Very well said.

I've spent part of the past 24 hours reviewing my own thoughts on Zarqawi's death and I found that I had surprisingly few feelings on it. On the one hand, I can certainly see the advantage in the elimination of a major leader on the other side of this war.

However, I find myself uncertain that his death will lead to a lasting advantage. The Iraqi insurgency is still out there, Sadr continues to be a pain in the tail (though he seems to have chosen "political pain in the tail" over "militant pain in the tail"), and the occupation of Iraq and establishment of its new government is still in the middle of a long, hard process.

Whether his death represents an elusive, momentary victory or a lasting triumph in the Iraq operation remains to be seen.

--|PW|--

Zarqawi, "a canny exploiter of the media" you say. I don't think the media (MSM) have been or are being exploited any more than the media have been exploiting Zarqawi. After all, they're on the same side. Everyone should cut the pretense, yesterday (Zarqawi's death) was a dark dark day for the MSM (and the Dems). They can only hope for his replacement real soon.

What an amazing day yesterday. Iraqis celebrated and Democrats mourned the loss of Zarqawi.

The MSM helped build up Zarqawi into this 'invincible leader'. Now they start claiming he was not a significant force.

Typical MSM: When one of their icons falls, they simply minimize him and raise up a new one.

drjohn & ted

the doc wrote: " I don't think the media (MSM) have been or are being exploited any more than the media have been exploiting Zarqawi. After all, they're on the same side"

and Ted wrote: "yesterday (Zarqawi's death) was a dark dark day for the MSM (and the Dems)."

You must be a couple of Coulter hate puppies w/ remarks like yours. Did the Bitch of Hate feed you those lines.

You 2 scumbags couldn't come up w/ a single shred of evidence to support your bile.

It's no wonder you 2 take the positions you do: Reason has nothing to do w/ your twisted hate thought.

Insurgents in Iraq can only survive by being able to hide. Once they and their hiding place are known they can be taken out without warning by a precision weapon, or assaulted by overwhelming ground forces. One or more Iraqis ratted out Zarqawi. Now that Iraq has an elected government, it just may be that your average Iraqi citizen has turned against the insurgents. If that's true, then the insurgents have lost the war, as there's no way they can hide from the people of Iraq.

While conventional wisdom is to downplay the killing of Zarqawi, we may have just witnessed the turning point in Iraq. I would hate to think we missed this nexus in the rush to be cautions.

As Mac said, some of the intelligence targeting Zarqawi apparently came from his own circle of associates. Was his power fracturing? Maybe the $25 million finally looked like a pretty good nest egg to someone who had some concrete information.

Zarqawi is frequently referred to as Al Qaeda's 2nd in charge.

Ask yourself, to what degree would the U.S. be crippled by the loss of VP Cheney...?

"You two scumbags couldn't come up w/a single shred of evidence to support your bile."
Here's your evidence, asshat. But don't question your patriotism, right?

I like the way mak44 excoriates Ted and Dr. John for being "Coulter hate puppies" and then proceds to be just as hateful.
Ah, the hypocrisy of the tolerant, openminded liberal. A person who cherishes diversity of opinion above all else, unless it contradicts with his own beliefs. Then he wants to have them rounded up and gassed! But in an openminded, tolerant way.

cmd

If you think that Times article substantiates what ted & drjohn said above, you ARE THE ASSHAT.

Pete Starkes' remarks come the closest to the above allegations, but still miles away.

The problem w/ an ASSHAT like you, cmd, is that you can't stand the reality that the death of Zarqawi is not the Victory in Iraq nor is it vindication of Bush's insane policy of pre-emptive action.

The MSM helped build up Zarqawi into this 'invincible leader'. Now they start claiming he was not a significant force...Typical MSM: When one of their icons falls, they simply minimize him and raise up a new one.

You mean the MSM that showed those funny videos of Z-boy in his trainers and did the voiceovers that pointed out how fat he was and how he needed help with the gun? That MSM?

You ignorant stack of soyashit. The "MSM" is the big evil strawman the Taliban neoconservatives have cooked up as an invincible enemy to oppose. The idea is that somewhere down the line every ignorant dickhead in this country -- and that's a mighty cloud of ignorant dickheads -- will stop listening to the "MSM" altogether and take their cues from the deliberately skewed conservative media reich that's being built up here.

Fuck off and die.

Yours in Christ,

astigafa

(already regretting this...)

OK, mak, how about this: a massacre in Haditha is ONLY news if it's the US Marines accused of doing it. When the terrorists do it, it's hardly worth a mention.

And if you can recycle photos from the terrorist slaughter and use it to smear the Marines, all the better.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005343.htm

Good enough for you?

J.

No, astigafa, we mean the media that repeatedly played the selectively-edited video of Zarqawi showing him as the mighty warrior, until the US Army released the captured outtakes -- which were all over the internet BEFORE the media would deign to air them.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

J.

Zarqawi's death is good thing for several reasons:

1-revenge. the bastard needed to be killed for his acts. revenge is good.
2-counter terror. the terrorist leaders are getting a pucker factor. they are not above the fray. now they know they are targeted and it's more than just rhetoric. this hampers them more than we think due to the fact they are now forced to take more care in hiding which is disruptive to them.
3-loss of status. no matter what horrors they do now, they cannot project the illusion of invincibility among the Iraqi people.
4-the rat effect factor. All the terrorist now know that they are subject to being ratted out for money.

If we zip a few more out from AQ and take out a few from the other groups, Sadr and a few baathist terrorists, our chance for ultimate success has grown enormously.

Ah, the hypocrisy of the tolerant, openminded liberal.

Ah, the lying, hateful, stupid, backwards, inbred, family-trees-don't-branch-here, racist, fascist, anti-freedom, anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-science, anti-human, warmongering, asswipe, asshat, pickup-truck-driving, goat-tippling, Newt fan, Coulter fan, planet-raping, knuckle-dragging, supposedly Christian pethican submoron neoconservatives.

What would America be without you?

Free.

No, astigafa, we mean the media that repeatedly played the selectively-edited video of Zarqawi showing him as the mighty warrior, until the US Army released the captured outtakes -- which were all over the internet BEFORE the media would deign to air them.

Great, Jay. Your record for taking down your own strawmen is perfect. Nobody said, "See the mighty insurgent warrior!"

So the US Army released the captured outtakes. Where did you see them? Right. MSM.

Pathetic.

You cannont question mak's patriotism because he/she doesn't have any patriotism!

astigafa, I know it's a challenge for you, but TRY to keep a civil tongue.

AS I SAID, I saw those outttakes on the internet -- several blogs -- before they were aired on the MSM. The MSM didn't think they were that important UNTIL people started asking why they weren't being shown.

Could your stream of invective, combined with your misreading my earlier comment possibly qualify as "lying" and "hateful?" If so, you're well on your way towards fulfilling your own insults. Projecting much?

J.

astigafa,

"Ah, the lying, hateful, stupid," etc...

Funny, not one of your insults applies to me, yet my view is diametrically opposed to yours.
Perhaps if you made even a token attempt at debate instead of outright name-calling, people would be more inclined to take you seriously.

In fact, after reading the eloquent ending of your first post in this thread, i.e., "Fuck off and die." makes me realize you have nothing to say that is worth reading.

Jay,

Let's get this straight. The news is reporting on some neew terrorist guy from Jordan, turns out to be Zarq-boy; al Jazeera offers some video of the guy. In the ideal media world that you would build, you would not have the news run the only video they have? Would you have him represented by a blinking light like fucking Tinkerbell? Showing the video proves that the "MSM" worships the guy and is deliberately trying to scare Americans into surrenduring to him?

I repeat: Showing the only videos you have of the buy proves that your a pro-Islamic defeatist? If I didn't see those videos of the fat ineffective Zarq on the "MSM," where, oh self-appointed "best blogger on the net," did I see them?

Wow, astigafa, do you think you can ever just stick to the actual facts being discussed, rather than resorting the typical Democrat ad hominem attacks? Pretty sad, actually.

Anyway, we now have the additional great news that al-Z lived long enough to see who had defeated him. And now he gets to meet his new eternal master. I'm sure he's more than a little disappointed.

Jay Tea

"OK, mak, how about this: a massacre in Haditha is ONLY news if it's the US Marines accused of doing it. When the terrorists do it, it's hardly worth a mention."

Jay, if you think that observation above becomes reality, simply for having been stated, it comes as no surprise that you have bizarre takes on world stage events.

For one matter, Haditha is news because the indications are that US forces were involved in quite possibly a deliberate massacre. At this stage, it is no different from My Lai in Viet Nam: the Right made the same allegations about the Media Lies.

The very notion that you can take American "kids" from their safe environment at home, throw them into Bush's meat-grinder of a war, where every Iraqi is a potential enemy in a killed-or-be-killed environment; having them immersed in human horror beyond the belief of any of us to imagine & naively believe that all our forces will engage only in a proper "civilized" manner is beyond belief.

What you Righties cannot abide is having the folks at home discover what a hideous meat-grinder this Bush War is. Anyone bringing attention to this reality must be skewered and must be accused of giving aid & comfort to the enemy. The Right are past masters at this sort of propaganda. You people seem to love guts& glory especially when it's someone else's guts on the line..

As for Malkin, I have seen her on Bill Maher and it was plenty sufficient to see where she is coming from. For a twisted warp on world events, one can always get a good fill from her. If that's where you go to gather your ammo, it is further explanation of some of what you post.

One bottom line on Haditha: The US began to pay the victims & survivors of Hadditha last year before the story ever came to light. Is the US Department of Defense a victim of distorted MSM propaganda & manipulation? Were they fooled by some DOD psychic who foresaw some elements of the Media coverage of Haditha, but they went ahead w/ the paymrnts anyway?

Guess you'll have to wait for Malkin & Coulter to get a take on that.

hey Jay,
Remember this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

One of the main problems libs have with the MSM now-a-days is the fact that they are just spokespeople for the gov't and provide no background or critical analysis.

So did the MSM pump up Zarqawi? Sure. But were they being goaded into doing it by our own gov't? Very possible.

Funny, not one of your insults applies to me, yet my view is diametrically opposed to yours.

Independent analysis suggests that about 95 percent of those insults apply to you, actually.

Battsman

You barfed, "rather than resorting the typical Democrat ad hominem attacks? "

Apparently you are totally unaware of the Misstress of Civility, Ann Cunter, and her protege Malkin.

sorry, I forgot to make the link hot

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html

Ann C

aplogies for the typo-sorry

Wow, astigafa, do you think you can ever just stick to the actual facts being discussed, rather than resorting the typical Democrat ad hominem attacks? Pretty sad, actually.

The typical Democrat ad hominem attacks? Shit, I was trying to be a senseless, strident buzzing blob of caffeinated flamewart. Back to the drawing board...

Could your stream of invective, combined with your misreading my earlier comment possibly qualify as "lying" and "hateful?" If so, you're well on your way towards fulfilling your own insults. Projecting much?

Shit, yes. I'm offended that you would even ask that question.

Oh, sean nyc/aa

The WaPo story you linked is only evidence of Media bias in reporting Reality.

Good riddance. I do pity the child who shared the meal of the 500lb bombs though. A wretched pawn in a game of othello.

I love it how the libs can't communicate without four-letter words. Intellectual titans, indeed.

As for Zark: To be honest, I don't know if there will be a short-term tectical advantage from his death. Plans previously made are already in motion, and will carry on regardless. The tactical effect will be longer-term, as the lifelines that the terrorists depend on gradually dry up. They'll have to resort to old-fashioned theft and piracy in order to support themselves, but in doing so they will have to expose themselves far more than they have been.

But the psychological effects should be profound and immediate. With the completion of the government, Iraq is a country again. Zark's death adds a sense that normalcy is returning, that people can get on with their lives again. It may not be the proverbial "tipping point" -- I'm not sure that there is any such thing -- but it adds momentum.

Astigafa:-- Are you suggesting that the MSM is neutral? Are you suggesting that the MSM and the Dems want things to go well for the USA in Iraq under the Bush administration?

Can you answer these questions honestly?

Interesting crop of trolls on this thread...sorry I missed it.

Reading through yesterday's LSM ("L" for LAME) and then today's editorials (see links at Hugh Hewitt) it is very obvious that the LSM and the Dim's lost their favorite sock-puppet yesterday.

Zark was the LSM's "Swamp Fox", and referred to most often as the "Leader of the insurgency" instead of as a "Terrorist". Zark was only interested in maintaining anarchy...as an enabler to his lust for death and destruction. This is not "insurgency", though the LSM always maintained it was.

There IS an actual "insurgency" in Iraq. The old Baathist Party members truly want a return to their days of free reign over the Iraqis. THEY are insurgents. Zark wasn't one of them.

Zark's death dealt a huge blow to the true "insurgents", not because he was one of them...but because they exploited the mayhem he created, and left the new Iraqi often seeming helpless. No more. The completion of the Iraqi Cabinet being timed to Zark's death sends a very compelling message: Iraq is NOT going back to what it was, and it is NOT going forward to what Zark wanted.

Ask yourself, to what degree would the U.S. be crippled by the loss of VP Cheney...?

Once again, Lee is a master of the irrelevant.

Lee,

Ask yourself, to what degree does al Qaeda behave like a functional 'regular' military? To what degree is it different? If you can answer those to quesitons with any measure of reality (not your reality, but the one sane people live in) then you would know the answer to your original question.

But that's not likely or you wouldn't have asked such a rediculous question to begin with.

Apparently you are totally unaware of the Misstress of Civility, Ann Cunter, and her protege Malkin.

Neither of whom are commenting here, I notice.

Oh, and mak? My dog Lucy has asked me to tell you something, but I don't like her using that kind of language.

astigafa:
In another thread, I asked you to demonstrate how you were different from Ann Coulter in matters of temper, taste or tone. You ignored me. In this thread you insulted me, my family and my political beliefs without knowing much more about me other than my first name. So, I ask again: How are you different from Ann Coulter? You're both shrill, hateful masters of the ad hominem attack. I see no difference. What I do see, however, is you projecting your own failings onto others and denying that they exist within yourself.

as Jay points out (very well) in the article which started this thread, Yamamoto's death was a HUGE blow to Japan. Yet he wasn't even the 2nd in Command in Japan (that would be Tojo...behind the Emporer).

And in fact Yamamoto was not in day-to-day command of operations either. But what he WAS, and what Zark WAS (alas, sniff, he is tits-up) was the ARCHITECT of their strategy. Yamamoto, and Zark, provided a confidence factor to their followers that they would somehow keep coming up with strategies and tactics that would enable them to carry on.

By the time we nailed Yamamoto (April 1943) the tide had already turned in the Pacific. But the Japanese clung to hope, and Yamamoto provided much of the strength for that clinging! He also DID have a knack for bold and imaginative thinking that might have yet provided us with a setback or two...but nothing was going to stop us at that point.

Zark was no Yamamoto. But he did provide some hope to his misguided followers (Jack Murtha, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, et al). That hope is gone now.

Justrand, excellent comment. Along these lines, the MSM (a/k/a LSM) and the Dems exploited Zark's mayhem in the same way as the Baathist Party "to return to their days of free reign" trying to make the current Bush administration "seem helpless".

Which is why, again, the killing of Zark was a dark dark day for the Dems and the MSM.

ted

You slobbered: "Astigafa:-- Are you suggesting that the MSM is neutral? Are you suggesting that the MSM and the Dems want things to go well for the USA in Iraq under the Bush administration?"

This is pure Hate of which many of you on the Right seem only to purvey.

What you bastards cannot abide is that not everyone is swept up w/ your jingoistic war shit & war glory while someone else is off doing the dying. You war-mongerers on the Right are knee-jerk responsive to the scent of blood & the lies that lead to the spilling of that blood.

The death of Zarqawi, while merited for the evil that he committed, is not some victory that will finally justify what Bush has done.

The Right's view of the world is totally myopic, and when it does not pan out, you must find the enemy within to explain the faulty vision.

What is it that makes me think that if I saw "mak44", "Lee Lee" and "astr'" in person (shudder) that they would have a great big BROWN ring around their nose with a "Z" tattoed above it? Hmmmm

JT, you made one real oopsy in this post:

"To see him snuffed out so casually, over and over and over again in the media,"

I know it's tempting to keep hope in the media alive, but it ain't gonna happen. The videos of our aircraft blowing his 'safe' house to crap were on TV last night, but they already seem to be giving way to old videos of bin laden to accompany the 'zarqawi's dead, but hey, what's that bin laden up to?' stories. No one is going to see him snuffed out over and over again unless they recorded it, because, like the twin towers crumbling, the media is going to try make these images disappear. It was already happening on our local news here in Albany this morning.

Justrand

You vomited: "Zark was no Yamamoto. But he did provide some hope to his misguided followers (Jack Murtha, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, et al). That hope is gone now."

Slander the opponents' patriotism because that is your last refuge for when your military & patriotic jingoism has taken you to a dead-end.

Hate & seems always to be SOP for the Right.

jhow66

"What is it that makes me think that if I saw "mak44", "Lee Lee" and "astr'" in person (shudder) that they would have a great big BROWN ring around their nose with a "Z" tattoed above it? "
ANSWER: Because you're accustomed to looking in the mirror yourself as you try to lick your face clean after having it up Bush's ass.

He he hit a nerve did I "mak-i-e 43 2/3) LOL

jhow66,

That's not hard. Ol' makie is ALL nerve.

I am surprised to not have seen mention of the similarities between the Z-man and Reinhard Heydrich, the number 2 man in the SS and so-called the "Butcher of Prague". Both men met untimely ends--at the height of their killing sprees.

I don't recall seeing any regret in the West over Heydrich's death, even though the Germans killed thousands of Czechs in retaliation--including wiping out the Czech villages of Lidice and Lezaky.

Would anyone say that Heydrich's death accomplished nothing?

Forgot to mention that Z-man and Heydrich both wanted to destroy...the Jews.

Everyone notice how extremely angry Lee, astigafa and mak44 are on this thread? I can almost feel the spit flying out at me through their screens.

I have no doubt that they wanted Zarqawi dead. But like the folks at the New York Times, they didn't want him to die now.

After months of saying that the Democrats bear no responsibility for anything that has happened in Iraq because they control nothing in Washington - now a good thing has happened and they can't point to Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid as having played any part whatsoever in it.

Yesterday must have been a really bad day for astigafa, mak44, et al ...

Independent analysis suggests that about 95 percent of those insults apply to you, actually.

Being that this "independent analysis" was likely performed by you and not someone who knows me, than it's about as useful as a cow with two assholes.
Anything in your ridiculously foul-mouthed litany that wasn't an opinion is completely wrong...and whatever was an opinion is just that, an opinion.

Then, you seem to take alot of your own opinions as fact, so I can appreciate where you went wrong with your "independent analysis".

It's easy to be hard, astigafa, but hard to be smart.

mak's your typical internet flamer, all talk so long as he's permanently hidden behind the shield of anonymity that the internet provides.

I'd be willing to bet that confronted with a Republican in public debate he would not only be infinitely more civil, but might even roll over in submission like an omega dog at the end of the argument.

It is completely untrue to say that the Democrats bear no responsibility for anything (negative) that has happened in Iraq. They are no less than absoultely critical to any success of the American opponents and insurgents in Iraq. This is not overstatement. The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public -- and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power.

Martin A. Knight

No anger here save with the usual Wizbang moronity of the Right.

So now Zarqawi is od'ed and we have no national V-I Day yet proclaimed because the l'il general is a wee bit more cautious than the day he "batmanned" onto the aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished."

And what's holding up V-I Day? Why it's the MSM and the treasonus Democrats, tenaciously holding out for defeat.

It's Viet Nam all over again. Everybody else is responsible for Bush's bloody mess, and it's come to a mess because the MSM is the puppet of the Terrorists and the Left has ordained that Iraq must end in defeat.

The bleatings by the usual cast of sheeple on this blog are beyond insanity.

I always relish the cries of Vietnam from the Dems.....you know, the party of LBJ....I seem to remember him being in some way connected to Vietnam....

Of course! That's it. The Democrats took us to Vietnam! I almost forgot. And it was Nixon that got us out.

ted

You posted: "The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public -- and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power."

That statement is not worth comment apart from the fact that it is recycled Viet Nam CRAP!

If I don't answer anything in the near future....it's because I've gone to bed. It's 9:53 PM here in Taji, Iraq, and I'm tired. 0530 hrs comes early.

mak44...you claimed that I vomited the following: "Zark was no Yamamoto. But he did provide some hope to his misguided followers (Jack Murtha, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, et al). That hope is gone now."

I would like to point out that the odds against even the chunkiest vomitus hitting those keys in that specific order to write that particular sentence are frankly astronomical!

Kinda like the odds ANY of the three morons I mentioned caring one damn about this country!! Astronomical!!

Zark IS dead...and the Left IS alternately claiming it is no big deal and missing him desperately!!

tough day for terrorists and Leftists (pardon the redundancy)

mak44, you claimed that Ted's post: "You posted: "The opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public -- and the Dems with their allies the MSM, are engaged in demoralizing the American public 24/7 as their only means back to power." was: "recycled Viet Nam CRAP!"

Well, it IS "recycled"...because it IS happening again.

and it IS crap that the MSM and Dims are doing it now, just like it was CRAP that they did it THEN.

is that what you meant???

Because the fact is that "opponents can not win by military means, only by demoralizing the American public"...that is indisputable.

and the FACT is that the major Dim mouthpieces (Kerry, Durbin, Murtha, Dean, et al) are havy contributors to the attempts to demoralize the American public.

and it IS a fact that the MSM does all it can to lend them credibility (where none exists)

David Earney

"Of course! That's it. The Democrats took us to Vietnam! I almost forgot. And it was Nixon that got us out."

I am well aware of LBJ's Viet Nam error, but you cannot rely on your boobism to rewrite history, which probably explains your current failure to understand the Iraqi situation.

It was in fact, Nixon, who was the first as Veep, to advocate to Ike that the US should pick up the failed French standard after Dien Binh Phou in 1954 in order to stop the commies from taking over the world.

To credit Nixon for ending the Viet Nam War when in fact he doubled the American death toll w/ a solution he could have imposed on Jan 21, 1989, cut and run, is imbecilic.

You are just another armchair general in a new era willing to let gothers do the dying for your jingoistic purposes.

mak44,

"That statement is not worth comment apart from the fact that it is recycled Viet Nam CRAP!"

You are correct mak, it is recycled Vietnam crap, thanks for agreeing.

Our enemies, now and back then, realized the only way to beat the Americans was to turn the American public against the war. It happened then and it's happening now.

Pardon, Justrand got to it before me.

Justrand

Your regurgitation is not debate-just the same lame crap that all the VN era armchair generals barfed up for years.

No doubt, Justrand, that it was the same thing that cost the French loss at Dien Binh Phou in 1954; the French military lost becuse of all the carping at home.

No anger here ...

Heh heh heh ...

... the l'il general is a wee bit more cautious than the day he "batmanned" onto the aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished."

That's another serious y'all on the Left have ... you simply have no clue about military matters. If you did, you'd know that such "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banners are usually put up on battleships when they come back to port from a mission - which usually are for months on end.

The banner is actually for the benefit of the men and women waiting for their loved ones serving onboard to come ashore.

Who knew it would offend the Left so?

... it's the MSM and the treasonus Democrats, tenaciously holding out for defeat.

Some may be of that opinion but not me ... You guys don't want a defeat. You just don't want a victory until one of your own is in the White House.

Heralder

"Pardon, Justrand got to it before me"

So you are joining up in the Ass-ship of the drooling fool armchair generals of 2 eras w/ that crap that the dissenters "made us lose?"

You pseudo military strategists have endless excuses. Hitler had a similar lament about what caused Germany's WWI loss. You militarist fools are all alike and you are always rewriting History because the outcomes do not meet up to your swagger.

"No doubt, Justrand, that it was the same thing that cost the French loss at Dien Binh Phou in 1954; the French military lost becuse of all the carping at home."

No, the French lost at Dein Binh Phou because they are the French.

All joking aside, the French lost in Vietnam to the Vietnamese, The Americans lost in Vietnam to the Americans.

While you're busy calling people armchair generals, perhaps you could tell me why you brought up Dein Binh Phou? That battle has no relevance to how the Americans lost a war that happend a decade later.

Martin A. Knight

Sorry, but your explanation for the "MA" banner on the carrier that day is pure invented BS.

Someone, I think it was Barlett, already admitted that it was a poor decision.

So your post is just more rewriting of history.

When Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in 1942 (exactly 64 years ago this week), the press did not question the death of this evil human being, the number two man in the SS. Even though the Germans killed thousands of Czechs in direct retribution, most people understood that his death was a significant victory in the War in Europe. It sent a clear message to the Germans that they would be held accountable for their killing spree, either by trial or by fire.

After Heydrich's death, the first three "trial" death camps were constructed and put into operation at Treblinka, Sobibór, and Belzec. The project was named Operation Reinhard in Heydrich's honor.

The fact that Himmler quickly replaced Heydrich with Ernst Kaltenbrunner and the Nazi Death Camps went into overdrive is irrelevant. Justice was served in the cases of Heydrich and Zarqawi.

"You pseudo military strategists have endless excuses. Hitler had a similar lament about what caused Germany's WWI loss. You militarist fools are all alike and you are always rewriting History because the outcomes do not meet up to your swagger."

Hitler wasn't exactly in a prime position to be judging why he lost the war being that he killed himself right around the time it ended. Seeing history over the broad lense of time and looking an many events in a logical sequence is not the benefit he was afforded.

At the risk of partaking in armchair-generalism, Can you tell me why the Americans lost in Vietnam?

OK, I'm a little late but...

I here by invoke the Vietnam version of Godwin's Law on MAK44!!

There are far more differences than similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, but you ignorant lefties always see EVERYTHING through the lens of Vietnam.

You are in serious need of a clue-by-4.

To be fair, mak44 wasn't responsible for bringing up Vietnam as a comparison to Iraq.

Heralder

I made the reference to DBP in Viet Nam as a counterpoint to your repetition of the "why we lost VN" horseshit that you insist upon repeating. Namely, from your perspective, it's always the politicians or the home-nationals who create the military defeat. Therefore, by your line of thought(?), it must have been the French politicians and treasonous people at home who defeated the French at DBP.

Yours is just more of the same crap in a vain attempt to explain military defeat because people like you have no perspective nor any knowledge of history.

Your repition of the Americans defeating the Americans in VN just reveals that you know absolutely nothing about that era of history, that BTW, began w/ duplidcity on someone's part during WWII.

mak44, as Heralder pointed out: "the French lost at Dein Binh Phou because they are the French"

Just like the Russians couldn't defeat Afghanistan because they are the Russians, the Iranians couldn't defeat Iraq because they are the Iranians, etc...

We are, in fact, different.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838)

Sheik Yur Bouty

There is little doubt that had you been at Haditha no fire would have been held.

The only reason that I referred to VN was because there is today more of the same BS carping about who is responsible for demoraliziong the troops in Iraq, or in that case, VN.

When Reality doesn't square w/ your view, then it must be the damn MSM or the defeat-at=any cost Democrats at home or both taken in bythe insurgents bill of goods..

mak44

you are correct in one (exactly) thing: it was our ill-advised re-embrace of the French after WWII that led us to turn our back on Ho Chi Mihn...a staunch allie during WWII against the Japanese.

as for the Vietnam war itself, though, you only have to look at the Tet Offensive to get the truth as to why we "lost" (in quotes because we abandoned South Vietnam to a brutal fate because of our feckless Senate).

The Tet Offensive was such a massive DEFEAT for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese that they briefly considered SURRENDERING (read Giap's memoirs)...until they realized the American and International Press was depicting it as a VICTORY for them.

From that point on Giap realized he could NOT lose, so long as the worldwide press was on his side. He knew that sooner or later the American people would grow sufficiently weary that they would watch as we betrayed South Vietnam. And instead of "a few hundred" dying in retribution (John Kerry estimate in numerous interviews at the time)...MILLIONS died.

The enemy within includes those actively working for our defeat, AND the "useful idiots" they exploit (which are you?)

Everyone notice how extremely angry Lee, astigafa and mak44 are on this thread? I can almost feel the spit flying out at me through their screens.

Yep, then they accuse us of adhering to politics based on hate. All the hate I see is coming from them.

The Democrats are the party of hatred and lies.

Heralder

Hey , hold your fire before you shoot. Your response was so f.....ng clever except it was about the wrong point.

If you go back & read you will see that I was referring to Hitler & his propaganda about why Germany lost WWI.

As to the VN loss; we lost because we were swimming against the tide of nationalism & history, the desire of the Viet Namese to be free of foreign domination, which initially was Fr. colonialism.

The situation emerged from US WWII duplicity in promising Ho Chi Minh that we would support VNese independence after WWII ended for his help in fighting the Japanese. At the end of the war, the US reneged & supported the return of VN to Fr colonial control. When the Fr were defeated in '54 at DBP, it was the anti-commie fanatic VP Nixon who urged Ike to pick up the Fr standard because, if we didn't stop the commies there, they'd be at our door, which of course is exactly what happened because the treasonus Left & the MSM ensured an American defeat & now we are fighting the commies off by the boatload as they invade the left coast. lol

We failed in VN because it was a war for national liberation and against US self-righteousness rooted in a history of duplicity, something that the fanatic anti-commies (read: conservatives) and armchair generals of that era couldn't comprehend.

When defeat became inevitable, because we didn't understand history, the armchair generas' cant became "Americans made America lose the war."

.

mak44,

made the reference to DBP in Viet Nam as a counterpoint to your repetition of the "why we lost VN" horseshit that you insist upon repeating. Namely, from your perspective, it's always the politicians or the home-nationals who create the military defeat. Therefore, by your line of thought(?), it must have been the French politicians and treasonous people at home who defeated the French at DBP.

As far as my insistance on repeating it, I've only said it once, one comment does not repetition make.
I've only compared two wars and in very limited fashion, Iraq and Vietnam. How is it that you then think I give that as reasoning for the loss of every war? To what do you attribute this conclusion that you've jumped to? Certainly not logic.

Yours is just more of the same crap in a vain attempt to explain military defeat because people like you have no perspective nor any knowledge of history.

My differing take on the matter does not in fact, mean I have no knowledge of history or no perspective, it means that my conclusion is different then yours; which apparently means I'm wrong in your eyes. I feel obligated to tell you that if you think everyone who disagrees with you on a particular subject therefore has no knowledge of the subject...it just may be you.

I didn't come here to compare credentials, IQs, or for verbal target practice; I came here to debate. If I removed accusations and personal attacks from every one of your recent posts on this subject there would be almost no substance.

Justrand

That is a history rewrite, pure horseshit.

Heralder

My reference to "repition" was not to say that you were harping over and over again, but rather a reference in general to the Right's continual repition of that canard about what cost the US its victory. You are but one of the voices "repeating" that claim.

mak44,

I'm falling a bit behind in the posting here, keep in mind that my posts that fall directly after yours are usually in reference to a post previous.

"If you go back & read you will see that I was referring to Hitler & his propaganda about why Germany lost WWI."

I know what you were referring to. I took your mention of this as proof that that many people claim a loss due to internal strife when it is not the case, was I correct?

As far as your asked for explanation as to why America lost in Vietnam, I think it is a good assemssment and correct, but not the entire answer. My answer would have been more in line with what Justrand said, thus I won't repeat it as we seem to be leap frogging each other.

Wars can and have been lost soley on morale.

Heralder

re: "I know what you were referring to. I took your mention of this as proof that that many people claim a loss due to internal strife when it is not the case, was I correct?"

What I was referencing was the Hitler notion that Germany lost WWI because the German military was stabbed in the back. Glory was lost to Germany because of what the politicians did in regard to the prosecution of the war. In other words, "Germans defeated Germany."

That hue & cry had a lot of appeal to the German population during the 1920's.

The same garbage was used by armchair generals of the Right following the loss of Viet Nam.

By this line of reasoning(?), defeat does not result from anything save treachery or foolishness on someone's part other than the fools who intiated the policy of war.

Unfortunately, it is all too similar to the line being passed out now about Iraq: that it is the MSM playing fool to the Terrorists & the Democrats seeking Bush's defeat. If this is meant to be a serious discussion of the situation in Iraq, it is preposterous.

mak44

Hitler's LIE was obvious. Germany lost WWI due to one basic fact: America's into the war (thus breaking a long brutal stalemate)

The TRUTH about Vietnam is also obvious. We fought a defensive war because the American people and political climate would not allow us to invade North Vietnam. As I mentioned before, even THAT strategy had some potential, except that after the Tet Offensive horseshit the press started realizing just how effective they could be in sapping what will remained in America. Then, of course, good ole John "Gehghis Kahn" Kerry comes along and provides the last bit of "proof" of how AWFUL we were...and shortly thereafter we cut & ran. To leave the South Vietnamese utterly defenseless...and weaponless.

When you lose ZERO battles throughout the entire course of a war, and leave the battlefield without the other side surrendering, then you have ABANDONED the fight, not LOST it.

Now the Left is trying to get us to abandon the fight again. Last time it was the South Vietnamese who suffered...this time it will be US.

but they do not care.

mak44,

I can see where you're coming from more clearly now and it makes perfect sense, I however am inclined to disagree on certain points. In light of this I would like to do some more research into the issue, maybe I can learn something new.

Meanwhile, today in Iraq, while no one has lost a war yet, there is plenty of media bias. When we can expect with almost certainty that whomever our enemy is will be reading what is said and monitoring our reaction and exploiting weaknesses trumpeted by the media, it begins to seem counterproductive. Now we're dealing with an enemy who specializes in victory by crushing their target's morale and will to fight, is it any wonder that people are sensitive to just that happening to us?

Can you see no liberal bias in the media?

Why is it that I get the feeling that if old mak-i-e 44 2/3 was in charge of the policy in the US everyone would have to have a permament pucker of the mouth?

Justrand

VN was lost because as Giap said, "When American combat forces were committed, it was a myth that we could not fight and win because they were so powerful. ... [We survived] because of our courage and determination, together with wisdom, tactics and intelligence..."
And because they were fighting for their homelnd.

Presumably you would have had the US invade the North at the expense of god knows how many more tens of thousands of American lives. Or as some of the Right armchair generals advocated, we could have turned VN into glass.

And for what? The moronic "Domino Theory" that never occurred? To save the West Coast from a commie invasion?

Had the Right & fools like a Michael Ledeen or a Richard Perle been in charge from the beginning of the Cold War, this planet would be a nuclear cinder.

Justrand

The LIE was obvious to all but the German people.

Heralder

"Can you see no liberal bias in the media?"

Curious, I see no liberal bias in the media to speak of. I see people like Richard Engel & Michael Ware, for example, doing their best to cover a situation where their lives are as much in danger as are those of American forces.

Frankly, there's a lot that isn't in the news media due to the corporate takeover & consequent dumbing down of news content. I see former investigative giants like Bob Woodward who now volunteer to be used as a rolls of WH butt wipes.

But, to speak of "liberal media bias" is lame. Unfortunately for people on the Right, I think Stephen Colbert hit it just about right at the WH Correspondents' Dinner with, "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
.

mak44

after Tet the Viet Cong was vastly diminished as a fighting force. The mere THREAT of an invasion of North Vietnam would have forced Giap to withdraw his forces to DEFEND his country. No such defense was ever necessary, and thus 100% of his forces could be committed southward.

The strategy, on our part, was senseless. But the complicity on the part of the worldwide and American media, and, after Nixon was elected, the Democrat Party, was despicable.

As for the media bias today...puhleeze. Try looking objectively (if you can) at the LA Times or New York Times.

Look first at which stories they cover...and which they do NOT (or minimize).

Next look at HOW they cover them. Which stories get covered well beyond what seems like a reasonable amount of time...and often with no compelling reason (i.e. something new) to do so. and look at which stories get short-shrift...and often when there IS a compelling reason to look deeper.

Examples of the liberal bias in the media abound. try looking at this objectively...if you can

Justrand

If there were a liberal media bias, the grounds for investigating this administration are so overwhelming that the Republicans in Congress could never gotten awawy w/ abandoning their Constitutional oversight function.

I still defer to Stephen Colbert.

Wow mak44, you make a lot of assumptions about me without knowing a single thing about me.

Like the well-established fact that I was against the war for the reasons it was started. Like the well-established fact that I still think we came here for the wrong reasons.

However, we are here, and we've done what we've done, and the only thing left is to finish the work, so that our boys can go home, and the Iraqis can stand up on their own.

You see, the difference between your position and mine is principle. I want to see the betterment of the Iraqi people's lives for the long haul. You want to see the emergence of a civil war by withdrawing and abandoning these people to the care of extremeism.