It’s been a dark October for American forces in Iraq, and it could end up being the bloodiest month since the 2003 invasion. Now even President Bush, who has preferred equating the war in Iraq to World War II, concedes a depressing resemblance to another conflict: Vietnam.
In an interview with ABC News Tuesday, Bush was asked about a Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times suggesting the upsurge in violence “seems like the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive.”
Bush answered: “He could be right. There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”
While the Tet offensive was a military defeat for the Viet Cong, its effect on U.S. public opinion is considered a turning point in Vietnam. It was then that the war began to seem unwinnable.
No doubt the jihadists in Iraq have a similar ambitions. As Friedman pointed out in his column, the current upsurge in violence is aimed at the American media as much as the American military.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
138 Comments
IraqNam – overseen by RumNamara.
Another point that has been made: all those dominoes did NOT fall after the ARVN folded.
Thanks, Ben, for IraqNam; I’ve been searching for something to put in place of “Viet Nam” in the old Country Joe & the Fish number (I have heard it referred to by various names, my preferred name is “Vietnam Rag”) performed at Woodstock, among other places.
For those old enough: “Give me an F” ….
If more soldiers aren’t sent to Iraq, not only will things not get better, but they will worsen at an accelerated pace. That is Bush’s paradox. And where do the additional troops come from during an election year?
I know I’m gonna’ catch some flak for this opinion, but here goes.
Hindsight from VietNam shows us that North VietNam REALLY suffered a terrible defeat from the Tet offensive. The most valuable man in VietNam, John Paul Vann, realized the truth about the North’s dire situation and reported directly to the President that this was the time for a massive counter-attack to achieve victory. The public had been lied to repeatedly by the administration, so they would not believe that victory was in sight at this point, and would no longer support this war. (sound familiar?)IF we had taken Vann’s advice, we could have, at the very least, brought them to the table and negotiated an honorable withdrawel.Now I’m not suugesting that this enemy in Iraq is at the end of their rope, as the North VietNamese were, but if that were the case, it would serve us well to follow Vann’s advice today.
gster, indeed; where will they come from? I believe, BTW, it is too late to send additional troops to Iraq to attempt to provide security and stability; the situation seems that bad. All the introduction of more troops will do, IMHO, is aggravate the situation, making it appear the US is, indeed, an occupier with no plan to leave; and, get us bogged down, this time in a desert, not a jungle.
However, immediate withdrawal of all foces isn’t a realistic answer. I suspect the Baker commission (yes, I know that’s not its official name) will recommend some form of phased withdrawal, with a sufficient number of forces remaining in the region to keep the civil war from spilling over to other countries in the region, and to retard any opportunistic action by Syria, Iran, and Turkey.
I wish I could recall the name of the Iraq “expert” who said, about a year ago as I recall, withdraw now and a civil war breaks out; stay ten years then leave, and a civil war breaks out. While he was a bit off, IMHO, in that a civil war has already broken out, the point he was making seems as valid now as it did then; there is nothing that the “Coalition” can do to install a democratic form of government by force of arms. If the Iraqis want such a government, it will only occur after other differences (tribal, ethnic, religious) are settled by force.
and its 1 2 3 what are we fighting for ..
don’t ask me I don’t give a s…
next stop is near Tikrit …
and another one for Kirkuk …
The real IraqNam lesson is the similarities between the ARVN and the ARI.
Note that Rummy even LOOKS like McNamara?
Tracy, you are correct about Vann’s thoughts and recommendations, as memory serves. You are also correct that members of the public, at the time of the Tet offensive, was coming to the realization that the Administration had lied to them repeatedly, and were not ready to accept any more asssertions about “victory is at hand” from it, notwithstanding its ultimate credibility.
Well, Ben, now that you mention it, there is a similarity in appearance, not to mention in arrogance.
This makes you people feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn’t it? Ossama was right. There is a certain group in this country that will holler Uncle when the body counts start. Maybe we could call them French-Amerocrats.
As long as the Iraqi people do not have an national identity, i.e. think of themselves as an Iraqi first, rather than “I am a member of this sect and that tribe”, there will be no goverment that works.One sect will have to dominate and the other subjugate. The results would be similar to what Saddam had going!Maybe the smart thing is to secure the oil infastructure, and let them fight to the last man standing, and get the situation finally resolved.
HOTLICK-how many children do you have over there fighting?
Or do you have stock in military-industrial instead?
I know, it’s the same ol’ chickenhawk meme again.If the chicken suit fits, wear it.
I think that Tet proved two things:
(1) the VietNamese resistence would fight against massive odds against the occupation and
(2) the ARVN would not.
It just got too hard. I quit.
Ben-Isn’t there something the Eagle can do to stop that guy from using your name like that? It’s just a touch scary.
TRACY,
After the Tet offensive, we did have an honorable withdrawl from the Vietnam war.
The Paris Peace Accords.
It was a couple of years later, after the North had rearmed with Soviet resupply and the Democrats refused to allow Nixon to honor the threats in place did the North invade and take over the south.
While stationed at Danang, I was driving a load of bombs to the flight line. I was stopped by the guard at the enterance to the holding area and told to get out and take cover behind the sand bags there. From there I could see rounds bouncing off the ground, and hear an occasional round hitting the sand bags.
Since there were no sirens going, I asked the guard who was shooting. He told me it was ARVN and the Buddists fighting each other. Purly sectarian. Sound familiar?
Just for you, Vaughn:
The Fish Cheer & I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-To-Die Rag (edited for relevancy)
Gimme an F!F!Gimme an I!I!Gimme an S!S!Gimme an H!H!What’s that spell ?FISH!What’s that spell ?FISH!What’s that spell ?FISH!
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,Uncle Sam needs your help again.He’s got himself in a terrible jamWay down yonder in IraqNamSo put down your books and pick up a gun,We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it’s one, two, three,What are we fighting for ?Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,Next stop is IraqNam;And it’s five, six, seven,Open up the pearly gates,Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.
Well, come on generals, let’s move fast;Your big chance has come at last.Gotta go out and get those rheads —The only good muzzie is the one who’s deadAnd you know that peace can only be wonWhen we’ve blown ‘em all to kingdom come.
And it’s one, two, three,What are we fighting for ?Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,Next stop is IraqNam;And it’s five, six, seven,Open up the pearly gates,Well there ain’t no time to wonder whyWhoopee! we’re all gonna die.
Huh!
Well, come on Wall Street, don’t move slow,Why man, this is war au-go-go.There’s plenty good money to be madeBy supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,They drop it on the insurgents strong.
And it’s one, two, three,What are we fighting for ?Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,Next stop is IraqNam.And it’s five, six, seven,Open up the pearly gates,Well there ain’t no time to wonder whyWhoopee! we’re all gonna die.
Well, come on mothers throughout the land,Pack your boys off to IraqNam.Come on fathers, don’t hesitate,Send ‘em off before it’s too late.Be the first one on your blockTo have your boy come home in a box.
And it’s one, two, threeWhat are we fighting for ?Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,Next stop is IraqNam.And it’s five, six, seven,Open up the pearly gates,Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.
Ben,
What/who exactly is the “VietNamese resistence?”
You sound like the propaghada machine for the North during the war for goodness sake!
I don’t know hl. I’d like to be able to find out who he is; then take appropriate action against him.
Nathan – according to my friends and relatives who were there the ‘resistence’ were those VietNamese who did not want us there.
The solution to Iraq will never be. It is true that as long as family faction and treason exist in Iraq so also will absolute and relative division of the masses. Our strategy must now be a redoubling of the forces and annihilation or extermination of the dissenting Islamic insurgents. It can be acheived. It will not be pretty and unfortunately for the Iraqis can only be if they can learn to govern themselves without force and violence. Lets get the uncivil part of this civil war over with sooner than later. America, or better yet WORLD, do you have a stomach or a backbone?
Jeff – after we exterminate the population who do we repopulate Iraq with?
Ben, I’m honored by your thoughtfulness. Thank you.
Nathan, let me see: does the term “Viet Cong” mean anything to you?
Ben, if I’m wrong, please correct the record.
One thing I remember being told is that the soldiers felt they could not trust ANYONE over there. Now we are seeing internecine fighting in Iraq and the government releasing those we capture. Deja vu all over again.
I see one big difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
In Vietnam, we were fighting on the side of keeping the country _divided_. In Iraq we seem to be trying to keep it _together_.
I’be long believed the best thing to do with Iraq is to chop it up. Hold a bunch of plebiscites, let residents along each border decide whether they’d rather become part of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey or Iran. Did I miss any neighbors?
The borders in the middle east were imposed by the Brits a scant 100 years ago. Like all political borders they are imaginary constructs, created by people and for people. The notion that people must die to maintain political borders is archic and insane.
Problem is – what to do with Baghdad and other mixed cities? (Otherwise a good idea)
Some other problems Alden: This would strengthen both Syria and Iran who are allied against the US. Add to that the fact that Turkey REALLY does not want an independent Kurdistan on its border …
You make very good points, and your solution just might be the “least bad” right now. Boy, when Bush ACCOMPLISHES a MISSION he REALLY screws it up!
I don’t find it useful to make comparisons to Vietnam. This is a very different 3-sided conflict.
A civil war is being fought in Iraq and will continue until one side defeats the other. Whether we are there is inconsequential. We cannot stop the ongoing 1,400 year-old Shia/Sunni conflict. They are fighting over who is the rightful successor to Mohammed and therefore who is sovereign over all of the holy land.
This conflict only quiets down when a nation-state is dominated by one group or when a tyrant has a stranglehold on both.
In the eyes of the people fighting this conflict, a Shia/Sunni Democracy is out of the question.
600,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the start of the invasion.
Stay the course!
Vaughn,
The Viet Cong by the time the Tet Offensive came around were comprised mainly of NVA troops from the north. That was the only way they could even get to Battalion size strength.
That is why the Tet Offensive was such a victory for the US. Almost all the remaining Viet Cong had exposed themselves and were killed during the Tet Offensive.
I would hardly call them “resistance fighters” that is unless you were part of the North Vietnamese propaghanda machine.
They were funded and supported by the North to be part of the Norths take over of the South.
This way the North never had to admit that it was trying to invade or take over.
The North was constantly spinning their “reunification” propaghanda.
The opening sentence of the SOUTH VietNamese constitution stated “VietNam is one country”
Why did the million-man ARVN fold – both at Tet and later?
Brian, thank you for your thoughtful post. When this whole mess started, I resisted comparisons to Vietnam, because I felt there was no clear analogy.
Today, however, I feel differently. By removing Saddam, the U.S. allowed the sectarian differnces, always simmering just beneath the surface, to move into the forefront. While the dispute between the Shia and the Sunni are of much longer standing than that of the NV and SV, and have a religious rather than political basis, the US now finds itself enmeshed in an appallingly similar situation as in Vietnam; a civil war.
I feel there is another basis for comparison, which is likely incomplete and maybe inaccurate. The countries colonized by the French, and referred to prior to 1954 as French Indo-China are rich in natural resources. This is why the Japanese wanted access to them prior to WWII. The act of the US, in supporting the South Vietnamese, was an attempt to keep this country from becoming Communist. Applying the domino theory, if South Vietnam fell, Thailand would surely be next, etc., allowing our (US) political enemy (the Communists) control over this resource rich region. The fact that some 30 years after the fall of Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), Thailand is not a Communist county disproves the fear of the late 50s and early 60s.
As we are aware, Iraq has substantial oil reserves, perhaps the fourth largest in the world. Civil war in Iraq, or control of Iraq by a government unfriendly to the U.S. prevents access to these reserves, believed by many to be necessary for continued economic growth and prosperity. I do not, by these comments, pretend to say the real reason for the Iraqi invasion was to secure these reserves for the U.S.; however, the existence of the reserves under the control of a government friendly to the U.S. was not ignored, I am sure. Thus, the continuing struggle in Iraq has become, much like the Vietnam situation, a fight over who will control the resources.
From a realpolitik perspective, access to the reserves would allow the U.S. to address the problems in Saudi Arabia, without threatening our economy. As many are aware, the Wahabi movement in Islam is rooted in Saudi Arabia; many of the 9/11 highjackers appear to have been influenced by Wahabi teachings. This movement, and its teachings, are, IMHO, the real terrorist threat the non-Muslim world is facing. Thus, by securing alternative oil access, the U.S. could force the House of Saud to clean up its own mess, making the world safer. I don’t know that this entered the calculus, but the presence of Dr. Kissinger as an advisor to the current administration suggests that it just might have.
Sorry this is so long.
Interesting analysis VT. Sad thing is, we had better access to Iraqi oil before the invasion than now. Saddam was a thug but he was a whiskey-drinking secular thug. So, from a realpolitik perspective, we are worse off now than before the invasion.
Truly, Ben; kinda modern day Joe Stalin, don’t you think?
On a bit more serious note, I considered including thoughts on Saddam being secular, a thug nonetheless, in my too-long post, but decided I needed to terminate it and go on to other things.
Nathan, my only point is that IF this was JUST LIKE the tet offensive, after ramadan would be the correct time for an all out counter offensive.Other than that, I was just kinda’ re-hashing what happened then.I don’t pretend to have any answers to the present situation.
You bloggers have a nice weekend, I’ll see ya’ next wednesday.
Just think- if Bush listened to his old man, none of this would have happened!!!
Gster,
Wow…
If maybe Sadam had been more cooperative this would not have happened.
A win in Iraq would take some doing, but is doable if the American public would release the ‘dogs of war.’ What I mean is covert operations that would be unparalleled in the history of the United States.
Firstly, the division between tribal leaders is a problem. Offer through clandestine meetings a ‘payoff’ to each leader for protection in their areas. This is the way things are done in that part of the world. Let them know that consequences will be assessed if they do not cooperate, make it personal…very personal.
Have the Iraqi government pass a law that states, any group or formation of groups that create militias is susceptible to the penalty of death. Further, all of their assests and the assets of their families/companies will be seized if found complicit.
Start embarrassing corrupt politicians by releasing surveillance tapes to local tv and radio of their two-faced actions. This is war, not a Washington D.C. dinner party.
Put the squeeze on entry into red zone areas (areas not secured.) Make travel unreasonably restrictive until compliance is achieved. That is one way roads with other roads that go the opposite direction miles away. This is the ‘ant colony’ approach so one can see exactly where transporation originates and where it moves to.
At any random moment of the day, scamble all communications in a sector by using high tech electronic/radio jamming equipment. Then leave the door wide open to older types of communications; runners, newspapers and etc. Recruit ferociously a network of runners that pass on information that not only deliver false information, but pass on vital intelligence.
Make mock prisons. The prisons don’t really keep anyone there, but they let recently captured persons pass through on to other places. Have cries of pain (recorded), smells of death and the propaganda that once you go in, you never come out. This would be a no reporter zone of course. Any reporter caught near the prisons or trying to seek information about the fake prison would be detained, his passport revoked and banned from the country.
Brutal you say? Absolutely! But that’s what it would take to settle Iraq. Reward the good deeds and make bad deeds unbelievably hellish. Convince the insurgents and militias that there actually is a boogie man and it will get you.
Now, back to reality. It will never happen.
For our newer posters, I will repeat. Iraq was never meant to be over. There is too much money in it.
See the documentary “Iraq for Sale”. You’ll get the idea.
hotlick, since you brought up OBL, where is he? Why haven’t we got him yet? Could it be because that President Bush was too busy trying to tie Iraq to the “War on Terror” so we farmed out the job to the Afghan warlords? And what a great job they did, huh?
Nathan, you might read up on the history of Ho Chi Minh. Did you know he was educated in the United States prior to WWII? That he was trained by the OSS to fight the Japanese? That after WWII was over he asked for help from the U.S. to expel the French from Vietnam? We chose not to help him and so he turned to other sources of help. The rest is, as they say, history.
Uh, you re-writers of history may want to study some people who actually were there when it all went down: people like Stanley Karnow who wrote the definitative history.
We could have “won” in Vietnam. But it would have involved using nuclear bombs to essential depopulate the North to zero.
The Viet cong were an irritant. They were nothing. It was the NVA that the US was fighting, and these guys were never going to give up.
Democrats, Republicans, LBJ or Nixon could not buy, threaten or cajole the communists. They had been through it all before–the Chinese, the French, the Japs, the French (again), and then the Americans.
They were no more ready to submit to foreign domination than WE WOULD BE.
Now, quit fantasing about what didn’t happen in Vietnam and look at the facts. When we finally left after ten years, 580,000 American dead and something like 1.5 million North Vietnamese dead, you couldn’t find two people in the entire US who said that just a little more fighting would win the day.
Now forty years later, these arm-chair generals say “we cut and ran.”
It didn’t work then.
It’s not working now.
OBL? Yuo mean Osama bin Forgotten?
At the end of WW2 when Ho Chi minh declared independence from France AND Japan in Hanoi a US plane flew overhead. The crowd cheered the plane of their ally the United States. Little did they know that we would stab them in the backs and support French re-colonization.
JM,
A part of your plan sounds suspiciously like what Saddam did. What makes us better than him if we thwere to institute that? And for what purpose?
Do you think that if those measures you mentioned were carried out, when completed, Iraq would turn to democracy?
capn – you have a decimal wrong – 58,000 not 580,000 US dead. About 2 million VietNamese.
Yes, you are correct, Dave.
The Vietnamese looked to America to help throw off its imperialistic invaders after WW2.
Instead, we RE-ARMED THE JAPS to maintain order until the French could come back and take over.
The United States was clearly the aggressor in Vietnam from day one, just like we are in Iraq.
Ah, right, Ben . . . thanks.
58,000 is right.
CapnAmerica,
You all seem to forget this thing called the Paris peace accords.
I assume you made a typo with the 580,000 thousand.
The numbers are 58,000.
It didn’t take nuclear bombs, all it took was actually attacking the North, mining their harbor, and threatening invasion in the North.
As far as never submitting to foriegn domination, we were fighting to keep the South free from the North. We were not dominating the North at all.
CapnAmerica,
America the aggressor? That would explain the Norths invasion of the South?
Where do you guys come up with this garbage?
Nathan–
Don’t they teach you military history in the marines?
We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than all the bombs that were dropped in WW2.
LBJ dropped bombs on Christmas Day on North Vietnam.
No wonder you think we “coulda, should, woulda” won–you don’t know the first thing about it.
“Wow…
If maybe Sadam had been more cooperative this would not have happened.”
I’m genuinely confused. Could Saddam have avoided the bombing? I vauguely remember something like this:
Bush: Saddam, you have to disarm or we’ll bomb you!Saddam: Dude, I can’t disarm because I have no WMDs.Inspectors: Yeah, he’s right. There are no WMDs.Bush: You’re a liar! Disarm or we’ll bomb!Saddam: I CAN’T. THERE’S NOTHING TO DISARM.Inspectors: Dude, he’s right.Bush: Alrighty, start bombing!!! *BOOM* CRASH! ~DEATH!
Inspectors, three years later: There were no WMDs.Bush: Doesn’t matter, that’s not why we went in.
Fin.
Did he fail to produce proof of not having WMDs? Was there a way to prove the absence of weapons? I don’t think I followed the whole thing as closely as I should have…back then, politics was not nearly as interesting to me as it is now.
dave s–No, we haven’t got him yet, but at least I am not the one who is happy about it. We can’t find a lot of bad guys right here in this country. You can try to place the blame on Bush, but is just doesn’t fly. In fact, it’s weak. You people have much better and stronger stuff to use. You should stick to that.
CapnAmerica,
It was the bombing, mining, and threats which brought the North to the Paris peace accords.
Try to dodge it all you want, I am speaking history.
CapnAmerica,
It was the bombing, mining, and threats which brought the North to the Paris peace accords.
Try to dodge it all you want, I am speaking history.
I forgot to mention the Cold war politics going on at the time too, which also had a part to play.
Nathan – the constitution said “VietNam is one country” for a reason. And we were occupying half of that country.
Interesting that a decimated NVA could rout the million-man ARVN so easily. Maybe that was because the ARVN didn’t really believe in the Saigon regime?
How about the agression here in the US when the North US invaded the South?
Ben,
We were not occupying anything. We were defending the South from an invasion from the North.
You can speculate all you want on why the South’s military was defeated, or we could talk about the strategic errors made and disgrace shown.
Either way, you are just speculating.
I prefer to look at the facts of what happened.
The South had fought against the North before the final push and had done so valiantly.
Of course you ignore that though, because it goes against your little revision to suit your “speculation” to support your preconceived notion that the North was in the right and the South wanted to be taken over…
Interesting:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/indebted_troops
After the French got their asses handed to them at Diem Bien Phu, they left.
The Geneva Agreement called for a temporary partition with Ho Chi Minh in the North and the old “Emperor” in the south with Diem as his PM.
Diem deposed him and became the supreme leader.
The North and the South were supposed to have elections to form a single gov’t in 1956, but Diem knew he would lose so he cancelled the South’s participation.
Wikipedia–
As dictated by the Geneva Accords of 1954, the division of Vietnam was meant to be temporary, pending free elections for a national leadership. The agreement stipulated that the two military zones, which were separated by the temporary demarcation line, “should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary,” and specifically stated that “general elections shall be held in July 1956.” However, the Diem government refused to enter into negotiations to hold the stipulated election, encouraged by the United States’ unwillingness to allow a communist victory in an all-Vietnam election.
Then Diem turned out to be not compliant enough to US interests, so the CIA knocked him off in 1963, just a few months ironically before JFK was knocked off.
After that, it was a foregone conclusion–there was no democracy, there was no legitimate government . . . it was just corrupt officials HERE AND THERE making as much as they could before it all came crashing down.
Just like Iraq.
Nathan – much of my “revisionism” comes from family and friends who served in Nam. They are the ones who told me that they had learned that the southernors did not want us there either.
Nathan says the South’s ARVN forces fought “valiantly.”
I guess that’s why they ultimately triumphed, right?
Oh wait, they caved like cowpie under a steamroller.
CapnAmerica,
Notice in my writing that I said both valiantly and disgrace.
You can read can’t you?
The South had fought valiantly on many occasions.
Ultimately their defeat was a disgrace.
I am not saying they were not rolled right over in the end.
I am disputing Ben’s revision of that.
As of the year 2005, there are 58,249 names on the Wall.
Men I knew who were over there would dispute the “valiently” claim. I had far too many friends involved to accept nathan’s latter-day revisionism.
Interesting read MrC – I particularly have a problem with the predatory lenders.
Nathan, as one who was in college and on active duty with many who had been in Nam, Ben’s “revision” squares completely with what I heard from these guys.
Thats great Ben… the friends game.
I have read many books written by soldiers and Marines who say differently.
Oh well.
Do you say that the South never fought valiantly?
I say that very few of the ARVN fought valiently. Many in the “south” did fight valiently; they were not in the ARVN.
By the way, I have also read books. However, the words from men who were there, looking me in the eye, touched me more than a book ever could. Call it a ‘game’ all you want, it was all too real.
Not to pile on, Nathan, but I, like Ben, have read some books, but the words of those who went through the hell of Vietnam personally and who talked about it meant much, much more.
A real comparison of Viet Nam and Iraq, would include that Bush sat back and watched others make the ultimate sacrifice in both.
An aside; I flew with John Paul Vann once, I thought the guy was a nut, he wanted to buzz along the tree tops to try and find some enemies. My CWO, told him it was his ship, and refused. Few months lated Vann was no more. I’m still thankful to my Warrant Officer for having the sense to stand up to the guy.
Well Nathan, I imagine it’s like it was in Nam, how many of your buddies would want to have our Iraqi ‘friendlies’ watching their back? I remember once in Nha Trang, a busload of us were being taken to the flight line, which the ARVN’s had responsibility, at the check station, an ARVN had his pistol drawn and cocked, pointed at an American. I yelled “Let’s get them”, and we all unloaded at the gate and surrounded the guard, even though we were unarmed. The MP’s arrived and calmed the ARVN down.
RB,JM,
“A part of your plan sounds suspiciously like what Saddam did. What makes us better than him if we thwere to institute that? And for what purpose?”
That’s because it is what Saddam did, except he carried out the reality of it with no fakery.
The tangent I went off on was to illustrate that tribal/religious divisions are almost impossible to quell unless you go totally brutal on them.
They do not think like a Judeo-Christian nation, they have no rules.
In Case your wondering here is GARTH McGINN’s position and solution to the Iraq War. It is only a small part of his views on National Security. To see the rest go to http://www.gogarth.org
According to GARTH McGINN:
National Security begins by demanding the specific milestones for withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the measures to determine those milestones and, most importantly, accountability for not hitting those milestones. Rubber stamping a foreign policy that has placed our nation in a more dangerous position and worsened our reputation around the world is unacceptable. There was a time just not too long ago when U.S. citizens were proud to wear their colors abroad. Now, we’ve been asked to not display our flag or colors for fear of retribution or worse. We can not bully the world into submission. We have to lead by example. In that regard, I believe we are failing miserably.
SOLUTIONNational Security:a) Demand specific milestones for withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the measures to determine those milestones and, most importantly, demand accountability for not hitting those milestones.
“They do not think like a Judeo-Christian nation, they have no rules.”
JM, they have rules; just not ones with which we are familiar.
Okay, JM, I agree with that. I’m just not sure I agree with us repeating it or that if we did, it would do any good. WE think like a Judeo-Christian nation.
We destabilized the country. It will probably take years and years to stabilize it again, and perhaps will take another Saddam.
Bush doesn’t happen to fiddle, does he?
Bush plays the guitar. He was playing it and eating cake as Katrina hit. You’d have to ask him about the fiddle.
Send them Heathens to the maker, it’s the Christian thing to do, some would say.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
We did not succeed in Korea or Vietnam and now we are faced with a megleomanic with delusions of godhood in North Korea.
Nukes are not toys and countries that kill and maim their own and or innocents are not mature enough to have nuclear capabilities.
Either deal with problems now (Iraq and Iran) or deal with them later (North Korea) but deal with them we must, by whatever means we must. We have no choice
Since before the Cold War ended, and I lived through most, if not all, of it, I’ve said many times that it would not be Russia that would send us a nuclear gift, but the a tiny country’s leader with a trigger-happy finger.
However, we must remember that WE were the ones who dropped the first and only of those nuclear bombs. We started this. We may be finished by it. We live in a world of irony.
Nathan, according to both CIA and military commanders on the ground, OBL was at Tora Bora. We, on the other hand had maybe a hundred (probably less, according to most accounts) special forces on the ground there. WHY? Because we were too busy ramping up for Iraq. We instead farmed it out to the warlords and he got away. So yes, I’m comfortable blaming President Bush for allowing him to get away.
Another prime example would be al- zarqari(?). The military requested permission to take him out at his camp in the northern no-fly zone 3 times prior to the Iraq invasion. President Bush refused them permission. So I blame President Bush for all the deaths that he caused after the invasion of Iraq because we chose NOT to take him out when we had the chance. According to aides close to Bush, it was because he thought it might affect the reasons for invading Iraq.
As for Vietnam, according to my family and friends who served in the marine corp, you are way off based concerning the ARVN. They didn’t trust them, period.
hotlick: Who are you saying is happy that OBL got away? I damn sure am NOT HAPPY about it! In fact, the only one who seems to have changed his position on OBL getting away is President Bush.
It’s pretty obvious that anything that hurts Bush makes you people happy. Anything.
hotlick,
The same could be said for ‘you people’ where Clinton is concerned.
If ya can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
Yes, ‘we people’ learned from the best. Thank you!
RD,
Look who is bringing Clinton into the picture now…
Uh, yeah, that’s right, Hotlick.
When someone has hurt me and my family and my community and my country and my WORLD as much as Bush has, I want that son of a bitch to suffer for it.
Worst. President. Ever.
And btw when I say “son of a bitch,” I don’t mean that a hyperbole. I mean it literally.
Barbara Bush is the epitome of bitch, she’s the essence of bitch.
Merriam-Webster put her picture next to their dictionary definition of “bitch.”
I’m taking a poll:
Who here really thinks like CapnAmerica writes?
Thank you.
Pat Tillman’s brother, also an Army Ranger, speaks out …
After Pat’s Birthday
By Kevin Tillman
Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.
It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out.
Much has happened since we handed over our voice:
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,
Kevin Tillman
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/20/pat-tillmans-brother-speaks-out/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthdig.com%2Freport%2Fitem%2F200601019_after_pats_birthday%2F&frame=true
LOL, Nathan! Yeah, you’re right. I couldn’t help myself.
SM,
In answer to your poll, see Ben’s post of Kevin Tillman’s letter.
Those are great words from Mr Tilman. Truly great words. No doubt if he tried to voice them directly to the President he would be arrested.
Good news, now that Bush made torture legal, intelligence officials in the future will be able to torture W., Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to find out why we really invaded illegally Iraq, lost 3,000 American soldiers, 1.1 billion dollars a week and helped kill 650,000 Iraqis in three years.
Oh, and as far as a stable democracy in Iraq, there isn’t any.
“Mission Accomplished!”
Analysis: U.S. faces hard Iraq optionsROBERT H. REIDAssociated PressWith pressure mounting for changing policy in Iraq, the U.S. faces tough options – including partitioning the country, setting a date for a phased troop withdrawal and offering a role for neighboring powers whose influence Washington once sought to curb.
None offers a guarantee of success in bringing peace – and some are unpalatable to powerful groups within the fragmented country.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15809109.htm
Whatever options are pursued, the prospects for a stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq appear guarded.
“Iraq at best will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society and sectarian violence,” Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Affairs wrote this month in the Financial Times.
“At worst, it will become a failed state racked by all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors.”
Boy, ol’ George really has made a pretty mess hasn’t he?!
A view from a veteran …
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/20/thank-you-soldier-but-you-neednt-fight-for-my-freedoms/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populistamerica.com%2Fthank_you_soldier_but_you_neednt_fight_for_my_freedoms&frame=true
an excerpt …
“Using Andy Rooney’s rationale [the 2-minute satirist-in-residence of TV news magazine "60 Minutes", and correspondent for Stars and Stripes during WWII] those of us who have served in the military have earned the right to express overt criticism. Today’s column is but a collage of both ideas and feelings transmitted to me by a broad spectrum of veterans, people who have earned that right, from a 20-year-old recent Purple Heart Iraq returnee, to an octogenarian ex-bombardier who still remembers the horrors of Dresden, to several Nam vets who after three decades continue serving penance for what they have accepted as their sins.
What many of these vets, draftees as well as volunteers, claim not to understand is why the lie persists and appears to be accepted by those in uniform today, whether in the regular ranks, or the National Guard. Even if most of these young people entered the military with honorable, or excusable, reasons – from a sense of duty, or misplaced patriotism, to something as mundane as a job, a way of getting a skill or an education – after one or two years, particularly those who have served in occupied countries, the reality of the situation should have become crystal-clear. If the original intent was not that of a mercenary, by reenlisting, by consenting to stay as part of a hiring imperial army, like it or not, mercenaries they’ve become.
A year ago, a Vietnam veteran and history professor at a Southeastern college sent me an email challenging something which I had written in a column. He reminded me how our human nature has evolved little in a world of accelerating technological change. The idea of empire, the quest of sword and cross, now discarded by a tired or perhaps more enlightened Europe, he told me, has now reached our shores. It’s our turn to take pride in giving this empire our sons and daughters to brandish both the sword and the cross, to either kill enemies or capture their souls. As clarification, the professor stated that the cross is now camouflaged as democracy, American-style democracy.
Could we be teaching our young people that faith must always have the upper hand over reason? For a nation founded by freethinkers with great vision, how could we have retro-evolved to the dark ages?”
WASHINGTON – The Iraqi government is going to have to take over its country’s security “sooner rather than later,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday, as the violence there continued to escalate.
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials, including Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander inIraq, are working with the Iraqi government to develop projections as to when they think they can pass off various pieces of responsibility. He provided no detail.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_2
And if the ARI doesn’t take over? Then what?
Ben, it seems it’s a moot point now. Bush says he won’t make changes in strategy. But I think we already knew that, didn’t we?
He’d have to have a strategy to be able to make changes. Going with the sweets and flowers, greeted as liberators was about as far out as he planned.
Tax payers are currently footing the bill for a 450 million dollar embassy being built on 104 acres of prime Bagdad real estate.The last time we involved ourselves in regime change our embassy personel were taken hostage, prior to that they were being airlifted from the embassy roof in Saigon.
Rox – my point exactly. They say “the ARI better take over” but then have no “plan B” for when they ARI does not.
Yes, Ben. Building castles in the air.
What I still don’t understand is that the only solution to Iraq from the democrats is to leave. Whether it is the cut and run or phased withdrawl or whatever they want to call it, that is the plan.
So, how on earth is that going to help make anything here better?
Almost every thing negative said si about the death toll here, the pending civil war, the violence, the death toll…
So, Bush want’s to stay and support the rebuilding of the infrastructure, continued training of Iraqi Police and Army, and providing security.
And all he gets is attacked for it.
It is the most circular argument ever:
Iraq is bad, so we should leave. Which is going to leave Iraq as bad.
Iraqi people are being killed, which is Bush’s fault so we shoudl leave, when we leave more Iraqi people will be killed in the chaos.
It is really sad that all you on the left can do is constantly attack, attack, attack.
And then you wonder why people like me say you give the terrorists here hope.
Why do you think they do whatever they can to make things look ugly here? It is because they are counting on the typical liberals to use every single bit of it to attack, attack, attack.
It is like you absolutely refuse to accept that good things are being done here because all you see is the body count. (which the number never matters, you are going to use whatever death there is to attack, attack, attack)
Nathan
It is not just liberal democrats who now realize that attempting to occupy or remake Iraq was a mistake. We just knew it ahead of time.
So did Colin Powell.
The opinion that Iraq must make its own future gains in support every day from Americans of almost ALL politics.
You ask “So, how on earth is that going to help make anything here better?
(For reader clarity, Nathan’s “here” is Iraq where he is stationed.
It isn’t. Not right away anyway. There are three major factions battling in Iraq. Our military playing referee on them has become a fourth faction hated by the other three. Our leaving will do nothing to change the course of Iraq. It will just allow the inevtiable civil war there to go ahead and play itself out.
You say (the comments in parentheses are MY addition):”So, Bush want’s to stay and support the rebuilding of the infrastructure (Halliburton), continued training of Iraqi Police and Army (kake), and providing security(Blackwater).
No Nathan bush wants to stay becase he will never ever admit he was wrong or ask for help from the world community. Actually bush isn’t even IN Iraq. He did make a short visit or two. bush wants others to stay in Iraq. He is outta the way.
Nathan you are doing your duty and living your convictions. Those of us who disagree with you have less on the line but we are doing the same. Would you ask for less? Would you want the public NOT to hold the president accountable when he has placed you and others in harms way? bush won’t learn. He won’t budge either so don’t worry about that. But NEXT time, if there has to be a next time, next time maybe America will think harder and ask more before we commit our troops to some thing or other. You should be grateful for that. Just as we are grateful for your service.
JR,
So when you constantly quote the death toll here like you actually care about the Iraqi dead and then say we should just leave and let them kill even more… what you really are saying is that you don’t care about the loss of life, just the leverage it gives you to attack Bush.
No JR, I was not talking about Haliburton, Blackwater or kake. I am talking about all the Marines, Soldiers, and Sailors that I see every day helping rebuild, provide security, and train.
I know it doesn’t quite support your conspiracy theory about some military industrial complex which you claim Bush cares more about than anything else though…
“What I still don’t understand is that the only solution to Iraq from the democrats is to leave.”
Actually–and I don’t know if this is political at all–but I just read something about another possible plan.
Envoy: U.S. showed ’stupidity’ in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq – A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.
ADVERTISEMENTIn an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.
“We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.
“We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation,” he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. “The Iraqi government is convinced of this.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_insurgents_5
Nathan
I don’t “constantly post the Iraqi death count”. I THINK I have mentioned it maybe twice. I DO know that it is likely that more Iraqis have been killed after the occupation then likely would otherwise have been.
Nathan,
Do you know I replied to you on the Murtha proud to be a Defeatocrat thread? Not that it’s important, but I don’t want you to think I didn’t.
“I DO know that it is likely that more Iraqis have been killed after the occupation then likely would otherwise have been.”
This survey statistically demonstrates the truth of JR’s position. I know providing data like this to Nathan is an abject waste of time, but I am always hopeful that others might find this info useful.
http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/0140-6736/PIIS0140673606694919.pdf
On the open thread, I have made many posts about the methodology and conclusions from this study.
“Bush has made torture legal”This is the kind of thinking that is perfect to show how the Libs think about many things. My convictions only get stronger by the minute.
No, Nathan. JR isn’t saying that.
What I’m pretty sure JR is saying is what I say too–that when Saddam Hussein killed people, that was bad and that was wrong, BUT we weren’t responsible for it.
Now WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for it.
Bush went into Iraq with no workable plan.
And we’ve seen how it’s working.
Things are worse this year than they were last year. Worse last year than when we first went in.
There are some problems you can’t solve by dropping a bomb on them.
BTW, I heard Bush communication shill Ron Senor say that 1.3 million Iraqis were killed under Saddam Hussein (30 years).
That’s 40,000 a year.
200,000 a year have been killed since we overthrew the government according to the latest study.
We are quantifiably WORSE than Saddam Hussein.
Nathan – circular argument: we cannot win doing what we are doing now but we cannot change what we are doing because to do so would be “cut and run” So, what is Bush’s plan? MORE OF THE SAME PATTERN OF FAILURE!
Iraq is bad, so we should stay. Which is going to leave Iraq worse.
Iraqi people are being killed, which is Bush’s fault but we shoudl stay anyway, when we leave after a million are dead then even more Iraqi people will be killed in the chaos.
It is really sad that all you on the right can do is constantly attack, attack, attack. You refuse to recognize the reality that your “plan” has been a disaster.
And then you wonder why people like me say you give the terrorists here hope.
Capn – not 200,000; 660,000.
“We are quantifiably WORSE than Saddam Hussein.” – CapnAmerica
And you wonder Capn, why you get called unpatriotic.
outlander – I notice that you didn’t question his statement.
“It is really sad that all you on the right can do is constantly attack, attack, attack. You refuse to recognize the reality that your “plan” has been a disaster.”
I don’t have to Ben. His statement is unpatriotic and stupid on it’s face.
So, even if true, telling the truth is unpatriotic and stupid.
Welcme to 1984; you will do fine in the Ministry of Truth.
outlander – is this US diplomat unpatriotic and stupid?
Diplomat cites U.S. ’stupidity’ in IraqHAMZA HENDAWIAssociated PressBAGHDAD, Iraq – A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.”We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15818708.htm
No, it is the BushBots who are unpatriotic and stupid.
Outlander used to have a modicum of credibility. In his desperation, he has lost it all, as well as his mind. Too bad.
Outlander does seem to be slipping…..
Who was it that said “Patriortism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Outlander can you define “patriotism” for us? You should be able to. Your side seems to claim a monopoly on it. Let’s hear from a “patriot” what patriotism is. Cause if it is embracing a lost cause that is helping NO ONE as is the case with bush’s little crusade, I can’t get in with that.
JR: If you aren’t astute enough to figure out why a patriotic American should be offended at CapnAmerica’s comment, well it confirms a lot. When someone says that their country is worse than Saddam Hussein, no qualifications, no nothing, it shows a hostility toward their America that is sick and harmful.
And speaking of 1984 Ben, now we have a “new speak” on the left, that being irrationally critical and insulting of your country is the new patriotism.Steven, I expected some degree of thougthfulness out of you instead of schoolyard insults. I am sick of liberals running down our country and then getting offended when it is called on them. And sick of liberals who then mindlessly defend them.
Well said outlander!
“I am sick of liberals running down our country and then getting offended when it is called on them. And sick of liberals who then mindlessly defend them.”Posted by: outlander | October 22, 2006 at 06:57 AM
I am sick of conservatives running down our country and then getting offended when it is called on them. And sick of conservatives who then mindlessly defend them.
Cuts both ways, outlander.
One of the biggest indicators of a need for fundamental change is when 2 seemingly opposite statements are true at the same time.
One example is outlander’s and my respective statements above.
Another:Iraqi people are being killed, which is Bush’s fault but we shoudl stay anyway, when we leave after a million are dead then even more Iraqi people will be killed in the chaos.
Such circularity means that fundamental changes is needed. Bush is incapable of change. Therefore, we need to change Bush.
Elect Democrats: it’s the ONLY possible path to needed change.
What change? You mean leaving Iraq and watching more people die?
Just admit it, you don’t care about the Iraqi people, all you care about is using their deaths to further your hate Bush speech.
Anything to further your cause…
Or staying in Iraq and watching more people die?
You don’t get it.
Again, when 2 seemingly opposite statements are true at the same time, it’s a strong indicator that fundamental change is needed.
The model is broken, and Bush can’t fix it because he WON’T fix it.
If a fix is possible, it can ONLY come from Democrats.
Pendant,
Perhaps you don’t understand the word MORE in the proper context.
I am not talking about people continuing to die, I am talking about MORE people being killed than there would be if we stay.
Again,
Why can a fix only come from the democrats? Most of them have only suggested leaving on time tables ranging from immediatlely to phased.
Is that the fix you are talking about?
We are fixing things everyday here. Becuase you choose to be ignorant of it or purposefully ignore it is your problem.
Anything to further the Hate Bush speech…
“Perhaps you don’t understand the word MORE in the proper context.
I am not talking about people continuing to die, I am talking about MORE people being killed than there would be if we stay.”Posted by: Nathan | October 22, 2006 at 09:46 AM
You need to prove to me that more people would die if we leave than would die if we stay. It seems perfectly reasonable that a US presence in Iraq only slows the RATE at which Iraqis are killed, not the cumulative total. In other words, it seems reasonable to conclude that an American presence just retards an all-out civil war in Iraq.
If that’s true, then what’s crucial is that the growth in Iraqi deaths decline. If the rate at which Iraqi’s are dying is slowing, then I would grant more weight to your argument that MORE Iraqi’s would die if we left. If, on the other hand, Iraqi deaths are accelerating, then it seems reasonable to grant more weight to the argument that our military footstep there is merely slowing an inevitable all-out civil war.
If we’re merely slowing the inevitable, then we’re not saving Iraqi lives, we’re only prolonging them.
Iraqi deaths are increasing, therefore it seems reasonable to conclude your argument is false.
And because since 2001 the Republicans have voted as a bloc (has Bush vetoed a single Republican act of Congress in the past 5 years?), a vote for ANY Republican is a vote for “stay the course.” But there is strong evidence that our model is broken, that fundamental change is needed. “Stay the course” is exactly the WRONG strategy.
Ergo, only Democrats are capable of fixing Iraq, IF a solution exists.
I am sorry for you Outlander. You are sliding into blind follower status. Thus what you have to say is becoming increasingly irrational….and irrlelevant.
Ya know what Outie? I’m a little sick of people who challenge patriotism. I note you did not define patriotism as I asked you to do. You merely restated your attack on Capn and widened it to include me!
Hey Out? Where are you on the matter of more accumulation of power to the executive and thus subverting the Constitution? Maybe it is YOUR patriotism that must be questioned.
Thanks JR and Steven and Pedant.
You got it right.
When the Bush official (and total shill) says that 1.3 million Iraqis died under Saddam Hussein’s watch over thirty years, you can calculate that to roughly 40,000 deaths a year.
The new study that came out shows that from our invasion and occupation, 650,000 Iraqis have died and that’s in about 3 years or 200,000 deaths a year.
Iraqis are getting killed at FIVE TIMES THE RATE that they did when Saddam Hussein was in power.
Just because BushCo. has “good intentions” (even if true, which I very much doubt) does not absolve the US from creating the situation that allows these deaths to occur and becomes part ot the active killing mechanism (for instance the revenge killings on the town of Fallujah).
“Judge not by appearances, but judge with right judgement.” Or, to put it another way, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
Elect dumbocrats and the country will be run by the likes of Pelosi, Dean and Reid. Wouldn’t that be nice. Their fix for Iraq would be to cut and run with our tail between our legs. The Liberals who run the democratic party have proposed no solution they have only spewed hate and vitriol. How is it that a party that many good members and stands firmly on the premise that America is a good nation have let themselves become overrun and outspoken by the far left wing within their own party. Since we are worse than Saddam why doesn’t capnmoronica and the people like him go hang out in his cell with him. Iraq is going to fall apart sooner or later but we are there and so are the terrorists. The more of them we can kill now the better. Another thing is Iraq is just a staging area for us concerning Iran. They are next and the high level planners are already working on it.
Hehehe, I don’t know if you are really as dumb as you sound or if you just do this to needle me.
Anyway, you’re going to have quit with the “cut and run” meme.
Your government handlers have a new spin for you.
Check this out:
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
TODAY–
STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”
BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George.
*****
Tune in to Rush for your new line of attack against Democrats. The old one hasn’t been polling well apparently.
It must be hard for you simple-minded folks who can only repeat Republican spin to keep up with the ever-changing excuses and rationale, but, dammit, you’re going to have to do better if you want to keep the “dumbocrats” out of office.
Now, start hitting the National Review and the Weekly Standard sites to update your programming.
the dems will get their chance in 2008. Surely as “smart” as they are they will find a way to “steal” the whitehouse.
by the way captain moronica what is your plan for Iraq? Or is spewing hate and dicontent all you do.
I already told you the plan on another thread.
Do your own homework.
And BTW, did you ever think that what makes ICT suck is people like you?
Because I have, and you do.
LOL
Good grief, what is that sound coming from the holiest of elite holies, aka President Bush?
Was that a FLIP FLOP!?!? And not coming in, say December, but coming like 16 days from an election and thereby making it about as believable as any other election-eve change of heart? I mean, literally right at a time when we all know he must really, truly, solemnly, cross-his-heart-and-hope-to-die-if-only-voters-will-keep-Pelosi-at-bay REALLY REALLY REALLY mean it!?!?
LOL
Ahem. Seriously, I wonder how that makes the families of dead service men and women feel, not to announce this like when everybody else realized it was a fucked-up strategy, but to wait instead until RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION?
Ok, if there was any doubt before, it’s all gone now.
Worst.President.Ever.
What thread, I am new to this so i will have a steep learning curve. What website did you cut and paste it from. I figure ict sucked before i ever got here. Capn must be a native. By the lean of his posts he would fit well in San Francisco though.
I sympathize that you are new ict.But I gotta be honest. That second to last post of yours? You called Capn a name!Wow impressive?
And the one before it? I could put that together with cut-n-pastes from talk radio. No style or personal depth at all. You did a real good job…..of telling us what RUSH thinks.
Try and be more than a list of talking points and insults.
ouch, i didn’t call him a name just renamed him. who’s rush?