An Iraqi boy hides behind a U.S. soldier on Monday amid gunfire after a car bomb in Central Baghdad killed 24 people:
Share & Save: |
 |
Share |  |
|
|
195 Comments
Subscribe to PBH RSS
PBH RSS Feed
Subscribe Via Email
Recent Comments
PBH Email Updates
-
Search PBH & Google
That does not look to me to be an authentic fighting man of United States military. Where is his insignia? What type of weapon is that he is carrying? His cammo pattern appears something less than genuine issue. And, I’m not expert, but his boots do not apear to be G.I. –I think this guy could be a washed up police man who just got himself a life long job working for Halibuton. Can this man’s connection to The US Military be verified?
David,
I think you need to do a little research on how the uniforms of both the Army and Marine Corps have changed in the past few years. That should explain a lot.
Yes, those are definitely Army uniforms- no one else has those uniform- they are standard issue digital cammo. He is carrying an M-4 Carbine, which is a smaller lighter version of the M-16. If you look at the top picture, you can see his infantry insignia on the arm of his uniform. Also, those boots are the boots issued with that particular army uniform. Consider the man verified as US Military.
I am glad I am not in Iraq, that is for sure. Good luck to those who are.
I’m a soldier, so let me set this straight. That camo pattern is the new standard issue (it’s based on pixelated digital images). The insignia are removable with velcro backs. The boots are the new Army issue, matte color. Although, they look very worn out. Almost as if he’s been in them for a few years. As for the weapon, it’s special issue, but still US Army (probably an AR-15).
I may not support this war, but be careful before mouthing off about soldiers if you know nothing about them, sir.
It’s a sad day for the nation when asking a question about a uniform is considered mouthing off about our troops…
Its not a special issue, as pointed out above, its a m-4 carbine with a red-dot scope.
I wish all the war mongering no-con’s kids had to go threw exactly the same life struggle that the boy in this picture has to endure every day.
It’s obvious the first commenter is in that bunch that thinks everything is made up and a big lie.
He’s probably one of those “bush planned 9/11″ whack jobs.
Bison, actually, I wish you had to go thru being thrown off one of Sadam’s roofs.
Bison said: “I wish all the war mongering no-con’s kids had to go threw exactly the same life struggle that the boy in this picture has to endure every day.”
Much better that he had been put through one of Saddam’s plastic shredders, eh?
Saddam was a criminal, but so are the ‘people’ who lied the West into this disaster at the cost of numerous Iraqi people, and Westerners (mainly US) who are ordered to do the dirty work. In fact Saddam did not manage to destroy that much, and cause so many casualties.
I’m afraid that we human beings will never learn from the past. Time and time again greed and insanity wins.
Ok. Well im a fucking idiot.
Thanks for setting me straight, I’ve need that kind of discipline my whole life and never got it. Please spank me.
Be careful to notice what this picture is meant to imply, that American troops are there protecting the Iraqi people from some unknown, somewhat undefined enemy. Is that the truth?
The US military just last week was shelling entire neighborhoods in Sadr City, and you think the Iraqi people want that sort of indiscriminate “protection”? No I think not.
So fine, some kid got scared and hid behind a US troop. Doesn’t mean we didn’t kill his father or brother in a bombing, and it doesn’t mean the Iraqi people need us.
Bison says:
May 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I wish all the war mongering no-con’s kids had to go threw exactly the same life struggle that the boy in this picture has to endure every day.
I wish you whould go ‘threw’ grade school again and learn how to spell.
Uh, this picture doesn’t imply anything. There’s no hidden agenda, I posted an interesting picture from Iraq that occurred on Memorial Day. What are you trying to get at?
Yeah, it’s not like the “establishment” has ever doctored a photo! Or, are there some whack jobs out there who are not aware of this activity..?
USA brought chaos and death to a huge amount of people. Iraq’s invasion was just brutal…
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alec/05/29/happy-memorial-day/#comment-22425
Uh your an idiot. Its not the picture that implys anything but your false caption.
My false caption? What terms do you want me to use? Write me up something more objective and I’ll put it up.
“Uh your an idiot.”
Uh, talk about irony. That should be *You’re* an idiot.
The humanitarian thing to do for people like Charles Jillian would be to pull out and let it devolve into full blown civil war. Right or wrong reasons for it being there, there’s a mess needing cleaning up.
As I don’t much care for the Religion of (tiny) Pieces and they’re seditious and irrational ways, I’d just as soon arm them all and seal the borders, let them fight it out amongst themselves, but that isn’t politically plausible.
Can’t a guy just post an interesting pic for the sake of “Hey check this out”? Or does everything have to have an political/conspiracy/poor me/I’m smarter at posting than you are spin to it?
Spend time praying for those in leadership and stop whining about them. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. Everyone is so quick to judge everyone else. Why can’t we work together in a positive way?
Sheesh!
This is the internet, Steve. Lowest common denominator tends to rule because they don’t have jobs.
Jesus fucking shit on a goddamn stick!
If this isn’t a soldier that came out of an American boot camp, it’s a contracted soldier from the US still fighting in Iraq. It’s an A.P. photo too. This is nothing more than an image showing off how fucked up armed conflict can be.
Soldier or no, if you’re an advocate for the war, you’re inherently an advocate for propelling tiny pellets of explosive lead into another human that will shatter and destroy any point of contact twixt the two. If you’re down with that, well, fuck you. Humanity is a single species on the planet, and there is no excuse for armed conflict.
If the greater connectivity of the internet is supposed to do anything it supposed to create interpersonal connections on a global scale, it’s supposed to help eliminate impersonal behavior. What the fuck is going through your head where you can willfully devalue another person’s life.
Go fuck yourself for that. Fuck yourself with something that really hurts.
And if you want to make a fight about it, let’s dance motherfucker, I’ll carve the god-damned crucifixion all over your face with this one, Michaelangelo ain’t got shit on me you punk ass bitch.
Yeah, prayer’s going to solve everything.
Yeah, over abundance of prayer got us into this mess. GWB says that GOD told him to invade IRAQ…it is a shame that GOD didn’t know that there WEREN’T any WMDs there.
I commend this guy. In the face of possible danger, he is cool, calm, and collected. And he is protecting a child nonetheless. I know that I wouldn’t want to be in that situation right now, and neither would any of you that have posted. Godspeed this Solider. For the war or not I don’t care, this guy is great.
Ron Paul ‘08
I think it’s awesome how he pays no attention to the kid. Essentially saying “sure, you can hide behind me”. God bless our troops. May the “leaders” who abuse them for political/monetary gain come swiftly to Justice.
David (original commentor)-
You are a dork. He is obviously wearing the All American patch of the 82nd Airborne Division, which makes sense since they are in B-town right now and this is a B-town photo. He is carrying the standard M-4 carbine with the standard-issue M68 reflex sight. His ACU (Advanced Combat Uniform) and camel-bak water backpack are also standard issue. HTH.
Can’t we all just get along? Happy memorial day, alec.
There’s something funny about that photo. It just gets to you. I think it’s the giant Associated Press watermark in the middle.
It appears that his unit patch is 82d Airborne. Non-standard boots. All else looks real to me. (Captain, USA, ret)
Picture looks fake
I don’t know why people went off on political rants, this picture is proof of the living contradictions in Iraq (and the world for that matter). The boy and the soldier, vulnerability and security, one depending on the other, each the reflection of the other. It’s very much a tragic comedy, life and death, and we humans are just actors on the global stage.
Terry: Amazing eyes, which are a lot better than mine. I’m going to link to the photographers website on the bottom of the post.
Yes, it’s real. Stop pontificating on it’s authenticity — I have better things to do then forge this picture.
If I was there, I sure as hell would not hide behind a GI for protection…
People in Baghdad know the drill and try to stay as far away from them as possible.
The point is, no matter if you support the war or not, there is a child in distress. It is a very touching photo.
Most of you guys just need to calm down. Its a picture that some guy thought was interesting based on what *he* things is interesting. As for your thoughts on the whole war thing, good for you, but do you think we care?
O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
I think the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Bush & Co. invaded for quite dubious reasons.
Just wanted to get it out of the way, which side I’m on.
Now the pic … scared kid: we get armies of therapists sent into schools when there is a shooting here in the free and safe world. An army of therapists probably couldn’t put that kid back together. The soldier: that’s what America used to stand for; could still stand for. There’s still time for redemption, but first it’s probably going to get a hell of a lot worse. I feel sorry for that soldier and that boy. If they live, it probably won’t ever be over.
Well, I have my own views of the war, but they aren’t shared on this post.
Those are not issue boots. They indeed are regulation, and very common among U.S. soldiers, but are “personal purchase”.
How do we know the kid is an Iraqi ? Are those Iraqi issue sandals ?
The shirt and pants do not look to be Iraqi issue either.
Clearly this is an attempt by the Swedes to discredit the Cajuns.
or maybe…
it’s just a damn good candid photo. Look at it, learn from it, and STFU.
sheesh
To all you posters who like to tell people to keep their views to themselves, I would just like to say, I don’t think so.
Someone posts a photo of war in Iraq and we’re not supposed to comment about the war?
This war is wrong, that kid should not have to live like that and to be honest these people were better off under a brutal dictator then they are now.
And why is this important?
a good pic …
why is a subject of debate suddenly … ?
[...] a look at these photos: “An Iraqi boy hides behind a U.S. soldier on Monday amid gunfire after a car bomb in Central [...]
[...] Source. [...]
lol americans
lolololooll1l1l1l1l1l1l11l1
AMERICANS!!!!!11!!!!
arglflarbligharshabitaslafgdadkljghjalskvj!!!!!!
Those boots do not look standard issue is because they are jump boots, and he does not have the ACU pants bloused.
Where do I get my pants bloused???
I didn’t read through all of the comments so i might be saying something that has already been said.
SO.. okay, the old blotchy paterned BDU’s (battle dress uniform) is being phased out in favor of the “bit map barf” pattern. I’ve seen marines wearing those types of uniforms back in 2000 when I was a private.
The weapon is a M-4 carbine, which were being phased into the military (at least the Army) back in 01-02 (i’ll use those dates because thats when I was issued one to replace my M-16.) They are smaller, reduced range because of the shorter barrel, but since you don’t normally get a 600 meter straight shot in a city at ANYBODY it doesn’t matter much.
The boots aren’t jump boots, they are the standard issue boots used with the DCU’s (desert combat uniforms). Unless they are being made either differently or by another manufacturer, they suck. The soles wear off in the heat and moon dust after about 3 months of regular day to day use. You don’t exactly want to be weaing black recruit boots while standing out in 120+ degree heat in full sun on guard duty for 4 hours (not to mention that trying to keep the boots regulation black after being coated in Kiwi in the middle of a desert is impossible.)
The patch is easily seen in the first picture (which was moved down onto the shoulder pocket from where it used to be high on the shoulder, a new addition to the uniform that wasn’t around on the old BDU/DCU’s and was a constant complaint because all of the pockets on the old uniform tops were underneath your body armor and useless.) The patch isn’t obvious on the second picture, probably due to the slight change in position of the photographer. You might be able to make out the AA patch if you enlarged the first picture instead of the second one.
So long as your pants legs aren’t haning open like you are trying to be a sailor, it doesn’t matter if you’re using the little strings in the bottom or tucking the pants legs into the tops of your boots. You’ll be well within the regulations.
Why the kid ran behind the guy with the gun and the body armor when the situation decided to go south? When the shit hits the fan you are more likely to react to the situation than sit down and right out a flow chart as to what your options are and which is more likely to be the correct course of action…. and yes I do see the irony of the photograph (kid hides behind the soldier whose presence is probably part of the reason the kid needs to find somebody to hide behind)…
alec…GREAT pic!! As for the neolib, Leftinistra, jihadi-sucking troll posters here, kiss this vets’ ass.
As for “why we are there” and “why they are not here…yet” go here and begin your education into what this war is really about. Morons.
http://takeourcountryback.townhall.com/g/bda7cdd4-da40-4c3f-a781-a8a23877567f
I thought the war was about the second coming of Jesus? Aren’t we fighting for judgment day? Of course the neolib Desi press won’t tell you that, only God will say it. That’s why you should all let Jesus into your heart, so that Satan doesn’t marry you to a queer in Hell’s cathedral, aka CALIFORNIA!
Thanks. I’m glad people like it. And everyone else, stop contemplating whether its real or not!
I think this is a pretty good metaphor for the situation in Iraq. The innocent Iraqis, as portrayed by the child, when looking to America in their search for the now distant memory of safety, find America’s attention is elsewhere, as portrayed by the soldier’s indifference. Nice find Alec.
“find America’s attention is elsewhere”
Look at the direction of where the kid is running from, and look where the paratrooper is looking.
You’re a blind ass-hat!
Saw the 2nd photo (kid hiding behind soldier) Tuesday on the NY Times above the fold. The incident was a car bomb in a predominently Shiite marketplace in Baghdad that took out a few innocent shoppers. Then shots rang out (see 1st photo when people were just starting to scatter) and the kid decided the guy (82nd Airborne) wearing body armor was his safest bet.
Kind of reminds me of ROBOCOP, walking erect into the danger zone with his head swiveling seeking out targets of opportunity.
>I think this is a pretty good metaphor for the situation in Iraq. The innocent Iraqis, as
>portrayed by the child, when looking to America in their search for the now distant memory
>of safety, find America’s attention is elsewhere, as portrayed by the soldier’s
>indifference. Nice find Alec.
When you’re protecting somebody, do you stare at them the whole time or keep an eye out for additional dangers? Car bombs don’t always come solo. If you think the soldier should be focusing on the child instead of assessing the situation, please don’t try to ever protect anybody.
Also, if the soldier was indifferent, he wouldn’t be in the picture. The very fact that he’s there indicates his desire to protect.
Those who advocate war least, are the ones who must fight it…
“Soldier or no, if you’re an advocate for the war, you’re inherently an advocate for propelling tiny pellets of explosive lead into another human that will shatter and destroy any point of contact twixt the two. If you’re down with that, well, fuck you. Humanity is a single species on the planet, and there is no excuse for armed conflict.”
And I fight it. I will fight it. And I’ll fucking fight it wherever I have to so my children can practice their religeon freely, whatever they choose, not under Sharia Law, or being forced to watch the horizon over their towns filled with Minarets…
Something tells me my perception of reality is better.
So lets “Dance” AlvinBlah, and since you’ll be bringing your knife (to carve a crucifix on me) to a gun-fight, I’ll get you before you get me. It is what I am trained to do. So let us dance Murtha-fucka, Let’s fucking Tango…
First of all David that SOLDIER is wearing the ‘ ALL AMERICAN” double “A” patch that belongs to one of the finest divisions in the military,82nd Airborne divison,if you are in fact a soldier you would have recognized it.
C.L.Lucas:
Don’t take up your fucked up “daddy died in war” shit with me.
It sucks hard that someone so close to you died in such a terrible way, but don’t twist that and me into some kind of narrow minded fucked up catharsis for you where you accuse all those that disagree into some kind of bomb throwing terrorists out to put russia and china in charge of all those god loving americans….
get ahold of your own demons before you come and try to tackle me.
http://killingjanefonda.com/kjf_main.htm
http://www.cllucas.com
How like a troll. First, we have an absolute twit spouting off about things he knows nothing about. “Where’s his insignia? ” Why, right where it belongs, don’t you recognize the EIGHTY-FREEAKING-SECOND AIRBORNE patch ?
“His cammo pattern appears something less than genuine issue” Well, color me suprised. If you can’t recognize the insignia of the lead element of the XVIII Airborne Corps (Sorry, 101st), I’m pretty sure you’re ignorant of cammie patterns as well. My WIFE, with no military experience, saw the “AA” immediately.
And, of course, we HAVE to mention Halliburton. Those of us who know anything about Iraq talk about Blackwater, Aegis, Global Strategies, and others. (Try Google) I’m not too sure what division of Halliburton (Drilling, Fluid Systems, or Product Optimization) handles the big bad security nazis. Oh, that’s right, Halliburton is an energy services company. But it’s become an “eevil buzz-word” that ignoramuses (ignorami?) trot out to “prove their point.” What they prove, of course, is their bottomless ignorance.
Oh, and Anonymous ? A little clue: Asking “Hmm, what kind of uniform is that? ” is a neutral question. Starting with “That does not look to me to be an authentic . . .” is saying “I don’t believe you” right up front. Since this is also being portrayed as generally positive, the comment implies “That’s can’t be right — I don’t believe in such positive news.” So, yes, it WAS mouthing off. And from an ignoramus so abysmally clueless he couldn’t recognize the 82nd insignia. I call bullshit! The first poster was never in the Army if he doesn’t know the “AA”
Then we have Harry, “Saddam was a criminal, but so are the ‘people’ ” who equates our current Administration with Saddam Hussein’s. However you feel about our current administration — and you might be surprised how opposed to it I am — making ANY comparison between an invasion backed by 18 UN resolutions, conducted under rules of engagement that are extraordinailry strict, with (comparitively) light civilian and military casualties to the butchery that was Saddam is vacuous to the point of insanity.
Moving on, we find another idiot, “The US military just last week was shelling entire neighborhoods in Sadr City, and you think the Iraqi people want that sort of indiscriminate “protection”?” implying that the shelling was widespread and careless. I can tell he never called a shot in his life. And I think he meant air-strikes, since that was what I’d heard happened. And those are always aimed, since ferrying the damned things is expensive. But “shelling” evokes much more moving images. . . and accuracy doesn’t count.
Oh, and let us not forget the breathtaking idiocy, from a protected class who’s never been raped or beaten:
“Humanity is a single species on the planet, and there is no excuse for armed conflict.”
How butt-stupid do you have to be to ever make a sweeping generailzation like that. However you feel about the war in Iraq, speaking in absolutes like that is the mark of an eight-year-old. No matter what is happening in Iraq, this prize-winning idiot seems to think that NO armed conflict is ever just. Can I hire two refrigerator-sized ex-cons to sodomize you for an hour just to see if you fight back ?
When you make that Nobel-Prize-In-Stupidity-Winning statement, there is NOTHING you can say that will ever convince me that you are worth listening to. On anything.
Let’s face it, we may disagree as to where to draw the line, but if you genuinely believe that there is NEVER a reason to kill, please get a vasectomy. Our gene-pool is murky enough as it is. Of COURSE there’s some people that need killing. Whether or not “Person X” rises to that level IS debatable. And SHOUULD be debated. Intelligently.
Then we come to Bill D, the bright spot in a field of cow pies. His comment “May the “leaders” who abuse them for political/monetary gain come swiftly to Justice.” clearly expresses his disagreement and disdain for the administration without impugning the intelligence of the troops, or their dedication to the mission. If anyone wants to learn how to “support the troops but not the war” they could take lessons from Bill
Except for Bill, this pretty well sums up far too much of the anti-war movement, ignorant, clueless, and belligerent about it. PROUD that they know nothing, EAGER to demonstrate it.
I often weep for the anti-war movement. They have degenerated, Anakin Skywalker-like, into spoiled, whiny brats. I long for those who would carefully investigate the issues and debate rationally. WE NEED THEM. Sadly, they are rare in the arena.
smart kid , but I bet they growing up real damn fast over there. Knows which side of that soldier might start spewing out bullets anyhow.
Great picture! very sad situation though. You may not support the War or our troops but thank God for them. War is reality. You have idiots who think the War is about the oil. How do you explain war since the beginning of time? You have idiots like hollywood stars Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Fat Rosie Odonnell who are against the war but are violent people toward their own spouses. Hyprocrites! Liberals; this is what happens when Jesus Christ, the Son of our living God is not our foundation for living. Our founding Fathers believed this and that is why they took much of our Constitution from the living Bible. Go ahead and continue to take God out of our American lives. America will get worse in violence!
http://actionherbals.com/
To David the first comment I see on here…
you are truely a moron. you obviously have no clue about anything and yes the man and the image can be verified because my company owns the sector that that Mosque that was bombed was in. As far as you questioning him being military, have you never heard of ACUs, M4 and after-market boots? And what the hell are you talking about “insignia”? Its funny that your conspiracy theories evolve so deep that you even question the geniune nature of photographs taken in an experience above anything you will ever do in your life.
I’m glad that having an experience gives ownership and authority on said experience.
Wow- What a lot of ignorance and hate filled rhetoric!
Yep- it’s a GI doing his job, in his country’s uniform.
The symbolism is SO POWERFUL. A heads up soldier protecting a young child.
Too bad so many liberal nitwits have to foam at the mouth, instead of coming up with a positive suggestion.
Oh, by the way, announcing that you are leaving a fight is called declaring defeat.
The sectarian RIF (Radical Islamic Fundamentalist) violence is NOT being caused by the presence of US troops. It is being caused by the extremists in the “Religion of Peace” that want to establish a world wide caliphate.
I grieve for the ordinary citizens of Iraq who want to raise a family peacefully.
The US led coalition tried to set up conditions for that to happen.
Bush, Rumsfeld and Co made a big mistake in trying to go to war on the cheap.
What’s the way forward? Cut and Run didn’t work out so great in SW Asia in the 70’s.
Ask any of the victims of Pol Pot.
Let’s not repeat the mistakes done by the Congress in power at that time.
Come on – somebody say something smart!
oh for heaven’s sake!! the kid doesn’t know or care why the American soldier is there — he has learned that the American soldier is a friend and will protect the Iraqi child with his own life if necessary. simple as that.
AnnHines says:
…to be honest these people were better off under a brutal dictator then they are now.
Really. Would you be better off under a brutal dictator than you are now?
That kid simply came to the same realization that the tribal leaders — and even now, some of the insurgents — in Anbar (and elsewhere) have:
We are not the enemy … we are here to protect them.
And going “on the cheap”, instead of invoking the Powell Doctrine, reinforced that message … instead of giving the enemy more targets, without an equivalent return in positive effect.
Maybe we were too cheap … but going too far the other way could have been counterproductive, as well.
As for the “Bush Lied”, etc. crowd that has gathered here … it is your kind of thinking that made this inevitible war longer and harder, by discouraging our leaders from taking direct, timely, resolute, and decisive action against this threat … for the many decades it existed, well before 11 September 2001.
Here’s a message for y’all — the same one I delivered to those who shared your thinking, who were standing on the front lawn of Halliburton in 2004:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2005/09/sorry-for-long-absence.html
And here is why leaving Iraq is not an option … for failure there, is not an option, if we wish to stop the killing:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2007/05/folded-colors.html
I will say something smart by refraining from this conversation and enjoying Karate Kid 3 from the comfort of my home (in HD, too!)
@ Mark
You want a positive suggestion from a nitwit?
Lets start by looking at the cold hard facts. Iraq is fucked up as shit. US presence or not, the nation is in a twisted state. The American invasion with inadequate troop levels and poor long-long term planning placed us in this situation…
There are 2 easy choices
1. Stay until something changes
2. Leave before it gets worse
A lot can be inferred from these two routes, but one involves less people dying. Advocating for a withdrawal is not a cowardly cutting and running, its staying the course in honoring the lives of those that have served, adn not killing more needlessly.
There is a lot of debate about what should happen in the next 10 months with troop deployments and withdrawal plans, it’s still important to keep the reasons for war in mind.
Those reasons were:
1. Al Qaeda was in Iraq and developing terrorist cells to attack the US with Iraqi government support
2. Iraq was developing biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to use on civilian populations
3. He’s a baaaaaaaaad dude
Al Qaeda is a Suni organization, and Iraq under Saddam was Shia, the two ideologically hated each other, that’s like claiming that during the 80s Irish protestant and catholic terrorist groups were working together..the two don’t mix…Al Qaeda came into Iraq later.
Anyone has yet to find any weapons of mass destruction, and many of the sources for intelligence have been later discredited.
Saddam may have been a bad fucked up dude, but not only did the US help place him in power, and support him in their was against Iran, but there was never an official request for international aid from any rebel group…
If the pretext for entering into the war in the first place is either false, fucked up, or convoluted it makes a hard decision easier. If nothing will dramatically improve with either choice, it makes more sense to remove the offending military force from the situation.
If you think pulling out now is a defeat, wait until the US is actually beat, like in Vietnam, then forced to pull out. See what that does for national morale. That’d be 2 wars that Republicans lost.
What about loyalty of action actually makes sense with the perpetuation of this war. There has been an escalation in the war since the “surge” and things are not better, not just the leftists, but most of the country wants this war over. No matter what, how can one be an advocate of a civilian controlled military and not at least respect the will of the majority in where it wants it’s military.
Being in or a supporter of the military does not give ownership of it’s agendas. Liberals pay taxes, support the government structure, and are active participating citizens. Just because we disagree doesn’t make an opposite opinion less valid.
Anyway, in the coming months you should be working harder at defending the war than attacking those that oppose it. The elections are turning against neo-conservatism, and you’re going to have to work harder to explain yourself to the majority of your countrymen, not, the other way around.
So I say to you, what good reason is there to stay at war?
What good reason is there to stay at war?
“1. Al Qaeda was in Iraq and developing terrorist cells to attack the US with Iraqi government support.”
Our concern wasn’t only Al Quada in Iraq (and yes, they were there, with the approval of the Management in the Land of the Ultimate Control Freaks — even if there were no direct operational ties); it was the whole breadth of international terrorism Saddam supported, fanning the flames of violence in Israel and elsewhere … including providing safe haven to at least one of the 1993 WTC attackers. Furthermore, if Baathist Syria and Shiite Iran can pursue common interests, so could Baathist Saddam and Sunni Al Quada … but not any more, thanks to America.
Think past the very next move on the chessboard.
“2. Iraq was developing biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to use on civilian populations”
Read the Duelfer report — Saddam had everything but the stockpiles, ready to restart his efforts in that regard once the bribery of the UN perpetrated by Saddam via Crude-For-Food took effect.
“3. He’s a baaaaaaaaad dude”
Do you know why we used proxies like Saddam over the years? Because people like you convinced our leaders that America should NEVER use its military power in a direct, timely, resolute, and decisive faction. So they made the best of a bad situation … and we are now paying for your success in promoting such folly.
Bottom line: no totalitarian ruler in history, with the will and the capability to expand his rule beyond his borders, has stopped doing so on his own accord … they all had to be confronted with the credible threat of force to be stopped.
And, we were not credible in the eyes of those like Saddam and bin Laden … because people like you kept convincing us to stay our hands against such thugs. As a result they became stronger and bolder.
Now, we have leaders who have learned that hard lesson … the question is, will we still have them on 21 January 2009? Or, will we repeat the MidEast history of the last 30 years, and see still more die?
Now, let me add to the list …
4> To keep Iraq, a relatively advanced and very prosperous nation, from — ONCE AGAIN — being hijacked to support terrorism.
5> To continue to move towards ending the scourge of totalitarianism in the name of radical Islam — NOW, before millions die as, with our backs against the wall, this becomes a classical, nation-on-nation World War. This ain’t Vietnam … if they carry the day, this enemy will not stop with Iraq.
6> “Anbar Rising” — google it, instead of regurgitating the same old, gnat-strained snapshots and factoids that have been thrown, like poo on the wall at the monkey house, whenever y’all think some might stick to the President you think was “selected, not elected”. The Iraqis who were once cold to — or even shooting at — us are now working with us.
Just walking away, won’t end this war. It will just bring it to the most vulnerable spots among those who can stop the killing; i.e. within our own civilization … unless we continue to act with RESOLVE to put a stop to it, and stand with those who have chosen to stand with us against this enemy.
Alec, nice job with finding that picture. It is a soldier with 82nd Airborne, wearing Oakley boots, carrying a M-4 Carbine and equipped with an ACOG. The boots don’t blouse in the army because they are already designed to form fit around the boots, notice the elastic. The Iraqi’s stay away from us? No, they didn’t stay away unless they knew there was A: A bad guy in the neighborhood watching them. B: Knowledge that an IED or SVBIED was to be detonated. Usually when the kids got close we knew the area should be good to go. To the rest of the ostriches on the board making inane comments regarding Saddam’s lack of support to AQ, or the lack of WMD, or any of the other media hot topics that they used or chose to highlight. There were 16 mandated reasons to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. In addition, it was official US policy Regime Change for Iraq…signed by Clinton #42. So, clamor and whine, and yap at the dark, shadows and sounds…meanwhile this Sheepdog will sit quietly preventing the real dangerous wolf from entering your flock…Semper Fi
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
It’s an easy one, but everything draws back to real sources. Make that one be proven wrong.
that is sooo photoshopped…..just look at the soldier…his position barely changes as the kid goes behind him, and you compare the picture quality of the soldier and the surrounding….i noticed a slight difference
[...] Happy Memorial Day [...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30909-2004Jul31.html
And what was Mother Jones’, or the WaPo’s plan for engaging and defeating this totalitarian enemy?
Don’t bother answering.
We know what that plan was, for our leaders implemented it again and again at their urging … and our enemies grew stronger and bolder.
It can be summed up in one word … INACTION.
INACTION — in the light of the historical record, regarding how totalitarian regimes are stopped.
INACTION — in the face of enemies who have shown they will turn the good faith and trust of our open (and vulnerable), highly-interconnected civilization against it.
Understand this: virtually ALL the progress made since WWII in terms of liberating people, reducing arms stockpiles, and easing international tensions (all in a SUSTAINABLE manner) has come at the hands of cowboy diplomats like Presidents Reagan and G. W. Bush … not at the hands of the so-called Best and Brightest that populate the halls of Mother Jones, the WaPo, and other sources of “credible authority”.
While this Administration has made some errors, they ACTED … while their critics didn’t even bother to show up and deal effectively with the problems.
That makes their words/polls/timelines now, nothing more than highly-spun gnat-strainings that look a lot like monkey-poo.
Your hands are covered with it, AlvinBlah.
It looks to me like the kid, is hiding behind the one dude that might actually know what is going on…..
Rich, you’re changing the subject. We’re talking about a specific war, and poor rationale for armed conflict.
Did you even look at the links?
Or did you continue to back an ideology of might makes right regardless of circumstance?
The majority of Americans oppose this war, and think the US is on the wrong track. Blind advocation of warfare must be backed up with rationale, not personal attacks.
This cowboy attitude that you’re such a staunch supporter of is placing you into an increasing minority and you’re being pushed back to the fringes of rational debate where you belong.
You lost.
Well put Rich.
I’d rather have a man of ACTION in the White House that may make a few mistakes along the way than a thumb-sucking whiney liberal who’s INACTION in the face of an attack is a guarantee of even worse consequences.
Good on ya Rich. Reason and good judgement expressed with passion.
- and props to the soldier there. Notice how he’s walking in the opposite direction of the fleeing crowd, heading towards the danger in order to confront it. Poignant.
what liberal has been inactive in the face of an attack. Back this up. Who?
It’s funny to bring up WWII and Reagan since the president during WWII was a crippled liberal, and Reagan’s action was to support both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, not to mention the whole festival of Latin American dictators and terrorists.
I think you guys need to play a game of knifey spoony to determine who’s right.
“Rich, you’re changing the subject. We’re talking about a specific war, and poor rationale for armed conflict.”
Iraq, Iran, Al Quada … All these conflicts have common threads …
> An adversary who is so totalitarian in nature, they will specifically target noncombatants with terror tactics to foment political change.
> An adversary who believes they have the right/mandate to expand their totalitarian rule beyond their borders as far as possible … in some cases, worldwide.
> An adversary who is either fanatical or meglomanical (the latter usually exacerbated by their perception of our past INACTION) to the degree that Cold-War style deterrence will do little to stop them, once they gain deployable WMD or conventional force.
> An adversary that retains a capability — though it has been effectively checked by the vigilance of America and other free nations since 11 Sept 2001 — to attack our civilization at vulnerable points, knowing that the very freedom-of-movement and openness that allows all who participate in our global civilization to prosper creates inherent vulnerabilities that cannot always be defended against by a passive defense.
> An adversary who believes, based on the actions of America in the 32 years prior to 11 September 2001 — and the disunity among our political leadership today — that we are incapable of stopping them.
We are not talking about “freedom fighters” here … for true freedom fighters do not make a point of targeting the innocent around them.
We are talking about existential threats to our civilization, if any/all are allowed to grow any further, by taking over Iraq or other nations and exploiting their resources to grow further in a manner reminiscent of how a snowball, rolling down a mountain, turns into an avalanche.
The threat is simple to understand:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-simplest-of-terms.html
And we know how to stop them — all of them.
It is very simple.
You confront them — and continue to confront them, denying them the control of the MidEast they seek, bringing the VAST MAJORITY of people there, who want peace, on board — until the return on investment for terrorism is so low it is not worth their effort.
You don’t do their work for them … neither by paving the road Fast and Cheap for them with the undeserved deference of the hard Left, nor by scorching the earth Good and Fast and converting the MidEast to glass as some advocate … nor by turning our own civilization into an armed camp or engaging in WWII-style sacrifice that would be counterproductive in this asymetrical, technology-aided war.
You do it Good, and Cheap — cheap, in terms of lives lost and disrupted — by doing the work needed to root out the enemy among the innocent, and remove their ability to wage war — either by turning them to our side, capturing them, or killing them.
You. Don’t. Give. Ground.
President Reagan lent support to Saddam (a conversation-over-coffee, in comparison to the whores’ bed he shared with France/Germany/Russia), and the Latin American strongmen. (BTW, any aid bin Laden got from us was a by-product of supporting the Afghani resistance against the Soviets — and not specifically directed to him or his movement.)
I say again: do you know why we used proxies like Saddam over the years? Because people like you convinced our leaders that America should NEVER use its military power in a direct, timely, resolute, and decisive faction. So they made the best of a bad situation … and we are now paying for your success in promoting such folly.
OTOH, when Reagan didn’t listen to the calls of people like you for unilateral disarmament/nuclear freeze/removing missiles from Europe/junking SDI in the face of the Soviets, you decried him as a warmongering cowboy.
Look what we got, when he ignored you and confronted the Soviets — and Didn’t. Give. Ground …
>Eastern Europe — tens of millions of people — freed from totalitarian rule.
>The Soviet Union — dismantled and replaced with governance that, as imperfect as it is, is still a vast improvement in terms of rights-respecting governance over the totalitarian state it replaced.
>Nuclear arms stockpiles — reduced, IN REAL TERMS, for the first time in history (despite all the arms negotiations, detente’ and diplomatic accommodation advocated by the political Left). My great uncles no longer have Minuteman silos on 24-hour alert next door to them in western Missouri, thanks to Ronald Reagan.
>The threat of starting an all-out nuclear war — reduced to the need to remain vigilant, as opposed to 24/7 High Alert.
Yes, the Soviets were weakening by the time Reagan came into office … but they were showing no signs of collapsing anywhere near as fast as they did. Mr. Reagan’s actions brought them down in a controlled manner … instead of in a nuclear blaze-of-glory.
All thanks to one President’s willingness to confront our enemy.
Confrontation in a timely manner can prevent war … or minimize the butcher’s bill.
You critics have shown us repeatedly, by stridently discouraging the credible confrontation of those who would take life and liberty from innocent people — regardless of their ideology or location — that you haven’t learned that lesson.
(BTW, if FDR did what he did back then, today, you’d be screaming for his head, too!)
“Did you even look at the links?”
Why bother?
First, I just showed you that the basis for waging this war does not depend upon any formal links between Iran/Iraq/AQ — it depends upon the intent of our enemies, and their capability to implement that intent. Therefore, the NYT article is irrelevant.
As for Mother Jones, I have seen it all before … it is the same-ol’ same-ol’ spin that others have tied to push on me … and I have called them on it already.
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/09/reposting-truth-about-iraq.html
“Or did you continue to back an ideology of might makes right regardless of circumstance?”
I think I have shown you where I am coming from … not might-makes-right, but right-using-might wisely to preserve the inalienable rights our founders properly perceived as belonging to ALL MEN.
“The majority of Americans oppose this war, and think the US is on the wrong track. Blind advocation of warfare must be backed up with rationale, not personal attacks.”
I just backed it up with rationale. Your problem is, my rationale doesn’t trash the man you loathe as “selected, not elected”, so you don’t like it. Therefore, you fling the rhetorical equivalent of monkey poo, and I call you on it.
Your main enemy is President Bush, who at worst might end up shredding some paper.
My main enemy is those who choose to shred people in the name of their perceived right-to-rule. It is they who have perpetrated the vast majority of deaths in Iraq … not this President.
And they won’t stop, if we do not confront them.
You tell me … who should we be shooting first?
“This cowboy attitude that you’re such a staunch supporter of is placing you into an increasing minority and you’re being pushed back to the fringes of rational debate where you belong.”
History speaks otherwise — for it is the cowboy (and his neighbor the sheepdog) that has HISTORICALLY preserved freedom and peace, as I have shown.
Popularity — or distorted viewpoints based upon the truly-faulty intelligence of the MSM — does not change that. Keep in mind that there was a time where a majority of the world thought slavery was moral.
The second-most important thing my father taught me, was to not blindly follow the crowd.
“You lost.”
No I have not … from what I have seen in history.
You had better hope I have not “lost”, Alvin … for if I have lost, we all have — because we will not be ready for the next 911, much less a full-scale assault on America by an enemy left to grow stronger by our INACTION.
An adversary who is so totalitarian in nature, they will specifically target noncombatants with terror tactics to foment political change.
This doesn’t really describe Iraq and Iran so well. They support proxies that do this, but then so does the US.
An adversary who believes they have the right/mandate to expand their totalitarian rule beyond their borders as far as possible … in some cases, worldwide.
Again, doesn’t really describe Iraq and Iran so much. Saddam was making a power play for Kuwait and there is evidence to suggest that we told him we would not oppose it. I’ve never read anything solid to suggest he wanted to take over the world. Iran has never attacked a neighbor, and doesn’t really look like it will.
An adversary who is either fanatical or meglomanical (the latter usually exacerbated by their perception of our past INACTION) to the degree that Cold-War style deterrence will do little to stop them, once they gain deployable WMD or conventional force.
This doesn’t really describe Iran. It might describe Saddam if you consider him megalomaniacal. I would consider someone who believed God put him in power and that God commands him to be megalomanical, but that describes Bush more than Saddam. But for arguments sake let’s say he was.
An adversary that retains a capability — though it has been effectively checked by the vigilance of America and other free nations since 11 Sept 2001 — to attack our civilization at vulnerable points, knowing that the very freedom-of-movement and openness that allows all who participate in our global civilization to prosper creates inherent vulnerabilities that cannot always be defended against by a passive defense.
This is a description of asymmetric warfare. It’s not really a new concept, terrorism existed long before 9/11.
An adversary who believes, based on the actions of America in the 32 years prior to 11 September 2001 — and the disunity among our political leadership today — that we are incapable of stopping them.
What happened on Sept. 11, 1969 that was so monumental?
We are not talking about “freedom fighters” here … for true freedom fighters do not make a point of targeting the innocent around them.
The Afghanistani “freedom fighters,” to quote Pres. Reagan, targeted the innocent. But I agree with you in that no one should target innocents.
President Reagan lent support to Saddam (a conversation-over-coffee, in comparison to the whores’ bed he shared with France/Germany/Russia), and the Latin American strongmen. (BTW, any aid bin Laden got from us was a by-product of supporting the Afghani resistance against the Soviets — and not specifically directed to him or his movement.)
Well his movement was a part of the Afghani resistance, and so therefore the aid given to the resistance ended up going to him.
(BTW, if FDR did what he did back then, today, you’d be screaming for his head, too!)
Obviously there were some things FDR did that were dumb. Japanese internment camps, supporting Chiang Kai-Shek in China, etc. Comparing WWII to Iraq is pretty silly though. We entered the war after Japan bombed us and Germany declared war on us. You could say 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 didn’t have much to do with Iraq. In fact, Iraq has been a monumental distraction in the war on terror. The Taliban STILL control parts of Afghanistan, and Osama STILL has not been caught. All we have is more terrorists in the world, and less freedom.
Mr. Reagan’s actions brought them down in a controlled manner … instead of in a nuclear blaze-of-glory.
It’s funny you say that. I assume you know he was strongly considering attacking Russia with nuclear weapons, but didn’t. Gorbachev had a lot more to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union that Reagan did. The SDI stuff may have forced Russia’s downfall a bit quicker, but by the 80s they were basically bankrupt and people wanted change. And it was Carter who started funding the Afghani resistance by the way, which was much more of a direct confrontation than putting some missiles in Europe or in space.
Your main enemy is President Bush, who at worst might end up shredding some paper.
Oh the desire to say that that piece of paper is the Constitution is too much. But in all seriousness, Pres. Bush has caused me to lose more freedoms than Al Qaeda ever did. Doesn’t the fact that any American can be declared an enemy combatant and stripped of their citizenship scare you? I would at least like a trial first…
It is they who have perpetrated the vast majority of deaths in Iraq … not this President.
Of course, if we hadn’t started the war in Iraq or if it had been executed with competence, they wouldn’t be dead. Mr. Bush bears responsibility for their deaths as the decider, as do we all for electing him.
The second-most important thing my father taught me, was to not blindly follow the crowd.
I agree. This is why I was able to denounce this war from the beginning. The problems to come were obvious, it just sucks having to say I told you so. Whether we leave today or in 5 years, both Iraq and America will be worse off than if we had never gone.
[...] a look at these photos: “An Iraqi boy hides behind a U.S. soldier on Monday amid gunfire after a car bomb in Central [...]
To all the very brave antiwar bloggers and whiners threatening to kick some ass…you guys always have big balls until you face a threat. You just let the real fighting men do the fighting and ask your leader Cindy Sheehan again why she quit your weak ass cause. Because you’ve never stood up for anything in your life. You are all cowards in our eyes. Most Americans are no longer worth dying for, so soldiers will fight for our brothers and straight up fuck you.
My unit did a year in Iraq in ‘04, and that heads-up soldier is doing his job: looking for the threat, turning TOWARD the action (track his legs in the sequence), and allowing the kid to use him as a shield – all at once.
The true irony of all this is that infantry grunts like me and that airborne trooper are the ones keepin’ all you liberalite jackasses safe enough to spew your shit.
Keep it up, fools – your own words serve better to destroy any shred of credibility you might have ever had than any rebuttal from those who have been there. Keep trottin’ out your delusions – unimpeded by fact – and you’ll just keep fading into Neville Chamberlain obscurity.
You are pathetic excuses for human beings.
Killing is NEVER fun.
But there are times when it’s necessary, and you ungrateful punks should have at least enough good sense to recognize that the very freedoms you’re exercising now are due to people like us who do what needs to be done – while you sit on your asses, fat, dumb, happy……….and ignorant.
Which is a good thing.
You wouldn’t be worth shit on the pointy end anyway, so just stay the hell outta the way.
Because you’ve never stood up for anything in your life.
What about standing up to stop the war? I respect that some things are worth fighting for, worth sacrificing for. This war is not one of them.
into Neville Chamberlain obscurity.
Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czechs to Germany. For the 12 years leading up to the Second Iraq war, America had been regularly bombing the crap out of Iraq. There’s sort of a difference.
Also, why do people confuse being against this war with being against the troops? I think it’s pretty easy to be pro-troops and anti-Iraq-war.
“I think it’s pretty easy to be pro-troops and anti-Iraq-war”
Thats the difference between us. Soldiers don’t see it that way…we actually know the loss that you only imagine. We’ve lived times others would say are best forgotten. You might say, “hey, you don’t know me”. I know you’re not a soldier.
If we leave without helping the Iraqis form some type of solid government, we will have lost our soldiers for nothing. And let me remind you that every time you hear the press report we lost six soldiers today and eight soldiers yesterday, you should know that hundreds of people each day die in traffic accidents in the U.S.. The price of freedom is not cheap, but don’t let the press confuse you for the purposes of selling advertising…
(… glad to see PBH supports HTML tags …)
This doesn’t really describe Iraq and Iran so well.
They wouldn’t directly support those who target noncombatants, if targeting noncombatants ran counter to their aims.
They support proxies that do this, but then so does the US.
Where do we support those who make noncombatants their target?
Saddam was making a power play for Kuwait and there is evidence to suggest that we told him we would not oppose it. I’ve never read anything solid to suggest he wanted to take over the world.
He certainly wanted to take over Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia … that would give him global leverage … and I’ve already pointed out what the history of totalitarian expansion
has shown; i.e. they DON’T STOP until confronted.
Iran has never attacked a neighbor, and doesn’t really look like it will.
You are parsing words … they have attacked Israel and Lebanon, via the proxies you mentioned above … they have attacked Iraq and Americans within it, via their proxies there … and what part of Dar-al-Islam don’t you understand?
This doesn’t really describe Iran.
Add the 12th Imam cult Ahmedinijad belongs to, to the Koran’s teaching about the endstate of Dar-al-Islam … and see if that isn’t “fanatical”.
It might describe Saddam if you consider him megalomaniacal.
I do.
I would consider someone who believed God put him in power and that God commands him to be megalomanical, but that describes Bush more than Saddam. But for arguments sake let’s say he was.
You reveal your cluelessness about the President’s beliefs … and your bias … in this statement; from what I have seen, this President becomes HUMBLE in the presence of the Almighty, making him take the responsibility of his office even more seriously … while men like Saddam and Ahmedinijad exhibit ARROGANCE as they place themselves as the doorman for the 12th Imam … or the next Saladin.
And, you appear to be clueless about the many believers who support this President … but you are in “good” company:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2004/10/clueless-aspiring-to-leading-clueless.html
This is a description of asymmetric warfare. It’s not really a new concept, terrorism existed long before 9/11.
You realize this … and by doing so, prove my point about the INACTION perpetrated by critics like you … if you critics know this, then why weren’t you clamoring for our leaders to act decisively to stop it when the cost to do so was minimal, like, say in 1991?
What happened on Sept. 11, 1969 that was so monumental?
You’re not seeing the forest for the trees — I said the years PRIOR to 11 Sept 2001:
> Leaving South Vietnam to the tender mercies of their re-educators from the North.
> Leaving Iran unmolested after committing what, in past times, would have been considered an act of war by holding our diplomatic group hostage.
> Leaving Lebanon with the predecssor to today’s Hezbollah — sponsored by Iran, destroyer of the Marine barracks in Beirut — intact.
> Leaving Saddam in power after his agression in 1990 … instead encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up and rebel one minute, and witholding support from them the next.
> Leaving Somalia with the thugocracies there intact … for little old Ethoipia to clean up, years later.
> Allowing North Korea to take advantage of our good-faith negotiation, and gain the time and breathing space they needed to go nuclear.
> Not going after Iraq for harboring at least one of the 1993 WTC bombers … or for supporting the globally-destablizing activities of Palestinian suicide bombers, $25K at a time … or for shooting at our planes in the no-fly zones … or for continuing to obstruct and shell-game the weapons inspectors … or for repeated violations of the 1991 cease-fire … or to enforce the seventeen UN resolutions passed against Iraq.
> Not going after the Taliban, instead letting them stand to support Al Quada.
> Not going after Al Quada, instead treating them as mere criminals instead of the fanatical warmongers they are, when they bombed the Khobar Towers … or two African embassies … or the USS Cole.
The Afghanistani “freedom fighters,” to quote Pres. Reagan, targeted the innocent.
Name one entity that we DIRECTLY supported, that did so.
Well his movement was a part of the Afghani resistance, and so therefore the aid given to the resistance ended up going to him.
Only as a by-product — not by design.
9/11 didn’t have much to do with Iraq.
See my next post here for my answer — for it is the central point I am trying to make.
In fact, Iraq has been a monumental distraction in the war on terror.
Then why is Al Quada willing to bet the farm there?
The Taliban STILL control parts of Afghanistan, and Osama STILL has not been caught.
Right now, there are bigger fish to fry … for in the years since 911, Osama has been rendered impotent to the point that the only way he can hit America is with a VHS tape. He can’t even use a cell phone to give orders … they need to be dealt with … but they are neither creating the mass casualties in Afghanistan that they are in Iraq, nor can they project power in even a limited sense like Iran … Google “island-hopping MacArthur” for a similar scenario.
All we have is more terrorists in the world, and less freedom.
Ask the Kurds … ask al-Sistani … ask the guys at http://www.iraqthemodel.com … and ask yourself: the fact that you can post this gives the lie to this assertion.
It’s funny you say that. I assume you know he was strongly considering attacking Russia with nuclear weapons, but didn’t.
And people like you decried him as a warmongering cowboy for it … without regard to the need for CREDIBLE confrontation of our enemy with the threat of force, in order for diplomacy to be something more than lying-in-formal-wear.
Gorbachev had a lot more to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union that Reagan did. The SDI stuff may have forced Russia’s downfall a bit quicker, but by the 80s they were basically bankrupt and people wanted change.
Try a lot quicker … no one anticipated that Eastern Europe would go free so fast … and as for Gorby, he wanted to maintain Communism Lite, right up to that coup attempt.
And it was Carter who started funding the Afghani resistance by the way, which was much more of a direct confrontation than putting some missiles in Europe or in space.
The Afghan resistance still couldn’t get their attention as quick or as clearly as the capability of glassing-over Moscow.
Oh the desire to say that that piece of paper is the Constitution is too much. But in all seriousness, Pres. Bush has caused me to lose more freedoms than Al Qaeda ever did.
Again … the fact that you can post this and remain free, gives the lie to your assertions.
Doesn’t the fact that any American can be declared an enemy combatant and stripped of their citizenship scare you? I would at least like a trial first.
Please show me where this has been made law … or where this has been done to somebody captured while in residence on American soil, as opposed to an Afghani or Iraqi battlefield … enemy combatants, OTOH, have NEVER had the right to trial, or any right other than a bullet-to-the-head … and if you want trials, then start making sure the justice system is reliable for its intended purpose, by removing the activist judges who invent new “rights” out of whole cloth for thugs like these.
Of course, if we hadn’t started the war in Iraq or if it had been executed with competence, they wouldn’t be dead.
Guess again, instead of playing word games … who was going to stop the filling of those mass graves … and once we got there, did “incompetence” pull the triggers … or did the thugs who violently work to impose Sharia and/or Saddamesque corruption pull those triggers?
Mr. Bush bears responsibility for their deaths as the decider, as do we all for electing him.
As I said above, it is the thugs who oppose peace and freedom for the Iraqis that are responsible for the deaths … while this President deserves the credit for striving to do something more noble, and more difficult, than we have in the aftermath of past wars … transform a nation from totalitarian rule to rights-respecting governance WITHOUT GRINDING ITS PEOPLE TO POWDER FIRST!!
The problems to come were obvious,
Yes, they were … but was leaving Iraq under Saddam a viable long-term solution if we want peace and freedom for our civilization?
it just sucks having to say I told you so.
This hasn’t gone on long enough for you to make that judgment … call me back in about five years.
Whether we leave today or in 5 years, both Iraq and America will be worse off than if we had never gone.
Wrong …
Ask the Kurds …
Ask al-Sistani …
Ask Mohammad and Omar at http://www.iraqthemodel.com …
… and oh yeah, ask these guys too …
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276597,00.html
9/11 didn’t have much to do with Iraq.
We went to Iraq, not because they were necessarily involved in 911 … but because, if a few dozen guys and $1M could perpetrate 911, what do you think that someone — someone who has PROVEN they share the same view of life and liberty as bin Laden — would do if they are left alone with the resources of a nation … and no effective checks-and-balances?
The failure, my friends, is in that unique mix of idealism and pessimism that leads some to believe that (1) we are incapable of passing accurate judgment on the suitability of a particular government to act responsibly on the world stage, and (2) thereore we must treat despot and democrat with the same deference … and respect their soverignty in exactly the same way.
History’s verdict is in … and systems of governance that do not adequately protect the inalienable rights of the individual within their borders, are highly vulnerable to being hijacked by thugs and fanatics, to be leveraged to expand totalitarian rule beyond their borders.
The success, in terms of both peace and prosperity (read: not starving, but instead having the luxury of, say, being concerned about our environment while listening to our iPods) of our civilization depends upon interconnections that — due to the need for freedom of movement and open communication to facilitate efficient commercial and social interaction — are highly vulnerable to disruption by violent attack.
This “Web of Trust”, as described by blogger Bill Whittle here …
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000135.html
… our indivdiual lives and liberty, and our entire civilization … depends upon both keeping men free to spin sections of that Web for the benefit of all, while making sure no one with the determination to tear holes in that Web is left alone long enough to do so.
Blind respect for the soverignty of totalitarian despots … or reliance upon diplomacy or anything else to keep the peace, in the absence of a CREDIBLE (read: ready-and-willing-to-use) threat of DECISIVE force for use against said despots … leaves them alone to tear those holes.
That is the results of the INACTION I refer to … INACTION in the face of known enemies, by those who, in their intellectual and moral myopia, see America as the greater threat.
Kit … I had a nice, long Fisking of your response to me, but apparently WordPress barfed on it.
Just as well … it boils down to this …
1> There has not been enough time yet, for you to say “I told you so” … call me in five years, and let’s talk.
2> The fact that you can post here and remain free, gives the lie to your assertions that President Bush has stolen your liberties.
3> What parts of “12th Imam”, “the new Saladin” … and Dar-al-Islam … don’t you understand when it comes to evaluating the fanatacism and/or meglomania of our enemies?
4> We have more important concerns than bin Laden’s head, at the moment … especially when he has been subjected to “island-hopping” (Add “MacArthur, and Google it) that has reduced his ability to project force upon American soil to the delivery of a few VHS tapes.
5> You are CLUELESS about the effect of faith upon this President … and the effect of faith upon those who support him: Google [Casebolt clueless "priesthood"] and “feel lucky” for more …
6> Whether we leave today or in 5 years, both Iraq and America will be worse off than if we had never gone.
Wrong …
Ask the Kurds
Ask al-Sistani
Ask Mohammed and Omar at Iraq the Model
… and oh yeah, Fox News has a report on some Iraqis in Baghdad, who want us around enough to cooperate with us …
… so it looks like more than just Anbar, is rising.
Oh, you guys are so proud and so brave, killing all those unarmed brown people in the Middle East! You’re really preserving our freedoms!
Fuck you. The military is comprised of nothing but uneducated bumpkins with guns. You aren’t fighting World War 2 or the Revolutionary War or the Communists. You’re fighting a rich bastards quest for oil, all in the name of sacred freedoms that you were dumb enough to be misled by. But guess what? My freedom to tell you to fuck off doesn’t rest on your ability to occupy someone else’s country. So, in the name of all things holy and worthwhile, go fuck yourself, you wanna be GI Joe’s.
Oh, you guys are so proud and so brave, killing all those unarmed brown people in the Middle East! You’re really preserving our freedoms!
From the picture … I guess we missed one, in your eyes?
Get real … you know who is targeting unarmed people, as do I … and it is NOT the forces of the Coalition.
Fuck you. The military is comprised of nothing but uneducated bumpkins with guns. You aren’t fighting World War 2 or the Revolutionary War or the Communists.
No … we’re fighting those who wish to impose fanatical forms of totalitarian rule upon as much of this world as they can; enemies that lack the rationality our adversaries in these other conflicts possessed. In other words, they are not going to be just talked out of fighting, unless such talk is backed up by the CREDIBLE threat of force being used against them.
And, they can leverage technology, just as we do, to take their threats and apply them around the world, wherever it suits their purpose. I guess you didn’t discern from the events of 11 September 2001, that the oceans no longer protect America herself … much less the global civilization we depend upon to preserve peace and proseprity?
You’re fighting a rich bastards quest for oil,
Then why is so much effort being spent in Iraq to decide how the oil revenue is going to be allocated TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE?
all in the name of sacred freedoms that you were dumb enough to be misled by.
What freedom misled us? The pursuit of happiness? Liberty? Life?
But guess what? My freedom to tell you to fuck off doesn’t rest on your ability to occupy someone else’s country. So, in the name of all things holy and worthwhile, go fuck yourself, you wanna be GI Joe’s.
Actually it does rest upon the ability of this nation to act DECISIVELY to end threats to global civilization such as these.
You are just a parasite — enjoying the freedom and security bought by such decisive action, yet speaking and acting to undermine our ability to undertake such LEGITIMATE action. You are living off the effort — and sacrifice — who realize that freedom requires vigilant maintenance … by people both in, and out, of uniform … and not just choruses of “Kumbiyah” and free health care.
You are not a liberal — for classical liberalism does not embrace this self-centered, lemminglike rush to self-destruction that, when you come down to its roots, is driven by the child’s scream of “YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO”.
Y’all perceive that this President …
… because he believes in living below the Almighty instead of arrogantly declaring our own omniscience …
… because he thinks it imprudent to guarantee your “right” to get high/get laid/get a free Band-Aid(TM)/get a check/get by, by taking away others’ right to get ahead …
… because he thinks that people can still live the American dream if they make the effort to do so, instead of being condemned to the status of perpetual victims of a greedy Corporate America; victims that are dependent upon the intellectually “superior” like yourselves for their lot in life …
… because he is a simple man, while you — having confused education and erudition with wisdom — consider yourselves wiser than he in your foolishness …
… is telling you what to do … even when he isn’t.
Since November 2000 — even after 11 September 2001 — he has been the main enemy to such people as you, parasite.
And as a result, y’all undermine the efforts he is making to keep these people alive, move them to freedom and peace so they can prosper … and do so without grinding them to powder in the process.
You are part of the problem … and have been, since the 1960’s. Why?
Because you have confused education, intelligence, and erudition with wisdom, and as a result, acted like fools in the face of evil.
Rich,
>”We went to Iraq, not because they were necessarily involved in 911 … but because, if a >few dozen guys and $1M could perpetrate 911, what do you think that someone — someone who >has PROVEN they share the same view of life and liberty as bin Laden — would do if they >are left alone with the resources of a nation … and no effective checks-and-balances?”
This is the problem, Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. directly. Not Saddam, not Iraq. IF Iraq had attacked the U.S. we’d be having a different debate, but the war in Iraq is a war of retaliation against the wrong country.
by shrugging it off in saying that “it all has common threads” belies the impact. No nation has the authority to wield unchecked military power across the world.
>”You confront them — and continue to confront them, denying them the control of the >MidEast they seek, bringing the VAST MAJORITY of people there, who want peace, on board — >until the return on investment for terrorism is so low it is not worth their effort.”
This is a pretty arrogant statement, this implies that while the majority of people within the middle east are indeed peace-loving and sympathetic to the U.S.A., they’re still going to be infiltrated by bad guys and the entire region will be turned against us. This greatly discredits those people, and their decision making abilities.
>”President Reagan lent support to Saddam (a conversation-over-coffee, in comparison to >the whores’ bed he shared with France/Germany/Russia), and the Latin American strongmen. >(BTW, any aid bin Laden got from us was a by-product of supporting the Afghani resistance >against the Soviets — and not specifically directed to him or his movement.)”
Once you’re done dicksucking the dead president, lets talk about the Iraq War, that is what we’re debating.
>”Yes, the Soviets were weakening by the time Reagan came into office … but they were >showing no signs of collapsing anywhere near as fast as they did. Mr. Reagan’s actions >brought them down in a controlled manner … instead of in a nuclear blaze-of-glory.”
They weren’t weakened. They were dead, but hiding it. in 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant suffered from a partial core meltdown resulting in the worst Nuclear accident in history. Sweden and Norway were aware of the massive radiological outputs before Moscow was. It’s an anecdote, but this also underscores how poor Moscow was in immediate response. Regan was just in office at the time. Saying he caused the downfall of the Soviet Union is like saying the King in England caused the Civil War because he was opposed to slavery. It just doesn’t add up. You invoke history a lot, I wish you knew more about it.
>”I just backed it up with rationale. Your problem is, my rationale doesn’t trash the man >you loathe as “selected, not elected”, so you don’t like it.”
hrmmm, I never brought up an election. If you want to just take pot-shots at this “left” that you hate, that’s cool, but I’m still talking about a specific war.
>”Therefore, the NYT article is irrelevant.”
What NYT article? the article I posted is from the Washington Post. If you want to just blow off the links that I post, that’s your call, but I read what you link to in the comment string, but if you want to keep pumping an ideology without looking at anyone else…I guess that’s your bag.
>”…by stridently discouraging the credible confrontation of those who would take life >and liberty from innocent people — …”
I debate that this conflict is credible. That’s what this argument is about, you need to stay on issue bud.
>”You tell me … who should we be shooting first?”
I don’t advocate shooting anyone. But I’m curious, who is sneaking into your house right now, corrupting the minds of your daughters that you are so terrified of? Somethings got you so chicken shit scared you’re calling for a war, so I’m curious, who do you want to shoot?
>”based upon the truly-faulty intelligence of the MSM”
What’s the MSM? I’m not familiar with this acronym.
>”You had better hope I have not “lost”, Alvin … for if I have lost, we all have — because >we will not be ready for the next 911, much less a full-scale assault on America by an >enemy left to grow stronger by our INACTION.”
Because we were ready for 9/11, or the ‘93 attack, or the Oklahoma City Bombing, or we were ready for Pearl Harbor, or British invasion during the war of 1812, or even our own revolution. American History has shown that as a nation we have always been vulnerable in a variety of ways, but most poignantly vulnerable to surprise attacks. If we’ve never been ready, what makes you so sure that everything will magically be better in the future, just because we decide to war monger?
>Keep in mind that there was a time where a majority of the world thought slavery was >moral.
The issues of slavery and the issues of the Iraq war are not the same…oh wait, except that if you read back and look at the real founders of the anti-slavery movement they’re equivalent to the extreme left of today. Check up on William Lloyd Garrison sometime.
>The second-most important thing my father taught me, was to not blindly follow the crowd.
Refusal to read counter-arguments, using blind rhetoric to advocate a point, and making personal attacks over political issues may not be you blindly following the crowd, but maybe you should learn some lessons on independent thinking none-the-less.
>”The success, in terms of both peace and prosperity (read: not starving, but instead >having the luxury of, say, being concerned about our environment while listening to our >iPods) of our civilization depends upon interconnections that — due to the need for >freedom of movement and open communication to facilitate efficient commercial and social >interaction — are highly vulnerable to disruption by violent attack.”
But this has nothing to do with an irresponsible war based on minimal evidence, and a conflict that the UN rejected. If you want to argue about international responsibility, one must question the responsibility of acting in disregard of that community.
You can talk all your high and mighty bullshit about how liberals are infesting and undermining the abilities of “real” americans to live free and thankful, but if you’ve degenerated this far in a childish cry to keep your way of life the same, then you are already on the outside. If all it took to make the army turn pussy vietnam was a bunch of whiny kids pushing around Nixon, what makes you think lightning doesn’t strike twice?
Keep crying about how everything you love needs to be protected, keep crying till your little world falls apart around you because the great Republican Revolution is over, and the neo-con experiment is a failure.
Enjoy your final few plea’s for a brighter whiter america, the rest of us are going to march into enlightened liberalism. The faggy vegans won.
If we leave without helping the Iraqis form some type of solid government, we will have lost our soldiers for nothing
Are you implying that the deaths of soldiers in wars that the US loses are somehow less honorable than in wars the US wins? If so, then I want no part in your version of supporting the troops. To do so would be a terrible disservice to my family members who fought and died in Vietnam.
And let me remind you that every time you hear the press report we lost six soldiers today and eight soldiers yesterday, you should know that hundreds of people each day die in traffic accidents in the U.S.
True, and while the death of soldiers in Iraq is unfortunate, it is not the main reason we should leave. The cost in American lives is a mere pittance compared to the cost monetarily and politically.
I have to agree with the soldiers, you cannot oppose the war and support the troops, the two, by the very nature of the job, are indistinguishable.
That’s why I say FUCK THE TROOPS. It’s a volunteer army, and there is no excuse for the perpetuation of a bullshit war for some baby boy president’s ego.
IF you’re fighting this war, you’re guilty of the this war’s crimes. Not only are you guilty of those crimes, you’re guilty of being a pussy ass failure of an armed force! How did a bunch of poor Muslims in the sand kick your ass?!?!
This alone proves that the American fighting Man is nothing more than a weak little worn out Jock that got his ass passed through classes he never deserved.
Don’t be defensive of a fucked up war where you kill babies just because your high school sucked and your step-dad beat you.
Get over your issues of being a little queer ass. When you want to get into Mommy’s arena of hardcore politics, she’ll fuck you like the little cunt you are.
Go blow Rush Limbaugh and your fake president you little homophobic atheist! President Bush is more proof of the incestuous conservative right, and their need to undermine the true authority of christ. There hasn’t been a great presidsent since Truman.
BRING BACK HARRY S.!
>and that’s not hard to do if there weren’t so many gun sucking cock-fags in the GOP right now, we could show the balls needed to clone our own best president, and end this vile war of the devil.
You stupid queer vegan blo-job soldiers, stop raping the children of the world and start undressing the crimes of your body.
Untill the Joint Chiefs of staff and the Pentagon repent for their sins, men like Bush and Mitt Romney will continue to gain power.
Stop the war!
Support Saddam!
Al Qaeda in Allah!
Jihad on the troops!
That kid is a horrible dresser. We need to airlift some fags over there.
Secret Internet Douche Bag, you are my hero. Life is grand, life is bland, in the morning we all answer to the white man.
Like I said before:
Nothing more conclusively demonstrates the selfishness, foolishness, self-delusion, and flat-out hypocrisy of the liberalites quite like their own words.
Rant some more, libs….you’re hilarious!
Incredibly ignorant, but hilarious none-the-less.
This is the problem, Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. directly. Not Saddam, not Iraq. IF Iraq had attacked the U.S. we’d be having a different debate, but the war in Iraq is a war of retaliation against the wrong country … by shrugging it off in saying that “it all has common threads” belies the impact. No nation has the authority to wield unchecked military power across the world.
Here we have the most fundamental misperceptions of the anti-war Left, for all to see.
Your thinking is so 20th Century, Alvin …
… for back then, we believed that if we refused to fight, we would have peace.
We could believe that because, for an adversary to be able to project force to the degree needed to get us to question that premise, it took a level of national might that few nations had then. Therefore, we believed that if we held the mighty to the highest standards of conduct, and provided rational alternatives for conflict resolution, we could set the triggering conditions for armed actions on our part to extremely high levels — i.e. attacks on our own soil.
Even a practical effort to attain that might required enough discipline on the part of an adversary to compel them to think rationally, which is another significant check-and-balance against warmongering and fomenting terror.
Things have changed.
Now even the smallest of nations, and even non-national groups who seek to force or leverage political change, have access to technologies that multiply the force of a few men several thousand-fold. Everything from radiological material, to chemicals that can be weaponized …, to “borrowing” a few, fully-fueled 767’s, as we saw a few years ago.
Such as these do not have to go through the disciplined process of the past — a process that produces rationality in an adversary, along with warning signs of intent that are relatively easy to see — to acquire/develop this ability to project power. Today, even barbaric regimes, whose lack of rationality would in earlier times preclude them from gaining the power to threaten us, can do so — especially in the case of nations who, by cooperating with non-national totalitarian groups, can gain a measure of plausible deniability in the eyes of 20th-Century thinkers.
(Part of that discipline, BTW, is learning the value of good-faith negotiation, as opposed to exploiting the tolerance of the international community to buy time and/or space to continue to work against the peace.)
They now can piggy-back on the freedom of movement that makes our civilization work, to apply that force at its most vulnerable spots, and kill tens of thousands by surprise.
And, they don’t have to take and hold a whole lot of ground to either impose their will upon the world, by leveraging terror and/or strangulating access to resources (and not just oil) … or force us into the dilemma of either letting them slowly strangle our civilization, or enter a knock-down, drag-out, nation-on-nation World War to stop them, that will scar our own civilization and kill MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS!
In this light, this is not a war of retaliation … this is an effort of just governments — American, Iraqi, and many others … performing their primary mission; protecting the inalienable rights of their people.
Al Quada attacked our soil … but they, along with Saddam & Sons and Iran, had been attacking our CIVILIZATION for years, especially via terrorist proxies. In today’s world, attacking that civilization leads to the denial of life and liberty for many I depend upon in my pursuit of happiness — and eventually, allows the barbarians to approach my gate by hijacking the “many” and their nations, and threaten my own life and liberty.
The world has changed, Alvin — and it changed well before 11 September 2001.
Since it is evident that the triggering standards of the past are no longer sufficient to prevent the barbaric from executing actions of mass lethality that damage our civilization, they had to change as well.
Fortunately for us, there are still characteristics that can identify fanatics and thugs as a threat:
>Regimes that impose totalitarian rule (and its asssociated brutality) upon their own people … and with enough wealth (it doesn’t take much — the Taliban proved that) to expand their brutal “vision” beyond their borders, either directly or via terrorist surrogates.
>Regimes that support trans-national terrorist groups who share their totalitarian worldview (but not necessarily agree upon the details of how to implement that … Baathist Syria, Shiite Iran, and their terrorist sycophants are a good example of this)
>Regimes whose governmental structure provides NO effective checks-and-balances against capricious action by their leaders — as opposed to the totalitarian, but disciplined adversaries of our past such as the USSR and China.
Nations who exhibit any of these characteristics certainly deserve to be confronted by free people … and if not us, then who? … for they are a threat to our civilzation that can erupt at almost a moment’s notice, even if they have not tripped the wire on our own soil.
Keep this in mind … it took only seven years for Germany to go from broken-down to blitzkreig, in an earlier time where technology and freedom of movement was at a level far slower than today.
Nor are such confrontations unchecked projections of force …
… for if we were unchecked, our ICBMs would have flown way before now, and we would not be having this discussion, instead of debating things like the World’s Longest Rush To War.
What you want, is external checks upon America … without regard to the wisdom, morality or humanity of the international bodies doing the checking. That way, you can be confident in your choice to stick your head in the sand.
I’ll take the internal checks-and-balances that have restrained our hand — even to the point of placing our own forces at greater risk to preserve the lives of the innocent — but still allow us to act decisively against those who are the true threats to peace.
This is a pretty arrogant statement, this implies that while the majority of people within the middle east are indeed peace-loving and sympathetic to the U.S.A., they’re still going to be infiltrated by bad guys and the entire region will be turned against us. This greatly discredits those people, and their decision making abilities
You forget, that for the vast majority, their choices were taken away at gunpoint.
We’re working to restore their ability to choose … for we have seen again and again that, when people can live free and pursue happiness within a framework of rights-respecting governance that can resist hijacking by totalitarian wannabes, they are not interested in fomenting terror and waging war against our civilization.
And they are coming around — in Anbar, in Baghdad, in Kabul, and in many other places.
Your comment, OTOH, implies that they have freely chosen to embrace terrorism, and will never change.
Now there’s arrogance for you.
They weren’t weakened. They were dead, but hiding it. in 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant suffered from a partial core meltdown resulting in the worst Nuclear accident in history. Sweden and Norway were aware of the massive radiological outputs before Moscow was. It’s an anecdote, but this also underscores how poor Moscow was in immediate response.
They still held the power to glass over the world … and in fact, their weakness intensified the short-term risk. Falling regimes often go out in an uncontrolled blaze-of-glory … or start wars to deflect internal dissent.
Regan was just in office at the time. Saying he caused the downfall of the Soviet Union is like saying the King in England caused the Civil War because he was opposed to slavery. It just doesn’t add up. You invoke history a lot, I wish you knew more about it.
I wish you would quit trying to gloss over history you don’t like.
Reagan’s confrontations of the Soviet Union showed them that they COULD NOT WIN, as long as someone like him was in charge … and after they saw how we turned out Carter and respected Reagan, they had reason to believe that this would not change.
Had he not confronted them, the Soviets would have had no incentive for engaging in REAL nuclear-arms reductions — not just the shell-games and reductions in the growth rate derived from pre-Reagan negotiations, but REAL reductions that removed the silos from around my uncles’ farms in Missouri, among others.
SDI also scared them … for they remembered the Apollo program, and how quickly we could develop and leverage technology for practical purposes.
In MANY areas, he changed their thinking … unlike previous leaders … through his confrontation … and that led to the changes in action that have made this world safer in my lifetime.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-aron_x.htm
What NYT article? the article I posted is from the Washington Post. If you want to just blow off the links that I post, that’s your call, but I read what you link to in the comment string, but if you want to keep pumping an ideology without looking at anyone else I guess that’s your bag.
Excuse me … they NYT and the WaPo look a lot alike. They are major players in the most flawed intelligence apparatus the American people depend upon for their decision-making — the MSM, or MainStream Media, who promote your viewpoint.
I did glance at the link you had there, but it is still irrelevant … its title premise is that there was no link between Saddam and AQ.
That is wrong … for if al-Zarqawi could move freely in the Land of the Ultimate Control Freaks and even receive medical care in Baghdad, he had at least tacit support of the Management there.
And, it is irrelevant … for as I have illustrated in earlier posts, Saddam needed to be removed from power — regardless of how he viewed Al Quada. He still supported many other terrorists, and had done so for YEARS and YEARS … and was the loosest cannon in the MidEast.
I didn’t need to read the whole thing … because I have already evaluated this, YEARS AGO, with others. You are simply regurgitating old news, and I am not going to waste my time on an irrelevant assertion … in fact, said regurgiation is a symptom of the Bush Derangement Syndrome that has affected the hard Left since 2000, .
Refusal to read counter-arguments, using blind rhetoric to advocate a point, and making personal attacks over political issues may not be you blindly following the crowd, but maybe you should learn some lessons on independent thinking none-the-less.
Your counterarguments have been evaluated, by me and many others, for YEARS. You bring nothing new to the table.
What you call “blind rhetoric” — as I have shown, in detail in these last few posts — is neither blind, nor rhetorical.
It is the result of the wise application of common sense, to the events of the day.
And, as for personal attacks … when someone shows me there is common-sense thinking behind their dissent, I will discuss and respect that.
However, when one regurgitates the same old talking points parrotted by the MoveOn/Soros crowd … and keeps parrotting them even after they have been discredited in the light of fact/reason/history … they become a roadblock to peace at the best, and a perpetrator of Big Lies at worst. In that case, they get the respect they deserve from me … for their mindlessness makes them a Part of the Problem.
Granting such as these undeserved deference makes about as much sense as letting a tick remain on my leg all week.
Here’s some independent thought for you … how about moving beyond the myopic mix of pessimism and idealism of the 20th Century … and your simplistic knee-jerk fears of a strong America acting to preserve life and liberty worldwide … and start acting to preserve life and liberty in this century.
I don’t advocate shooting anyone. But I’m curious, who is sneaking into your house right now, corrupting the minds of your daughters that you are so terrified of? Somethings got you so chicken shit scared you’re calling for a war, so I’m curious, who do you want to shoot?
First off, that is granddaughters, bub … you see, I’m old enough to remember a lot of what went down in the 20th Century … especially what we got by implementing your simplistic line of thinking.
My motivation is not “chickenshit” fear … it is a healthy fear, mixed with a prudence that questions why we should allow someone …
… where the intentions of that someone regarding life and liberty are clearly evident, where we KNOW that allowing that “someone” to deny life and liberty to others leads them to think that they can deny ours at a later date, and work to do so …
… the opportunity to surprise us and kill thousands before sundown.
I saw how your kind of head-in-sand thinking led to suffering and death … in the re-education camps of post-1975 Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Iran, in Israel, in Beirut, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and eventually, in America.
I saw how negotiation without confrontation kept the Cold War going with no end in sight — complete with a nuclear sword-of-Damocles hanging above my family, as my uncles would be the first to die if it had dropped … and I saw how negotiation from a basis of CREDIBLE confrontation brought peace in the face of a superpower, totalitarian enemy, without firing a shot in anger, peacefully liberated tens of millions, and pulled those missiles away from my uncles’ farms.
I saw us act to take down thugs like Saddam … only to release him and let him start the Iraq death machine all over again, as we spent a lot of treasure and a little blood to “contain” him … even as he corrupted the UN and carefully mothballed his WMD programs for the day that people like you would compel us to leave him alone.
And, I saw a group of terrorists, just like many ol’ Saddam was supporting, that were effectively left alone by our leaders — even though they were known threats to civilization — because they bought the Big Lie you asserted and I debunked earlier … No nation has the authority to wield unchecked military power across the world. …
… until they were able to kill almost 3000 Americans on our own soil before sundown.
I ask again … if a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced that outcome, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation?
The answer is as old as common sense … as independent as 4 July 1776 … but it is still true, 21st-Century thinking.
We won’t be fooled again …
MY STATEMENT: The success, in terms of both peace and prosperity (read: not starving, but instead having the luxury of, say, being concerned about our environment while listening to our iPods) of our civilization depends upon interconnections that — due to the need for freedom of movement and open communication to facilitate efficient commercial and social interaction — are highly vulnerable to disruption by violent attack.
ALVIN’S RESPONSE: But this has nothing to do with an irresponsible war based on minimal evidence, and a conflict that the UN rejected. If you want to argue about international responsibility, one must question the responsibility of acting in disregard of that community.
Given their performance, when it comes to liberating people and fostering peace — as opposed to treating despot and democrat with the same deference while being bribed — one must question the responsibility of actually subordinating one’s common sense to the viewpoint of the UN.
The current state of the UN is what you get when democracy is applied in an environment devoid of basic morality and respect (beyond platitudes) for the inalienable rights of the human individual.
The events of the last seven years have weighed them and found them wanting.
You can talk all your high and mighty bullshit about how liberals are infesting and undermining the abilities of “real” americans to live free and thankful, but if you’ve degenerated this far in a childish cry to keep your way of life the same, then you are already on the outside.
It is not about thanks … it is about choosing to either spend our time advancing our lot in life by dealing with those who threaten it, for now, and for good …
… or spend our time watching our backs, in perpetuity.
If you cannot see the threat totalitarian-driven terror OF ANY KIND poses to global civilization (and therefore, America), but are instead stuck in the misplaced idealism of the 20th century that you can only defend by espousing the conventional wisdom of that century … conventional wisdom that I have shown fails us when dealing with irrational despots that now have the ability to leverage technology and diplomacy to expand totalitarian rule … I wouldn’t want to be inside whatever you are “inside”.
That is because, I think what you are “inside” is a bullseye … or, sooner or later, a slaugherhouse.
If all it took to make the army turn pussy vietnam was a bunch of whiny kids pushing around Nixon, what makes you think lightning doesn’t strike twice?
It wasn’t just a bunch of whiny kids … it was some of their older brothers and other elders, confusing education and eurdition with wisdom and prudence, buying into your conventional wisdom, eventually convincing Nixon to do what he did.
And the lightning we got struck with then … was nothing compared to what the South Vietnamese got struck with. And your kind of thinking was the lightning rod.
Keep crying about how everything you love needs to be protected, keep crying till your little world falls apart around you because the great Republican Revolution is over,
I’m an independent … I left the GOP in 1998, and started supporting men, not parties.
Excuse me, your bias is showing.
and the neo-con experiment is a failure.
It was already validated by experimental evidence — in Japan, in Germany, in the Pacific Rim, in Eastern Europe … and even in China, where they are finding that their future lies upon our path of economic freedom, and will soon realize that political freedom is required to maintain that path.
Even in Iraq … given the progress in Anbar and elsewhere, I’d not be so self-assured about that, if I were you. As long as we persevere, it will work — as the nations above have shown.
As I told Kit, call me in about five years.
Enjoy your final few plea’s for a brighter whiter america,
Excuse me, the brightness I advocate is the light of wisdom … and that does not discriminate on the basis of race.
That brightness makes the thoughts of the Best and Brightest you parrot look like dim bulbs in comparison.
the rest of us are going to march into enlightened liberalism.
Like France just did in their last elections?
Like the ten thousand or so Leftist/anarchists in DC last March 17 — faced down by THIRTY THOUSAND who are tired of their garbage? And before them, confronted by those who counter-protest them now, even in their midst?
Like the growth of conservative activism on our college campuses … the new rebels?
Like the Democratic Congressional Leadership …
… who owe their present power to the election of afew Blue Dog Democrats who do not totally share their “enlightened liberalism”
… who couldn’t impose the timelines (let alone defunding) upon the President regarding the war that were DEMANDED by the MoveOn/Soros mobs.
… who couldn’t even get Joe Liebermann defeated.
You might be basing your view of “majority” status upon presidental-approval polls and the like … if you are doing that, I have a recommendation.
Get a G-suit, in good working order, for you will need it to ride those polls once people who think like I do start asking poll questions that go beyond the superficiality of the MSM.
No, what we may be seeing here is a last gasp of the myopic, misplaced idealism of the 20th Century in America, as the leaders of the political Left struggle to Save the Legacy of the Woodstock Nation … that “enlightened liberalism” you talk about.
It lived for far too long, because those who confused it with wisdom were very succesful in placing themselves in positions of power and influence … and it sounded good to everyone else.
Now, it has left — and is still leaving, from Iraq to the Mexican border — a paper trail that reveals its true characteristics … a soft-and-cuddly fascism that, unless confronted, overrides common sense in many — in a parasitic manner.
This is a paper trail its advocates cannot paper over with newsprint, as they did in past years … because they no longer have a monopoly on the transfer of information to/from the people.
It may take the demise of my generation to completely kill it off … but it will die.
For we won’t be fooled again …
“Rant some more, libs….you’re hilarious!
Incredibly ignorant, but hilarious none-the-less.”
It’s easy to call others stupid, a bit harder to stick out your neck and confirm that you’re as dumb as everyone else.
“But there are times when it’s necessary, and you ungrateful punks should have at least enough good sense to recognize that the very freedoms you’re exercising now are due to people like us who do what needs to be done – while you sit on your asses, fat, dumb, happy……….and ignorant.”
The US military has never once in my life protected my freedoms, nor has that been its job. You might try yelling at the Iraqis, whose freedoms you may have had a role in protecting. If you signed up to protect _American_ freedoms, you probably should have been a lawyer, or even a police officer.
Rich: would you mind elaborating about this totalitarian-driven terror, or at least pointing to where you explain that terminology further. I’m not sure I understand the connection you have constructed between these two things
moronatron:
The US military has never once in my life protected my freedoms, nor has that been its job … If you signed up to protect _American_ freedoms, you probably should have been a lawyer, or even a police officer.
The activities of the US military in Afghanistan is one major reason that Osama bin Laden’s capability of attacking your butt on American soil has been reduced to the delivery of a few, grainy video tapes as he scurries about in the mountains, unable to even use a cell phone less the Big Ears of the NSA pick it up and send a return message via PredX (Predator Express) or, for the personal touch, with some Green Berets …
… instead of being able to call in an order for four fully-fueled Boeing passenger jets, in a manner remininscent of you calling in a pizza …
… or “ordering out” for VX, or a dirty bomb, for his guys to bring to “our party” — thanks in part to the US military shutting down that deli-of-death run by Saddam & Sons.
As I have stated before, if Baathist Syria and Shiite Iran can collaborate, so could Saddam and Al Quada — and since all of the above have already shown just how much they value your life and liberty, there is no reason at all to wait until the only one standing between you and them is a police officer to take them out.
Just like angry white liberal earlier … the thought and action driven by your evident ignorance are parasitic from the viewpoint of our civilization …
… for as you enjoy the freedom that is guaranteed by those who specialize in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten it” — threats, foreign as well as domestic, both of which are refernced in the oath every warfighter takes when he joins — your thinking, when turned into actions to promote and/or implement it, undermines their ability to enforce that guarantee.
Get. A. Clue. This is for more than just political points — both the quality and the duration of our lives are on the line. Exercise wisdom — not the conventional kind, but real wisdom.
The pictures say everything.
The rest of us are just talking.
Thanks Alec.
pdR: I hope this is an adequate explanation.
I use the term “totalitarian-driven terror” to differentiate our current set of enemies from groups like the IRA, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, and perhaps even some of the native insurgents/former insurgents in Iraq today …
… groups who have — reprehensibly — resorted to terror tactics, but whose objectives … independence, removal of a repressive regime … are quite different from the enemies who are our primary concern today.
These groups have no interest in world, or even regional, domination … and while their actions can harm our civilization, they do not seek its destruction as one of their objectives. Their desire to further their specific cause within civilization’s framework also leaves them amenable to good-faith negotiation, as we have seen with the IRA … and as we are now seeing in al-Anbar.
They are not the primary threat to peace at this time.
OTOH, totalitarian-driven terrorist entities like Al Quada, Saddam & Sons, the present regimes in Iran and Syria, the various anti-Israel organizations, and the Dear Leader in North Korea, seek the total destruction of their opponents’ way of life, followed by its replacement with either a Sharia-based theocracy where THEY are in the position to interpret and enforce those laws, or just a flat-out dictatorship with no checks-and-balances on the leaders’ ability to deny life and liberty.
Either case is a form of totalitarian rule, as repressive and lethal as Stalinist Communism.
Their opponents: anyone who does not submit to their will.
Their perceived mandate: the world, or as much of it as they can get under their control.
In the case of the simple dictators, the driving force is the classical greed and arrogance that we have seen in every totalitarian dictator in history.
In the case of the fanatics, the destruction of the World of War (Dar-al-Harb) — i.e. all who do not submit to their belief system and leadership — and its “evangelistic” replacement with a Dar-al-Islam where they dictate (based upon their interpretations of the Koran, of course) everything from hem length to life and death.
There is no middle ground for good-faith negotiation for the totalitarian-driven terrorist, for anything short of the destruction of our civilization is unacceptable to them … only after we dissuade them from that position, by making sure they “get their mind right” a la Cool Hand Luke through the CREDIBLE threat of force being directed against them, are they even open to negoitiation … and even then, they will still look for loopholes to exploit in an flip the table and get what they really want, so we must be vigilant.
Often, the only answer is to destroy them … for their engagement in terrorism is not merely a means to a finite end, but a reflection of their totalitarian desire-to-rule — and their incorrigible disdain for the life and liberty of others — that inhabits the core of their very soul, and drives all their actions.
The problem is, how to destroy them without destroying all the innocent lives they have embedded themselves among?
That is why this war is taking so long.
Rich,
Who are your enemies? State them by name. Let’s be specific, not some list of universal “haters” lets hear organizations, nations, specific terrorists. Who are those that you want removed?
These nemeses, who are they trying to attack? Democracies? America? Western Civilization? Again specificity here.
You’ve been so all over the place with statements, I have no idea where to go.
I do think it’s worth addressing a few of your stereotypes.
1. I have NEVER brought up the 2000 election, you’ve made assumptions.
2. You state that you don’t back a party, but you assume that I have…DON’T
3. You claim I’m a backer of Move On. I find the website as extremist on the left as Fox news is for the right, again stop with the stereotypes.
4. Every time a leader you respect has failed you state that it is because of “weak liberals that have forced these leaders into failure” where in the world is one supposed to go? you’ve creates an escapest clause for everything you disagree with…
5. Again you claim you’re an independent thinker that doesn’t tow a party line. From my perspective you’ve back very classic neo-con right wing rhetoric, you do not sound like an independent thinker, and from your view, I sound like a leftist counterpart. If these assumptions continue to hold, how do you expect real conversation to develop.
I’m honestly tired of trying to argue with such entrenched ideas. I have done the best that I can to really work with you and argue on your terms about these points, but I’m done. My grandpa taught me never to argue with a drunk or a fool, I obviously started fighting with one of those two….
seacrest out.
[...] Iraqi boy hides behind US soldier after bomb blast June 2, 2007 Posted by daveintexas in honor, Current Events. trackback I don’t need to say anything, the pictures speak for themselves. [...]
Alvin … you can look at my response to porn0 death Ray above, for a list of those I consider today’s primary threat to peace — specific, totalitarian-driven terrorist entities — and what their basic objective is in all cases … domination of as much of the world as they can get a hold of, leveraging what they take as they go to take more.
It is not an exclusive list — the bottom line is:
1>Any nation with a regime that maintains totalitarian (as opposed to authoritarian) rule within its borders, has attempted to project their rule outside their borders directly or via surrogates, and has the ability to do that again, is an enemy of civilization in my view … for history shows that totalitarians do not stop until free people force them to.
2>Any nation that does not have a sustainable form of rights-respecting governance that is strong enough to thwart attempts by totalitarian elements to hijack it, has the potential for becoming an enemy. This includes authoritarian nations … for a heavy hand breeds resentment in the people, that terrorists can leverage — and too often authoritarian governments lack the checks-and-balances needed to prevent a totalitarian in their midst from taking over.
3>Nations that have sustainable, strong, rights-respecting governance are not our enemies today, nor will they become our enemies as long as that governance is in place.
Sneer at that as the “neo-con” position … but it still represents the TRUTH of the 21st Century.
Not the 20th-Century conventional wisdom you espouse.
1. I have NEVER brought up the 2000 election, you’ve made assumptions.
Well excuse me … if I could take away all those who take your position on this war, who do so, not from careful, principled dissent — but because the “Selected-in-Chief” is leading it — you could probably fit yourselves in Madison Square Garden.
2. You state that you don’t back a party, but you assume that I have…DON’T
You regurgitate the basic positions and analysis of the hard-left base of the Democratic Party … and have defended them with evidence and thinking that echoes theirs, as I have seen and debated enough of it over the last few years to know.
3. You claim I’m a backer of Move On. I find the website as extremist on the left as Fox news is for the right, again stop with the stereotypes.
Yet you regurgitate their basic position — the war is wrong, Bush is to blame.
Where’s your original thinking, from a basis of principle — not conventional wisdom — to justify your positions?
Keep in mind, EVERY leader in wartime has made serious errors … the question is do they learn from them?
I think this President does, though he still makes errors … his opponents, however, still espouse the same conventional wisdom that got us here, and stridently encourage and push him to act from the basis of that conventional wisdom.
4. Every time a leader you respect has failed you state that it is because of “weak liberals that have forced these leaders into failure” where in the world is one supposed to go? you’ve creates an escapest clause for everything you disagree with…
No — I do fault our leaders for adopting these policies.
However, those who advocate them — and still do even now, after we see the messes left in the MidEast by our overreliance on diplomacy there, side-by-side with the RESULTS we got in Eastern Europe and elsewhere when we ignored the 20th-Century conventional wisdom that the political Left sold us — never seem to be held to account for their folly.
My opponents keep clamoring about root causes … well, here it is: the pursuit of peace through the simplistic idea that you can get it if you just refuse to fight.
Look what you get when you believe that War is Never the Answer … perpetual strife interposed with periods of tense peace.
Look what you get when you stop singing Kumbiyah, and start singing Yippie-Ky-Ay-A: liberation, arms reduction, sustainable peace.
5. Again you claim you’re an independent thinker that doesn’t tow a party line. From my perspective you’ve back very classic neo-con right wing rhetoric, you do not sound like an independent thinker, and from your view, I sound like a leftist counterpart. If these assumptions continue to hold, how do you expect real conversation to develop.
Alvin … my views are my own. If yours are your own, OK.
But where our views come from is of secondary importance.
The primary importance is how those views square with the objective standards of fact, history, and reason … not conventional wisdom, but true wisdom.
I’m honestly tired of trying to argue with such entrenched ideas. I have done the best that I can to really work with you and argue on your terms about these points, but I’m done. My grandpa taught me never to argue with a drunk or a fool, I obviously started fighting with one of those two….
How do you think a conversation is going to start, if that is your attitude?
The problem is, you don’t want to think past the conventional wisdom.
I challenge you … challenge the simplistic, conventional wisdom you seem to have bought into.
You can start by answering this question … honestly, without resorting to that conventional wisdom. Everything I have posted here has dealt with the details surrounding that question.
If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?
Peace is our common goal.
Where you and I differ, is on what it is going to take to reach it.
[...] successful week of the ol’ blog-o-rehea and man, look at what it gave us! Probably the greatest conversation on PBH (a true Happy Memorial Day!) followed closely by the first installment of Ask a Shiite. Anyway, I’m proud that things [...]
who cares what this inconsequential little nitwit (david) has to say? let him (and his equally half-witted defenders) continue to dwell in their dimlighted ignorance. the undeserved self-importance which they deem to be reality, affects nothing and no one.
Being a combat medic I get to see, day in and day out, the worst side of war. The suffering and death, the fear. But none of what I have seen compares to the ignorance
and hate I see everyday at places such as this. For example AnnHines writes “This war is wrong, that kid should not have to live like that and to be honest these people were better off under a brutal dictator then they are now.” I’d like to know what experience
Ann has had that could POSSIBLY allow her to know they were better off under a murdering, rapist dictator than now? All of you who claim to KNOW what is best and who is right need to take a step back for a moment. The real question is, what has happend that has
turned disagreeing with someone into open hate. There are no longer calls for debate, no
one wants to talk, they all KNOW whats right and what to do. Well let just give you a bit of my opinion, the huge majority of my brothers and sisters fighting over here, believe that regardless of what brought them here, the battle is just. We have seen the rape and murder rooms of Saddam and we find the bodies, rape and torture rooms of the more recent terrorists, both are the same. Saddam did his atrocities using the power of his government, the radical islam backed terrorists use the power of the word of their god
to commit theirs. Now here’s the really ironic part, what do Saddam, radical islamists and alot of those hate filled posters have in common? Well do you know? Well what they have in common is that they all think they know whats best for everyone else and will jam it down your throat till you know too. Discussion is not needed when one side is 100% sure they are right all of the time. Makes for dull conversation, kind of like some of the rantings here.
Alivinblah said
“there is no excuse for armed conflict.”
This is uniformed and naive. You really should ask for your money back on that public education. If you’ve been to a university, you really need to ask for your money back.
This country was born in armned conflict that eneded colonialism on our shores.
Other good reasons for armed conflict:
Ending Nazism
ending slavery
halting the spread of the Soviet Union
sparing half of Korea from Kim Jong Il
stopping Japan from assuming ownership of all of the South Pacific
bringing down the Taliban
You’re a brave little child on the internet (Alvinblah: “If you want to make a fight about it, let’s dance..”) But one lacking in understanding of how the world works. If good people don’t defend themselves, evil ones are always more than happy to impose their will.
Do you really think the world would be better off if we withdrew our armed forces into our own borders? Sorry, someone has to stand up to the real dirtbags of the world. The Iraquis have repeatly asked us to stay.
Internet tough guys love to talk about the evils of the US because they know we’re a tolerant lot. They are too gutless to talk about the crimes of Islam because they tend to fight back with more than words.
You can go yell at a soldier or an American who supports the war and they might tell you off. Try going after a hard-core mulim on his beliefs you gutless wonder.
What I learned reading this thread: Every single ‘anti-war’ type posting here has made an ass of themselves. Every one of them has demonstrated their arrogance and belligerence in the name of ‘peace’. False statements such as ‘they were better off under Saddaam’ are tossed about as if they were gospel. Not one of them has done anything that will change anyone’s mind. Conclusion: Whatever they’re selling, do the opposite.
AlvinBlah said:
“Once you’re done dicksucking the dead president, lets talk about the Iraq War, that is what we’re debating.”
That’s NOT how debate (or any kind of civilized discourse) is done, clownboy. If you want to pretend that’s what you’re engaging in, you’re all alone.
Can’t imagine why you’re not getting a warmer reception in this forum.
[...] – I’m not spelling it out – shows that the “Spirit of the Army” is alive and well. Reading the comments – especially the first one – requires that you up your dosage on the blood [...]
That is the picture of a sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolves. Most posting on here are sheep. They should thank the sheepdog and then shut the baaaabaaaa up.
Seeing that young man, the sense of resolve, on point and walking to face the danger while that boy reaches for another humans comfort and safety.
Very powerful picture, thanks for posting it.
Makes me proud to be an American, proud of America and it’s fighting men.
“The activities of the US military in Afghanistan is one major reason that Osama bin Laden’s capability of attacking your butt on American soil has been reduced to the delivery of a few, grainy video tapes as he scurries about in the mountains, unable to even use a cell phone less the Big Ears of the NSA pick it up and send a return message via PredX (Predator Express) or, for the personal touch, with some Green Berets …”
Appreciated, but whether or not I am safer from Osama bin Laden’s evil is different. Protecting my person and protecting my freedoms are not the same thing. If they wanted to, the government could protect my person very well by locking me in a steel bunker underground with no contact to the outside world, but that would have quite the opposite effect on my freedom.
“OTOH, totalitarian-driven terrorist entities like Al Quada, Saddam & Sons, the present regimes in Iran and Syria, the various anti-Israel organizations, and the Dear Leader in North Korea, seek the total destruction of their opponents’ way of life, followed by its replacement with either a Sharia-based theocracy where THEY are in the position to interpret and enforce those laws, or just a flat-out dictatorship with no checks-and-balances on the leaders’ ability to deny life and liberty.”
It seems to me that you are calling all dictatorships terrorists, which I don’t think is true. If it were that would mean there are many countries not on are hit list that should be, and the United States does have a history of supporting oppressive rulers when it has suited us…..Hussein is the elephant in the room, but there have been many others.
“Appreciated, but whether or not I am safer from Osama bin Laden’s evil is different. Protecting my person and protecting my freedoms are not the same thing. If they wanted to, the government could protect my person very well by locking me in a steel bunker underground with no contact to the outside world, but that would have quite the opposite effect on my freedom.”
And, as I should have said, because liberty and safety are different, the military is not the protector of my freedom as is so often claimed.
Honestly I am sick of hearing the words freedom and terrorism, which have become buzzwords for good and evil, with no real meaning attached to them anymore. No matter the ends, it is transparent propaganda, and a people who let it slide for some greater good are on their way to the totalitarianism they fear so much.
God bless that soldier and all his bretheren in all the services doing good work in Iraq. Now on to the controversy.
Saddam was successful in spearheading the international understanding that it was not an act of war to write $25k checks to the families of suicide bombers in causes a nation-state supports. Israel, according to international consensus, did not have a casus belli with Iraq because Saddam (and several other nations who had the good sense to do it quietly) wrote such checks as policy. Now change the location of the bomber to a mall in New York. We wouldn’t have had a cause for war because precedent had been set.
Put aside all the WMD talk and you still have this uncontroverted fact. Saddam was mucking about the international legal system in a way that would have made it possible for people to fund suicide mercenaries after the fact on US soil. Have you noticed that nobody’s doing this anymore? Message sent, message received and the stopping of this one novel technique pioneered by the Iraqi Baath is sufficient justification for the war and the loss of the thousands of lives that accompanied it. There are other justifications that panned out but this is a big one and one which liberals have one response when they are confronted with it. They change the subject.
Who’s in the NBA championship game?
moronatron … protecting your person is the first part of protecting your freedom. If your right to live is not protected, the other rights don’t mean so much, do they?
OTOH, I wholeheartedly agree that locking us up in bunkers for our protection is counterproductive … in fact, that kind of passive defense would make our enemies quite happy, for the resultant socioeconomic disruption would do a lot of what they seek to do to us.
Keep that in mind whenever someone asks “why not take the money we’re spending in Iraq and just beef up our port security?” for instance. Passive defense, while still necessary, is not the complete answer with respect to effective protection … but it IS, if relied upon for that, a perpetual drain upon not only our wallets, but the freedom of movement and limited government intrusion that make our economic system work … while still leaving holes for an enemy that is left undisturbed to plan and plot their way through them.
BTW, the “containment” we relied upon for years to keep Saddam in check is an example of this … because of the expenses and tensions it generated, the political and diplomatic will needed to keep it that way was highly susceptible to erosion … while Saddam was still able to support terrorists within that containment, and prepare his WMD programs to be restarted on the day when the no-fly zones were removed, the weapons inspectors would no longer show up at the door, and he would once again be treated with the same deference in the international community as Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac.
To avoid bleeding your nation dry and doing some of the enemy’s work for them, it is not enough to use passive defense … you have to hunt down the threat, and eliminate it — by either turning the threat into an ally, or destroying it outright.
That’s a big reason why this war needed to be fought.
It seems to me that you are calling all dictatorships terrorists, which I don’t think is true. If it were that would mean there are many countries not on are hit list that should be, and the United States does have a history of supporting oppressive rulers when it has suited us…..Hussein is the elephant in the room, but there have been many others.
Bad choice of words on my part … I should have used the term “absolute dictatorship”, which differentiates the totalitarians like Saddam from authoritarians like, say, Franco of Spain.
While not all dictatorships deserve a visit by our military, they still have the potential for becoming a threat that needs that kind of attention … for the dicatorships I have seen do not have the distributed checks-and-balances needed to keep a new strongman from ousting the old one, then going totalitarian. Such authoritarian nations need encouragement/pressure to change … and implement the structural protections needed to prevent a future leader from implementing totalitarian rule.
It is the structure of a government, that determines its potential to be hijacked for totalitarian rule … and that should be our concern, but it is not enough to go to war to change it until it turns totalitarian.
The instant it does, it is now a threat to civilization, and should be targeted and defeated at the earliest possible opportunity, to minimize the butchers’ bill.
And that is irrespective of the ideology … or religion … behind it.
As for our past support of strongmen … keep in mind that a BIG reason we chose to support and use such proxies, even when they were oppressive, is that a certain group of respected people kept telling us — with much passion — that the direct, timely, resolute, and decisive use of American military force is “imperialist warmongering” and is NEVER acceptable …
… unless perhaps (1) there are already thousands of bodies lying dead on our own soil and (2) there is NO WAY America could gain economic benefit from such action.
Had our leaders … and even Reagan, when it came to the MidEast, listened to this conventional wisdom of the 20th Century … ignored such advice, and directly confronted enemies like Iran and Iraq … we wouldn’t have this inconsistency, and we would probably have seen a lot fewer lives lost over the years.
Might I point out that even if it wasn’t an American Soldier, and instead an American working for private security companies, (Halliburton or whatever) it in no way lowers the courage and heroic nature of the actions depicted. I am particularly disturbed at the use of “washed up police man” being used as a term of derision. I know a few washed up police officers, and I would rather have them watching my back than most of the commentators here.
Frankly I’m amazed that the soldier allowed the kid to hide behind him. My first thought would have been that the insurgents were using him as a suicide bomber.
Finally, for all the anti-war idiots here. I am very disturbed at the inability to discern the difference between whether something is evil and whether something is stupid.
Toppling Saddam was good. Period. Whether it was a smart thing to do is still undetermined.
All of these other ideas about the cause of the war are ridiculous. It was simply that Saddam had shown repeated hostility towards us, and 911 made us aware of our vulnerability. Thus the decision to take out one of the possible threats and surround Iran in the process.
WMD was just a means of gaining UN support as was clear to anyone living through the run-up to the war. (Blair was the one who really believed the whole WMD thing, not Bush).
Oil is the stupidest reason suggested as why we went to war, as it would have been far cheaper to let Saddam buy us off with oil, the way he was paying off the French and Russians. That way we would have got our oil and not had to fight.
Cynicism is only a sign of intelligence when it is supported by logic. Simply arguing that nefarious motives are to blame on the grounds that nefarious motives are the only motivating force in American (or Republican) politics is silly.
Just because you think an action is stupid, doesn’t mean that the people supporting it are evil.
“Bad choice of words on my part … I should have used the term “absolute dictatorship”, which differentiates the totalitarians like Saddam from authoritarians like, say, Franco of Spain.”
But that is still not terrorism.
“As for our past support of strongmen … keep in mind that a BIG reason we chose to support and use such proxies, even when they were oppressive, is that a certain group of respected people kept telling us — with much passion — that the direct, timely, resolute, and decisive use of American military force is “imperialist warmongering” and is NEVER acceptable …”
Actually, I would say a bigger reason is The Cold War, and US attempts to control any nation which might have otherwise adopted communism. Then, after that, trying to fix thos mistakes by making more.
Absolute dictatorships, from what I have seen, act with the same lack of respect for life and liberty as trans-national terrorist groups. Rape rooms and mass graves in a totalitarian regime have the same effect on the innocent (physically and psychologically) as suicide bombings and videotaped beheadings do.
History also shows me that absolute dictatorships, once they gain the desire and means to expand, do not stop trying to expand that brutal totalitarian rule until they are forced back by others.
Since there are no checks-and-balances on their actions, morality becomes irrelevant … they will ally with anyone who they see will provide assistance in reaching their objectives; in particular, terrorist surrogates who can help further that expansion while providing plausible deniability to the despot.
Therefore, there is no practical difference between them and the terrorists, except that the dictator has the ability to exploit the resources, infrastructure, and people of a whole nation.
Both are a threat to civilization.
And yes, the Cold War was a major driver for so much proxy warfare … but not the only one, by any means. There were places … from Vietnam, to Iran, to Iraq … where we engaged in proxy warfare, when it was not justified by the need to carefully and subtly deal with the Soviet Bear.
However, our mistake was trying to control these nations, while leaving their governments in place to avoid accusations of imperialism … instead of working to institute rights-respecting governance within them, which would have immunized them from communist takeover while showing the people within that we actually were looking out for them, as well.
For instance, had we directly and decisively stomped on Iran in 1979 in response to the hostage-taking … or before that, stepped in and worked with — or around — the Shah to end his abuses and institute rights-respecting governance there … there would be a whole lot more people in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel alive today.
But the peaceniks and the “realists” told us we couldn’t do that … so, now, I see dead people.
A lot of dead people, who didn’t need to die.
To Rich Casebolt: Thank you.
To those attempting to argue with him: This “uneducated country bumpkin with a gun” has just watched all of you- with your sanctimonious, condescending and ultimately ludicrous talking points and arguments just get OWNED repeatedly. Instead of respecting the facts presented, you continually fire back with your inaccurate and ultimately misguided views as if we’re all suddenly going to see the light and come over to your way of thinking.
None of you have been here. You haven’t carried a man who is bleeding to death onto an operating table that saved his life but cost him his right leg. You haven’t seen a woman and her daughter stripped naked and buried up to their necks only to be shot repeatedly in the heads at close range. Their crimes? Being the wrong religion in the wrong neighborhood. You haven’t seen a man whose head, hands and feet were sawed off, his body cast into a sandy lot like so much garbage. His life, his family- rendered meaningless in one brutal act of violence. You think none of this would have happened had we not come to Iraq, but you are wrong. History has shown what awaits those who take no action agaist this brand of extremists.
You haven’t seen the doctor who thanked us repeatedly for supplying medical equipment- a doctor who saw more than his share of people murdered by Saddam, his sons and their regime, and has said that the US removed the “preeminant evil of our time.” You haven’t seen the precious face of a four-year-old boy who was running with a steak knife, fell, and jammed it into his neck, missing his carotid artery by less than a millimeter. Instead of asking his frantic parents what religion they were, the Iraqi soldiers manning the gate rushed him to the clinic where US doctors SAVED his life.
You sit there with your happy little lives and DARE to judge us? Who do you think you are? American “citizens” such as yourselves sometimes make me ashamed to be a Soldier. Instead of giving credit where it is due and honoring those in harm’s way on Memorial Day, you have to spew your vile leftist bullshit. Instead of simply showing some class and integrity and saying nothing at all, you simply choose to continue to argue your simplistic, idealistic views. And for what? So you can “educate” the rest of us unwashed masses you sneer down at from your ivory towers.
Piss off. Why don’t you do something meaningful instead of hiding behind a computer and talking tough?
Looks like the little boy has no trouble figuring out who the good guys are.
Too bad Saddam, Al Sadr, Al Qaeda and plain old gangsters have screwed up Iraq so much. It’s going to take a long time to make that a decent country.
But blaming the U.S. for that is like blaming the cops for crime.
God bless our soldiers, this picture is exactly representative of what we’re trying to do there: protect the innocent. Just hope that kid get a chance to grow up to be a decent person and doesn’t end up in a militia or terrorist group.
@ Soldier –
Good luck and god bless! It must be hard to keep the faith while reading and listening to all of the spineless immoral blather coming from your countrymen.
Keep up the good work and stay strong and safe. Whatever people are whining about now – you will be thanked for generations to come.
I don’t have time for this mamby-pamby emotional bludgeon bullshit. Both sides want to grab the flag “Oooh Support our troops!” No one on either side really supports our God-damned troops. And you know what? That’s fine.
Somewhere in all these comments I read this quote: “grunts like me die every day to protect you lazy liberalite assholes,” or something to that effect… My lazy liberalite ass didn’t feel like expending the energy necessary to re-read your ignorant tripe.
Guess what. Our military is all volunteer these days. Tax payers.. that is, the American public pay you guys to do the job that you have CHOSEN to do. Your reasons are your own, and they really don’t concern me one bit. I only care about two things:
1) When our country needs you to do a job, you’re there to do it. That makes you no different than any of our other servicesmen, i.e. garbage men, postal workers,IRS, etc. You risk your life for your job, so does the guy who repairs the subway tracks or welds your pretty metal boats.
2) When we decide to expend you, because that’s exactly what we decide to do when we declare war, we do so for a damn good reason that is well documented and transparent, so that at the end of the day liberal elitist assholes like myself can look at the butcher’s bill and say, “hey, these strategic resources (and my tax dollars) were spent well and efficiently, and the investment that we have made in country X will show great returns in the future.” Especially, when that war is one that we DECIDE to commit ourselves to.
Now, I’m from the coast of Virginia, so I have lots of friends in the service — mostly Marines. They all accept that, for all intents and purposes, their person gets the same kind of line on the bill as the tp. Just like that tp, they’ve been put together for a specific purpose, and they’re going to execute that purpose because that’s what a good soldier does. What you will never see either a good soldier or a good piece of tp do, is question his duty. When you’re trained to wipe an ass, you see an ass you wipe it.
So, I’m glad that you good soldiers support the war. I’d be pissed off if you didn’t, especially after all of that indoctrination I payed for you guys to get. Whether or not a soldier supports the war is not a function of the rightness or wrongness of the war. We’ve watched every shred of evidence for this war get flushed with all the 3,500+ named pieces of tp that have been expended to support it. Even POTUS has abandoned all explanations for the war save two…
1) if we don’t fight them there, they’ll follow us home.
2) at least we’re helping these people explore the wonders of democracy.
Why has he clung to those two?
Because they are the most emotionally charged reasons. The first plays on fear: “nice country you got here… shame if someone was ta come along and…. RAPE YOUR MOTHER!” Even though there is no reason to believe that’s the case. People always ask, “don’t you think that’s what they’ll do?” .. uh… sure, but what’s the change? They already have and they certainly will continue to try. maybe I’m just not a big enough pussy to be scared by this arguement…
The second reason plays to our patriotism and PC mentality: “Dude, wouldn’t it be, like, great if, like (bong suction sounds)everyone lived in a Democracy and was all, like, equal and shit?” Sure… I also believe that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and when that’s all the defense you have left, you have effectively labeled yourself as such.
Well, in response to emotionally charged reasons, I have some cold reality:
1) the hodges ain’t ready for democracy. Sadaam was a bastard, but he knew his people better than we do. They’d rather kill each other than fuck, and they are still having a debate about whether a dictatorship is not, in fact, preferable to a democracy (see Edward Wong’s article in the Times on “Sahel”
here’s a link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03wong.html?ref=weekinreview&pagewanted=print )
At least when Sadaam was in power, the trains ran on time, sectarian violence was a centralized government activity (so it was at least controlled), any terrorists in the area were being watched by a jealous meglomaniac, and if Iraq made one international slip-up that was too big to ignore… well, we all knew who to blame.
2) follow us home? The terrorists are already here, and their plots seem to be cropping up daily which brings me to these subconclusions:
a)terrorists can exist and train and produce in any state EVEN our own…should we then invade Alabama (9/11), Florida(9/11), Oklahoma(OK bombing), Germany(9/11), the UK(9/11), Russia(Chchnya), Israel(duh),Lebanon(duh), Syria(duh), Iran(duh) and all of the COUNTLESS other places where these assholes have cropped up?
b)or should we acknowledge the fact that terrorism is a law-enforcment issue and that we are using the wrong damn brand of tissue to wipe up this mess?
Alvinsuckadick,”what liberal has been inactive in the face of an attack. Back this up. Who?”
How about your dick wad buddy William J.Clits-r-us? How many terrorist strikes happened under his watch?Selective memory huh?While he was getting his cock sucked in the oval office and selling nuclear secrets to China(for personal profit),we had war declared on us and he didn’t even have a clue.You fuckin bleeding hearts are all the same.You fuck heads ignore history or better yet try to rewrite it.Your leaders are cowards just like their constituents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=William+J.Clits-r-us&go=Go
”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You searched for William J.Clits-r-us [Index]
Jump to: navigation, search
For more information about searching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Searching.
No page with that title exists.
You can create this page or request it.
* See all pages within Wikipedia that link to this page.
* See all pages that begin with this prefix.
No results found. For help on searching within Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Searching.
For news related to William J.Clits-r-us, Search Wikinews. For a definition of William J.Clits-r-us, Search Wiktionary.
Alternatively, you may be able to use an external search engine such as WikiWix to find what you are looking for and/or identify misspelled words. ”
I’m sorry, this isn’t a real President.
Clinton actually won a war or two in the Balkans. GW Bush said that unlike Clinton, he wouldn’t be a nation builder. I guess he wasn’t kidding.
Oh yeah… Casebolt… your whole “domino theory” of dictatorships is totally bogus. The majority of dictatorships DON’T attempt to spread beyond their own ability to rule. Only the crazies do that, and that’s because they don’t just want to rule, they want to be legendary…. So those are the handful that you hear about. That’s why they’re famous. Most dictatorships are Banana Republics — which is basically what Saddam was.
Even if your analysis is correct… and I don’t believe that it is, then Sadaam had already hit the limit of his expanse. 41 kicked his ass in Kuwait (in case you had forgotten) and we have been setting up rules for his movement ever since (not to mention bombing him constantly). So if there ever was a dictator who was penned in…
As for “stomping on Iran…” we did that. check your history. 1953 Iran, the CIA overthrew Mohammed Masadeq an Iranian nationalistand the Prime Minister at the time (because they actually had a psuedo-democracy), anti-imperialist, populist who was extraordinarily popular with the Iranian people. We convinced them that the old ways were better, and they should return all power to their autocratic shah. Why did we do it? Well, he didn’t want to make deals with the West and compromise Iranian profits from oil… huh. Funny how that works.
At the time we were convinced that the CIA could ditch the leader of ANY government worldwide, so there was, literally, no problem we couldn’t fix. Was that optimistic of us?
Well, we pitched ol’ Mohammad in favor of…Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi… the Shah over Mosedeq. Who, in addition to tightening his grip on the Iranian people, banning political parties, crushing dissent and leading to the unrest that eventually created the ‘79 revolution, also nationalised the country’s oil supply and played ball with the West’s oil needs.
If you think the history of the “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq is any different than it is in Iran, than you need another history lesson. 1917 Britain invades Iraq, claiming that they would be received as “great liberators” and that they would “bestow the benefits of [their] advanced society” (yes, they actually used those words). By 1920 British casualties were mounting, and the parliament was complaining about the “terrorists” that were pouring over the border from Syria. Parliament concluded that they should also conquer Syria.. oh yeah… and Palestine, too.
So, 1932, Iraq declares independance and Amir Faisal of the Hijaz is installed as king… he heads up a sunni gov’t, that is more or less a despotic proxy for the UK in a country whose borders are defined by british whimsy. This translates loosly to really bad news for anyone who isn’t a Sunni.
I assume that I don’t need to ellucidate the US’s role in Iraq 1980-2007.
I would suggest that our, “decisive action” in the mideast is directly responsible for horrors that we now face there, and the most responsible thing that we could do right now in Iraq is back the hell off, let these people have their civil war, and see who comes out on top. This thing has been building up for a long time, and now that we’ve taken the lid off the pressure cooker, we need to turn around before we get burnt.
I mean, could you imagine the mess we’d be in if the Brits had agreed to get involved in OUR Civil War? The South tried to deal with them, and they wouldn’t play the game…. thank God. Why does anyone think that our involvement can possibly improve the outcome in a battle of ideologies among which ours has no place? We’ve certainly never helped things out before. I think that history consistantly shows that non-intervention is the best policy in civil wars, the only exception is cases of genocide, because that is a moral qualm that is, historically, unassailable.
At best we played France to their US during their 1776. Now they’ve moved on to the Civil War, and we need to make like a Limey and show them our tip-tip cheerios before we make the classic imperialist blunder and clamp these people down again.
Kit … it took longer, from the start of hostilities, to capture Milosovec for trial than it did Saddam … and the Serbians themselves, not American forces, made the capture.
Oh yeah… Casebolt… your whole “domino theory” of dictatorships is totally bogus. The majority of dictatorships DON’T attempt to spread beyond their own ability to rule. Only the crazies do that, and that’s because they don’t just want to rule, they want to be legendary…. So those are the handful that you hear about. That’s why they’re famous. Most dictatorships are Banana Republics — which is basically what Saddam was.
If it is totally bogus, name me one in history that, once they had the will and capability to expand, stopped on their own, without facing CREDIBLE confrontation.
I did acknowledge above that not every dictatorship needs our immediate military attention to thwart their expansion. As you might say, only the “crazies” do that … but today, as we saw on 11 Sept 2001, the “crazies” can leverage technology and the freedom-of-movement (that can’t be shut off without choking off the global economy) and kill as never before.
You willing to take that kind of hit … again?
I ask again: If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?
Your suggestion to let ‘em fight it out, is conferring that trust upon the victor … whether or not they are of like mind with the thugs and fanatics, when it comes to life and liberty. Is that the stew you really want to see made in the pressure cooker?
Even if your analysis is correct… and I don’t believe that it is, then Sadaam had already hit the limit of his expanse. 41 kicked his ass in Kuwait (in case you had forgotten) and we have been setting up rules for his movement ever since (not to mention bombing him constantly). So if there ever was a dictator who was penned in…
Ah, containment … that depended upon a perpetual, dangerous, and costly American presence in the region, of a size and nature that was not sustainable forever … and was being eroded by political pressure and UN corruption via Oil-For-Food. And even then, Saddam could still support terrorists with impunity.
Once the erosion was complete, and we left the region, the WMD programs would have restarted.
The difference with today’s presence is, we are moving not to contain the threat … but end it. That will, in the end, reduce the downsides — and eventually, the level — of our presence.
As for Mossagedeh and Iran –
(1) he was getting too close to the Soviets, who would have just loved to get close to him and Iran’s warm-water ports (as well as oil) — then turn Iran’s democracy into “one-man, one-vote, one time” and add them to their collection of de facto colonies … and be in the catbird seat to do the same to Iraq, then Saudi Arabia.
(2) the problem is, we didn’t directly intervene … ever.
While direct intervention in 1953 might have stirred things up with the Soviets, had we directly intervened in the following years to work with — or around — the Shah to install a robust, truly rights-respecting govenrment (which is more than mere democracy, as I have described earler), not only could the Islamic Revolution have been thwarted, but the growth of Hamas, Hezbollah and other disturbers-of-MidEast peace could have been stunted severely.
This isn’t 1917-1932, Crunchy — we aren’t in the business of empire. What we are in the business of, is the establishment of UNIVERSAL, PROVEN principles of quality governance within a dysfunctional nation, in order to establish conditions for a sustainable peace.
These principles transcend culture … and work wherever they are implemented, as long as they are given the breathing space from thuggery and fanaticism long enough to take root and gain the capability of defending themselves. These principles DO have a place in the MidEast — for they apply to ALL MEN, as our own founders noted.
You sell the people of the MidEast short, Crunchy, when you say they are not ready for democracy. They are ready for rights-respecting governance — of which democracy is an important element — once those relative few who held the rest hostage (physically, and psychologically) to their greed and fanaticism are turned or eliminated.
Ask the Kurds
Ask the guys at Iraq the Model
Ask the Anbar Salvation Council
if they are ready for this.
We’ve certainly never helped things out before.
Actually, we did … in Japan, Germany, the Pacific Rim, and Eastern Europe … because we stayed involved in the confrontation of our enemies, long enough to see rights-respecting governance replace the “alternatives” there.
Where we have failed, is where we have not stayed involved … either “contracting” the work out to proxies, or ignoring the dysfunctional outright.
We sought stability … instead of sustainable peace … because we thought that way we could avoid the direct and decisive military conflict that is seen by our Best and Brightest as “below” them, and/or a sign of “failure” on our part.
We got neither stability, nor peace, as a result.
The paragidm had to change.
I think that history consistantly shows that non-intervention is the best policy in civil wars, the only exception is cases of genocide, because that is a moral qualm that is, historically, unassailable.
Does hundreds of thousands in mass graves in Iraq qualify as genocide?
And, this is not a civil war … despite the media spin; here are the top ten reasons why this is not a civil war:
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2007/04/mining-model.html
Clarification … everything from the second paragraph of my last post, is in response to Crunchy.
I find your case persuasive, Casebolt, but I also think that your reasoning for refuting the Civil War in Iraq might be based on an overly narrow definition of a Civil War as well as some assumptions about the body politic in Iraq that I don’t find very convincing.
Lets go point by point.
1. The two main factions alleged (by those who wish it to be true) to be fighting a “civil war,” the Sunnis and Shias, are still serving in Iraqi government positions, working together in the halls of government.
Yes, there are Sunnis and Shia serving in Iraqi Government positions. In the American Civil War there were both Northerners and Southerners still serving in government positions…. but there were Unionists and Secessionists fighting it out on the ground. I think that simply equating Sunnis and Shias with one side or the other is a problem… that may largely be true, just as the Northerners were generally Unionists and Southerners generally Secessionists, but the fact remains that there are many bodies of Iraqi civillians fighting one another in a very real way on the ground. This isn’t just about religion… though that plays a large role. It’s also about sovereignty. These people feel that their autonomy is threatened by their neighbors as well as the 300-pound gorrilla that has camped out with them (no matter how good his intentions).
Furthermore, even if this is entirely about religion… I’ve heard some great speeches from moderates and seen the crazies knock some buildings down. I mean… I’d like to think the moderates are the majority… but if the crazies keep on killing your neighbors and knocking your house down.. well… I bet that makes you crazy real fast, too.
2. Neither party has withdrawn from the government to form a rump, competing, or rebel government. The Sunnis would be the logical party to withdraw, since they are in the minority.
I would argue that this is not true. It seems to me that there are multiple different governmental powers on the ground in Iraq with competing ideologies and troops. Certainly, the US doesn’t recognize them all as legitimate governmental agencies (we only recognize the one that we forced into power), but that doesn’t stop them from behaving that way. They have troops and resources. They seem to have international support. They have garnered the support of many Iraqi civilians. AND they seem to feel that they are fighting for the sovereignty of their country. In fact, if you read the NIE from January (here’s the link: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/iraq_dni_20070202_release.pdf) you will see that they say (and I’m paraphrasing) that calling this conflict a Civil War is not entirely accurate because the situation is entirely too FUBAR to be so simply labeled (in other words: it’s much worse than that). However, they go on to say that the term certainly is appropriate when applied to most of the action in Iraq. So, optomist that I am, I prefer to use the tamer label: Civil War, rather than volcanic hell hole.
3. Sunnis and Shias recently attended a mass funeral procession together for victims of AQ violence.
Again, seeing Sunnis and Shias together as a sign that Iraq is a unified country oversimplifies the splintering of the populace. Millions got together to protest this war before we went in… was that a sign that we were unified? Also, Al Qaeda only represents 17-20% of the terrorist cells present in Iraq today. Maybe they can get together over Al Qaeda killings because they never liked AQ, doesn’t mean they see the Mahdi army in the same light.
4. Millions of Sunnis and Shias are happily intermarried in Iraq, especially in Baghdad.
Ditto. Blacks and whites, Yanks and Rebs… individuals can push for change, doesn’t mean that society at large agrees.
5. Suicide bombings of innocent Iraqis by AQ is not a civil war. It is a failed attmept to start a civil war which so far has failed.
I agree with you here. Suicide bombings by AQ =/ a Civil War. That’s true. Sadly, most of the insurgent attacks these days… ain’t AQ.
6. So called sectarian violence, which in some cases is actually the killing of AQ members and/or supporters, is not a civil war. Such killings have decreased. This will not end yet, some Shias have 30 years of oppression to avenge. This is not civil war, this is vigilantism.
If Shias dressed up as cops kidnapping and killing hundreds of Sunni gov’t workers, is Shia on AQ violence… then we must be supporting the wrong damned gov’t. Most of the bodies that are turning up are not “AQ.” That’s simply not true. AQ HAS been pouring into the country. Yes. But they only make up a small percentage of the body count, so either we’re not very efficient at killing them, and they are really efficient at killing everyone else… or those bodies are Iraqi civvies killing one another.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
8. There has not been a single instance of a pitched battle at even the platoon level between Sunnis and Shias with both sides organized and fighting under commanders, etc. There is no area under control of “rebels” who have announced a rump government.
I believe Sadr City would be the counter to this point. The US assisted, but we had trained Iraqi soldiers vs. Iraqi Militias… and I hope the militia was trained ’cause they held that place for some time as I recall… As for rebels controlling an area.. well technically they don’t have to. This is asymetrical warfare. All they have to do is play the Shining Path. You don’t have to be a control territory to be a rebel, you just have to exercise bloody power.
9. The Sunnis greatest fear is that the USA will withdraw from Iraq before a political reconciliation is accomplished. Why? See below.
answer: see below.
10. Sunnis can’t fight a successful civil war when they only number 15% of the population (down from 20%, due to death and fleeing of the country).
Did you know that the Sunnis still actually believe that they are the majority population? On top of that, even if that weren’t the case, you don’t declare a jihad because you have numbers on your side. Who needs numbers when you have God?
As for your conclusions well…
Conclusion
If the USA withdraws, a civil war of sorts could begin. It will be short and bloody, and the Sunnis will lose. That war would be a humanitarian problem, and a geopolitical problem if other countries become involved, which is likely. AQ and its’ backers are a geopolitical problem. This gives the USA three good reasons to stay for now.
Actually I agree with you here. It’s a bloody mess and it will be one no matter what we do. I still say that containment is a better answer. Why? Well, as long as we remain in Iraq, crazy people like Osama Bin Laden (remember that guy?) will have a much easier time recruiting new troops (in fact that’s what our recent intel has shown). After all, before we declared war on them, they were just “some group of crazy radicals with a crazy radical agenda,” but now they are the proclaimed enemies of the great white Satan. I’ve often heard that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. Well, that rag-tag group of crazies? Their enemy is the sole remaining super power in the world. That’s basic advertising. You NEVER stack yourself up against your actual competition… no… you compare your product to “The Leading Brands,” and when “The Leading Brands” actually stoop to acknowledge you… well that just makes your case.
So, the US should back off redeploy continue to train Iraqi troops. Our message to the world should be, “When we see bugs we crush them. The rebuilding is up to you.” Better late than never. If Iran or Turkey wants to move in with their military, well… our beat-stick is suddenly unburdened again, rested, resupplied, and in their back yard.
An aside: It’s not an occupation when a government has forces working in a country at the invitation and consent of the two major parties within an elected government of the host country. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia contingent of the Iraqi government has made any move to ask the USA to leave. The Shias will be first to do so.
As for this Aside… as long as the Iraqis continue to question the legitimacy of their own government… Well, this statement looks just like one that could have been made by the Romans in Gaul or Hitler in Vichy France… If it looks like you set up the government, and you are, in fact, supporting it against its own civvies with your troops… well it don’t look to good.
As for the second part of this aside… so what if the Shias do ask us to leave and the Sunnis don’t. what then?
As for the rest of your argument, let’s start here:
I did acknowledge above that not every dictatorship needs our immediate military attention to thwart their expansion. As you might say, only the “crazies” do that … but today, as we saw on 11 Sept 2001, the “crazies” can leverage technology and the freedom-of-movement (that can’t be shut off without choking off the global economy) and kill as never before.
You willing to take that kind of hit … again?
I think this argument is deeply flawed (in relation to Iraq) because it resurrects the tired old argument that Sadaam had anything whatever to do with 9/11… Even Bush has given up on that tired old horse.
HOWEVER, I agree with you as this argument DOES apply to Afghanistan— the forgotten war. That’s where all of our forces and resources should be concentrated. Why? Because that was where the Taliban was based… and is now making a resurgence because we can’t support two wars at the same time. Another historical mistake.
So, to answer your question, it’s BECAUSE I’m not “willing to take that kind of hit … again.” That I am against our “Iraq strategy.” Sadaam had no capability of reaching out beyond his borders to hit us, and it turns out that we knew that then. We had enough problems before the Iraq war without waking that one up.
I ask again: If a few dozen guys and $1M dollars produced the national trauma of 11 September 2001, why does it make sense to trust someone of like mind with control of a soverign, wealthy, technically-advanced nation … and if it doesn’t make sense, what do you propose to DO about it, since leaving things alone worked so well with those few dozen guys?
Your suggestion to let ‘em fight it out, is conferring that trust upon the victor … whether or not they are of like mind with the thugs and fanatics, when it comes to life and liberty. Is that the stew you really want to see made in the pressure cooker?
To the first half of this question why compare apples and oranges? Terrorists are a non-state entity. So, there is no direct way to deal with them… hell, you can’t even find them. Fortuneatly, these guys WERE state sponsored, and we even knew which state… AFGHANISTAN!
Iraq… is a country. It had a government, and we were able to examine it before the war. We (through Hans Blix) were aware of their capabilities (though we decided that we were misinformed because some guy that was tortured into giving all sorts of confessions most of which PS we knew to be lies… therefore the code name: Curveball… told us that he knew better) and so we “f”ed up big time.
As for the second half of your question, I suppose the answer is: yes. At some point we have to rely on real nationalist sentiment coming from the people of that country AND their ability to back that sentiment up. The tree of freedom is watered with the blood of Patriots, sure, but the Iraqi tree has to be watered with Iraqi blood. We got rid of their dictator. They now have over 200,000 US trained troops, and a Constitution. They don’t have an imperial colonial power trying to kill them. That’s a hell of a lot more than we had at the start.
This isn’t 1917-1932, Crunchy — we aren’t in the business of empire. What we are in the business of, is the establishment of UNIVERSAL, PROVEN principles of quality governance within a dysfunctional nation, in order to establish conditions for a sustainable peace.
Ie Nation-building. This is 1917-1932. We are trying to bring the benefits of our superior culture to the heathens in the sand. “WOGS begin at Calais.” Democracy is a noble experiment whose ideals should be infectious. I like to think that they are. However, Freedom cannot be enforced. Do I believe in the values that we are trying to impart? Yes, but I cannot believe that this is an effective strategy for imparting them. The very idea that we will “stay here ‘till you get it right.” Is just absurd.
These principles transcend culture … and work wherever they are implemented, as long as they are given the breathing space from thuggery and fanaticism long enough to take root and gain the capability of defending themselves. These principles DO have a place in the MidEast — for they apply to ALL MEN, as our own founders noted.
Most revolutions that come to mind did not arise from “breathing space.” Quite the opposite. Most revolutions arise from oppression and repression and blood and brutality. Without those things there is no need for a revolution in the first place. Yes, these principles of freedom and democracy have a place in every corner of the globe, but they have to be earned in a deliberate and painful manner. This method stinks of nobless oblige, and I think that is more offensive to any revolutionary than a turned back.
… in Japan, Germany, the Pacific Rim, and Eastern Europe … because we stayed involved in the confrontation of our enemies, long enough to see rights-respecting governance replace the “alternatives” there.
Where were the terrorists? Where were the people trying to kill us after the war was won? Where were the people so desperate to be rid of us that they destroyed their own infrastructure? The riots? Where was the religious war between the perceived occupier and the occupied? How badly did Europe and Japan not want us there?
Where we have failed, is where we have not stayed involved … either “contracting” the work out to proxies, or ignoring the dysfunctional outright. We sought stability … instead of sustainable peace … because we thought that way we could avoid the direct and decisive military conflict that is seen by our Best and Brightest as “below” them, and/or a sign of “failure” on our part. We got neither stability, nor peace, as a result. The paragidm had to change.
YES. Absolutely the paradigm had to change. Absolutely. The role we played in Mideast politics was a sham and a shame, so change had to happen, but this was not it. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. Just because our previous system of dealing with middle eastern governments has been marred by corruption and greed, doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have created a better alternative. Relative to the amount of time that we have been screwing around there in cloak and dagger AND overt military fashion, our diplomatic efforts didn’t last very long. And, in the end we certainly didn’t come up with a very creative, innovative, or even well-planned solution. This is NOT the high ground. Intention counts for very little when the stakes are so large. Especially when the planning was so obviously flawed.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230/
The Iraqi Parliament passed a non-binding declaration to remove all foreign soldiers from Iraq.
non-binding resolutions do nothing true, but it still shows a real declaration of Iraqis for ending this war, I think it should be listened too.
yeah, yeah, I know about it coming from alternet too…I just can’t find the story anywhere else.
anonymous,
here it is from the post…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html
Here it is from Al-jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D40BB67B-8696-4EF8-BEFE-F4B029DEF4A5.htm
Thinkprogress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/iraqi-parliament-votes-for-withdrawal-authority/
jpost:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1180960615762
democratic underground (though this one is just a link to al jaz)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102×2871009
Here’s the best one… an interview with McCain on Russert
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/13/mccain-dismisses-democrat_n_48356.html
Consider who led the effort to get this passed … the al-Sadr supporters; who look to me like they tend to the “one man, one vote, one last time … and that was the last time” model of democracy.
Consider the very slim majority of support this bill has received. Take away the al-Sadr supporters and it doesn’t pass.
Consider the qualifier in the bill, delaying any demand for withdrawal until Iraqi security forces are capable of defending the nation.
Consider that the duly-elected executive branch of the Iraqi government does not hold this position.
Finally, consider this.
If the new Iraq government is left in a state where it is incapable of defending and sustaining rights-respecting governance, Iraq will — sooner or later — once again be hijacked by a regime who will return it to the good old days of Saddam & Sons, and/or hijack it to support totalitarian expansion.
(I’ve not forgotten about your reply to me, Crunchy … I’ve just not had the time to deal with your expressions of the conventional wisdom properly. More later …)
Casebolt,
If our congress passes a resolution that is not supported by the executive… should that resolution still be given notice?
What if a Bill only passes by a “slim majority?” Should that bill then be discarded? In our system, a slim majority is often all we can get (and we only get that because of the wheeling and dealing that goes on behind the scenes) why should there system be any different?
Sure we could “just remove the Al Sadr supporters,” but, well, they WERE elected. I mean, we could also just remove the Democratic party in the states… or the Independents… or the Republicans… what’s the difference?
In a Democracy, we don’t get the government that is BEST for us, but we DO get the government that we deserve. That way, at the end of the day, we can’t blame our failings on some outside force… Nope, its all our fault. That’s one lesson that every fledgling Democracy needs to learn… just ask Palestine.
The Shia United Iraqi Alliance party won the majority position in parliament with 48% of the vote in 2005… with 3 major parties (and many minor parties), that seems like a pretty good voice, if not a mandate. If we deny that voice, aren’t we just invalidating the government that we spent so much putting into place?
We can lump them in with whomever we please, but this resolution is the result of the democratic system that we helped put in place and enact. To deny their validity because we don’t degree with their decision is a classically Imperial move… Obviously, the WOGs just don’t know what’s best for them…
(Oh, and take your time on the other reply, Rich, I’m not in any rush… it’s always good to find someone whose tone and perspective you can respect… even in disagreement. I look forward to your reply.)
Actually, on further inspection, the United Shia Alliance’s election victory was a CLEAR mandate (by conventional democratic standards). The second place finisher in that election, the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan, came in more than a full 25 percentage behind with 21.7% of the vote.
Further, the executive branch of Iraq (The Presidency Council of Iraq [ie the president and two VPs) is actually appointed by the Parliament, not by popular vote. Ditto the Prime Minister. That means that the voice of Parliament is, technically, the governmental body most directly representative of the voice of the Iraqi people.
So… is Iraq independent, or do is it our illegitemate child?
Those boots appear to be the Corcoran® 9 in. Tan Suede Professional Tactical Boot
http://www.uscav.com/Productinfo.aspx?productID=9242&TabID=1&CatID=6
Not standard issue but DOD approved for use in combat.
Very very comfortable. I have two pair myself, and I can’t think of a better boot to wear in the desert. They weigh less than a pond, feel like moccasins, speed laces.
All of you are missing the point.
You go back and forth all day about whether this war is good or bad, justified or not…blah blah blah…conservative loving america crap.
what bugs the fuck out of me is when any neo-con on the web sits there and bashes all of us for being against a fabricated war.
“Why do you hate freedom you dicksucking liberal?”
fuck that. It’s the republican agenda to put anyone that disagrees on the defensive, thus making them weaker.
These conservative bible humping fucks have done nothing but fuel divisive politics to keep their fundraising coffers wet and moaning for more.
It’s the biggest play going on.
If Ralph Nader was president none of this would have ever happened.
All of you need to grow the fuck up and get the hell off the internet.
Hey ass, tell us how you really feel.
At the end of the day not even you can ignore the fact that Iraq will be a safer happier and friendlier place because we took down a dictator. Not to mention that a stable democracy with a free trade market smack in the middle of all that Middle East turmoil will infect everyone and everything ultimately bringing an end to one of the poorest and destabilized regions in the world.
You can sit and whine about how it isn’t fair but never ever forget, that when the people are happy with their government they’re not strapping bombs to their chest for God. And we are giving them a government that will work.
It’s up to them to keep it though.
Isn’t it possible that an Iraqi boy, startled by shooting hides behind the first thing it can find to hide behind? And isn’t it just conceivable that this first thing it finds is an armed foreign guy? Wether it be a US soldier, or a private security guard, does that matter? To the kid, all that matters is there’s something between himself and the bullets.
There’s a lot to be said about US politics and their involvement in Iraq, but I somehow think it’s less relevant to this particular photo. Let’s just hope the kid survived that particular day.
Hey GoUSA,
Actually, I can dispute the alleged “fact” that Iraq will be happier at the end of the day. I can also dispute the “fact” that the place is better off for losing a dictator. Here are the reasons.
1.At this point in the war, more Iraqis have died than died during 20+ years of Sadaam’s regime.
2.While the Shiite people have gained power, other groups, such as women have lost (or are steadily losing) the ability to a)become educated, b)vote, c)express their most basic human perogatives (i.e. sexuality, expression, curiosity) without being stoned to death or becoming a victim of “honor killing”
3.The pre-war infrastructure that Iraq had… is gone, and the new one still hasn’t reached the level of efficacy or efficiency that existed before. If you live in Baghdad… you might get 4 hours of electricity/day. If you live outside of Baghdad… Oh, well.
4.The “government” that Iraq now has is crumbling, and WE don’t even acknowledge its authority. They passed a resolution in Parliament that asked us to produce deadlines or to leave… we’re still there.
5.Oh, and your “point” that people who like their government don’t strap bombs to their chests? Well, They weren’t strapping bombs to their chest in Iraq before the war… but they are now. So, I guess that, even by your own logic, this experiment is a failure.
6. Free trade breeds democracy? huh… what about Dubai? Trade couldn’t be much more free than that… And.. if you can find some way to make that place look like a thriving Democracy… then why do we need to force one in Iraq? I thought Democracy was “infectious.”
As for the rest of your commentary…I don’t whine about things not being fair. I look at the EVIDENCE that is presented. I then weigh that evidence against the arguments made, and I reach and INFORMED decision. That’s business and policy decisions are SUPPOSED to be made. I find it shocking that the right-wingnuts still refer to the republican party as the business party.. There’s a difference between “business” and “cronyism.” Both can be successful, but one is morally bankrupt. That’s why “good” companies like Halliburton can get no-bid contracts… get a raise for NOT fulfilling them… and then move their HQ to Dubai… a place that is diametrically opposed to what we are, supposedly, trying to create in Iraq. Oh. That’s good business though, right?
This war has been a debacle. Every ASSUMPTION that our government made going into it has been disproven. Now we need to concentrate on fixing the mess that our misguided, underinformed, and (in some cases) deliberately and willfully ignorant leaders have created.
More of the same is not the answer.
[...] An Iraqi child hides behind a soldier during a bombing in Baghdad [...]
Celebrate the 706559th PBH Hit
Wow!! Lucky number 706559! Were you that person? Anyway, to celebrate such a feat, here are the top 5 popular posts at PBH:
1. Happy Memorial Day
2. Why I Hate Capitalism
3. Donkey Love
4. Ask A Shiite: Perceptions of America
5. The First Thing I Saw O…
[...] Happy Memorial Day 2. Why I Hate Capitalism 3. Donkey Love 4. Ask A Shiite: Perceptions of America 5. The First Thing [...]
I got tired of reading the post here is my two cents. All you have to do is look at the patch on his left upper arm. Wow, that looks like to AA side by side. Could it be this is a soldier from the famous 82nd Airborne? You know the All Americans. Nuf said.
I got tired of reading the post here is my two cents. All you have to do is look at the patch on his left upper arm. Wow, that looks like two AA side by side. Could it be this is a soldier from the famous 82nd Airborne? You know the All Americans. Nuf said.
I got tired of reading the post here is my two cents. All you have to do is look at the patch on his left upper arm. Wow, that looks like two AA’s side by side. Could it be this is a soldier from the famous 82nd Airborne? You know the All Americans. Plenty of countries with evil leaders doing bad things to the people. We should learn to mind our own business. Let other nations do what they want. Once they do something against us, then we wipe them from the face of earth. Nuf said.
All of the politics aside this picture is exactly what it is, an American Paratrooper in absolute control over any normal flight response. He is assesing the situation totally focused on his environment and preparing to return fire if required. This is a testament to the training, courage, and dedication of our Soldiers. And just for the record the uniform is legitimate I have been in the Army awhile and this is the look of your Soldiers today. ALL THE WAY AIRBORNE!!!
RLTW!!!
ifeel sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry for you cause 1st your bomming iraq and then they actually like u
hahaha what?
AlvinBlah talks a lot of shit for someone behind a computer screen. There’s a few of us 4-1 Cav troops at Ft Bliss who would to see you talk your shit in person bitch
technically, I type the shit, the poo gets turned into binary and then is translated into text through a graphical interface on your computer. I may type shit, but it comes out as werds…Crazy huh. I’m also not behind a computer. I sit in front of it. You know so I can see the screen.
If you think I’m behind it, you’re probably thinking of it from your perspective where I may or may not be a tiny little elf inside the box using fecal matter to make you mad.
I assure you that is not the case.
I live in Indiana. Come on over, we’ll talk things out, and share a few beers.
Although you imply you were in a war, you don’t have to talk violence on line. It’s not constructive, threatening or believable. And it reflects badly for veterans everywhere.
Picture: Who ever took it, Good job, great capture, where you in any danger? I’m sure. Thank you for that.
As for all the rest? The Child is hiding behind a soldier with I’m speculating body armor. So that when and if shrapnel or bullets fly, that body armor and that GI will get it and not him. A metaphor.
You Vets out there, Thank you thank you thank you, I apologize that I couldn’t support you more. I know it’s tuff, very tuff. You’ve given up most things familiar in your life to be in this thing. Many of you will never be the same, I wasn’t and I still after 36 years am coming to grips with it all. Hang in there, come home safe and we will see you stateside.
Those of you making this out to be more, and especially those of you resorting to expletives to push your point, are resorting to your only recourse due to limited intelligence or vision. And by the way, stay away from my butt; I might get some disease when you kiss it. So don’t even think about it.
Those of you spewing religious speak, the same type of babble that drives the Jihad, brain washed dumb bells of Al-Qaeda and all the rest. Get a clue, what next a new crusade, more religious BS to justify killing people. That’s real intelligent. Your living in the ancient past, and lighting is the weapon of some mean higher power, and some day when you’re dead everything will be work out. What about now? You need some Kool-aid.
Those trying to make the point that we are right and justified in everything our government see’s fit to do. Please review history again. Hitler came to power because of ignorance and the German peoples blind adherence to social pressure. Most terrible leaders do, and they are kept there by more ignorance, fear and apathy.
Think! And don’t stop thinking, asking questions, forcing accountability. Shed light on the truth as much as one can. It’s our thoughtful measured mediation of our governments that will make this freedom we have continue to work. Not some push and shove debate that goes nowhere. Especially with children that need their mouth washed out Ref above. (I’m sure I’ll get some violent vulgarity spewed at me for that) Put a bottle in it junior, and go have your diaper changed you smell.
It’s not, violence, more technology, or intolerance that will keep us alive here. Strength comes from solid understanding and a continued effort to know one another that will keep us progressing as a species. Banal, baser instincts still drive many of us, wanting all the food and refusing to share keeps us as lower animals. It’s our ability to think, reason and share that knowledge to improve life on earth that truly works. Come down out of the trees people, standing upright and looking “to” each really works.
There is no right or wrong, just poor quality thought, bad choices and all or nothing thinking. It’s pretty simple.
What a vigorous debate! Thanks everyone, Keep it going we might get somewhere, not you junior go play with some hand grenades or something.
“Those trying to make the point that we are right and justified in everything our government see’s fit to do. Please review history again. Hitler came to power because of ignorance and the German peoples blind adherence to social pressure. Most terrible leaders do, and they are kept there by more ignorance, fear and apathy.”
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
Goodwin’s Law has now been invoked. Conversation is over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin%27s_law
The Soldier is from the 82nd Airborne and he is toting the M4 Carbine. Camo is standard. Boots were given up some time ago for more athletic type shoes since we were on pavement more than the usual open fields and such. Much more comfy, too. Security forces wear mostly civilian clothing and uses mostly black bodyarmor vests. USArmy and other brances are pretty much the only ones who are sporting the digital camo style.
Hay Alvin: Like I said not you junior go play with some hand grenades or something.
for those who say it ISNT a US soldier it is… hes wearing ACU , using a standard issue m4a1 with an ACOG scope… so i dont know why you guys say it isnt…
I just hope that US see how it is to have a war in your own back yard…I had mine share of civil war in my country and all of u people here don’t know what are u talking about cause you never seen what is like when a mortar or tank shell hits your house while you are in the basement…you never heard how that sounds…or how snipers sound…
Let me clear this up for you people.
1.Army Combat Uniform ( ACU )is what this “guy” is wearing.
2.The boots are not standard issue but the Army allows you to purchase your own so long as they fall into Army guidlines and regulations.
3.His left sleeve shows he is in the 82nd Airborne Division (The AA meanining All American)With the Airborne tab above the unit patch.
4.He is using a M4 Carbine with a M68 Red Dot sight and an AN/PEQ2 IR Laser module. Additionally there is a surefire tactical light on the left rail.
5.The molle bag on his back is similare to a camelbak used to carry water. Also a standard issued item.
He is a real deal US Paratrooper and what is more ironic then that the kid seen him as the best cover in the area is he seems to remain calm and evaluate what the situtation is while everyone else turns tail. True showing of how our fighting men and women stand strong in the face of danger.
“I may not support this war, but be careful before mouthing off about soldiers if you know nothing about them, sir.”
Fuck the troops. They’re nothing but hired killers and are as guilty as the fuckers who sent them there.
FUCK THE TROOPS????? HIRED KILLERS???????
you sniveling little shit. Don’t EVER forget they attacked us first!
If it wasn’t for these HEROES you’d be dead on main street with a turban on your head.
They’re coming for us. The invasion is being planned. IF you can’t see it OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!
OBAMA IS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOORS FOR SHARIA LAW!!!!!!!
If we don’t take the fight to the desert, the desert will take the fight to our homes!
Without these soldiers defending us in an epic war, your daughters and families would be beaten and tortured.
HOW DARE YOU SIR!
I do not believe this
[...] Happy Memorial Day with 26,338 unique hits — a poignant series of pictures from May of 2007 that featured an [...]
The behavior of local children can be a good indicator of popular sentiment. This child, rather than follow the crowd (the expected, human thing to do) has chosen, in a moment of panic, without conscious thought, to seek safety near an American Soldier.
Congratulations to this Soldier and his unit for doing all that it takes to win the hearts and minds of the people in this neighborhood.
If you’re out there passing judgement on this photo and everything in it without having been there, I suggest you try talking about something you understand rather than living vicariously through the lives of men and women of action.
You don’t have to be the spectator you’ve been until today. Raise your hand and go do something. You may like the person you grow to be when the pressure is on.
on contrary to popular belief Halibuton. is not in Iraq. The private contractors dont get issued this type of cloths either unless they are working for the DOD.
[...] Brown´s Gang 19. Lauf,lauf… 20. Grafiken zur Finanzkrise 21. Relaxing 22. Schild zum Schild 23. Versteck 24. Na du [...]
This image is obviously shopped.
When the USA send their youth to fight Hitler…THAT WAS BEING A HERO. THAT WAS FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM!
The USA sending poor Americans (and not even full US citizens, like some hispanics that got citizenship AFTER SERVING IRAQ) to STEAL OIL and basically secure business contracts for the corrupt Vice President – NOT A HERO, A SUCKER, A PAWN, A FUCKING PIECE OF TRASH.
Sorry, Iraq soldiers – YOU AIN’T NO HEROS! LIVE WITH IT!
” NEVERforget!
FUCK THE TROOPS????? HIRED KILLERS???????
you sniveling little shit. Don’t EVER forget they attacked us first!
If it wasn’t for these HEROES you’d be dead on main street with a turban on your head.
They’re coming for us. The invasion is being planned. IF you can’t see it OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!
OBAMA IS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOORS FOR SHARIA LAW!!!!!!!
If we don’t take the fight to the desert, the desert will take the fight to our homes!
Without these soldiers defending us in an epic war, your daughters and families would be beaten and tortured.
HOW DARE YOU SIR!”
This is an example of a retarded redneck underedjucated U.S.A. citizen who believes that his country is “defending” itself ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FUCKIN’ GLOBE(13000 miles)!!!!!!!!
Btw. 9/11 terrorists were from SAUDI ARABIA, NOT Iraq. Ahhhhh, too much for his brainwashed brain…
This picture peaks volumes. Children are among the most honest creatures on the face of the earth. They know who they can trust. Sure, there are segments of society that will exploit that trust, but this is a simple picture of a complex situation where this child is running to a source of safety and shelter.
Thank you US Military for securing this trust for us, for securing this nation over these past 200+ years, for projecting peace through strength in the face of increasing odds.
Say what you want to, peace to the children.
so the boy feels protected behind a highly trained us soldier carrying a powerful ass gun, i would too.Just enjoy the photo its supposed to make you feel feel like you live in a powerful and caring country USA!!!!!USA!!!!!USA!!!!!
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It’s the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks?
little lesbian