Warfare aspect. Asymmetric tactics rely on surprise, deception, and ambush tactics. They are meant to cripple armies in other ways than just outright casualties. Figures can be extraordinarily lopsided. They killed 50 thousand of us in Vietnam, we killed millions. We still lost, because we couldn’t get the South Vietnamese to the point of being able to stand on their own. Vietnam would have been problematic, but not a loss, had South Vietnam held together.
In the end, body counts don’t tell much of a story, much less the whole story. What’s important is whether we achieve what we set out to do. The truth about Iraq is that we haven’t and will not likely be able to do that. Even the commander on the ground says that part of this is political, and judging from events on the ground, that’s not working out too well.
Oh, and welcome back. I’ve missed training with my dragon style debate kung fu against your eagle style.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 05:42 PMNothing new here. Just more of the same old neocon jealousies in the wake of a party which has all but lost it’s sense of credibility. And of course another round of posturing to somehow put the blame for Bush’s uninsightful and failed policies on anyone but themselves. Unless you can come up with something new and credible Eagle you might as well go park it in the same hanger as the rest of the neocon losers.
Posted by: ILdem at March 25, 2007 05:50 PMWelcome back SE!
I see your vacation still didn’t clear up your thinking on BushCo…………sigh :-/
I look forward to future arguments, but I’m just too disappointed at the moment. I still think there’s a chance you and Jack might come around :~)
Posted by: KansasDem at March 25, 2007 06:04 PMSE,
You referred to it twice, so here is another chance for clafification. According to the CNN poll, was Iraq the dominating issue of the 2006 midterms, or were Iraq and terrorism two separate issues?
1Ldem
So,you either a first lieutenant or a first year law student. Either way, both good professions. But I don’t park in a hangar. The Republican Party really has no one to blame but itself. The Dems won the last election by default…the Repubs lost it.
Is cutting off funding really an answer? Better still is attaching a million amendments ,all of them pork barrel by the way, not corruption? Isn’t that what happened last week?
Has the un-indicted co-conspiritor Murtha suddenly changed his stripes and become honest? Ya,right.
Look at that idiot Jack Delahunt from Massachusetts for example. Last year he was crowing about all that cheap oil that he and Joe Kennedy brought here from Venuezula. Chavez played him like a guitar. He is now heading a committee. Look at Marty Meehan. He is cashing out by accepting a plum job as a university chancellor…and still has over 3 million in his campaign chest. Is that Jefferson guy still in the freezer? How about Gore? What was the haul from that pay per view movie? Was it enough to pay his house electric bill this month? Corruption has no politicial affiliation,my friend. The sad part of the matter is that folks like you see only a one sidedissue. You are being fleeced right now, and you don’t realize it.
Stephen
I am time stressed now to answer. I promise that I will in a manner befitting my favorite leftie poster. (Next to Adrienne,that is)
Stephen D.
I didn’t say the media was getting it all wrong. I said that they only reporting half the story and that being the bad half because it sells more papers and gets more listeners. If the media would report that the military built a school somewhere in Iraq or 100 soilders donated blood to a Iraqi Hospital you think that would be reported. NO. Why because the media is only interrested in what sells and it is usually the bad because that’s what people want.
Let me see what was the last thing I remember the Eagle writing?? oh ya here it is…
“It now appears that the GOP has weathered everything that the Democratic Party has thrown at it…including the kitchen sink…and is still in a position to keep control of both the House and the Senate despite withering media criticism of the administration”
Sorry pal you have about as much credibility as Colin Powell
Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it.
Posted by: 037 at March 25, 2007 06:26 PMI have never been able to figure out how it is that with the Internet, the likes of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Faux News, etc., etc. that all the fantastic news about what great progress we’re making in Iraq is suppressed.
C’mon Eagle, where’s your specific information about all the great progress we’re supposedly making over there? I realize that the VLWC has enormous powers to prevent any good news from escaping from Iraq, but geez, why can’t some of the fine journalists listed above come up with just one measly story a day about how great things are going there?
Posted by: Torus Lindvalds at March 25, 2007 07:28 PMBut any close observer of the media knows that, as one Marine memorably put it, the media tend to show us the sacrifice that Americans and Iraqis are making, but act perpetually confused as to what that sacrifice is for. Palkot and other journalists stand out from the rest by going beyond the casualty counts to show us that untold story.
People building new homes provide a motif that runs throughout the documentary. There is a theme of renewal and reconstruction. Perhaps the most promising statistic of all those Palkot presents is that by some estimates marriages have doubled since the fall of Saddam. That indicates optimism about Iraq’s future. It’s an optimism that is not shared by a majority of the top brass in the American media — an optimism that is largely an untold story. For one hour on Saturday night, however, Fox tells it.
The turnaround was owed to simple, boots-on-the-ground military tactics, Army officials said.
“Presence is definitely a key to our mission,” said Pfc. Justin Wildey, 23, of Marietta, Ga. “In order to make everyone else safer, we’ve got to take chances. I don’t have any problem with it; most of us here don’t.”
Uhhh, is that the best you can do? One story from November 4 2005 and one from December 2 2005? My goodness, why are we still there if things were so peachy over a year ago?
Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 08:11 PMKAP:
If the media would report that the military built a school somewhere in Iraq or 100 soilders donated blood to a Iraqi Hospital you think that would be reported. NO. Why because the media is only interrested in what sells and it is usually the bad because that’s what people want.
Including Limbaugh? Including O’Reilly? Faux News? Why aren’t they reporting all this good news? Are they part of the liberal media you seem to be blaming for failing to report good news from Iraq?
Nevermind the fact that, although it would certainly would be good news and should be reported if we built a school or donated 100 pints of blood, those kinds of things are orders of magnitude less important that something like this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_soldiers_dc;_ylt=Ar7JDSHfKVki3w8Zq4gKAGoDW7oF
Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 08:19 PMTorus
Your a prime example of those who thrive on the bad side of the news. If something good happens you throw out 10 bad things. It’s not FAUX IT’S FOX news
If there weren’t 10 things to cite in opposition to the good that’s been reported, I wouldn’t cite 10 bad things.
The point is that if there were so many good things happening, why wouldn’t Rush and Bill and the FAUX news crew be reporting that? It’s a yes or no question. Answer it.
I don’t thrive on the bad side of what’s happening in Iraq, I was against us going in to begin with. The feeling of utter powerlessness I have with you and the rest of the sheep who think ignoring the bad and publicizing the good is all it will take for Iraq to end successfully makes me sick.
Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 08:53 PMTorus
The answer is bad sells good dosen’t. So no not even fox reports the good things or human interest stories.
Torus
Nobody wants to ignore the bad. You got it turned around they are IGNORING THE GOOD.
Uh……..duh, what is our objective in Iraq?
Saddam is gonzo! So we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, right?
We let many Al Qaeda members escape to Pakistan including Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is even bragging now about creating new training camps in Lebanon.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was led by a Jordanian (Al_Zarqawi) and most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. Saudi Arabia and Jordan our both our allies and now Condi is pissing in Egypt’s bowl of Cheerios.
You bet. We’re doing just fine. We need just a couple more really stupid people to join BushCo so we can blow the whole damn world all to hell. That’s the only way Bush can save himself from a legacy of shame.
Posted by: KansasDem at March 25, 2007 09:46 PMArgument about balance have a fatal flaw: in the real world, things are usually going one way or another.
Arguments about the sensationalism of news avoid an important fact victory is sensational to cover. Victory was great television. Had Iraq succeeded, it would have simply dropped off the radar in favor of something else.
Some want the media to be to blame. I guess it’s easier than being wrong yourself. Nobody likes to deal with these things, so the temptation is great to chalk it up to perception.
It’s a dangerous game, because often enough, it’s not mere perception. If that is the case, one is simply making one’s moral and practical failings chronic by failing to address them.
That, in my opinion, has been the downfall of the Republicans. When everything’s somebody else’s fault, one might feel the temptation to stay as you are, to not grow or develop, to not allow criticism or reform to change you. After all, it’s everybody else trying to pull you down.
The consequence of such an attitude is decadence and corruption, as one relieves oneself of the motivation to improve oneself. As painful as it is to be censured, it’s motivation for improvement. To block off all negative comment, to rationalize away all criticism is to isolate oneself from corrective influences. Nobody, not Democrat, not Republican, does very well when they don’t have to deal with outside criticism.
In a very real way, American Democracy is about being forced into the inconvenience of answering to everybody else for your behavior. Rather than privilege one set of people to do what they want, regardless of its ill effects, America stands behind them and whispers into their ear: Remember, thou art mortal.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 09:56 PMSo let me get this straight, the good news is schools are bring built, the troops are giving blood, and the road to the airport has been opened and is an easier drive for the past year. Did I miss anything? Now in my mind if the evil MSM did report this on a daily basis, I think most people would be thinking something like “We’re getting our troops killed and spending billions for this?” Have all the repubs completly lost their sense of perspective as well as their business sense? Seems the repubs are hell bent to prove the myths they spread about the ineffiencies of the Federal Government. I knosw they have proved the CEO as President ideology to been bogus.
One more question does the good outweigh the bad? Is staying in Iraq indefinitly, with no plan for ever leaving?
If I was the repubs I would take their oil buddies Iraq bargaining chip and put it on the table for the American people or sit down and shutup about the deadline.
Sic
So,you either a first lieutenant or a first year law student. Either way, both good professions. But I don’t park in a hangar. The Republican Party really has no one to blame but itself. The Dems won the last election by default…the Repubs lost it.
The repubs didn’t lose an election. They squandered away the trust of a nation. They lost all credibility and left their supporters looking like well trained fools. The trust at this point is the dems to lose, time will tell.
Is cutting off funding really an answer? Better still is attaching a million amendments ,all of them pork barrel by the way, not corruption? Isn’t that what happened last week?
In light of republican obstinance, cutting off funding is the means to an end. The amendments are for good causes and obviously additional leverage. Since when are amendments considered corruption? I don’t believe any of them are for bridges to nowhere.
I will not dispute the character of the myriad of people you mentioned. I really do not see what any of them other than Murtha have to do with ending this charade in Iraq. Once again you folks are trying to place blame for a failed conflict by insinuating that the problem is somehow the result of a corrupt dem party and a lack of support from everyone except the neocons. Well my friend seven out of 10 people in this country have decided that it is not a cause which is any longer worth pursuing. And you know what, all of these people are capable of making their own assesments. We honestly do not need a bunch of demented die hard Bushies trying to convince us of the errors of our ways. This president, his administration, and his congress are an embarasment to this nation. The sooner we get out of Iraq and replace Bush and his cronies the quicker this nation can begin healing and heading in a sensical direction.
Eagle, Eagle, Eagle, there you go again. You state that corruption was the driving force behind the 2006 election results, and they were, but remember that a lot of the corruption has to do with the execution of the Iraq occupation (ain’t a war, we’re just occupying the place, there’s no “enemy” that we’re trying to “defeat,” unless you say the Iraqi people are the enemy, in which case you are clearly the nut case), pallet-loads of cash that disappeared, arms and munitions left unguarded, Halliburton et al. given no-bid contracts then turn around and overcharge and underserve, insufficient body and vehicle armor, unserving wounded veterans upon their return, cherry-picking facts to get us into the invasion, lying about known location of WMDs etc., etc., etc. The country is fed up with the ineptitude of this administration and the so-called conservative movement that has so far proven every one of it tenets to be false and furthermore that it fails as a philosophy of government.
But go ahead and caw like you’re some victorious bird of prey, and when the last American dies for this failure you can preen and fluff your feathers and say that we “lost” because of the liberals and Democrats and keep saying it until history repeats itself again (just as Vietnam is being repeated now). Look at what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and think about what we’re doing. How long does it take to “win” in these situations? How long, Eagle? Answer that and win an American flag from GW.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 25, 2007 11:34 PMJust out of curiousity, what “pork” do people object to in the emergency spending supplemental bill?
Here is a list of items some consider pork:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/189150/house_democrats_pass_pork_bill_with.html?page=1
Personally, I do NOT think spending $969 billion for preparation, response & development of vaccines by HHS for an avian flu epidemic to be a bad move. In fact, that sounds like a pretty good idea.
Some spending goes to farmers for losses incurred recently due to natural disasters- drought relief, the e-coli problems for spinach growers, freezes affecting citrus growers, and so on.
$1.3 billion goes to the Army Corps of Engineers for levee repairs in NO.
Is anyone seriously opposed to these?
Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 12:00 AMCorrection: $969 million for Avian flu prep.
Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 12:07 AMLet me see what was the last thing I remember the Eagle writing?? oh ya here it is…
“It now appears that the GOP has weathered everything that the Democratic Party has thrown at it…including the kitchen sink…and is still in a position to keep control of both the House and the Senate despite withering media criticism of the administration‎
Sorry pal you have about as much credibility as Colin Powell
Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it.
Posted by: 037 at March 25, 2007 06:26 PM
Hallelujah and praise Jesus! And I was beginning to think that I had imagined this character called the mightly sparrow who was spewing empty and pathetic forecasts last Nov. In fact, I though he had just gone to ground until fading memory would facilitate his return to punditry.
Welcome back Sic, you make the world more colourful with your delusions of reality. All part of life’s rich tapestry!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 26, 2007 06:41 AMThe New Congress in DIM control is a cut and run defeatist crew lead by piglosi and her pork mobile.
The new name for the Democratic Party is American Islamist Party of Death to America.
It seems to fit their actions since forever, only now they can be a religion. They are the new threat to America and they are a radical bunch.
Posted by: im at March 26, 2007 07:40 AMThey have brainwashed America, pure and simple.
How ironic, american’s brains will have been *cleaned* by MSM at both start *and* end of this iraq war adventure…
Instead, if these *cleaning* forces could have been put at work to clean the actual mess created/added in Iraq…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 08:09 AMSE,
The president really didn’t stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are “losing” the war.
He got FOUR (4) years!
He agreed that 120,000 soldiers will be enough.
It was not.
He agreed that firing all Iraqis in army because few of them were high-ranking Sunni leaders/Saddam Hussein loyalists was a great idea.
It was not.
He agreed to use torture as he want, whatever US image/values damage could get.
It gets a lot.
He agreed that this war was necessary, that pre-emptive doctrine is legal, that Iraq had many WMDs threating the US.
He was wrong.
He agreed that US military power should be used to spread bullets democracy in the Middle East.
It doesn’t work.
He agreed that Iraq War cost will be paid by Iraq oil.
It’s still not.
He agreed that US taxpayers money should be offered without any bid to private contractors, that these will cut the cost.
It doesn’t.
And, still, the US mainstream medias gave him a blank card during FOUR years!
I call this a gift made to your president. Without the 9/11 patriotism reflex, he won’t have so much time.
But, now, it’s time for accountability. Alas, it’s not Bushies best skill, indeed.
Some general comments:
1. Yes, it is good to be back. Despite our political differences, I regard all of you highly…and good Americans too. Some are merely mis-guided, and my job is to get that course correction on track. :)
2. Regarding war crimes: I cannot think of a single war where war crimes did not occur. Weren’t Hroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate in war crimes? Didn’t innocent women and children get obliterated? How about the firebombings in Germany back then? Argueably (and I would definately have defended Truman in a court of law for those actions by the way) any killing of innocents is a war crime.
Here, (Iraq) I am talking about something different. Had strategic mullahs been blown away ruthlessly, along with their protegny months ago,only lightweights would remain. I still would like to see one strategic bomb dropped on a crowd of fanatics the next time they dance on the street . Just once. That would give them something to think about.
Honestly, I would like to see a few car bombs and IEDs placed close by some of these fanatical mosques too.
If a list were put together of say the top 1000 idiots there,and every time an American died a bomb dropped on someone on that list, I would feel better. Imagine one of those mullahs and how he would feel if he knew that his name was on that list. I would post that list everywher too, and update it.
The property of these suicide bombers should be confiscated and sold too. The proceeds go to the decedents survivors. Call it a form of Iraqi personal injury settlement if you will.
I also think that in every village surrounding Baghdad that three camps should be formed and in one camp the childen are placed,the other camp the women are placed,and in the third camp the men are placed. Then,every house should be searched,and then guilty arrested.
In the meantime,a standardized education system should be implimented. The cocept of jihad should be banned and criminilized. Those espousing the philosophy should be jailed or killed. (I prefer the later). In other words, the young should be programmed..brainwashed….just like the Japanese were. In a generation or two, this violence would have been breeded out of them.
I bet that if five villages were torn apart in this manner,and every rock searched,every man strip-searched,every vehicle torn apart, a strong message would be sent.
This winning the hearts and minds bullshit is exactly that. A swift kick to the gonads is in order, then a boot to the neck. We are dealing with dogs here.
My view is that we have to be much more animalistic with this crew. We are trying to fight a war according to the Geneva Ruls,while they line the kitty litter box with the same rules.
Alexander The Great said that they were the worst. The Romans finally threw up their hands and partitioned the country into three,forbiding both travel and trade.
phx8
I have been thinking about your queery. Here is my response:
I think Iraq and terrorism are now intertwined.Initialy, the reason for the invasion(WMDs) was the fear that they would be sold to terror groups. Bush’s was inncorrect due to faulty intelligence (Mossad, British Intelligence,Russian Intelligence,Egyptian Intelligence all confirmed WMDs,along with the CIA). Since then,Iraq has kinda been like a piece of discarded food attracting vermin from everywhere. I am happy about that because the worst of the worst from all over the place now flock there in the name of jihad. The Iraqis can do one of two things; they can help us kill them (these are the same scumbags whose philosophy caused over 3,000 deaths in September of 2001),or they can do nothing. If they do nothing, then they should be punished, re-educated until they do something,or destroyed.
Honestly,I hate..really hate…this fanatical element and hve concluded that like a cancer they must be destroyed.
Of course, I am castigated by my views. Well, tough. I see a nuclear holocost down the road…Iran…maybe a suitcase bomb by Hezbollah or Hamas..maybe a nut cake from a maddras in Saudi or Pakastan…something.
If we have to fight, mind as well win,that is what I say. The victors re-write history. Our history books say the the bombs in Japan prevented many more deaths of Americans. Guess what? I am saying that here now,today.
The defense of necessity in a homicide case says that in order to save 2, if one other must die,so be it. Here, if a few thousand (fanatics) must die
in order to save perhaps millions,well….
I decided to post again after much thought. Yes I am a hawk.Yes my views on some issues are off the wall, and I probably don’t believe all that I write either. However, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between your thought and mine..but I present these views anyway because maybe one or two kerrenls will provoke discussion.
I love Watchblog and the writers on the left. However, I love guys like Jack too. We balance things off,I think.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 08:41 AMcatastrophyinprogress,
Let’s figure that statement out. 3234 dead as per the AP, but only 2607 as per the Pentagon.Who is correct?
Who works for the White House?
Damned, I answer with another question!
Sorry. Okay, so here my answer: the deads are correct.
The defense of necessity in a homicide case says that in order to save 2, if one other must die,so be it. Here, if a few thousand (fanatics) must die in order to save perhaps millions,well…
Could you share with us, SE, what high technology weaponary actually sort out the fanatic iraqi kid from the usual one?
Thanks.
Democracy has a price,unfortunately. Check Germany post WWII..how many Allied troops died AFTER occupation?
Could you, for one time, focus on the iraqi deaths, not only US soldiers!
Iraqis didn’t want this war, when your country did.
It may shock your belief system, but some people actually still focus on civilian victims count as well as on the aggressor’s troops deaths counter.
Iraqis didn’t start this war. Germans did start the WWII. That’s a (big) difference.
Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.
The israelis are trying this.
Since… 60 years.
If the military were left alone for 60 days, and if CNN and the screamers were kicked out of the counrty, the problem would disappear.
Oh, I see. Like a final solution. Yeah, great strategy. BTW, since when violence stop spawning violence in favor of solution?
You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.
Every animal trainer will tell you that beaten animals are the most dangerous ones.
See above why (nothing left to lost, rageous force, etc).
Anyway, how nice to you comparing iraqis with animals. I failed to remember when such comparable image was last used during/for a war. Could you help me?
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 09:25 AMRegarding war crimes: I cannot think of a single war where war crimes did not occur. Weren’t Hroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate in war crimes? Didn’t innocent women and children get obliterated? How about the firebombings in Germany back then? Argueably (and I would definately have defended Truman in a court of law for those actions by the way) any killing of innocents is a war crime.
Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions take place *after* these, indeed, blatant war crimes during WWII.
All the countries who signed the conventions said “never again” to these kinds of behavior during war.
You’re advocating “there again”. Great to you. Here a procedure to ease this move:
1) ask your favorite president, whoever it is, to resign US from whatever Geneva Convention where a previous foolish/utopist/humanist/weakest US president agreed that the US will NOT commit war crime.
2) Do it again.
3) Don’t be surprise many nations will soon do it. Against americans, eventually.
4) Write a book titled “Why WMD lies torture Gitmo Jack Bauer Bush God world moral high ground world warming deny war crime protected us”.
5) Check which US’s president signed Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 09:44 AMSic,
woulda, coulda, shoulda but didnt. There does not appear to be a move towards the tatics you propose. This administartion has had plenty of time to get the job done, they chose to stay the course. To continue in Iraq serves the terrorist not the US nor the Iraqi people. The financial drain on our children will be considerable. Its time to refocus, get our priorities in order and to re-think our approach to fighting terrorism. Lets get this mess cleaned up so the next president can focus on the real issues and the terrorist. Its the least the Repubs can do for this Country.
Philippe Hudon
Honestly, I care only about US casualities. Those folks have been killing each other for a millenia…and it won’t stop once we leave either.
Let us say you are driving your car and it goes suddenly out of control and you are swirving all over the place. On one side of the street is a mom pushing her baby in a carriage. On the other side is an old man walking . Necessity says that if order to save the two (mom and baby) if control of the car is regained and the old man dies, it is not a homicide.
Actually,have you ever been on an Isreali plane? I have. I remember the pilot saying during take off,I think “If you get out of your seat,you will be shot” Something like that. About six years ago.
Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit.Don’t appease it.
As far as a comparison, the French lopping off heads during the Reign of Terror was animalistic to me…or how about what we did to the Ammerica Indian? Better still,how about the enslavement of an entire ract here? How about what the Spanish did to the Astecs and Mayians? Want more? The Turks to the Armenian. The English to the Scots. Thge Muslim to the Hindu. The Chinese to anout 15 different ethnic groups. Animals. Man is an animal.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 10:03 AMSE,
“Man is an animal.”
But man has choices. Man thinks and acts, animals merely react. That is what separates us from them.
We’re supposed to be the good guys. Rome ruled by fear, Rome fell. England ruled by fear, and the English empire crumbled.
What’s next for America if we take the same road?
“Honestly, I care only about US casualities. Those folks have been killing each other for a millenia…and it won’t stop once we leave either.”
Surely the Iraqis care about their casualties. You seem to want to put the “casual” back into casualties.
Regardless of the fact that violence is a known factor in the Middle East, it is their choice to make it so. Our ratcheting up the violence solves nothing, and only helps to convince those on the fence that we are who our enemies say we are.
“Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit. Don’t appease it.”
You see, that’s where you are so very wrong. If you break the spirit of an animal, you get a broken animal, useless for anything but fear, and no longer trainable.
A fearful animal will not lick your hand, it will turn on you in a heartbeat, if only out of self preservation.
Your’s is a very foolish tact, that will only lead to more and more violence, with even more extreme consequences for America in the future.
“Yeah, unfortunately all the progress is being made by the insurgents”
Not really. That’s just all that our media shows.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html
“Personally I’d love to know why all you Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors haven’t gone yourselves. If this is so important, and such a noble cause, why haven’t you joined up to fight and win it?”
Probably close to why all the left supporting arm-chair generals don’t pay for their “noble causes” themselves, but instead would rather have govt force everybody else to do it for them.
Of course, military service is voluntary, which is why such a large majority of it are more supportive of Republicans, so in all truthfullness, it is the “Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors” who are in the military.
They do not want govt to force people to join either. They believe people should have the right to think for themselves and they serve to protect that right.
Can this “practicing what the preach” be said of the other side? Not at all!
“But have you ever entertained the thought that maybe the story we’re being presented with happens to be the simple truth?”
People know it is the truth, its just not all of the truth. Most of us believe all of the truth should be given to us.
“Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it”
How about an honest source? Or are you guys still being told to ignore facts?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html
“why can’t some of the fine journalists listed above come up with just one measly story a day about how great things are going there?”
Because it doesn’t sell and because it doesn’t help with their election desires.
Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 11:23 AMSE,
Honestly, I care only about US casualities.
That’s fair game. Let’s play it too. I don’t care one bit about US casualties. You country is the agressor in this war. You want it. You have it. Deal with its consequences. You and all chicken hawks deserve your casualties.
What? I’m unpatriotic traitor? I’m outrageous?
And?
Okay, in fact I can’t play this game because it’s too unfair. Your soldiers didn’t all choose to go (again and again and again) in Iraq. Most of them choosed to enter army, not necessarily violence. They don’t deserve this war, their commander in chief incompetence, but they pay the consequences of their career choice.
Iraqis civilians never got this choice. Violence was released over them (Shock and Awe), and between them since.
Honestly, I care about pretty much all casualties. Death is hardly a peace tool. Death of US moral and superpower high ground is also one of the casualties I’m worried about…
Let us say you are driving your car and it goes suddenly out of control and you are swirving all over the place. On one side of the street is a mom pushing her baby in a carriage. On the other side is an old man walking . Necessity says that if order to save the two (mom and baby) if control of the car is regained and the old man dies, it is not a homicide.
LOL.
You lost your car control, you kill one or more people, you’re responsible for homicide(s). Period. If you can’t control you car, don’t drive it.
I guess many elders will watch you your car very carefully now, BTW.
Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit.Don’t appease it.
Never EVER turn your back on a beaten animal. Or you’re dead, its spirit broken or not. And, please, tell me you don’t train animals!?
Animals. Man is an animal.
Congratulations, I actually agree on this claim.
An easy and incomplete one, but still, that’s an agreement.
SE,
When you advocate assassinating religious firebrands, you are advocating the same practices used by Saddam Hussein.
It works, after a fashion. It is possible to drive the religious fundamentalists into exile, or shoot them. It is possible to suppress the population through violence & intimidation. At that point, a secular government promoting western values can be impressed upon the culture.
No more Islamic family values, no more repression of women. Saddam Hussein brought secularism to Iraq, and promoted a degree of equality for women. Ironically, empowering the people of Iraq now results in the resurgence of values and practices which we find repellent.
It is not our culture, and it is not our country. It would be one thing if we were invited into Iraq to referee, and keep the various factions of the civil war separated. But we were not invited. We invaded. And we are not welcome there.
It only makes sense to leave. Give them time to make the adjustment. Give the Iraqis a deadline. Offer them as much help as they need in the meantime. And then leave.
kctim,
How about an honest source? Or are you guys still being told to ignore facts?
I guess the USAID guys don’t have enough humor, because their “A Year in Iraq” report should have been title “4 Years in Iraq”.
Anyway. It’s hard to find such site an “honest” news site about Iraq war as 1) it’s funded by US government, not an independent body 2) many links goes to US State of Departement web site and 3) they seems to report only good news, which is strange isn’t it?
However, I occassionnaly stop and read some of their reports as, indeed, there is some progress in rebuild what was destroy, in particular what was destroy by the US invasion. Very limited progress, but at iraqi kid scale, some of them are actually big.
At Iraq scale, that very deceptive. 4 years and only that!
Philippe
No, it is not strange. The USAid group set up to report their accomplishments. They are not a media outlet.
If you do not like the facts simply because of its funding or links, then prove the facts wrong and publish them. Just about any msm outlet would love that.
Yes, indeed there is progress being made. Orgs such as USAid and our troops over there say so all the time, but they are ignored.
And yes, we are rebuilding because of the US invasion. We went to war with them, won and now we are rebuilding their country. I do not agree with rebuilding it, but its what we have done in the past.
It is “very limited” progress only because you need it to be in order to support your views.
Much good and much bad is going on over there. Some of us concentrate of both and some of you concentrate only on the bad, mostly for political reasons.
Man is an animal…Posted by sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 10:03You seem to very optimistic about how much the Iraqi’s really want us to stay and how much better things are today, how we only have to kill enough of ‘them’ yada yada.
Welcome back, by the way. Too bad it seems you’re still drinking that kool-aid. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 26, 2007 12:36 PM
Eagle
Welcome back. We missed you.
J2t2
I have a couple of friends running PRTs. They are more optimistic than the media would have you think. I usually think that the truth will come out, but sometimes it takes a long time. If you have been to the movie “the 300‎ you see the Greek spin has survived 2500 years. My worry is that sometimes the spin sticks. I do not have personal experience in Iraq, so I take as my example the economy. The economy is great, but the Dem spin has stuck on this one. In Iraq it makes more difference. If we believe the economy is worse than it really is that means is we will eventually be pleasantly surprised. In the case of Iraq, we could make serious policy mistakes.
Phx8
Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew? The difference would be it would not be on the news. That is all.
The President’s policy is to bring American troops home as soon as possible. There are many things that could cause that. That the bad guys are killing lots of people should not be among them. That is why we call them the enemy. That is what they do.
Philippe
We are not fighting the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists, Baathists, sectarians and others who are killing Iraqi civilians to make their points.
Re “war crimes” the bad guys are uninterested in following the rules anyway. Surely cutting the heads off civilians with dull knives is not provoked by any lack of due process on our part.
Re Man is an animal
Some people are good; some are bad; most will adapt. That is why we need to create institutions that discipline the bad guys and encourage the good. Security is the first imperative. Some people want to give peace a chance. There can be no peace until the bad guys are beaten or sufficiently immasculated to prevent them from doing so much damage. We certainly are not there yet. But we will not get there by ignoring the necessity.
Eagle,
Welcome back!
Now, is there really nothing you will not blame on the “left wing media”? Bush didn’t send in enough troops and didn’t plan for the occupation. He made many more mistakes, but those two alone are big enough for him to get all the credit for screwing up this war.
As for the rest of you that doubt we are losing this war, or think we’re doing really well I have to shake my head in disbelief. If you can’t accept that Bush made some major screwups at this point than you’re delusional. You’ll rationalize anything to believe it’s not his fault. Why???
Posted by: Max at March 26, 2007 01:48 PMkctim,
you’ve obviously found some very well-hidden news source to dig this out…
And yes, we are rebuilding because of the US invasion. We went to war with them, won and now we are rebuilding their country.Most of the rest of us are far from seeing anything close to a win. Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 26, 2007 01:48 PM
Jack,
“Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew?”
That is a great question. On balance, I would say yes, few people would be killed if we withdrew quickly.
Some of the civil war between factions will continue regardless of our presence or lack thereof. For example, the infighting between Shias in the south will continue, and the conflict between Arabs & Kurds in the north will also continue whether we are there or not.
The attacks against the US and the casualties suffered at our hands would end. The insurgency would be over. So it would be a certainty less people would be killed in this part of the conflict.
But will the Shias and the Sunnis make amends? Personally, I doubt it. At most, US troops slow the pace of the killing. Eventually it will have to be resolved by the Iraqis, and no government imposed by the US will change the nature of this part of the civil war.
Would other nations invade? Some, like Syria & Saudi Arabia, would continue arming the Sunnis. The Iranians would probably step up their support of the Shias. But neither is likely to directly intervene. The biggest concern would be the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan. However, this may happen anyway, whether the US is present or not.
Considering the cost to the US, withdrawing seems like the most sensible choice. Setting a deadline of 8/31/08 seems reasonable.
Jack,
“Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew?”
That is a great question. On balance, I would say yes, few people would be killed if we withdrew quickly.
Some of the civil war between factions will continue regardless of our presence or lack thereof. For example, the infighting between Shias in the south will continue, and the conflict between Arabs & Kurds in the north will also continue whether we are there or not.
The attacks against the US and the casualties suffered at our hands would end. The insurgency would be over. So it would be a certainty less people would be killed in this part of the conflict.
But will the Shias and the Sunnis make amends? Personally, I doubt it. At most, US troops slow the pace of the killing. Eventually it will have to be resolved by the Iraqis, and no government imposed by the US will change the nature of this part of the civil war.
Would other nations invade? Some, like Syria & Saudi Arabia, would continue arming the Sunnis. The Iranians would probably step up their support of the Shias. But neither is likely to directly intervene. The biggest concern would be the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan. However, this may happen anyway, whether the US is present or not.
Considering the cost to the US, withdrawing seems like the most sensible choice. Setting a deadline of 8/31/08 seems reasonable.
Jack,
“There can be no peace until the bad guys are beaten or sufficiently immasculated to prevent them from doing so much damage. We certainly are not there yet. But we will not get there by ignoring the necessity.”
There will always be bad guys, and there will always be even badder guys that foment the hate that drives the merely bad.
If we wish to “rule the planet” through Democracy we cannot do it through fear. Fear will not stop those that wish to do us harm, it will only delay the inevitable.
We need to establish what exactly drives men to hate and bring it out into the light of day for all to see.
Force or violence isn’t the way to do that.
Call me naive, but I have always been proud that America was able to defend itself without the intimidation used by despotic regimes throughout history.
We’re supposed to be the good guys, let’s act that way.
Sandra
“Most of the rest of us are far from seeing anything close to a win”
We won the war. It is the rebuilding that has been so much trouble.
I didn’t have to “dig” anything up to find it either. Our army destroyed the Iraqi army and their leader no longer leads.
The now famous “mission accomplished” line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President.
But the troops accomplished their initial mission and they won the war. To try and take that away from them for political purposes is wrong.
kctim, by any rational measure, we have lost the Iraq war. In terms of lives lost, treasure spent, post 9-11 goodwill thrown away, we have lost. I say this with great sadness as I supported bush’s effort to overthrow the regime and promote a democracy. As a nation that has always operated in a behind-the-scenes, Machavellian way to promote its own interests, the United States efforts here were one of the most direct, honest things it has ever done.
Going to war is either worth it or it isn’t. We either have a net gain or a net loss out of war and, considering all that we have spent, what have we gained? Did we replace on tyrant with another?
w, as commander-and-chief, had a small window of opportunity to make all this work and he has failed miserably.
Do you really think that all this can be turned around in a few months?
Do you really think that the republican party is going to allow w to bumble along with this into the ‘08 elections?
It’s over, and we have lost.
SE, Pelosi doesn’t even have the fortitude to cut off funding for the war; instead, she has to bribe the anti-war causus with our money, by the way! It’s a joke.
We will complete the mission; it looks like we’ll have done it inspite of the Democrats. Either way, we will complete the Mission and the world we be better off for it!
Posted by: rahdigly at March 26, 2007 03:30 PMSE:
Well, this Eagle still supports the president..and I’ll tell you why….and
Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.and
Yes, the Eagle is back…and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends
You have convinced me. Like you said, this President and his admin. are corrupt. I am wondering, however, why do you support this corruption?
KCTim:
We won the war.
and
The now famous “mission accomplished‎ line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President. But the troops accomplished their initial mission
Would it not follow that if “we won” and the “mission is accomplished” that it is time to bring the troops home?
To my fellow liberals who support the recently passed war funding bill in the House:
If you agree that it was wrong to go into Iraq from the beginning, why continue to do, and fund, wrong actions? Would it not be better to end inappropriate acts now rather than later? It seems to me that, regardless of how quickly we leave, there are certain inalienable truths about Iraq.
1. We must engage in a political solution in Iraq. Because,
2. at some point, our military must leave.
3. When it does, a regional conflict will ensue. And,
4. having created this situation, WE must be prepared to bear the burden of the inevitable repercussions.
I welcome your thoughts on this.
The now famous “mission accomplished‎ line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President. Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 02:31 PMPlease enlighten us. What exactly was that mission? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 26, 2007 03:39 PM
Charles
No, I don’t think it will turn around in a few months, but we are no longer in the “war” phase, we are in the rebuilding phase and I do not believe in rebuilding nations with our money.
I did not support going to war with Iraq. I knew our troops hands would be tied again and that it would end up being nothing more than our troops babysitting another crappy country and another political issue used by politicians to get votes.
I do not worry about what the world thinks of us and I do not worry about our enemies loses. I worry about our own troops and to say they did not win the war is wrong.
Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 03:57 PMjrb
“Would it not follow that if “we won‎ and the “mission is accomplished‎ that it is time to bring the troops home?”
Yes, which is why I support bringing them home yesterday.
Dave1
Enlighten you? Puleez! You know what the mission was but your partisan bs doesn’t allow you to see anything that doesn’t bash the “other side,” even at the expense of our troops.
Our military destroyed and conqueored the enemy. They got rid of the enemies govt. They won the war. They accomplished their mission to that point.
Now, if you want to argue that the rebuilding phase has been poorly managed and nothing but a disaster, fine. But, we WON the war, no matter how bad the left wants it to be a loss so Bush looks bad, saying we lost the war just isn’t the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments.
I have read repeatedly here and in comments on other posts that the msm is biased against conservatives, against the president, and against this war. I have read peoples’ contention that the media doesn’t report all the good coming out of Iraq. I remain unconvinced but, maybe that is because I don’t know where to find the unbiased media.
So, could any person who supports this war and this argument show me this plethora of unbiased good news coming out of Iraq? Use any news source, even biased right-wing sources. Just get a count of how many different stories [not three on the same incident] you find and what the topics are. I would assume if there is good news coming from Iraq then conservative news sources would be printing it, right?
Maybe, in order to educate and inform us regarding the mountain of progress in Iraq, conservative news sources should, for the next two months, only utilize stories that highlight the good news. Though, I wonder how long that could realistically last before there was only dead air. Otherwise, wouldn’t it be happening?
The insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are now using chemical weapons by blowing up deadly chlorine trucks in highly populated areas of Baghdad. It’s a strange thing though; they are targeting the people that were supporting them only a year ago. The Iraqi government has reached across the aisle and have taken aboard many who were once aggressively in opposition to the new government, however, the Press seems to fail to mention that in its reporting.
Since insurgents are using poison gas warfare to spread their destruction, and trying to keep the Iraqi people from turning to the other side, perhaps the U.N. wouldn’t mind if the U.S. decided to retalliate in kind with weapons of mass destruction of our own to protect those who were once opposed to the new government. Let’s end this thing quickly with the weapons that we have. We certainly now have the moral highground to do so!
JD
Posted by: JD at March 26, 2007 04:15 PMKctim, I guess my point is that a few months is all we have to turn this around. I’m at a loss to understand why the republicans in congress did not jump on the dem’s proposal to begin withdrawl of troops in summer ‘08. I do not understand it because this is exactly what they and w will be doing if the “surge” does not show complete success. The republican party will not allow this to continue. It’s that simple. If affairs continue to Nov. ‘08 largely as they have we will be approaching the six years mark with 5,000 military dead, 40,000 wounded and a trillion dollars expended.
The republican party and their supporters will not let their institution go down the drain with the war in Iraq, it’s just that simple. A non-binding vote in the Senate with 57 votes means nothing. A non-binding vote with 85-90 supporters means everything and that vote with that margin of victory is coming.
kctim… who the hell is going to be the one to tell our troops over there that they can lay their weapons down now and pick up a hammer, ‘cuz they need to stop shooting and start building??????
I’m sorry, but your statement makes no sense !
KCTim-
Our military destroyed and conqueored the enemy. They got rid of the enemies govt. They won the war. They accomplished their mission to that point. Now, if you want to argue that the rebuilding phase has been poorly managed and nothing but a disaster, fine. But, we WON the war, …
I agree that we “won” the military battle in Iraq. Yet, that is not always the same as winning the war. Also, I think we must distinguish between what OUR objectives as citizens are and those of our political leadership, also defining those objectives would be a good start, before we can discuss if our military successfully completed the objectives or not.
no matter how bad the left wants it to be a loss so Bush looks bad, saying we lost the war just isn’t the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments.
I strongly disagree with both your points here. First, I would suggest that, at least with respect to Iraq, I don’t WANT Bush to look bad, he just does. Also, I feel I can speak for the vast majority of, if not all, liberals when I say it is categorically false that liberals want us to loose this war. I have conversed with you before and I know you to be reasonable and thoughtful. Yet, your argument is just wrong here. Finally, simply saying we have not won the war does not demean the troops. In my opinion, since the troops merely follow orders, those comments are more of a reflection upon the leadership—both military and civilian.
Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 04:35 PMjrb
It is not about only reporting good news, not many people ask for that. They ask for at least some equal reporting.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html
Charles
Its all about politics. IF the surge works and things start turning rosy, hillary (blah) and others like her will be for the war again and Reps will quit distancing themselves from it.
If it fails, hillary (blah) and others like her will say they have been against it from the beginning and the Reps will start up with blame game.
Sandra
War phase. Rebuilding phase.
The war phase was much easier than we thought and the rebuilding phase has been more difficult than we thought it would be.
The initial objective of war is to destroy the enemy and we did that.
My statement makes no sense to you because saying our military fought a brillant war and that we won the war would eventually have to trickle up to Bush getting credit for part of it and we all know that can not happen until at least after the 08 election.
KCTim-
I appreciate the link. However even the bold text below the title is telling. It reads:
$3.3 billion in U.S. aid fixed schools, vaccinated millions of children, restored electricity and created Iraq’s first democratic councils.
First, this was done in 2004. It isn’t very recent good news. But, O.K. Good news nonetheless, right? Well, the vaccinations are. However, what is the state of electricity availability now? Still less than before we invaded. How are those schools? Many of them already destroyed or going unused. And, I don’t think anyone needs reminding of the current state of Iraq’s first democratic councils.
My point, even this “good” news isn’t all that good. Certainly, you’d agree, wasting $3.3 billion on unsuccessful endeavors isn’t good news.
kctim, I’m pretty sure that the “re-building” phase is more difficult than we expected, because all those still shooting at us and blowing up vehicles and launching chemical bombs haven’t gotten the word yet that WE WON !!!
You’re delusional ! and no matter how hard you try to spin it, or what you want to call it, this war is not over! As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!!
jrb
my statement: “saying we lost the war just isnt the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments”
I did not say the left wanted us to lose the war. I honestly believe most of the left wanted us to win the war, which we did. But, in order to say we won the war, the left would have to give Bush and our military credit for a job well done and they aren’t going to do that. Instead, they lump the rebuilding effort in with the war and say everything has failed.
I agree that Bush isnt looking all that great with the rebuilding effort in Iraq. But the war itself is a different story.
“Finally, simply saying we have not won the war does not demean the troops. In my opinion, since the troops merely follow orders, those comments are more of a reflection upon the leadership—both military and civilian”
No disrespect intended here, but have you ever served or been in combat? You do recon, you plan, you fight war phase is over and you begin on the rebuilding phase.
Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.
kctim,
“Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.”
You assume the enemy will fight a war the way we want them to fight. You assume a war will involve Third Generation war, like in WWII, and that will settle the matter. But what we are seeing is Fourth Generation warfare. We developed the Powell Doctrine to avoid this type of warfare, which negates our strengths and even turns our strengths into weaknesses.
It was not a good strategy, not at all, and the war did not end when Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” In fact, it entered a new phase, and there are a number of reasons for that, including lack of planning, very poor decisions, and incompetence among the leadership. There were also unforeseeable circumstances.
Saddam Hussein always considered the Persians and the Iraqi Shias greater threats than America. As a result, he placed paramilitary Fedayeen in all the towns, with huge amounts of small arms stored in each town, in order to keep the Shias under control. As it turns out, America was the biggest threat to him after all. Without intending it, the elements for a guerrilla war were perfectly placed, and the US did not have enough troops to guard all the ammo. Why did we not have enought troops? We failed to develop an adequate international coalition, and using a limited number of troops was a decision made by Rumsfeld, superceding the Powell Doctrine.
It was a colossal screw-up from the moment we invaded.
If you have not already, read “Cobra II.” I think you would like it.
Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 05:40 PMSandra
“You’re delusional ! and no matter how hard you try to spin it, or what you want to call it, this war is not over! As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!”
There is nothing to spin on my part.
Did we defeat the Iraqi army? Did we remove saddam? Do our troops use the same tactics fighting these cowards as they did fighting the Iraqi army? Are those shooting at us members of an organized Iraqi army?
“As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!!”
Thats an interesting point. There are many other places which our troops are in conflict and sometimes die. Are we at war with those countries too?
And some could argue that you make a good point about this being a part of the war on terror with that statement. Our troops are not fighting an organized army which represents a country, they are fighting terrorists.
And lastly, I thought the left swears that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists before, but now Iraq is a terrorist training ground.
Which is it? Are we at war with a newly found Iraqi army who is defending their country or are we at war with terrorists that flooded in after the Iraq war?
There is no spin on my part Sandra, just a refusal on your part to distinguish between the different enemies our troops faced during the war and in its aftermath.
Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 05:44 PMAll
Bravo to all posters on this thread. Civil discussion on a flashpoint topic.
That’s what Watchblog is all about.
Glad to be back!
Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 05:51 PMKCTim:
No disrespect intended here, but have you ever served or been in combat? You do recon, you plan, you fight war phase is over and you begin on the rebuilding phase. Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.
None taken. To answer Q1) no. Military family though. And you are right, the military portion of the plan went fairly well. Yet,