Questions on Iraq
For those people who are in favor of pulling out of Iraq, I would ask the following three questions:
How many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal? In Vietnam that number was close to one million people.
Won’t the withdrawal of U.S. troops provide a huge boost for the continued use of worldwide terrorism?
Are you willing to accept the very real possibility that terrorists will take over Iraq and use its resources to fund terrorist acts against us at home?
Donald D. Vogt, Morrison
Funny how the people who are telling us that if we pull our forces out of Iraq there will be genocide are the same folks who told us invading and occupying Iraq would be a cakewalk, innit?
Posted by Michelle on August 3, 2007 01:15 AMThey are also the people who have hissy fits when it comes to funding veterans care for the wounded, rescinding the tax cuts to pay for this fiasco & reinstatement of the draft (preferably for both guys & gals - heck - Bush & his kin can't even be bothered to visit the wounded at Walter Reed). Until everyone in this country has to sacrifice something, the invasion of Iraq, W's war against Saddam Hussein will continue to be on of the biggest mistakes this country ever made. Too bad W did talk to his father about why Bush the first CHOSE not to invade Iraq & depose Hussein in 1991 (or did Mr. Vogt conveniently forget that the first President Bush forecast PRECISELY what happened there when he chose not to follow Hussein into Iraq after Iraq was ousted from Kuwait)!
Posted by Mary on August 3, 2007 06:11 AMHey mary. I wore the uniform from 1968 to 1972, and was deployed to Viet Nam twice. I've served my country. How about you? Maybe you do need a couple of years in uniform to fully understand how exceptional this country is. But I'm guessing that if the draft was reinstated, and the marys of our country were forced to serve, rather than denigrate those who do, we would be referring to mary as the former citizen of the United States and current citizen of Canada.
Posted by Guess who on August 3, 2007 06:32 AMDonald D. Vogt asked:
"How many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal?"
No matter how many, the blame can be placed on the person who made the decision to invade in the first place.
"Won’t the withdrawal of U.S. troops provide a huge boost for the continued use of worldwide terrorism?"
If it does, the blame can be placed on the individual who made the decision to invade in the first place.
"Are you willing to accept the very real possibility that terrorists will take over Iraq and use its resources to fund terrorist acts against us at home?"
If they do, then the blame can be placed on the person who decided to invade Iraq.
And don't forget the idiots who supported and still support the policy of attacking and occupying Countries without cause.
What a silly letter.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:32 AMPerhaps Mr. Vogt can answer a few questions in return, to wit:
Can he tell me why we went to war in Iraq in the first place? Why was Bush so possessed with war? What was the hidden agenda? Weapons of mass destruction was an excuse, not a reason.
I know Bush is not anywhere close to being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he knew he was starting a religious war he couldn't win, didn't he? Surely his advisors knew, didn't they? I know Colin Powell tried to tell him he was way off base, but Powell was overruled. Why?
Bush can't be that stupid, can he? Are his advisors that stupid too? This is a loser we cannot win. Ever. And if we could win, what would we win? Are we going to convert all these people to Christianity? I don't think so.
If a US jet dropped a Mk-84 on my wedding party, killing dozens of women and kids, would I love or hate Americans? Please define a terrorist and an insurgent. Are they the same as 1776 American colonials?
What is the end game here? What is the plan?
This war is killing GIs every day. Bush evidently doesn't care. Those kids died in vain. Oh yes they did - same as Vietnam.
Posted by Vietnam Veteran on August 3, 2007 06:41 AMHey Guess who, I served in Nam too and my son served in the Navy during 9/11 and we BOTH agree the WAR is an atrocity, it has nothing to do with freedom it has nothing to do with 9/11 ... Are only veterans allowed to express viewpoints on this War? I applaud Mary for what she has to say..insteadof the rightwingers who love fighting this war with other peoples kids from the safety of their own living room. I wish every rightwinger would re-up and send a poor duped soldier home. Those kids enlisted to serve and protect America, not mediate some damn religious civil war that is none of our business.
Posted by SickenedVet on August 3, 2007 07:14 AMCharles B - I agree that we should not have gone into Iraq but we are there. I for one do not support the idea that we should just thumb our noses at the Iraqi people and let them die.
You may not like it - but - your position seems to be one of supporting terrorism as long as it is not in this country.
If we cut and run why would any country or the United Nations believe that we could be trusted to one finish what we start and two to defend the helpless that are in are charge?
Posted by Frank on August 3, 2007 07:14 AMHow many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal? NONE.
In Vietnam that number was close to one million people. PROVE IT
Won’t the withdrawal of U.S. troops provide a huge boost for the continued use of worldwide terrorism? TERRORISM SAW A DRAMATIC, MEASURABLE UPTAKE WHEN THE IDIOTS DECIDED TO INVADE IRAQ.
Are you willing to accept the very real possibility that terrorists will take over Iraq and use its resources to fund terrorist acts against us at home? IT ISN'T A 'VERY REAL POSSIBILITY' AT ALL.
Posted by Sheila on August 3, 2007 07:16 AMI saw a history program regarding the 60's on public television the other day. The program was made well before the Iraq war. It was so very interesting that the narrator was summarizing conversations in the Johnson and Nixon adminstrations that sounded so eerily familiar to the Iraq war. One could have substituted the word "Iraq" for "Vietnam" in this program and the program would have reflected history to this date as we know it in Iraq. (I am the daughter of a Vietnam vet whose Dad flew more missions in Vietnam than required and who was gone much of my young life - I also have Vietnamese friends who were left behind and considered intellectuals, imprisoned, tortured and later escaped by boat). I wish Bush would send his daughters to Iraq so he knows what a family experiences. We should have never been there. Our US safety was unaffected by the war in Vietnam and the money we are spending in Iraq could have been used to shore up our borders and increase internal security. I find it ironic that our Christian president chooses war first. WWJD?
Posted by Cheryl on August 3, 2007 07:21 AMCharlesB:
"No matter how many, the blame can be placed on the person who made the decision to invade in the first place."
The perpetrator is to Blame in any crime. You are saying that If I leave my door unlocked I am to blame if someone walks in an kills my brother. Or blaming the liquer company because of a drunk driver causing an accident. Your logic never fails to amaze me. When are you ever going to get it???? If I even had a suspicion that you were a little tongue in cheek with your postings, I would not bother to rebutt, but you really believe this stuff, don't you?
AF
Hey! Hold on. Those folks that fled to Canda during NAM, where from poor and working class families. The rich draft dodgers like Lott, (Ole Miss cheerleader), Bush (Guard country-club), Cheney, BoPeep (couldn't FART), Tancredo, Chips Barry (VISTA-AK), Alito US Army ROTC-didn't complete) , Hastert, Allard, Billie Mae Owens, Frist, Rudy, Mitt (Mormon mission) Boehner, ect., simply thumbed their noses at the federal draft laws. Can you say Ali? BoPeep said, "I just got on with my life".
Whew! In 1977 President Jimmy "irrelevant" Carter pardoned (amnesty) all draft-dodgers. He simultaneously commissioneed me as a naval officer for my 3 deployments to Vietnam. Carter didn't pardon Alito and Bush, because they are uniformed UCMJ felons (40+ years AWOLee, deserters, and illegal separation and discharge). in violation of federal election laws, all of these politicians (surrender monkeys, communist-siders, and defeatist), have perjured their election applicatios because they evaded answering the old question: have you ever committed a felony act or convicted of a felony act? They all answered NO, and they should be impeached.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on August 3, 2007 07:29 AMI guess we should still be in Vietnam fighting a war without an end. Of course a million GI's might be dead by now.
Posted by It's True on August 3, 2007 07:30 AMHey 40acres, don't forget about Rush Limbaugh.He had a boil on is ass.
http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/
Posted by It's True on August 3, 2007 07:36 AMWard Churchill must step-up. He is in the cat-bird's seat. Culling the herd of GOP felons. Even though his trial is a civil case, he should demand that Denver Deputy USAG Eid attend his trial. Ward should testify that Owens committed a felony (draft-dodging), and he never told it on his state election applications. PERJURY (Scooter). Owens is an ideal prison spouse for Nacchio.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on August 3, 2007 07:38 AMCharles B , who made the decision in the first place? You can add John Kerry, H. Clinton and even Murtha to the list of people who voted for action in Iraq. These are the same cowards who now want us to cut and run giving victory to the terrorists. You'll never get a straight answer from liberals for these questions Donald, but they know what the real truth is. They'd rather play politics.
Posted by KC on August 3, 2007 07:48 AMHey 40 acres don't forget your pal slick Willie Clinton - where was he during the vietnam years? Talk about draft dodging.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 07:53 AMYes it's the democrats fault because they could get a handle on bush.
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 08:03 AMYes it's the democrats fault because they couldn't get a handle on bush.
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 08:03 AMNo, it's the Felon in the White House's fault.
He went AWOL for long enough to have himself called (and BE) a deserter.
And the "Vietnam domino effect" never materialized.
Support our troops, or at least pay them what Blackwater killers-for-hire are making.
Posted by dmz on August 3, 2007 08:41 AMVogt,
The quality of these responses demonstrate why none of the Democrat presidential candidates, who would-be Commander-in-Chief will get anywhere near responding to your questions.
It also tells why Sen. Joe Liebreman is now identified by an (I).
Posted by James Jones on August 3, 2007 08:41 AMThe answers to your questions, don, are
1( None
2) No.
and 3)No, the thugs that attacked the WTC in '93 were caught, convicted, and are serving life sentrnces, thanks to William Jefferson Clinton.
That's the way we REAL PATRIOTIC Americans do it within the confines of international law, and according to our Constitution.
And just WHERE is Osama Bin Ladin????
Posted by dmz on August 3, 2007 08:53 AMSickendvet
I served in Nam too and my son served in the Navy during 9/11 and we BOTH agree the WAR is an atrocity
Thank you both for your service, but the fact that you both agree doesn't close the book on the discussion about the legitimacy of the war. As you can see, other vets disagree with you.
it has nothing to do with freedom it has nothing to do with 9/11 ...
Like all countries, the US acts in its' best interest. I believe that our actions, before and after 9/11 were "believed" to be in the interest of our country and our way of life. History will say.
Are only veterans allowed to express viewpoints on this War?
Of course not, but veterans do bring a perspective to the discussion that many posters do not have. Those posters who have not served are not equipped to tell professional and volunteer soldiers how to do their jobs.
I applaud Mary for what she has to say..insteadof the rightwingers who love fighting this war with other peoples kids from the safety of their own living room. I wish every rightwinger would re-up and send a poor duped soldier home. Those kids enlisted to serve and protect America, not mediate some damn religious civil war that is none of our business.
In 1968, when I went in, the President of the United States was a Democrat, not a right-winger. The sons and daughters of the right and left both served. While many were against the war, no one suggested that only democrats should fight the war. My guess is that most serving today, they're volunteers by the way, probably are from families on the right, and most on this forum complaining about it are leftist pacifists.
Posted by Guess who on August 3, 2007 08:53 AM"How many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal?"
Judging by the many responses here, especially the one from Charles B, the answer is millions will die but who gives a rats a**. As long as we can blame it on Bush we don't care how many innocent are slaughtered.
And these are the same folk who want me to believe they supoprt universal health coverage because of their overwhelming compation for the less fortunate.
Interesting.
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 08:55 AMMost of us are angry about things that our governments do at various levels. (no examples please, my own list by itself is too long to insert here). We have complaints about school districts, fire districts, water districts, cities, counties, states, the Fed and independent agencies.
Nevertheless, the nature of our governments is that even when we vote against a candidate who wins, that person represents us. Whatever they do, we, as citizens, collectively carry responsibility for their actions.
Whether they are right, wrong, good, evil, smart, stupid, honest, dishonest, biased, prejudiced, or psychotic, they are ours. That what being a citizen means. The difference between citizens of the US and citizens of other countries is that we get responsibility for our politicians and they get responsibility for theirs.
If you don't want that responsibility, then renounce your citizenship. Here's how http://www.slate.com/id/2104878/
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on August 3, 2007 09:16 AMSeeing as how more Iraqi's have died because of the invasion than saddam ever could have killed, I don't understand why you are so concerned about how many will die after we leave. It doesn't seem to bother you that the invasion and subsequent violence has killed more civilians than saddam has. Oh, but I forgot your reason for killing people is the "spread of democracy" through the barrell of a gun.
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 09:48 AMGuess who, I disagree that Veterans bring a fiferent perspective to this discussion. They can talk about how to fight the war perhaps, but they have no better viewpoint than the rest of us on the validity of the war. I dont want military people voting on whether TO GO to war, or whether to STAY In the War...the brass will always defend the war, its what they do for a a living! We arent telling the soldiers HOW to do their jobs, we are telling the President and Congress that this job is OVER and its time to bring them home! And those that enlisted for Iraq were swept up in thinking it had something to do with America''s freedom and protection.. It doesnt, they are realizing that and thats why enlistment numbers are down...tour of duities are longer...privitized soldiers are being hired..huge bonuses beig paid to stay in or enlist...because the kids are seeing this war is a bunch of crap and has nothing to do with our freedom. It has everything to do with one idiot ( bush) who cannot say the words " I was wrong, I made a mistake in Iraq".
Posted by sickenedVet on August 3, 2007 09:57 AMThere's an additional question or two that accompanies the original 3. At what point does that hypothetical become inoperative? Another 20 years, another 100, or when.And can the guesser or any other wingnut find the portions of those oft-quoted statements by democrats regarding Saddam and Iraq inn which they advocated invading and occupying a sovereign foreign nation, killing many thousands of its citizens, destroying its infrastructure and civil society. I speak also as a Vietnam combat vet though one tour was enough to convince me of the watefulness and futility of any war not fought for provable national defense aims.
Posted by patrick on August 3, 2007 10:00 AMpatrick,
Can you find the patience to wait unitl September?
Posted by James Jones on August 3, 2007 10:19 AMAmerica is handcuffed in Iraq; invasion of illegal immigrants continues unabated; America's infrastructure is old and failing; whereas, Osama bin Laden, et al, are throwing a block party in honor of their guest, George Walker Bush. In the meantime, Republican college students mouth to stay the course but won't enlist.
Deicide Corner: I'm horny enough to be a TV Evangelist.
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com, Deicide ffrf.org. Web: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think.html on August 3, 2007 10:21 AMSheila,
You have no clue what you are trying to talk about regarding Vietnam. If you have a little intellectual integrity you would admit that and do a little research about what happened there and in Laos and Cambodia after liberals force US troops out of Nam.
dmz,
Same goes for you. You mentioned the domino effect. Ask the people in South Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia if the domino effect never materialized. Either you are ignorant of the facts or you are lying about them.
Several people have their own questions and concerns, to which they are very entitled. However, if they still ask why we went to war in Iraq after that question has been answered over and over and over again, then they certainly would not listen to yet one more explanation.
They only think about the WMD issue and think that is the one and only reason given for going to war in Iraq. They also though out the argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, Germany didn’t have anything to do with Pearl Harbor either, nor did the Philippines, or North Africa or Okinawa or France. So why didn’t we only attack Japan during WWII?
The Bush haters feel it was wrong to go into Iraq no matter what, so it’s a waste of time for anybody to explain anything to them about it.
Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid, James Jones
Posted by on August 3, 2007 10:29 AMMy question is : How bad does it have to get and how long must it continue before the 30% still cheerleading the war decide it is a bad idea?
How many Iraqi deaths are tolerable?
How many US deaths and money is acceptable?
I would love to know Mr.Watkins, Mr.Cat, Mr.Jones.
we would be referring to mary as the former citizen of the United States and current citizen of Canada.
Posted by Guess who
My guess is Elmer Fudd
Posted by on August 3, 2007 10:51 AMQ: How do you know you are a traitor?
A: When a US victory would make you feel bad.
Posted by Bob on August 3, 2007 11:02 AMMr.Bob,you got that right.
Posted by bart on August 3, 2007 11:09 AMBob & Bart...oh yes, 'Death before Dishonor'..Victory at all costs! We should just wear em out, go on forever, who cares how many Americans are left dead ( well except for you two who are safely here in Denver)...we gotta win this thing!!! Bob and Bart, please lead the way, I will meet you down at the recruiting office, ok?
Posted by jimmyd on August 3, 2007 11:14 AMLarry:
"Seeing as how more Iraqi's have died because of the invasion than saddam ever could have killed..."
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along Larry? Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands. But you already knew that, right?
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 11:16 AMI know why libs hate America.
Dems have placed themselves in a position where success in Iraq spells defeat for their party.
They have put their hatred of Bush and politics ahead of their own country.
They have clearly chosen sides and it is absolutely disgusting.
Posted by Get Real on August 3, 2007 11:20 AMHundreds of thousands then? I remember about a year ago people like you were all up in arms because saddam killed 188 people. That was the reason for the war right after it was about WMD's, and a little while after how much of a threat Iraq was. Now it's hundreds of thousands?
The difference that your not understanding get real is that dems and libs care about the country, not the party. How many American soldiers have to die before you finally say enough, it was a mistake?
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 11:31 AMGod help this country because these gosh darn dumbocrates most certaintly won't.
Posted by FU on August 3, 2007 11:42 AMLarry - You gotta quit getting your news from moveon, daily kos, etc...
From wikipedia (and these are tame estimates):
Halabja poison gas attack:The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period 15 March–19 March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces and a number of civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000) were killed.[1]
Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children.
Other sites put the murdered estimates much higher.
But I'm sure you already knew this.
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 11:48 AMGet Real, KW
Your posts are silly and meaningless. Your arguments aren't even that. They are assumptions which make you look ever so foolish. Oh and Get Real....GET REAL!
Posted by on August 3, 2007 11:52 AMWikipedia. The encyclopedia website that anyone can edit. That's a reputible source.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 11:56 AMYou should be very proud of yourself for citing from wiki. So 80,000 people were killed between March 15 and March 19 1988. Hhhmm, sounds like this would have been something that would've come up during that time period, or at least soon after instead of using it as a justification for invading 20 years later and after all other reasons have been put to rest such as how much of a threat they were, or the WMD's, or the sanctions violations (which have a history of being very selective such as the violations by Isreal). But just so you know, I get my news from CNN, Wall street, Washington post, etc. You on the other hand simply put on fox news and consider yourself well rounded.
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 12:02 PMKW, is your argument that as long as the invasion and occupation kills fewer Iraqi than Saddam (Rumsfeld’s buddy) did, then it’s ok and the Iraqi should be grateful?
Kind of oddball logic if you don’t mind me saying so.
So the estimate of excess deaths in Iraq due to the conflict stood at 655,000 when the last research was done. (Lancet Vol. 368, Issue 9545)
Are we close to what Saddam did in your opinion, or is there still a little way to go?
Q: How do you know when you are a moron?
A: When you make statements like Bob
- and keith (bart) agrees with you
KW
Funny how at the time of Saddam's Anfal Campaign, no one on the right even mentioned it - Why? Because the Reagan regime PROVIDED Saddam with weapons (conventional & "unconventional") and money! Remember the photos of Rumsfeld's chummy meeting with his buddy Saddam in the 80s?
And now, 20 yrs after the fact, you'd have us believe that Cons are apparently wringing their hands & sobbing over Saddam's poison gas attacks? Please don't make me laugh.
But you knew that, right?
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 12:18 PMWithout commenting on the rest of the bs you guys have been discussing, maybe you prefer a CNN link that says the EXACT same thing as KW's post.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/hussein.trial/index.html
50,000 - 200,000 Iraqi's.
Bango,
Not to speak for KW, but logically, I would say that he was directly rebutting the asinine claim by Larry that the US is responsible for more deaths than Saddam was. And, as this is indeed a WAR, if we take into account the number of Iraqi's killed during their war with Iran under Saddam's leadership (an estimated 1,000,000 died in that war, but it's not broken down by country), I can't imagine how Larry drew his conclusion.
Again, for pure information, the reasons for use of Military Force can be found in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, where 23 distinct and separate reasons are given for the use of the military in Iraq.
Agree with this war or not, it was an authorized war by an overwhelming majority of Congress. An interesting article about the resolve of the United States and the perception of the middle east of the US, immediately following the lack of resolve the American public has for conflict, can be found in the Wall Street Journals guest editorial column from here (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117928391134704472.html)
I think with hindsight we made critical errors in invading Iraq. But that is indeed hindsight. The question now is, how do we achieve the best possible outcome, for Iraq, for middle east stability, and for the US? My guess is that we won't until we have a new President. This should be THE issue in the Presidential election next November, and we should not listen to sound-bites, but a real, defined strategy of victory and stability. Anything less, in my opinion, just won't cut it.
Posted by Dan2 on August 3, 2007 01:07 PMLarry:
"Seeing as how more Iraqi's have died because of the invasion than saddam ever could have killed..."
Bango, drew, larry - Do you have a mind that can only process thought intermittently?
Larry made the ridiculous statement and I refuted it.
Then you respond as if I was laying the claim for why we went to war in Iraq.
Here's a little secret...
I WAS REFUTING LARRY'S MORONIC POST.
If you wish to contribute, please try and keep up with the conversation as we don't have time to keep brining you up to speed every other post.
Bango,
Interesting citation you use for the excess numbers. That number is 10 times more than British estimates, and 20 times greater than US/Iraqi estimates. And the "research" was conducted by poll. From the Washington Post;
"The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after."
Does that sound like "research" or research, and does it look like a poll?
I suggest you read the study and then we can discuss why it is a higher number than some others.
Mountain Cat said
'They only think about the WMD issue and think that is the one and only reason given for going to war in Iraq. They also though out the argument that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, Germany didn’t have anything to do with Pearl Harbor either, nor did the Philippines, or North Africa or Okinawa or France. So why didn’t we only attack Japan during WWII?'
The answer is simple, Germany declared war on the U.S. just after Pearl Harbor. And we responded in kind.
As far as though other nations, they were occupied by Germany and Japan at the time.
Your point was dead on arrival. But keep trying and keep learning.
So basically your reasoning for why we went to Iraq were because of the killing of the kurds 20 years ago?
Posted by Larry on August 3, 2007 02:23 PMFor the original letter writers questions. Here we need to ask a Middle Eastern expert, someone in the "we shouldn't` have invaded" camp.
Then ask a Bush adviser who supports staying until our grandchildren have to go there.
The answers are somewhere in the middle on the numbers dead, raped, robbed. After we leave, It may look like the salad days of this war when people were carrying off vases bigger them them and looting everything in sight.
The other two questions? Some of that has already begun. It will certainly get much worse.
Are we willling to accept this? Well, no we are not, but we are not Gods and sometimes defeat happens no matter what we throw at a problem.
My 3 questions are: how long are we willing to accept this cloud hanging over our, and our childrens heads?
Where will we fing more money to re-build Iraq and take care of our country?
Is there anything left of the "hearts and minds" Bush often spoke of, to win?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 3, 2007 03:56 PM
Frank said:
"Charles B - I agree that we should not have gone into Iraq but we are there. I for one do not support the idea that we should just thumb our noses at the Iraqi people and let them die."
Neither do I. All the more reason for a withdrawl.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:41 PMWhen are Americans going to finally give up on expecting Republicans to win a war?
Letter writer Vogt and those like him will be asking these time-wasters for another 18 months to help this administration run out their clock and leave this and many other messes in the hands of their successors, GOP or Dem.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 06:45 PMYou know who should have pulled out sooner? George H. Bush, a little over 60 years ago.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on August 3, 2007 06:46 PMAF plucked this from his scary place:
"The perpetrator is to Blame in any crime. You are saying that If I leave my door unlocked I am to blame if someone walks in an kills my brother. Or blaming the liquer company because of a drunk driver causing an accident."
Tell me when I said that AF. You have an active imagination.
Bush (and his supporters) are the perps.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:46 PMKC asked:
"Charles B , who made the decision in the first place?"
Hmmm... I wonder. Who calls himself the decider?
I know, I know, Clinton, Kerry etc. voted for the authorization to go to war, but who gave the command to invade?
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:48 PMKW answered the question:
"How many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal?"
With this bit of idiocy:
"Judging by the many responses here, especially the one from Charles B, the answer is millions will die but who gives a rats a**. As long as we can blame it on Bush we don't care how many innocent are slaughtered.?
Tell me K-Rub, what is it that I said that could possibly be construed as you describe it.
What you Authoritarian Bush Cultists keep assuming is that things will get worse if we leave, or that things will be better if we stay.
You don't know that any more than you knew what you were talking about when you lead the cheers for this war.
Your opinion should be taken with the grain of salt that you're talking out your *ss.
Let's listen to the people who accurately predicted the outcome of an invasion and occupation, not the likes of K-Rub-A-Dub-Dubya.
...he's a joke.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:55 PMMountain Cat, I understand you're a vet also, and I must ask the question.
HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT, MUCH LESS RESPECT A DESERTER????????
W bush not only deserted his post, but as you know, it ain't cheap to train a fighter pilot,
so he screwed us taxpayers back in the 60s
and he's been living off us ever since....
Many folks would call that cheating the welfare system.
But that pales in comparrison to sending our troops to their deaths for the enrichment of the "Have mores". (He said with a chuckle)
He's truly demented .
Forget impeachment,
The man should be shot for treason.
and James Jones,
We've been patient since march of '03, (When the "MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED"
And we've run out of patience.
I'll be glad when a Liberal is back in the White House.
Just for the record, it was GHW Bush that turned the word "Liberal "into a pejoritive when he was in the primaries running against Ronny Reagan.
So the Liberals didn't get us out of Vietnam.
That would be wise Americans,
who know when to cut our loses, (not "cut and run"
really, you Cons need to get a different minister of slogans)
Posted by dmz on August 3, 2007 06:55 PM
Mountain Cat concluded with palpable thickness:
"The Bush haters feel it was wrong to go into Iraq no matter what, so it’s a waste of time for anybody to explain anything to them about it."
Explain away MC. Tell us why it was such a great idea?
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 06:57 PMAll the know-nothings comparing deaths under Saddam vs. the USA, are not relating the number of dead to the timespan in which they died. Let's develop a number per year so we aren't comparing apples and oranges.
Saddam was in power for almost 40 years. We've been in Iraq for about 4 years. The fact that it's even close should shame people like KW- heck, it should even shame that devout "Christian" Jimmy "loves war as much as Jesus" Jones.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 07:02 PMSickened vet, you speak the truth. I am very glad you joined this conversation.
kw, get your facts straight . John Kerry, H. Clinton and John Murtha did NOT vote for a bill mandating that the President invade Iraq. They voted for a Resolution authorizing the use of force and assumed (wrongfully) that the idot in chief in the WH would exhaust all avenues of diplomacy before resorting to the use of the military. There is a huge difference between voting for a resolution authorizing the use of force and voting for a bill mandating invading another country. You and those like you can't seem to distinguish those types of things though so guess we will have to put up with you crap and shrug it off as moronic.
It is so saddening the ignorance that goes on here.Y ou have drew relating me to a guy name Keith,was and is this person a genius,a teller of truth,unlike drew,old grouch,sharon b.,bo and all the other village idiots who refuse to find out the facts before they write there anti- Ameriacn dribble.This person that you worship must be a true American who only presents facts.GOD BLESS HIM!
Posted by bart on August 3, 2007 08:11 PMHey bango. How 'bout you hop on you European motorcycle and ride on outa here?
Posted by guess who on August 3, 2007 09:03 PMbart:
You're a big fan of yourself...Keith.
Posted by Charles B on August 3, 2007 09:14 PMTrue american. Guess Americas' brightest forgot to read the fine print. Poor fellows. Elected representatives of the people, sworn to serve and protect the country, and they got duped by that old yokel from west Texas. Can't imagine why they passed the bill, talked tough talk after they did it and then developed amnesia now it's politically expedient. That Bush monkey has some might powerful potion. Looks like maybe he's gotten to you too.
Posted by guess who on August 3, 2007 09:19 PMCharles B asks:
"Tell me K-Rub, what is it that I said that could possibly be construed as you describe it."
Oh gee I don't know CB. Maybe when the question was asked:
""How many Iraqis will be murdered because of the U.S. withdrawal?"."
And you, with your chas like eloqunce & grace responded:"No matter how many, the blame can be placed on the person who made the decision to invade in the first place.."
Come on CB, even someone with your limited intelligence can see you have zero compassion for the innocent Iraqis and care not how many are slaughtered. Because in your eyes that would create a victory for the left, which is the goal of your kind regardless the costs.
You better hope it's a sunny day CB... 'Cause you just got hung out to dry.
Posted by KW on August 4, 2007 08:25 AM You guys have really got to get your "news" from someone besides Faux news .The truth seems to be whatever the Bush's administration minister of propaganda, Tony Snow says it is.
Oh, I forgot , they GOT him from Faux....a perfect fit.
Never mind.
Why do Kool-aid righties continue to use the Rovian tactic of accusing the left of wanting the terrorists to win?
Newsflash, the left is not afraid of victory in Iraq. This will not happen. The fantasy of an obedient Vichy Iraq will not become reality. This current Whack-a-mole strategery of the surge does show progress. But as you can only hit one area, another mole pops up elsewhere.
When has any occupying force ever gained control of a defeated nation where the locals refuse to quit fighting?
Posted by Holy Reality on August 4, 2007 11:08 AMI guess it will take another terrorist attack on US soil before liberals like Charles B and Mary will understand we are at war with the terrorists. John Kerry, H. Clinton, Murtha and other dems voted to take action in Iraq. Al-quada is in Iraq killing women and children. Do you really think the terrorists will just drop their bombs if we pull our troops out? You are pathetic. This country was not founded with cowards like you. Thank God.
Posted by KC on August 4, 2007 11:15 AMI heard Peter Boyels criticize president Bush the other day because his daughters had not joined the military. That is a perfect example of how weak the democrats argument against the war in Iraq is. They'll never give honest answers to D. Vogt's questions. Instead, as liberals do, they change the subject or ask completely different questions. Liberals will do anything to avoid the truth. They would rather we lose the war in Iraq for their own politics.
Posted by C. Pershing on August 4, 2007 11:25 AMAll this blather about lack of compassion for the Iraqis. It is the Bush administration that still has not rebuilt Iraq. They still have very little elctricty almost five years after the start of this disastrous war. Their hospital system is a tragic shadow of its former self. It the Bush crony administration who turns a blind eye to war profiteering and corruption from the disgusting likes of Halliburton and Bechtel. It's the Bush administration who has shafted the vets who are coming home broekn, both physically and mentally, from the meatgrinder in Iraq. Are we any closer to helping the Iraqis? No wonder they want us out of their country. Sadly, they were better off under a murderous thug like Saddam. To the rightie Kool-aid swillers, we don't need to hear anymore about how the majority of the country that thinks this war needs to end don't care about the Iraqis. We're demanding a change of course from a misguided strategy that has done nothing to help the Iraqis and has only made their lives worse and their country more dangerous.
Posted by Beavis on August 4, 2007 11:25 AMC. Pershing...
George Bush is doing a great job of answering D. Vogt's questions without any help from us Democrats. I think it is you my friend who are avoiding the truth.
Beavis-butthead, You are completely insane for saying "Sadly, they were better off under a murderous thug like Saddam. " You need to actually talk to some of our soldiers that have been over there and have talked with the people that lived under Hussan.
Posted by C. Pershing on August 4, 2007 11:46 AM. When will the hard-core bush-league admit that the so-called "war on terror" has failed, and refer to religion- driven criminals as exactly that, criminals?
By declaring "war" on thugs only gives them credibility that they are fighting "evil", and helps them recruit more religious weak-minded to their cause.
I guess I just answered my own question.
The "party of perpetual war" thrives on the aforementioned religion-driven-whackos.
And it ain't the Democratic party.
Posted by CW McCall on August 4, 2007 11:56 AMTHE SURGE IS WORKING...in just a few weeks, America will be forced to acknowledge this as a fact. We should have done it years ago.
This seals the deal on the cut-n-run crowd and those who have become fully invested in an American defeat. Case closed--American troops won't be leaving Iraq for another 75 years.
Posted by Hank on August 4, 2007 01:03 PMCW states: "the so-called "war on terror" has failed".
My god what a traitor to this country and our soldiers who are fighting to protect us. You liberals have no morals.
Posted by on August 4, 2007 01:18 PMGuess who,
Bango has responded with courtesy, reason and unfortunately, in my opinion, come to the wrong conclusion. Please treat him with the respect due a guest. That is what he is.
I think we need to calm down and think before we, the keyboard gurus, solve too many of the world's problems without consulting the world.
Iraq, acccording to the left, was a paradise where some miracle of unknown origin allowed Iraq to be free of Al-Queda even though every other country in the region had large cells of their terrorists. The majority of the people had electricity and water and were fairly safe from harm.
According to the right it was a horror pit of a dictatorship where public support of A. Q. was evident in the treatment and sanctuary given to the leaders of that terrorist group while the dictator himself was a paranoid murderer who defied any country, agency or other authority asking him to stop his killing and threatening of other countries. He was known to have weapons if mass destruction.
We all need a deep breath and a cold drink. Get one or both.
Feel better?
Saddam and Al-Queda both existed. WMD? He had some. We didn't find them. Saddam, after losing his planes in the first gulf war because he sent them out of country, had to choose between hiding any WMDs that he had or sending them away. It is doubtful that he would have transferred them to anyone else. Hidden? Some evidence exists to show that he had the opportunity and the motivation to do that. He also had a lot of sand that still hides secrets from the ancient past. If he did hide them there would be no witnesses left alive to give away those secrets and Saddam is now dead too. Terrorists still kill hundreds of civilians. Even the police and army are subject to infiltration and sabotage. We still haven't found those WMDs.
Media moments seem to be most of what is seen here. The initial invasion, the mass graves, the fall of Saddams's statue, the car bombings, the destroyed neighborhoods, the mourning survivors, the damage to rebuilt areas, the terrorist news release videos and all of the bickering between the political parties there and here are what we see and hear.
Now we have a military force that is not making progress fast enough for our expectations. What should we do?
Some advocate strong military action to crush resistance and reduce the support for terrorists by making little or no exception between the terrorists and the people they are hiding among.
Others say we should just leave the country and let them fight among themselves.
A third, middle course, says we attack the terrorists and begin to reduce the troop levels while keeping enough military force available to prevent outside forces, whether terrorist organizations or countries, from attacking or taking over the Iraqi government. Let the people have support and assistance but also the responsibility to take control of their country.
Hmmm. Small possibility of any real compromise but here goes.
No matter what, whoever wins the 2008 elections included, there will only be a substantial military force present in Iraq for a limited time. The amount of time will vary depending on circumstance, attitudes and political advantage. Countries and organizations with designs on Iraq must be prevented from attempting any disruptions there. This can be done in various ways but without the certainty of military action the warnings will be empty words. Iraqi politicians and police will have to find a way to disarm the terrorists already present as well as maintain their own country. Their oil revenues should pay for this not our government.
We also need to develop our strategy for the next atack on our soil. That attack is inevitable. We can delay, minimize and punish those responsible but we cannot prevent. Our society is free. We move around; buy and sell; agree and disagree; speak and listen and do all of this without the consent of any government agency. Our citizens exchange information and ideas without constraint. News reports from every viewpoint cover all of our days and almost everything is available on the internet. We could improve security by resticting some of these things but it would do more damage than an attack that will ultimatly happen anyway. We CAN deal with our porous borders and the lack of follow up on dangerous elements already present. To do this we should work together but we won't. We'll take sides and get angry and oppose some good ideas because they weren't ours to begin with. That is who we are and how we do things. How about we acknowledge our differences then start the cooperation and planning now? There are good minds here on both sides of the issue. Time we used them all.
momma y: You speculated --
"No matter what, whoever wins the 2008 elections included, there will only be a substantial military force present in Iraq for a limited time. The amount of time will vary depending on circumstance, attitudes and political advantage."
Taking into account a realistic (not idealistic, wishful thinking) view of the "long term presence" military bases, and the huge embassy and intelligence compound we are vigorously building in Iraq, our presence there is not going to end in the foreseeable future. Whereas we will probably reduce our ground troop levels and withdraw from the position of being the aggressive leader of fighting in the local street conflicts over the next several months (coinciding with the completion of these projects), we will not completely be abandoning our foothold. This will remain a fact regardless of who our next president is. The military-industrial-oil complex, and other special interests who have been, and are currently, supporting the Bush agenda will be switching their financial endowments and influence to whichever party is "in power" (in reality it's one party with two wings). Politicians will be politicians and respond to the money and special interest lobbying which provides them, ultimately, with their power and control.
It will most likely be sold to the American public in the form of a best case scenario compromise: i.e., "We ended our involvement in the local sectarian fighting while maintaining a long term presence capable of staging operations against Al Qaeda and any other radical threats to the US.”
1:18 neo-con nobody,
I prefer to address folks w/ the courage to at least identify themselves, but in your case ,I'll make an exception.
Just who , between Liberals and conservatives, is the most moral is no longer a question, as Conservative leadership has consistantly lied, trampled our Constitution under jack-boots, wrapped himself in our flag while promoting a fascist regime, and for just being a jerk in general.
I hereby DEMAND an apology from the fools who voted for W, and a check to cover expenses that should have gone to repair our old bridges, but instead, went to Raytheon, Haliburton, Blackwater KBR etc. ,etc, etc.
Please make the check out to the Dixie Chicks. I'm sure they'll make better use of it than W and his minions.
Posted by CW McCall on August 4, 2007 05:16 PMoooooh - seems like Mr. McCall has his panties in a bunch and the blood flow to his brain is constricted!
Nothing trumps logic and reason better than self righteous indignation -- a trait both the libs and neocons share. So much for logical, honest debate.
Tzn
Posted by on August 4, 2007 05:39 PMMountain Cat states that he's a Vet. Big deal. What does that have to do with the question I asked in response to the original letter writer's statement that nearly one million people were murdered in Vietnam BECAUSE America got out of there. My question was, simply, PROVE IT. I have done my research, and there is no PROOF that this number is correct. The number of people murdered post America's departure may, in fact, be quite high. But it is proven that it is BECAUSE America pulled out that these people were murdered? Really, MC, get to reading my posts a bit more carefully before attacking. I happen to know that the true servicemen/women in this country weren't taught to 'shoot first, ask questions later', as you seem to do when you see my (and other's) posts.
Kisses. ;-)
guess who, Chimp boy has not got to me, I am not one of the fools who voted for him. And, I am not a Bush hater, I despise what the moron has done to this country.
To answer the letter writer as to how many Iraqis will die if we pull out, it doesn't matter when we pull out it will happen anyway. Iraq is not part of the war on terror and I fail to be able to understand how you Bush worshipers cannot see this. Even Newt Gingrich stated recently that the war on terror is phony. It is not "terrorists" we are fighting in Iraq anyway. Some of them may be terrorist wannabes. But you people (too many to list here) just keep following your idol (Chimp Boy) and when he leads you over the cliff don't cry to the rest of us how you were misled. Odd that in 2000 Bush campaigned on personal responsibility, now he his unwilling to accept personal responsibility for his own actions. Not unusual for a republican though and a lot of democrats also.
Posted by A True American on August 4, 2007 08:12 PMAmerican blather aboout Iraq does not amount to a hill of beans. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will guide the region even as they continue to exploit US money and weapons. They are simply biding time, until US support dries up, which it will sooner or later.
Posted by hikingartist on August 4, 2007 08:37 PMCW
Must be a drag not having a dick or a brain.
When a New York Times poll found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject.
Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent. The headline for Elder's piece read, "Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm." But it should have read: "America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."
Kinda of sounds like some of the posters here are in the same boat as the NY Times...
Posted by on August 4, 2007 09:14 PMKW said with forced bravado:
"You better hope it's a sunny day CB... 'Cause you just got hung out to dry."
Funny stuff K-Rub. How long have you been practicing that?
I mean really, K-Tel, how many times are you gonna try selling the same song? It's over-produced, over-played, short on talent and the lyrics suck.
You think I'm invested in a victory for "the left"? What the hell does that mean? What is the left? Democrats? Ken Salazar? That prostrate scumbag sells us down the river the second your master Bush tells him he needs more power and less oversight. Witness the Military Tribunals Act. Witness the altering of FISA so that the fox now guards the hen-house. Most Democrats are as spineless as the sycophantic opportunists in the Republican party who have told the boy King to do whatever he wants. Just like you (though you deny it).
You accuse me of not giving a "rats ass" about how many Iraqi's die, but the point of my response to the letter was to let the writer know that his boy Bush built the premise for his loaded questions.
The premise? We f*cked up and invaded Iraq.
So now we should trust Bush to lead us out of the predicament he got us in?
F*ck that.
Not one of you pseudo-patriots trying to pretend I don't care about the dead in Iraq has offered a scintilla of evidence that you know what is going to happen in Iraq if we leave, just like you didn't know what would happen if we attacked them.
Not only that, but you likely get your ideas about what will happen from people who have been consistently wrong over the course of six years about virtually everything that they predict.
So now you're Mr. Compassion eh K-Tel? Whatever costume fits the purpose I suppose. I'm pretty sure your cocky self was one of the many who thought the invasion of Iraq was a grand idea. If so, why should anyone give "rats ass" what you think will happen if we leave?
We shouldn't.
Because you're a joke.
Posted by Charles B on August 4, 2007 09:15 PMNice run-on post there CB. But longevity of words doesn't change your previous statement where you said:
""No matter how many (die), the blame can be placed on the person who made the decision to invade in the first place.."
Wait, don't tell me. You were just having a Kerry moment? Another botched joke, right?
Crawl back in your hole CB, for you are truly a heartless wonder CB.
a true american,not yet.A true american would find out the facts before making false comments about what our president is doing.Our troops are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq every day.By supporting retreat from the enemy you are supporting Al Qaeda just like the leaders of the democrat party.That's not being a true american,that's being a true anti-american liberal sissy.
Posted by bart on August 5, 2007 09:36 AM9:03 pro-war coward,
Thanks for being the spokesperson for your sorry ilk.
Only the dickless and brainless would know what it's like to live without them.
And I'm still waiting for an apology.
And the check....wait ,forget it , make that cash. We Liberals KNOW we can't trust cons.
The Dixie Chicks deserve it. God bless 'em.
Posted by CW on August 5, 2007 09:58 AMWhat ever happened to ignorant anti-american dixie cracks?
Posted by bart on August 5, 2007 10:03 AMbart,
If you're refering to the Dixie Chicks, they're making more $ than ever thanks to the publicity they got when less-than-men like yourself began whimpering that they were bad-mouthing your court jester in the White House.
They thank you, I'm sure.
Ain't America great?
Posted by CW on August 5, 2007 10:18 AMKW:
As far as your idiotic interpretation of my statement to mean I don't care how many Iraqi's die, I'll leave that for others to judge.
But do tell: Were you for or against the invasion of Iraq?
The answer to that question will reveal who really doesn't/didn't care about Iraqi deaths.
But I know you won't answer, because it would expose you for what you are...
...a joke whose opinion should be discarded.
Posted by Charles B on August 5, 2007 10:59 AMThere was a lot of boo-hooing fromt the Dixie Chicks because they were being treated unfairly.. Yep. It's unfair to refuse to buy something unless the lefties are sponsoring the boycott. I also seem to remember their concerts recently, as in after the orgasm the left had in dumping a bunch of awards on them, being cancelled due to lack of ticket sales. Curious. Must be their lack of any real talent. Good try though. They were too quick. If they had come out with their diatribe a few years later they would have cashed in.
I also remember the president tellling us it would be a long hard war and that we would have to be prepared for that. Just wish I had a library of tapes to get dates from so I could cite quotes.
Still doesn't excuse Bush from refusing to really fight this war though. He should know better than to think he knows better than the soldiers on the line. Take of the restraints and see how many terrorists decide it's time to leave Iraq...NOW. This is a war not a junior high school dance. You shoot the enemy wherever he is and don't apologize for using whatever force is necessary. That's included in the first rule of war: you shoot at my troops I shoot back, no exceptions.
Posted by momma y on August 5, 2007 11:47 AMInvading Iraq and Afghanistan was a good move. It started a cultural change in both countries with free elections and other benefits like containing terrorists and putting heads of rogue nations on notice. It will take a long time and a couple of generations to realize the long-term positive impact it has on the world. Kudos to Bush and Blair for doing that.
Posted by Uno on August 5, 2007 12:08 PMThere are many examples of excellent expressions of personal opinions on both sides of the debate in this thread. Unfortunately, there are a lot of emotional kumquats who find it somehow beneficial to hurtle childish names and accusations at others; thus diminishing some otherwise good arguments.
Thanks to those who have argued intelligently. I've enjoyed considering both sides of the debate.
Posted by Trinity on August 5, 2007 12:55 PM11:06 bitch-slap (BS?)
I'm STILL waiting for an apology.
And since you don't care for "Hollywood types" . I agree, lets all boycott Reagans blockbuster films, Bruce Willis, Jon Voigt, Dumb-ass Miller , and re-live those glorious days when Joe Macarthy was doing your schtick in the 50s.
It failed then and it's failed again.
I guess you didn't get the memo.
Momma y,
No dear, your leaders said
"it may take 6 weeks but I doubt any longer than 6 months"
Herr Rumsfeld, March '03.
"We'll be greeted as liberators"
Herr Cheney, January '03
" The fighting in Iraq has ended"
Your Bush, March '03
I'm afraid they lied, Mom...give it up.
I belive I'll go buy another Dixie Chicks CD,
just to piss y'all off.
And Uno, Iraq is a disaster and Blair is history, because of bush.
This is TOO easy.
Posted by CW on August 5, 2007 12:58 PMAhhh, selected sound bites from CW. How refreshing and demanding of final adjudication to his favor in this moral and ethical quagmire. Selected, and oft times out of context quotes are, of course, non debatable.
Like a typical politician, Bush politicized a war effort and made an unholy mess of it, ala Vietnam. And, like a true lib, CW is using selected facts, assumptions and incomplete quotes not in context to reinforce the pious, self righteous position which he calls his own.
And people wonder why as a nation we resemble a team of monkeys fornicating a football?
Posted by on August 5, 2007 01:09 PMWell, here we go. Iraq is a disaster. I guess Germany is a disaster too, because there are still Nazis. It’s stunning how quickly some Americans conceded defeat in Iraq, some of them years ago, just for political gain and their hatred for Bush, in the meanwhile emboldening, knowingly or not, terrorists. No, Iraq is a great victory for the common good, as any dictator / state sponsor of terrorism disposed of is a good thing. That some of you believe that Bush is the terrorist doesn’t really matter, and claiming so just makes you look like a fool, and a photoop with Chaves. The US forces are there to stay in both Afghanistan and Iraq to put a chokehold on Iran. Get used to it.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 01:33 PMForgot to sign above.
Posted by Uno on August 5, 2007 01:35 PMBart you did an excellent job of exposing yourself as mentally challenged in your comments to me. I will therefore forgive you since you really don't know any better.
As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, there was no such thing prior to the invasion. Those who claim alliengence to Al Qaeda now never were part of the terrorist organization headed by Bin Laden.As for retreating from the enemy, you don't seem to understand at all what is going on in Iraq. We are refereeing a civil war and not doing so very well... INteresting that your Idol, Chimip Boy recently stated the terrorists in Iraq would like to spread their idology around the world. And we are doing what// Oh yeah, we are attemptiing to spread our idology around the world by invading defenseless countries and trying to force democracy on them.
Your statement concerning anti-american liberal sissy is what is expected from morons like you who dont know the difference between fact and BS.
Come back when you have some true facts to present.
Posted by A True American on August 5, 2007 02:39 PMUno, (your IQ?),
No ,Afghanistan proved to be a disaster for the U.S.S.R, and by financing Osama Bin Laden, I guess Reagan,Rumsfeld ,et al were "emboldening" terrorists then too.
Also, when will "you people" (as Rush would say ) understand that Liberals don't "hate" W ? As you know , we Liberals think that it's not "PC" to disrespect the mentally challenged.
But , I have to agree with CW McCall, as I too, would appreciate an apology from the foolish voters who were duped into voting for the MC Texican to lead our country.
He's done a "heckava" job, hasn't he?
Also to CW.... I think I'll go out and buy my first Dixie Chicks CD, to show my support simply because they were right when they expressed their embarassment of W as president & a Texan . (Although a Texan via Kennebunkport)
Posted by dmz on August 5, 2007 02:52 PMTodays game of spot the hypocrisy brought to you by trinity:
"Unfortunately, there are a lot of emotional kumquats who find it somehow beneficial to hurtle childish names and accusations at others; thus diminishing some otherwise good arguments."Posted by Charles B on August 5, 2007 03:04 PM
Nice to hear from the produce section, CW.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 03:12 PMCharles B, another voice from the produce section; actually the faux intellectual part of the produce section.
Posted by on August 5, 2007 03:14 PMDmz, for now I’ll ignore your comment about my IQ, but not for long.
You said that Reagan financed Osama. Really? Just what do you base your claim on? From the same sources who claim that Bush blew up the WTC buildings?
“As you know , we Liberals think that it's not "PC" to disrespect the mentally challenged.” –it’s nice to know that you have some self respect.
“He's done a "heckava" job, hasn't he?” –a lot better that Al Gore or John Kerry would of.
Pretty lame arguments from a guy who thinks he’s smart enough to assassinate the president.
"Victory at all cost. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory no matter how long and how hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
Winston Churchill
Uno,you are so right
Posted by Al Gore on August 5, 2007 05:09 PMUno,you are so right
Posted by Al Gore on August 5, 2007 05:09 PMUno,you are so right
Posted by Al Gore on August 5, 2007 05:10 PMUno,you are so right
Posted by Al Gore on August 5, 2007 05:10 PMUno,you are so right
Posted by Al Gore on August 5, 2007 05:11 PMLetter to the British people by Mahatma Gandhi, 1940: “I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." – Lucky for the British, Churchill had a differing opinion.
Posted by Uno on August 5, 2007 05:12 PMTypical of incompetent lefties, Al Gore above had to hit that old POST button 3 times to accomplish what most thinking people can do with 1 click. Impatient to make a sarcastic point!
Posted by on August 5, 2007 05:19 PMThen, he hit 2 more times just to make sure. Sure appreciate that competence!
Posted by on August 5, 2007 05:21 PMcw ,You little sissy quit tying to classified yourself as a true american,don't you ever compare youself to honorable people,you lowlife anti-american sissy.The facts are there ,have always been there,just can't find them from anti-ameracan propaganda outlets like cnn.You are the prefect example of child left behind.And by the way the dixie cracks SUCK.
Posted by Keith on August 5, 2007 05:31 PMAnd now the grateful Iraqi Government is on a month long vacation while their country burns.
Priase W. for our freedoms.
Posted by rick on August 5, 2007 05:57 PMKeith. Sissy"? You are the perfect example of...child left behind.
Posted by rick on August 5, 2007 06:00 PMGo ahead and buy what you like guys. We free market types never argue with you when you want to buy a legal item. Of course I'd do it real quick or the CDs will be remaindered and the Dixie Chicks won't get any profit.
I know Bush emphasized the long hard struggle against terrorist regimes because I said at the time that we were going to be in trouble because the typical American, no party differences here, would never remember nor be patient long enough to do the deed. That was in September 2001.
I DO think it would have been shorter if we had gone in to fight instead of hold a tea party. Still got a chance though. Will be interesting to see what happens after the next attack on our soil.
Purely personal, political and selfish desire is that it happens after a libby is elected president. Hopefully not one of the Republican libbys, also known as RINOs, will be elected, but the silly season will soon be upon us Depending on who gets the nomination there will most likely be one or more fringe groups either boycotting or wasting votes on a third party. I want the Republican party to remember what Bush did to it and never abandon their base principles again. They should also remember they were voted in by citizens, you know, the yokels this bunch tried to stick with amnesty. I am voting this time based on the whoever is more for legal citizens than the illegal aliens overloading our system and enriching greedy business owners. Whatever the party, that is the president we need.
Posted by momma y on August 5, 2007 06:58 PMKeith @ 5:31,
My my, we certainly hit a nerve didn't we?
Now, call your wetnurse and tell her it's time for your pills.
And, just for future reference, I wouldn't submit your post to anyone who knows the english language, and proper use of punctuation and capital letters.
You're an embarassment to your grade school.
Oh, and by the way ,Toby Keith fans wear lace panties under their Levis.
Posted by CW on August 5, 2007 07:54 PMToby Keith,
And your spelling SUCKS.
Uno asked:
"You said that Reagan financed Osama. Really? Just what do you base your claim on? From the same sources who claim that Bush blew up the WTC buildings?"
There is truth to the claim Uno.
I suggest "Charlie Wilson's War" for a good background on the covert campaign led by Wilson, a Texas Congressman, and backed by Reagan to the tune of billions, to provide arms-and especially stinger rocket launchers to radical elements in Afghanistan after the Soviets invaded. The idea being to bleed the USSR dry and give them "their own Vietnam". It worked spectacularly well in the short term.
Unfortunately the unintended consequence was to give those same radical elements a power base in Afghanistan (since we rapidly left once the Soviets pulled out, leaving a vacuum), and Osama Bin Laden free reign to train his bombers and plan his murders.
The book makes a bit of a hero of Wilson, but in light of the consequences, I wouldn't consider him that.
It's fascinating history though.
http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Wilsons-War-Extraordinary-Operation/dp/0871138549
momma y said:
"I know Bush emphasized the long hard struggle against terrorist regimes because I said at the time that we were going to be in trouble because the typical American, no party differences here, would never remember nor be patient long enough to do the deed. That was in September 2001."
Too bad Bush abandoned the long hard struggle against terrorism in Afghanistan/Pakistan to attack Iraq, which was not a significant source of terror and which posed us no danger.
could you quit confusing the two already?
"I DO think it would have been shorter if we had gone in to fight instead of hold a tea party. Still got a chance though. Will be interesting to see what happens after the next attack on our soil."
Right. The problem wasn't that we attacked a sovereign nation that posed us no threat, it's that we didn't do enough killin' when we did.
And if we get hit again, the lesson we should learn is that we aren't killing enough people, not that our strategy is about as realistic as clicking our heels together and hoping for Kansas...
Posted by Charles B on August 5, 2007 08:30 PMour strategy is about as realistic as clicking our heels together and hoping for Kansas...
Well at least you understand that saying a terrorist group that is in every other country was amazingly absent from Iraq, had it's highest ranking members granted the finest amenities and medical treatment in Iraqi hospitals and suddenly is present with an infrastructure consisting of leadership and locations in the midst of a war was not there before IS ridiculous.
A rabid dog poses no danger to the majority of people either but vaccination laws are there because that disease can spread rapidly as can the brand of terrorism Saddam would support with funds and friendship.
War is unpleasant..Hmmm...not the quote Oh, I remember..
WAr is H**L That is why you do your best to avoid it by not defying 10 years of UN sanctions or by attacking your neighbors.
War is also much kinder when it is short. I'm sure that the civilians being killed by car bombs and other explosions are grateful we are trying to fight humanely. The more reasons the terrorists have to leave the faster they will leave. The more rules we make on how soldiers fight the more reason they have to stay. Dying as a martyr is one thing but getting blown up while hiding in the local hospital is just plain embarrasing.
The brutality of war is only one of the reasons we don't need to change the rules to satisfy the PC attitudes of a small percentage of our society. The other side is playing by the old rules.
Iraq posed a threat to us because Hussein would take any risk to defy us and, if you are correct in your theory that he didn't help Al-Quada while we were fighting in Afghanistan, he would have given them the help they wanted as he already had given sanctuary and medical treatment to Bin Laden's second in command. Now there is another place in the middle east where the people have their own government and a chance to keep it. Such a tragedy. And the ones in power there aren't looting museums and then laughing when the American press is duped into blaming American soldiers for failing to protect treasures (which weren't even there at the time) because the troops were protecting people.
Please think of the long consequences. If it helps , try to remember that 10 years of no retaliation for horrible acts of terrorism targeting Americans and their friends came before 9/11. I know it's very hard to remember but we were being hit about once every other year. Now we have thwarted several attacks and are sniffing out others. It won't last but the break is nice. AQ is proudly "graduating" terrorists but so far nothing big. Perhaps they are a bit busy running away dressed as women because they know we never shoot women or hiding in mosques or other taboo places because we are too sensitive to root them out of their hidey holes.
Let me put it this way...in war fair means our guys live and their guys die. Anyone who thinks they can change that basic rule should probably start out small by challenging the laws of physics.
Posted by momma y on August 5, 2007 09:32 PMCharles, I realize there are many claims going around about this subject, naturally the USA / CIA supported the mujahideen against the Russians and financed some questionable characters. Where my doubt is the direct finance of Osama bin Laden by Reagan.
To quote journalist Peter Bergen “That the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.” – so the probability that Osama him self gained financial support directly from Reagan is very low to none.
Either way, terrorists are pretty savvy about taking advantage of what the West has to offer – including the freedom to learn how to fly passenger planes without anybody asking questions, and board them with box cutters. Sooner or later they’ll figure out something equally simple but effective.
CW: First let me say that in nearly every case where I see your initials, I read with care as I really do like your posts and, in more cases than not, completely agree with you. However, I am doing this for your own good, so please don't get angry. You said to one of the posters:
And, just for future reference, I wouldn't submit your post to anyone who knows the english language, and proper use of punctuation and capital letters.
Should have been:
Just for future reference, I wouldn't submit your post to anyone who knows the English language, punctuation and proper use of capital letters.
You're an embarassment to your grade school. --- No problem there. Perfect sentence (and quite appropriate, too!)
Oh, and by the way ,Toby Keith fans wear lace panties under their Levis
Oh, and by the way: Toby Keith fans wear lace panties under their Levis.
Now, the reason I am pointing out the mistakes is because you two (or three) have gotten into so many silly arguments and make derogatory remarks towards each other. These jibes are doing nothing toward reaching a common understanding and only further the hate that is so prevalent in this country.
:-)
Love ya, all. (by the way, do you know who I really am?)
10:01 PM
Please, let me guess. A smart a** fool?
Posted by on August 5, 2007 10:05 PMmomma y,
Pretending that Saddam and Bin Laden were in cahoots doesn't make it so.
Please give citations for all your claims that they were, otherwise, I'll believe the assessment of our own CIA, along with the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which concluded before our invasion of Iraq that there was no real connection between the two, and that Saddam had little patience for Al Qaida elements in the parts of Iraq over which he had control.
momma y, you simply don't know what you're talking about...
Read all about it.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf
Posted by Charles B on August 6, 2007 07:46 AMUno,
While you're probably correct to say there was no direct financing or training of Bin Laden by the CIA, our abandoning Afghanistan after declaring victory over the Soviets gave him the safe-haven he needed to hatch his plots and train his bombers. The people we did finance in Afghanistan were the ones that allowed Bin Laden his free reign.
Unintended consequences are a b*tch.
Posted by Charles B on August 6, 2007 07:57 AMCharles B:
Keep the concept of unintended consequences in mind as you continue your advocacy of cold turkey withdrawal from Iraq.
I agree that we are in quagmire with the way our politicians have politicized the war. But, I also don't believe that we can just say 'excuse us, we screwed up and will leave' without the law of unintended consequences biting a broad spectrum of people in the a**.
Tzn
Posted by on August 6, 2007 08:59 AMThe English Teacher,
Thank you, your help and advice is appreciated.
I know that sometimes we can all get carried away by emotion, and say foolish things in the heat of the moment.
I'm afraid we're only human and this IS an emotional issue.
In the future, I'll try to proof read before hitting the send key.
But I think Toby Keith really is a no-talent fool, and his male fans can be a bit light in the loafers as well as their brain pans.
And I'm sorry, can you give me a hint as to who you are?
Thanks again, and best regards to you and yours.
CW McCall.
Tzn
"Keep the concept of unintended consequences in mind as you continue your advocacy of cold turkey withdrawal from Iraq."
I don't remember ever advocating "cold turkey withdrawal from Iraq". Can you show me when/where I did?
I think Biden's plan is the most realistic at this point.
Posted by Charles B on August 6, 2007 09:42 AMMomma,you are totally right,clinton had news reports blocked,or bury in back the pages by there friends in the 80% liberal own media.There is documented facts that clinton did this a number of times with cnn and n.y.times.That why drew,charles b.,og,tbone and way too many others are clueless.
Posted by bart on August 7, 2007 05:40 PM