« The Support Trap | Main | John McCain: the smartest candidate for president »

We Win, They Lose

"When it came to defeating the Soviets, Ronald Reagan made it simple: "We win, they lose." Now more than ever, the defeatists in Congress must hear that same message. America will never surrender." If you want to let your congressional representatives know that you want to win in Iraq, sign the petition:

To: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Democrat Leader

Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007.

This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong.

Your actions have already emboldened the enemy. Violent jihadists now know that the elected leadership of Congress would undermine the troops by holding their funding hostage to demands for surrender.

This Congress would bring us back to the dark days of the 1970s, when the world doubted our staying power. Except only much worse. Withdraw in April 2008, and on May 1, Iraq becomes an unchecked den of terrorism at the heart of the Middle East -- a new base for the same people that struck our homeland on September 11th.

I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President's veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it.

There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.


Sign the petition.

Embed the petition and signing form on your blog. Cut and paste below:


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Win, They Lose:

» Old War Dogs linked with We Win, They Lose

» Bill's Bites linked with We Win, They Lose

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Congressional Leaders Visit White House for Talks

» Oh ... Really? linked with We Win, They Lose

Comments (76)

Great idea but it will have... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Great idea but it will have no effect on the democrats suffering from BDS. They are too far gone for facts to get in they're way. Committed to, supporting and sold out to the enemy. Once a crime, now a normal democrat day to day operation.

You had your chance to "let... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You had your chance to "let your congressional representatives know" what your position is. America outvoted you. What makes you think a petition will make Congress act in direct opposition to the way the American people voted?

Lorie,I can only a... (Below threshold)

Lorie,

I can only assume that you haven't read HR 1591. If you had you would see that it allowed troops to stay in Iraq for the following reasons: 1) protecting the embassy 2) training Iraqi troops and 3) fighting Al Qaeda. We could have reasonably kept about half of the 150,000 troops in Iraq there under these restrictions. Bush could have also circumvented the act simply by declaring everybody we were fighting in Iraq to be Al Qaeda as I suggested on Blue.

I realize that using the term "surrender" helps to fire up the demoralized supporters of the war but it is a misrepresentation. I would understand your using that term (even though it would still be incorrect) if the bill had called for a complete pullout by a date certain but it didn't do that.

There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.

Who's they? The Sunnis? The Shiites? Please explain what victory in the middle of somebody else's civil war will look like. I'm all ears.


Larkin: "Please explain ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Larkin: "Please explain what victory in the middle of somebody else's civil war will look like. I'm all ears."

Actually we two groups of people, Sunnis and Shiites, who are pre-disposed to be at each other's throats. alQuaida is taking advantage of that pre-disposition to create the impression of a civil war. Estimates of the amount carnage directly attributable to FOREIGN terrorists range as high as NINETY PERCENT.

The "THEY" we need to have lose is alQuiada and ALL the other FOREIGN terrorists (read: Syrian and Iranian).

If the foreign terrorist presence were eliminated they Iraq would indeed quickly stabilize.

BUT...if the average Iraqi thinks we're going to CUT & RUN (i.e.: surrender) then they are NOT going to help us round up and kill the foreigners amongst them.

QED

Okay Larkin,If you d... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Okay Larkin,
If you don't like the word "surrender" how about "slow bleed"? That sounds like what you described to me. If the provision is no big deal, then why not just remove it? I think it is a big deal and sends a bad message to the enemy.

Before I vote I want to kno... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Before I vote I want to know what we get if we win.

Before I vote I want to ... (Below threshold)
Dave Williams:

Before I vote I want to know what we get if we win.

National Security

"Estimates of the amount ca... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Estimates of the amount carnage directly attributable to FOREIGN terrorists range as high as NINETY PERCENT."

They also range as low as 10%, with the other 90% being Iraqi Sunnis killing Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Shiites killing Iraqi Sunnis.

Take your pick, I suppose.

"National Security"<p... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"National Security"

So Bush has promised that if we win in Iraq, he will at least try to kick out all the people who are illegally in our country, stop all the visas from ME counties like Saudi Arabia and seal our borders?

I think you just talked me into it.

Murphy...I pick MUCH closer... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Murphy...I pick MUCH closer to the 90% number than the 10% one.

The foreign terrorist influence in Iraq is MASSIVE. Even when they don't actually "light the match"...they certainly splash "gasoline" around on both sides.

Iran, Syria and alQuiada ALL have a vested interest in a failed state in Iraq. WE have an equally vested interest in a SUCCESSFUL state in Iraq.

I am on OUR side in this.

If you don't like the wo... (Below threshold)

If you don't like the word "surrender" how about "slow bleed"?

Let's call the resolution what it was: a half-hearted attempt (which they knew would fail) to force the beginning of a partial (but not complete) withdrawal. Frankly, I'm amazed that Pelosi and Reid could get nearly all of the Democrats to support a bill that allowed the war to continue with about half (or possibly all) the number of troops for another year.

It's the anti-war left that should really be dismayed by these events. Obviously, whatever compromise is now agreed upon will move further in the direction of continuing the war for another year. There will probably be some "benchmarks" but these will likely be easily set aside if they aren't met.

I think the die is cast on this one. We won't get out of Iraq until we elect a President willing to lead us out of there like Dwight Eisenhower did in Korea and Richard Nixon did in Vietnam.

But what if a successful Is... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

But what if a successful Islamic state is not in the cards in Iraq no matter how many of our troops die? And do we even want another successful Islamic state in the world? Be careful what you wish for.

Estimates of the amount ... (Below threshold)

Estimates of the amount carnage directly attributable to FOREIGN terrorists range as high as NINETY PERCENT.

Justrand, that is just not possible. I'd like to see your backup for that claim. The Al Qaeda (foreign) presence in Iraq has been variously estimated between 2 and 10,000. It's simply not possible for a group that small to create this much carnage in a country as big as Iraq.

I am sure that the Al Qaeda jihadists are creating more than their fair share of carnage. I'm also sure that they could not possibly function in Iraq without some local support from Iraqis. A large number of Iraqi Sunnis have to be helping them.

In addition, Iraq's Shiite militias (Sadrists and Badr Brigades) are undoubtedly responsible for a good share of the bloodletting.

Reading the comments I have... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Reading the comments I have to laugh...Why shouldn't the War Supporters Use the Same tools like on-line petitions that the war detractors have used for the past three years? Perhaps they are afraid it could change some minds....

The "THEY" we need to ha... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

The "THEY" we need to have lose is alQuiada and ALL the other FOREIGN terrorists (read: Syrian and Iranian).
Justrand

Man are you brainwashed good.

Where is bin Laden from? Where were 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists from? What about the other 4? Where is al Zawahiri from? Where was al Zarqawi from? Where is al Masri from?

Let me fill you in: none of them are from Syria or Iran.

This is course not to say that no foreign terrorists in Iraq are from Iran or Syria. But they are not the sole source, despite what the administration wants you to believe.

Larkin-Estimate... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Larkin-

Estimates of the amount carnage directly attributable to FOREIGN terrorists range as high as NINETY PERCENT.

Well ya Larkin your party has reached the delusional stage to where they would believe estimates given to them by Harry Reid aka Pinky from Searchlight-rather than Petraeus-A West Point graduate who happens to be in Iraq.

Democrats would rather micromanage the war with Pork Pie Politicans trained in slinging mud rather than the US military.

Ya-you've essentially delcared the military either to be victims or the enemy.

What kind of message does that send our friends and enemies overseas?

What kind of Democratic future Presidential-"leader" is going to undo how your party has BETRAYED the Active Duty military?

Oh ya and you all started it by STEALING the votes of the military serving overseas-you had better hope the field grade officers are out to pasture before there is ever a Democratic CinC.

The Democrats have risked their legitimacy with the US military and the WORLD knows it.

Good job-you've rendered yourselves impotent as a future superpower on the world stage and you haven't even left the runway.

I'm certainly glad that the... (Below threshold)

I'm certainly glad that the American way of life triumphed over the Soviet way of doing things. That's one issue. But defeat in Iraq cannot really be blamed on the Democrats. Pure mathematics tells the story why the U.S. would eventually lose there.

In Iwo Jimo, it took 110,000 American soldiers to defeat a Japanese force of just 22,000. And this was a very difficult battle.

In the 1991 Gulf War it took a coalition force of 883,863 to defeat an Iraqi force in Kuwait of 360,000, and that was with using high tech weapons such as laser guided bombs from jet fighters, etc.

In Iraq we have a tiny force if just 150,000+ to attempt to control a nation of 26.7 million, which is larger than the population of Australia and Switzerland combined. There are millions in Iraq who support the insurgents or radical militias. One militia for example has over 100,000 members.

The Bush White House put just enough forces in Iraq to eventually lose this war. If the stakes are really as high as Bush claims, then the draft should have been brought back and 700,000 to 1 million American soldiers should have been sent in to Iraq back in 2003.

The Democrats had no real role in this mismanagement of the war like the Bush Administration war planners who were responsible for by putiing woefully inadequate numbers of U.S. troops in, underequipped, and totally unprepared for a long war that would gradually grind this nation down.

This war was lost from day one when not enough troops were put on the ground to secure ammo dumps and disarm the population in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Now there is no easy way to get a handle on all this anarchy. I don't agree with the Democrats proposals, but they do represent the frustration that the American public is feeling over this war.

If the stakes are really so important in Iraq, then maybe everyone here better volunteer all their sons and husbands and get them over there right now, otherwise pure mathematices proves that we will eventually lose there.

Same questions again (let m... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Same questions again (let me paraphrase it), if the US win in Iraq, good things or bad things will happen to

(a) the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran

(b) the Dem party

Just look at what the Dems are doing and we can tell what they want to happen in Iraq. Wonder why "honest" liberals would want to make excuse for such a party.

sean nyc/aa...your brain ha... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

sean nyc/aa...your brain has been DRY-CLEANED, sport.

I did not claim (nor did the Administration) that Syria and Iran are THE sole problem. Nor is alQuida the SOLE problem.

What I DID point out is that the FOREIGN influence makes it( currently) damn near impossible for ANY stable government to take hold.

Since the Sunni and Shiite do in fact hate each other, all the foreigners have to do is blow a few on one side and wait for retaliation...then repeat in the opposite direction. Every time it dies down a bit simply repeat the terrorist agitation.

Iran is pumping munitions, and lots of VERY sophisticated IEDs into Iraq...and Syria is provided a safe-haven and easy transport point from the West.

Without our help the Iraqi people have NO chance of overcoming those odds.

You (and Larkin...who believes there are TWO alQuida fighters in Iraq) are eager to leave the Iraqis to the wolves. I believe the calamity that would immediately ensue there would also see us BACK there in a few years anyway.

I prefer to fight them NOW, instead of letting them breathe.

Paul,If the stakes a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Paul,
If the stakes are really so important in Iraq, then maybe everyone here better volunteer all their sons and husbands and get them over there right now, otherwise pure mathematices proves that we will eventually lose there.
-----------------------------------------------

Will you advocate that we let the Iraqui army loose to deal accordingly with the terrorists and the Baathists in Iraq? Do you expect the liberals in the West to try to conduct "atrocity" investigation and try to prosecute our soldiers in international court? Do you expect the liberals not to provide the propaganda for the terrorists?

We have people VOLUNTEERED to defend the country right now. So you wouldn't even want to support them when they are willing to do it? Some of them claimed that Harry Reid's words are killing them over there? So can you at least try to remove this danger (harry reid to our troops there now at least).


The Democrats had no real role in this mismanagement of the war like the Bush Administration war planners who were responsible for by putiing woefully inadequate numbers of U.S. troops in, underequipped, and totally unprepared for a long war that would gradually grind this nation down.
Oh, you said that Clinton and the dems left the army in such a poor shape that we didn't have enough troops for Iraq? Can Clinton/dems take the responsibility for leaving Bush with such a poor military ?

the terrorists and their... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran
Love America Immigrant

What is wrong with you people?

LAI, did you not read my comment above. Iran is not sponsoring al Qaeda. Their sponsors are primarily from the Saudi Peninsula, Pakistan, and Eqypt. You're building up Iran to be this boogeyman which is the cause of all our problems when it should be obvious they are not.

Now again, I'm not saying they do not play a role in the chaos in Iraq. They do, but not significantly more than any other country. It's just that the administration wants to go to war with them and you all apparently are just willing to go along with it.

Well as GWB himself said:
Fool me once, shame on .... you?
Fool me twice, won't get fooled again.

Justrand, The dems ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Justrand,
The dems simply want to do to Iraq what they did to VN. They left South Vietnam alone to face a North Vietnamese army with full support from the Soviet Union and China. They don't care what happened there.
This time, they will leave Iraq alone to face Iran and their weapons from Russia (and France). This time unfortunately, the Jihadists will follow their retreating steps to the US.

Paul Hooson-Look w... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Paul Hooson-

Look wars are no longer fought in the old style of attrition we can't win that kind of war.

In Iraq you could not FIRST go in with the BIG numbers that all the old schoolers dreamed of-because ASYMMETRICAL tactics used by the terrorist would mean that the soldiers would be more of a big sitting juicy target rather than a MOBILE force.

If the terrorist had been able to kill a huge number of soldiers early in the game -how do you think that would have shaped the public resolve?

You can't just send in a pure fighting force.

Increasing the troops in number is NOT a purely LINEAR function-it's an EXPONENTIAL operation.

There are security troops, support troops, logistical troops and communication troops.

For every base that you attain over in Iraq for our troops that number increases.

The smaller mobile forces worked very well in the first days of Iraq-so well in fact that the war was still "popular" enough for the Democrats to stay on board.

It is only when the forces had to be increased, when the forces were in more static, stagnant positions and playing more traditional roles that the terrorists became more successful.

What was needed was more TIME for the Iraqis to trust that we would stick it out this TIME and the Democrats did everything in their power to create uncertainty not only in the minds of the Iraqis but in the minds of our few remaining allies as well.

LAI, did you not read my co... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, did you not read my comment above. Iran is not sponsoring al Qaeda.
-------------------------------------------------
It didn't take much brain to know what Iran is up to. The same with Saddam. Here is what Biden said.
Are you waiting Adj 's signature on a bomb fragment before you take any actions? That 's how the dems will fight terrorism?

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Justrand - "Since the Sunni... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Justrand - "Since the Sunni and Shiite do in fact hate each other, all the foreigners have to do is blow a few on one side and wait for retaliation...then repeat in the opposite direction. Every time it dies down a bit simply repeat the terrorist agitation."

So you have just implied that we can not win in Iraq, unless our troops can somehow, one of these decades, eventually kill all or essentially all of the foreigners there and seal the borders so that no more could come in.

sean, What are some... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

sean,
What are some of the Iranian "advisors" were doing in Iraq? Some of them were dealt with by the American troops there.

You (and Larkin...who be... (Below threshold)

You (and Larkin...who believes there are TWO alQuida fighters in Iraq)

Good God Justrand. 2,000 to 10,000 is what I meant. Sue me for not typing in the ",000".

Sheeesh! Are we elevating the level of the debate as DJ wanted us to or what?

There are many more differe... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

There are many more differences between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war than there are similarities. Here is one of them:

Throughout the Vietnam War -including Tet'68- the South Vietnamese fought more firefights, inflicted more casualties and suffered more casualties, served longer and controlled more territory within their own country than the Americans did. It was always their fight; and they fought hard for their country.

By all accounts the Iraqis have left the heavy-lifting to American forces. Our troops have fought more, inflict most of the casualties among insurgents (although the Iraqis are killing a lot more of their own civilians), and we have more troops in country than the Iraqi Army has in Uniform on any given day.

It has been more than 4 years. Why would anyone continue to believe that the situation will improve, if we persevered in the 'new way forward'?

BTW, reports are that the Iraqi "Parliament" is about to take a two month vacation.

You (and Larkin...who belie... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You (and Larkin...who believes there are TWO alQuida fighters in Iraq)

Good God Justrand. 2,000 to 10,000 is what I meant.
---------------------------------------------
Larkin,
Thanks for the clarification. I just curious how do these 2000-10000 Alq get into Iraq? Does Iran have a hand here?

Throughout the Vietnam War ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Throughout the Vietnam War -including Tet'68- the South Vietnamese fought more firefights, inflicted more casualties and suffered more casualties, served longer and controlled more territory within their own country than the Americans did. It was always their fight; and they fought hard for their country.

By all accounts the Iraqis have left the heavy-lifting to American forces. Our troops have fought more, inflict most of the casualties among insurgents (although the Iraqis are killing a lot more of their own civilians), and we have more troops in country than the Iraqi Army has in Uniform on any given day.
-------------------------------------------------
So this is the reason why Iraq will need more help compared to Vietnam. Even in Germany and Japan, we had to spend several years to build them up given that we totally destroyed their army (in a long protracted war) and fully occupy the country

It has been more than 4 years. Why would anyone continue to believe that the situation will improve, if we persevered in the 'new way forward'?

The new way is to stay there to provide the military support to the Iraqui troops. Let them deal with the terrorists and the Baathists accordingly in their own way. We should expect the liberals in the West to do their best to cry atrocities and try to "investigate" and "prosecute" American soldiers. I welcome suggestion on how to deal with the liberal media and courts in the West who would do their best to tie the hands of the American/Iraqui army. This is an important front. The terrorists will only need to blow up more women and children and the liberal media/politicans will proclaim that the war is lost. When the American let the Iraqui loose to deal accordingly with these terrorists, the liberals again will cry atrocities and demand a halt to these harsh measures. If you have any ideas how to move forward to deal with a terrorist-cheering section in the West, it would be a big help for sure.

LoveAmerica Immigrant - "So... (Below threshold)
Mirphy:

LoveAmerica Immigrant - "So this is the reason why Iraq will need more help compared to Vietnam."

And how will that work? We had 550,000 troops in Vietnam, we have 150,000 in Iraq. We spent, depending on how you figure it, about 12 years in Vietnam.

"Let them deal with the ter... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Let them deal with the terrorists and the Baathists accordingly in their own way."

The Iraqi police probably spend more time killing Muslims from the other sect than they do killing terrorists and baathists.

Murphy, IN Vietnam,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Murphy,
IN Vietnam, we faced the Soviet Union and China. Here we only need to stay there to keep Iran and Syria out and let the Iraqui army deal with the terrorists and the Baathist insurgents themselves. That have produced results, the Sunni is suing for political solution and "begging" the American to help them. The terrorists are desperate that their only venue is to blow up more women/children with the hope of getting the propaganda support from the liberal media in the West to weaken the public resolve for this war. This is an important front. Their only chance is to have the American to cut-and-run as pointed out by Bin Laden. They can inflict significant casualties on the American troops. They tried it on the Iraqui army and armed militias and they are dealt with accordingly. So they have to blow up women/children. The terrorist-cheering media in the west will provide the propaganda war against the US. So if you have any suggestions how to deal with this propaganda, it will be really helpful since I assume that you want us to win in Iraq.

correctionThey can i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

correction
They can inflict significant casualties on the American troops
------------------------------------------------
They CAN'T inflict significant casualties on the American troops

I see the quislings have po... (Below threshold)

I see the quislings have polluted this thread, too.


::-|

"In Vietnam, we faced the S... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"In Vietnam, we faced the Soviet Union and China"

No we didn't. They did furnish the NVA and VC with arms though.

"They CAN'T inflict signifi... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"They CAN'T inflict significant casualties on the American troops"

I think that you may want to rephrase that a bit.

"In Vietnam, we faced the S... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"In Vietnam, we faced the Soviet Union and China"

No we didn't. They did furnish the NVA and VC with arms though.
-------------------------------------------------
The Soviet Union/China was our enemy. They used the NOrth Vietnamese as a surrogate army to fight us. We returned the favor in Afghanistan.

Iran is doing the same in Iraq. We dealt with them by providing the military presense to keep them out and let the Iraqi army deal with their surrogates inside Iraq.

The important war is the propaganda war waged by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the west. There we need a lot of help, esp from American people including you.

They CAN'T inflict signific... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

They CAN'T inflict significant casualties on the American troops"

I think that you may want to rephrase that a bit.
--------------------------------------------------
Not sure what your meant. We lost 3000 soldiers in one military excercise in WWII. We lost about the same in 4 years in Iraq. Every soldier lost is a tragedy. But in comparison, this is not significant casualty. Unless you simply want to cut and run at first sight of casualty as Bin Laden predicted.

Murphy,IN Vietnam... (Below threshold)

Murphy,
IN Vietnam, we faced the Soviet Union and China.

Do you really believe this LA? Do you know how much the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and vice versa? Do you understand that these countries fought a war not long ago?

The Vietnamese accepted help from the Chinese because they had no other recourse. In Vietnam, we were mixed up in a civil war where we shouldn't have been. I would have preferred that the South (capitalist) forces had won that war rather than the Commies, but in the end it really wasn't any of my (or our) business.

"Iran is doing the same in ... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Iran is doing the same in Iraq. We dealt with them by providing the military presense to keep them out and let the Iraqi army deal with their surrogates inside Iraq."

The Iraqi army, for the most part, would rather sit on it's hands, or kill members of the other sect, that is why we are sending more troops after four long years.

"The important war is the propaganda war waged by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the west. There we need a lot of help, esp from American people including you."

Not this time, I'm over the even now age limit of 42. How 'bout you?

IN Vietnam, we faced the So... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

IN Vietnam, we faced the Soviet Union and China.

Do you really believe this LA? Do you know how much the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and vice versa? Do you understand that these countries fought a war not long ago?

The Vietnamese accepted help from the Chinese because they had no other recourse. In Vietnam, we were mixed up in a civil war where we shouldn't have been. I would have preferred that the South (capitalist) forces had won that war rather than the Commies, but in the end it really wasn't any of my (or our) business.
-------------------------------------------------
Yes I do. That was a fact. "The civil war" facade is simply a propaganda to fool the public and to provide the communist-cheeing liberal media in the West the tool to weaken the public resolve. The Vietnamese communists were openly teaching in school that they are serving in the international revolution to replace capitalism with socialism/communism. A used car saleman won't tell you that he is selling you a lemon. The communists did the same. Their goal was global conquest for communism. The vietnamese communists were no nationalists. They only cared about their power. They killed all the nationalists who fought against France.

LoveAmerica Immigrant, we a... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

LoveAmerica Immigrant, we all know that slick's machine destroyed the military. I said long before GWB became president that six Cuban's with BB guns could have taken the United States during the 90's. No one has answered my question for the past eight years. Where did the trillions of dollars in military equipment that 40% + of the military that disappeared had, disappear to. No wonder Shrillary the weasel can brag they came to D.C. broke and now they're rich, rich.

For all the naysayers, you go to war with what you have, not what you wish you had or used to have. Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been saved by keeping the war in the middle east, instead of in the middle of America. I know that, you know that, but the lefties are so stupid that even knowing they will be killed they vote for suicide. I guess they really aren't too family oriented, gay marriage means no off spring, which evidently means they don't care about the future. What percentage of the lefties have no future and no one to carry on their name regardless of what happens? Add in the BDS and I guess i'd commit suicide to, if in that shape. There are books on the net that tell you how to do it painless without involving those of us with a future.

The Iraqi army, for the mos... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The Iraqi army, for the most part, would rather sit on it's hands, or kill members of the other sect, that is why we are sending more troops after four long years.
------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the Sunni trying to blow up the Shiittes to regain political power. Now they get back appropriate treatment and now suing for political solution. Yup, let them work it out that way. It will not be perfect all the time, but that the way it is. It took South Korea 30 years to become a fully functional democracy. Iraq is a lot faster given all the actors trying to derail it (Iran, Syria, France, the UN, the terrorist-cheering liberal press etc...)

It was a civil war between ... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

It was a civil war between communists and non-communists. We supported the non-communist side with 550,000 troops and arms and supplies (until congress cut that off). The Soviets and the Chinese supported the communist side of the civil war with arms and supplies, no troops (some "advisers" in North Vietnam). We lost 60,000 troops. The Russians and Chinese lost virtually none.

"The important war is the p... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"The important war is the propaganda war waged by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the west. There we need a lot of help, esp from American people including you."

Not this time, I'm over the even now age limit of 42. How 'bout you?
-------------------------------------------------
Since you are over 42, you wouldn't want to help deal with the propaganda war by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the West? That 's OK. Hope that you don't accidently join them.

It was a civil war between ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It was a civil war between communists and non-communists. We supported the non-communist side with 550,000 troops and arms and supplies (until congress cut that off). The Soviets and the Chinese supported the communist side of the civil war with arms and supplies, no troops (some "advisers" in North Vietnam). We lost 60,000 troops. The Russians and Chinese lost virtually none.
-------------------------------------------------
The communists did some real atrocities in the North and openly taught that they are serving the international revolution to replace the "evil" capitalism with their communist utopia. Our presense in Vietnam was long enough to allow other countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore etc... to develop their own democracies. Again, the Vietnamese communists openly declared that they are the serving the international communist coalition. Their nationalist motto and the civil war facade is a propaganda tool.
Moerover, the South vietnamese were strong enough to fight the NOrth if the Dem congress had given them the military aid. The dems simply want to cut and run and leave them to be slaughtered by the commmunists.

"Hundreds of thousands of A... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been saved by keeping the war in the middle east, instead of in the middle of America."

That our staying in Iraq has done that is very wild supposition to put it mildly. And that is putting it mildly. You might as well add that it has prevented global warming.

BTW, our borders are wide open and Bush has issued an awful lot of visas for middle easterners.

Larkin-Honestly- y... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Larkin-

Honestly- you contradict yourself in two secods.

What the hell;


Do you really believe this LA? Do you know how much the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and vice versa? Do you understand that these countries fought a war not long ago?

The Vietnamese accepted help from the Chinese because they had no other recourse.

Do uyou even realize that you are doing that?

I don't even know what your argument is-probably like most Liberals you wan tit both ways or I have to give you the benefit of the doubt.

That being the case-

Why did we bomb Cambodia?

What was Operation Menu?

Operation Market Time?

What was the Sihanouk Trail? Ooooh big hint here-also known as Ho Chi Minh Trail?

[You know Ho as in A Chinese name not what you Dems like to call your women folk...]

"Since you are over 42, you... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Since you are over 42, you wouldn't want to help deal with the propaganda war by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the West? That 's OK. Hope that you don't accidently join them."

Not a chance, as I see Islam for what it is.

Oh damn it this was also pa... (Below threshold)
Rory:

Oh damn it this was also part of Larkin's comment-

The Vietnamese accepted help from the Chinese because they had no other recourse.

Ya he said that while at the same time supposedly trying to argue that the Chinese weren't involved.

Ya it's illogical...

BTW, our borders are wide o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, our borders are wide open and Bush has issued an awful lot of visas for middle easterners.
----------------------------------------------
Yup and the liberals were smart enough to suggest that we go home and play defense. Is this laughable to you. Can we expect to defend every soft targets in America? Given all these holes in our system, by taking the war in Iraq, we kept them busy over there.

The terrorists simply blew up women/children over there and it was enough for the liberals/dems to cut and run. What if they start blowing up women/children here in America, will the liberals surrender then? And how many trillions of dollars you want to spend to defend every square inch in America. Are you willing to turn America into a police state to keep them all out?

"Since you are over 42, you... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Since you are over 42, you wouldn't want to help deal with the propaganda war by the terrorist-cheering liberal media in the West? That 's OK. Hope that you don't accidently join them."

Not a chance, as I see Islam for what it is.
--------------------------------------------------
?
Good to hear. What I meant is that you wouldn't accidentally join the terrorist-cheering liberal section in the west.

"Good to hear. What I meant... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Good to hear. What I meant is that you wouldn't accidentally join the terrorist-cheering liberal section in the west."

Don't make the mistake of equating not wanting American troops to die trying to protect Muslim Sunnis from Muslim Shiites and Muslim Shiites from Muslim Sunnis as being pro terrorist.

"What if they start blowing... (Below threshold)
MJurphy:

"What if they start blowing up women/children here in America, will the liberals surrender then?"

I don't know what the liberals will do, probably scream.

I know what I will do, and that will be to blame Bush for being obsessed with Iraq, and for leaving our borders wide open and for issuing so many visas to middle easterners.

Don't make the mistake of e... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Don't make the mistake of equating not wanting American troops to die trying to protect Muslim Sunnis from Muslim Shiites and Muslim Shiites from Muslim Sunnis as being pro terrorist.
------------------------------------------------
Good to hear too. That 's why I propose that we know what the bad actors are trying to do, we will let the Iraqui deal with the bad factions among themselves in their own way. We all know what the terrorist-cheering liberal section in America will try to do. Just witness the despicable actions by Pelosi, Reid, the dems in Congress now. Glad that you have the same scorn for them.

I don't know what the liber... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I don't know what the liberals will do, probably scream.

I know what I will do, and that will be to blame Bush for being obsessed with Iraq, and for leaving our borders wide open and for issuing so many visas to middle easterners.
-----------------------------------------------
Oh, you mean liberals will surrender. Looks like the terrorists are busy in Iraq now that they couldn't even take any actions in the last 6 years given all these holes in our system. This seems like smart strategic thinking.

Simply cut-and-run from Iraq will free the terrorists from busy work there. You don't expect them to find other line of work, do you? That 's why the dems/liberals are so laughable. Since you don't have any illusion about Islam, you can see what they are doing is so despicable. Wonder why people can support such a party.

Justrand:I did ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Justrand:

I did not claim (nor did the Administration) that Syria and Iran are THE sole problem. Nor is alQuida the SOLE problem.

Let's see what you said:
"The "THEY" we need to have lose is alQuiada and ALL the other FOREIGN terrorists (read: Syrian and Iranian)."
"Iran, Syria and alQuiada ALL have a vested interest in a failed state in Iraq. WE have an equally vested interest in a SUCCESSFUL state in Iraq."

You're right that you never said other countries were not involved, but you continually emphasized Iran and Syria when al Qaeda has historically not been strongly associated with these countries. Please try and get that through your head. Al Qaeda is an extra-national phenonmenon and talking tough about Syria and Iran does not do anything to address that. In fact, it probably strengthens them by distracting us from where they are actually rooted.

What I DID point out is that the FOREIGN influence makes it( currently) damn near impossible for ANY stable government to take hold.

I agree with you. But it leads me to ask: what does that mean about US influence? I realize we're trying to help, but does the Iraqi gov't have any chance of success if it is dependent on us for defense and is seen as condoning the occupation?

Since the Sunni and Shiite do in fact hate each other, all the foreigners have to do is blow a few on one side and wait for retaliation...then repeat in the opposite direction. Every time it dies down a bit simply repeat the terrorist agitation.

Again we agree. But do you believe 150K troops is enough to stop this? Paul Hoosen runs the numbers upthread a bit and we probably need at least 500K, but that size force is not available to us now unless we institute a draft.

This also leads me to another question: How many troops did we have in Europe from 1945-1950? Doing a search I found that 400,000 were still in Germany as late as November of 1946, with 614,000 still in the European theater. However, the population of Germany immediately after the war was somewhere between 50-60 million, which is about double Iraq's population. Of course, the country was also divided through its capital shortly after the war, something that has been ruled out in Iraq.

Iran is pumping munitions, and lots of VERY sophisticated IEDs into Iraq...and Syria is provided a safe-haven and easy transport point from the West.

And Saudi Arabia is providing funding to the Sunni insurgents, as well as probably providing safe haven and manpower to al Qaeda. Again, stop focusing on just Syria and Iran. Bush just doesn't like to say anything bad about Saudi Arabia as long they keep the oil flowing.

Without our help the Iraqi people have NO chance of overcoming those odds.

You're probably right, but what are we helping them become anyway? Another Islamic state? A proxy of Iran? A country to be divvied up between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? Three new countries with no affection for one another? However this ends, it's not likely to end well for us.

You (and Larkin...who believes there are TWO alQuida fighters in Iraq) are eager to leave the Iraqis to the wolves. I believe the calamity that would immediately ensue there would also see us BACK there in a few years anyway.

The Iraqis were thrown to the wolves for the start of this war, hell, that was and still is the point: the "flypaper theory"; fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, right? Those reasons as well as the fact that this war was done of the cheap with incredible arrogance - two things which do not go well together yet are still being practiced today - show that we were woefully unprepared for having a plan for success from the start.

Also, those that advocated this policy are still in power, in think tanks, writing editorials, and on cable news. There have been no repercussions for those who were wrong about this war (except Rummy, but even that was extremely reluctant); in fact, those who were right have been outcast, fired, ignored, mocked, etc. much more so than those who deserve it. That only demonstrates the stubborness of our policy and hinders any actual political and economic progress from being made, since everyone agrees that a military solution alone is not possible.

I prefer to fight them NOW, instead of letting them breathe.

What about letting our forces breath and forcing the Shiites, Sunnis, and al Qaeda fight a couple rounds with each other? Then we come in for the knockout punch. In the mean time, we hold down the fort in Kurdistan, so we don't desert them again like in 1991, and are able to keep a check on Iran and Syria if you insist. We still have options that do not entail a complete withdrawal and the blood-letting scare scenario the right tries to use.

On a side note, it always boggles my mind how Republicans say the Dems plan is a "slow bleed", whatever that means. Does that mean our current strategy is a "fast bleed"? I would love for someone to explain this.

"we will let the Iraqui dea... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"we will let the Iraqui deal with the bad factions among themselves in their own way"

But they are NOT doing that. That is why things are going so badly that Bush is sending more troops (on a fools errand, I might add). BTW, you have heard that the Iraqi "Parliament" is taking a two month vacation?

I scorn Bush and Pelosi and Reid.

"Simply cut-and-run from Ir... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Simply cut-and-run from Iraq will free the terrorists from busy work there. You don't expect them to find other line of work, do you?"

As I said, our borders are wide open and Bush is issuing visas to middle easterners like there is no tomorrow, They can come over here any time they want, our being in Iraq isn't stopping them, some are almost certainly here now. The 19 9/11 terrorists did not come from Iraq, they came here on visas, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

But they are NOT doing that... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But they are NOT doing that. That is why things are going so badly that Bush is sending more troops (on a fools errand, I might add).
-----------------------------------------------
I read that the Sunni now are pursuing the political solution with the Shiites. The armed militias were helping American to deal with the terrorists themselves. You can tell that it is working that the terrorists have to blow up the women/children to provide the dems/liberals with the propaganda they need.

If the terrorists are that strong, all they have to do is to fight American troops or Iraqui troops etc... and they will win big points with the Arab world. The fact that they have to continue blowing up women/children shows that it is working.

I scorn Pelosi/Reid and their liberal cohorts. Bush at least try to defend the country. The liberals are selling our the country for political power. Also Bush also seems to be smarter than all the dem presidential candidates. At lease he has the strategic thinking right on Iraq. Reid and Pelosi are beyond parody already. But it is understandable, when one cannot defend Pelosi/Reid anymore, one have to throw in Bush. It is typical and predictable. AT least we made some progress tonight and agree that Reid/Pelosi truly deserve the scorn.

Where's the streetwise Herc... (Below threshold)
Bonnie Tyler:

Where's the streetwise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and turn and dream
of what I need
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the end of the night
He's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be fast
And he's gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero 'til the morning light
He's gotta be sure
And it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life

"Bush at least try to defen... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

"Bush at least try to defend the country."

Bush is running our Army into the ground on a fools errand.

Got to go now. Take care.

Love America Immigrant:... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Love America Immigrant:

It didn't take much brain to know what Iran is up to. The same with Saddam. Here is what Biden said.
Are you waiting Adj 's signature on a bomb fragment before you take any actions? That 's how the dems will fight terrorism?

I'll be honest, and I may get accused of being a weak-kneed, terrorist appeaser or whatever, but my belief is:
MAD has worked for 60 years, we have to pray it keeps on working, and if it doesn't, then God help us. It's worked with Russia, China, Europe, India, Pakistan, etc. Until the day comes that we have to retaliate for a nuclear detonation, there should be no person who believes a nuclear strike is justified, and a pre-emptive nuclear strike is just downright insane.

What are some of the Iranian "advisors" were doing in Iraq? Some of them were dealt with by the American troops there.

Probably supporting their Shiite brethern. Should they be there? No. Did I acknowledge Iran was contributing to the problems in Iraq? Yes. Are many countries meddling, not just Iran and Syria? I think so. It's just that the Administration focuses on Iran to build up an argument for war, and it's going to take a lot more than 5 "advisors" to convince me that war is by any means necessary.

The Soviet Union/China was our enemy. They used the NOrth Vietnamese as a surrogate army to fight us. We returned the favor in Afghanistan.

Iran is doing the same in Iraq. We dealt with them by providing the military presense to keep them out and let the Iraqi army deal with their surrogates inside Iraq.

Funny, it could be said we used a surrogate army (Iraq) back in the 80's and now Iran is returning the favor (again Iraq). History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes.

It took South Korea 30 years to become a fully functional democracy. Iraq is a lot faster given all the actors trying to derail it (Iran, Syria, France, the UN, the terrorist-cheering liberal press etc...)

What are you talking about? What in Iraq proves it will become a functional democracy faster than South Korea? The conflict has only been increasing from Mission Accomplished to now.

Yup and the liberals were smart enough to suggest that we go home and play defense. Is this laughable to you. Can we expect to defend every soft targets in America? Given all these holes in our system, by taking the war in Iraq, we kept them busy over there.

How does this approach help Iraq become a functioning democracy? Having terrorists "keep busy" in your country does not aid the democratic process.

I notice that <a href="http... (Below threshold)

I notice that Patrick Ruffini at Hugh Hewitt calls this site "Lorie Byrd" in his post about the project.

's'okay by me . . . it's just that some of these commenters seem unfit to peel your grapes . . .

;-)

Did you notice that even th... (Below threshold)

Did you notice that even those flaming wingers at CNN have an article featured on their main page right now explaining what will happen if we cut and run? It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

I stand for the troops. I s... (Below threshold)
jFO:

I stand for the troops. I stand for victory. And that's why we need to end our involvement in a civil war in a country that doesn't want us there. Pretty pathetic that it's governing body takes an even longer vacation than Mr Bush does.

Jim,Patrick also lis... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Jim,
Patrick also listed John Hawkins instead of Right Wing News, and did the same for Rob Bluey. He just listed the name of the signatory instead of the blog name in some places. On the petition itself he lists Wizbang and links to it.

Jim,I just looked ag... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Jim,
I just looked again and he actually lists all the signatories individually (Glenn Reynolds instead of Instapundit, etc) except for Red State and that is because there were multiple signatories there.

I'll be honest, and I may g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I'll be honest, and I may get accused of being a weak-kneed, terrorist appeaser or whatever, but my belief is:
MAD has worked for 60 years, we have to pray it keeps on working, and if it doesn't, then God help us. It's worked with Russia, China, Europe, India, Pakistan, etc. Until the day comes that we have to retaliate for a nuclear detonation, there should be no person who believes a nuclear strike is justified, and a pre-emptive nuclear strike is just downright insane.
-------------------------------------------------
We fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Africa. We went ahead with Star Wars and willing to build more warheads to wipe out if they dare to attack us. OK, so if Iran want to mess around in Iraq, then we will go ahead and deal with them there. BTW, Bush is smart to build missle defense now as Reagan started STAR war over the liberal objection during the cold war. For offense, we should build more modern nuclear warheads as a deterrent to Iran. What is the best deterrent for the jihadist with nuclear dirty bombs? Maybe the threat to wipe out Mecca if they dare to attack us?


What are some of the Iranian "advisors" were doing in Iraq? Some of them were dealt with by the American troops there.

Probably supporting their Shiite brethern. Should they be there? No. Did I acknowledge Iran was contributing to the problems in Iraq? Yes. Are many countries meddling, not just Iran and Syria? I think so. It's just that the Administration focuses on Iran to build up an argument for war, and it's going to take a lot more than 5 "advisors" to convince me that war is by any means necessary.
------------------------------------------------
Larkin saig there are 2000-10000 Alq fighters in Iraq. How did they get there. At least we should be there to keep them out and let the Iraqui army deal with their surrogate. ARe you prepared to help deal with the terrorist-ading liberal section in the west?

The Soviet Union/China was our enemy. They used the NOrth Vietnamese as a surrogate army to fight us. We returned the favor in Afghanistan.

Iran is doing the same in Iraq. We dealt with them by providing the military presense to keep them out and let the Iraqi army deal with their surrogates inside Iraq.

Funny, it could be said we used a surrogate army (Iraq) back in the 80's and now Iran is returning the favor (again Iraq). History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes.
-------------------------------------------------
You forgot that Iran declared war on us by attacking our embassy and held our diplomats hostages. Looks like you tend to blame America and try to make excuse for our enemies. Or you simply want to cut and run again?

It took South Korea 30 years to become a fully functional democracy. Iraq is a lot faster given all the actors trying to derail it (Iran, Syria, France, the UN, the terrorist-cheering liberal press etc...)

What are you talking about? What in Iraq proves it will become a functional democracy faster than South Korea? The conflict has only been increasing from Mission Accomplished to now.
------------------------------------------------
Yup, it tooks S. Korea more than 30 years. They had a dictatorship for a while too! Using the liberal logic, We will have another N. Korea in the South. Looks like what liberals try to advocate these days. The terrorists are getting the encouragement from the Dems in this country to continue their carnage. Otherwise, the war could have been much faster. Do you expect the terrorists and Iran/Syria simply will lay down and let Iraq build their democracy. Or you would rather Iraq fail?

Yup and the liberals were smart enough to suggest that we go home and play defense. Is this laughable to you. Can we expect to defend every soft targets in America? Given all these holes in our system, by taking the war in Iraq, we kept them busy over there.

How does this approach help Iraq become a functioning democracy? Having terrorists "keep busy" in your country does not aid the democratic process.
You seriously don't understand this. How did we help build democracy in SE Asia and VN? The communists were waging war in South VN so we can never build a democracy? We help fought them and build democracy at the same time. It is up and down, but the South was definitely far better than the North. So what do you propose? Cut-and-run and give the terrorists there a free hand? How will that help democracry there or US security. Do you assume that these 2000-10000 AlQ will find other line of work when the US leave? The Sunni is finding out how brutal the terrorists are and how their attempt an armed attack against the Shiittes won't work. That 's why they are suing for political solution now. The terrorists are reduced to blowing up more women and children so that the dems can claim that the war is lost. Unfortunately many liberals are willingly participating in the terrorist propaganda war.

LAI:First I have t... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

LAI:

First I have to start by saying you go off on some wild tangents that don't really address my points, but I'll try to address yours.

We fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Africa. We went ahead with Star Wars and willing to build more warheads to wipe out if they dare to attack us. OK, so if Iran want to mess around in Iraq, then we will go ahead and deal with them there. BTW, Bush is smart to build missle defense now as Reagan started STAR war over the liberal objection during the cold war. For offense, we should build more modern nuclear warheads as a deterrent to Iran. What is the best deterrent for the jihadist with nuclear dirty bombs? Maybe the threat to wipe out Mecca if they dare to attack us?

Your original statement was about "waiting Adj 's signature on a bomb fragment before you take any actions?" That's what I addressed, not Reagan and Star Wars, but if anything that goes along with my point of how deterrence was enough and it did not require direct intervention.

Also, you're saying we should build more modern nukes, and you're entitled to that opinion, I just happen to disagree. Iran probably can't get more deterred than the knowledge that we could destroy their country 10 or 20 times over already.

As far as jihadists using nuclear dirty bombs, we'll have to decide what to do if that time comes.

Larkin saig there are 2000-10000 Alq fighters in Iraq. How did they get there. At least we should be there to keep them out and let the Iraqui army deal with their surrogate. ARe you prepared to help deal with the terrorist-ading liberal section in the west?

How did they get there? Probably through Iraq's bordering countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. How many come from each respective country? I don't know but there is probably not a single one that is significantly higher than the others.

And we should let the Iraqis deal with them - they'll be much more inclined to do so if we reduce our presence.

But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "deal with the terrorist-ading liberal section in the west?" By taking away their rights to free speech or unlawfully imprisoning them, no. By voicing my disagreement with them and pressuring my elected representatives to make decisions I agree with, yes. What did you have in mind?

You forgot that Iran declared war on us by attacking our embassy and held our diplomats hostages. Looks like you tend to blame America and try to make excuse for our enemies. Or you simply want to cut and run again?

Stating factual history is not blaming America or making excuses for our enemies, you can't be so sensitive. It's called free speech, I assume you've been in the country long enough to know what it is.

We also overthrew Iran's gov't in 1953, but did so to stem Soviet ambitions. Was it the right decision? Possibly at the time, but there were consequences that we're now dealing with. Thems the facts.

Yup, it tooks S. Korea more than 30 years. They had a dictatorship for a while too! Using the liberal logic, We will have another N. Korea in the South. Looks like what liberals try to advocate these days. The terrorists are getting the encouragement from the Dems in this country to continue their carnage. Otherwise, the war could have been much faster. Do you expect the terrorists and Iran/Syria simply will lay down and let Iraq build their democracy. Or you would rather Iraq fail?

Here's another one of your tangents. You may be right that Iraq will be a flowering utopia of democracy in 30 years like South Korea, I'm not disputing that it's possible. What I asked was what proof today demonstrates that Iraq is making progress in that direction?

You seriously don't understand this. How did we help build democracy in SE Asia and VN? The communists were waging war in South VN so we can never build a democracy? We help fought them and build democracy at the same time. It is up and down, but the South was definitely far better than the North. So what do you propose? Cut-and-run and give the terrorists there a free hand? How will that help democracry there or US security. Do you assume that these 2000-10000 AlQ will find other line of work when the US leave? The Sunni is finding out how brutal the terrorists are and how their attempt an armed attack against the Shiittes won't work. That 's why they are suing for political solution now. The terrorists are reduced to blowing up more women and children so that the dems can claim that the war is lost. Unfortunately many liberals are willingly participating in the terrorist propaganda war.

I guess I don't understand it the way you do. We helped build democracy in post-war Europe with an occupying army, but there was a more focused, dedicated, and intensive effort to rebuild and nowhere near the ethnic divisions that exist in Iraq today.

In SE Asia we helped build democracy in other countries through economic support but without the occupying military presence. Also, many of these places were former British colonies so the transition to democracy may not have been as difficult. Iraq is also a former British colony, but that ended decades before our attempt at establishing a democracy.

So in sum, Iraq is much different than these places so drawing any parallels is difficult.

Back to the point, if the Sunnis are so dissatisied with al Qaeda, why aren't they fighting them vigorously now? It seems pretty obvious that this is not the case because we provide a common enemy which serves to tacitly unite them against the occupation/infidel. If we remove that element, they are just left with each other and will have to fight for power. Also, the Sunnis are "suing" for political compromise because they want a piece of the action in the oil reserves, not necessarily because of the presence of al Qaeda.

And it should go without saying that those in al Qaeda are monsters and cowards who have no remorse for blowing up women and children. However, disagreeing with our approach in the war in no way means that these actions are condoned or that "liberals are willingly participating in the terrorist propaganda war." You may see it that way, but the majority of Americans likely do not.

In SE Asia we helped build ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

In SE Asia we helped build democracy in other countries through economic support but without the occupying military presence. Also, many of these places were former British colonies so the transition to democracy may not have been as difficult.
------------------------------------------------
Sean,
You are quite wrong here. Korea was a Japanese colony for 50 years. We fought a bloody war with the Chinese army to push them back so that we had a South Korea. We stationed our troops there for how long now. Using your logic today, we would have abandoned S. Korea to the communist North (yes, another civil war facade). As I said, the liberal policies have led to disasters wherever they succeeded.

Also, you're saying we shou... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also, you're saying we should build more modern nukes, and you're entitled to that opinion, I just happen to disagree. Iran probably can't get more deterred than the knowledge that we could destroy their country 10 or 20 times over already.
------------------------------------------------
Iran won't get detered given your attitudes and actual proposals here. Given the way the dems are doing, we would surrender one way or another. Need more examples? Carter kept retreating from the communists, right? Are they detered by the knowledge that we can blow them up many times over? No because they knew that the DEMS are not serious! Only when Reagan was in office, then they took notice. You advocated reducing nuclear arsenals and cut-and-run, which is the very opposite of the successful policies against the Soviet Union

Back to the point, if the S... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Back to the point, if the Sunnis are so dissatisied with al Qaeda, why aren't they fighting them vigorously now? It seems pretty obvious that this is not the case because we provide a common enemy which serves to tacitly unite them against the occupation/infidel. If we remove that element, they are just left with each other and will have to fight for power. Also, the Sunnis are "suing" for political compromise because they want a piece of the action in the oil reserves, not necessarily because of the presence of al Qaeda.
--------------------------------------------------
Some Sunnit tribal leaders are fighting rigorusly against AlQ. That 's why we had the success we had. 3 AlQ leaders were dealt with this week. Why? Good intelligence, right (from whom, the Sunnis prob).

The Sunni wants a piece of the oil reserve (ie. a piece of prosperity) so they sue for political solution. What 's wrong with that? That 's how democracy should work. People negotiate, compromise, and fight politically instead of militarily, right?

Sean,
Looks like you are not happy with these progress in Iraq. Wonder why?

But I'm not exactly sure wh... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "deal with the terrorist-ading liberal section in the west?" By taking away their rights to free speech or unlawfully imprisoning them, no. By voicing my disagreement with them and pressuring my elected representatives to make decisions I agree with, yes. What did you have in mind?
-------------------------------------------------
By pointing out their lies and scorn them for their despicable actions. Example, Harry Reid. His words actually encourage the terrorists to kill more women/children and US soldiers. How much public scorn he had suffered so far.

Many examples of CNN, USA TODAY, NYT etc... spinning on behalf of the terrorists have been pointed out on this forum. Instead of defending them and following them, you should scorn them. Withold you vote from the Dem party until they show more decency for example. A lot of things you can do if you take some time to think about it

What I asked was what proof... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

What I asked was what proof today demonstrates that Iraq is making progress in that direction?
-----------------------------------------------
The Sunni is asking for a political process now, right? That is huge progress despite the fact that the Dems keep sending the signal to the terrorists to continue the carnage (to invoke a civil war and derail their effort). Iraq faced the real war with the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran/Syria and the propaganda with the terrorist-cheering liberal section in the West. It is not that easy, yet they have been making progress.

Using your logic again, we would have given up South Korea after the first 10 years. They had a dictatorship for that long!




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