Happy Memorial Day

It looks to me like the kid, is hiding behind the one dude that might actually know what is going on…..

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.

- 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.

“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.

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.

(… 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

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!

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.

That kid is a horrible dresser. We need to airlift some fags over there.

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 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.

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 …

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

Looks like the little boy has no trouble figuring out who the good guys are.

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

anonymous,

here it is from the post…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000387.html

Here’s the best one… an interview with McCain on Russert

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/13/mccain-dismisses-democrat_n_48356.html

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.)

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.