Review the war in Iraq
The main enemy are Islamic Jihadists like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They weren’t there when we invaded in 2003. They mostly come from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, who are our allies.
Our best allies are the Sunni tribesmen, who used to be the main supporters of Saddam Hussein, the bad guy we invaded to depose, because he had WMDs, which he didn’t have.
The central government in Iraq are not very good allies. They got elected, because we like to spread democracy. They are mostly shiites, and are friendly with Iran and Syria, who we don’t like. The shiites have a lot of militias, who are Islamic extremists too, but a different brand than our main enemy, al Qeada in Mesopotamia.
Then there are the Kurds, who are doing great. They kicked Saddam Hussein out of their region even before we invaded, but they want us to stay to protect them from the Turks, who are our allies.
President Bush wants us to stay in Iraq “as long as it takesâ€, but we are running out of soldiers.
We have just enough soldiers to last until President Bush retires to his ranch though. He will enjoy that.
This letter has not been edited.
Stupid Americans! We tricked you into fighting our wars for us! Ever since Saddam said he had enough nerve gas to eat half of Israel, we deceided to take him out. But we weren't going to do it ourselves, we're the Master Race. That's what we have stupid americans for! So we had our agents...Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney fool you with our clever propaganda. And it Worked! Now we're going to have you go after our REAL ENEMY, Ahmadinijad! You'll never get out of our grip, because we have AIPAC and the we can play the anti-semite Card! Stupid goyim!
Posted by Benyamin Netanyahu on September 14, 2007 02:18 PM"The main enemy are Islamic Jihadists like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They weren’t there when we invaded in 2003. They mostly come from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, who are our allies."
Therefore what? Attack our allies? Or attack al Qaeda? Or retreat from al Qaeda?
The world already knows that liberals oppose the war. Liberals have made that perfectly clear by using obnoxious female protesters. What's the point of these pointless letters? What do you want us to do? What is the plan after we leave? Write a letter explaining what we should do after we leave Iraq. If Iran decides to invade Iraq after we leave, do we go back in?
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 02:37 PMIt's sooooo confusing. But somebody is making a buck on it. That's guaranteed!
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 14, 2007 02:47 PM"But somebody is making a buck on it. That's guaranteed!"
Therefore what?
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 02:57 PMHere is my review of the war.The Democrats and Media are allies with the terrorists.The troops want to kill terrorists so let them do it.Remember they volunteered for the job.End of review.
Posted by An American on September 14, 2007 03:00 PMwe had a regime change in Kosovo and with an international peace keeping force. no American lives were lost. supporting a lost cause for the sake of jingoism is not a realistic policy.
Posted by A Smart American on September 14, 2007 03:08 PMA Smart American,
Wasn't that "regime change" also the result of a long civil war?
What does it matter that Kosovo went well? The war is in Iraq, against a completely different enemy in a different part of the world. What does Kosovo have to do with Iraq?
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 03:14 PMJohn II
You are obviously desperate to have someone to dialogue with. Why don't you try hanging a pork chop around your neck, and see if the neighbors' dog wants to play with you?
I'm desperate for an intelligent dialog with a rational liberal.
Is there a liberal out there who can argue without resorting to emotionally charged insinuations and bizarre suggestions?
I'm trying to provoke some thought beyond the usual Bush is evil, the Iraq War sucks, we're running out of soldiers mentality.
I want to hear some well thought out reasoning from liberals instead of the usual effete and effeminate protestations.
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 03:40 PMIf Rudy, Mitt, phoney-Fred, Brownback, Huckabee, "nuke'em till they glow" Tancredo, etc., wins the '08' presidentail election, our military units will have suffered through 20 consecutive years of "draftdodger leadership". That sucks! McCain and Paul are the only ones in this herd of whoremongers and draft dodgers, that ever served in military uniform. LEADERS, sending folks off to die for something, they clearly wouldn't die for, or their kids.
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 14, 2007 03:57 PMI want to hear some well thought out reasoning from liberals instead of the usual effete and effeminate protestations.
And I want to hear some well thought out reasoning from conservatives instead of the usual duplicitous, amoral rationalizations that have sunk America to new lows for the sole purpose of bucking up the fragile self-esteem of an insecure president.
But no such conservatives, if they exist anymore, post to this message board.
However, since I'm not fussy, maybe John II can explain what 'success' in Iraq is defined as, since the president no longer uses the word 'victory' as the outcome our soldiers are dying for.
Posted by on September 14, 2007 04:27 PMJohn II
Therefore, I don't believe it's OK to make a living from the suffering, misery and deaths of others. It's inhuman.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 14, 2007 04:27 PMMr. Broyles said:
"Therefore, I don't believe it's OK to make a living from the suffering, misery and deaths of others. It's inhuman."
Inhumane? Why? Who is profiting that bothers you?
Profit is all about providing a product for a need. Would you rather the need went unmet? This is the fundamental issue that liberals have such a hard time understanding. The profit motive is a good thing, not a bad one. Unless, you think funeral homes should be owned by the government.
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 05:06 PM"However, since I'm not fussy, maybe John II can explain what 'success' in Iraq is defined as, since the president no longer uses the word 'victory' as the outcome our soldiers are dying for."
President Bush has stated ad nauseum what he desires in Iraq. Did you listen to his address last night?
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 05:08 PMJohn II
You're not going to have that kind of debate here. You couldn't have that kind of debate with the Democrat candidates for Commander-in-Chief mush les this bunch. Ask Sen. Liebreman.
The reason the Petraeus hearings were a non-event is that the signsofearly success with the surge.
Iraq is in a better place then it was last Spring and the strain of desperation is starting to show by the poltical class that have been hoping for retreat and failure in Iraq.
All things considered, you expect a lot here my friend.
Posted by James Jones on September 14, 2007 05:46 PMJohn II
Profit motive and profit seeking are not bad -- in fact, are both desirable and admirable. But I have a had time justifying starting a war for the sake of profits. I'm not claiming that the war in Iraq was started for profits, so don't jump me for that.
However, many on this board DO believe that the war is all about profits. Your postings appear to provide credence to the suspicion that the war is strictly about profits and that you are supporting such an action.
You might want to clarify your position in regard to war and profit, delineating your positions in respect to both as separate entities, and the confluence of both in the present Iraqi situation.
Perhaps it would stir the debate you state you are seeking.
Posted by carl on September 14, 2007 06:13 PMcarl,
Your point is valid. I was trying to get them to admit what they suspect instead of allowing them drop vague insinuations without explanation.
Actually, I thought Mr. Broyles was mad about war material manufacturers profiting off of war. I wasn't even thinking that he actually meant we went to war for a profit. Either way, I want to hear their thought process. If we went to war for a profit, where's the profit?
The War Pigs of Congress
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
President Bush has stated ad nauseum what he desires in Iraq. Did you listen to his address last night?
You dodged the question.
How does a war supporter such as yourself define 'success' in Iraq, since Bush no longer describes the objective as 'victory'?
For extra credit: when America 'succeeds' will Bush give some sort of contorted 'S' sign with his fingers, instead of Churchill's iconic 'V'...or will he stick with that Texas Longhorn/Devil sign he seems to fall back on when nervous or giddy?
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:07 PMThe left want us all to become Muslims so they will be nice to us and then we can do away with the military and open our borders and live happily ever after with the government paying for everything that we want. If we don't convert they will kill us you know! They said they would and I believe them. If you don't you are insane.
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:18 PMHey you pantie-waists
Now you may not like the war but you'd better get behind it-Now you got that.
Our President would not be the Commander in Chief if he did not know what he was doing-So support him Now is that clear? So what is your problem with the war sadsack you don't have a problem that I cannot solve now fall in and support the war in Iraq no matter what the cost-Do or Die Semper Fi- Welcome aboard.http://www.rleeermey.com/
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:24 PMIf we went to war for a profit, where's the profit?
See e.g. Halliburton
March 2003: ~$10/share
Sept 2007: $37/share
Outperformed S&P500 for the same period by a factor of 2.
Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=HAL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC
Where would Jesus put his savings?
Posted by on September 14, 2007 08:37 PMThe sad thing is that, after all of the billions in taxpayer money given to rip-off artitsts like Halliburton-KBR, Bechtel, or Custer-Battles, the Iraqis still don't have power and their oil infrastructure is worse than it was before...basically, the whole damned country is in worse shape than it was before we occupied it and nothing the current administration is doing is going to make it better. We should demand our money back...LOL
As for September 14, 2007 08:18 PM, I think he/she is the one who is insane. They sound like another parrot, broken-record of the venom that the likes of Rush "Ass Cyst Deferment" Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Ann "I'm A Man" Coulter spew constantly. Just more of the same ol' tired diatribe.
Posted by Keith and Hank sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-g on September 14, 2007 09:04 PM"Is there a liberal out there who can argue without resorting to emotionally charged insinuations and bizarre suggestions?"
A liberal that isn't a subjectivist? Are you trying to be funny? Have you ever talked to a liberal that was willing to discuss what is right and wrong or good and bad without citing a bunch of out of context hypotheticals that have no bearing on reality? I don't think so.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 07:24 AM07:24 AM, anonymous,
On the other hand, I've met a great many, such as you, who slam "liberals" from the safe void of anonymity - not even using a screen name - while offering nothing more than hot air about what they think (?) liberals are, and do.. Taken together with several months of experience with the Architypical spokes-persons for Republican/"conservative" positons here, whose postings are little more than epithets, and juvenile insults - we all know who they are - and their "second bananas" - who know little or nothing about anything, but are quick to insist on the last word about everything; and whose "bizarre suggestions" are far more idiotic, when it comes down to that - I wonder what "bearing on reality" any of them, or you for that matter, might have.
But then again, there really is little or nothing of substance to be found among Republicans and "conservatives" anyway. They are best known for their insistence on the ideas that "war-is-wonderful-and-shooting-people-is-fun", and anything that might lead to human progress is "socialism".; coupled, of course, with whatever emphasis on superstitions and anti-intellectual obedience to ridiculous religious beliefs the poster might have to offer. Which is far more "subjectivist" than any "liberal" presentation I've seen here yet.
Thanks for your opinions. They are duly noted; and filed accordingly.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 08:18 AMCivilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million
////////////////////////////////
by Tina Susman
L.A. Times
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes50.htm
September 14, 2007
John II managed to construct the following ill-worded pile:
"What's the point of these pointless letters?"
You'll find the answer you wanted in the question itself John II. Unfortunately it's the wrong answer, because letters like these do have a purpose.
The purpose is to point out just how wrong people like you, William Kristol, Richard Pearle and Dick Cheney have been about virtually every aspect of our current conflict in the Middle East.
This should lead any sober reader of this forum to completely disregard the opinions of people like you on this subject.
A purpose well served.
Posted by Charles B on September 15, 2007 09:21 AMCord, that is a good, reliable source - the LA times! Why don't you watch Al Jazeera to find out what is going on in our congress today as well?
And Charles throwing out platitudes again without backing them up with substance.
"You'll find the answer you wanted in the question itself John II. Unfortunately it's the wrong answer, because letters like these do have a purpose.
The purpose is to point out just how wrong people like you, William Kristol, Richard Pearle and Dick Cheney have been about virtually every aspect of our current conflict in the Middle East."
Charles always demands other posters to prove their point but when it is he who proclaims something he does not back it up himself. Back up that statement as to how wrong everything has been in the middle east policy - or can you? And no Charles - not in your opinion but printed facts from non-liberal sources (ie: Moveon.org, daily kos, media matters, etc)
There is a word for people like you Charles - "hypocrite"
07:35,This is a liberal post.NO facts please.
Posted by Keith on September 15, 2007 09:33 AMBoy, the libs really come out of the closet on weekends and still call people that disagree names and they don't know how ignorant they sound. I'm outta here, talk about a waste of time. Just listening to them should let people know what they stand for and it sure ain't America!
Posted by on September 15, 2007 10:18 AM...the libs really come out of the closet on weekends...
...as opposed to the conservatives who come out of the closet during the work-week (cue tape of Larry Craig).
The conservative-as-victim schtick has a wonderfully ironic ring to it, but it is getting old...
Posted by on September 15, 2007 11:07 AMFor those interested in a summary of the matter:
The editorial page today (Saturday 09/15/07) has excellent cartoons, aptly and accurately illustrating the whole Republican "program" for, and in, Iraq - both on the RMN side and on the Denver Post side of the page in our combined weekend edition of the two papers.
Don’t miss it!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 11:08 AMJohn II: "Profit is all about providing a product for a need."
But of course. We have a dire need for the long aisles of cosmetics at the grocery store. And a dire need for all those electronic toys. And a dire need for all those cars which will turn our lives into palaces of pleasure. A dire need for the proliferation of gadgets which somehow we used to be able to do without. And so on. Profit is sometimes about filling a need. More often it is about creating a false sense of need. Advertising, the life blood of business, is about creating a sense of need.
Posted by Truth on September 15, 2007 11:09 AM
Advertising...is about creating a sense of need.
A public policy variant of this type of advertising is the selective hyping of inaccurate intelligence to sell a war which will be waged with record levels of private contractors.
Profit, such as Halliburton's (see 08:37 post above), is opportunistically gained by creating a false sense of need among citizens that America must invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Careful observers might notice that this is =not = Adam Smith's invisible hand at work.
In this case, the heavy lifting was done by the visible and bloody hands of Dick Cheney who was (brace yourself for a shock) the CEO of Halliburton before choosing the noble pursuit of public service.
As to the matter of "profits" - however that got inserted in the subject of the Iraq war:
The RMN comic page today (Sat. 09/15/07) has an excellent cartoon - the "Non Sequitur" strip - that gives us proof of the old saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Along with the Editorial page(s) cartoons mentioned earlier above, it says about all there is to say on both subjects, Iraq and profits/"free-enterprise". Go take a good look.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 12:00 PMOld Grouch:--
Your reference to "Non Sequitor": One of the signs being held was "job outsourced". The Democrats have been some of the strongest supporters of outsourcing.
Hillary is behind protecting and encouraging outsourcing of jobs, especially to India. If your job was outsourced, leaving you unemployed, send a thank you note to her.
Several industrial States attempted to enact anti-outsourcing laws in 2005, but those bills either failed and were defanged before passage.
As pressure mounted to kill outsourcing, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Chuck Schumer were instrumental in created the Senate India Caucus (which was "coordinated" by the US India Political Action Committee) to lobby Senators who were attempting to derail job outsourcing. When the Caucus was formed, Hillary Clinton told Roll Call that "...[i]t is imperative that the United States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences." With their money in her pocket, what else could she say? Hillary is a co-chairman of the Caucus. On the House side, Hillary's allies are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Joe Crowley [D-NY]. (If your job has been outsourced, you now know who to thank.)
In 2005 when it appeared outsourcing would have stiff penalties, Clinton and Chatwal went to India on Feb. 28 to personally assure Hillary's constituents in the New York suburbs of Punjab that outsourcing was safe and that the United States government would make no attempt to save the jobs being lost to outsourcing. (At a recent fundraiser hosted for Hillary by Dr. Rajwant Singh at his Potomac, Maryland home—who raised $50 thousand for Clinton that evening—the Senator joked "I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily.")
Meanwhile, back to Chatwal. In March, 2007—after Clinton and Chatwal returned from India—Chatwal committed to raising $5 million for Hillary's presidential campaign."Outsourcing," she had assured her "Punjab" constituents in India on Feb. 28, 2007, "will continue. There is no way to legislate against reality. We are not in favor of putting up fences." Not even, apparently, one on the border. Shortly after returning to the United States, the Delaware-based IT Professionals Association of America [ITPAA]—which represents IT professionals nationwide—voted Hillary Clinton its "Weasel Award," which is given each year to business and political leaders who betray the trust of the American people.
Posted by CA on September 15, 2007 12:31 PMFurthermore Old Grouch -
I noticed that the Non-Sequitur cartoon you referenced was in black-and-white. The Democrats have been some of the strongest supporters of black-and-white interest groups in the past. Charlie Chaplin once held a fundraiser at his estate in California that raised $12,423 for Democrats.
Posted by on September 15, 2007 12:59 PM12:59 PM anonymous,
The point being?
CA,
So, you feel that Hillary Clinton then actually supports the ideas attributed to "free enterprise" in the cartoon? Or . . . ?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 15, 2007 02:46 PMI loved the pink link from John II, but I have a better one.
Go to http://www.the3day.org/sandiego07/nickdaniel
this link, notice the l on the last line, will give you some place to put a few extra dollars.
The link is by a man who really likes and respects women.
If I have ever made you laugh or think, please go to the link and donate, if you can.
Thanks.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 07:21 PMYou dodged the question.
How does a war supporter such as yourself define 'success' in Iraq, since Bush no longer describes the objective as 'victory'?
...still waiting...
Posted by on September 16, 2007 01:57 PM