Forget a ‘win’ in Iraq, let’s get out — now!
I think it’s way past time to cease the endless prattle about how to “win” this fiasco in Iraq. Let’s remove our troops, not send more in!
Question: What is there to win in Iraq? If we “win,” do we get to keep Iraq, or do we have to share it with the imaginary “Coalition of the Willing”?
I would like to have our co-commander-in-chief, Dick Cheney, answer my questions since the C.I.C. himself is vitally busy promulgating a strategy — after four years without one — to competently prosecute a senseless war in which the United States alone has lost more than 3,000 soldiers, with more than 12,000 maimed, and possibly as many as 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed.
It’s time to bring the troops home, give Iraq back to the Iraqis (albeit without a leader) and fire Halliburton — now! We certainly hanged Saddam Hussein posthaste, and I suggest we use that same alacrity in leaving Iraq!
Lillian Norgren, Denver
Lillian - Every example you cite sounds like it came straight from the John Kerry playbook. Not one item is grounded in anything resembling fact. It makes me very, very happy that important decisions regarding our war on terrorism are made by intelligent, well informed leaders and not people like you.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 08:35 AMhar har har KW.
Lillian is spot on regardless of whether she echos what others have said before.
If you think that things have worked according to plan, then I would love to see this plan because it sure looks like a mess to me.
As for the rest of her facts that you deny, are you really saying that there have not been 3000 soldiers killed already?
The only fault I find with her facts is the upper limit on Iraqi casualties. 655,000 is a better estimate.
Now about your statement.
Are you really going to baldface it that Bush is intelligent and well informed?
1) "What is there to win in Iraq.?"
Keeping terrorists from gaining an advantage by setting up HQ's if we were to pull out now. Keeping Iran (who's backing the insurgents with weapons) from moving in to rule the gulf region.
2) "We certainly hanged Saddam Hussein..."
The Iraqi government hung Saddam quickly, against our advice. Who is this "we" she speaks of?
Just because someone has "said it before" doesn't make it the truth.
And PS - The US has not killed "100000 innocent Iraqis."
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:22 AMI am SOOOO sick of the Iraq/terrorist/9/11 lie. If you want to really go after the bad guys we know where they are (and have always been) - Afganistan, period !!! While Iraq needs outside funds to support their bombs the folks in Afganistan are self supportive due to poppy production. Wait till Spring and see the *#@! hit the fan. This is especially true due to the troop pull out of Afganistan in favor of Iraq.
Posted by Scott on January 29, 2007 10:44 AMforeign policy cannot be dictated by the ignorant masses. Liberals would do well to educate themselves on the history of the region, rather than eating up sound bytes from lunatics with bullhorns.
Saddam ran a murderous regime that systematically raped, tortured and butchered it's populace into submission. He defied the UN Security Council and exposed the UN for what it is: a toothless body without any ability to create change or sound policy.
We are in Iraq because it was the right thing to do, regardless of what the moonbat "war is never the answer" policy dictates. UN Sanctions killed more iraqi's than we ever could. Saddam had to be removed from power. Conscience required it.
If we cannot draw a line between oppressive regimes and truly destabalizing and murderous one's, we never would have moved on Hitler, and depended up Chamberlain's soft diplomacy.
The rabid liberal reaction to the concept of war troubles me deeply. If the cost of this war is too high, what cost are they willing to pay for a just war? Will we ever be "allowed" to engage in a just war? Does the Left even BELIEVE in a just war? Or will the United States in all its might be forced to stand down from tyranny and the truly evil regimes of this world that threaten our political, economic and national interests?
Will we sit by and watch another Rwandan massacre? Another Milosovec? Another Saddam? Will we join the UN in sitting on the sidelines and watching butchery unfold, unwilling to act?
Will our foreign policy be dictated by people who believe a soft resolution of condemnation is a viable defense against the sword?
Posted by on January 29, 2007 11:00 AMLillian: I agree with you; however, the figure I've seen is 650,000 Iraqies killed and of course millions are refugees. Saddam is hanged for killing less than Bush has killed. Now we have to worry about Mike Huckabee, former Gov. of Ark. and Baptist minister becoming President. He wants to wear the Ipod on his ear Bush wears named Jesus Christ who sent Bush to topple Saddam. Pretty silly stuff when you have god talking into your ear. r22037@yahoo.com
Posted by Richard Grimes on January 29, 2007 11:12 AMYes by all means educate yourself on the region. The middle east is full of tribal societies who do like one another or Americans. We do more harm than good by trying to impose our democratic values which evolved through the centuries to this region.
Posted by ko on January 29, 2007 11:25 AMYes by all means educate yourself on the region. The middle east is full of tribal societies who do like one another or Americans. We do more harm than good by trying to impose our democratic values which evolved through the centuries to this region.
Posted by ko on January 29, 2007 11:25 AM"Liberals would do well to educate themselves on the history of the region"
Ko, glad Im not the only one who enjoyed that comment.
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 11:39 AMGet out now...WHY? Despite the doom and gloom spoon fed to us by the MSM and hacks like Murtha, Kerry and Pelosi, we're actually winning! In less than three months the terrorist Saddam Hussien was overthrown and his army destroyed, This guy used poison gas against his people and others more than ten times killing thousands. He attacked another democratic nation with long range missles and plotted to kill a former US President. Let's not forget the terror training camps, the safe haven given to wanted terrorists and the daily terror against his own people. OH...we shouldn't overlook the fact our brave soldiers and our allies have dispatched tens of thousands of jihadist terrorists who would otherwise be looking for soft targets in the middle east and the west.
Have there been missteps? PLENTY! But one need only look at the history of warfighting to realize that war is not a pretty or simple business. Look at our involvement in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea etc...history is littered with hundreds of examples of bad decisions, underestimations, fired generals and more.
Saddam was an evil man who was a threat to his people and those living in free societies around the world. While I mourn the loss of our troops and the innocent whove lost their lives (mostly at the hands of their fellow Arabs) I know we did the right thing and sleep better knowing Hussien is doing the backstroke in the lake of fire. Even the democrats who now oppose the President's war plan almost universally supported the forcible removal of Saddam dating from 1994 to 2003. That they now want to retreat is cowardly at best and causes the world to question our resolve.
Finally, while thousands of terrorists are dying in Iraq trying to oust the "infidel", our nation has not been attacked once since 9/11. I call that WINNING!
Posted by matt on January 29, 2007 11:56 AMSpeaking of progress in Iraq, US troops helped in a supporting role to the Iraq army and together wiped out 250 - 300 insurgents planning an attack. And around 600 more were killed just over a week ago in another battle.
You won't hear it on NBC, CBS or ABC (or AP, CNN, MSNBC etc...) but the insurgents are actually getting their tails kicked in the last couple of weeks.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 12:06 PMKW, might I respecitvely suggest you go and review NBC, CBS, ABC...this morning. All of them mention this "progress".
Matt, since I for one, would count our troops as part of this nation, I have a hard time agreeing with you that our nation has not seen a terrorist attack since 9/11. That being said, by any reasonable estimate terrorist attacks world wide have gone through the roof since our response to 9/11 began.
Finally I might suggest that while we are reviewing the history of warfighting we also take a few minutes to review the history of occupations, especially within the middle east.
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 12:37 PMFLIM said "by any reasonable estimate terrorist attacks world wide have gone through the roof since our response to 9/11 began"
I say: Think how much worse it would be if we weren't killing them by the thousands. Keep in mind the vast majority of these attacks are by muslims against non-muslims in their own countries (Iraq, Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan) to name but a few places the "religion of peace" slaughters non-believers en masse. Of course there's Spain, England and the Netherlands where multiculuralism and passivity in the face of evil have emboldened terrorists to commit savage acts of murder. On the other hand there's little Israel where succesful terror attacks have decreased due to the security fence and more active policing (killing bad people before they can cause harm).
As for occupation of the middle east and its consequences I am not sure what you are referring to. Is it the Romans? The Greeks? Phillistines? Hittites? Babylonians? Persians? Crusaders? Seljeks? Ottoman Turks? The Germans in North Africa? The Soviets in Persia? The French in the Levant? The British in Palestine? Iraq in Kuwait? Syria in Lebanon?
OK...Now what? The middle east has a history of occupation as old as history and I left out Pharoh's Egypt, the Mongol hordes and about a half a dozen others. What's your point?
Posted by Matt on January 29, 2007 01:13 PMFlimflam - That's incorrect. NBC & ABC have the AP story (for what thats worth) posted on their sites but nothing more. CBS does have their own reporters comments in which they quickly interjected how the Iraq army is still "very reliant" on US forces even though this was an Iraq led battle.
None of the 3 reports mention anything about the "progress."
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 01:29 PMIm sorry, but what you are saying makes no sense whatever. Does it occur to you that the reason terrorist attacks are increasing may be because were are "illing them by the thousand"
Terror attacks were at level A for a great many years.
We invade and kill thousands.
Terror attacks increase to level B.
It would seem to me that the logical inference is that invasion and killing actually leads to an increase in terror attacks. All these thousands of people we have killed, they all have friends, relatives, families, just like you and me. Put, yourself in their shoes for a few seconds.
China has invaded Fort Collins and killed off many of your friends and family and obliterated your neighborhood. You dont see yourself looking for revenge at all?
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 01:38 PMKW, the media is supposed to be objective remember. Many people might disagree as to whether this represents "progress" or not. Believe it or not it is not the role of the media to be a mouthpiece for this administration
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 01:45 PMFlim - Terror attacks in the USA since 9/11... ZERO!
That's progress.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 01:45 PMCould you at least ask the media to be start being objective then. For the last six years they're nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left.
Posted by on January 29, 2007 01:50 PMKW, terror attacks worldwide (see above) have increased significantly since 9/11.
The last terror attack in the US before 9/11 was what 1993? So really, how can we call it progress until after 2009, 8 yrs after 9/11 if thats how you are going to measure it?
It is not the responsibility of the media to be a mouthpiece for this administration. I am sorry if sometimes they report things you dont like. We must have been living on different planets for the past six years. Even that bastion of liberality the New York Times had Judith Miller
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 02:04 PMAll comments seem viable; however, we live under a Constitution which does not say: Go forth and teach all nations.
Posted by Richard Grimes on January 29, 2007 02:12 PMIt occurs to me FLIMFLAM (isn't that the same as wishy washy?) that terror attacks have increased because we have stood by and done nothing since our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists in Tehran in 1979 emboldening the enemies of freedom across the muslim world. It occurs to me that the limp response to terror by Carter (Iran) Reagan (Lebanon and Saudi Arabia), Clinton (WTC #1, Dual Embassy Attacks, Let Bin Laden get away etc...) have sent a message that terror works. Consequently they have had since 1979 to build networks, train, recruit etc... in anticipation of building a world-wide muslim caliphate. President Bush simply said "enough" and now we are reaping the bloody crop sown over 25 years of western passivity and denial.
By the way, how can you asses the increase in terrorism (when most of it occurs in areas that are in no way occupied by the US or the west such as India, Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Phillipines) to our involvement? It seems to me, that everywhere Muslims mix with non-muslims, Sunnis mix with Shias, or Muslim dominated countries abut non-Muslim countries, there are profound acts of barbarity carried out in the name of Allah.
Finally, I have NO sympathy for a single one of the terrorists we have killed. And make no mistake, the vast majority of those killed by our troops have been terrorists. As for their friends and families, they are not like me and I refuse to consider putting myself in their shoes. My shoes don't stand around when evil plans are hatched. My shoes don't stand around when people preach hatred and murder in the name of God. My shoes know which path is right, just and good and that's the direction my shoes take me.
Would you prefer we fight the terrorists here in the US? They've already attacked us here twice and multiple attacks have been foiled. I much prefer arranging their meeting with the 72 Celestial Virgins in Iraq and Afganistan don't you?
Posted by matt on January 29, 2007 02:13 PM"And make no mistake, the vast majority of those killed by our troops have been terrorists."
Matt this comment is not factually correct, as you have no way of knowing whether who are troops are killing are terrorists or not. What I do know is that tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people are dead because we CHOSE to invade Iraq. Do you have sympathy for them, and if you dont think that is going to come back and bite us in the ass, then Im not sure what to tell you.
I believe that even President Bush has finally had to admit that terror attacks have increased worldwide. I understand correlation does not imply causation, but it seems to me that our War on Terror isnt exactly having the intended results. Maybe we just need to kill more people....terrifying.
Wow!
There really isn't anything to say to somebody that reckons that anybody we kill must be a terrorist and therefore we were right to kill them.
As for "they attacked us here", it just beggars belief that somebody could still be parroting this nonsense so long after it has become abundantly clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
As for the media being a “mouthpiece for the left”, I just have to laugh.
I wonder sometimes just how far they would still need to lean right before people thought it was too much.
Even the NY Times is so far right that they have disappeared up Corporate's central orifice.
FF - NY Times and objective reporting cannot be used in the same sentence:
1/8/07 - On PBS's Charlie Rose Show, Michael Gordon, a NYT reporter gave his "opinion" that there was "chance to accomplish something" in Iraq. NYT later acknowledges he was reprimanded for giving his opinion and that "he went too far."
7/06 - Neil MacFarquhar, another NYT reporter, appearing on the same show when he gave his opinion and denounced Pres Bush and the war in Iraq. No reprimand for this viewpoint.
Do you see a bias here or do I need to draw you a picture?
Posted by on January 29, 2007 02:34 PM"Would you prefer we fight the terrorists here in the US?"
Yes.
If we are fighting here, we know that we are right and defending our country against a foreign invader.
We only have politicians word for it that "over there" is still a just war.
2:34, no, you can't get a decision of bias from two data points. Come back with randomly selected instances of at least several dozen.
December 20, 2001, Headline, "Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms". Story never verified.
September 7, 2002: Headline: "US says Hussein intensifies quest for a-bomb parts".
What Gordon and Miller leave out (or lacked the enterprise or desire to find out) is that Hussein Kamel told UN Inspectors that he had destroyed all Iraq's WMDs, on Saddam Hussein's orders.
September 13, 2002, headline: "White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons".
Miller and Gordon again, taking at face value the administration's claims that it was "the intelligence agencies' unanimous view that the type of [aluminum]tubes that Iraq has been seeking are used to make such centrifuges."
The list is quite long so I wont bother reciting the whole thing, but this is the work of one reporter. You are right there is a bias
Bush keeps saying it will be a disaster if we lose control in Iraq. It will be. It's ALREADY a disaster. The disaster began when Bush and the Neocons lied to Congress and the American people to take us in there in the first place.
Saddam Hussein was evil, but he kept things stable. Now we have shattered that stability, thanks to the madman occupying the Oval Office.
Bush, the Neocons, and their ill-informed supporters are traitors. War is great, if it's fought intelligently. We were correct to go into Afghanistan, where our attackers were. Now because of Bush's infantile bungling in Iraq, Afghanistan is now being re-populated by the Taliban.
Bush's Iraq mess was a war-of-choice that defied all of the best advice and intelligence available. The deliberate, willful stupidity of the current adminstration is a disgrace. By going it alone, and staying the course of insanity, Bush assures that his authorship of the Iraq fiasco will never be disputed.
So-called "conservatives" need to stop watching the Fox Noise channel and pull their heads out of the sand. By being deliberately misinformed, they are forfeiting their rights as responsible citizens of a Democratic country. Bush's war constitutes a major setback in the standing of the United States and the progress of the world in general.
Posted by Ross on January 29, 2007 02:56 PM"it has become abundantly clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."
Glad you could figure that out. Being that only the left and the media have ever made such a statement. Cheney gave a 5 min opinion on terrorists and the media disected 1/2 a sentence out of it to make the case that Bush linked Saddam and 9/11. Ever read the actual stmt from Cheney in it's entirety or do you just believe in the MSM version.
We invaded Saddam because he was defying UN resolutions and blocking inspectors. Even Saddam himself admitted he once had WMD to fight Iran but had since gotten rid of them.
To have trusted Saddam and let him continue to flaunt the UN resolutions would have been foolish at best.
Posted by on January 29, 2007 02:59 PMRoss - Do you work for NBC? You sound just like them.
Please do point out this "misinformation" coming from Fox News. I have an arsenal of these from the MSM and would love to launch them. Where should we begin? Maybe you should start with the piece I pointed out above re The New York Times. Don't worry though, NBC & CBS lie twice as much as NY Times so that file is twice as full.
But then again some people are happier being fed the crud the MSM tries to pass off as news.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 03:07 PMFlimFlam Said: "Maybe we just need to kill more people....terrifying."
Well yes. War is terrifying. I've been in the middle of two of them. However, the goal of war is, was, and always will be killing so many of your enemy that there capabilities are either degraded to the point they cannot continue to pose a threat or they realize the futility of their cause and give up. Japan and Germany and excellent examples of this.
Flim also said: "you have no way of knowing whether who are troops are killing are terrorists"
I say, take the reports of the UN, the Iraqi Government and the US military and you get a clear picture the vast majority of those who fall to US guns are bad guys.
Am i sympathetic to the plight of innocent Iraqis and others (Israelis, Thais, Jordanians, Indians, Russians Brits, Spaniards, Germans, Dutch etc...) who fall prey to the indiscriminate bombs, beheadings and bullets of terrorists bent on creating and worldwide Caliphate? Absolutely! I've seen the damage these freaks cause first hand. That's why I believe we need to continue this just war because the only way it will come to "bite us in the a** is if we quit before we've eliminated these murderers, those who inspire them and those who finance them.
Matt, thats all well and good, but we launched a war of aggression against a country that wasnt a threat to us. So how do we determine how long we are suppose to go on killing people.
I would be interested in these reports you speak of. How do you determine that a dead guy was a bad guy?
Al Qaeda caused the deaths of three thousand people on 9/11. We have caused the death of at least one hundred thousand people since our invasion of Iraq began. How much longer do we get to consider ourselves the "good guys"?
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 04:48 PMLet me get this straight, Matt.
A guy down the road punches your kid, so you go to his neighbor's house and beat up the neighbor's wife and kids, and then when he and his brothers start throwing punches at you, you reckon they must be the baddies and you are justified in setting their house on fire and beating his kids again.
Meanwhile, the guy who actually did hit your kid sneaks a punch in now and then and sells tickets outside, when he isn't doing that he sits on his porch watching you and his neighbor whaling on each other.
Makes so much sense eh?
So tell me again why we are beating on the Iraqi while ObL is sitting on his porch in Pakistan and eating halaal chips.
Flim wrote: "we launched a war of aggression against a country that wasnt a threat to us. "
Flim - Please brush up on the facts as to why we invaded Iraq... Like maybe Saddams failure to keep UN resolutions, blocking inspections, failure to reveal chemical warhead locations... any of that ring a bell?
We didn't invade Iraq because Bush lied and said Saddam was behind 9/11. I know a lot of people like to spread that rumor but pahleeze, get your facts staright.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:06 PMDo any of you ever consider why there are people whoo a want to kill Americans simply because they are Americans? This board should act as a pretty good example of a source of motivation to kill AMericqans. I am hoping that an bomb is placed in front of all of your houses after reading this crap. What a stench of egoccentrism! Maybe its just me, but it doesn't seem like many people consider conceit a virtue. Io dont see why cultures would be any different. Do any of you actually read what the other person said before you respond? A person i knew with a knack for debate once said that the difference between an argument and a debate is whether the opponent's view is heard before being responded to. I'm done, time to go vomit.
Posted by on January 29, 2007 11:14 PMKW, these things you list are all well and good, but these are mearly the Bush governments excuses after we could not find WMD.
Do you honestly believe the America people would have "agreed" to invade Iraq if Bush had stood up and said we must enforce UN resolutions?
We agreed because we felt threatened and were afraid. The problem was that all the fear was made up. I would suggest you go back and read the State of the Union addresses or Powells UN speech. The hard hitting parts and the selling parts are about Saddams WMD capability.
Posted by on January 30, 2007 09:24 AMKW - using the acronym "msm" shows that you are a well-indoctrinated Neocon.
Here's a hint: There is no "Main Stream Media." That's a fiction invented by blowhard demogogues like Rush Limbaugh. With the Internet, there are over 5,000 news sources available 24/7 and there is no excuse for anyone to be uninformed, unless being uninformed fits their ideology, as in the case of Fox Republicans.
Republicans who choose to be informed are bailing on Bush like rats jumping a sinking ship. The rest, the Limbaugh kool-aid drinkers, resemble the Japanese soldiers who stayed holed up on isolated Pacific islands for 10 years after WWII.
Posted by Ross on January 30, 2007 12:54 PMI read all of your comments and i notice 1. Liberal or leftist is a dirty word and 2. there are hardly any comments on this page that aren't completely ethnocentric. That is why there is a war- and if you do not want to admit that you judge the war (eh hem operation Iraqi Freedom, let the bird soar) based on your own societal whims than this war of culture will continue like it has since 622 AD.
You limit your understanding of politics by limiting your arguments to this ridiculous right/left rhetoric. What you need to do is open your eyes and realize that this is a global war and your ignorance is based in generations old ideas that this country still has not waken up from.
All of the regurgitated "what bush did" comments are wearing thin. Either crap or get off the pot, if I may express my dismay with any anit-war movements with the use of cliche.
Instead of standing up... you will continue to post regurgitated clips from your favorite liberal or conservative talk shows and pretend that you have the slightest clue about what is going on.
Oh and for those of you that belive that there is something even remote to a just war... There has never been a war in our history that has been fought for any reason but resources and power. If you believe (because an opinion supporting WAR takes a lot of faith not fact) that war is fought for some sort of ideal then you have been brainwashed by years of bad world war II movies and cold war policy/society.
I know, I'll get comments citing examples from world war II referring to how just the US was in wwII... you know that type of garbage. What I'd say to that is look deeper than what you learned on the history channel... we fought a war to rid the world of a couple maniacs only to plunge the world into chaos that we still don't understand and probably won't understand for at least another century. I'm just tired of people arguing about these present day issues as if they are just that... these things have been causing harm to our foreign policy since well before the 1970's or 1980's... broad dates of events that many of you like to cite as evidence. To pretend like the world of Islam has not suffered at the hands of the West is complete and total ignorance. To believe that they have not watched their children, sons, daughters, mothers, grandparents, cousins die because of the ambitions of over-zealous western beuraucrats for centuries and for reasons none other than the 'great' Western expansion is ignorant. I wish I could help you understand but you are all so stubborn that any sort of education would hurt the discussion.
Posted by JF on January 30, 2007 04:18 PMJimmy Carter was the greatest president the US has ever known.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 02:44 AMWhile I am not suprised at the opinions of some that say we should cut and run from iraq. But to do so would be devestating to our standing in the entire region. The message it sends to terrorists is simple bloody their nose and hold out long enough and they will lose the stomach for it and run away. Like it or not we live in a time where we will be involved in combat operations for a very long time in many parts of the world.
We are justified in being in Iraq and no I am not tying it to 9/11. Iraq's repeated violations of the cease fire agreement signed to end Operation Desert Storm opened the door for the resumption of combat operations. The failure to allow weapons inspections and the locking radar onto plane patrolling the established no fly zone constituted violations of the cease fire agreement and the President finally too action that was appropriate.
As a Marine veteran of Operation Desert Storm I applaud the President for standing firm on Iraq and the war on terror as a whole.
Remember radical Islam declared war on us many years ago. And while it is not popular with liberal Americans to take the fight to the enemy that is exactly what is happening in both Iraq and Afganastan. The message that is being sent is clear America will not sit back and allow radical Islam to run free. But to say let's run who cares about winning send a message to terrorist leaders that America is faltering and the long we take the fight to them the more they will falter.
It seems we like a war when it is easy. But war is never easy. America needs to deal with these problem regimes and take the fight to terrorist organazations world wide.
The reality of the situation is every plot that is uncovered and every day that there is not an attack carried out on U.S. soil is a victory. Every terroist sent to Iraq to fight and terror leader captured or killed during operations carried out in afganastan and Iraq is a victory! Every dead terrorist is a victory. But liberal Americans do not want to see it that way.
Victory does not come in a policy that runs away. And it is proven that American cannot isolate itself from the world and hope everything will be ok. Currently those very same terror organizations that were targetting American interests both on home soil and abroad are fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and Afganastan. Where would those of you that want to cut and run have the fight over in the mid-east or on American soil? Do not be foolish and think that if we pull out that the situation will get better it will only bolster those seeking to destroy America.
Wake up people this is a war. And while it has not gone as planned it is going well as terrorists continue to flood into the region and find fighting a trained military much harder than killing civilians on an airplane or in an office buidling.
Wake Up America! The war on terror will be ongoing and we will pay the price but to pull out and hide dishonors those that have already paid that price. Remember "Evil prevails when good men do nothing"
Posted by Sean on February 1, 2007 08:36 AMOnce more, and lets all try to pay attention this time.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
Posted by flimflam on February 1, 2007 01:27 PMRoss, your sincerity is touching, but you’ve missed a few important facts. Yes, the war on terrorism is a global struggle. Yes, failure in Iraq would be a disaster. It already is. Bush, the consummate failure, is in Iraq, and his bungling has worsened the situation. Staying the course is a lose-lose option. An aggressive, intelligent, strategic stance would have been the proper response to 9/11 and Islamic Jihad. Instead, we have made idiots of ourselves with a “Commander In Chief” who systematically ignored intelligence and advice from all the experts. Now we are in a “repair” situation, on the defensive, and with no good options. “Victory” in Iraq will not look like the victories of WWII. Further degrading ourselves in Iraq is not fighting the war on terrorism, it’s making it worse. The best message we could send to the world would be to impeach the criminals in the White House and put military people in charge, not Born-Again idealogues. Bush’s “firm stance” on Iraq is firmly idiotic. His response to terrorism and Islamic Jihad is as inept as his terminology, his pathetic slogan: “War on Terror.” We might as well declare “War on Stupidity” and start in the Oval Office.
Posted by Ross on February 1, 2007 02:41 PMYou are still skirting the issues that are actually pertinent. We love our illusions don't we?
Posted by JF on February 1, 2007 06:07 PMNo Ira did not have anything to do with 9-11 duh. but with Saddam's delaying and refusal to allow weapons inspections and his regime's failure to disclose military capability he opened the door for the events that took place.
Why are we having the issues n Iraq right now that we are? Because radical islam cannot have a successful democratic govt. in the region. It would call into question all the tactics used by govts. like Iran and syria. Those countries know that if Iraq succeeds in the establishment of a system of govt giving everyone representation they will be next and the revolution will come from within. Does Iraqi democracy need to look like ours? No but any democracy in that region is a threat to them so they will fight hard to make it fail.
I find it ironic that liberals are saying how they support the troops but saying in the same breath that most are under-educated or incapable of doing much else?
An earlier post touted John Kerry as one that would have eliminated the problems yet he insulted the inteligence of our men and women serving in the military! What has he really done other than marry into money?
To thiose that say the current Adminitration's stance on the wor on terror is idiotic other than pulling out and "talking" which will not work what other solutions do you offer? If you do not have a better viable plan based on reasonable assumptions then why complain you cannot or will ot solve the problem so do not waste your time and energy!
I have yet to hear a liberal with a good solution to both the issues of terrorism and Iraq and I know I never will because liberals do ot know what they believe and strive to fit in being lead by opinion polls and populartity rather than what is right and fact.
There was a Marine recruiting poster that said "After years of trying to fit in maybe it is time to stand out." Liberals maybe you should try that. Blind allegiance to ideals that are subject to change with the next poll is counter productive and stupid.
learn to think for yourselves not following the next poll! Get a backbone and actually satnd for something no matter what the polls say. Then and only then will liberals ever establish any credibility until then they are simply blowhards looking for the next issue that they can grab onto in hopes of gaining power to push some twisted agenda that will change with the winds.
How sad is that?
Posted by Sean on February 6, 2007 03:13 PM