I was deeply opposed to going into Iraq because I believed that Colin Powell got it right, “You break it, you own it.” Going in alone (essentially) was going mean we would be isolated, create greater animosity for the US, splinter an Iraq held together via a tradition of despotism, and would lack the resolve needed to succeed. I cannot overstate my contempt for Bush, nor do I believe his motives were clean in this misadventure that has cost so many lives (US & Iraqi) and so much money & national focus.
The primary thing I believe about US and its media is there is a “herd” mentality. Once it gets started, reason, logic and analysis fall away. It happened with this war, and I think it’s happening now. It’s the “we broke it and who gives a flying fuck?” herd.
I am concerned about an Iraq that disintegrates into further chaos. What will this do to embolden Iran and extremist groups, because the real troubling outcome is a nuke going off in Manhattan or Long Beach? And I do not suspect the existing Iraqi government can succeed independently to hold it together. I fear if we pull out now, we are washing our hands of a even more dreadful scenario that will unfold.
And so, with enormous bile in my throat and truly deep contempt for Bush et al, I think it’s worth a shot at escalating our efforts. Is 21K new troops enough? Doesn’t seem so, but what do I know.
But you gotta know that concluding this really pisses me off. There can be no fate unfortunate enough for this dimwit. And all of you who voted for him in the 2nd term who have now changed your mind, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING??
applaud you for your courage in enlisting in the army to fight the terrorists in Iraq. You are the first person I have heard with this position actually put their money where their mouth is and enlist because they felt the job needed to be done...wait, let me read your post again...uhm...never mind.
And I am so glad I voted for him twice and especially the 2nd time cause we woulda had John the pinhead Kerry as president if he'd lost.
You gotta see the photo of Kerry meeting Vietnam's former General Secretary of the Communist Party, Do Moui. Kerry's looking down at Moui with the goofyist look on his face, like he's holding back a poop, and Moui's looking up at Kerry with a who the fuck are you glare. And that pic is displayed in the War Remnant Museum in Ho Chi Minh City honoring the hereos who helped the Vietnamese communist win the war against the U.S.A. So they're honoring Kerry for what he is- a traitor.
Yup, Kerry is a traitor. hehehe
P.S. That photo is in the photo section of Unfit to Command that's written by the honorable John E. O'Neill and Professor Jerome R. Corsi, PH.D. right after page 88
missed his medication again.
I'm 55, so you're point isn't made on me. And while my neice went to Iraq, that's not the same as my son. So I asked myself, would I sacrifice my son for this effort? Now, it's no longer abstract, but deeply personal.
Well, I guess that depends on how vulnerable I feel to a nuke going off the US if Iraq goes all to hell. Because that's worth stopping, even if it means my beloved young adult son.
So if my son were drafted to this, would I advise him to go or refuse? Wow, that's a tough one. It's easier to consider in the abstract. The best I can answer is this: I would have encouraged him to avoid Viet Nam, but I'd be neutral on Iraq, and positive on WWII.
Your sarcasm pissed me off, but your point is well taken.
credibility in the people who have been wrong at every step of the way in this debacle than those that have been right. Personally, I would give my life to protect my children. The thought of "sacrificing" them to anything has never crossed my mind. I certainly would not sacrifice them to placate my own paranoid fantasies or to protect the ego of our fearless leader. I guess our kids are lucky that it is not our decision to make.
I don't base my opinion on Bush's credibility, but on having looked at the discussion from several sources over the past few days.
So, you think the possibility of a nuke in US is "paranoid fantasy"?
I hope you're right. But not only the immediate impact of such horror, but the consequences in the aftermath of how the US would respond and the chain reaction that follows are staggeringly bleak.
So my assumption is: if Iran and extremists gain control of Iraq, does this not embolden them because they believe the US is without the necessary resolve?
So here's my question to you: what do you think the scenarios are if we pull out?
same plan that he has tried and failed at for the past three years my guess is that the scenario will be the same one that will occur when we finally pull out next year--except with 1,000 less dead American troops.
How could you not be basing your opinion on Bush's credibility? What discussion are you listening too? Even Republicans are against this escalation. Maliki is backed by Al Sadr who is backed by the Iranians. Don't you realize how stupid this policy is? We are supporting the same side as the Iranians. How will that not leave them in control?
Maybe you're right about the result. Certainly, there are many who agree with this. But Maliki and a gov't that functions to some degree is less problematic than all hell really breaking loose. I just can't fathom leaving now.
The point we agree upon is that this is really a very badly fucked up, really disasterous mess. With not one good alternative.
All that being said, I think one last shot at it is worth the risk....
is not calling this the last shot. It is only the last shot until the next last shot. Read his speech again closely. He is not proposing anything new. All he said was that we are going to try really hard now and that this time Maliki really means it. Also, success will look like lots of bloodshed and even more violence.
than all your other 100 most recent posts combined...
It is likewise interesting that you think this is all about Bush. Yet, I'm sure you cannot see how many of us on the right get the distinct impression that you WOULD "sacrifice" many things (of others) simply to see your "fearless" leader's apparent ego deflated. For those of "our" children that have volunteered to serve, it IS someone's choice that they be put in harms way. It is first their choice and then their leader's.
-- Modified on 1/11/2007 10:02:06 PM
months "listening" to all these diverse opinions following an election that repudiates his policies, has to fire his generals becaue they do not agree with him and then decides on the same failed course of action that he had before all of the listening and yet you say it is not about Bush.
And sorry to burst your bubble but no, we do not live in a dictatorship (at least not yet) so it is not just up to fearless leader and the troops.
Heard an interview with Sen. Obama today and I think he put this all in perspective: he said that since the election Bush had been listening -- to the voters, to the generals and to the Iraq Study Group -- but not hearing.
....That our Military was not intended to fight and win wars. It is actually a work-fare program to give underprivileged young Americans a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Bush continues to vulgarly mis-use our military by putting these soldiers in harms-way then asking them to do as he commands them! THAT IS SO UNFAIR!!
Why can't we just get back to life-as-usual, like it was under Clinton or Carter where we allow our soldiers to get back in college like they signed up for and we only launch a few small scattered "Blackhawk Down" style raids around the globe or botching rescues of our hostages by crashing our helicopters in the sand, and just letting the Muslims gain arms and sell us oil to buy them...
VOTE FOR OBAMA! And let's get back to fat-n-happy democrat life! Just how we like it!
Reagan's dealings with Iran and George the First dealing with the Taliban and the fact that they armed Saddam Hussein in the first place. Regarding your view that if their is no war going on your army is wasted, my only comment is that you are a crazed little man.
step up to the plate and hit the DAMN ball. Pass binding resolutions that take control of the military. It IS within your (the left's) power, because you now control ALL the spending. Why don't you do it?
see if Bush vetoes any appropriation bills if they have restrictions on the use of military funds. Will he be for funding the troops before he was against it?
Although some Dems want to use your method to take the heat off themselves.
Executive does not have limitless money to keep going. Congress must periodically renew the funding. If they do not, then the executive runs out of money. No potential vetoes need apply.
Next one up is in February I think.
The LA Times headline this morning was along the lines of "Both parties want to get our troops home." Something like that.
This reflects the point at the heart of what I am thinking. The national discussion is framed around "Get the troops home."
I think that is the wrong focus, and reflects that "herd" dynamic.
The focus should be on "What the hell do we do to rectify this absolutely disasterous wreck?"
Now, obviously the point can be made that this is what all that input that Bush is ignoring tried to address, and the answer is "nothing."
But my concern, given the potential consequences, is that the momentuum of the herd has shaped the conversation so deeply that the focal question of "Can we resolve this more successfully, and if so, how?" is not the question being debated.
And that should be the focus.
Followed next by one about "impeaching the bastard."
i agree at least in part. a couple of things to think about. 1. most military experts agree we beat the shit out of the NVA at the Tet 68. but the war ended in a disgrace for us because public perception drove it there.
2. no one ever talks about SEA 75, 76,77, when millions were being slaughtered, Something are best forgotten??? Maybe is esuages that generation to forget paul Pot....nevertheless, the same willful blindness is EXCATLY the point you were making before and i agrre with you on the point.
i don't give shit one about bush, i did'nt vote for him in 04, he's not my guy, but he is CIC and we alllose when we diminish him more then what need be. lets FIRST, do this right and then you can hang thre bastard
-- Modified on 1/12/2007 11:39:47 AM
Viet Nam prove that you are in favor of a never ending quagmire I imagine that everyone who is in favor of making Iraq a never ending quagmire should listen to your advice.
-- Modified on 1/12/2007 7:09:56 PM
fuck your friends in the ass
i'd hate to be caught in a dark alley with you.
for your attention to her titties...
-- Modified on 1/12/2007 10:06:29 PM
who opposed this war since before it started guilty of herd mentality? I assume that you already forgot that the largest protests in U.S. history occured to protest this war.
Haven't you figured out yet that Bush isn't listening to anyone outside of his own little circle?
Granted, they were big for ONE day (I think most were looking for a day off work), but they paled in comparison to the Vietnam war protests. Back then the protestors were COMMITTED. People were actually setting themselves ablaze outside the Pentagon.
-- Modified on 1/13/2007 12:12:56 AM