A DIFFERING VIEW: Saddam is gone, so our troops should leave Iraq
I take strong exception to the editorial of Saturday stating that Iraq could become a killing field if U.S. troops are withdrawn too quickly (“The value of the Vietnam analogy”). Surely everyone has seen or read that Iraq is already a killing field for its occupants, foreign or native.
I would like to see how many Iraqis have been killed by IEDs, insurgents and U.S. soldiers since the beginning of this war.
Saddam Hussein was a horrible ruler who, with the help of his family and loyal army, killed untold numbers of his countrymen, women and children. He is gone and unable to resume the position he once held. If the Iraqis truly want a democracy, let them fight for it as was done in the U.S. during our war for independence.
More of our troops have already been killed and maimed in this war than the total killed on Sept. 11, 2001. How many more must die or be maimed while President Bush maintains his transparent efforts to pass this entire mess off to his successor?
Let us get our troops and equipment out of Iraq at the earliest possible date and turn our eyes and efforts to other areas, such as Sudan and Darfur where genocide occurs every day. Perhaps I’ve been wrong that the war was more about the oil fields in Iraq than it is about genocide and despotism, but I seriously doubt it.
If the war really is about human rights abuses, far worse is going on in other countries than what is going on in Iraq, or what is likely to happen if we leave.
Cheryl K. Glenn is a resident of Longmont.
Mr. Glenn,
The circumstances in Iraq are not analogus to colonial America. If our troops precipitously withdraw from Iraq, then one of the dangers is that Iran would quickly move to fill the void, sieze the oil fields and become an even more serious threat to peace locally and globally.
It is unlikely that the Arab nations would stand by and watch Iran establish hegemony in Iraq. Consequently, the whole region could become embroiled in a conflict that would threaten the world's oil supplies and lead to a world-wide economic depression.
Many more Americans died in WW II then were killed at Pearl Harbor. Your statement that we should retreat once the numbers of casaulties in Iraq exceed the numbers murdered in 9/11 is irrational.
It's not about human rights abuses. It's about Terrorism. If we fail in Iraq, the War of Terror will be longer and bloodier.
A stable society in Iraq that will fight terrorism will be a large step toward victory in the War.
Posted by James Jones on August 29, 2007 05:21 AMok cheryl you invite them to your house. When we leave iraq they will be over here so clean up and put a lot of floor space for them to come to your home and doing thier thing. just remember when you dont play nice with them they wont lock you up in a place like gitmo, they just cut your head off. they are not as crule as we are.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 05:44 AMAnon at 5:21 why can`t they come here now? If they can make the trip that easily, why wait?
America is ripe for a bunch of street mob types to invade?
Will they land on Long Island maybe, or Florida.
You don`t think they can buy airline tickets do you?
Cheryl wants our troops home and I guess you want them in Iraq indefinately.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 07:00 AMIt's sad that you guys beleive the lies that spew from Bush's mouth. The 'fight em there so we dont fight em here' BS is so much crap. It's Bush's justification for screwing up and starting this war. No WMDs, no 9/11 terrorists so he has to try and cover his tracks.
JJ do you really think that's why we are there? To keep Iran from taking over? Gee when Saddam was alive that threat didnt exist did it? So we just build upon every lie we can. No WMDs? OK we wanted to rtake out Saddam. But now that isnt enough, its to stop Iran and police the entire Middle East? Just why is that the US' responsibility?
Let's Leave,
"JJ do you really think that's why we are there? To keep Iran from taking over?"
The invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam was authorized by Congress and executed by the President. They well understood that Saddam represent a counter-balance to Iran but the determination was that the threat of terrorist activity emanating from Iraq was greater than the benefit of holding Iran at bay.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of the tactic but the more pressing point is - where do we go from here?
Precipitious retreat leading Demcrats urge would hand a victory to Al Qaeda and Iran an opportunity to expand power.
Running away from the problem will always have a constituency, especially among the complacent. But the surrender of Iraq would be short-sighted and a dangerous policy for the US.
A Commander-in-Chief with this mind-set would be disasterous for us in the War on Terror.
Posted by James Jones on August 29, 2007 07:18 AMCheryl, thanks for the good letter. However, the US military should be for the DEFENSE of the US, not a Do-Gooder Force for the World.
Americans, both the government and the people, don't care about the misery of other people. Our government has repeatedly HELPED murderous dictiators slaughter people, so long as the dictators helped us ( eg -Saddam's Iraq 1979 to 1990) Your decent, humanitarian arguments only give camoflauge to the creeps that use our military to enslave other people and steal their resources.
Many commentors on this site are dishonest or hopelelssly ill-informed so they parrot the lies of our military doing good things and the bogus threat from make-believe enemies. James and anon 5:44 are examples of this class of commentor.
The acid test for integrity about concern of human beings is the ask about Israel. The ill-informed and liars will immediately defend the actions of that evil, supremacist country. They express little concern that 2 million people have been held in concentration camps for 40 years and the only future the "Palestinians" have is as servants, organ donors or corpses. And this is done in the name of God's Chosen People. I'll bet you didn't think
God played favorties.
James Jones peered into his crystal ball:
"If our troops precipitously withdraw from Iraq, then one of the dangers is that Iran would quickly move to fill the void, sieze the oil fields and become an even more serious threat to peace locally and globally."
Maybe in dreamland where you live JJ. In the real world Iran would do no such thing, since they know doing such a thing would result in a bombing campaign by the USA.
"Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of the tactic but the more pressing point is - where do we go from here?"
Well, for starters, we certainly don't give a second of credence to the advise of those who supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place. You know, the same idiots (William "The Bloody" Kristol, Dick Cheney etc.) who predicted a cake-walk to Democracy for Iraq and who've been wrong at every turn regarding their prescriptions for and predictions of success.
Did I leave James Jones off the list of those to be ignored?
My bad.
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 07:32 AMWar on Terror is like a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Too abstract to really mean anything. This invasion was to secure oil rights and has been on the Neo-Con agenda for almost 20 years. History will not be kind to Bush and Cheney. We need to ask for assistance in creating an International peace keeping force and then we need to leave.
Posted by It's True on August 29, 2007 07:34 AMJames Jones: "Your statement that we should retreat once the numbers of casaulties in Iraq exceed the numbers murdered in 9/11 is irrational."
It's not a major point, but it does cast light, or darkness, on Jones' integrity. The above statement by Jones is a lie. All Cheryl said is that the number of our troops killed in iraq are now more than those killed on 9/11; Cheryl then asks: "How many more must die or be maimed while President Bush maintains his transparent efforts to pass this entire mess off to his successor?" It is a legitimate question which many people are asking.
Jones also makes such sophomoric statements like this:
"It's not about human rights abuses. It's about Terrorism."
The reason terrorists are terrorists is because they have no respect for human rights. If they did not abuse human rights, they would not be terrorists
Jones: "Running away from the problem will always have a constituency, especially among the complacent. But the surrender of Iraq would be short-sighted and a dangerous policy for the US."
Who are the complacent, those who sit back and watch Americans die, or those who want to put a stop to it?
Surrender of Iraq? We don't own Iraq. Does turning a country over to its own people constitute surrender? After all, that is the very purpose for invading Iraq, to turn it over to its own people.
Jones: "Precipitious retreat leading Demcrats urge would hand a victory to Al Qaeda and Iran an opportunity to expand power.
The facts: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), co-sponsor of a leading proposal dealing with troop levels in Iraq, have both specifically stated that Democrats are not calling for a precipitous withdrawal."
The facts: "Democratic Rivals Caution Against Swift Iraq Pullout
DES MOINES, Aug. 19 -- The leading Democratic presidential contenders sounded a note of caution about a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in a largely civil debate Sunday morning that also returned to the familiar themes of experience and electability."
Jones doesn't even consider the possibility that the surge will fail. Fortunately, Secretary of Defense is not so naive:
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last month that if the current "surge plan" fails, the backup plan would include moving troops "out of harm's way."
No one, except for people like Jones and Bush, fails to recognize that a essential element in any kind of success in Iraq is that the different factions come together. No one, except for people like Jones and Bush, fail to recognize that this simply may not happen.
Iraq is like our own Revolutionary (New Democracy) war! I am very glad the citizens of the France didn't say "The King of England isn't there, why should we be?" Chew on this...our soldiers in Iraq are less likley (60 per 100,000 )to die by gunfire than the citizens of our nations capitol (80 per 100,000)........I don't hear any call for withdrawal from there! Though I admit at times I wish the left would do just that!
Posted by RayF on August 29, 2007 09:02 AMIraq is like our own Revolutionary (New Democracy) war! I am very glad the citizens of France didn't say "The King of England isn't there, why should we be?" Chew on this...our soldiers in Iraq are less likley (60 per 100,000 )to die by gunfire than the citizens of our nations capitol (80 per 100,000)........I don't hear any call for withdrawal from there! Though I admit at times I wish the left would do just that!
Posted by RayF on August 29, 2007 09:03 AMCharles B
yesterday you said "...what IF....", Today J Jones says "If our troops...." yet you castigate him for reading a crystal ball....What gives??
AF
Posted by on August 29, 2007 09:15 AMSo RayF why don't you sign up? Sounds like you think you would be safer. We need people to sign up, so do your part. You support this nonsense so time for you to go.
Posted by Observation on August 29, 2007 09:24 AMTruth and Dave, thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned comments. I'm just trying to make the point that we don't have a crystal ball to determine what will happen in Iraq when we leave, and it's already a killing field. That was the Saturday editorials premise for stating we should stay there, so that it doesn't become a killing field when we leave as Vietnam did.
Guests on Conservative/Progressive talk radio disagree on the same fact pattern; however, the Progressive a.k.a. Liberal, articulate more substance to their conclusion. I'm an Independent in agreement with Cheryl, the letter writer. Cowardly atheist, Richard Grimes
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide/Risen Ape ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 29, 2007 10:31 AMBin Laden, Zawahiri, and every other Muslim terrorists want us to leave before Iraq is secure.
So does Cheryl.
IOW, Cheryl is in agreement with al Qaeda.
Sleep well, Cheryl.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 10:57 AMBin Laden, Zawahiri, and every other Muslim terrorist wants us to leave before Iraq is secure.
So does Cheryl.
IOW, Cheryl is in agreement with al Qaeda.
Sleep well, Cheryl.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 10:58 AMGunny Bob, I've heard you and your pal, Mike Rosen on KOA. I don't know what IOW means, but I'm not in agreement with Al Quaida. Most of them are in Pakistan from what I've read anyway. This war has nothing to do Al Quaida. Why do you feel the need to post your comments twice? Does it substitute for acting the know-it-all and talking over your "guests" on KOA? I put my money where my mouth is when it comes to supporting our troops, not on my car. I send stuff to them that they need and our government won't supply them with.
Cheryl, who sleeps very well at night, thanks.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 11:15 AMDoes anyone wait for words of wisdom, or wacky comparisons from Gunny Bob like I do?
Someday, somehow, we are going to either leave Iraq or adopt the country as a U.S. territory.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 11:22 AMIOW - In Other Words
From a friendly neutral bystander without a horse in this race.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 11:27 AMI listen to Gunny Bob for maybe five minutes; I listen to The Great One, Mark Levin, for a little longer as his Hitler type rant causes me to hang on a little longer.
Now that top Republicans toss their lot in with Cheryl and more Republican family value Senators are getting caught soliciting in toilets, perhaps the troops will soon be coming home. Richard Grimes, cowardly agnostic
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide/Risen Ape ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 29, 2007 11:57 AMDave,
Iran is governed by religious fanatics who actively suuport terror throughout the mid-East and are currently training terrorists and supplying many of the most dangerous weapons used to kill US forces.
Israel is one of the few tolerant, pluaralistic societies in the mid-East. Arabs living in Israel have greater civil rights than in most other Arab countries. The greatest violence suffered by Palestinians is an areas recently vacated by Israel where Iran fosters terrorism through Hezbollah and Hamas.
You look at these circumstances on the ground and conclude that Iran is a "make believe" enemy while Israel is evil.
You also conclude that our military in Iraq enslaves people and steals their resources.
This type of propaganda may have been effective in the past. But it is a remarkable effort for anyone living in what might be described as the "information age."
Posted by James Jones on August 29, 2007 12:08 PMCharles B:
"In the real world Iran would do no such thing (take over Iraq), since they know doing such a thing would result in a bombing campaign by the USA."
Since your so willing to gamble on this outcome here CB, what kind of odds are you giving? What's the max bet? I definitely want a piece of this action.
If we pull out of Iraq prematurely, without them being able to fend for themselves, the entire middle east will become embroiled in a war jeopardizing world wide oil supplies. Since we do not have viable alternative fuel supplies developed, and we have not developed our own oil reserves due to environmental concerns, we too will be effected. China, the primary customer of Iraq oil will be effected. We'll be back into a larger scale middle eastern war within a few months.
Iran has already announced they are standing ready to fill the vacuum:
"TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.
"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."
Although Ahmadinejad did not elaborate how Iran could fill a power gap, his bold remarks reflected what may be perceived as Iran's eagerness for an increasing role on its neighbor's political scene."
With that in mind, look at what considerations Saudi Arabia will be confronted with due to sectarian differences. They can't afford to let Iran take a dominate position.
"...the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.
Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign." (Washington Post)
I don't believe we are going to be out of an Iraq war unless we can leave with the Iraqis able to fend for themselves. If we pull out prematurely we risk a larger scale, and longer duration war occupying the middle east for years to come. And then, it truly will be an oil based war without question as the world's larger supply would lie beneath the combatants.
Posted by krait 2 on August 29, 2007 12:30 PMCheryl:
If the war in Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, why are there so many al Qaeda there? Why does Zawahiri keep releasing tapes cheering on his forces there?
Please, madam. You put your money where your mouth is when supporting our troops? With whom did you serve and when? Let's compare counterterrorism and military resumes, shall we?
You and al Qaeda have both publicly stated you want the US out of Iraq. Yet you say you do not agree with them. Are you daft? Can you not grasp this simple concept?
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 12:43 PMGunny: No, I didn't serve. My father served in the Navy, as did one of my great uncles, who was at Pearl Harbor the day it was attacked. My uncle served in the Army in Korea. My bosses son served in Iraq, three tours as a Marine. Many friends have served in Special Forces, another was in the Marines when we invaded because of Noriega.Because Al Quaida and I both agree on one issue doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, or that I'm daft.
Cheryl
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 01:00 PMGunny: No, I didn't serve. My father served in the Navy, as did one of my great uncles, who was at Pearl Harbor the day it was attacked. My uncle served in the Army in Korea. My bosses son served in Iraq, three tours as a Marine. Many friends have served in Special Forces, another was in the Marines when we invaded Panama because of Noriega. One of the best men I've ever known served in the infantry in Vietnam. Maybe those who can do, and those who no longer can make silly assumptions about people they don't know and their life experiences. Because Al Quaida and I both agree on one issue doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, that I can't grasp simple concepts, or that I'm daft.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 01:04 PMGunny: No, I didn't serve. My father served in the Navy, as did one of my great uncles, who was at Pearl Harbor the day it was attacked. My uncle served in the Army in Korea. My bosses son served in Iraq, three tours as a Marine. Many friends have served in Special Forces, another was in the Marines when we invaded Panama because of Noriega. One of the best men I've ever known served in the infantry in Vietnam. Maybe those who can, do, and those who no longer can make silly assumptions about people they don't know and their life experiences. Because Al Quaida and I both agree on one issue doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, that I can't grasp simple concepts, or that I'm daft.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 01:05 PMGunny: No, I didn't serve. My father served in the Navy, as did one of my great uncles, who was at Pearl Harbor the day it was attacked. My uncle served in the Army in Korea. My bosses son served in Iraq, three tours as a Marine. Many friends have served in Special Forces, another was in the Marines when we invaded Panama because of Noriega. One of the best men I've ever known served in the infantry in Vietnam. Maybe those who can, do, and those who no longer can make silly assumptions about people they don't know and their life experiences. Because Al Quaida and I both agree on one issue doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, that I can't grasp simple concepts, or that I'm daft. I prefer Cheryl or Ms Glenn, not madam. Most madams I've heard of in this day and age are female pimps.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 01:06 PMGunny Bob, or should I say Gooney Boob, the Al Qaeda currently in Iraq were not there until we invaded and they also comprise only a small percentage of those we are fighting over there (there have been estimates from the DOD ranging from 10-15%), yet if everyone were to listen to goons like you who distort the facts constantly, you'd think that every single person we are fighting over there is Al Qaeda. You should also stop your ridiculous ranting that anyone like Cheryl who doesn't agree with your narrow view on Iraq (more of the country disagrees than agrees with you) is a traitor and terrorist-sympathizer. Everytime you open that sewermouth of yours on the radio, more of us see you as what your really are, a washed up, ignorant, gasbag has-been. You just can't stand the fact that nothing you or any of the other war cheerleaders, both on the radio and in government, have said about the invasion worked out the way you wanted. You seem so eager for death and destruction, maybe you should re-enlist. At least the airwaves would be spared from having to broadcast your venom.
Posted by Beavis on August 29, 2007 01:09 PMI don't like Gunny Bob M.O. of insult just because he considers his opinion of greater value and like religion is willing to kill on account of it; therefore, it follows I don't like Gunny Bob: Me, Richard Grimes, a Catholic veteran aboard CVA 21 and 42 but now a cowardly atheist.
Posted by RG r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide/Risen Ape ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 29, 2007 01:12 PMBeavis... Let me see if I get your point..... Al Qeada, who apparently are in every country on the planet and even have operatives in the Antarctic preying on those cute penguins magically never had an operative in Iraq? Wow, love to see proof of that. Other than you , of course.
Funny thing is, there was a shell of a 727 that they used as a training facility.
And if all you can do is come up with an ad hominem attack... remind me not to invite you a debating team.... at least unless you are on the other side.
Posted by Dravur on August 29, 2007 01:18 PMKrait2,
I believe you are correct with the analogy of the Chinese and the control of the oil. this is a strategic move by the US to control that area to insure energy flow to the US and block the Chinese from controling this area. Every reason given to invaded was to persuade the US population to go along with it. WMD's, Saddam bad guy (even though he was), Democracy in Iraq etc. etc. We are never leaving Iraq, we are building massive bases and Embassy's. 9/11 was just what the Bush administration needed to start the invasion. They knew the American people would never go along with the strategic need for oil for the invasion. It will not matter who the next president or Congress is we will never leave Iraq. Our country may be to bankrupt to recover by the time this is over......
Posted by Mike D. on August 29, 2007 01:39 PMTwo articles supporting "krait 2" and the Chinese connection can be found:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2006/10/china_in_the_middle_east.php
As to the concern for Iranian and Saudi interaction and conflict, I would be more concerned about that aspect than the Chinese becoming overtly militarily active in the region. If Iran and Saudi Arabia clashed over the unprotected remains of an Iraq left vulnerable after our invasion and irresponsible withdrawal, much of the world's oil supply would be held ransom.
I tend to agree with "Mike D" that we are in Iraq for the long haul regardless of who wins the White House. We may retract from daily street fighting to some degree, but with the new bases and other facilities we've built, we're not withdrawing total presence.
While both of the leading Democratic candidates talk about ending the war, both have indicated over the last several months that we will never leave the region totally. I believe that Iraq will have American military presence similar to that we maintain in Korea, Cuba and Japan, to name a few locations.
Posted by darfor on August 29, 2007 02:05 PMSo, Dravur, if we then use your rationale that Al Qaeda is in every country on earth, then we should invade, bomb, or attack those countries too and bring them the same wonderful "freedom" we've brought Iraq. Bush himself stated that Al Qaeda was the smallest of three different groups of fighters (if you don't believe me, go to whitehouse.gov). Most of those in Iraq who we are fighting against are from two, much larger Sunni insurgent groups. Nice try with the 727-Salman Pak thing. That was debunked a long time ago (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) and the human source for that info exaggerated his access to Iraqi government information and later recanted (does the name Curveball ring a bell; the source for those trailers that were supposedly bio weapons factories, the very same ones that Colin Powell cited at the U.N; the same intelligence that Powell himself cited as thinner than thin). We all know how so very reliable the intelligence that led us to war was and how the BUsh administration used it before adequately checking it. So, for you to site that same intelligence here is ridiculous. As for my "ad Hominem" attack as you call it...douchebags like Gunny Bob open the door to it by their own attacks on any and all who don't agree with their own war-cheerleading agenda.
Posted by Beavis on August 29, 2007 02:27 PMDon't forget about the War on Christmas. We got the wars on terror, poverty and drugs.
Posted by just sayin' on August 29, 2007 02:58 PMDear Anonymous, Thank you I actually already have served, as my Father and Uncle, Grandfather and Great Grandfather did. It's obvious you don't even have the conviction of opinion to leave your name, so I can only imagine your family enjoys its freedoms off others backs. Intersting that you say "we", your "we" should learn to part of a team, don't you think that the people of Iraq desrve a chance to decide, and to work toward a true stable lifestyle, maybe it is too much too ask, but just because it is difficult, maybe we should not attempt anything, cause its hard! Get past Hating President Bush, Karl Rove, and the Right and think about the people that live there, do they not deserve a chance to walk the street without being killed.....oh and you really didn't address the the more likely to get killed in DC....or it that where you thought I should volunteer to go????
Posted by RayF on August 29, 2007 03:21 PMCheryl:
Taking credit for the service of others, eh?
That tells me a great deal about you.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 03:56 PMPerhaps Gunny Bob is one of those men who think that someone who was or is in the military is "more citizen " then a civilian.
cheryl sends things to the troops, Gunny, what do you send, kisses and hugs?
Your past service helps the troops today in what way?
Can`t have an opinion ah la 12:43 unless you served?
Well, I will have to step aside, there are others waiting to insult you.
Wouldn`t want to cause a log jam.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 04:18 PMGunny Bob has been consistently wrong in every prediction he has made about this conflict.
Anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, as his judgment has shown previously to be severely lacking.
Plus, he sounds like an idiot on the radio. Kind of like a scared little chicken sh*t actually- about as un-American as they come..
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 04:50 PMNo, Gunny, I'm not taking credit for the service of others, just pointing out that I know and am related to plenty of people who have served. I know how they feel about this war. My uncle quit the Army with just a few years to go until retirement because he was so disgusted with the military and the reasons we lost American lives. He was an officer, he's still a gentleman. At least the sergeant to whom I sent a package in Iraq was kind enough to ask me to thank my still living relatives and friends who served and not try to denigrate me because they did. It's called empathy, but I guess most gunnery sergeants aren't big on that emotion. I'd also like to point out that since I'm a sixth generation Boulder County native on one side of my family, it's likely that my ancestors fought in the revolutionary war and the civil war as well. I've read more about military history than most women because I want to understand it. My friends and relatives who've served have helped me understand war also. I'm not an ignorant, narrow minded person. Ask any jumper, minds are like parachutes, they work best when open.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 04:54 PMFor those who would like to send items to the troops but missed out on the Gunny Bob Show's Operation Beanie Baby (50,000 sent to the troops to give to Iraqi kids by Gunny listeners), Operation Adopt Delta Company (Gunny listeners sending all sorts of stuff to Delta Company in Iraq), Operation Christmas Stocking (huge amounts of gear and stuff going to our forces deployed to Iraq by Gunny listeners), Operation Leatherneck Sheets (nice sheets sent to Marines in Iraq for hot-weather sleeping comfort by Gunny listeners), Operation Smoke Out (many boxes of fine cigars going to the 26 MEU-SOC by Gunny listeners), and other excellent programs I invented to help our warriors, watch for the show's next creation: Operation Leatherneck Christmas, which will start in October.
For those who simply hate me too much to donate via the show, please check with www.anysoldier.com, the Disabled American Veterans (I am a life member), and the VFW(of which I am also a member).
Put your hatred, intolerance and politics aside and do the right thing!
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 04:56 PMcheryl,you are another liberal that writes before finding out the facts.Al Qaeda is a threat to us.They are in Iraq,we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.Fact.Sudan and darfur are not a threat to us.They are a liberal special interest.I don't want our troops put in harms way and our taxes being spent on another liberal special interest.Americans are lucky to have George Bush who caters to the American peoples safety.
Posted by Keith on August 29, 2007 05:36 PMWell Cheryl, I'm sure you have noted how many creeps have taken your humaintarians concerns and twsited those concerns to justify our New World Order stealing of Iraqi oil. You were not wrong about thinking this subjugation and occupation is about oil.
These creeps do not care about the misery they inflict on other people, Sadly, the James and Bobs do not care about
American Soldiers and Sailors, their pretend caring is merely another weapons to use against decent people like yourself.
Radio Bob is employee of the American Aristocracy. They are people with the same attitude that owned slaves, were the kings of Europe/China/India, or called themselves a Master Race or a Chosen People. As a loyal and life-long employee of people he considers better then himself, Bob tirelessly obeys their commands and takes glee in the attacks he conducts. Bob is afraid to become an adult and treat fellow human beings as adults. That is why Bob never had the courage to become an officer. He was comfortable in a mindless hierarchy and was happy to be the sadistic sergeant. His task is to not to cooperate in finding courses of action that are best for Ameica, his task is destroy conversations and insults honest people.
James- what is name of the 15 Iranian aircraft carriers, or their fighter/bombers, or their main battel tanks personnel carriers? Can't you see the foolishness of your "chiken little" alarmism? Iran supports Freedom Fighters(Islamic variant). We supported the EXACT same people in the 1980's in Afghanistan. As for Israel, like the Nazis in their concentration camps, the authorities select who will die and the level of the violence allowed to consume other inmates in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. Tell me about the future of the people that live in Qalqilya.
Posted by Dave on August 29, 2007 05:39 PMTonight from 7-10, we'll be discussing what many feel is the coming war with Iran, as evidenced by six factors/events of late.
With my 135 accurate assessments and predictions, and stories broken, in the war on terror since October 2001 (more than all other media-based military, homeland security and terrorism analysts combined), tonight's show promises to be quite dynamic and thought-provoking. Join us on Metro Denver's award-winning, top-rated evening news-talk program! (You, too, Cheryl.)
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 06:01 PMIf we go to war with Iran, they have a real army and will not roll over like the Iraqis did.
This will be a nightmare. And one that could have been avoided.
Oh, we will win this one, because there is a country to flatten, but my prediction is that the cost might break our country.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 06:43 PMDace
"what is name of the 15 Iranian aircraft carriers, or their fighter/bombers, or their main battel tanks personnel carriers"
You don't understand the nature of terrorism. They don't work that way. They plant bombs in the marketplace, wait for the crowd to assemble and detonate to slaughter the maximum number of unsuspecting, innocent men, women and children as possible.
Or they simply purchase airline tickets, murder the crew and fly the plane into skyscrapers full of innocent people.
So you see thy have no need or aircraft carriers to accomplish their mission.
"Iran supports Freedom Fighters(Islamic variant). We supported the EXACT same people in the 1980's in Afghanistan"
Not exaclty the same. We supported Afghan fighters in their battle against the Soviet military who invaded their country. We did not support Afghan fighters engaged in the wholesale slaughter of Afghan citizens.
You have a great deal of sympathy for these murdering individuals you describe as Freedom Fighters.
Then you must be able to explain the crime, real or imagined, that justifies machine gunning Iraqi boys playing soccer.
Posted by James Jones on August 29, 2007 07:00 PMLet's hope, Sharon, that someone can pull a rabbit out of a hat and get the Iranian terrorist regime to wise up, thus avoiding war. The idea, however, of a terrorist state run by a lunatic like Ahmadinejad is, I am sure you will agree, unacceptable.
Posted by Gunny Bob on August 29, 2007 07:05 PMSo Cheryl thinks we should pull our troops out of Iraq at the earliest possible date and put our military in Sudan and Darfor.
Isn't that pulling our troops out of a country that is trying to find a Democracy in which ever form it ends up being,and invaded by Islamic extremists who want to kill everyone who is American and doesn't bow down to the Koran and putting them into a country to fight Islamic extremists who are killing everyone who doesn't bow down to the Koran?
Does that make any sense to anyone? I don't understand that at all.
The debate about the war can go on forever and everyone has an opinion whether we should be there or not.WMD's is the favorite excuse of why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
The next favorite excuse for not being there is ,there was no insurgents,terrorists or Al Qeada there before we went into Iraq.
After being hit on 9/11 and watching in horror as our country was directly being attacked. Has anyone thought since we went into Iraq the insurgents,terrorists and Al Qeada came to Iraq to attack us there,instead of the U.S.?
I think alot of Americans if they just about this for a minute.
Is it better to be fighting these murders over there or here.Pick your poison.
I think the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are protecting the U.S. by fighting them there instead of here.They want as many Americans dead as they can accomplish.
Support our troops and let's give them all the support and stop all the coulda,shoulda,woulda's and start standing up for your country.
We are by no means perfect but if we have people divided that is exactly what the people who want to kill us want.
It's time for everyone to get behind this war and our soldiers and in the words of ,Larry the Cable Guy, Git R Done!
Just a little humor , so all you sensitive people out there don't start slamming me for a joke.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 29, 2007 07:36 PMNo Amen for you, Can. "They want as many Americans dead as they can accomplish" is just one phrase that shows your command of the English language. The Bush administration is handing the soldiers in Iraq and Aghanistan to kill. Our national guard has been looted of people and material. If what has been said in this line of thought is true, I'd rather have the best strategic minds working on what's going on in D.C.
ANYBODY BUT BUSH (OR OTHER CHENEY PUPPET). ANYWHERE SOMEONE WANTS OUR SOLDIERS AND THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING OTHER THAN DYING AT THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T FATHOM A DEMOCRACY (OR REPUBLIC IF YOU PREFER), LET ALONE PUT ONE INTO PRACTICE.
This area is the cradle of civilization, folks, if you know your history. They've refused change for thousands of years, that's what will happen to this country if we continue the way we're going now.
Posted by Cheryl on August 29, 2007 08:13 PMCheryl
The twelve million who have shown up on two occasions, facing down the terrorists who threatened them with death, have not refused change.
In fact, that they're not much different form you and me. They have the same hopes and fears as everyone else. They just live in a tougher neighborhood.
Posted by James Jones on August 29, 2007 08:27 PMGunny, keep looking for that rabbit. Yes it is unthinkable. Unless we can contain his lunacy to Iran.
Nite.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 08:45 PMGunny Bob,
We don't need a rabbit. The religious fanatics running Iran are hardly invincible.
Their infrastructure is falling apart and their economy is a shambles. Eve
They are a short term threat to Israel but also a long-term threat to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt.
The tide in Europe is turning. Sarkozy has said "an Iran with nuclear weapons is for me unacceptable."
I know...I know he's French but he might actually meant it.
That brings us to the US. The evidence is building that Iran has been complicit in the deaths of US troops in Iraq. Surely, they will not be able to continue on the path with impunity.
At the end of the day, we don't need a rabbit. All we really need is American resolve.
Posted by James Jones on August 30, 2007 07:12 AMGunny Bob says Cheryl is wrong about pulling our troops out of Iraq now because that is what al queda wants us to do.
There you have it. The "gunny logic". Let's not think for ourselves. Instead, lets take our instructions from al queda and do the opposite of what it wants. Presumably, al queda does not want us to drop nuclear bombs on Iran and Syria; so, gunny logic says we should do it.
The fact is that al queda will always want us to pull our troops out. So gunny logic says that we should never pull them out. Even Bush doesn't go along with the blank check idea.
The idea that 160,000 American troops can force democracy down the throats of the Iraqis is patently ridiculous.
Is it just al queda? My impression is that most of the world thinks we should pull our troops out. Certainly, many high ranking Americans think so. That does not make it the thing to do, but it does expose the childishness of the gunny logic.
My own thought is that we should inform the Iraqi "government" of a timetable and see if that spurs them to do what is essential to any kind of success in Iraq. If they still refuse to do what is essential, the logic is clear: we might as well cut our losses rather than to continue a policy that lacks one of the essential elements of success.
Only people like gunny and Jones refuse to accept the fact that our success depends on results by the Iraqi "government" and that such results may never happen. People like Secretary of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not so blind; they have made plans for such an eventuality, which seems every day to be closer to a reality. Gates indicated that those plans would call for a withdrawal of our troops from the conflict, something that al queda would also want to happen, not because we want to admit failure but because the Iraqi government has taken success off the table.
I had not heard of gunny bob till I saw his name on this forum. When I googled him to find out who this character is, I ran across this from the Denver Post; it shows what kind of crazy man gunny bob is:
"Newman, whose conservative talk show airs on KOA 850-AM, is a man to whom rash, rude and inflammatory statements are common. But he unleashed a scabrous beauty last week.
Here's what he said on the air after the alleged terrorist plot to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey was uncovered: "I want every Muslim immigrant to America who holds a green card, a visa, or who is a naturalized citizen to be required by law to wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times."
He also proposed that the government "bug their places of work and their residences" and "monitor all mosques and community centers. If they don't like the idea ... throw their (expletive) out."
Posted by Truth on August 30, 2007 07:19 AMTruth,
You have it backwards. Relying on the Iraqi government to coalesce and bring order to the neighborhoods is the failed strategy of the last three years. The top-bottom strategy did not work.
The Patreus strategy is the opposite: bottom-top.
Restore order at the local level and force the political class to get their act together.
It's early days but the Petraes strategy is showing sisns of success.
Which, of course, is the result you'd like to see.
Posted by James Jones on August 30, 2007 07:37 AMCheryl, I guess I should have asked a direct question to you.
What is the sense in pulling out our troops who are fighting Islamic Extremists that want to kill everyone and kill as many of there own Muslims,and putting them in Sudan and Darfur to fight Islamic Extremists that want to kill everyone who is not a Muslim or the correct type of Muslim?
Genocide is exactly what is going on in Iraq.
So move our troops to one fight with Islamic murders to another country of Islamic murders?
That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 30, 2007 08:45 AMliberals never make sense.
Posted by Keith on August 30, 2007 09:02 AMI'm not a liberal, I'm an independent. I'm very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others, I cannot stand labels and generalizations.
Posted by Cheryl on August 30, 2007 11:38 AMIt appears that the Muslim factions are now splintering in Iraq, just as Protestantism eventually created 300+ denominations world wide.
In the Sudan and Darfur, the government leaders are backing the violence. That is not the case in Iraq where the terrorists seem to act on their own.
Sudan and Darfur are more like Yugoslavia was but the outcome of Muslin extremists is always the same wherever they are.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 30, 2007 12:31 PMIf we lose the war in Iraq the reason will be because of the aid and comfort that the Democrat party and media have given the terrorists.The only question is why does the Democrat controled media and the Democrat party want the terrorists to win? I think it is because "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
Posted by An American on August 30, 2007 12:54 PMGunny Bob is quite possibly the stupidest personality on local radio. That is par for the course given that stations like KOA employ inflammatory voices and could care less about journalistic integrity.
Virtually everything Gunny Bob ever says is wrong.
Here's a few examples compiled by Colorado Media Matters: (Here's where the tweaker attack the messenger, but I would ask them in advance: how can the transcript lie?)
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issues_topics/shows/thegunnybobshow
If we lose the war it will be because cowards ike Keith, Uno, Hank, An American who refuse to fight for their beliefs. Thet sit here i the US and cheer the war but refuse to fight it.
If we lose its because we never should have been there!
As you can see I hit a nerve with More American.He knows what I said was true about the Democrat party helping the terrorists win the war.He thinks it is wrong that we support our troops because he wants the terroists to win.He is in the US hating wing of the Democrat party.He says we should have not gone to Iraq.That is because he is also in the coward wing of the Democrat party and will not fight for anything.Class over.
Posted by An American on August 31, 2007 11:23 AMFirst of all,Colorado Media Matters is controlled by the left wing Democrats.Charles Bs real reason for hating Gunny Bob is because Bob is a supporter of the Second Amendment.The Democrats fear the armed citizen so they attack anyone that supports the right of the people to own firearms.The Democrats are cowards.
Posted by An American on August 31, 2007 11:36 AMWhy do you think Democrats failed on talk radio?It is because their lies can be countered by the callers.The Democrats can not control the flow of information the way they have for years in the mainstream media.If you listen to talk radio you will see how stupid the liberals really are.I highly recommend listening to Mark Levin, 740 AM.9-11 PM.He is a Constitutional Lawyer.The liberals hate him because he tells the truth about the Second Amendment.As you know the Democrats are cowards and do do support gun rights.
Posted by An American on August 31, 2007 11:52 AMAs an Independent, I listen to both. I listen to the Great One, Mark Levin for his Hitler rant name-calling so many. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Lawyer" or Scholar since interpreting the Constitution is based on common sense: i.e. the final arbiter's collection of bias and prejudice which also explains his ability to reason.
The law of the land is dependent on one final arbiter's prejudice and bias if the other eight balance each other. Mark Levin is on when I get home at 7 P.M. so I listen until my radio goes off a half hour later. Half an hour is all I can stomach of Mark. He blames the democrats, a lot like Keith, for the Senator's conduct in the toilet trying to arouse the guy in the stall next to him.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com Deicide: Slayer of Gods. on August 31, 2007 12:35 PMRichard if you are a liberal I knew you would not like Mark Levin because he makes too much sense for the avarge liberal Democrat[Independent].
Posted by An American on August 31, 2007 01:51 PM