Many Democrats Won't Stand For Victory In Iraq

[stephanie]

It's very sad to me....That we even have to ask this question of Why...
And what's even sadder........is we know the reason Why....:(

By Lorie Byrd
Friday, January 26, 2007

Send an email to Lorie Byrd


Several months ago I asked what the Iraq war effort might look like today if those on the left and in the media had conducted themselves differently. I said that when the Iraqi public, including the terrorists there, are given the impression that U.S. politicians have lost the will to fight, there must be an impact on their behavior. Common sense told me that it could not help but influence their morale and belief in the cause and their likelihood of success, as well as, in the case of the terrorists, their ability to recruit.

Specifically I asked if it were clear to the Iraqi people that politicians in D.C. were committed to finishing the mission in Iraq, would the attitude of the people there be different? I wondered if politicians and anti-war activists had not accused our own troops of engaging in torture, and worse, would world opinion, and specifically the opinion of the Iraqi people, be different? I expressed my hope that one day that debate, over what that impact might be, would take place.

It appears to me, after reading some of the testimony given by General Petraeus this week, that such a debate is now underway.

During Gen. Petraeus’ confirmation hearing testimony, Joe Lieberman asked the general if Senate resolutions condemning the President’s proposed new policy in Iraq “would give the enemy some comfort.” Patraeus said it would, answering, “That’s correct, sir.”

Hugh Hewitt addressed what it means to “encourage the enemy” saying it “means to increase their will to fight on, and their courage to do so even in the face of the arrival of reinforcements. It also means to increase –substantially—the likelihood of redoubled and retripled efforts on their part to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.”

Hewitt went on to say “Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.” That is a pretty bold accusation to make and not one I am eager to embrace, but everything I have seen over the past three years tells me that Hewitt is right and that the behavior did not begin with the current resolution.

In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, the President’s calls for victory in Iraq were met from the Democrat side of the aisle with intentional silence. Most Democrats would not applaud, much less stand, for victory in Iraq. Over the past months and years, those on the left have gone to great effort to paint the mission in Iraq as “failed,” “doomed” and a “disaster.” They have failed to acknowledge the accomplishments of the U.S. military in Iraq, but have been quick to talk about those in our armed forces as child victims of a failed policy or (worse) as bloodthirsty thugs engaging in torture and terror.

It is certainly not a pleasant thing to accuse fellow Americans, particularly ones entrusted by the citizenry with the nation’s well being, of playing politics with American lives or of providing moral support to her enemies, but I think it is time to ask some hard questions.

Why have so many critics of the war spent more time talking about alleged abuses at Gitmo than they have talking about the new freedoms being enjoyed by those in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of actions taken by the U.S. military?

Why is it that many war critics seem to believe the U.S. is capable of addressing the conflict and genocide in Darfur, but that they are not capable of achieving victory in Iraq?”

Why is it that when generals, or more frequently former generals, express a lack of confidence in the President, the Secretary of Defense, or our policy and mission in Iraq, their word is not only accepted without question, but their opinions are treated as absolute fact, but when other generals say that it is still possible to win in Iraq, and that condemnations of the President and his policies encourage the enemy, they are ignored?

Why, when given a choice between defeat through surrender or the possibility to pursue victory, there are so many so eager to choose the former?

It is difficult to answer those questions without considering what victory in Iraq would mean.

Victory in Iraq would not only be a positive development for those in the Middle East with effects being felt around the world, and a huge success for those in the U.S. military, but success in Iraq would be seen as the ultimate success for the Bush presidency. For too many politicians considering the options in Iraq, and the choice between defeat through surrender or pursuit of victory, that is a huge problem.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LorieByrd/2007/01/26/many_democrats_wont_stand_for_victory_in_iraq

[Gaffer]

I fully agree with the article and I have said the same thing myself in other posts. There are two wars. The war in iraq and the war of the dems against the administration. The dems don't care about the costs in iraq as long as they make the administration look bad.

[retiredman]

I, for one, am a little perturbed at the right's continued misuse of the word "surrender"

sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der] –verb (used with object)

1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.

What democrats are suggesting is that we leave Iraq to the people who actually possess it... and that we do so, not under duress, but because we realize that the shiites and the sunnis of Iraq are bound and determined to spill each other's blood - and ours, if we continue to interject ourselves into the middle of their civil war. There is no doubt that this civil war STARTED because of our boneheaded invasion and conquest of Iraq on false pretense, but the civil war now has a life of its own. I firmly believe that the sects involved will continue to spill each other's blood until they have had a bellyfull... and can no longer stomach the carnage and our presence in their midst does NOTHING toward resolving that equation.

We could be much more helpful if we pulled our troops out of the mean streets of Iraqi cities and moved them to the borders with Iran and Syria to prevent the rearming and reinforcing of sectarian militias from without.

Democrats believe that the United States and European, primarily Christian armies cannot unilaterally bring about peace in Iraq absent a strong desire on the part of sunnis and shiites to have peace. The idiotic idea that we could waltz in, wave a magic wand and watch a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the Euphrates was doomed for failure from the outset. Let Iraqis determine their own destiny without our meddling. That destiny will undoubtedly begin with some serious bloodletting, but that was bound to happen sooner or later. Saddam and his sunni baathists would have been unable to keep the shiite majority subjegated ad infinitum and there was going to be some payback.


We aren't surrendering anything. We are leaving the scene of a domestic dispute that Iraqis - and not Americans - need to resolve.

[Roomy]

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: I agree with everything you posted there manfrom, plan 'B' would be to flatten the place before leaving though, right?:wink2:

[retiredman]

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: I agree with everything you posted there manfrom, plan 'B' would be to flatten the place before leaving though, right?:wink2:

well ...that would not really go along with the spirit of letting them solve their own problems...but it would be quite a show, I will admit. The thing I loved most about my time in the Navy was blowing stuff up.

[TheSage]

I, for one, am a little perturbed at the right's continued misuse of the word "surrender"

sur·ren·der [suh-ren-der] –verb (used with object)

1. to yield (something) to the possession or power of another; deliver up possession of on demand or under duress: to surrender the fort to the enemy; to surrender the stolen goods to the police.

What democrats are suggesting is that we leave Iraq to the people who actually possess it... and that we do so, not under duress, but because we realize that the shiites and the sunnis of Iraq are bound and determined to spill each other's blood - and ours, if we continue to interject ourselves into the middle of their civil war. There is no doubt that this civil war STARTED because of our boneheaded invasion and conquest of Iraq on false pretense, but the civil war now has a life of its own. I firmly believe that the sects involved will continue to spill each other's blood until they have had a bellyfull... and can no longer stomach the carnage and our presence in their midst does NOTHING toward resolving that equation.

We could be much more helpful if we pulled our troops out of the mean streets of Iraqi cities and moved them to the borders with Iran and Syria to prevent the rearming and reinforcing of sectarian militias from without.

Democrats believe that the United States and European, primarily Christian armies cannot unilaterally bring about peace in Iraq absent a strong desire on the part of sunnis and shiites to have peace. The idiotic idea that we could waltz in, wave a magic wand and watch a multicultural jeffersonian democracy spring up on the banks of the Euphrates was doomed for failure from the outset. Let Iraqis determine their own destiny without our meddling. That destiny will undoubtedly begin with some serious bloodletting, but that was bound to happen sooner or later. Saddam and his sunni baathists would have been unable to keep the shiite majority subjegated ad infinitum and there was going to be some payback.


We aren't surrendering anything. We are leaving the scene of a domestic dispute that Iraqis - and not Americans - need to resolve.


How about we partition into a shia, sunni, and kurd section?

[Roomy]

How about we partition into a shia, sunni, and kurd section?


If the Shites joined forces with the Turds they could probably kick the Sunnies arses and there would be no need for partitions.:lmao:

[retiredman]

How about we partition into a shia, sunni, and kurd section?

that might very well cause some problem with our NATO buddies, the Turks, but as far as a solution to Iraq, it is a great idea.... there just needs to be some way to make sure that one of the partitions does not end up with ALL the oil.

[Gaffer]

It's NOT a civil war. Neither the sunni's nor the shea are fighting the government. They are fighting each other over sectarian beliefs.The government is fighting them both to keep order and fighting al queda, who is out to bring down the government and is foriegn supported.

Your right we need to put more troops along the borders and keep the supplies and fresh troops out of iraq. I want to see our troops pulled back for a completely different reason. Let em all fight it out. The more dead muslims the better. At the same time just a general pull out will leave the whole area open to the iranians and al queda. And will give both access to even more oil revenue to support their causes.

[retiredman]

from dictionary.com:

civil war
–noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

it's a civil war. the government is an ineffective bit player in this whole mess. Sunnis and shiites are going to get it on until they can no longer stomach it, and then they will finally figure out some way to split up what still remains standing

[TheSage]

It's NOT a civil war. Neither the sunni's nor the shea are fighting the government. They are fighting each other over sectarian beliefs.The government is fighting them both to keep order and fighting al queda, who is out to bring down the government and is foriegn supported.

Your right we need to put more troops along the borders and keep the supplies and fresh troops out of iraq. I want to see our troops pulled back for a completely different reason. Let em all fight it out. The more dead muslims the better. At the same time just a general pull out will leave the whole area open to the iranians and al queda. And will give both access to even more oil revenue to support their causes.


It is a civil war, gaffer. You're gonna have to give up that little bushbotism. It makes you look dumb.

[Gaffer]

from dictionary.com:

civil war
–noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

it's a civil war. the government is an ineffective bit player in this whole mess. Sunnis and shiites are going to get it on until they can no longer stomach it, and then they will finally figure out some way to split up what still remains standing

A bunch of sunni and shea thugs murdering innocent people and not even fighting each other in open warfare is not a civil war. Once we pull out and they can really get started it will then become one.

[retiredman]

A bunch of sunni and shea thugs murdering innocent people and not even fighting each other in open warfare is not a civil war. Once we pull out and they can really get started it will then become one.

you'll excuse me if I don't buy your self serving redefinition of the term civil war?

And even if you were right, why should we sit around and prevent the process from proceeding to its inevitable conclusion - and get nothing but more body bags filled for our efforts? Do you honestly think that another 21500 AMerican men poured down into the quagmire is going to change the dynamic and turn this pile of shit into a bouquet of roses?

Come on.... you claim to have served. The war is going badly... everyone from the president on down (Cheney excluded, of course, because he is crazy as a loon) says that we are not winning. Do you honestly think that adding 15% more boots onthe ground is going to turn this thing around?

[Gaffer]

you'll excuse me if I don't buy your self serving redefinition of the term civil war?

And even if you were right, why should we sit around and prevent the process from proceeding to its inevitable conclusion - and get nothing but more body bags filled for our efforts? Do you honestly think that another 21500 AMerican men poured down into the quagmire is going to change the dynamic and turn this pile of shit into a bouquet of roses?

Come on.... you claim to have served. The war is going badly... everyone from the president on down (Cheney excluded, of course, because he is crazy as a loon) says that we are not winning. Do you honestly think that adding 15% more boots onthe ground is going to turn this thing around?

Yes I do think that. More boots on the ground allows for taking and holding more areas and for providing more border security, especially along the iranian border. I also believe we are going to get into some sort of conflict with iran in the near future.

Everyone says we are not winning, but they don't say we are losing. It's at a stalemate right now and more troops allow us to break out of the stalemate. Personally I think even more troops should be sent in, but I'm just armchair quarterbacking here and don't know the actual needs. The milblogs I read and the guys I have talked too who have come home from iraq say things are going well And it will all fall into place as long as they can continue their mission.

[retiredman]

Yes I do think that. More boots on the ground allows for taking and holding more areas and for providing more border security, especially along the iranian border. I also believe we are going to get into some sort of conflict with iran in the near future.

Everyone says we are not winning, but they don't say we are losing. It's at a stalemate right now and more troops allow us to break out of the stalemate. Personally I think even more troops should be sent in, but I'm just armchair quarterbacking here and don't know the actual needs. The milblogs I read and the guys I have talked too who have come home from iraq say things are going well And it will all fall into place as long as they can continue their mission.


more boots on the ground is a nice phrase, but only marginally more will not be enough to cause the quantum change in the paradigm. And I like your idea about the border with Iran, but that is NOT, unfortunately, where the 21.5K is destined to go, but rather to the Anbar Province and into Baghdad.

21K is a drop in the bucket... it is throwing a handful of men at a problem that is bigger than fifty handfuls could take care of.

[Gaffer]

more boots on the ground is a nice phrase, but only marginally more will not be enough to cause the quantum change in the paradigm. And I like your idea about the border with Iran, but that is NOT, unfortunately, where the 21.5K is destined to go, but rather to the Anbar Province and into Baghdad.

21K is a drop in the bucket... it is throwing a handful of men at a problem that is bigger than fifty handfuls could take care of.

That is the one time I think we have ever been in agreement. Baghdad and anbar need to be secured. We need to have our rear areas secure while we concentrate on the borders. I don't think leaving the city just to the iraqis would be a good idea at this point. We need to take a couple of months and take down as many of the large groups as posible before turning it over to the iraqis. Then move to the borders and prevent infiltration of men and supplies while the iraqi army cleans up.

If things are about to intesify with iran I would be putting more unannounced troops in along with the 21,000 and build up along the border with iran.We could quietly put two divisions along the iranian border under the surge banner with no media announcements to tell the iranians what's going on.

[retiredman]

but that is not what Petraeus is going to do....Bush will make him put everyone in Anbar and Baghdad and 21K ain't enough to change anything....

it is nothing more than pouring more men with shovels down the hole and telling them to keep digging faster

[Gaffer]

but that is not what Petraeus is going to do....Bush will make him put everyone in Anbar and Baghdad and 21K ain't enough to change anything....

it is nothing more than pouring more men with shovels down the hole and telling them to keep digging faster

Your assuming that Bush will tell him to do that. It's a wait and see point right now. We will probably see some results by spring. I expect the leaders like sadr will pretend to lay down their arms and go along with things until we withdraw. We will clean out the better part of the independent thugs and al queda and start packing to leave. After we leave sadr will take up arms again and then you will see a civil war.

[retiredman]

Your assuming that Bush will tell him to do that. It's a wait and see point right now. We will probably see some results by spring. I expect the leaders like sadr will pretend to lay down their arms and go along with things until we withdraw. We will clean out the better part of the independent thugs and al queda and start packing to leave. After we leave sadr will take up arms again and then you will see a civil war.


let's reconvene in four months and see which one of our prognostications is more on the mark....

[red states rule]

Evey so often, the liberal media shows the other side



NBC's Engel Relays Frustrations of Soldiers Disturbed by Opposition to War Back Home
Posted by Brent Baker on January 26, 2007 - 20:35.
A week after NBC News reporter Jane Arraf conceded that life in Iraq “isn't entirely what it seems” from the constant media focus on bombings, the Friday NBC Nightly News gave rare voice to soldiers in Iraq disturbed by criticism of the war back home. Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment; newspaper story) in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."

Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Engel soon powerfully concluded: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.”

Video clip (1:10): Real (2 MB) or Windows Media (2.3 MB), plus MP3 audio (400 KB)

My January 19 NewsBusters item, with video, recounted:


Back in the United States from Baghdad, NBC News correspondent Jane Arraf, who joined NBC last year after eight years with CNN, conceded that life in Iraq “isn't entirely what it seems” from the constant media focus on bombings. In studio with Brian Williams on Friday's NBC Nightly News, she acknowledged how journalists are “really good at getting across the relentless bombing and the violence, but it's really a lot harder for us to portray those spaces in between. I mean, for us, we live in the city. It's as secure as it can be, but we wake up to the sound of car bombs. We feel the mortars sometimes. And in a horrible, inevitable way, it becomes sort of like the weather, and it's kind of the same for Iraqis. Unless they're in the middle of it, life looks amazingly normal."

Williams noted how “we get asked all the time....where's the good news we know is going on there?" Arraf conceded there's “a piece of good news that's out there every day that's really hard for us to get at,” and that's how “there are children walking to school, there are girls and boys, there are Iraqi girls who are walking to school, and it's that wonderful sign of resilience that is the fabric, the background of life there.” But, “to go out and do that story....we'd probably be putting those children in danger because that is the nature of television.”


The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the January 26 NBC Nightly News report from Iraq:

Brian Williams: "Tonight we get to see American soldiers on the job in Iraq, and more important really we get to hear from them about all the talk about the war here at home. We get this view courtesy of our veteran Baghdad-based correspondent who is tonight embedded with U.S. forces as they prepare to be joined by a whole lot more U.S. forces. Here with our report, NBC's Richard Engel."

Richard Engel: "When the Stryker Brigade's Apache Company headed out this morning, they had one mission: to find bases for the new U.S. troops coming in. There aren't a lot of safe options in Hurriya. This Baghdad neighborhood has been overrun by Shiite militias that have forced out nearly all of the Sunnis. The company also checks out an Iraqi army outpost, but it's just a trash-strewn soccer field exposed to snipers. And there's a bigger problem: The Iraqi soldiers aren't staying on guard duty."

Unidentified soldier to an Iraqi soldier: "We came here to find you guys, and we came in here and no one was here."

Engel: "It's not just the new mission the new soldiers are adjusting to. They have something else on their minds -- the growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

Specialist Tyler Johnson: "-because people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."

Engel: "Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan, and is now on his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home can't have it both ways."

Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun: "One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Engel: "Specialist Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the toll the war has taken."

Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain."

Engel: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for. Richard Engel, NBC News, Baghdad."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10434

[retiredman]

whether individual troops can comprehend the distinction, there is, nonetheless, a difference between questioning the validity of a mission given to our armed forces by the civilian military command, and questioning the honor and purpose of the troops on the ground doing their damnedest to carry out that mission.

[red states rule]

whether individual troops can comprehend the distinction, there is, nonetheless, a difference between questioning the validity of a mission given to our armed forces by the civilian military command, and questioning the honor and purpose of the troops on the ground doing their damnedest to carry out that mission.

That is like saying you like football players but you hate football

[retiredman]

That is like saying you like football players but you hate football

no...that is a faulty analogy.

and for the record, every career military man hates war.

[red states rule]

Nobody loves war - but this is one we have to win

Of course you are not to say that if you work for the liberal media



Fox News Cites Times Watch's Story on Double Standards at the NY Times
Posted by Clay Waters on January 30, 2007 - 10:48.
Fox News "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume led off his "Political Grapevine" segment Monday night by citing a piece that appeared that day on Times Watch, on the paper's double standard regarding the expressing of personal opinions on television. Here's Hume:

"A New York Times reporter has been rebuked by his superiors after voicing the hope that the U.S. can accomplish its goals in Iraq. Here's what Times chief military correspondent Michael Gordon said on the Charlie Rose show earlier this month, quote:

'As a purely personal view, I think it's worth it, one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something,' end quote. Times Public Editor Byron Calame writes that Washington Bureau Chief Philip Taubman said Gordon quote, 'stepped over the line' and quote, 'went too far.'

"Timeswatch.com points out that last summer Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar appeared on the Rose show, and criticized Bush administration practice of sending bombs to the Middle East, saying the policy, quote, 'erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation.' MacFarquhar received no reprimand for his comments."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10496

[retiredman]

because redstates...since you obviously have no time in uniform, let me give you a little clue: folks on active duty routinely go wherever the fuck the suits in DC tell us to go and do whatever the fuck they tell us to do until they tell us to stop. Supporting the troops has nothing to do with supporting the relevance of the mission they are sent in to accomplish.

If Bush said that our military would go full bore and attempt to establish a nation of smurfs in south africa, that might cause me to publicly proclaim that I thought his MISSION was absurd, but it would NEVER cause me to say that the brave men and women of our armed forces who were sent to fight and die to attempt to achieve that, admittedly absurd mission were anything less than brave or honorable...it is clearly possible to maintain support for those in uniform while varying one's support for the mission they are sent on based upon that mission's intellectual underpinnings

[red states rule]

Tell that to the peace niks and the libs in Congress. So far I have heard elected Dems compare then to Nazis, Pol Pot, the miltary is operating torture chambers, they are uneducated, they terrorize innocent civilians, and peace niks spit at them at the Pro Terrorist Rally in DC this past weekend

I do not see alot of "support" for them from the left

[retiredman]

Tell that to the peace niks and the libs in Congress. So far I have heard elected Dems compare then to Nazis, Pol Pot, the miltary is operating torture chambers, they are uneducated, they terrorize innocent civilians, and peace niks spit at them at the Pro Terrorist Rally in DC this past weekend

I do not see alot of "support" for them from the left

no..ou haven't heard anyone compare THEM top nazis or pol pot, you have hearde their mission compared to that.


and let me ask you something.... if your house was broken into in the middle of the night by a band of armed personnel who did not speak your language, do you think your wife and children (assuming any woman would stay with a prick like you long enough to pump out babies) would be frightened by such an experience?

[Gaffer]

Tell that to the peace niks and the libs in Congress. So far I have heard elected Dems compare then to Nazis, Pol Pot, the miltary is operating torture chambers, they are uneducated, they terrorize innocent civilians, and peace niks spit at them at the Pro Terrorist Rally in DC this past weekend

I do not see alot of "support" for them from the left

You will never see support for them from the left. The left has nothing but distain for our troops and our country.

[retiredman]

and I most likely do more (from the left) in any given week to support our troops than you do all year with all your yellow ribbon made in china bumper magnets

[red states rule]

no..ou haven't heard anyone compare THEM top nazis or pol pot, you have hearde their mission compared to that.


and let me ask you something.... if your house was broken into in the middle of the night by a band of armed personnel who did not speak your language, do you think your wife and children (assuming any woman would stay with a prick like you long enough to pump out babies) would be frightened by such an experience?

Sen Dick Turbin compared them to both Nazis and Pol Pot on the Senate floor

I see you agree with John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry our troops are terrorists. Did you forget the terrorists use the civilians as human shields and their homes as safe houses

[retiredman]

kerry never said our troops were terrorists. You should learn the english language a little better before you argue using it as your only evidence.

Durbin NEVER compared our troops to nazis either...

if your knowledge of the language stopped at "Dick and Jane". you really need to find another avenue with which to attack

[red states rule]

kerry never said our troops were terrorists. You should learn the english language a little better before you argue using it as your only evidence.

Durbin NEVER compared our troops to nazis either...

if your knowledge of the language stopped at "Dick and Jane". you really need to find another avenue with which to attack



You can try to spin what John "I served in Viet Nam" said, but this is what he said. He called them terrorists no matter how you try to spin it

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...


SCHIEFFER: Yeah.


Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

[retiredman]

no spinning necessary.... only noting the very distinct difference between the words
ter·ror·ize /ˈtɛrəˌraɪz/ [ter-uh-rahyz] –verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to fill or overcome with terror.

and ...

ter·ror·ist /ˈtɛrərɪst/ [ter-er-ist] –noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Kery never said that our troops were terrorISTS.... he said that our troops, by breaking into arab homes in the dead of night with squads of men - none of whom spoke arabic - might indeed scare the shit out of women and children so rudely awakened.

To scare the shit out of someone is synonymous with "terrorizing" themn....much like a rabid dog might "terrorize" a neighborhood.

That is a different word than TERRORIST.... but then, I wouldn't expect such nuanced understanding of the language to be comprehendable by a troglodyte such as you.

[red states rule]

Keep spinning and defending the slandering of the troops. The US military knows how the left feels about them and they show it in every election

Libs do stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops - it is a very cold shoulder

[retiredman]

Keep spinning and defending the slandering of the troops. The US military knows how the left feels about them and they show it in every election

Libs do stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops - it is a very cold shoulder


keep ignoring the meaning of words.... it makes your attacks so much easier when you don't have to worry about such details, doesn't it?

[retiredman]

and listen douchebag...I undoubtedly do more every week to support our troops in a very meaningful way, than you have done since the dawn of time.

[red states rule]

terrorists terrorize. John "I served in Viet Name" Kerry called the terrorists. It seems you agree with him

The terrorists (the real ones) thank you for your support

[retiredman]

no...he said that our troops breaking into Iraqi homes in the dead of night scared women and children.

but if you need to twist the meanings of words around to make your case, why should I stand in your way?

and like I said...I do more every week to support our troops than you have done in your inconsequential lifetime

[red states rule]

You have a strange way of showing it by supporting those who slime them

Of course John "I served in Viet Nam" has a long history of bashing the military. Why should he stop now? Oh, he hasn't

[retiredman]

my record orf supporting the troops will stand up to yours anyday.

Every single week, we mail out care packages from my church to maine national guardsmen deployed to Iraq

every single month, we mail out care packages from my jobsite to maine national guardsmen deployed to Iraq

every single week, I mail out phone cards to maine units overseas.

I have served as a pallbearer for a maine national guardsman who came home in a box.

what do YOU do? DO you have one of those yellow bumper magnets made in China? what a fucking patriot. Slime that, asshole.

[red states rule]

Sure do. Once per month I send out 10 care packages to Marines in Iraq. Each one is packed with food, tea mix, snacks, toiletries, and other items.


BTW, the troops responded to John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry "botched joke"

[Gaffer]

bin kerry said the troops were terrorizing women and children. He doesn't even know if that was the case. They were going into houses in search of insurgents. Not to purposely upset innocent women and children. kerry has always done everything he can to villify the military. He's made a career of in fact. I'm surprised he wasn't at the anti-war protest with his buddy jihad jane. But then he was busy kissing up to the ahtollahs and ahmalittlehitler in iran.

[red states rule]

bin kerry said the troops were terrorizing women and children. He doesn't even know if that was the case. They were going into houses in search of insurgents. Not to purposely upset innocent women and children. kerry has always done everything he can to villify the military. He's made a career of in fact. I'm surprised he wasn't at the anti-war protest with his buddy jihad jane. But then he was busy kissing up to the ahtollahs and ahmalittlehitler in iran.



Kerry is behind the military..................

[retiredman]

the word "terrorize" does not imply any intent. The fact of the matter was, squads of americans were breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night.... looking for insurgents...and in the process, were scaring the shit out of women and children in the houses. Kerry's point was that if we had used Iraqi troops who spoke arabic to do that mission, we would have scared fewer women and children.... don't you think that scaring the fewest innocent women and children as possible is a good idea for coalition forces to strive for?

[Gunny]

kerry never said our troops were terrorists. You should learn the english language a little better before you argue using it as your only evidence.

Durbin NEVER compared our troops to nazis either...

if your knowledge of the language stopped at "Dick and Jane". you really need to find another avenue with which to attack

Obviously, your language DOES stop at "Dick and Jane." You can spin, dance and do backflips, and this STILL says what it says:


"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.

Kerry's an idiot. Nothing he says in collaborating with the enemies of this Nation surprises me. Just that idiots still vote for the moron.

[Gaffer]

the word "terrorize" does not imply any intent. The fact of the matter was, squads of americans were breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night.... looking for insurgents...and in the process, were scaring the shit out of women and children in the houses. Kerry's point was that if we had used Iraqi troops who spoke arabic to do that mission, we would have scared fewer women and children.... don't you think that scaring the fewest innocent women and children as possible is a good idea for coalition forces to strive for?

Someone breaking into your house is going to scare and terrorize you no matter what language they speak.

And what are our troops suppose to do walk up in daylight and knock and ask if there's any insurgents home? bin kerry would like that cause it would mean more casualties for us. I'll take a scared family over a dead soldier anyday.

[retiredman]

Someone breaking into your house is going to scare and terrorize you no matter what language they speak.

And what are our troops suppose to do walk up in daylight and knock and ask if there's any insurgents home? bin kerry would like that cause it would mean more casualties for us. I'll take a scared family over a dead soldier anyday.

I agree.... and it would seem that you agree with the use of the word "terrorized" to describe how Iraqi women and children felt... and understand that saying that women and children were terrorized is not the same thing as saying our troops were TERRORISTS. That's good. We've made some progress, you and I.

Kerry's point all along was that we should be using Iraqi units to break into Iraqi homes in the dead of night.... if the women and children WOULD get scared, at least the Iraqi soldiers could quickly explain to them the purpose of the visit... and it would be one less instance of Americans having interaction with innocent Iraqi citizens that would cause them to think of us as conquerers and not liberators. That makes a lot of sense to me... why should we get the bad rap by doing something that Iraqi units could do more effectively anyway?

[red states rule]

I agree.... and it would seem that you agree with the use of the word "terrorized" to describe how Iraqi women and children felt... and understand that saying that women and children were terrorized is not the same thing as saying our troops were TERRORISTS. That's good. We've made some progress, you and I.

Kerry's point all along was that we should be using Iraqi units to break into Iraqi homes in the dead of night.... if the women and children WOULD get scared, at least the Iraqi soldiers could quickly explain to them the purpose of the visit... and it would be one less instance of Americans having interaction with innocent Iraqi citizens that would cause them to think of us as conquerers and not liberators. That makes a lot of sense to me... why should we get the bad rap by doing something that Iraqi units could do more effectively anyway?

So when terrorists hide in homes and hold the family at gunpoint, you and Kerry would have the troops get a warrent, walk up to the door, knock, and ask the terrorists to lay down the weapons and surrender peacefully

The terrorists would then gun the troops down, and you would blame Pres Bush for a failed war plan

[retiredman]

So when terrorists hide in homes and hold the family at gunpoint, you and Kerry would have the troops get a warrent, walk up to the door, knock, and ask the terrorists to lay down the weapons and surrender peacefully

The terrorists would then gun the troops down, and you would blame Pres Bush for a failed war plan

that is really a stupid thing to say. warrants....knocking on doors.... asking.... I never said or suggested anything of the sort.

Jesus...can you argue intelligently at all?

I said that for a variety of very good reasons, it made a lot of sense for Iraqi units to be the ones to conduct nighttime raids into Iraqi homes. If all you want to do is flame, we should probably just ignore one another instead.

[red states rule]

that is really a stupid thing to say. warrants....knocking on doors.... asking.... I never said or suggested anything of the sort.

Jesus...can you argue intelligently at all?

I said that for a variety of very good reasons, it made a lot of sense for Iraqi units to be the ones to conduct nighttime raids into Iraqi homes. If all you want to do is flame, we should probably just ignore one another instead.

Then how would you have the troops (terrorists as John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry calls them) get the terrorists out of the homes? The US troops are trainignt he Iraq forces, so until then they have to do the heavy lifting

Libs have no desire for the US to win the war in Iraq. They see Iraq as a loss for Pres Bush and the US military, not as a loss for the US and national security

[retiredman]

again.... John Kerry did NOT call our troops "terrorists". He said that when we broke into Iraqi homes in the dead of night with a band of armed men speaking a foreign language that such action "terrorized" the women and children.

And are you suggesting that 150K Iraqi troops who have been training for two years now are still incapable of performing even simple house to house searches? Those are hardly military maneuvers requiring extensive training and multi-asset coordination.

Liberals want a more secure America... we just happen to believe, and rightfull so, that the war in Iraq is tending to move us in the wrong direction by making us less safe and more despised. This has nothing to do with Bush as far as I am concerned...I would be just as vehemently opposed to our actions in Iraq if Kerry were the CinC running them.

[red states rule]

again.... John Kerry did NOT call our troops "terrorists". He said that when we broke into Iraqi homes in the dead of night with a band of armed men speaking a foreign language that such action "terrorized" the women and children.

And are you suggesting that 150K Iraqi troops who have been training for two years now are still incapable of performing even simple house to house searches? Those are hardly military maneuvers requiring extensive training and multi-asset coordination.

Liberals want a more secure America... we just happen to believe, and rightfull so, that the war in Iraq is tending to move us in the wrong direction by making us less safe and more despised. This has nothing to do with Bush as far as I am concerned...I would be just as vehemently opposed to our actions in Iraq if Kerry were the CinC running them.



Considering the Iraq army was nothing to begin with, it takes time to get them is shape. There are three provinces where the US military has pule dout and the Iraq government is running everything

Kerry smeared the troops when he called them terrorists. It is as simple as that. Spin all you want but that will not change the facts

The left has no interest in winning the war. They think if we pull out, the terrorists will lay down their bombs and guns and become law abiding citizens. After all, all the problems in Iarq are not caused by the terrorists, it is caused by the US and Pres Bush

[retiredman]

Considering the Iraq army was nothing to begin with, it takes time to get them is shape. There are three provinces where the US military has pule dout and the Iraq government is running everything

Kerry smeared the troops when he called them terrorists. It is as simple as that. Spin all you want but that will not change the facts

The left has no interest in winning the war. They think if we pull out, the terrorists will lay down their bombs and guns and become law abiding citizens. After all, all the problems in Iarq are not caused by the terrorists, it is caused by the US and Pres Bush


Kerry did NOT call our troops terrorists. He SAID that when they broke into homes in the dead of night, they terrorized women and children. Do yourself a favor: learn to read...get a dictionary...look up the word terrorize and memorize its definition.... then USE it appropriately and you won't seem so illiterate.

And the left thinks nothing at all as you portray us.... can you ever argue honestly, or are you really only capable of inflated, superheated, rhetoric?

I really would like you to answer that last one honestly, if you could. If flaming rhetoric is indeed your only stock in trade, I can ignore you and not worry about missing anything.

[red states rule]

Kerry did NOT call our troops terrorists. He SAID that when they broke into homes in the dead of night, they terrorized women and children. Do yourself a favor: learn to read...get a dictionary...look up the word terrorize and memorize its definition.... then USE it appropriately and you won't seem so illiterate.

And the left thinks nothing at all as you portray us.... can you ever argue honestly, or are you really only capable of inflated, superheated, rhetoric?

I really would like you to answer that last one honestly, if you could. If flaming rhetoric is indeed your only stock in trade, I can ignore you and not worry about missing anything.

Terrorists terrorize people.

Libs want to give Constitutional right to terrorists. They want to shut down the NSA from tracking them. They want terrorists to have access to Federal courts. They oppose the tracking of their fininical transactions. They have no desire to win theis war. They think if we sit down and make nice to terrorists they will love us in return

[retiredman]

lots of things terrorize people.... it's like this: all terrorists may terrorize, but all people who are terrorized are not terrorized by terrorists.

a rabid dog can terrorize a nieghborhood. a gargantuan defensive lineman can terrorize an opposing quarterback. A group of soldiers speaking in a foreign tongue breaking into a house at night can terrorize the women and children living therein. Dogs, linemen, soldiers... all things that terrorize...none of them are terrorists. get it?

Again....your characterizations of liberals cast a great deal of heat and shed little to no light. Please just let me know if that is indeed your modus operandi and I will give you a wide berth.... I really have no desire to carry on a discussion with someone who obviously cares little about discussion.

[red states rule]

My characterizations of liberals is correct and the oh so tolerant left is very intolerant of the truth

[retiredman]

thanks for answering honestly [/sarcasm off]

I guess we're done.

[red states rule]

thanks for answering honestly [/sarcasm off]

I guess we're done.

NY Times Ignores Consequences of Iraq Withdrawal
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 5, 2007 - 06:57.
There's no denying that the recently-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is anything but rosy. But the key question is 'where do we go from here?' The answer, for every one of the Dem presidential contenders, is 'home,' at varying rates of speed. In editorializing on the NIE report, don't you think, then, that it would have been appropriate for the New York Times to mention what the report foresaw as the result of a hasty withdrawal?

But the Times had better things to do with its ink, spending most of its editorial spinning the recent military success in Najaf in the most negative possible terms. In doing so, the Gray Lady ignored this key aspect of the report, as described here by CNN:

"The estimate also makes it clear, however, that simply walking away from Iraq may even be worse. If the U.S. makes a 'rapid withdrawal' from Iraq, a move many Democratic lawmakers have called for, the estimate said it could lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Security Forces, potentially plunging the country into a chaotic situation marked by "extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes."
To ignore this key conclusion, which goes to the heart of the debate raging in Washington today, is no mere negligence on the Times' part. It is nothing short of a journalistic fraud perpetrated on its readers.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10613

[trobinett]

rsr posts:


"The estimate also makes it clear, however, that simply walking away from Iraq may even be worse. If the U.S. makes a 'rapid withdrawal' from Iraq, a move many Democratic lawmakers have called for, the estimate said it could lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Security Forces, potentially plunging the country into a chaotic situation marked by "extreme ethno-sectarian violence with debilitating intra-group clashes."

To me, walking away from Iraq, without finishing whats been started, is NOT an option.

All this talk about leaving those people, those people that have stepped up and shown us they want a free, and democratic country, is the talk of cowards.

The military has won the WAR in Iraq, we must NOT allow politicians to lose the FREEDOM, that came with winning.

[Roopull]

For an idea of what WILL HAPPEN in Iraq (not what might happen,) check out the recent conflicts in Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, and even in Iraq back under Saddam's rule.

It will be a religious/ethnic civil war. I cannot see how this could be a good thing for US or anyone. The irresponsibility of the doves and their maniacal desire to "redeploy" seems like a cover to me. The left knows that NO MATTER WHAT Iraq is a problem for them. Getting out BEFORE the 2008 election is the closest thing they can get to victory.

And yes, I firmly believe that many, if not most politicians, would knowlingly surrender the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs for a political victory.

[Nate]

Max Cleland won't sit for victory in Iraq :dance:

[jillian]

For an idea of what WILL HAPPEN in Iraq (not what might happen,) check out the recent conflicts in Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, and even in Iraq back under Saddam's rule.

It will be a religious/ethnic civil war. I cannot see how this could be a good thing for US or anyone. The irresponsibility of the doves and their maniacal desire to "redeploy" seems like a cover to me. The left knows that NO MATTER WHAT Iraq is a problem for them. Getting out BEFORE the 2008 election is the closest thing they can get to victory.

And yes, I firmly believe that many, if not most politicians, would knowlingly surrender the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs for a political victory.

By the same token, why should Bush's botched war of adventure be dumped on the next president. He should clean up his own mess.

What Arab lives are being *protected*? The ones dying every day in a civil war in Iraq (hundreds this week in the market bombings alone!)? The ones who had a leader who was an animal, but they could go to work every day and had food, electricity?

Whose lives? And why should one more American soldier die because the Sunni and Shi'a want to blow each other up?

[red states rule]

By the same token, why should Bush's botched war of adventure be dumped on the next president. He should clean up his own mess.

What Arab lives are being *protected*? The ones dying every day in a civil war in Iraq (hundreds this week in the market bombings alone!)? The ones who had a leader who was an animal, but they could go to work every day and had food, electricity?

Whose lives? And why should one more American soldier die because the Sunni and Shi'a want to blow each other up?

Dems are protecting the lives of the terrorists by blocking the methods the government is taking to capture and kill them. The liberal NY Times are protecting the lives of terorists by publishing classifed documents on how the governemnt is tracking them

[Hobbit]

By the same token, why should Bush's botched war of adventure be dumped on the next president. He should clean up his own mess.

What Arab lives are being *protected*? The ones dying every day in a civil war in Iraq (hundreds this week in the market bombings alone!)? The ones who had a leader who was an animal, but they could go to work every day and had food, electricity?

Whose lives? And why should one more American soldier die because the Sunni and Shi'a want to blow each other up?

Do yourself a favor. Talk to a few Iraqis and ask them if they'd rather have Saddam or what they have now. Most of them prefer what we've got now. A missionary who spoke at my church brought back pictures and video from Iraq. The man who volunteered to be his personal bodyguard (without even being asked) had his own store before the war. During the initial bombing campaign, it was levelled by a U.S. bomb because his store was close to a terrorist safe house, and he had to rebuild it from scratch. American soldiers get free stuff at his new store.

[jillian]

Do yourself a favor. Talk to a few Iraqis and ask them if they'd rather have Saddam or what they have now. Most of them prefer what we've got now. A missionary who spoke at my church brought back pictures and video from Iraq. The man who volunteered to be his personal bodyguard (without even being asked) had his own store before the war. During the initial bombing campaign, it was levelled by a U.S. bomb because his store was close to a terrorist safe house, and he had to rebuild it from scratch. American soldiers get free stuff at his new store.

How many Iraqis have *you* spoken with? I appreciate that your missionary represented the viewpoint of *some* but it's become clear that the Iraqi people, even if they supported the overthrow of Saddam, do not support the occupation.

Again, is it the job of our military to die in another country's civil war?

And, fwiw, when people are dying all around you, your family is unsafe and your loved ones being killed, there's no jobs and no infrastructure and little electricity, it doesn't much matter who's doing the killing or for what.

[trobinett]

By the same token, why should Bush's botched war of adventure be dumped on the next president. He should clean up his own mess.

Botched war, Surely you jest jillian? Might I suggest you broaden your reference material beyond those suggested by the radical left. You might be surprised to find, that the Iraqi PEOPLE support the war, and feel it is proceeding just fine, thank you very much. Course, the terrorist DO have a different opinion.


What Arab lives are being *protected*? The ones dying every day in a civil war in Iraq (hundreds this week in the market bombings alone!)? The ones who had a leader who was an animal, but they could go to work every day and had food, electricity?

You do paint with broad brush strokes jillian. But to answer your question, these are the kind of questions that are best asked of the natives, and I don't hear them complaining, do You?

I would be surprised if the death rate in Iraq today is anywhere near what it was under the iron grip of Saddam, not to mention the reign of terror, that he held that country in.

As to being allowed to go to work, I belive they were REQUIRED to go to work, under penalty of DEATH. There was food, but certainly not what they have NOW. Their infrastructure was a disaster, Saddam was putting all the money from oil into his pockets, the military, and the secret police. The streets that foreign press were allowed access to were clean, and lighted, and the hotels they stayed out were nice. But, once you moved into the neighborhoods around Baghdad it was quite different.


Whose lives? And why should one more American soldier die because the Sunni and Shi'a want to blow each other up?

Its the job they signed up to do jillian. When I VOLUNTEERED and signed on the dotted line during the Vietnam war, I KNEW what I was doing, and what the cost might be. Just as these troops do. Don't make the mistake of doing their thinking for them, or lessen their bravery.

They fight in that far a way land to protect their families, and to protect us. They also fight to bring freedom to a people that have shown they want what we have. There is NO confusion on their part jillian, the confusion comes from the left.

[Hagbard Celine]

Max Cleland won't sit for victory in Iraq :dance:

I've actually met him. He smells like mothballs.

[jillian]

Botched war, Surely you jest jillian? Might I suggest you broaden your reference material beyond those suggested by the radical left. You might be surprised to find, that the Iraqi PEOPLE support the war, and feel it is proceeding just fine, thank you very much. Course, the terrorist DO have a different opinion.

Hey, Trob. How be ya, kiddo?

I stand by my statement. Saying that if you don't support this war, you're supporting terrorists is just silly. I might recommend broadening your own reference material. (BTW, in case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not *radical* anything, so do try again).


You do paint with broad brush strokes jillian. But to answer your question, these are the kind of questions that are best asked of the natives, and I don't hear them complaining, do You?

I know what the polls say. And I don't think you're seeing flowers and candy either. Rather, you're seeing sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni which we shouldn't be any part of. The insurgency exists because of our presence.


I would be surprised if the death rate in Iraq today is anywhere near what it was under the iron grip of Saddam, not to mention the reign of terror, that he held that country in.

Would you? And your support for that assertion?


As to being allowed to go to work, I belive they were REQUIRED to go to work, under penalty of DEATH. There was food, but certainly not what they have NOW. Their infrastructure was a disaster, Saddam was putting all the money from oil into his pockets, the military, and the secret police. The streets that foreign press were allowed access to were clean, and lighted, and the hotels they stayed out were nice. But, once you moved into the neighborhoods around Baghdad it was quite different.

As opposed to their BEING no neighborhoods in Baghdad now which one can navigate without threat of being killed in the sectarian strife?


Its the job they signed up to do jillian. When I VOLUNTEERED and signed on the dotted line during the Vietnam war, I KNEW what I was doing, and what the cost might be. Just as these troops do. Don't make the mistake of doing their thinking for them, or lessen their bravery.

They fight in that far a way land to protect their families, and to protect us. They also fight to bring freedom to a people that have shown they want what we have. There is NO confusion on their part jillian, the confusion comes from the left.

I'm not talking about the obligations of soldiers to fight. I'm talking about the fact that in this case, they're being misused by their leaders.

And lest you say I don't know what I'm talking about, or "libs" support terrorists and don't understand a thing about the military, yadda, yadda.... please allow me to show you this It's from the IAVA.org website. That's the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans site. So... here ya go:


Why we're against the war
Q: Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?

A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:

The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen's caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.
For further reading: www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html



The Iraq war violates international law.
The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.
For further reading:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/



Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue...
For further reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/



Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.
For further reading:
http://www.nomorevictims.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EF73C5A0C758DDDA10894DE4044 82



Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.
For further reading:
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/172/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dAXQeH7y9g&mode=related&search=
http://girights.objector.org



Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence.
Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide. Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier's release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.
For further reading:
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/
http://www.vets4vets.us/



The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.
For further reading: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html




The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
$5.8 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq.
For further reading:
http://www.costofwar.com



The military uses racism and discrimination as tools.
In order to recruit for the Iraq War, the most vulnerable minority and social groups in the United States are preyed upon to be used as cannon fodder. Once inside the military, they are subject to racism, sexism including harassment and assault, homophobia, and religious intolerance. When at war, the troops are taught to dehumanize the people of Iraq as an enemy with intolerance and racist epithets.
For further reading:
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1338&theType=NR
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/fear-mongering-leads-to-anti-arab.html



Today's youth face aggressive recruitment tactics that don't tell the whole story.
Popular perception of the military as an "all-volunteer force" hides the fact that our future troops are aggressively recruited from our lowest income neighborhoods. Economically conscripted, the poor and socially vulnerable young are bought with the lies of discipline, education and civilian job training to carry out the wishes of powerful political individuals who are far from war's true horror.
For further reading:
http://presstelegram.com/news/ci_4181091http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=52249302ccbe366889f32 58d46e2eabd




Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.

The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report. Members of the Bush Administration have admitted that they “misspoke” in the run up to the war.


The presence of the US military is not preventing sectarian violence.
The US occupation of Iraq has proven to be unable to prevent sectarian violence and halt an escalation towards a civil war. Despite having an average of 140,000 troops in country since the occupation began, internal violence and attacks against civilians and Iraqi security forces have been on a steady incline.


The occupation is a primary motivation for the insurgency and global religious extremism.
The insurgency can be broken down into many individually named factions with various goals, beliefs, and techniques. However, our membership of veterans believe that the occupation of Iraq is the primary thing encouraging the insurgency and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Likewise, other people of the Islamic faith are encouraged to resist America ’s policies internationally based on how they perceive our military operations in the Middle East.


We can no longer afford to fight this war of choice.
The financial burden is destroying our domestic programs that could be used to protect us from natural disasters, provide medical programs, or help improve education. We are jeopardizing the US economy and putting strains on the budgets of important government agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department.




National security is compromised.
Funds that could be used to protect our ports and transportation are being stripped away while our National Guard units are on constant deployments instead of being used to protect and defend us here at home.


The world is becoming more dangerous.
International terrorist attacks have increased and it has become more dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Approval for US policy has decreased and the dislike of Americans has increased.


Our national “moral authority” is being undermined.
The US has lost credibility to much of the world as the defender of liberty and freedom and our national identity is eroding. We can no longer deploy our armed forces for peace keeping measures with the good faith of the international community. We need to regain the respect and faith of the global community. This begins by withdrawing our troops from Iraq and helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country and society.



The majority of American citizens, Iraqi citizens and US military would like to see an immediate end to the war in Iraq.
If we are truly a democracy and we aim to create a democracy in Iraq our leaders will represent the will of the citizens and lead according to their wishes.


The military is broken.
We are abusing the small population of armed service members with multiple deployments while using inadequate vehicles and equipment. Less than one half of a percent of the American population is serving in the active armed forces, which is the least amount in the last century. Only 25% of the troops in Iraq are there for their first tour, while 50% are there on their second tour, and the remaining 25% are there three times or more. We continue to involuntarily extend soldiers with Stop-Loss, recall them repeatedly for additional service using the Individual Ready Reserve, and send soldiers with diagnosed medical problems into combat.

http://www.ivaw.org/faq

Says it all, doesn't it?

[Hobbit]

How many Iraqis have *you* spoken with? I appreciate that your missionary represented the viewpoint of *some* but it's become clear that the Iraqi people, even if they supported the overthrow of Saddam, do not support the occupation.

Again, is it the job of our military to die in another country's civil war?

And, fwiw, when people are dying all around you, your family is unsafe and your loved ones being killed, there's no jobs and no infrastructure and little electricity, it doesn't much matter who's doing the killing or for what.

I've talked to plenty, and more than enough to know that the areas that actually fit the bolded description are few and far between. Much of Iraq is stable and functioning, with utilities, infastructure, and even public education and transportation running on schedule. They also tend to tell me the 'civil war' thing is bullcrap and that the people who espouse that theory have lumped in the small number of Sunni Ba'athists who want their power restored with the hordes of foreign terrorists trying to destabilize the country.

[jillian]

I've talked to plenty, and more than enough to know that the areas that actually fit the bolded description are few and far between. Much of Iraq is stable and functioning, with utilities, infastructure, and even public education and transportation running on schedule. They also tend to tell me the 'civil war' thing is bullcrap and that the people who espouse that theory have lumped in the small number of Sunni Ba'athists who want their power restored with the hordes of foreign terrorists trying to destabilize the country.

Iraq stable and functioning???? I'm not sure how to respond to something that bears no rational relationship to reality. Our own state department has reported that the conditions there have deteriorated and continue to so so.

Go look at the IAVA.org site.

[Hobbit]

Iraq stable and functioning???? I'm not sure how to respond to something that bears no rational relationship to reality. Our own state department has reported that the conditions there have deteriorated and continue to so so.

Go look at the IAVA.org site.

Yes, they have, but not the entire country. Conditions deteriorated here after Katrina hit, but that didn't mean New York was covered in water. Conditions deteriorated here after the recent Midwest blizzard, but everything here in Georgia was fine. Iraq's a big place.

[theHawk]

Does anyone else find it funny how liberals will tell you your opinion is wrong because you haven't actually been there or don't really know first hand what is going on. Yet they have no problem referring to a website when it serves as justification for their opinions?


How many Iraqis have *you* spoken with? I appreciate that your missionary represented the viewpoint of *some* but it's become clear that the Iraqi people, even if they supported the overthrow of Saddam, do not support the occupation.


Iraq stable and functioning???? I'm not sure how to respond to something that bears no rational relationship to reality. Our own state department has reported that the conditions there have deteriorated and continue to so so.

Go look at the IAVA.org site.

[red states rule]

Does anyone else find it funny how liberals will tell you your opinion is wrong because you haven't actually been there or don't really know first hand what is going on. Yet they have no problem referring to a website when it serves as justification for their opinions?

To libs, if the NY Times does not report it or Keith Olbermann does not mention it - it never happened

[Gaffer]

IAVA, a liberal anti-military organization designed to give credibilty to the libs for their hatred of Bush and the military. It's nothing more than that and made up of liars and phonies.

Every iraq vet I have talked too has had a positive outlook on iraq. Rebuilding is going on and they have more electric and clean water and working sewer systems then they ever had with saddam.

For the most part what are troops are dealing with are thugs. ali babas that are trying to take control of neighborhoods. al queda typse that want to kill anybody and destroy any chance of democracy. The sunni and shea are fighting among themselves. Not with the US forces.

iraq is also a front for fighting the iranians.

There will be a war on in the middle east when the next president takes over. Regardless of whether we are in iraq or not. The war with islam will continue for the next 20 years so get use to it. It's coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

What the libs can't get into their small minds is that this is a BIG global war and iraq is only a small front in the overall war. We are not at war with every muslim, but we are at war with islam.

[red states rule]

IAVA, a liberal anti-military organization designed to give credibilty to the libs for their hatred of Bush and the military. It's nothing more than that and made up of liars and phonies.

Every iraq vet I have talked too has had a positive outlook on iraq. Rebuilding is going on and they have more electric and clean water and working sewer systems then they ever had with saddam.

For the most part what are troops are dealing with are thugs. ali babas that are trying to take control of neighborhoods. al queda typse that want to kill anybody and destroy any chance of democracy. The sunni and shea are fighting among themselves. Not with the US forces.

iraq is also a front for fighting the iranians.

There will be a war on in the middle east when the next president takes over. Regardless of whether we are in iraq or not. The war with islam will continue for the next 20 years so get use to it. It's coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

What the libs can't get into their small minds is that this is a BIG global war and iraq is only a small front in the overall war. We are not at war with every muslim, but we are at war with islam.

A Fox News poll show how Dems really fell about the war, and how alot of Dems want failure in Iraq Only 51% of Dems want the surge to succeed

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf

[Gaffer]

A Fox News poll show how Dems really fell about the war, and how alot of Dems want failure in Iraq Only 51% of Dems want the surge to succeed

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf

The dems are absolutely out to lose the war. Anything for power is the dem motto. They just haven't figured it out that if we lose they will be the first to be beheaded.

[trobinett]

IAVA, a liberal anti-military organization designed to give credibilty to the libs for their hatred of Bush and the military. It's nothing more than that and made up of liars and phonies.

Every iraq vet I have talked too has had a positive outlook on iraq. Rebuilding is going on and they have more electric and clean water and working sewer systems then they ever had with saddam.

For the most part what are troops are dealing with are thugs. ali babas that are trying to take control of neighborhoods. al queda typse that want to kill anybody and destroy any chance of democracy. The sunni and shea are fighting among themselves. Not with the US forces.

iraq is also a front for fighting the iranians.

There will be a war on in the middle east when the next president takes over. Regardless of whether we are in iraq or not. The war with islam will continue for the next 20 years so get use to it. It's coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

What the libs can't get into their small minds is that this is a BIG global war and iraq is only a small front in the overall war. We are not at war with every muslim, but we are at war with islam.

I tried to Rep ya Gaffer, but I have to "spread some around".

Good post.

Hi jillian, take it easy on the late night feel good circuit.:poke: