|
|
Happy Memorial Day
An Iraqi boy hides behind a U.S. soldier on Monday amid gunfire after a car bomb in Central Baghdad killed 24 people: 
|
|
|
Happy Memorial Day
An Iraqi boy hides behind a U.S. soldier on Monday amid gunfire after a car bomb in Central Baghdad killed 24 people:
|
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!
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:
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 …
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
Save to Delicious
Submit to Reddit
Digg This Post
Email This Post
Technorati
Facebook
