August 10, 2005
Don't You Just Love the Smell of Vietnam Throughout Your Day?
Is there any end to the chaos, maelstrom, malice, and violence that has become Iraq? How many out there in pundit land still think that attacking this country was a good idea? Is this Bush’s idea of democracy? Is it anyone’s?
More U.S. troops have been killed in the opening days of this month then all of last month, and the blood letting show no signs of letting up. Iraqis too are dying at record numbers as it appears old scores are settled between the two opposing factions of Islam. If this keeps up, there will not be a country left saving, nor Army or Marines Corps left to police it with. That of course is a gross exaggeration of the case but, how many more American men and women have to die to establish democracy in a region that has never know it, nor shows any sighs that they will ever embrace it?
In continuing violence, the United States military announced today that four American soldiers were killed on Tuesday and six others were wounded when insurgents attacked a patrol near Baiji in northern Iraq. Two Iraqi policemen and four civilians were killed in a suicide car bombing today in western Baghdad, the Interior Ministry said.
Lets fact it, the invasion of Iraq was a fool's errand from the beginning, instigated by a supercilious dullard whose grasp of the world is confined the back of Crackerjack box. And what he can gleam from the Where in the World is Matt Lauer segments of the Today Show. Is my anger and distain for Bush, his Administration, and this life-wasting enterprise they are calling the War on Terror showing? I hope so!
Our men and women are dying for nothing and Iraqis are loosing their lives because our President (and I use the term very, very loosely) wanted to show the world how big an idiot he really was, as if opening his mouth and speaking of that which he knows not of, wasn't enough. I still scratch my head and wonder that Bush won re-election. That two men, or women kissing, and loving one another enough to want to create a family (you know that thing conservatives claim is the backbone of American society, yet they undermine every chance they get), was more important to half the electorate than their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, cousins, and in-laws dying in grand numbers for an unjust cause in a desert thousands of miles from home. And that championing the rights of the un-conceived and just-conceived were more important then the millions of children at risk because they lack decent, affordable healthcare. Or more important than their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers have to go to another country for affordable medichine...but I digress.
The Task Force Liberty soldiers were investigating a rocket-propelled grenade incident when an anti-tank mine exploded and hit an armored Humvee, a military spokesman in Mosul said.
Iraq has now become this generations' Vietnam, only without the protests (college students, returning soldiers, others, where are you?), the anger at home, the burning flags, or the spit at the airport. But the senseless violence and dying are the same, as is the failed policies that took this nation to war once more without a plan to win, and the wanton disregard for the rule of law. And now it appears as though Iran has joined the fray, if we can trust anything Rummy has to say. So many lives lost for what? For what? FOR WHAT?
Lives lost for what you ask? Why, it’s to bring democracy to an area that doesn’t want democracy. Where are the protestors you ask? They aren’t supposed to protest anymore because if they disagree with anything this administration says or does, they are traitors, hadn’t you heard?
However, I ask the same thing. It seems like 40 years ago we had large numbers of people who were more concerned with what was happening in the world than in purchasing the largest Hummer and big-screen tv. They were willing to sacrifice for what they believed was right. Where are the preachers who should be imploring their flocks to stand up for what is morally right, not politically expedient? Where are the folk groups writing their insightful lyrics? Why are we still, even after knowing for years how wrong it is, relying on foreign oil?
We’ve become so selfish and complacent as a nation, I’m really at a loss as to how to extricate ourselves from this mess. Every conversation on this blog starts out with wonderful conversations and suggestions and then degrades to name-calling and inane assumptions about the other side. What kind of a wake-up call will it take to make us finally unite and work for the good of our nation and all the world’s citizens?
Thanks, just expressing my frustrations and opinions.
Jackie
Congratz on a well spun post.
No point in arguing when the other side will just plug their ears and go “LA LA LA LA”…
My point is that there are plenty of stories out there that show we are making a difference. But you only choose to hear/read/link to the ones you want to hear.
If you had been in Iraq before this war and posted the article above in reference to Saddam invading Kuwait you would probably not have lived to see the responses.
I would imagine that if you went there and asked one of the Iraqi people standing in line to become a police officer (even though someone had bombed that very place the day before) your question “For What?”, they would be happy to give you many reasons. My guess is that somewhere near the top of their list would be Freedom.
Posted by: BradM at August 10, 2005 03:25 PMRight Brad, so obviously the solution is to invade their country and tell them exactly what freedom means within the narrow parameters dictated to them by the US. that wont piss them off and make them violent or anything.
Posted by: Vex at August 10, 2005 03:34 PMYour post compares Iraq in some respects to Vietnam. It actually took many, many years for the believers in our presence in Vietnam to figure out that it was wrong. I believe that’s happening here too. With such entrenched beliefs on both the right and left, it’s difficult to find the middle. Just as we heard “America, love it or leave it” then, it’s being repeated now. Accusations that we’re only listening to the bad that happens is one of those assumptions that do no good at all in solving things. The news that I hear on all media contains both the good and the bad. Balancing it all is the hard part. Ignoring the bad won’t accomplish anything.
Posted by: Jackie at August 10, 2005 03:47 PMVEM -
If Vietnam proved anything, it’s that body counts and minor victories don’t matter. What matters is the war for the hearts and minds, a war we lost miserably in Vietnam. However, a lot has changed, and most Iraqis are buying into the democratic experiment. If I was Zarqawi right now, I’d be panicking: he’s used every trick in his playbook, and it has had less of an impact on the Iraqi democratic process than a peashooter would have on a tank.
The U.S. will continue to lose soldiers as long as we maintain forces in hostile regions. Period. But the body count isn’t how we keep score anymore; now it’s the vote count, and if Iraqis are willing to go to the polls again this winter and we can pull our troops out, the mission will have been a success, however misguided and myopic it was at its outset.
Posted by: Chops at August 10, 2005 03:55 PMBrad M,
“Every conversation on this blog starts out with wonderful conversations and suggestions and then degrades to name-calling and inane assumptions about the other side.” Posted by Jackie
I think you’ve proven Jackie’s point.
Those who support this war and this administration always call an opinion that counters their beliefs spin.
Why?
Have you become so caught up in being right that you can’t look at another point of view without attacking it?
That sounds alot like the political tactics of this administration.
I would love to say I am wrong about this war. I would love to say we did the right thing and this President took an unpopular stand that brought Democracy to the oppressed and helped fight terror, making the world a safer place.I as an American don’y enjoy being ashamed of my government.
There’s only one problem. Facts(You know, those pesky little things that get omitted by this administration or should I say lost in translation aka.Rummyspeak)
Iraq is a country like others in the Middle East whose politics/system of government incorporates religious doctrines. This has been true since the beginning of time and will remain so until the end of time.
We continue to talk about giving them freedoms, creating a democracy in the image of ours and so on. An interesting thing about freedom is that in our definition, FREEDOM/RIGHTS is the guarantee of our ability to do anything we wish (qualified by law, etc.)
In a religion based form of government, some of the simple freedoms we have would be forbidden by the very foundations of the religion. In Iraq, there can never be a seperation of church and state.
Posted by: steve smith at August 10, 2005 05:07 PMAs someone who opposed the Vietnam war in the streets; the comparison is silly. In Vietnam we kept a democratic election from occuring and maintained a progression of dictators until the end. In Iraq, we deposed a dictator and are attempting to encourage the formation of a constitutional democracy.
Whether in the end that works or not; the determination of a number of jihadhi foreign terrorists willing to kill their own and ex-Baathists trying to return to the power of Saddam can in no way be compared to the National Liberation Front in Vietnam.
So, some good news from Iraq and some places where you may find that Iraqi’s do aspire to freedom: Baghdadee; Free Iraqi; Friends of Democracy; Iraq the Model. Someone will say these are all anti-terrorist sites (sorry, insurgent for these folks sticks in my craw. Ho Chi Minh would roll over in his grave). There is some truth to that.
Of course, from the thread most of you do not need a source for anti-US opinions or views that we should leave the Iraqi’s to kill each other without our presence. These are all places where you can present these opinions and have open discussions with Iraqis who may challenge your views.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 10, 2005 05:55 PMYou know what is funny?
So often on the left we hear that their free speech is being trampled, that nobody dares criticize the President or that the Administration is stifling critics. Yet we hear a lot of speaking that is critical of the President. In fact, we sometimes hear little else. I guess the Administration just isn’t very good at stifling critics.
Bush Bashing! I LOVE IT!!!
Why don’t you just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at that? Huh?
OK…you want some of those pesky little things…facts?
OK, here we go.
President Harry Truman started a war in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
Do I hear anyone here calling Truman “a supercilious dullard whose grasp of the world is confined the back of Crackerjack box. And what he can gleam from the Where in the World is Matt Lauer segments of the Today Show.”?
Just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at that.
John F. Kennedy….started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson…turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Do I hear anyone here calling Kennedy “a supercilious dullard whose grasp of the world is confined the back of Crackerjack box. And what he can gleam from the Where in the World is Matt Lauer segments of the Today Show.”?
Just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at that.
Do I hear anyone here calling Johnson “a supercilious dullard whose grasp of the world is confined the back of Crackerjack box. And what he can gleam from the Where in the World is Matt Lauer segments of the Today Show.”?
Just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at that.
If you are complaining about how long the war is taking, look…It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons since we’ve been in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.
What are we there for? Why are we still there? Just ask all the Iraqis with the “purple fingers” who got to vote for the first time in 50 years.
They will not hesitate to tell you.
But, of course, Iraqis don’t deserve freedom, do they? I mean, they’re just third world sub-humans who deserve to live under a brutal and murderous dictatorship. Right? Freedom is for Americans ONLY. We need to lock it away so none of the people living under the rule of a genocidal despot can have any. Right?
And we’re wasting people’s lives in Iraq?
We murder more people every day in the US than are killed in Iraq.
What did those murdered in the US die for? Drugs? Money? What?
If we’re going to be pissed off about people dying for no reason at all, why don’t we get pissed off at all the people being murdered every day right here in the US?
What? Is the subject too easy? Does the subject not allow for enough “Bush bashing” to suit you?
Just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at that.
Jim T.~
You crack me up!
Nobody talks about those killed “needlessly” here because that dosn’t get “their” guy elected!:)
Posted by: Traci at August 10, 2005 07:21 PMTraci,
Yeah…I know. 50 people being murdered right here in the US makes page 15 of the paper and 5 soldiers dying in Iraq makes page one.
Sort of makes you wonder, huh?
Well, Traci, have a nice night. Go home and enjoy your sleep on the floor so the bullets fly OVER your head…and I’ll go triple lock my steel door and make sure the bars on my windows are nice and tight.
Posted by: Jim T at August 10, 2005 07:37 PMRudimentary knowledge of history certainly isn’t a strong point for Americans, is it?
During the last two years of his (elected) term, Harry S Truman was a very unpopular president. In fact, he was criticized as a man too small for the office.
LBJ was also enormously unpopular by the end of his elected term.
In retrospect, HST has risen in popularity, while LBJ is still condemned for VietNam.
Should we discuss Nixon? Or Reagan’s popularity during the Iran-Contran scandal during the last years of his administration? The point being… ?
Jim,
Your concern for Iraqi freedom is touching. But when it comes to casualties, you somehow neglected to include Iraqi deaths. After all, they’re not just “third-world subhumans.”
It seems unlikely the US murder rate will escalate. Care to to make a guess on the chances of an Iraqi civil war?
Former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers said in a radio interview that his country let Dr Khan leave at the bidding of the CIA after he had been charged with stealing nuclear secrets.
The Pakistani nuclear engineer worked in the Netherlands between 1975 and 1986 and the government came to know that the scientist was involved in stealing nuclear secrets.
Dr Khan was not indicted by court for his activities. The Netherlands government wanted to follow up the case but the CIA asked it to let him go, said Mr Lubbers, who was minister of economy in 1975.
Posted by: alt at August 10, 2005 08:41 PMphx8,
Did you actually read my post?
Doesn’t sound like it.
Posted by: Jim T at August 10, 2005 09:34 PMAndre:
Those who support this war and this administration always call an opinion that counters their beliefs spin.
Always? That’s a strong word to use unless you are sure about it. I think you’ll find that while I supported the war (and was calling for action in 1998 along with many on the left) I understand and support those that disagree as well. I think that they are wrong but for most of them their reasons are founded in their views of the world and politics as they see it.
I do disagree with anyone parroting the party line, on either side, but those are people you just have to accept, put up with and do what I do, simply ignore. Nothing you can say will affect them. But the majority of people posting on this board will be people who actually use the space between their ears for something.
So please don’t fall into the trap of using the ‘always’ and ‘everyone’ words that ‘those people’ are so fond of using.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2005 12:35 AMJim,
“OK…you want some of those pesky little things…facts?”
Here are the approval ratings for Presidents at comparable points in their terms, according to Gallup polls:
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45%
So yes. Bush sucks. His approval rating is even lower as of today. He does, indeed, suck, in both present & historical terms. As to whether Bush is a “supercilious dullard,” I would not presume to say. Personally, I try to refrain from personal attacks against public figures, and concentrate instead upon their policies, actions, & results.
And in terms of policies, actions, & results, yes indeed, by any objective measure, Bush sucks.
I’m not sure what to do with the ‘factual comparisons’ of Reno, Clinton, & Kennedy to the time it took Bush to pose before a ‘Mission Accomplished!’ poster, the search for WMD’s, and the destruction of an Iraqi military unit, respectively.
Does this ‘factual comparison’ compare like to like? Are these issues of comparible importance? Truly, I don’t follow the logic. Hillary Clinton did eventually find and turn over records, while WMD’s simply weren’t there in the first place.
Again, the curious passage extolling purple thumbs & Iraqi freedom, followed by a passage comparing the US murder rate with “people… killed in Iraq” as being somehow similar, or acceptable, or perhaps unacceptable, you’ll have to explain. Does 50 people murdered per day in the US somehow justify killing 50 people per day in Iraq? How are these related?
Neither is acceptable. The difference is that the death and destruction in Iraq is a direct consequence of Bush administration policies.
Again, I do not know if Bush is a “supercilious dullard” as a person. But for his policies & actions, a person can say with complete confidence:
Bush sucks.
Jim T,
Lock you doors and windows nice and tight, sit down and brace youself because I’m going to throw some deep and meaningful information at you……………………………..Bush Sucks!
Have a great day.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 11, 2005 08:58 AMBradN—
I read a good cross section of stories about Iraq and I know of the “successes,” but in my mind rebuilding a school that we destroyed is not worth a life.
And the only reason those men are standing in line, or at least the overriding reason, is to come into a job! They are few and far between in Iraq right now well, they have very little economic activity, but violence, death and chaos are all thriving industries.
And who are we to define Freedom for another society when it is woefully lacking in our own. Your response still did not adequately answer my question, care to try again.
Chops—
So what you are saying is the high death toll on both sides has been worth it because the seed of democracy will eventually flower into the Republic of Iraq where all will live in peace, equality, and harmony? Rummy stated yesterday that the eventual defeat of the terrorist now running wild in Iraq is the Iraqi Constitution, as if they (the terrorists) give two hoot about a piece of paper transcribed with Western hands. Doe he think the a constitution will suddenly make the Iraqi people rise up and throw the terrorists down; do you?
A vote will not stop a bullet, and a constitution will not change the heart or mind of a radical bent on dying for the greater glory of Allah, and taking as many Americans and or Iraqi infidels as they possibly can.
How can we pull out when the terrorist have set up shop in Iraq? Do you honestly believe that they will let the Iraqi people live in peace? You can’t honestly believe that can you? (Scratching head in befuddlement).
Fleetguy—
So anyone who speaks out against THIS War is anti-US? Democracy cannot come at the end of a gun. And we (the U.S.) were not so keen on deposing the dictator when he was fighting the good fight against Iran in the eighties now were we?
Jim T—
Okay Bush SUX, but of course I can’t let it go at that. One of the beautiful things about the human mind is that it is supposed to learn from pat mistake; you know put the hand by the flame get burned, won’t do that again it hurts. But a dullard does not have the capacity to learn from the past, hence we in Iraq repeating the mistakes of the past.
And you guilty of a little revisionist history here, to wit, Korean War:
On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces crossed the dividing line and invaded the South. Soon, in defense of the South, the United States joined the fighting under the banner of the United Nations (UN), along with small contingents of British, Canadian, Australian, and Turkish troops…Source (Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005.)
Kennedy did not start the war in Vietnam, it was underway when he send and then increased the number of military advisors there. And yes Johnson put in U.S. troops in order to aid the South, and I will be the first to state that is was wrong. But we did not occupy either North Korea, or North Vietnam.
VEM,
I read a good cross section of stories about Iraq and I know of the “successes,” but in my mind rebuilding a school that we destroyed is not worth a life.
And the only reason those men are standing in line, or at least the overriding reason, is to come into a job! They are few and far between in Iraq right now well, they have very little economic activity, but violence, death and chaos are all thriving industries.
And who are we to define Freedom for another society when it is woefully lacking in our own. Your response still did not adequately answer my question, care to try again.
Exactly my point. No matter what is written that might counter you, you will just disagree to disagree. No point in arguing with you about it.
And just to clarify, that is ok with me. Being able to do this is what makes us free. It does not make it any less spin though.
“Every conversation on this blog starts out with wonderful conversations and suggestions and then degrades to name-calling and inane assumptions about the other side.” Posted by JackieI think you’ve proven Jackie’s point.
Those who support this war and this administration always call an opinion that counters their beliefs spin.
Why?
Have you become so caught up in being right that you can’t look at another point of view without attacking it?
That sounds alot like the political tactics of this administration.
Are you kidding me! How did I prove Jackies point? Because I disagreed with VEM? Am I not allowed to do that here? Because to me it sounded like he will only hear what he wants to hear (hence the LALALA comment)… Exactly what in what I wrote was name calling? I said it was spin and it was (in fact I actually congratulated him on it because it was done well)… I don’t deny that what I wrote was spin as well (Is there such a thing as counterspin?).
Look, I am not “caught up in being right”. I agree that there are things that could have been done WAY WAY better. I disagree with many things this administration has done. Honestly, if he were able to be re-elected I’m not even sure I’d vote for him.
What I don’t get it why you folks can say things like “Lets fact it, the invasion of Iraq was a fool’s errand from the beginning, instigated by a supercilious dullard whose grasp of the world is confined the back of Crackerjack box.” and get mad when someone dares to say it sounds like your spinning a subject to suit your needs… My LALALA comment was a play on that childish comment and was every bit as much spin.
The difference is that the initial childish comment is considered “wonderful conversation” and the opposing childish comment cast as that I “can’t look at another point of view without attacking it?”
It’s all spin, and it proves nothing and gets nothing accomplished.
Posted by: BradM at August 11, 2005 11:08 AM
phx8,
OK…here goes.
The original post:
Our men and women are dying for nothing
My post:
What are we there for? Why are we still there? Just ask all the Iraqis with the “purple fingers” who got to vote for the first time in 50 years.They will not hesitate to tell you.
Once again, the original post:
Our men and women are dying for nothing
My post:
And we’re wasting people’s lives in Iraq?We murder more people every day in the US than are killed in Iraq.
What did those murdered in the US die for? Drugs? Money? What?
If we’re going to be pissed off about people dying for no reason at all, why don’t we get pissed off at all the people being murdered every day right here in the US?
The question that is implied is, “Who are everyday Americans at war with that would cause so many totally needless deaths right here in the streets of our country? Blacks vs Whites? Drug dealers vs law enforcement? Poor vs rich? Why are these murders ignored? Why is the subject here the war in Iraq, when the subject should be the ongoing slaughter of Americans on American soil? Where is the righteous indignation when we kill 10 times the number of soldiers killed in Iraq right here on our streets…with no relief in sight?”
The original post:
More U.S. troops have been killed in the opening days of this month then all of last month, and the blood letting show no signs of letting up.
My post:
President Harry Truman started a war in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
Once again:
John F. Kennedy….started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson…turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
True, Truman initiated the Viet Nam war, but JFK did “heat it up” and Johnson turned it into a “quagmire”.
Now…with 1,800 killed in Iraq in two years and knowing that in excess of 36,000 died in Korea in the same time and knowing that 11,600 died in Viet Nam in that same amount of time puts our effort in very sharp perspective.
V Edward,
Yes, as I stated above, Truman initiated Viet Nam, but Kennedy “heated it up”.
As for Viet Nam and Korea both…the US was not attacked. That’s why the above statement says, “Korea never attacked us”.
Andre,
YOU CRACK ME UP!!!
Why do you think I included the
Just say, “Bush SUX” and let it go at thatstatement?
Keep up the good work! HA!
Posted by: Jim T at August 11, 2005 12:29 PMWhy are these murders ignored? Why is the subject here the war in Iraq, when the subject should be the ongoing slaughter of Americans on American soil? Where is the righteous indignation when we kill 10 times the number of soldiers killed in Iraq right here on our streets…with no relief in sight?”Maybe I just don’t understand, but this is the weirdest argument I’ve ever heard for supporting the war. I’ve never heard anybody not be indignant about crime. Are you saying that crime is the president’s fault? Are you saying that the war isn’t that big of a deal? Are you saying that terrorism is really not a problem? I don’t know about you, but I think the majority of liberals would be happy to take the 300 billion we’ve spent in Iraq and apply it to eliminating crime, poverty and class and race distinctions. It would certainly do us much better being used in that manner than where it’s going now. Posted by: Brian Poole at August 11, 2005 09:08 PM
VEM - revisionist history? Be careful of your own sources.
On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces crossed the dividing line and invaded the South… the United States joined the fighting under the banner of the United Nations (UN), (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005.)
In fact, it was MacArthur who helped to bring about North Korea’s invasion of the South with his relentless march towards the border (Truman subsequently removed him from command, but it was a little bit late)… technically NK did attack us first, but we were really the ones who preempted.
And true, there were already “military advisors” in Vietnam prior to Kennedy, but anyone who has studied world affairs knows that it was Kennedy and Johnson - with their catastrophic approaches to world affairs - that escalated Vietnam and got us in the muddle. It took Nixon to call the situation what it was, and pull out our troops.
Source: Lafeber: “America, Russia, and The Cold War, 1945 - 2001”
Posted by: Gandhi at August 12, 2005 02:03 AMWhoa, Gandhi. I think you’re confusing North Korea with China. North Korea invaded South Korea, then MacArthur marched all the way back into North Korea and got too close to the Chinese border. Prompting the Chinese to intervene.
As for Vietnam, you could look at it that way, I suppose. The way I see it, Nixon just didn’t have the guts to do what it took to win. So he retreated. Oh, and Eisenhower sued for peace in Korea, and left us with our current problem there.
VEM
So anyone who speaks out against THIS War is anti-US? Democracy cannot come at the end of a gun. And we (the U.S.) were not so keen on deposing the dictator when he was fighting the good fight against Iran in the eighties now were we?Where did I say you couldn’t oppose the war? I said it wasn’t even a shadow of Vietnam; and the “insurgents” aren’t. It was possible for a lot of reasons to view the National Liberation Front as the representatives of majority opinion in Vietnam. There is no evidence that the jihadists and Saddamists carrying out this fight in Iraq are any more than a vicious minority trying to make the “paper tiger” Americans run away.
As to the old saw of the “enemy of our enemy is our friend” - well it is wrong and always has been. Your friend is your friend. We should have never supported the Taliban or Bin Laden; or armed Saddam. Agreed. So we cannot clean up our mess now?
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 13, 2005 02:49 AMAll this name calling and backstabbing gets no one anywhere.
However, I don’t think anyone can dispute the fact there were no wmd’s found.
I don’t think we can say “we won the war” when it isn’t over.
I don’t even think we can say we are winning the war.
Saying the Iraqi’s writing a new constitution will bring the country freedom, is like saying when Israel pulls back from their communities, the Palestinians will have their country back.
Neither of those things is going to happen with a religious minority controlling things.
Does this administration truly believe that Iraq will blossom into a full-fledged democracy?
I think not!
I really think, if GWB had, just once, admitted he may have made a mistake, his present 41% approval rating would be quite a bit higher.
jcp
Saying the Iraqi’s writing a new constitution will bring the country freedom, is like saying when Israel pulls back from their communities, the Palestinians will have their country back. Neither of those things is going to happen with a religious minority controlling things. Does this administration truly believe that Iraq will blossom into a full-fledged democracy?This is the volatile “who knows whats going to happen” issue in Iraq. What makes you think a Constitution won’t be the beginning of stable government in Iraq? What religious minority - the mention of Islam in the Constitution is THE battle for those writing the Constitution. Who knows how it will turn out? Is there a particular reason you think the Iraqi’s are unable to manage a “full-fledged” democracy? It’s all up in the air and call fall any number of ways.
Will you be disappointed if a Constitution brings a stable, growing democracy not controlled by a religious minority?
