Iraq war & Democrats
With the approval of over 70% of the American people and with approval of an overwhelming majority of congress, we the American people through its military removed the Iraqi government and military. As a consequence we owe Iraq a stable government and a viable military before we leave. I have stated in a previous letter that we should not be subjecting our troops to the civil war that is underway. We should pull our troops back to protect Iraq’s borders and let the Iraqis have the blood bath that they apparently want. Once they are tired of that and want a stable government, we can have our military step in and help where appropriate. If the Iraqi government that emerges after the blood bath does not want our help then, and only then, we can bring our troops home. If we do anything less we will shame ourselves and put future generations in sever danger as the world and the terrorist look on us with contempt, knowing that if they make any future battle bloody enough, we will give up.
This letter has not been edited.
What a curious conception of morality you express in your letter.
First, America invades a sovereign nation, by either mistake or purposeful deceit, and follows that act by installing an interim government of politically appointed GOP flunkies, who bungle the first/best chance at transitioning to a new post-Hussein self-rule government.
And because that wing-and-a-prayer plan didn't work and the country has spun into a highly-predictable civil war, you think the Iraqis now "apparently want" a blood-bath. And it will be moral for America to passively sit on the sidelines while this goes down, and then at some magical future date, when they are "tired" of killing each other, American military can nobly step back in to "help."
America has already failed its moral responsiblity to the Iraqi people, and our soldiers. We have blood on our hands, some more than others, and there are no 'moral' options available from a practical basis.
But neo-conservatives should have the decency to stop hiding behind the morality fig-leaf and reluctantly give up their dreams of owning Iraq. We should bring the troops back from, sooner rather than later.
Posted by on April 28, 2007 03:40 PMWe owe the People of Iraq a "stable" government and "viable" military? Do you mean "stable" and "viable" as in the old Soviet Union? It sounds to me as if you want an American puppet government with a ruthless and tyrannical military that would crush opposing views.
What are the names of terrorists 20 aircraft carriers? How many main battle tanks do they have? Heavy airlift transport? Submarines? Airborne/airmoblie divisions? Steel mills/boot factories/electorincs plants? NONE!!!!! So how does leaving Iraq now, put future generation Americans at risk?
Colin, are you hopelessly naive and really believe the stuff you are saying? The New World Order ( which own Bush et al) are dishonest, cynical, greedy slave-owners that want the people and resources of Iraq to be placed in their asset list. Open your eyes and see reality.
Posted by Dave on April 28, 2007 04:23 PMColin you are so right. The democrate voted for this war and now they want us to cut and run leaving the people of Iraq to the terrorists. Nice politics dems.
Posted by Sam on April 28, 2007 07:56 PMThe Democrats who were elected last November on an end-the-war platform have successfully pressured those Democrats (and increasing numbers of Republicans) who authorized military action to 'fess up to being duped and start process of cleaning up the mess that Bush/GOP created in Iraq. Most of the public, who supported Bush first in Afganistan and later in Iraq, have come to their senses too.
The political process ain't going to be pretty, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicants take the White House in 2008. Along the way we can expect to see more of the confused "cut-and-run" sniping from the peanut gallery. Fairly harmless at this point, as the tipping point was reached several months ago.
Once again another lame response completely ignoring what will happen to the people of Iraq when our troops are pulled out. Not to mention how it will encourage the terrorists.
Posted by on April 28, 2007 09:36 PMBoy you idiots who can't put a name to your posts.
"Not to mention how it will encourage the terrorists."
You probably shouldn't have mentioned it because it's utter bull-sh*t.
What is this fetish you have with the enemies moral? Perhaps you could ease your concern by heading over there and becoming a one-man/woman "comfort" station.
Posted by Charles B on April 28, 2007 09:46 PMSadam has NOT flown anymore planes into the Trade Center since we invaded Iraq~
It's working~ LOL
Posted by Right Wing Nut on April 28, 2007 10:00 PMThe enemies moral? I don't think the terrorists have any morals. But what about our own troops morale Charlie? What does it tell them when the dems want us to give up...quit...run away?
Posted by on April 28, 2007 10:01 PMCharles B. needs to get laid.
And not with a sibling like his parents did.
To the two quasi-questions posed by 09:36 PM regarding the failed state America has created in Iraq:
"...what will happen to the people of Iraq when our troops are pulled out...?"
Tens of thousands of Iraqis will likely die if our troops are pulled out within the year. Tens of thousands of Iraqis will likely die if our troops are pulled out within two years. Tens of thousands of Iraqis will likely die if our troops are pulled out within five years. Tens of thousands of Iraqis...
"... how...will [it] encourage the terrorists..?"
As we saw with the Soviet Union in Afganistan, terrorists are encouraged when they can asymmetrically fight to a stalemate against a global superpower. For them, it is icing on the cake if such a quagmire drains the finances, military, and prestige of the occupying force. In otherwords, Bush/GOP ineptitude and stubbornness is doing more to encourage terrorists than Osama could have possibly achieved on his own.
You right wingnuts crack me up. All we need to do is empathize with the patriots defending Iraq and we can win the war. But I guess that's not as fun as bombing them.
Posted by on April 28, 2007 10:35 PMWhat everyone fails to see is that the Dems are essentially doing to Bush and the GOP exactly what was done to them over the last 5 1/2 years.
They are forcing the President to veto something that the majority of this people support..even if they are responding more with emotion that education.
Many dems...and GOP'ers for that matter, were forced into voting to support the invasion of Iraq against their better judgment. A vote against the invasion and subsequent support would have been portrayed by the administration and the GOP controlled house and senate as "unpatriotic".
Now, more than 3 years and 3,000 american military deaths later American are sick of this war and want it over. Many now believe that this war was built on bad or falsified data leaving them to question the motives and integrity of those who acted upon it.
The dems have turned the tables and are forcing the president to veto a bill that he knows most Americans support, just as he forced them to support his war.
Iraq is in civil war and the U.S. IS responsible for that. Like it or not, Saddam's removal left a power vaccuum that others are trying to forcefully fill.
Dozens of people are dying every day in sectarian violence. We only hear about the major bombing. We have no idea how many are being maimed and killed every day in unreported combat.
The fact is that our soldiers are no longer there to help rebuild. They're just trying to maintain some semblance of order in a country that is going to implode into full scale civil war...whether we are there or not. Our prescense is helping stave it off but it will not prevent it and in many Iraqi's opinions it only contributes to the problem.
We have already lost this war. We cannot prevent what is going to happen and sending more Americans to die there isn't going to prevent it.
Posted by Thomas on April 29, 2007 07:55 AMThomas,
You're quite right in that last sentence of your posting.
But that will never get through to the War-Is-Wonderful-and-Shooting-People-Is-Fun Party; or its vocal supporters. Even Reagan had to invade a little flyspeck of an Island in the Ocean - Granada, which wasn't a threat to its own mosquito population, much less to the rest of the world - to prove . . . what?
(Perhaps the fact that without a little war in his record he wouldn't rate much more than a short footnote in future evaluations of our history. His voodoo economics being really nothing more than the same old, same old, Republican standard: Make the rich richer, and to hell with the rest of the country.)
Daddy Bush was at least smart enough - or a shrewd enough politician - to know when to quit; and how to make it look good when he did.
Oh, well. Just let things stew along till the next election; and then Dubbya can blame the next President for the mess that will be inherited. Just as he, and his supporters, blame everything on Clinton, including Dubbya's own stupidity.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 29, 2007 08:25 AMOld Grouch,
You're not going to get any love-for-Reagan from me.
Attacking little, tiny Grenada was NOTHING compared to his lack of action on the evolving AIDS epidemic - NOTHING.
Reagan not only refused to publicly ackowledge the issue himself, but he refused to allow Surgeon General C. Evert Koop from publicly addressing it much less creating policy around it. Koop wrote about his frustration with Reagan on this issue himself in his autobiography.
By the time Reagan finally acknowledged the existence of the disease on April 1, 1987, nearly 60,000 people were already dead and hundreds of thousands were already infected.
We'll nevver know how many lives could have been saved or how many infectons could have been prevented if Reagan had addressed the issue earlier and make funding available for research and prevention education.
Reagan is no hero in my book.
On the contrary, I think being afflicted with Alzheimers was a tragic but divine retribution. He was the most powerful man in the world and because he didn't use that power to help people in need, he was deprived of the memory of his his personal accomplishment If he had any conscience at all, it was a blessing for him because it also erased the memory of his failures.
Posted by Thomas on April 29, 2007 08:47 AM"he didn't use that power to help people in need"
Those people in Soviet states weren't helped by the collapse of the USSR, they liked living in poverty with the threat of the gulag, it helped motivate them to be more productive citizens.
Posted by on April 29, 2007 10:27 AMIf you really think that Reagan's participation in ending the cold war had anything to do with bettering the lives of the Soviet citizens, you're living in a fantasy.
Odd that you think he went so out of his way to help some peasants living in the Soviet republics but you blatantly disregard the fact that he ignored an epidemic and the suffering it cause among his own people.
It always cracks me up the way neo-cons give so much credit to Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union...as if it wasn't going to happen on it's own..I'll give him credit for jumping on the bandwagon once it started rolling but the USSR was already crumbling.
Posted by Thomas on April 29, 2007 10:51 AMHooray Thomas. What you said about the Soviet Union is what all thinking people figured out.
Reagan and AIDS, while the evangalists on tv were thanking God for AIDS, because it showed his contempt for gays, Reagan stalled and stalled on research. Disgusting man.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 29, 2007 11:20 AMIn our Revolutionary War Americans (George Washington, et al) were considered terrorists; whereas, they considered themselves patriots. Get my drift?
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com on April 29, 2007 02:11 PMrichy grimyone,We get your drift,you are a total idiot.Did I write slow enough for a idiot of your caliber to injest.Meatball
Posted by Keith on April 29, 2007 09:58 PMKeith, everything you post is pathetic, Even your insults are 3rd grade and lacking in imagination. I always expect you to go nanana at the end. What stops you?
Are you afraid we might snicker.?
Posted by Sharon B. on April 29, 2007 10:37 PMRightWingNut 10:00-
Saddam didn't fly the planes into buildings. Goons of Osama Bin Laden did. At least he has been captured and is in jail-oh wait, he's not.
Typical Democrats...just like Viet Nam cut and run.
Dems= Soft wimpy(let's just talk Mr. Terrorist)
cowards!!
When the Americans pulled out of Saigon, leaving the Viet Namese to the mercies of the Viet Cong, et. al., Mr. Nixon was President, and Mr. Kissinger was Secretary of State. Neither of them was recognized as a Democrat then; nor would either be now so recognized, or acknowledged.
Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that Mr. Kissinger took away a Nobel Peace Prize, while "cutting and running"; something not very likely to be in the works for Bush, or anyone else in the current Administration.
Posted by Diogenes on April 30, 2007 02:52 PMThese wingnuts who talk about Democrats being "cowards" and people who "cut and run" are blowhards who sit here in the US flapping their big mouths from the comfort of home and for the most part haven't sacrificed a damn thing. Just like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz (another crook) and the rest of the yellow neo-cons
They're too stupid to realize that when you do the same thing over & over and expect a different result - its called "insanity" not foreign policy. But when you willingly elect a commander in chief like Bush, you have to have a thick skull - I'm sure Keith does.
Posted by Drew on April 30, 2007 03:08 PMIf we had left a month ago, around 100 of our troops would be alive and back home with their families.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 08:20 PMdrew,A skull with a brain.I think you are a product of a late term abortion,They suck out your brain but you still are alive.Amazing.
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 09:53 AMKeith,
I think you're mad because you don't get out enough - here's my advice: jump out of the la-z-boy, turn off the Dukes of Hazard, lock up the trailer in Commerce City, put some malt liquor in the '73 caprice classic and go DO something - and, no, the tractor pull doesn't count!
Posted by Drew on May 2, 2007 01:10 PM