« 2005 Weblog Awards Nominations Update | Main | It's good to be the prince »

The Murtha Plan For Iraq

Much has been written about the comments of Rep. John Murtha (D - PA), Ranking Member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and a decorated military veteran, at a Capitol Hill press conference today (transcript). Suffice it to say that I, and a large number of other people, disagree with his "cut and run" prescription.

Since I missed the initial coverage I wondered if the Congressman would be foolhardy enough to call for immediate withdrawal without some sort of "plan" for what to do in Iraq after a withdrawal of US troops. I don't care what kind of decorated military veteran Murtha is, if he's going to be taken seriously he better have a good plan for filling the vacuum he wants to create in Iraq with the elimination of the US military.

What pray tell is the Murtha plan? According to Google News his plan has received almost no coverage (2 hits), so this is nearly a Wizbang exclusive...

The resolution (at the end of this press release) he introduced in the House calls for redeployment of troops at "the earliest practicable date," which was widely covered in the media. What was not reported are the points 2 and 3 of his plan, which are positively Clintonian...

A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the- horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Think US troops in Kuwait enforcing from afar a "No Insurgency Zone." Didn't we try that for 12 years or so...?

And here's the icing on the cake...

The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
And there goes whatever air was left in Mutha's credibility balloon...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Murtha Plan For Iraq:

» Christian Coalition Blog linked with News & Opinion

» Conservative Outpost linked with Daily Summary

» The Unalienable Right linked with Dem congressman raises white flag, MSM salutes

» Caerdroia linked with Consequences

» THE PALADIN linked with Joun Murtha Failed History 101

» THE PALADIN linked with John Murtha Failed History 101

» Stop The ACLU linked with GOP FORCES VOTE ON IRAQ WAR!!!

» The Cassandra Page linked with Ann Coulter predicted the John Murtha scam almost

» The American Mind linked with Swinging at Murtha

» Don Surber linked with Dems Retreat From Call For Retreat

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with GOP seeks vote on Iraq pullout

» The Right Nation linked with GOP: Iraq Showdown

» Pirate's Cove linked with Surrender Monkeys Get Busy

» All Things Beautiful linked with The 'Cut and Run' Prescription for Iraq

» Stop The ACLU linked with House Say No To Withdrawing Troops

Comments (36)

Sounds like Kofi Annan and ... (Below threshold)

Sounds like Kofi Annan and John Kerry's wildest of mutual wet dreams. Maybe the French can even set up shop again if Muthra can fire up anpther oil-for-food program.

Security and stability thro... (Below threshold)

Security and stability through diplomacy?

That would be hilarious if this weren't so serious... since it is serious, that's just idiotic.

Between Murthra and Frist, ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Between Murthra and Frist, the politicians are pissing on 2000+ graves of US soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis' graves.

If heads chopped off for th... (Below threshold)
-S-:

If heads chopped off for the political entertainment of crazy people isn't going to make an impression on this guy and those like him -- "diplomacy" with many people is known to mean you will end up in their boiling pot -- then the lives of American service personnel won't, either.

Unfortunately, the squeakier wheel at this point seems to be the Cindy-Sheehan-I-Want-Communism-Now movement but it doesn't mean it's the course to be counselled by, it just means it's squeakier at the moment but it's moreso due to media attention, and media attention can be relied upon to focus on the -I-Want-Communism-Now squeaks. Thus, you get Boombast like this guy, who no one who has any concept of survival and freedom would ever so much as attend to.

How people like this pop up in areas of United States defense/military is a good question that the Pentagon ought to address (and remedy) but after John Kerry (HE served in the military, after all, to hear him describe it) (and a few others I can think of) being allowed to loiter in the Senate all these years is enough to my view to establish a lower standard than most of us Americans hope for in and by the Congress.

How's that justice going for Kerry's treachery?

People serve in our military with honor and dignity and risk their frickin' lives each and every hour of active duty and the best this stupid, vile Senator can offer is "diplomacy" and withdrawal from Iraq? Send this man to the front lines and let him harp on there as long as he can hang on.

My patience with this sort of tripe by this sort of coward is at an end.

It’s alright Guys, when we ... (Below threshold)
Nader:

It’s alright Guys, when we will send you backpacking; there will be tons of jobs for you in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador picking Bananas. That way some of you could gain some experience to be fit to head the CIA LOOOL.

Look at this AP story headl... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Look at this AP story headline: Murtha's described as "Hawkish Democrat (Calls for Iraq Pullout)."

So, the "hawks" among Democrats call for pullouts, that leaves room for the "moderates" among Democrats to toast and roast Stalin. Which, latter, fits right into Hillary Clinton's ideology, not to mention her and her notorious Mistah Mistah's game plan.

I was immediately suspiciou... (Below threshold)
EXDemocrat:

I was immediately suspicious when I saw he was a Democrat being covering by the MSM. After reading his ideas all I have to say is, WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS SO FREAKING IGNORANT ABOUT THIS ENEMY!!!!

Like S, my patience is gone. In my eyes, the Democrats and their loony lefties are human shields. Period. They can stand in front of us and try to "appease" the enemy.

The responses to this blog ... (Below threshold)
Ben:

The responses to this blog are intelligent and well thought out. In the "discuss" zone attached to most Yahoo headlines there are also some strong minded people. So what are we going to do? Blog's may be a new media force but they do not offer the remedy to our main problem> that regular hard working Americans who embrace the philosophy of our founding fathers neither have representation in Washington nor a political party that is cultivating candidates qualified to protect the constitution much less defend our national interest and way of life.

The responses to this bl... (Below threshold)

The responses to this blog are intelligent and well thought out.

You obviously haven't been reading my comments.

I feel the hair on the back... (Below threshold)
Old Soldier:

I feel the hair on the back of my neck standing straight up. People like John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wesley Clark and now John Murtha, having all served in our country's military, seem to have lost sight of the reasons for war and focused narrowly on the effects of war; the human suffering brought about on the battlefields. I do not revel in war and certainly have not lost sight of the effects; however when diplomacy (humanity) fails and war erupts, we must be the victor.

In this instance we did not chose to attack Islam, nor did we attack Afghanistan and Iraq under the cover of falsified intelligence. We attacked regimes that were fostering, training, financing and fomenting a radical Islamic terrorist base that actually attacked us many times before the huge blow delivered on 9-11. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other radical Islamic extremist sects have made their intent crystal clear; stop our debaucherous way of life, convert to Islam, or prostrate ourselves at the feet of Islam in dhimmitude or die. In actuality they would just as soon we die.

Some folks are timid when it comes to disagreeing with a politician who is a military veteran, especially one with combat experience. You can appreciate their sacrifice, yet respectfully and heatedly disagree with a wrongheaded national strategy. I certainly have no qualms disagreeing with the Kerrys, Clarks, Clelands and Murthas of the nation. To pull our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan now would be national suicide. And I, for one, want my fellow citizens to know that in this instance the Democrat’s desire to cut and run is not only reckless, it is dangerous to our nation.

The Murtha Plan for Iraq is... (Below threshold)

The Murtha Plan for Iraq is really very simple and easy to understand. Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail presciently summed it up best:

"Run away! Run away!"

Murtha tearfully recounts h... (Below threshold)
Palmateer:

Murtha tearfully recounts his visits to hospitalized soldiers. Did he not ask them whether they wanted to go back and complete their mission if they could?

S-,,,,,You’re the one sayin... (Below threshold)
saf:

S-,,,,,You’re the one saying you guys should keep the troops there so why don’t you offer your services after all I’m sure you’ll do a better job than an old man like this senator can do.

May be the difference between some of the guys who are now changing their minds is that they are no longer in denial something your having difficulty in breaking out off, Your saying the 12 years of sanctions and diplomacy with saddam did not work, well at least it didn’t cost over 2000 lives thousands more injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties and god knows how many billions of dollars spent and finally the total humiliation of your country in failing to suppress an insurgency.

Your saying diplomacy cannot work I think you’ll find without diplomacy this war would not have been possible, with out the use of Muslim bases on Muslim countries run by dictatorships, you really think America could have carried out a successful invasion without the UAE airspace, Kuwaiti and Qatari bases. You make a brilliant armchair general no balls and no brains.

saf,Diplomacy only... (Below threshold)
avaroo:

saf,

Diplomacy only works when you have two willing sides. Your examples are Qatar, Kuwait and UAE, all WILLING diplomacy participants.

Do you honestly believe that diplomacy can work when you have only one willing side? There's nothing wrong with being idealistic but should we not recognize that there are some people who simply aren't willing to negotiate a peaceful solution?

Twelve years of sanctions and diplomacy did not result in Saddam abiding by what he agreed to when Gulf War I ended in a ceasefire. And surely you know that those 12 years and that failed diplomacy resulted in many more than 2,000 lost lives. Maybe not lost American lives but are Iraqi lives worth less than American lives?

There is one thing that I u... (Below threshold)
cat:

There is one thing that I usually agree with Jay on (surprised?) - that the chickenhawk argument is a political gimmick that should have been dropped after one day. But the rants I read here make me question my judgment. Perhaps -S is a hero who has fought bravely for his/her country. I doubt it. But -S and others happily abuse people who have done just that. Although I still don't go along with the chickenhawk thing, when I read such scandalous rubbish I find myself agreeing with saf - go and fight yourself then -S. You're starting to sound like the women in Britain who used to publicly shame men in Britain during the senseless slaughter of WWI by pinning chicken feathers on them. Sometimes the victims of these bastions of pointless patriotism turned out to be wounded war heroes.

When armchair pundits accuse decorated veterans of treachery and cowardice, you know something is seriously wrong.

It wouldn't be so bad if the people who launch these baseless attacks actually had some grip on the reality of what is happening. But what do I read here? Twittering about WMDs having been found in Iraq - even the Bush administration doesn't try to pull that one. Support for torture - and belittling of veterans who experienced torture first-hand like John McCain who oppose it. And babbling about winning the war against terrorists - when there weren't any active terrorists in Iraq until the invasion. Yes, I know there was one big one - al-Zarqawi - but he was in the Kurdish region protected by the British/American no-fly zone.

I'll say one thing for the truly dedicated war supporters here - at least you're consistent. Despite all the evidence against your delusions, you maintain them with admirable perseverence. You're not afraid to be seen to be wrong, unlike all the politicians and media who seem to have only switched sides when they found they were on the losing one.

As facts and opinion turn steadily against you, you are beginning to sound more and more like the European communists after the fall of the Soviet Union - lost souls who are determined to hold on to their discredited dreams.

Avaroo, UAE, ... (Below threshold)
saf:

Avaroo,
UAE, kuwait, and Saudi and even eygpt they are all even dictatorships, have you ever been there because i have, in american eyes these countries are ok because they listen to America not very ethical now is it, so which part of the resolutions did saddam not listen to then the one that says you cannot have weapons of mass destruction.

About the lives lost you are so selective classic propagan trick, your right lives were lost during those twelve years which were iraqi but are you tryin to say no Iraqi have lost lives in the last 3 years, by any study and the most conservative of estimates more lives have been lost in the last 3 years then in those previous twelve, you see histroy shows that the evil tyrant saddam did majority of his killing whilst he was the ally of America and Europe.

In fact rummy met him week after he gassed the kurds, you see this is why the world gets pissed off with American hypoprisy, and no i aint a democrat in fact i believe this would have happend even if a democrat was in charge

People serve in our mili... (Below threshold)
mantis:

People serve in our military with honor and dignity and risk their frickin' lives each and every hour of active duty and the best this stupid, vile Senator can offer is "diplomacy" and withdrawal from Iraq? Send this man to the front lines and let him harp on there as long as he can hang on.

My patience with this sort of tripe by this sort of coward is at an end.

-Rep. John Murtha: 37 years for the Marine Corps. From his website:

In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, receiving the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He remained in the Reserves until his retirement.

Who's the coward here Suzy, the Colonel, or you? Wait! I think it's time to question his medals now!

Again the left trots yet an... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Again the left trots yet another person of seemingly unquestionable integrity to try and support its case for pulling out the troops. And again this tactic rings false and smacks of political partisanship.

The complete lack of foresight--a quality Dems and anti-war protestors claimed pounced on the President for when it came to the planning for post-war Iraq--demonstrated in Mutha's outline only highlights and emphasizes the Lefts own lack of foresight when it comes to considering the consequences of cutting and running. Even more disturbing is that they know damn well what those consuquences would be: a massive slaughter of Iraqis by baathist thugs, Saddamites, Zarqawi and Co. and assorted foreign forces. But all that be damned if it makes Bush look bad.

And, cat, as for "...despite all the evidence against your delusions, you maintain them with admirable perseverence. You're not afraid to be seen to be wrong..."

I'm not afraid to be wrong because the facts, history and logic are on my side; not yours. The only pathetic excuse you have is your ignorant revisionist history, selective memory, twisted logic, remarkably discredited conspiracy theories (i.e., Bush manipulated intelligence, no connections to AQ and a host of other BS) and a bag full of hatred for a man that blinds you.

You're not un-American, you're not for the terrorists; you're just pathetic.

Michelle Malkin links to th... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Michelle Malkin links to this blog on the consequences of cutting and running. It's well said.

Cat- What plane... (Below threshold)
lowmal:

Cat-

What planet are you from??

"When armchair pundits accuse decorated veterans of treachery and cowardice, you know something is seriously wrong."

Well, when a decorated veteran can do nothing more than preach treachery and cowardice, something IS seriously wrong.. And it deserves a critical response.

Just because he is a veteran does not mean he can't be wrong..

"And babbling about winning the war against terrorists - when there weren't any active terrorists in Iraq until the invasion."

You're right.. 90% of those "active" terrorists were in Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia before the war.. These terrorists are not part of an "Iraqi insurgency".. They are commissioned by terrorist states and al Qaeda to undermine our efforts to transform a nation oppressed by a ruthless, murdering scumbag into one that is uniquely democratically represented..

"Support for torture - and belittling of veterans who experienced torture first-hand like John McCain who oppose it."

In case you've been dead from the neck up for the past year, those US soldiers who were involved in what you flippantly call "torture" were tried and convicted for their crimes.. We already have laws and guidelines outlining what is and is not acceptable treatment for detainees.. That's why McCain's "Torture Bill" is nothing more than a groveling, look-how-good-we-are pile of horseshit.. We don't need it..

And your indirect insinuation that the true torture John McCain endured could in any way be remotely comparable to anything that has been alleged to have been done by our military is, well, ignorant..

"It wouldn't be so bad if the people who launch these baseless attacks actually had some grip on the reality of what is happening."

What reality might that be?? The one you read about everyday in the New York Times?? I've got some Bush National Guard memos to show you, too..

Honorable military service ... (Below threshold)
smitty:

Honorable military service does not automatically translate into political insight of competence. I don't agree with Murtha, I think his "solution" is a recipe for chaos in Iraq and a smashing victory for the jihadis. An over the horizen military force and increased diplomacy are fig leaves, nothing more.

Does anyone (including Murtha) think that we'll send troops back into Iraq to stop the inevitable civil war, Kurdish genocide or overthrow another repressive Baathist regime? What diplomatic leverage will we have in the area ? None whatsoever.

I call Murtha deluded and question his competence. There are people on this thread that seem to think that his service in Vietnam provide him immunity to critcism. Please don't bring up those tired "chickenhawk" and "armchair pundits" cliches. I'm not questioning anything about Murtha other than his grasp of the reality of the situation.

BTW. I served in Vietnam too, so do my opinions carry the same weight as Murtha's?

FYI: C-SPAN is carrying the... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

FYI: C-SPAN is carrying the debate on the Murtha resolution now and has been for a while.

D. Kucinich just blew a gasket. Holy cow, the guy ran for President. He's certifiable.

Incidently, don't these members know they are "mic"ed? They are practically screaming at the podium... as if volume strengthens one's case. What a spectacle. The moonbats are definitely out tonight.

For those who haven't yet r... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

For those who haven't yet read the trackbacks, review Caerdroia's. It is quite thoughtful and comprehensive. Very well done and quite logical. Congressman Murtha does not maintain absolute authority in this debate.

General Douglas MacArthur w... (Below threshold)
Mikey:

General Douglas MacArthur was a decorated soldier, competent, ny, gifted. In his profession he was a Great.

That does not mean that I would endorse or support his foreign policy judgment. Gifts and service in a profession, at one level of that field, does not translate into immediate clear, logical, insight in another field.

Rep. Murtha is rightly honored for his service, but is not automaticaly due any deference for his ideas at this time.

I mean, Audie Murphy was a genuine war hero, but other than asking him what drinks I should buy, I wouldn't take his advice on anything else.

Oh, how to wipe out a German infantry company - I would take his advice on that.

RE: saf's post (November 18... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: saf's post (November 18, 2005 11:27 AM)
...with out the use of Muslim bases on Muslim countries run by dictatorships, you really think America could have carried out a successful invasion without the UAE airspace, Kuwaiti and Qatari bases...

Invasion? Probably, but maybe not. It certainly would have been more difficult. Nevertheless, that would not have constrained U.S. defense should that scenario have been presented. Fortunately for the region we have the most disciplined, humane, and technologically advanced military in the world. If invasion had been removed from the list of options, the U.S. military could have used serious weapons and vaporized the entire desert in any number of ways. Certainly not a desirable outcome, but one that would have protected American lives (at the expense of many others).

Note that it is the military's concern for humanity that causes these valorious coalition (and, yes, U.S.) citizens to risk their own lives for the liberation of others; nonetheless, make no mistake that there are always limits to the sacrifice the U.S. is willing to expend. When that threshold is superceded, lookout. As the saying goes, no greater a friend, no worse an enemy.

All it takes is consistent public resolve at home and these soldiers will finish the job. It's the Murtha's of the country that impede that process despite intermittent "hawkishness". A major point that discredits Murtha to some degree is that he has been advocating retreat for some time, certainly prior to the electoral success that the Iraqis have recently experienced. Kinda hard to be a hawk when one is pushing for the rear despite bona fides of days long past.

A question: what objectives... (Below threshold)

A question: what objectives/goals still have to be achieved in Iraq before coalition forces can be drawn down to pretty much a supervisory/instructional force? Another question: Realistically, how long before a replacement number of Iraqi troops (grunts, not upper echelon) will be ready to lace up their boots and go out on patrols? And a bonus question: Should a military draft be instituted in Iraq?

Seriously. I'm baffled.

A question: what objectives... (Below threshold)
Grace Nearing:

A question: what objectives/goals still have to be achieved in Iraq before coalition forces can be drawn down to pretty much a supervisory/instructional force? Another question: Realistically, how long before a replacement number of Iraqi troops (grunts, not upper echelon) will be ready to lace up their boots and go out on patrols? And a bonus question: Should a military draft be instituted in Iraq?

Seriously. I'm baffled.

[Note - this story was c... (Below threshold)
bobbie:

[Note - this story was clipped. Copyrighted materials may not be republished here (or at any other site). Next time "bobbie" will be banned]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

...Rumsfeld has yet to sign Casey's withdrawal plan but, the senior defense official said, implementation of the plan, if approved, would start after the December 15 Iraqi elections so as not to discourage voters from going to the polls.

The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn.

Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

Who's the coward here.. ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Who's the coward here.. ..Wait! I think it's time to question his medals now!

chickenhawk argument is a political gimmick

Perhaps -S is a hero who has fought bravely for his/her country. I doubt it.

What's with the anti war pricks being so quick to judge that those who disagree is a coward? Why not just say "there are NO x, y or z located halfway around the fucking world" or "this guy wasn't associated with this other guy halfway around the fucking word" without any knowledge whatsoever.

How the hell do you know?

Oh, I see - "But, but, but, my elected politician(s) told me so." - or perhaps "I read it on the Internet from a stranger who claimed to be there.". Admit it - you don't know.

While I make no claims myself or others, it's the exact same thing as saying you're a coward without considering that there are a lot of civilians working in or around military programs or doing something productive for their country.

Example - I'm a fat guy who if enlisted in some military service would probably be the first soldier in history to run over himself with a bulldozer, machine gun himself with several shots to the back followed by a death with a self-inflicted bayonet to the nape - so why the hell am I a coward because I have an opinion? Believe me, I'm a lot better off contributing to the GNP of this country.

From what I've read in this blog and other right-leaning blogs is that most are stating that Murtha is a minion of the Dems rolling back his stance - with a full media circus in tow. While there are more harsh words than that, that's the crux...

What you Liberal jagoffs should really be doing is instead of defending someone like Murtha's comments, is, highlighting the heroics of People like John Kerry, Max Cleland, Wesley Clark and now John Murtha who are known for their unmistakable ability to exploit the media in the name of being a "hero". Kerry's a classic example - he's always been and always will be a media slut now matter how many times or how much he says he support the troops.

Is John Kerry really a hero - who gives a shit? It's difficult enough to tell what the man is saying without the rest of the Democrats' nuts in his mouth, including Hillary's.

RE: Grace Nearing's post (N... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Grace Nearing's post (November 19, 2005 12:14 AM)

A question: what objectives/goals still have to be achieved in Iraq before coalition forces can be drawn down to pretty much a supervisory/instructional force?

Strategically, and all too briefly, a Middle Eastern "democratic" governmental analogue with a defense structure capable of maintaining it. Defining the minutiae would require a treatise, a crystal ball, and a good bit of luck.


Another question: Realistically, how long before a replacement number of Iraqi troops (grunts, not upper echelon) will be ready to lace up their boots and go out on patrols?

Iraqi troops are lacing 'em up and patrolling. The level of their independence varies from mission to mission; but I'm sure you know that you don't just slap a uniform on a guy and call him a soldier. That's what populated much of the old Iraqi army and it is clearly inadequate. This isn't a jobs program but a real defense corps we're talking about and it takes time. It also requires an infrastructure from which to operate and to reinforce. None of this is done overnight and hard predictions are impossible.


And a bonus question: Should a military draft be instituted in Iraq?

They reportedly don't need one. It's not a matter of a lack of volunteers for the job as much as it is a limitation of professionally training a vast population of people to become professionals themselves.


Seriously. I'm baffled.

It's a tough problem, no doubt, which explains the reticence of administrations past to stir this particular hornets nest. Make no mistake, however, that it is an achievable goal and one that is progressing. You just don't hear enough about it from our media... at least if you're in America. This is a war like we've never seen, contrary to the Vietnamization of it by naysayers and political opportunists, and it will take every bit of resourcefulness we are able to muster.

But don't be baffled. Be a realist with conviction that the current mission is succeeding and that the WoT will eventually conclude. This may sound like cheerleading but I don't think it is. The "cheery" component is necessary to contradict the ever present fatalists in our midst who would snatch defeat from the jaws victory just to self-flagellate or position themselves for another election.

Among those who criticize M... (Below threshold)
cat:

Among those who criticize Murtha and McCain, there are two kinds of people.

One kind acknowledges their service to their country but disagrees with a particular opinion they espouse. That is perfectly understandable and legitimate.

Then there is that other kind of person who calls them cowards and traitors dispite the fact they have proved otherwise. I would imagine this kind of person would also forgive the unforgivable use of the race card in the 2000 primaries - not to mention the drug addict wife slander etc. etc.

Thanks, AnonymousDrivel (an... (Below threshold)
Grace Nearing:

Thanks, AnonymousDrivel (anonymous yes, drivel no).

AnonymousDrivel, ... (Below threshold)
saf:

AnonymousDrivel,
You really do seem to be on a totally different planet, your right you could totally vaporize the whole of the Middle East but I thought this was about spreading freedom, and wiping out a whole region is not going to do a lot of good to Americas image now is it apart from in your perverse sad little mind. The world has nuclear weapons, there are a number of countries who could vaporize the whole of the middle east so America is not special in that way only difference is responsible countries do not go round wiping out a whole region. I just still cannot believe fools like you still believe the war was just about protecting American lives.

saf, yes, they are all dict... (Below threshold)
avaroo:

saf, yes, they are all dictatorships. But your point was that UAE, Egypt, Kuwait, etc and the US used diplomacy to work together. I merely pointed out that diplomacy CAN work IF you have 2 willing sides. It CANNOT work if you have only one willing side. Your response does not address that issue.

If you want to know which part of the UN resolutions Saddam "did not listen to" by which I guess you must mean Saddam "did not abide by", wll you can read that in each subsequent resolutions which spelled out what he hadn't done in the previous ones.

It's unlikely that you'll be able to convince anyone that it was ok for Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over many years, simply because at one time, 20 years ago, he was an ally of the US.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of the hypocrisy over Saddam rests with those who supported him even until 2003, friends like Mr. Chirac. The world now knows why some nations refused to vote to enforce UN resolutions.

RE: saf's post (November 20... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: saf's post (November 20, 2005 05:20 AM)

...I thought this was about spreading freedom, and wiping out a whole region is not going to do a lot of good to Americas image now is it apart from in your perverse sad little mind.

"This" was about numerous things, not the least of which was protecting American, and by extension allied, lives. The argument was not one of a litany of recourse with merits supporting or detracting from each option. Rather, it was the recognition of more powerful options, nuclear being the most extreme but not the exclusive "serious" weapon, regardless of their political consequence in the furtherance of defending America and its interests.


The world has nuclear weapons, there are a number of countries who could vaporize the whole of the middle east so America is not special in that way only difference is responsible countries do not go round wiping out a whole region.

True. But I suspect those "responsible" countries would use whatever tools they had in their arsenal if the leaders felt that their citizens and the country's existence were at risk from provedly dangerous regimes and that no other options remained. If limited options are imposed by external forces, then countries must work within the framework they have been presented.


I just still cannot believe fools like you still believe the war was just about protecting American lives.

First and foremost, it was. If it wasn't, then I would want the administration's policy heavily scrutinized and, possibly, the President impeached. A country does not send its soldiers unless there is a vital interest at stake. Protecting its constituents is the most vital. Everything else is secondary and should be open to heavy critique.

Now, your original point was that the use of Muslim bases was the limiting factor of our "success". That is wrong. An invasion would have proved more difficult but it would have been done... eventually. Fortunately, extreme measures were unneccessary, so those dictatorships actually ended up sparing Muslim lives among many others. You should consider sending them a "Thank You" card.

I'm taking a risk here, but I have a question for you: Why did the U.S. wage this war since it obviously wasn't "just about protecting American lives"?

Ok I will send a thank you ... (Below threshold)
saf:

Ok I will send a thank you card to the Muslim dictatorships for saving Muslim lives, once again you have proved yourself to be on a different planet, them Muslim dictators did what dictators always do which is not to serve the best interest of their people they have simply done what it takes to save their own asses and keep themselves in power. If you knew anything about politics and history of the area you would know that the overthrow of the baathist regime was one of the main goals stated by al quida.. When will you get it into your heads the dictatorships of the area may fear America as they are keen to keep themselves in power but the people of those lands certainly have no fear of America or its technological weapons. You think your soldiers are brave and restrained in their fighting. What a load of crap is that why they don’t dare to venture into an enemy city in Iraq before flattening it from 30,000 ft above, and all this against a bunch of people in flip flops with nothing more than RPG’s and Kalashnikovs who only represent 20% of the population how would the US cope of the shia rebelled too that’s why they very busy kissing Sistanis ass. (shia religious leader)

You say why do I think America went to war if it was not to protect their citizens, well can you tell me how many Americans ( and allied) has Iraq war protected, I mean 911 involved the loss of about 3000 lives we are fast approaching that number of American deaths in Iraq, so how many Iraqis were involved in 911, so how many terrorist attacks did Iraq plan and which were repelled since 911. I cannot change the minds of people who watch fox news for serious information but let me tell you around the rest of the world and especially for people who know a bit about the history of the area the idea of Saddam funding islamist is a total joke, in fact we actually laugh when we hear you guys mention it the first thing we always ask is “how can such a highly educated population be so brain washed”. In fact just before Saddam was caught a letter of his was intercepted which showed that even then when on the run and when he needed the islamist the most he was still wary of them, warning his supporters to watch out for them, why did he hate them well simple they were the biggest threat to him just like they are to all the middle east rulers.

Why I think that America went to war you say no country would go to war unless it wasn’t to serve a national interest and that’s why America went to protect its citizens, well there is a difference between protecting national interest and protecting citizens, and national interest can be wealth and Iraq as you know has the second biggest oil reserves in the world but wait of course that has nothing to do with it I mean countries only did that stuff for hundreds of years now they have all changed, but if America did not want anything to do with Iraqi oil why was the first thing they did after the invasion of Baghdad was to threaten Syria that the Iraqi oil pipe line to Syria will be switched off unless Syria changes its behavior, that may not be stealing Iraqi oil but it certainly using it to achieve a political objective an American political objective.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy