« About those fired US attorneys | Main | Favorite Opinion Columnist List »

Anti-War Activists Trying to Block Necessary Equipment to Our Troops

This is just despicable. To protest so their opinions can be heard is one thing. To try and physically prevent necessary life saving equipment to our troops is a whole different animal:

TACOMA, Wash. (AP)-- Five more anti-war protesters were arrested at the Port of Tacoma early Tuesday after a peaceful demonstration that included blocking train tracks.


The five were arrested for investigation of criminal obstruction and booked into Pierce County Jail, said police detective Brad Graham.

No injuries or property damage were reported, Graham said.

So far, 37 people have been arrested since demonstrations began March 3 at the port to try to block shipment of Stryker armored fighting vehicles to Iraq. The vehicles will be used by 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to leave nearby Fort Lewis for Iraq next month.

Between 75 and 100 protesters were at the port Monday night.

Tacoma police plan to have a round-the-clock presence at the port until the military equipment leaves.

Preventing supplies from reaching our troops on the front lines is something I'd expect our enemies to do. By blocking the deployment of these vehicles, these protesters are going way beyond freedom of speech; they are working for the benefit of our enemies.

Hat tip: AJ Strata.


Comments (44)

Can we now question their p... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Can we now question their patriotism? and for that matter loyalty?

This is more that stating a... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

This is more that stating an opinion against U.S. policy. We are currently engaged in conflict. I am sure it is a crime on the order of treason to prevent our military from getting the equipment they need to do the job Congress authorized and the President ordered them to do. How long will we tolerate this subversive behavior. These people are enemies of America.

Hmmmm train vs. a few human... (Below threshold)
La Mano:

Hmmmm train vs. a few humans. My wager is on the train.

I wonder how many of the pe... (Below threshold)

I wonder how many of the people who condemned Bush for not adequately supplying the troops approve of this sort of protest.

The Criminal party of pe... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

The Criminal party of perpetual fraud strikes again and gets busted again. Where is the Democrat Media? Oh that's right keep forgetting , THE DEMOCRAT MEDIA ONLY DOES "OFFENSE".

These dirtbags had to delay necessary equipment to Our Troops so John Fraud Kerry could get up in front of the Senate , ask for one more additional minute so we could watch his dead horse lying face spew out his party's standard 5 years running talking points.

Tears fall from the eyes of our Lady Liberty's Statue in New York every time the democrats scheme against her. Pretty much every minute of every day.

Save a Seal , club a Democrat

Save our Country , Club the whole pack of rats.

This isn't some random anti... (Below threshold)

This isn't some random antiwar protest. These people are targeting these shipments BECAUSE they are resupplying our troops in harm's way.

It seems to me that is an overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy.

The most ridiculous thing is that most of these folks will probably get a "personal recognizance" bond and be out to try and cause the deaths of more American soldiers before nightfall, and then MAYBE receive a small fine for their perfidy.

I wonder how many of the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I wonder how many of the people who condemned Bush for not adequately supplying the troops approve of this sort of protest.

I wonder how many of the people who call this protest "despicable", "something I'd expect our enemies to do", and "working for the benefit of our enemies" equally disapprove of Bush not adequately supplying the troops.

Unbe-freakin'-lievable

Shoot em, PERIOD!... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Shoot em, PERIOD!

Brian you are an idiot. Go ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Brian you are an idiot. Go step out in front of a semi.

Brian, your talking points ... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Brian, your talking points are about five years old. We did have war materiel shortage issues in 2002-2003; and given the pace of military procurement in peacetime, all your comment does is highlight the previous Administration's blatant attempts to downsize the military's ability to wage a protracted conflict. Ditto regarding manpower issues.

To my knowledge, the military side of the blogosphere is complaining about onerous armor requirements that are driven by political talking points instead of logistical realities on the ground. An overly armored Soldier is a slow one who wears out quickly due to the weight of his armor. In case you haven't learned yet, slow often equals wounded or dead.

But that really isn't your point, isn't it? My guess is that you thought you were making a clever comeback comment, and you congratulated yourself for your sublime cleverness even as you wrote it. I suggest you thank a Soldier for providing you the freedom that allowed you to mock them without fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile these protesters, I am guessing, believe that if they stop the flow of war materiel to the battle, they can somehow hasten troop withdrawals in the field. Never mind that the rank and file enlisted men are the ones who are much more likely to die because they don't have Stryker armored vehicles to conduct area patrols of urban areas. In the protester's mind, if the enlisted man dies, it's the fault of the commanders, not the fault of the protesters.

Except that the most important other group of people who agree with the protesters is the one whose tactics include kidnapping & beheading, and detonating themselves in the middle of, unarmed civilians and children.

So I suppose the protesters really do support the troops.

Just not ours.

Posted to digg.com... (Below threshold)
captaintucker:
"....something I'd expect o... (Below threshold)
Buckeye:

"....something I'd expect our enemies to do."
They are our enemies and why we call them unpatriotic and traitors.

Their attempt was silly and... (Below threshold)

Their attempt was silly and could never have been successful, but the intent was obvious and bordered on treasonous. Problem is, authorities will likely focus on the former rather than the latter. It's like going lenient on someone who attempts murder or robbery only because they weren't successful. "Well, he only went at it half-heartedly, officer."

What a bunch of idiots. An excellent example of how some on the left have become completely unhinged. Is there something in the air on the west coast?

I blame the DEMOCRATIC</... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

I blame the DEMOCRATIC Party.

They have influenced the most simpleminded into believing Democrats have always been against any aggressive action in Iraq.

They then allowed these extreme left wing moonbats to dictate the entire foreign policy agenda for the DEMOCRATIC Party.

The headline should read:

"DEMOCRATS" TRYING TO BLOCK NECESSARY EQUIPMENT TO OUR TROOPS

TACOMA, Wash. (AP)-- Five more "DEMOCRATS" were arrested at the Port of Tacoma early Tuesday after a peaceful demonstration that included blocking train tracks.

While "DEMOCRATIC" party lawmakers continue to push for cutting off funding for necessary supplies and equipment to the troops, their constituency has made attempts to physically block that equipment.

A spokesperson for the DEMORATIC Party that are blocking equipment who identifies himself only as Brain asks Republican troop supporters if they "equally disapprove of Bush for not adequately supplying the troops".

Jumpinjoe, a loyal American who used to believe Democrats when they said Saddam was a threat to our national security responded to Brian saying "what the eff"?

DEMORATIC Party leaders assured all Americans they were given a mandate for their actions of blocking supplies and equipment to our troops in November 2006 and hope all Americans would continue their support of DEMOCRATS and their attempts to undermine the military into 2008.

Oyster:I believe i... (Below threshold)
epador:

Oyster:

I believe its in the bottled water and granola, not the air.

Just send those idiots to I... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Just send those idiots to Iraq and let them protest there, any bets on how long they would last?

If Bush had balls he'd have... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

If Bush had balls he'd have them all tried for sedition and sent to the Supermax.

But he doesn't - at least when dealing with domsetic foes - so they'll be back on the railroad tracks soon enough.

No nation has ever gone int... (Below threshold)
Ben:

No nation has ever gone into a war with all the equipment its army wanted or needed. Ever.

No nation has ever tolerated people trying to block equipment going to its army in wartime. Until us, it seems, if we can't get it through our thick heads that these people are enemy, despite US citizenship. There is simply no difference between a US citizen interfering with logistics in 2007 and a US citizen serving on a Nazi U-boat in WWII. Both have decided that they will through their lot in with the enemy, and risk American lives.
It's been a fact of the laws of war that civilians making a material contribution to the war effort- for example, by working in a transportation or industrial facility supplying the war- may be targets. It seems, by extension, that civilians creating a material loss to the war effort might, by the same math, be targets.

Ben

Didn't some anti-war genius... (Below threshold)

Didn't some anti-war genius get his legs cut off by a train in the '80s at some protest?

I remember back when some j... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

I remember back when some jerk got his legs severed by the train when him and his idiot actvists were sitting on the train tracks. And if these jerks dont get off the tracks then they are stupid brainless idiots with their walnut sized brains

So far we have one anti-mil... (Below threshold)
Tim:

So far we have one anti-military idiot run over by a train here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969152,00.html
Plus, as a bonus, we have an anti-nuclear power wacko run down in Fwance.
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041107151310.vjrmasmc.html

Someone should ask General ... (Below threshold)
Michael Evilcorn:

Someone should ask General Pace if they've made more progress developing the "distasteful but completely non-lethal" Gay Bomb the Air Force once proposed. If so, is this currently being used in Iraq against the insurgents?

Being from the Puget Sound ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Being from the Puget Sound area, I can assure you this is NOT the first time this has happened.

I don't have time to research it, and I'm just going off memory here, but I know for certain there were protests in Tacoma last year; and I believe they also occurred prior to the start of both the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Many protesters come from the uber-liberal Evergreen State College.

And just yesterday, ESC-based groups interupted WA state Senate session, stating ""There is an anti-war sentiment in this state...We wanted to voice our opinion." (No shit? How'd would we have EVER guessed that?)

Here's the story: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/307394_localbriefs14.html

(Sorry, I'm forgetting how to code.)

Crapweasels.

Dear Mr. Engineer,... (Below threshold)
SicSemperTyrannus:

Dear Mr. Engineer,

Set throttle to "Ramming Speed".
Lather. Rinse. Repaet.

PLEASE don't everyone belie... (Below threshold)
metprof:

PLEASE don't everyone believe that all folks from Washington are like these ESC turds. Over here on the east side of the stste we ranch cattle, log, raise wheat, fear God, and love our country.

...and love our Zags and Wa... (Below threshold)
metprof:

...and love our Zags and Wazzu Cougs

I hope Lee is well.... (Below threshold)
jim:

I hope Lee is well.

Do they still bother to cla... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Do they still bother to claim they support the troops but oppose the war?

Thanks for your concern, ji... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Thanks for your concern, jim.

I'm fine, and laughing my ass off at the immature whackjobs who are pretending the protesters were trying to "prevent suppliles from reaching the front lines" -- boo hoo!

lol!

OK, Lee, if you're going to... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

OK, Lee, if you're going to play the nuance game, I'll grant you that protesters weren't there to "prevent" the supplies from getting to the troops because it's unlikely impossible for a small group to do.

However, their actions underscore their intent and actions. Several people were arrested on the train tracks leading to the Port of Tacoma (POT) where trains were delivering supplies. So, in a symbolic way, yes, they were "preventing" supplies from reaching the troops. Protesters have also been climbing the fence to get into the POT, crossed barricades of the POT and others have made several attempts to enter the POT, openly violating POT security policy. If that's not attempting to "prevent", then what it is? The intent is obvious.

And what's the headline on Socialist Worker Online? "Wash. activists try to block weapons shipments."

So apparently they have a different opinion on the matter than you do.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-1/623/623_15_Antiwar.shtml


"Block" or "prevent"; there's little if any difference except in your world.

Finally, if you're demostrating against the troops receiving the supplies and gear necesary to do their jobs and defend themselves, then clearly and plainly you do NOT support the troops. There's just no way around it.

Here I go "wasting" words again...

Same troops that were sent ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Same troops that were sent to a front line based on lies and manipulation of evidence?

Those troops?

The ones the liar in chief put into this civil war after he declared mission ACCOMPLISHED?

And NOW you want to blame those stopping the threat of more reprisals because of our occupation from exposing the lies that put them there in the first place?

Drawing attention to a war that is being waged in order to sit on top of the last remaing oil reserves without a thought given to the blowback is traitorous?

You must be joking.

"OK, Lee, if you're goin... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"OK, Lee, if you're going to play the nuance game, I'll grant you that protesters weren't there to "prevent" the supplies from getting to the troops because it's unlikely impossible for a small group to do."

Thanks, PeterF. Your honesty is refreshing.

"So, in a symbolic way, yes, they were "preventing" supplies from reaching the troops. Protesters have also been climbing the fence to get into the POT, crossed barricades of the POT and others have made several attempts to enter the POT, openly violating POT security policy. If that's not attempting to "prevent", then what it is? The intent is obvious."

It's a "protest" Peter. They're goal was to get media attention for their cause. Only a moron would think they were seriously trying to "prevent" supplies from reaching the front lines - a total idiot.

"And what's the headline on Socialist Worker Online? "Wash. activists try to block weapons shipments.""

You've already admitted that were really trying to block anything - so what's your point? They engaged in hyperbole? and Kim didn't?

"Block" or "prevent"; there's little if any difference except in your world."

Oh, so you're inside my head now are you - scary place, isn't it...?

"Finally, if you're demonstrating against the troops receiving the supplies and gear necessary to do their jobs and defend themselves, then clearly and plainly you do NOT support the troops. There's just no way around it.

Only in your little world, Peter. It was a protest. Adults understand that - but why conservatives on Wizbang don't is beyond me - but my guess is that adult conservatives on Wizbang do understand that this was just a protest, and only a real idiot would suggest they were actually trying to "prevent supplies from reaching the troops".

Which are you, Peter?

"I'll grant you that protesters weren't there to "prevent" the supplies from getting to the troops because it's unlikely impossible for a small group to do."

Thank you.

"Drawing attention to a war... (Below threshold)
metprof:

"Drawing attention to a war that is being waged in order to sit on top of the last remaing oil reserves without a thought given to the blowback is traitorous?"

Uncivil, please provide evidence of the "war for oil" theory.

I mean, evidence that isn't from an insame asylum...please.

metprof - Read up on "peak ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

metprof - Read up on "peak oil", then move out of your glass house.

Oh, and don't forget to vote Democratic in the next presidential election.

Oh, so you're inside my ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oh, so you're inside my head now are you - scary place, isn't it...?

No, actually, it's not. I was a loony leftist once, too, so I was in familiar territory. LOL. (I'm kidding. I don't think you're THAT loony.)

But again, Lee, I pointed out how in fact protesters were breaking into the POT and blocking the train tracks that lead into the POT, etc. The intent of the protest is both symbolic AND, at certain points, real. (Even though, yes, there's no way in hell they would ever succeed in literally blocking shipments; the intent and meaning is obvious.) It's too dismissive to say "oh, it's just all for the media", etc, because while, yes , it is for the media, it's also to achieve an objective. Protesting is a multi-purpose undertaking; they want some action taken. (Believe me, I participated in my fair share of them in my college days and knew the people who organized them.)

(I should've re-stated or completely retratcted my "I'll grant you..." sentence because it does NOT clearly support my conclusion which I still stand by. You were correct to call me on it.)

But to the point of the protest:

A protest is about what you believe, right? So when the anti-war movement and these protesters shout "Support our troops! Bring them home now!" and then symbolically protests said shipments or makes clear and real overtures in an attempt to block said shipments, it IS an obvious contradiction to what they believe and have said about supporting our troops. In effect, they say "We don't want you to have these supplies that will help you defend yourselves and possibly save you from death." They might as well say "Stop these shipments! Bring them home in body bags!"

None of it equals support; it's not even in the same zip code. And it's not "just a protest".

I'd like to know how you see the intent of their protest differently.

please provide evidence ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

please provide evidence of the "war for oil" theory....How about removal of our guy Malaki because he isn't moving quickly on the issue of the DRAFT OIL LAW As if they didn't have any other outstanding isues in Iraq, but Bush/Cheney as always, have other priorities.

"(I should've re-stated ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"(I should've re-stated or completely retratcted my "I'll grant you..." sentence because it does NOT clearly support my conclusion which I still stand by. You were correct to call me on it.)"

I suspected that was the case, - that after writing that you'd talked yourself out of it later on, but it was just too much fun to leave you hanging on your own hook...

"A protest is about what you believe, right? So when the anti-war movement and these protesters shout "Support our troops! Bring them home now!" and then symbolically protests said shipments or makes clear and real overtures in an attempt to block said shipments, it IS an obvious contradiction to what they believe and have said about supporting our troops."

Only if you believe that they really, honestly truly believed they could stop those supplies from reaching the troops. I don't think that's the case - that they really believed that they could prevent the supplies form reaching the troops.

And you don't believe that that they honestly thought that -- or rather, you do -- or you did believe it, but don't now -- or you do -- but would rather not admit it (for argument's sake, of course).

:)

"I'd like to know how you see the intent of their protest differently."

It was a political statement. A chance to grab headlines. I don't believe that they really believed they could stop the supplies.

As for whether it constitutes support or not -- "support" is in the mind of the beholder.

Any healdines - any publicity -- that brings their "stop the war" views to the public is, in their minds, going to bring the troops home sooner. To them, that constitutes support.

Your mileage may vary, but the history of Viet Nam suggests that the Republican war machine (heh) will roll on unchecked until the American public has their fill and demands that it stops - and that same history suggests that protests played an important part in ending the View Nam War. I believe that when we look back on this period we'll see that protests (i.e. Sheehan et. al.) played an significant part in bringing our front-line involvement in Iraq to a conclusion.

Don't you?

Lee,I'll have to g... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Lee,

I'll have to get back to you in a bit. Duty calls. But I will reply.

Brian, your talking poin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, your talking points are about five years old. We did have war materiel shortage issues in 2002-2003;

Thanks for making it so easy to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

all your comment does is highlight the previous Administration's blatant attempts to downsize the military's ability to wage a protracted conflict. Ditto regarding manpower issues.

Ah, the "it's Clinton's fault" defense. That didn't take you long. Nothing says "I have no response and I don't know what I'm talking about" better than blaming everything on Clinton.

To my knowledge, the military side of the blogosphere is complaining about onerous armor requirements that are driven by political talking points instead of logistical realities on the ground. An overly armored Soldier is a slow one who wears out quickly due to the weight of his armor. In case you haven't learned yet, slow often equals wounded or dead.

Well, apparently your "knowledge" is flat-out wrong.

Trucks are in particularly short supply. For example, the Army would need 1,500 specially outfitted -- known as "up-armored" -- 2 1/2 -ton and five-ton trucks in Iraq for the incoming units, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's deputy chief of staff for force development.


"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," Speakes said in an interview.

...

Still, U.S. commanders privately expressed doubts that Iraq-bound units would receive a full complement of Humvees. "It's inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky," one senior Army official said of the feared shortfall.

But that really isn't your point, isn't it? My guess is that you thought you were making a clever comeback comment

So the Pentagon acknowledges current failures to provide needed equipment for the troops, and you say nothing. Then you have five idiots blocking a train for 10 minutes as part of a protest, and that's apparently some earth-shattering treachery that's helping the terrorists. So one actually denies the troops needed supplies, and the other is just symbolic. And by pointing out the sheer lunacy of forgiving the actual harm to the troops and jumping all over the fictional harm to the troops, I'm just being "clever".

Is that your position?

Meanwhile these protesters, I am guessing, believe that if they stop the flow of war materiel to the battle, they can somehow hasten troop withdrawals in the field. Never mind that the rank and file enlisted men are the ones who are much more likely to die because they don't have Stryker armored vehicles to conduct area patrols of urban areas.

Interesting supposition about the goals of the protestors. Now let's look at what the actual failures of the current administration have actually done:

Boosting U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 would create major logistical hurdles for the Army and Marine Corps, which are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces, U.S. officials said.


The increase would also further degrade the readiness of U.S.-based ground forces, hampering their ability to respond quickly, fully trained and well equipped in the case of other military contingencies around the world and increasing the risk of U.S. casualties, according to Army and Marine Corps leaders.

Except that the most important other group of people who agree with the protesters is the one whose tactics include kidnapping & beheading, and detonating themselves in the middle of, unarmed civilians and children.

If that's true, then Bush agrees with them too. Because he's been more effective than anyone at making sure our soldiers do not have the equipment they need.

So I suppose the protesters really do support the troops. Just not ours.

No, the protestors are just a bunch of ineffective idiots. But Bush achieved their goal for them better than they ever could.

Well, if they need money to... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

Well, if they need money to pay fines, they can hold a Rachel Corrie pancake supper to raise funds.

Lee -I was beginni... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lee -

I was beginning to get worried!

I am confuse by one line of your post. You said:

"...the history of Viet Nam suggests that the Republican war machine (heh) will roll on ...."

Beginning with the departure of the French, IIRC, the first US troops top deploy to Nam were some special forces sent by Kennedy in 1961. The massive deployments of the "war machine" took place throughout LBJ's terms. Nixon would draw down and get out.

Are you suggesting that Kennedy and LBJ were some sort of "closet Republicans"? Or are you asserting that Nixon should have had the US stay in Nam a lot longer?

Lee -I was beginni... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lee -

I was beginning to get worried!

I am confused by one line of your post. You said:

"...the history of Viet Nam suggests that the Republican war machine (heh) will roll on ...."

Beginning with the departure of the French, IIRC, the first US troops top deploy to Nam were some special forces sent by Kennedy in 1961. The massive deployments of the "war machine" took place throughout LBJ's terms. Nixon would draw down and get out.

Are you suggesting that Kennedy and LBJ were some sort of "closet Republicans"? Or are you asserting that Nixon should have had the US stay in Nam a lot longer?

Brian,I suggest th... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Brian,

I suggest that you may have a reading comprehension issue: I did not blame everything on Clinton, as you suggested.

Your view of politics is as naive as your understanding of military procurement, supply, and logistics systems.

War materiel, legislated budgets, and public policy are all linked together. They do not operate in silos or a vacuum.

I used the phrase "the previous Administration" for a reason: it wasn't just Clinton who was at fault.

Many in Clinton's administration had issues with regards to a disdain for military matters, OPSEC, and law enforcement, from what Gary Aldrich observed in his book "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House".

So yes, Clinton's administration proposes troop reductions, outsources logistics management, and reduces military budgets. His administration erects the infamous Gorelick Wall between domestic and external agencies such that they cannot share intel on suspected or known terrorists operating within US borders. Pentagon generals promoted during the Clinton administration accept cuts in troops, funding, and materiel without so much as a whimper.

Seeds such as those, once sown, affect the military's ability to fight future wars, where effects are often measured in decades. Reductions in troop levels in the 1990s means that the years of training of those absent troops were lost. Are you so naive to think that we can just "open the doors" to the military now, and six weeks later, all problems go away because warm bodies are sent out to the sandbox (assuming Ms. Pelosi will not support the nutroots calls to defund the war or revoke authorization)?

Nor did I slavishly support Bush in what I wrote. Your inane attempt at wringing out such a view from me via fisking falls flat. I said nothing of the sort. The Clinton White House had a failure of moral standing, which led to, among many other things, a systemic decay in military readiness. In contrast, the Bush White House has had a failure in leadership, as evidenced by his over-dependence on party loyalty, allowance of the State Department and CIA to operate contrary to his policies (and sometimes overtly undermining him), and his schizophrenic approach to immigration issues vs national security.

I don't judge supply issues the way you seem to do, nor do I blindly follow party lines. Your response above where you assume both from me demonstrates an apparent gap in your ability to reason things out for yourself.

To conclude, I will make this point: depending on who you ask, the military will never, ever have enough of what it needs. Nor should it, in a sense, because it is the principle of scarcity that drives creativity and innovation. For example, if the Army had all the Humvees it needed in 2003, there would not have been a push to improve them the way that has been done. By 2006, the Army had improved the so-called "up-armored" Humvees to where they operate as well as, or better than, their original un-armored counterparts did back in 2003. For the record, this method of scarcity driving innovation is commonplace across industries, both public and private. Just review how the rules are changed regarding safety for the FAA, Federal Highway Administration, etc. as a result of accidents.

And lest you forget your high school Civics lessons, Bush does not directly affect readiness anymore than Clinton did. Presidents do not make law, Congress does. From its lawmaking powers come also the power of the federal purse.

Can you begin to understand that issues like this are a bit more complex than solely blaming a president?

metprof wrote:.... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

metprof wrote:

...please provide evidence of the "war for oil" theory.

Do you seriously think that this is all about "ideology" or something? You really don't think that this war in the ME boils down to actual material resources? You think we're sending thousands of men over there just to "do the right thing????" Really? You don't think that we want something out of this deal? You think we have no economic motives???

Do you think this is all about ideology, or religion, or something like that???

Remember that "gas crisis" that occured in the 1970s, and how the United States was completely at the mercy of OPEC for a bit there (they basically had us by the proverbial "balls")? Well, have you ever heard of the decision to increase our military presence/influence in the Middle East after that event? Read about it, and then take a look at the way that the US has stepped up involvement in the Middle East since the mid 70s.

Our presence in Iraq today didn't just happen over night you know. We have been involved in the region, more and more, since the 1970s. And there is a definite reason why.

There is a reason why we have deployed thousands of men over to this war in Iraq, and there is a reason why we DID NOT deploy that amount of manpower to a place like Rwanda in 1994.

I have a hard time believing that people really think is JUST about ideology, or this so-called "clash" of civilizations, or "terrorism" or whatever over-simplified catch phrase people want to throw out there.

This war in Iraq is about resources, and it is about exerting influence and power. It was a move by the United States to attempt to gain control and influence and power in a geopolitically sensitive, and critical, region. There are some pretty damn important resources sitting there, and we're going to be competing for those resources in the future with the likes of Russia, China, India, etc. Whoever controls it, it seems, has some pretty powerful cards to play with. At least, that seems to be the general thinking.

If Iraq was a sand-filled wasteland without any value or merit, I guantee you that we would not be the least concerned with what the hell happens over there.

Economics is certainly playing a major role in this war, from my perspective. I know that many people want to believe that it's some cowboy and indian battle of good vs. evil, but I don't see it that way at all.

Yes, ideology is a factor, and yes, 9/11 is a factor. But there is much more to this than the events of 9/11, or the more recent trend of thinking that "Islam" is the source of all of the problems in the Middle East. There is the history of war in the region, the history of colonialism, the history of power being handed from one dictator or autocrat to another. And there is the fact that the region is rich with the substance that powers one of the most economically dominant and pervasive industries on this planet.

We ain't there because Iraq has some great beaches that we want, you know.

Yes, my friend, oil most definitely a part of the equation in Iraq. Oil, power, strategy, economics. THAT is why we're in Iraq, if you ask me.
.




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