Shadow Jordan
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
From Bush’s speech last night:
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
Allow me to review.
Amount spent in Iraq thus far:
$357 billion
US Troops (our sons and daughters) in Iraq:
150,000-ish (this, PLUS troops from other nations [~17,000 as of August 2006] PLUS Iraq police and military)
Our huge military, plus all our allies, plus all our massive military machines (helicopters, fighters, massive weaponry) and all our money – rapidly approaching half a trillion – have failed to stop the insurgents.
And what apparently unstoppable insurgency are we fighting? According to a CNN article from 2005:
The U.S. military faces between 13,000 and 17,000 insurgents in Iraq, the large majority of them backers of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, a senior military official said Tuesday.
Do the Bush and war supporters out there understand that, if all of these combined forces, lives, dollars and efforts can’t quash a force of 15,000 probably mostly untrained insurgents probably working on a shoestring budget, that the majority of the US just doesn’t believe that an additional 21,000 of our sons and daughters is going to make a difference? That it is not a winning approach and that we think a new strategy is needed?
And do you understand why we can’t possibly support this effort? We simply don’t believe that your solution is any solution at all. Bush has offered nothing – nothing – to make us believe he has the first good idea of how to resolve this quagmire we’re in.
Worse, the data tells me that, if all of your massive military solution can’t stop this tiny insurgency, that I certainly couldn’t trust Team Bush to defend against any serious enemy.
If Bush gets his way, do you think that next year when Bush comes back and asks for an additional 20,000, that THOSE additional soldiers will make a difference? An additional 200,000?
Seriously, at what point will you be willing to admit that the strategy is flawed?
======
UPDATE:
WASHINGTON - Seventy percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, according to a new poll that provides a devastatingly blunt response to President Bush's plan to bolster military forces there.
UPDATE II:
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said Rice's responses had echoes of the debate over the Vietnam War, when the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency. Hagel, a veteran of that war, called Bush's plan "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
UPDATE III:
The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat inIraq.
[This, from the "support the troops" crowd?! Let's support our troops in ways that count: Let's not force them into open-ended tours of duty with no opportunities to get off the brutal treadmill. I'll trade war supporters volunteering for duty in trade for your yellow ribbon magnet any day.
Let' support our troops with a sane foreign policy. -dt]
65 comments:
You apparently didn't listen very well to the plan/speech. You certainly heard it, but you and every other leftist heard only what you wanted to hear... You did not listen. You sat down with mind closed, ears closed, biases firmly entrenched and defended... And refused to listen.
You, like every every other democrat in Washington do not care to see America win this war... just as these same "Patriots" didn't care to see America win in Vietnam. Oh, you claim you do, but you offer no word of support or encouragement-- only criticism and indictment. But then that's the Left's motto: "If you can't beat them, slander them" which goes well with the democratic 'tried-and-true' "Surrender, by any means necessary"
If Bush's speech demonstrated anything it's the utter predictability of the Left to hate victory... ACHIEVABLE victory.
Be that as it may, Bush will get his 20+ thousand troops and Congress will not cut funding. Simple as that, but they'll certainly cry and decry every aspect of it from now till 'I can't imagine when'
Thanks for being honest.
"You, like every every other democrat in Washington do not care to see America win this war"
You apparently haven't listened to those opposed to the war. It's not that we are opposed to "winning." It's that one CAN'T "win" an immoral war.
But fine, you say we can. Tell me, what are 20,000 more soldiers going to differently against the thousands of insurgents that the 200,000 haven't already done?
Do you understand that when Bush says, "We've made some mistakes in our plan, but we're going to add 20,000 more soldiers and continue the plan" that we are less than thrilled?
The prez. himself said that the political dimensions would be as important as the military ones: But what evidence has this Iraqi govt. ever given that it is willing to make the necessary compromises to give the Sunnis a stake in the future of a united Iraq? Al-Maliki CANNOT go after al-Sadr because he owes his physical and political life to him.
This is now only partly an insurgency. The rest, the larger part, is composed of sectarian violence--a de facto civil war. How many times in history has an outside occupying army been able to stop two sides killing each other? Very few.
Bush's plan is opposed by most of the generals ON THE GROUND. Clear, hold and build--but how do even 20,000 more troops clear and hold in a city of nearly 7 million? We already know that the Maqti Army (sp??) has passed out weapons house to house in Sadr City. Can our troops win without wiping Baghdad out??
As even REPUBLICAN Senator Chuck Hagel said, This will be the worst foreign policy disaster since 'Nam. There is no military solution, and Bush rejected the political solutions of the Iraq Study Group. So, chaos of some size will ensue whether we leave now or 10 years from now. The sooner we leave (while still funding rebuilding efforts), the sooner we can minimize the chaos we caused.
"You, like every every other democrat in Washington do not care to see America win this war.."
Neither do you ELAshley. Unless.... you are volunteering to go fight it. I've got some brand new desert combat boots I'll give you for free if you go sign up at your local army recruiter. So far I don't have any takers.
Since you nothing about me Marty, allow me to inform you that I did my time, and past re-enlistment age. Thanks for your offer.
Well, Marty's son has done his time in the midst of Iraq, more than once. Why don't you re-up so he doesn't get sent back as part of this 21,000.
I'll still gladly receive the answer to this unanswered question:
What are 20,000 more soldiers going to differently against the thousands of insurgents that the 200,000 haven't already done?
The 20,000 more isn't for military reasons per se. It's for propaganda reasons. The enemy was watching to see if with the switch in American government, we would begin scaling back. The Prez is trying to show that such is not the route to be taken.
Much more important is the shift in how the war is prosecuted. If the military becomes less concerned with being PC, it could have a significant affect.
But there's a danger here too. If the 20K and the shift in policy DON'T get results, our bag of tricks is just about empty at this point. Bad news then.
Suppose you're correct, E. This whole thing is about proving "I'm tougher than you."
One of the lessons out of this Iraq fiasco is that you don't need a comparable army to take on the Mighty US. A defeated country with NO organized military and no military budget to speak of can hold us at bay for FOUR years!
We're proving not how tough we are but how limited our military is.
This benefits us, how?
Dan:"We're proving not how tough we are but how limited our military is."
Rather I'd say - we're proving how much we have limited our military.
You can't tread on eggshells and prosecute a war. Now, I'm not making a comment about the war being right or wrong or a good idea or a bad idea. Only the logistics of the matter. But your post previous to this points out the main problem. War is a nasty business. Things get broken and people are harmed and killed. But when every bit of stray shrapnel is scrutinized on blogs such as this AND the military decision makers take that into account, it prolongs the war.
The goal of this war is now ... what? I don't know. At first we were trying to prevent the world for abandoning using US dollars as the reserve currency for oil transactions, but that's pretty much in the toilet now, they are doing it anyway.
Did you ever see the flick Karate Kid where the character played by Pat Morito says to the boy, "You karate do, yes, you fine. You karate do no, you fine. You karate do maybe, you in trouble then." (or to wit). My comment on limiting the military boils down to this: Prosecute the war or don't. I'm fine with either route. But this half assed PC, don't tread on the daisies, approach is getting a LOT of people killed.
Again (broken record time) it is our consumerism that is fueling this war. We (including the war protesters) are unwilling to lay aside our consumerism (see footnote). Until we do that, wars like this are going to be necessary.
-----------------------
Footnote: Consumerism means a lifestyle of consuming far more than you contribute to producing. A person might consume quite a bit, but if they personally produce it all, that's (generally) no one's concern. A person might consume very little, but if they produce nothing, or nothing but shuffling bags of air among themselves, they are a consumerist.
The lesson we should take away from the current situation in Iraq, Dan, is that we shouldn't listen to anti-American pascifists and politicos.
Oh...and that those God-given nukes we possess should not be hidden away but utilized!
Unfortunately for you, D, you are in the minority and those opposed to this war are in the majority. You lose, at least for now. You'll have to listen to us, won't you?
You'll just have to start your own country and build your own nukes...EXCEPT, of course, that the US won't let you do so. We reserve that right for ourselves.
No...the president...as I explained at my place...was elected for four years...not until a bunch of leftist wimps get elected and decide that it's better to lose than win.
I know it's hard for you to accept...but the American people re-elected Dubya to WIN...not to walk away like an impotent liberal pascifist.
D, your hatred-filled rants bore me. Clean up your comments, please.
If you can't make a reasoned argument with points and supporting points and you just want to spew nastiness, make that sort of mess over at your place, not here.
Thank you.
Although I am a pacifist who believes this war, like all wars, is wrong, I am NOT one who believes the mission was doomed militarily from the start. I was a soldier and come from a military family and have good sources in the Center for Defense Information, etc. What would it have taken, on a purely military level, for us to win in Iraq?
1) Levelling with the American people from the get-go. We aren't going in after WMDs that probably don't exist (we know now they didn't--the evidence ahead of time suggested they probably didn't), but to topple a dictator and give a people a chance for self-determination. (Of course, oil was the real reason: Paul Bremer imposed a law that 75% of oil revenues would go to U.S. companies and Bush's "new plan," includes continuing to hold Iraq to the "Bremer rule," as the AP reported. But for the sake of this mental exercise, I'm pretending Bush had some honor.)
2)We went in with sufficient troops from the beginning and did a slow clear, hold, build strategy. Bush's "new plan," isn't wrong, just 3 years too late. This is an alternative to a "shock and awe" strategy which was designed to win quickly with minimum U.S. casualties. We would have had to have enough troops to have sealed the borders to Iran and Syria from the beginning.
3) We protected hospitals, museums, etc. first, not oil fields.
4)We installed an IRAQI interim govt. within 6 months and quickly started work on a constitution--insisting that all sects and ethnic groups benefit.
5) We SLOWLY de-Baathisized the Iraqi armed forces and civilian infrastructure.
6) We announced from the beginning that we were building no permanent bases for U.S. troops.
7) All rebuilding efforts were CLOSELY monitored to prevent fraud or corruption or war-profiteering and we rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. very quickly.
8)We transferred all power to the Iraqi's within a year after toppling Baghdad (it might have taken up to a year to GET to Baghdad if we had cleared, held, and built all the way to the capital) and began quickly phasing out troops.
This would have had an even greater chance of success if, at the same time, we VIGOROUSLY pursued a 2-state peace in Israel-Palestine and set a date shortly after Iraq's transition to self-rule for a comprehensive Middle East peace summit that pushed for a nuclear-free (including Israel) Middle East and promoted democracy and human rights throughout the region--making clear that the U.S. sought neither economic nor military hegemony.
There were other plans rejected by Bush according to insider info.: 1) There was a plan--supported by Colin Powell--to avoid the invasion by allowing Saddam Hussein to go into exile. Italy volunteered to take him. Rumor is that Condi Rice also favored this with the proviso that the U.S. assassinate Hussein in Italy! Not knowing Condi's proviso, Hussein was, say senior intelligence analysts, prepared to take this option IF Bush promised not to invade anyway--and Bush refused.
2)Military advisers told Bush ahead of time that with a large number special ops troops (Marines, Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc.), they could insert into Baghdad and remove Saddam, his sons, brother and a handful of other major criminals--taking them out of the country for international trial and leaving the major part of the govt. intact--with plans to lift sanctions etc. if it quickly held elections and a constitutional convention.
Now, again, I am a pacifist. I think that nonviolent methods are both more practical and moral. But I do NOT have a desire to see American troops "fail," nor to see dictators thrive. Any of these plans were workable. Had ANY of them been used, Bush would be one of the most popular presidents in history and Republicans would still be talking about a "permanent majority" over leftists like me.
I agree with E on this. Our troops' hands are tied in ways that make doing the job that much harder. It is impossible to fight and hope to win quickly (if at all) any war while PC is firmly in the driver's seat.
We could have leveled the entire country of both Afghanistan, AND Iraq. It's not that America CAN'T win, because we most certainly can, but rather, it's been a war fought on practicalities and pragmatism as much as anything else. It's not practical to level entire nations, nor is it moral. And pragmatists can't help but see the greater far-reaching costs leveling entire nations would bring. The simple truth is; War is bloody. Without bloodshed, it can't rightly be called "War". And crying about the immorality of this, or any war, after so much has been broken and destroyed is... Well... Immoral. ESPECIALLY if the only option being fronted is a full immediate withdrawal. We broke it, we own it.
Untie our soldiers hands and they can prosecute this war and win it in short order. We all were horrified and outraged at the death of 3,000 people in little over two hours (9-11) for all the right reasons, but it seems to me many are now horrified and outraged over 3,000 deaths is almost 3 years (longer if you include Aghanistan) for all the wrong reasons. Let's allow our troops to win it. Otherwise all these brave men and women WILL have died in vain. How immoral would that be?
Oh. And in case you didn't pay attention, Dan. I am PAST re-enlistment age. And even if I weren't, medical issues would have me sidelined long before I ever got to the barber's chair... let alone be issued boots.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for the military. I've been to North Africa, Europe, and up and down the eastern seaboard thanks to the military. And I personally think it sucks that our military is stretched to the point that many of our troops have seen 2, 3 and even 4 tours in Iraq.
Let's take the gloves off-- stop trying to "Tread Eggshells" as Eleutheros so eloquently stated. This war could have been won long ago had we simply "un-muzzled" our own Dogs of War. Mistakes were made in the prosecution of this war. We all knew this. We didn't need Bush to tell us this. But that doesn't change the fact that this war MUST be won. We stand to lose far too much by losing.
Thanks for listening.
Are you drinking Kool-aid? M W-W?
There were no WMD's? That is so wrong it's laughable.
Furthermore, we went into Iraq for the oil????
And yet, according to you, we "...protected hospitals, museums, etc. FIRST, not oil fields." ????
PUH-Leeze!
Your premise "not with my son" is flawed. He is not 'your son.' If you are fulfilling your responsibility as a parent, you realize our children are never 'ours.' And you cannot, by default use the term 'our children' they are not children, and you have no offspring in this war; those who are there are there by choice. I will not even go into the politics, the rhetoric,(most of which emboldens our enemies), the costs, the morals, (is war EVER moral? and WHOSE morals do you speak of?)
All I have to say to you and your narrow visioned blog participants... the same thing my son tells me...yes my son is a soldier, and the things being said by you, the disloyal media, and self seeking, selfish elite are hurting the cause so much more than ANYTHING the 'insurgents' are doing. Wake up and see that loose lips are SINKING more than ships. Your self righteous, harmful gathering of information only strengthens the enemy into their goal, the true goal of terrorism; to create fear, submission, retreat. THANKS for further endangering MY CHILD!
EL, your point seems confused. You said:
"Our troops' hands are tied in ways that make doing the job that much harder...
We could have leveled the entire country of both Afghanistan, AND Iraq...[but] It's not practical to level entire nations, nor is it moral."
It's not moral to level nations says you. And I agree. Nor is it practical.
And yet you seem to also be saying that it is not moral NOT to level nations, am I correct?
I think what you're saying that it is immoral, horrible, bloody, evil? to "do what it takes to win," but it is more immoral not to take the former admittedly immoral actions. Is that correct?
That is certainly the more common and widespread notion - that "war is an evil that must sometimes be engaged."
The problem is, the majority of your fellow citizens no longer believe this is a valid war. That the longer we remain engaged in it, the more damage we are doing to ourselves. This is true if we continue to prosecute a "PC war" as you say (or a "legal war" as I call it), or if we abandon morality and our laws altogether and nuke Iran, Iraq and Syria to death.
One can't "win" a wrong war, no matter how many people one kills.
"The problem is, the majority of your fellow citizens no longer believe this is a valid war."
Neither do the majority of troops Dan. Oh, there are those that think what we are doing is right. My son served with a few of them. But for the most part they feel they are nothing more than moving targets and it's time to come home. Dissent is growing in the military. Many would like to speak out but are afraid. Lt. Erin Watada is giving those a voice. I met his parents recently. They said that many fellow soldiers come up to their son in private thanking him for what he is doing.
And Peddlin, may I remind you that part of what our troops do is give us the right to dissent. You take that away and all their deaths will surely have been in vain.
I said, IF we had protected hospitals before oil fields. That we didn't is a matter of historical record well reported--even by Fox News--in 2003.
U.S. "interim governor" Paul Bremer's rule that Iraq would have to turn over 75% of its oil revenues to the U.S. is a matter of record. It's not classified. Look it up. So is Bush's demand that this continue as part of the "new plan."
And there were no WMDs. Remember the interview where Bush joked about this by pretending to look for them? No WMDs were found. Iraq had disarmed under the sanctions even more than it had led the world to believe. The Question: WHY did Iraq play a shell game that left people guessing as to whether or not they had anything left (although it was clear that they had dismantled most if not all well before 2002)? My guess is that they were more afraid of their old enemy Iran invading if they found out how weak they had become than they were of the U.S. invading--a fatal mistake. But it is only a guess. What is NOT a guess, but a fact, is that no WMDs were ever found after the invasion--even after Cheney and Rumsfeld said, point blank, that they would be found in and around Tikrit. Nada. Nunca. Nill. Zip.
That this is NEWS to you, Elashley, shows just what kind of out of touch fantasy land you rightwingers live in.
Michael, you are absolutely correct. My son worked with the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) for about six months. They found several caches of weapons during raids, however they were old, rusted out, useless... good for nothing. Even as early as June 2003 my son was writing home saying what a joke the WMD story was. This was a country on the verge of economic collapse from 12 years of sanctions. He said we dropped more tons of bombs in Baghdad then we did in all of Europe in WWII. Talk to a few soldiers that were actually on the ground doing this stuff. You'll get the truth.
Had we gone in there with economic aid instead of bombs it would have been a different story.
Amen Dan. Let's really support our troops with a sane foreign policy. AND take care of them when they do come home. The stories I hear would break your heart. The war doesn't end when they come home, believe me.
"Clean up your comments, please."
Hate-filled, Dan? Prove it! Show me ANYWHERE that I have displayed hate for ANY individual!
You are king of the backdoor attacks, bud.
And..."clean up"?
Huh?
What...just because I disagree with you my positions are dirty?
I don't get it.
Or maybe I do...you can degrade my position but I can't yours...right?
Sheesh!
You wouldn't imply that I hate anyone, would you Dan? Not without proof to back it up!
"Had we gone in there with economic aid instead of bombs it would have been a different story."
Yeah! Saddam could have built a few more palaces.
And bought another reactor or two.
"Hate-filled, Dan? Prove it!"
Allow me to make myself clear. Your name-calling is childish. Just make your comments. Leave off the "leftist wimps" and "impotent liberal pascifist." They add nothing to the conversation and make folk take you even less seriously than your already pointless rants.
Peddlin' said:
"Your premise "not with my son" is flawed. He is not 'your son.' If you are fulfilling your responsibility as a parent, you realize our children are never 'ours.'"
There is certainly some truth in the notion that our children are not "ours," that they are their own people.
But there is also the great truth that we ARE our brothers', our sisters', our children's keepers. My child is mine to defend and love. As is my neighbor's child. As is the Iraqi child. As is Peddlin's son.
If I love all of these children, I have some amount of obligation to them. And one obligation is to not kill them. A second one is not to set them up in lose/lose situations because of bad foreign policy.
My son IS indeed my son and I won't stand by and deliberately give him a deadly future.
LOL! Politically correct, huh?
That's funny. As long as you don't talk directly when you attack a person's philosophy and only imply falsehhods about a person's philosophy...that's okay.
LOL!
(Sigh!)
Typucal elitist attitude, of course.
"If I love all of these children, I have some amount of obligation to them. And one obligation is to not kill them. A second one is not to set them up in lose/lose situations because of bad foreign policy."
Just don't expect Dan to feel obligated to ptotect his countrymen from those sworn to his countrymen's utter destruction!
After all...he does have SOME obligation, right?
Sigh.
For everyone else out there, I apologize for some of the behavior of some here. I would delete such rambling nonsense but I think it speaks pretty loudly despite itself.
No sense getting involved here, looks like the libs are pretty much under control. Thanks fellas. On to other brush fires for me. Oh by the way Dan I served my time too and I would would gladly reenlist but they won't let 49 year old women go shoot muslim terrorists so I have to stay and support the troops at home from disgusting acts by liberal peacenicks instead. Have you been castrated or something? Have a nice day little fella.
Classy. Intelligent. Well-wrought argument there, LB. Come back anytime.
Boy Dan, do some people really hate peace?
Or do they just think it can be found through the barrel of a gun?
"And yet you seem to also be saying that it is not moral NOT to level nations, am I correct?"
No, Dan, you are not. I am slowly yet surely becoming more and more UN-impressed with your comprehension skills.
As for the rest, I couldn't agree more with peddlinshutterbug, and she's not the first person I've heard say it. There ARE far too many loose lips in this country bending over backwards to help our enemy defeat us. They paint their treachery as the natural, "moral" duty of consciencious objecters; 'doing the right thing' by 'exposing' this nations' 'war crimes'. Yet they are blind to their own complicity in every single American death they gleefully pronounce daily in the news. Their hands are as bloodstained as the men you and others like you decry as being terrorists themselves.
The reason there is an increasing number of people who feel this is no longer a "valid" war, is because of the shameless and egregiously irresponsible lust for personal and institutional power that blackens the 'personal and institutional' heart of America's Left... PRIMARILY.
And this last statement by you is perhaps the most idiotic bucket of tripe ever to emanate from your keyboard...
"One can't "win" a wrong war, no matter how many people one kills"
The simple and obvious truth is: Yes One Can! If we kill them all, there'll be no one left to fight us, hence... War Over. We Win. Right or wrong, Righteous or no.
I do not of course advocate this (And I fully expect you to be *appropriately appalled* by my response) Just illustrating how severely flawed is your logic.
Perhaps it is fitting you've finally removed me from your links list, for there is so little common ground between us as to make any endorsment of my site an outright lie. I can't stand against you in one respect, for only God knows for sure whether or not you ARE one of His, but I most certainly CAN stand against this bizaare fetish of yours. I reckon it's appropriate I keep your link right where it is...
Sorry M W-W, I can read too... You said,
"3) We protected hospitals, museums, etc. first, not oil fields."
No "IF" whatsoever. No was it implied in your opening para. There is absolutely no "IF" implied in your question...
"What would it have taken, on a purely military level, for us to win in Iraq?"
Sorry. No "IF"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"...one obligation is to not kill them. A second one is not to set them up in lose/lose situations because of bad foreign policy..."
And yet you can't see that you are killing them every bit as much as the terrorists by INSISTING they lose! I can't wait to hear you crying about suicide bombers here in the U.S.
What hypocricy!
"What would it have taken" means that each of the points following implies an "if," a "road not taken." Don't they teach logic and rhetoric anymore?
Perhaps that would have been true had you not qualified "What would it have taken" with "for us to win in Iraq". Furthermore, you qualified "taken" with "on a purely military level" which alone rules out an "If"
You may have meant "If" but you didn't communicate it in that statement. Nor is it implied, in ANY honest read until AFTER your introduction and eight points, and then, the "If" is qualified by what follows: "...at the same time, we VIGOROUSLY pursued... [yada, yada, yada]," and therefore attached to your original question ONLY as an adjunct in a subordinate position. At best the aforementioned "If" is ancillary to the original question and 8 points...
As for logic and rhetoric: these subjects haven't been taught in public schools in decades, before your or my own stint in public education. You want logic and Rhetoric? You have to acquire that on your own, with NO help from public education. Might I recommend The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph?
In all fairness, you may well have meant to imply "If" but your structure didn't communicate "If". I'm willing, however, to extend a benefit of doubt in your direction, especially since you do "NOT have a desire to see American troops "fail," nor to see dictators thrive" To which I say...
'Bravo! Well said!'
Having communicated all this, there's no reason why we can't continue to disagree, and vehemently... albeit civilly.
Elashley,
Michael said: "What would it have taken, on a purely military level, for us to win in Iraq?"
And then answered the question with his opinion. He is clearly opining that if certain things had happened, America would have won the war in Iraq. At least the meaning was clear to me and "I ain't got no dog in this fight."
Frankie
ELashley said:
"Perhaps it is fitting you've finally removed me from your links list, for there is so little common ground between us as to make any endorsment of my site an outright lie."
Eric, I didn't remove you from my links because we disagree. I have many people with whom I disagree on my links, as anyone can see.
I removed you because, at least for a while, you quit posting some of my comments. Not that I have a problem with anyone who chooses to limit their commenters either, but rather, you would post one of my comments, twist my words, knock down that strawman of your creation and then not print my reply.
I am very open to conversations between those of us who disagree. The only ones I ever remove from my lists (besides those who quit posting) are those who attack folk and don't allow responses. There can be no communication in that situation and therefore I wipe the dust from my feet and no longer encourage folk to go there.
As you seem to have quit your comments ban, I'll perhaps add you back.
In the face of several rude and hateful commenters, Marty asked:
"do some people really hate peace?"
I don't think so. Not at all.
Rather, I think that some fear violence against them and are willinig to do whatever it takes to prevent that.
I think that others fear having not done the right thing and, having been brought up with the Myth of Redemptive Violence, try to do the right thing and stand against injustice, but choose the wrong tools to do so.
Still others have been brought up to believe that it's okay to kill your enemy because the enemy is less than human, or the Great Satan, or infidels.
No one hates peace, we all want it. It's just that some choose violence, death and destruction as their means to bring peace, failing to recognize the irony.
Elashley said:
"There ARE far too many loose lips in this country bending over backwards to help our enemy defeat us. They paint their treachery as the natural, "moral" duty of consciencious objecters"
Then please answer this question: What would you have us do, if we think that war crimes are being committed, that atrocities are being done in our name, that our sons and daughters are being asked to partake in an immoral and wrong war that will only exacerbate things?
Would you just wish that we'd be silent and accept the will of Bush? Is that what you're saying? Really?
I'll remind you of Dr. King's words on this matter:
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Can I get an Amen?!
"Can I get an Amen?!"
For the MLK quote, yes. Not for the rest. For you would have me and others recognize the obvious evil of BushCo. and this 'immoral war' while you remain conveniently blind to the obvious evil of the Democratic Party, and other such 'Bastions of Truth and Justice' like the New York Times and CBS, CNN, etc., and their immoral war on a legitimately elected President (November 1999) seeking to legitimately protect America since September 2001-- Sore losers make the poorest of sports! And more than blind! Intellectually dishonest to say Al Gore would have sought to stem any futher attacks on America by taking the war to them. He would have ruled the same as Clinton did... by opinion poll. Perhaps by bombing a few places to appease the American people then settle back and claim victory, much like Clinton did with his token missle strikes at abandoned training camps.
King deserves an Amen, your dishonest comments do not.
Anonymous said...
"...then answered the question with his opinion. He is clearly opining that if..."
No, he is not 'clearly opining' any such thing.
For clarification, everyone "opines" when commenting, even when quoting dead and living notables, but without the benefit of a properly OR grammatically stated "IF" M W-W can only argue that he meant an "If" for it is certainly not there structurally. He posed a question, then answered it. Choosing to state that we guarded Museums and Hospitals rather than oil fields, and in summation proceeded to insist our 'genuine' motivation in the Iraqi Invasion was oil. Were that the case, we would have PROTECTED the oil fields.
Eric said:
"King deserves an Amen, your dishonest comments do not."
I'm calling you on this one, Eric. Which dishonest comment? Name them or retract that statement and admit your lie.
You keep making statements such as this without support. My question to you was: What would you have us do if we think wrongs are being done? You agree with the King statement. Therefore, your answer SHOULD be, "Yes, Dan, you should speak out against the wrongs you think are being done."
IF you were consistent.
Instead you say King was right and we are dishonest. So tell me how I'm being dishonest.
In supporting the Democratic Party? I've repeatedly called the Dems a slightly less immoral party than the Republicans.
Am I being dishonest in supporting the media's "immoral war on a legitimately elected President"? I don't even know what that means. I read all sort of media. The sources you cite are questionable in their balance in that they tend too far to the right, as far as I'm concerned.
That, after having read many sources - mainly his own words - I don't trust this president any further than I could spit him, that is being dishonest? Dishonest about what?
Produce or retract.
No. I will not.
Your sources are also questionable as they lean dangerously to the Left, in my opinion. But here's an observation... Anyone who tries to call you on your own hypocrisy you immediately call them liars and demand retractions; it's your preferred method of bullying and intimidation. Well, I'm not intimidated.
So, 'Sorry', but I will not retract. I have not lied. And your 'Bearing False Witness' is disingenuous.
"Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?"
--Romans 2:21-23
Dost thou bear false witness?
Elashley,
You said: "He posed a question, then answered it."
Exactly. The exact question he posed was, "What would it have taken, on a purely military level, for us to win in Iraq?" Then he answered what it WOULD HAVE TAKEN, not what we did, nor what he perceived us as doing, but what it would have taken for us to win the war. The phrase "would have taken" clearly indicates that it did not happen.
You said: "without the benefit of a properly OR grammatically stated "IF" M W-W can only argue that he meant an "If" for it is certainly not there structurally"
The sentence involving the phrase "would have taken" was a question. Not a statement. Thus the answer does not require an "if," rather it is implied in the answer to the question. For example:
What would it have taken to get Bob to go to the store?
1. No cokes in the 'fridge.
2. No tylenol in the medicine cabinet.
Did Bob go to the store? No
So, were there cokes in the fridge & tylenol in the medicine cabinet? Obviously there were, since Bob didn't go to the store.
Has America won the war in Iraq? No, so obviously the recommendations that Michael has for what it WOULD HAVE TAKEN to win the war are what he thinks the military SHOULD HAVE DONE in order to win.
Have a great MLK day,
Frankie
PS -- Please excuse any grammatical errors on my part.
Michael:"8)We transferred all power to the Iraqi's within a year after toppling Baghdad (it might have taken up to a year to GET to Baghdad if we had cleared, held, and built all the way to the capital) and began quickly phasing out troops."
You know, the more I look at this thing in hindsight, the more there's something to this. It appears that Bin Laden genuinely thought that if he toppled the WTC, our economy would collapse in the wake. Evidence is that the target was not symbolic but an attempt at materially crippling the economy. He was, of course, woefully inaccurate in his concept of how our economy works.
Seems to me from this vantage point that we have done the same thing. We thought that if we made for Baghdad and took over the central government, the problems in Iraq would evaporate. That was a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the country and its people.
By the bye, I am either much confused or else I can't see how anyone could interpret "would have done" as anything but a conditional sentence. I don't get out enough, I suppose.
Eric said:
"Anyone who tries to call you on your own hypocrisy you immediately call them liars and demand retractions; it's your preferred method of bullying and intimidation. Well, I'm not intimidated."
I'll gladly have someone call me on my hypocrisy. But to do so, they have to produce evidence. I'm not being overtly hypocritical that I know of in the terms that you're talking about (now, Eleutheros has successfully called me on hypocrisy in the past and I own up to it where it exists and continue to work on it).
So, since I'm not being deliberately hypocritical, you'll have to tell me where I'm being hypocritical. To say, "Dan you're being hypocritical and dishonest," can only leave me asking, "When? Where?"
If you can't show that to me, then I'm left with the assumption that you're lying for whatever reason. What else is there?
Perhaps you're not lying deliberately. Perhaps the truth is too difficult to assimilate and rationalize within your belief system so, rather than admit you're wrong, you'll assume I'm wrong with no evidence to support your position.
It's called cognitive dissonance. I don't think you're a hardened liar intent on spreading falsehoods, you just can't admit reality.
Or, show me where I'm wrong, where I'm dishonest or hypocritical or I'm left with not much else to base my opinion of you upon.
Nor is anyone else who visits here and sees our comments.
I go on about this not to attack you, brother Eric. I like you, you have many obvious talents and compassion.
Rather, I call you on it because your attacks are symptomatic of much of what's wrong with organized religion today. You operate on a "This is the Truth. I've said it is therefore it is. Believe it." basis.
Much of the world has little use for those sort of shenanigans and so your type of evangelists serve to further marginalize the church. This, at a time more than ever when the world could use a little Good News.
In short, you may call it bullying (when I object to you calling me and my compatriots names and accuse us of all manner of evil, I'm bullying??). I call it holding people accountable when they spread mistruths and misinformation.
ELashley said: "The reason there is an increasing number of people who feel this is no longer a "valid" war, is because of the shameless and egregiously irresponsible lust for personal and institutional power that blackens the 'personal and institutional' heart of America's Left... PRIMARILY."
Umm...well...I can only speak for myself. I decided that this war was not valid while reading my son's Letters from Baghdad. They kinda shocked me into reality.
Gee, I didn't know all this was happening, back here. Thanks for the defense of my clear intentions, Frankie. I make only one qualification: I do not claim that if the military had done my recommendations that we WOULD have won (militarily) in Iraq, but that it would have been far more likely. There are always unknown factors that cannot be pre-calculated.
My analysis, btw, is neither unique, nor based on any brilliance on my part. It followed many military opinions AND standard techniques taught for countering insurgencies.
I still believe that, even on Just War standards, never mind my own commitment to gospel nonviolence, that the invasion was immoral. There were alternative means to deal with Saddam. But, unlike some with my views, I do NOT claim that the war was always unwinnable--although the tradition of home-turf insurgencies defeating larger and stronger invading armies is AT LEAST as old as George Washington leading the Colonial troops against the British. Grassroots insurgencies are difficult to quell--they can lose every battle and still win by simply making things too costly in terms of lives, treasure (this war has already cost, adjusted for inflation, as much as Vietnam and is quickly racing to cost as much as WWII), and political will. But, as my outline of alternatives was designed to show, military colleges and think-tanks have developed counterinsurgency techniques that are often effective--and were completely ignored in the planning and execution of this war.
Bush's planned "surge" is too late. There is no military solution, now--except Daddio's of nuking the country until it glows. But even that fails to achieve the stated objectives: A democratic functioning Iraq that can spread that to the rest of the Middle East. Instead, that would instantly create millions of new terrorists who hate us.
The surge is not only too late, we are no longer dealing here with primarily an insurgency (or even an insurgency, plus foreign terrorists and some violent criminals), but primarily with a sectarian civil war. VERY seldom does an outside force have much chance of standing between two sides of a civil war and stopping them. When this has worked (as in Bosnia and the rest of the former Yugoslavia), it worked only because the outside forces came in AFTER the local populace was fed up with the killing on all sides, and the NATO and UN troops gave breathing space for a political solution (the Dayton Accords).
So, the only practical solution is for us to leave. Chaos will probably ensue whether we leave now or in 10 years. But, if we leave, we might get Iraqis from all factions interested in real work for a political compromise--and then outside troops--ideally from the Arab League or the UN--could play a peacekeeping role in a short term.
The path I outlined is the road WE didn't take and is no longer open to us. We blew it. Game over. Now, the only question is how many more lives will be lost before the fools in Washington --and the likes of El-Ashley-realize this.
"The path I outlined is the road WE didn't take and is no longer open to us. We blew it. Game over. Now, the only question is how many more lives will be lost before the fools in Washington --and the likes of El-Ashley-realize this."
My son was explaining to me the other day that we could win this war. No problem. It would require taking off the gloves, instituting the draft, quadrupling the troops, banning the media, banning human rights groups, and giving Generals on the ground complete control (no top down approval).
I shuddered at the thought and said we can't do that. He said it isn't that we can't, it's that we won't.
I asked, "Is that what it comes down to now? Total annihilation of a people or a pull out?"
"Yes", my son replied.
We are talking genocide here folks. Anyone have a problem with that?
You are right, Michael, we lost our chance. We need to pull out now and use the money we will save to pay reparations to the Iraqi people.
The cacophonous bloviating bafflegab coming from painfully hollow and the others, with their fanfaronade and the circumbendibus rantings of the droogus factophobes is tiring.
It pays to increase your word power.
UM…..I was having a little word fun. Interesting that you can decipher anger from mere words posted on a page.
Excuse me for attempting a little humor: http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm
I also was under the impression that calling someone a third grader is also a “name calling.”
Dan, with all due respect, you say I am “calling names,” but what is the difference between that and using a statement like yours, to another commenter, “Perhaps you're not lying deliberately. Perhaps the truth is too difficult to assimilate and rationalize” translated, “LIAR” You are also spreading mistruth and information.
Ahem….so.. I will not call your tactics nor your character onto the carpet, so just let my own posts speak for themselves please, without impugning my character. And all I ask is that you simply address my points, and maybe give me some of your own ideas, or perhaps solutions to all you rant about. It is always easy to criticize without offering alternatives. In fact, when people criticize in the way they are on this war, “shrub is a nazi” “the worst terrorist” “we are committing genocide” “we are torturing” “our soldiers are terrorists” (kerry, murtha and kennedy)
Bush is not Hitler, nor is he a terrorist, we are not committing genocide anywhere. People are being hypocritical when calling attention to only the bad things happening, and the continued failure to ever find fault in what the islamists, wahabists, terrorists are doing. There is a lack of solutions being offered to the very real problem of terrorism. War never follows a flow chart, it is never clean, it is never perfectly executed in a preset timeframe. It is dynamic, and sometimes seems unnecessary to those onlooking. It is cruel. But it is necessary in our imperfect world. Are we really content to sit back and wait until the west, Europe, and our country is overrun by sharia law to ‘witness’ to the terrorists? Do you seriously think the terrorists will respond to our Christian love and witness, other than by cutting off our infidel heads? .
Don’t tell me what I hear being said by those who are blinded by their sheer hatred of George Bush is kind or fair. He may, in time, prove to be one of our most foresighted leaders, along with Ronald Reagan (which has already happened with Reagan.) He certainly has had to deal with much more difficult issues than most of his recent predecessors, choosing to finally take on terrorism, not ignore it, or acquiesce, like others.
"...You can only be kindly up to a point, when you live in a world where evil men go armed."
--Louis L'amour Hanging Woman Creek
”When men take up arms to set other men free, there is something sacred and holy in the warfare.”
-- Woodrow Wilson
"He may, in time, prove to be one of our most foresighted leaders..."
HA!
"...along with Ronald Reagan (which has already happened with Reagan.)"
HA! Not in any circles that I travel.
Thanks for writing back with some actual content. And a lot of it.
As to me "calling someone names," and the example you gave, consider the string of events:
1. I made a post.
2. Someone responds by calling me dishonest and a hypocrite.
3. I respond by saying, "Show me where I've been dishonest or hypocritical or admit that what you just said was a lie."
Do you really think that falls in the "name-calling" category? Oughtn't we, as adults, hold one another accountable for malicious content?
Similarly, for me to chastise you for coming here with a string of names devoid of any content, and to ask you to not name-call, that is not name calling.
Fair enough?
If the terrorists are out there committing atrocities, everyone is opposed to them and the world can be united in opposition to these relative few cowards.>
Oh yeah, ya think?
Yes, mom2. I do think.
Consider: if you had some supposed gangsters in your neighborhood and the mayor bombed your neighborhood, killing your family and neighbors along with some of the gangsters.
The gangsters say, "Look! What did we tell you, the mayor is out of control! Support us!"
Would you be a little more hesitant to take the mayor at his word, perhaps a little more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the supposed gangsters?
Whether you would or not, that is what happens in the real world. And a majority of the US is realizing that we are going about this backwards. We can't bomb and kill our way to righteousness and goodwill.
Yet another reason why the biblical injunction to overcome evil with good is a practical - not utopianistic - bit of advice.
Hey Dan, what you are saying makes sense. I have to admit though, your post here on the Iraq War reminds me very much of an article a libertarian or limited-gov't conservative would post on education. That is, more and more money has been spent on education, with worse and worse results - that maybe it is time to rethink our education policies.
"That is, more and more money has been spent on education, with worse and worse results - that maybe it is time to rethink our education policies."
Perhaps. But I'm not sure that you can make that generalization. We are educating (ie, graduating from high school) over 90% of our children. In the 1950s, that number was in the 50% range (and 30%-ish in the 1930s).
Perhaps the quality of education has suffered some in trying to educate everyone instead of half of everyone, but then it is a different job to educate everyone than to educate half of everyone.
Also, the "more and more money on education" mantra of conservatives is an aggregate number: 1) Not adjusted for inflation; 2) Not asking where the money is spent--rich schools, poor schools, etc.
The wealthy always say that it is impossible to solve the education problems in this country "by throwing money at the problem." But when it comes to their own kids, they ALWAYS throw money at the problem--either by spending more on their public schools (but not on poor kids' across town) or by sending their kids to posh private schools, or by using their money to have one parent stay home and homeschool. All of these are money solutions.
I have NEVER seen someone complain about money "thrown" at public schools who then proves the point by sending their children to poorer schools, voting down spending on their children's schools, etc.
It's just like the enemies of affirmative action: When's the last time they voted to end "legacy enrollments" in Harvard or Yale (=affirmative action for rich white children of Ivy League grads)? Or made it a crime for a rich kid to get into a school because rich parent donated a new wing to it?
Throwing money at military problems seems to be acceptable, as well.
Post a Comment