Well, the Democrats had their chance - with Representative John Murtha being the latest figurehead to be used by the left wing, calling to have troops pulled out of Iraq, and claiming that the American people are against the war, it was put to a vote on Friday.

House Republicans basically told Democrats to back up their words with votes. The result: 403-3 against. Even Murtha didn't vote for the resolution.

Here is the question behind all of this: if it's really true that the war in Iraq is so horrible, and if it's really true that so many Americans are against the war, then what are the Dems afraid of? They are now calling the quick vote on the resolution a "political stunt," yet if pulling the troops out is the right thing to do, then why not turn it on the Republican's heads by voting for it? The Democrat's excuses here make entirely no sense.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112100566.html)

It's just another reason for the two parties to argue, instead of working together to solve this problem.

Mighty thin point you got there, rccar, though I notice that your taste in newspapers has improved.

Without seeing the wording of the resolution it's impossible to draw the conclusion that the Democrats don't support Murtha. The fact that he himself didn't vote for it does suggest that the wording had been explicitly designed to be unacceptable or to represent a more radical view than the one Murtha argued.

Another possibility is that the democrats figured that the republicans would all vote against the protocol, and that would make the opposition to Operation Iraqi Screwup look like a partisan issue, when what they were angling for was bipartisan debate. The GOP party dicipline certainly held the distance, and it is entirely possible that what the Republicans tried to do was close the debate or derail it into the usual partisan trenches, both of which would have been accomplished by a decision by the Democrats to vote for the proposal en bloc.

It is highly probable that what we're seing here is an effort at damage control by the Republican leadership: Faced with growing disappointment in the administration's inability to handle Operation Iraqi Screwup, they decided to propose a resolution that would have turned the debate into a shouting match if the Democrats voted for it or give the appearance of the Democrats not being able to back up their rethoric if they voted against it.

Remember that the current administration like shouting matches because shouting matches lack nuance and maturity, and the key to winning a shouting match is dominating the media by being loud and easy to understand, while an honest debate is won by presenting real arguments and showing at least a semblance of intellectual honesty. The current administration is very, very good at the former (especially since their near-total dominance of the electronic media give them a considerable head start), and they are extremely poor at the latter, because their politics lack coherence, honesty, and intelligence.

"The guys in Congress are scared to death to say anything because they might be vilified," Murtha said. "The soldiers can't speak for themselves. We sent them to war and, by God, we're the ones that have to speak out."

Thats what it looks like to me. Its similar to the war on terror and the partiot act... I suspect a lot of politicians have major reservations about a lot of things that are going on, but any hint of that and you get pounced on by the media as "liberal" and "unpatriotic". So they are all voting for things that are highly doubtful based on a fear of standing up and being counted.

That a guy wuldn't vote for a resolution backing him does imply that there was something else going on...

That said, the USA got into this mess, it can't bail out now, so I wouldn't want them to pass the resolution anyway... more honest debate and less fear mongering would be nice though...

I agree that pulling out of Iraq would be a massive mistake - but Democratic congressmen have been calling for a pullout of Iraq for months (dare I say years?) now - Murtha is just the latest figurehead/political whore (in the vein of Joe Wilson and Cindy Sheehan) to be used by the MSM to preach an anti-war agenda.

The issue is this: if these Congressmen really believe that pulling out is the right thing to do, why are they afraid of being 'vilified?' What kind of a lame excuse is that?

"Well, I wanted to do the right thing, but I was afraid they'd say mean things about me!"

The entire reason for the resolution was because (as the Dems, particularly Murtha, said) the American people are against the war (at least, according to the latest polls). That being the case, what are they afraid of, really?

Probably the inevitable power vacuum that'll hit if we withdraw too soon.

That being the case, what are they afraid of, really?My guess would be fear of not getting re-elected. If they're vilified by national media seems there might be a decent enough chance they won't be back in office next election. And THAT is motivation for most politicians.

You're still not producing the actual language of the resolution, rc. Without knowing the wording we cannot tell whether the resolution faithfully represents Murtha's sentiments. I believe that the debate is pointless until and unless you produce the evidence to back up you claim. While you're at it, it would certainly be nice if you got the context of those quotes in the article to go along with it.

To use your own rethoric: Back up your words with some evidence. Or is that request going to end 403-3 as well?

Here is the resolution, as proposed by Murtha:
Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.73:)

The basic summation is this: in the "whereas" section, Murtha goes through all of the lies perpetrated by the MSM and the liberal wackos (Dean, Kennedy, etc.). Then, the bill basically says that because we're losing in Iraq and couldn't possibly win (which is only believed by those who buy buy into the doom and gloom lies about Iraq), we should pull our troops out, leaving a minimal "quick-reaction force" of marines, and solve the problems in Iraq diplomatically.

Now that I've read the actual resolution, I think Murtha's an even bigger idiot than I first believed. How this man made it into Congress is beyond me.

Now, in light of the President's speech yesterday morning (Nov. 30), any argument that the Democrats could give either for the withdraw of our troops or that we are somehow losing in Iraq basically fall flat on their faces. Our goal in Iraq was to set up an independant, democratic Iraqi government. Well, the Iraqis have voted on a constitution, and their parliamentary elections are coming up. I'd say we're succeeding. The Iraqi military and police forces are not only growing, but are becoming more and more self-sufficient every day. Sounds like success to me. We've lost just over 2,000 troops in the liberation of over 26 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). As far as military campaigns go, that is a success of gargantuan proportions.

Where is the failure? I'm sure you wackos will come up with some lame explanation about why the sky is falling in Iraq, but I fail to care. The war in Iraq has been and continues to be a great success. If any part of the President's plan has been a failure, it's been his failure to adequately couter the arguments and lies of Washington liberals, and the Bush administration has been taking big steps to fix that.

Not only is your post inflammatory, but it's also completely and utterly incorrect.

Congratulations on knowing absolutely jack **** about anything.

Not only is your post inflammatory, but it's also completely and utterly incorrect.

Congratulations on knowing absolutely jack **** about anything.
Perhaps his post is inflammatory. However, you cannot disregard the resolution which clearly shows a few things:

From the resolution itself:
Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified

If that poll is accurate, and most polls have a ± 3% margin, this is an incredibly high number of people. Can you honestly say it's a good idea to pull out, knowing the terrorists may carry out their threat to "Make 9/11 look like a picnic"? I don't think so. If 45% of any country thinks we got what we deserve, we need to make sure that, at the very least, they aren't a threat to our land. And if we leave them alone, they should be closely monitored.

From the resolution itself:
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom

This number is tragic, but terribly small compared to, say, the bloodiest war in our history: The Civil War. Hundreds of thousands lay dead because of that war, an excess of 200,000. If this is incorrect, there is smoething very wrong with our school system here in the West. And if more soldiers are dying over there, I grieve for them... and appreciate that they died in Iraq, and not on Washington D.C. streets.

From the resolution itself:
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan

I see. No doubt this is true. And I deeply regret that the enemy wasn't bombed in more locations. It would take out the terrorists, and save money and lives. However, are we going to let money, whose value can change, dictate whether we lose our freedom, whose value never changes? I can just imagine Arab terrorists busting in my door and killing me for making this post. Thus would be the norm if we let these terrorist ba****** win. They will not be allowed to continue attacking us while we have strength left. That sounds a lot more powerful than the Democrats' message:

"We will not allow the terrorists to continue attacking us - while we have money left."

Yes, money is an important consideration. Nonetheless, President Bush is well aware of our monetary situation. He has placed priority on freedom over money - a position I admire. I do not agree with our President on all points, but I definitely agree with the war on terror.

From the resolution itself:
SEC. 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

What makes you think the terrorists are national terrorists. We are fighting on many fronts, Iraq not the least. Terrorists would still cross the borders and attack us. Even were this not true, what on Earth makes some think that the other leaders would go along with this?

And reaction-forces? React to what? Another attack on a massive scale? Why not stay in Iraq, disable the terrorists before they can repeat or exceed 9/11? Some say they want a smoking gun. I say this is a good idea on paper, but it doesn't apply to real life. If we wait for a smoking gun, the gun has been fired, and somebody is either wounded or dead. Waiting for the smoking gun - or the detonated chemical weapon - is an invitation for disaster. We must defeat the enemy before we leave.

And if we leave, this will show the terrorists that we have won... what? Nothing. That all this death will be worthless. Because we lost. Because we couldn't finish the job. George Bush Sr. made the same mistake when he invaded Iraq in 1991. He didn't kick Saddaam out of his bloodstained throne room. Instead, we left. Since then, the World Trade Center has been attacked at least twice - once using a car bomb, and once using airplanes as projectiles of destruction. Leaving now will give the enemy confidence that we are weak, especially - if he's not dead, dear God I hope he is - Usama Bin Laden.

In summary: I agree with this thread, but nit with the flame in the starter's previous post.

The problem with your argument is that you buy into the whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" crap. The insurgency in Iraq is made up of Iraqi citizens who want to kick the Americans out of Iraq, for one reason or another.

I disagree with you there, but I don't think I have a great chance of changing your mind there. However, I still firmly believe that the other foreign nations won't be any happier with us having our troops to "keep an eye on Iraq". Because that's what we are doing now: Keeping an eye on them. They would say something to the effect of:

"You wish to station troops here? Why? You can do that in the country you just attacked."

And they would have a valid point. And, all things aside, I still think we don't need an exit strategy so much as we need a strategy to win. OK, let's get the troops moving, sweep the entire country. Then, when the threat to our nation is neutralized, we can bring them home.

Ah, what-the-heck. You got me going, and do does the music playing. Is that "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" really such crap? They haven't hesitated to attack us before, have they? Nor have they failed to attack Spain (remember the train bombings?) and there WILL be more. By fighting here, I do not mean we will have a full-fledged war like in Iraq. I mean that we will be infiltrated by terrorist cells. Finding one these days is a big deal. If we don't stop the terrorists where they stand, finding 20 will be the norm - if we can do anything about it. It can be all hell in the USA. Right now, the only hell we have is a political firestorm.

And the enemy is not an insurgency. According to Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/insurgent.html):


in·sur·gent [ in sъrjənt ]


noun (plural in·sur·gents)

Definitions:

1. rebel: somebody who rebels against authority or leadership, especially somebody who belongs to a group involved in an uprising


2. political rebel: a member of a political party who rebels against the party leaders or policies

The enemy is not rebelling. They are the remnant of a loyalist group of terrorists called the former Iraqi government. Far-left liberals and far-right conservatives are insurgents of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. (Hey, I may be far-right in some ways, but I have my limits.) The word 'insurgent' is horribly misused by the media.

So, I'm not talking about continuous fighting, I'm talking about sporadic terrorist attacks, and far more often. And that is the main reason we cannot leave. Don't get me wrong: when the time comes, I will be for the withdrawl of troops, like everyone else. But the time is not come until the death-toll stops going up so fast in Iraq. They may hate our country, but they need not try to kill us to get us out. It means we'll be there to stay.

Also, the guy who wrote the proposal didn't say immediately get out of Iraq. He said at the earliest possible convenience. The Republicans played a little game, asking 'do we pull out now?' and that changed the whole proposal. That's why he didn't vote for it. He didn't say NOW, he said WHEN YOU CAN. The Repubs knew this, and they played a political game. They knew the bill, when so twisted, would never pass.

That should explain why he didn't vote for 'his own bill'. (Darn, second uber-post so far)

The problem with your argument is that you buy into the whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" crap. The insurgency in Iraq is made up of Iraqi citizens who want to kick the Americans out of Iraq, for one reason or another.
Exactly. And calculate in the fact that eventually the terrorists are going to figure out that it doesn't have to be an "either/ or" situation.

There's also absolutely no reason to believe that we can't be fighting them over there AND over here. So far it hasn't happened, but these folks aren't stupid, and eventually they will begin see the obvious. And much sooner than later, I think,.. That is to say if it hasn't already happened.

In fact, it probably works greatly to their advantage to have a huge chunk of our armed forces (as well as a huge portion of our attention and energies focused) overseas at the time, as well. I truly believe that all of the world's major terrorist organizations have the exact same goals as Bush and Co. in that respect: Keep American Troops in the Mid-East. Helps their recruiting, and provides a strategic distraction.

So if you enact a campaign of constant easily-executed, cheaply-produced low-level attacks on American troops stationed overseas to keep attention and debate focused there, as well as to try to strengthen the resolve of the administration and citizenry to "Stay-the-course"... all the while you could be planning a series of devastating attacks on the homeland that they never expect and will be completely unprepared to deal with.

It would be nice and refreshing if politicians actually did what was right rather than what was popular... but I'm not sure i've seen it in my lifetime, as I doubt I will in the future.

I think rccar328 does have a point, but it seems to me that this Murtha guy is on the extremes of the debate, and its not much of a surprise that he didn't get a lot of support. It was a clever (if sneaky) move by the republicans to call him on it.

When the democrats SHOULD have stood up for what they felt was right was back just after 9/11 when Busgh was using public outrage to justify ayting and everything... but at that point they were too scared (and probably understandably) as the population and media was in no mood to hear rational arguments. Now its too late. All but the most strident anti-war protestors believe that (even if we shouldn't have gone in in the first place) withdrawing too early would be an even worse mistake.
So since they let the troops go in, they are stuck with that decision.
People can still think the war in iraq is terrible and wrong, that logically mean they should support pulling out. The two do not correlate.

I truly believe that all of the world's major terrorist organizations have the exact same goals as Bush and Co. in that respect: Keep American Troops in the Mid-East. Helps their recruiting, and provides a strategic distraction.

Exactly. The longer american forces remain in the region the more support al-quaida gets. But conversely, the stronger al-quaida gets the better it is for western politicians. Its a self sustaining symbiotic relationship.
Its always better to have an enemy to rail against...

The enemy is not rebelling. They are the remnant of a loyalist group of terrorists called the former Iraqi government. Far-left liberals and far-right conservatives are insurgents of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. (Hey, I may be far-right in some ways, but I have my limits.) The word 'insurgent' is horribly misused by the media.

Even the U.S. generals call them insurgents.

Also, Saddam was not supporting terrorists.

No, but he was a terrorist, to his own people. Thousands upon thousands are found dead in mass graves in Iraq.

Well technically, most of the people he killed were political enemies trying to either kill him or remove him from power, by force. Which is also punishable by death in the US, treason and all.
But anyway, that's not really the point. The point is our political heads keep using buzzwords to terrify people into support.

I do agree about one thing though, removing a mass amount of troops at this point would be foolish. As it is, we've effectively proven these people were safer under Saddam's rule, as compared to now.

And Afghanistan has gone to ****, and we're doing nothing to help it.

I do agree about one thing though, removing a mass amount of troops at this point would be foolish. As it is, we've effectively proven these people were safer under Saddam's rule, as compared to now.

And Afghanistan has gone to ****, and we're doing nothing to help it.

I agree.

I don't know that they invented insurgent, they would probably make the definition something other that "rebel". But, anyway, what I quoted is done so for truth. :)

There's also evidence that this wasn't just Murtha's plan: Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10118733/site/newsweek/)

Basically what it gets down to is that Murtha's plan was cooked up by both he and Pelosi, endorsed by the Democratic Party conference...and then they mysteriously abandoned him when it came to a vote.

Also, this language they're using about withdrawing from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" is misleading. I looked up 'practicable (http://m-w.com/dictionary/practicable)') just to make sure I had it right - it doesn't mean the same thing as 'practical', it basically means 'as soon as possible', or as soon as we possibly can - which means start moving troops out today, to withdraw all of them within a few months. And Murtha has been out there making sure his point was made, saying quite clearly that we should withdraw 'immediately'.

In fact, the President's plan, as he outlined it in his speech the other day, is to withdraw troops as soon as it is practical: when the Iraqi military and police forces can support themselves and adequately defend their own nation.

And to say that Saddam was not supporting terrorists is a bald-faced lie: there is documented proof that Saddam was paying large sums of money to Palestenian suicide bombers, as well as his harboring of known Al-Qaida leaders. This is not up for dispute, it's a known fact.

Also, it's largely understood (though not by all) that it's not an either/or situation when it comes to fighting them over there vs. over here. This is why we have things like the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Middle Eastern terrorists (I think from Iran) were caught just a couple of months ago trying to enter the US illegally from Mexico, and I've heard numerous stories of authorities raiding Al-Qaida training camps in the US - including one in the Bend, Oregon area, where I happen to have relatives (which is how I heard about it).

This is why the holisitic 'War on Terror' includes the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and measures to try and secure our homeland - because we don't want to become a nation like Israel, where Islamofascist anti-semites try to murder as many innocents as possible by blowing themselves up in busses and restaurants.

Well technically, most of the people he killed were political enemies trying to either kill him or remove him from power, by force. Which is also punishable by death in the US, treason and all.
Of course, there was that time that Saddam gassed an entire village because someone tried to assasinate him while he was there...but they were obviously all in on it.[/sarcasm] And were all of the women Saddam's sons raped traitors, too? How about those who were thrown in prison, tortured, maimed, killed, or left to die for the 'crime' of making negative comments about Saddam's regime? Did they deserve what they got?

All of that aside, though, if our forces are somehow 'feeding the insurgency' by inspiring new recruits, then the sooner we get the Iraqi military, police, and government up and running, the better, because when Iraq can defend itself and our troops can leave, the 'insurgency' will die. I think it'd be great if we could bring the troops home starting tomorrow...but we can't. To quote the President, we have to "stay the course."

The problem with the Democrats is that they don't have any defined policy, and absolutely no useful suggestions. Some drag out retired generals who say there aren't enough troops. Others say there are too many troops - that our military presence in Iraq is the root cause of the problem and that we should pull out ASAP. They're only unified in one thing: Bush is evil, Bush is wrong. They're out there constantly criticizing the President, but "pull out" is not a constructive suggestion, just a recipe for disaster. And if our military presence in Iraq is somehow making the problem worse, then sending even more troops in won't solve a thing. The answer: the President must be doing it right.






And on a side note...I apologize for being so 'inflamatory' in my last post...I got a little carried away.

Hmm. did you link the right article? that Newsweek one paints Murtha in a much better light that i expected (actually has been to iraq for one thing) and has actually made me side more with him and the democrats than I was initially tending to do.

Did you read:
By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it.

Or the bits about how just as many people may be getting tortured by the current security forces (who surprisingly enough have the same attitude as the old security forces) as did under saddam? Its a harsh country, in a harsh region, with lots of antagonistic ethnic groups... which is why its similar to all other such countries in having harsh rulers. But we don't invade them.

Lets not drag up the old "saddam supported terrorists" argument. You know as well as anyone that is patently untrue. he may have supported palestinians, but so does saudi arabia, and every other anti israel country in the world. He didn't support any al quaida terrorists in any attacks on the US though.

THe US needs to get things stable as soon as possible (hihc probably requires more troops not less int he short term) and then get out. But since 90% of the troops will be the same as the ones under saddam people shouldn't expect an overnight improvement in the way they act. But while the US is there they are just recruiting more and more soldiers tothe al quaida cause.

(side note: there are two factors at the root of 99% of the problems - they are the Saudi Royal Family and Israel. If you don't address those problems you are just cutting heads off hydra....)

Lets not drag up the old "saddam supported terrorists" argument. You know as well as anyone that is patently untrue. he may have supported palestinians...
Here you openly contradict yourself..."You know Saddam didn't support terrorists...he may have supported those terrorist, but so does every other anti-semetic nation in the Middle East" is no argument - other Middle Eastern nations who support Palestenian terrorism are just as guilty on that count.

As for your quote from the article, the only bill I could find through the House website was the one proposed by Murtha - from what I've heard, all the Republicans did to the bill was put it to a very quick, very public vote. I would call that spin from Newsweek.

THe US needs to get things stable as soon as possible (hihc probably requires more troops not less int he short term) and then get out. But since 90% of the troops will be the same as the ones under saddam people shouldn't expect an overnight improvement in the way they act. But while the US is there they are just recruiting more and more soldiers to the al quaida cause.
I agree with you here in part: the US does need to get things stable as soon as possible and then get out...but things are going well the way they are - they just aren't being reported that way by the MSM. I have heard over and over and over and over troops who served and/or are currently serving in Iraq who say that they see the news and wonder what kind of twilight zone the news agencies are living in because the actual situation on the ground is extremely different from what is being reported. The problem is the media mantra, "if it bleeds, it leads." Our news agencies are giving us all of the bad news and none, or extremely little, of the good, making it appear as though we're losing, when we are in fact succeeding tremendously.

(side note: there are two factors at the root of 99% of the problems - they are the Saudi Royal Family and Israel. If you don't address those problems you are just cutting heads off hydra....)
So the anti-semitism of Islamic nations has nothing to do with it...it's just Israel's fault? That argument doesn't hold water. The fact that many of the world's Muslims are hacked off by the fact that the nation of Israel exists or even that there are any Jews left living on planet Earth doesn't give them license to kill innocents.

Its a harsh country, in a harsh region, with lots of antagonistic ethnic groups... which is why its similar to all other such countries in having harsh rulers. But we don't invade them.
Frankly, I think some of them (Iran, to name just one) could use a good invasion. Jimmy Carter really screwed that nation up - the Shah wasn't perfect, to be sure, but he was definitely preferable to Khomeini, or the current administration there. Whether we will invade is another matter entirely...but even in the absence of an invasion, a good revolution would do Iran some good.

I'd like to remind you once again to avoid posting inflammatory comments.
Anti-Israel != Anti-Semite.

Here you openly contradict yourself..."You know Saddam didn't support terrorists...he may have supported those terrorist, but so does every other anti-semetic nation in the Middle East" is no argument - other Middle Eastern nations who support Palestenian terrorism are just as guilty on that count.

The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

I'd like to remind you once again to avoid posting inflammatory comments.
Anti-Israel != Anti-Semite.
Whether anti-Israel is synonymous with anti-semite or not, many of the Arab terrorist groups, as well as Iran, have endorsed the elimination of Israel not only out of nationalistic/state policy issues, but because there Jews in Israel. Not all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-semitic, but much of it is, and that is what I am referring to.

The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.
No, they didn't; Al-Qaida did. And Saddam both harbored and aided Al-Qaida terrorist and leaders.

No, they didn't; Al-Qaida did. And Saddam both harbored and aided Al-Qaida terrorist and leaders.

That's incorrect.

I was kinda surprised to see the vote backfire on the Republicans the way it did. I assumed at first it would vidicate a lot of their feelings about the war but it seems to have made Murtha into something of a martyr in the media. Ugh, politics...

Someone above said "our goal in Iraq was to set up an independant, democratic Iraqi government." I thought our goal was to find massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons in Iraq. That is the reason used to sell this war to the public, that is the reason the country voluntarily elected to engage in this war. I won't argue against the liberation of 26 million people and the removal of a murderous dictator; no sane person could. But somebody, somewhere along the line, not so subtly "adjusted" the purpose of this conflict because its original goal didn't pan out as expected. And that, despite the successes of US forces, is a dishonesty I certainly will not forget or forgive.

I'm also curious as to what constitutes success on the ground. The people are free of the dictator, but aren't we also obliged to see that their living conditions improve significantly before we pull out? I'd figure basic utilities and employment are almost as important as a stable and working government, and are all probably dependant on one another. It's a country we held under painful economic sanctions for several years before invading, I figure we owe them all a big leg up on top of their liberation. :)

The way I see it, if you can't have indoor plumbing, you can't have good government. Someone in a house stinking of ****, will not be of right mind to make judgement calls.

Well, the Democrats had their chance - with Representative John Murtha being the latest figurehead to be used by the left wing,

"Figurehead used by the left-wing?" Murtha was very much for the invasion of Iraq and has been very hawkish for a Democrat. The guy has been to Iraq and visited with the troops and observed what they're dealing with. Moreover, he has the wisdom of having actually served his country in time of war. I think I'd question the qualifications of someone willing to employ a device of rhetoric like left-wing figurehead before I'd question his qualifications. But that's just me.

Here is the question behind all of this: if it's really true that the war in Iraq is so horrible, and if it's really true that so many Americans are against the war, then what are the Dems afraid of? They are now calling the quick vote on the resolution a "political stunt," yet if pulling the troops out is the right thing to do, then why not turn it on the Republican's heads by voting for it? The Democrat's excuses here make entirely no sense.

Truly, you aren't that ignorant. Since I don't believe you are, that leaves your willingness to abandon logic for rhetoric once again. Iraq is a failure. There is no way you can argue otherwise. The incompetence of this administration launched us into a war in which we focused on oil rather than fighting the threat of global terrorism. The rhetorical arguments that Iraq is an invasion needed to "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here" is complete rubbish. As noted by another poster in this very thread, it didn't help Spain or Britain. Both nations participated in the invasion. Both were attacked in their homelands. That we've "not been attacked" by terrorists in the United States since the Iraq invasion is a complete non-sequitur. This administration deceived the nation with claims of "weapons of mass destruction," indeed; the twits that are running the administration specifically used very graphic terminology: "a mushroom cloud." Why do I use such a harsh label on our nations "leadership?" Because they demonstrated their incompetence at every turn and the situation they've put our nation in is un-winnable.

So why are 403 members of the Congress afraid to vote FOR pulling troops out immediately? Are you serious? We can neither stay nor can we leave. Bush and co. screwed us. The motivations for voting against such a resolution are few but significant: re-election concerns, conscience, and simply not knowing what the best course of action is. Personally, I say pull them out now. Every one. Stage them in Kuwait or nearby, but get them out of Iraq. But then, I've been there and other hostile places as a soldier and I know what they're dealing with on a level that most Congressmen don't. And when I hear that monkey in the Whitehouse say, "we have to stay the course or it will dishonor those that have already paid the ultimate sacrifice," I know deep down that ******* can't possibly know what the soldiers think and neither can Cheney. There's no way a deserter and a draft-dodger can begin to presume to know what a real soldier or marine thinks. Ten more just paid the "ultimate sacrifice" yesterday. Their lives were thrown away by a deserter and a draft-dodger. My vernacular is harsh, my tone angry; but that's how I feel when people I know and love are disrespected and an institution I know and love is dishonored.

I'd say we're succeeding. The Iraqi military and police forces are not only growing, but are becoming more and more self-sufficient every day. Sounds like success to me. We've lost just over 2,000 troops in the liberation of over 26 million people. As far as military campaigns go, that is a success of gargantuan proportions.

So, is that where you've been? Iraq? I thought maybe you just dropped off the board for a while. Okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic. I find it hard to believe, however, that there is anyone left that is willing to call our invasion/occupation of Iraq a success. We liberated 26 million people. Wow. I wonder if the people afraid to let their kids play in the street feel liberated. Perhaps liberation is felt by the family that has their door kicked in by the marines, who have to kick in every door so the insurgents don't know which family it was that gave information, otherwise their families are kidnapped or killed in the street. Maybe it’s the Iraqi infrastructure that has been liberated so they can provide constant power, water and sewage. Or are these even on with any consistency yet? Iraqi archaeology hasn't been liberated yet. There are still tanks sitting on the tells and mastabas of antiquity, forever disturbing cultural heritage to the point of obliteration. Maybe the kids are liberated (WARNING: disturbing journalistic photos) (http://iraq-kill-maim.org/kid-kill/kid-kill-01.htm).

If ever I'm being oppressed, please don't bring me any of your liberation. I don't like your definition.

Where is the failure? I'm sure you wackos will come up with some lame explanation about why the sky is falling in Iraq, but I fail to care.

Of course you do. And it's 2,259 US Military Dead (as of 12/3/05) in the Iraq invasion/occupation, not 'just over 2,000.' But then, what are 259 good, well-intended soldiers and marines as long as the sky is still blue, eh? Just so I don't disappoint you as a potential 'whacko,' lets look at the overall success of our invasion/occupation:

We failed to anticipate or prevent the massive, wide scale looting at the fall of Baghdad, nor do we even try to stop it.
We fail to anticipate the massive, wide scale insurgency as a result of the next point
We completely disband and dissolve the Iraqi army only to start a new one
Total US Military dead: 2,259
Total US Military wounded in action and not returned to duty: 7,413
Total Iraqi police & military dead: 3,600
Total Iraqi civilians dead: 27,000 (or the equivalent of nine 9/11's)
Amount of taxpayer money spent: $277 billion
We thought training Iraqi soldiers and building a military force from zero would be simple
"Democratically" elected Deputy Prime Minister is a convicted embezzler
US Forces were too small to handle post-war security
30,000 insurgents – 90-96% of which are Iraqi, not foreign
Civil war imminent with main forces being Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite
Secret Iraqi prison for Sunnis
Use of White Phosphorus rounds on a city occupied by civilians
SUCCESS: Saddam Hussein captured
SUCCESS: elections were held
FAILURE: nobody really knew who the candidates were (the ones that survived)

This number is tragic, but terribly small compared to, say, the bloodiest war in our history

The blood of war is always easier to justify for those that don't have to actually bleed. I'm shocked that anyone would think 2,259 dead service-members is 'terribly small.'

And to say that Saddam was not supporting terrorists is a bald-faced lie: there is documented proof that Saddam was paying large sums of money to Palestenian suicide bombers, as well as his harboring of known Al-Qaida leaders. This is not up for dispute, it's a known fact.

Actually, it is very much up to dispute. I challenge you to source those claims. You tried in this forum in the past and failed. Moreover, one cannot consider Palestinians as terrorists without also considering the people that stole their lands and is oppressing them are terrorists as well. The Israeli government/military uses nearly the same exact tactics on the Palestinians as the suicide bombers do: they explode munitions so as to kill and maim civilians. At least the Palestinians have the honor to die with their weapon. I don't see many Israeli soldiers willing to ride a rocket to an apartment building. Now, do I agree with their methods? Absolutely not. But neither am I so ignorant as to not see a difference between Palestinians and Al Qaeda. In addition, if memory serves correct, Saddam's contributions to the Palestinians were to the families of suicide bombers. There also is no solid evidence that Saddam "harbored" Al Qaeda leaders any more than Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Jordan, etc. have by letting them enter their borders. To suggest otherwise is perpetrating a falsehood with the intent to immorally deceive, which is exactly what our incompetent leadership did in the current administration.

But then, this whole "Saddam supported terrorism" is a complete red-herring fallacy to begin with. There is no evidence that suggests Saddam supported terrorists planning to attack the United States. To believe that nonsense demonstrates severe gullibility.

because we don't want to become a nation like Israel, where Islamofascist anti-semites try to murder as many innocents as possible by blowing themselves up in busses and restaurants.

That would only happen if the Navajo or the Sioux nations decided to start taking back land.


The problem with the Democrats is that they don't have any defined policy, and absolutely no useful suggestions.

That appears to be the problem of politicians. All politicians appear to have their cranial sections firmly lodged in their anal. What's amazing is this: there are people in this country that want to side with this false dichotomy of "republicans vs. democrats." Beyond that, the rhetorical argument of Democratic failures to provide solutions is a fallacy. The Democrats aren't in charge, the Republicans are. The mess is theirs and THEY have no plan or solutions. "Stay the course" isn't a plan if you don't know where the hell you're going.

but things are going well the way they are - they just aren't being reported that way by the MSM. I have heard over and over and over and over troops who served and/or are currently serving in Iraq who say that they see the news and wonder what kind of twilight zone the news agencies are living in because the actual situation on the ground is extremely different from what is being reported.

I think you're hearing things. I talk to friends and family who are both there and back from there and they give me the distinct impression that we don't see the half of what is really happening with regard to risks they face and the trauma they see every day. When I was in Iraq & Kuwait, the conditions weren't nearly as risky, but I can tell you that the worst depictions the media gives even now pale in comparison to what I actually witnessed. As I think about it, you and I are really asserting the same thing: that the media isn't covering to the fullest what's going on in Iraq. Only I say it's far more negative and graphic than the media reports, probably because they're worried about baseless criticisms of left-wing bias from warhawks.

If one of us is correct, that means the other is merely repeating rhetoric.

Whether anti-Israel is synonymous with anti-semite or not,

I fail to see how anyone could possibly equate these two terms. Semitic peoples include all the Near Eastern cultures of the Levant region, including many Arab ones. To be anti-Semitic means you oppose Semite people. To be anti-Israeli means you oppose either the people or government of Israel.


Nice to have you back, rccar.

Here is the question behind all of this: if it's really true that the war in Iraq is so horrible, and if it's really true that so many Americans are against the war, then what are the Dems afraid of?

Here's a better question. Who the hell are you to say that the Iraq war isn't horrible? People are dying. Lot's of them. Every day. Pretty ****ing horrible if you ask me. You signing up to go fight? No? Why? It's not like it's horrible or anything.

*still wonders what terrorists saddam funded or aided* :confused:

toms, if you don't know that by now, you've had your head in the sand for years now.

Two final points, and then I'm gonna shut my pie hole:

Here is an excerpt from Joe Lieberman's recent editorial (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611) in The Wall Street Journal:
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I'm not the only one who says that the Iraq war is a success thus far. There have been mistakes...but we are succeeding.

We thought training Iraqi soldiers and building a military force from zero would be simple
I never heard anyone say that training Iraqi soldiers and building a military force in Iraq would be simple. I did hear President Bush say that this would be a long and difficult war, but that we would prevail (which we are doing). There have been setbacks. There have been sacrifices, as there always must be in order to secure freedom, whether for ourselves, or for others. No, I haven't been to Iraq. I'm willing to bet that most or all of you haven't, either, so you have no assurance that it's the utter failure that you claim it to be. I have, however, heard from many troops, mainly through radio interviews, that the situation in Iraq has been a great success, that the Iraqi people have welcomed our soldiers, and that the situation on the ground in Iraq is nothing like it is portrayed by the news media. I may not be in Iraq myself, but I'm arguing based on information that I've heard from soldiers who are and were there.

I leave you with this, from an MSNBC report: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9970081/from/RSS/)
Men and women were tortured for days and babies were left to die in an interrogation facility that featured a meat grinder for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face Saddam Hussein told the court on Monday.

"I swear by God I walked by a room and on my left I saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," said 38-year-old Ahmed Hassan, who said he had been kept in Room 63 at the Hakmiya intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

Hassan, the first witness to face Saddam in court, said he was 15 when Saddam visited the village of Dujail in July 1982 and Shiite militants tried to assassinate him.

Speaking technically as an individual plaintiff alongside the state, Hassan said he and his family were among hundreds of people rounded up in a security operation run by Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti after an attempt on Saddam's life in the village.

He said it was while he was climbing the stairs there that he saw the meat grinder.

"No one escaped torture," he said. "They would put a mask on my eyes and because I was young it would fall down. I saw women being tortured."

"My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father watched," Hassan said.

"They told us, 'Why don't you confess, you will be executed anyway,' " he said. "One man was shot in the leg with two bullets. ... Some people were crippled because they had their arms and legs broken."

He said they were held in Hakmiya for 70 days.

While they were there, a woman told a guard that her infant baby needed milk or he would die. "He died and the guard threw him from the window," Hassan told the court. "Pregnant women gave birth in the prison. Their babies died."
Why were these people imprisoned? Because they lived in a village, and someone happened to try to assasinate Saddam while he was in that village. This is why we went to war.

This is why we went to war.
Uh, no. That's what we say now, but we went because Saddam had nuclear weapons, or so said the administration.

And Iraq is not a success, we've won a lot of battles, but we're pretty much losing the war. And don't even talk about how Afghanistan "worked". It's in worse shape than it was when we got there. We've left it in power to opium dealers.

Iraq is a ****storm that is not going to be cleared up for a long while. We may pull out and say ****'s fine, but we'd be lying.

I realize you want it to be a success. Many people want it to be, but success in Iraq is like the UFO phenomenon. People see it, but no one has any physical evidence. There is more evidence against success, than there is for it.

And when I said "we," I'm referring to the perception the public had about the process as given to us by the Bush admin. This administration (proven to be incompetent on so many levels) made the public believe it would be an 'in-and-out' process. Bush himself even gave inflated figures regarding the number of Iraqi forces trained earlier this year, as if the process was simpler than it is.

But let me rephrase what I originally said: "we failed to recognize that training Iraqi troops would be as difficult as it is."

But one of the most significant failures is failing to stick to their story. And the criminals that disgrace the Whitehouse and the institution of the Presidency have yet to admit their true reason for invading a soveriegn nation: oil hegemony.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf//cartoon_cause.gif)

You know, if we want to go around liberating people from evil dictators who torture and murder their own citizens, why don't we invade North Korea and take out Kim Jong-il? He's worse than Saddam by far.

And they're COMMUNISTS! :o

We're going to be on our own: Over the past year, the size of the multinational contribution in Iraq has fallen by half, and most of the major remaining contributors are on record as planning to leave in 2006. Who replaces them?

The insurgency: in three years of occupation, it has ony grown: in geographic range, the severity of its attacks, and the sophistication of its methods. The December 1, 2005 attack that killed 10 Marines and wounded 14 others in fallujah is a prime example. This wasn't simply an improvised munition, it was a very complex and well-executed operation that involved the modification of a series of very large artillery shells and strategically implacing and timing the attack. In August, a single attack killed 14 Marines and a civilian interpreter, which was the single greatest death toll since Bush said, "mission accomplished."

What about some metrics of success? Its easy to toss in some quotes by politicians who have various agendas, but if there's so much success, where are the metrics of it?

Ah, you actually managed - at long last - to produce the resolution itself. I will reiterate that the demand for a roll call vote looks like an attempt to close the issue by turning it into a partisan trench war over a proposal that bears very little resemblance to what he actually said. The democrats didn't rise to the bait. Take a cookie, and get on with it.

First off, let me say that I think the US should stay in Iraq, but for somewhat different reasons than the neocons. "You break it, you buy it" still applies in international politics.

Operation Iraqi Screwup really has been an outstanding failure, however, and any who claim otherwise are either horribly misinformed or lying in their teeth.

The basic summation is this: in the "whereas" section, Murtha goes through all of the lies

Well, let's go through those 'lies' of yours one by one:

Whereas Congress and the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq

I've just run a little plot of the number of 'coalition' fatalities broken down by month. I got an interesting little graph (http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9876/operationiraqiscrewup2mx.jpg) I want to show you.* Then I want to hear you explain how you consider those numbers to be 'measureable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq,' as you allege is the case. Alternatively, you could give a reasonable explanation of why the number of coalition fatalities is a bad measure of the security situation. If you manage either of those things, we'll run through the same little excercise with the Iraqi body count. I don't think you'll like that chart either.

*Thanks to Skin for instructions on how to upload it.

Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to `promote the emergence of a democratic government';

Quick googling failed to return any independent analysis of Iraq's economic situation. Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of us why you think that Iraq's economy is improving? Or maybe you called the statement a lie because you don't believe that security and prosperity are essential to promoting the emergence of a democratic government?

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

That's what our analysts and newsies concluded (virtually unanimously) about a year ago this side of the Pond. What makes you think differently?

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

You have reason to doubt that figure?

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

2132, actually (Skin quotes a larger figure earlier, but that's including allied troops).

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

How is this a lie? Please include my above graph in your explanation.

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80 percent of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45 percent of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified

OK, that one may or may not be kosher. The last figures I heard were somewhat lower.

Our goal in Iraq was to set up an independant, democratic Iraqi government. Well, the Iraqis have voted on a constitution, and their parliamentary elections are coming up. I'd say we're succeeding.

There is more to a democracy than elections. Egypt has elections too. Lebanon has elections. Syria has elections. Even the US has elections...

And calling the Iraqi government 'independent' is a bad joke. Heck, calling it a government is a bad joke. 'Perpetually ongoing meltdown' seems a more accurate description.

We've lost just over 2,000 troops in the liberation of over 26 million people.

Quite apart from the fact that you've yet to win, you've thrust those same 26 mill into a situation that balances on a razor's edge with civil war on one side, and a situation very much like the one in Lebanon on the other...

As far as military campaigns go, that is a success of gargantuan proportions.

Hmm... I'd be wary of announcing success without having achieved victory. That seems to me to be courting Daemon Murphy. Or Nemesis...

If any part of the President's plan has been a failure, it's been his failure to adequately cou[n]ter the arguments and lies of Washington liberals, and the Bush administration has been taking big steps to fix that.

I am tempted to google 'PATRIOT ACT civil rights violations' and 'CIA GESTAPO tactics', but in the interest of keeping the debate civil and to the point I'll refrain from it.

If that poll is accurate, and most polls have a ± 3% margin, this is an incredibly high number of people. Can you honestly say it's a good idea to pull out, knowing the terrorists may carry out their threat to "Make 9/11 look like a picnic"?

Try googling 'London Bombings' and 'Madrid 3-11'. Exactly how do you propose a continued presence in Iraq would counter that?

I don't think so. If 45% of any country thinks we got what we deserve, we need to make sure that, at the very least, they aren't a threat to our land.

Because Operation Iraqi Screwup has such a great track record when it comes to preventing terrorism around the world, right?

And if we leave them alone, they should be closely monitored.

Which happens to be exactly what the resolution proposes.

This number is tragic, but terribly small compared to, say, the bloodiest war in our history: The Civil War.

Eer, WWI, anyone?

And if more soldiers are dying over there, I grieve for them... and appreciate that they died in Iraq, and not on Washington D.C. streets.

From muggings? Because surely you don't mean from a terrorist attack? The risk of being murdered by a terrorist is still less in D.C. than in the Deep South - as this story shows (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/06/mirecki_treated_after_roadside_beating/?ku_news) - and it is far, far less than dying from lung cancer caused by exhaust fumes from unrestricted SUV driving.

I can just imagine Arab terrorists busting in my door and killing me for making this post. Thus would be the norm if we let these terrorist ba****** win.

No country or civilisation in history has been brought low by terrorism. Quite a few have, however, been brought low by their excessive reaction to terrorism.

What makes you think the terrorists are national terrorists[?]

First of all, people who attack an occupation force aren't 'terrorists' in any meaningful definition of terms.

We are fighting on many fronts, Iraq not the least. Terrorists would still cross the borders and attack us.

Secondly, nobody said that. But staying in Iraq accomplishes exactly nothing - zero, zip, zilch, nada - on the 'preventing terrorism' front. That can only be done by competent domestic security services and police.

Even were this not true, what on Earth makes some think that the other leaders would go along with this?

Eer, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qwait are in your back pocket (or you in theirs, depending on one's perspective)...

Waiting for the smoking gun - or the detonated chemical weapon - is an invitation for disaster.

Get a grip. Any reasonably competent chemist can cook up a chemical bomb in a bathtub. From off-the-shelf components. Sitting in Iraq does absolutely squat to prevent it.

We must defeat the enemy before we leave.

Which enemy? Where? And how?

Because we couldn't finish the job. George Bush Sr. made the same mistake when he invaded Iraq in 1991.

Bush Sr. didn't move on Baghdad because, unlike his son, he could find his own ass with both hands without a control tower, a ground radar, a detailed flight plan, and a half-dozen nav beacons. If he had moved against Baghdad, his coalition would have fallen apart around him, and he'd have ended up in much the same situation now facing his son.

Since then, the World Trade Center has been attacked at least twice - once using a car bomb, and once using airplanes as projectiles of destruction.

With which Iraq had absolutely nothing to do!

Leaving now will give the enemy confidence that we are weak

You are doing a pretty good impression of that as it is...

OK, let's get the troops moving, sweep the entire country. Then, when the threat to our nation is neutralized, we can bring them home.

The problem with that kind of brute force approach is that you are confronting a problem that isn't ameanable to brute force solutions. You face a problem that is really more properly the job of police and intelligence types than soldiers and tanks. You'll need the soldiers and tanks in Iraq for years from now, because if they leave, there is a very real risk of civil war, but the fundamental problem is one soluble only by spooks. And that is going to take a looong time.

The enemy is not rebelling. They are the remnant of a loyalist group of terrorists called the former Iraqi government.

You're splitting semantic hairs here. Quite apart from the fact that your statement is probably incorrect where a large number of insurgents are concerned, surely we can agree that they are fighting against a more or less legitimate government, and that they are targetting more or less legitimate, military targets. That makes them insurgents.

Basically what it gets down to is that Murtha's plan was cooked up by both he and Pelosi, endorsed by the Democratic Party conference...and then they mysteriously abandoned him when it came to a vote.

I'd like you to take a long and hard look at the following paragraph and then look up the word 'bowdlerize.'

By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it.

Also, this language they're using about withdrawing from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" is misleading.

That's right. In fact it's very misleading because it's not their language at all (remember what bowdlerization is?).

And to say that Saddam was not supporting terrorists is a bald-faced lie: there is documented proof that Saddam was paying large sums of money to Palestenian suicide bombers,

You and I both know perfectly well that that's not W implied. In fact, your 'proof' is a deliberate distortion of the truth that falls short of being an outright lie by only a hair's breath.

as well as his harboring of known Al-Qaida leaders. This is not up for dispute, it's a known fact.

That's bovine excrements. I'd very much like to see the evidence to back up that outlandish claim.

Middle Eastern terrorists (I think from Iran) were caught just a couple of months ago trying to enter the US illegally from Mexico,

Terrorists, eh? How do you distinguish between terrorists and other illegal aliens? And would you care to provide a source?

and I've heard numerous stories of authorities raiding Al-Qaida training camps in the US - including one in the Bend, Oregon area, where I happen to have relatives (which is how I heard about it).

'Training camps'? Bovine manure. Sources, please.

This is why the holisitic 'War on Terror' includes the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and measures to try and secure our homeland

I was trying very, very hard not to bring up Orwell, but 'holistic war' is straight out of 1984.

Some drag out retired generals who say there aren't enough troops. Others say there are too many troops - that our military presence in Iraq is the root cause of the problem and that we should pull out ASAP.

And if you'd bothered to listen long enough to catch the coherent argument, the point is that there aren't enough troops right now. You need to commit far more heavily or pull out entirely. Which is no contradiction at all. Oh, I'll grant you that there are probably a few militant pacifists who want the troops home now and hang the consequences, but they are nowhere near a majority amongst the critics of Operation Iraqi Screwup.

And if our military presence in Iraq is somehow making the problem worse, then sending even more troops in won't solve a thing. The answer: the President must be doing it right.

Non sequitour. And blatantly so. Even if el Prezidente's critics are wrong - a point that I'm not prepared to grant - that wouldn't necessarily make el Prez right. You do know the rudiments of Boolean logic, right?

And on a side note...I apologize for being so 'inflamatory' in my last post...I got a little carried away.

Frankly, I didn't get nearly as offended by your language as by your persistent insults to my intelligence. Flamewise, your post wasn't even in the top 25% for the Senate.

Here you openly contradict yourself..."You know Saddam didn't support terrorists...he may have supported those terrorist, but so does every other anti-semetic nation in the Middle East" is no argument - other Middle Eastern nations who support Palestenian terrorism are just as guilty on that count.

What you call 'palestinian terrorism' is actually much of the time (don't have the exact figure, doubt it's possible to compute it) directed against legit targets (such as Israeli soldiers in the Territories, illegal settlements in ditto and the border checkpoints illegally blockading Palestine).


As for your quote from the article, the only bill I could find through the House website was the one proposed by Murtha - from what I've heard, all the Republicans did to the bill was put it to a very quick, very public vote.

And which sources did you 'hear' that from?

I agree with you here in part: the US does need to get things stable as soon as possible and then get out...but things are going well the way they are - they just aren't being reported that way by the MSM.

I believe I covered that earlier.

I have heard over and over and over and over troops who served and/or are currently serving in Iraq who say that they see the news and wonder

Where did you hear that? Sources are your friends, invite them over to partake in the debate.

So the anti-semitism of Islamic nations has nothing to do with it...

It has a lot to do with it. Unfortunately there's very little that can be done about it. What can be done is Israel taking a slightly less insane stance.

Frankly, I think some of them (Iran, to name just one) could use a good invasion.

And I think the US should clean up Iraq and Afghanistan before it dallies off on yet another unforgivably stupid adventure. Iran is actually the country in the region with the best prospect of sorting itself out - if the US Marines stay the hell away, that is - and it also happens to be the country in the region that is able to give you the most grief if you invade. Besides, China will be royally pissed if you invade a country it actually shares a border with. And, trust me, you don't want to piss off China.

The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

That should read:

"The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty cooked. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

No, they didn't; Al-Qaida did. And Saddam both harbored and aided Al-Qaida terrorist and leaders.

Bull. Sources, bitte.

I fail to see how anyone could possibly equate these two terms. Semitic peoples include all the Near Eastern cultures of the Levant region, including many Arab ones. To be anti-Semitic means you oppose Semite people. To be anti-Israeli means you oppose either the people or government of Israel.

Sorry to say so, Skin, but now you're talking out of your anal edifice. 'Anti-semite' means 'anti-jew.' Not in the technical sense, certainly, but we aren't debating technical issues here.

Nice to have you back, rccar.

Why does that remind me of the 'God Bless' that is usually the closing line of creationist hate mail :-)

And don't even talk about how Afghanistan "worked". It's in worse shape than it was when we got there. We've left it in power to opium dealers.

As if it wasn't run by the opium dealers in the first place. Afghanistan actually had the potential to come out ahead after the removal of the fascist Taliban. I believe it still has. But it's going to require that we start doing something about it.

And the criminals that disgrace the Whitehouse and the institution of the Presidency have yet to admit their true reason for invading a soveriegn nation: oil hegemony.

I think you're wrong on that count. Operation Iraqi Screwup does have to do with oil, but not in the sense you imply:

China is the fastest-growing economy in the world. It has the best or second-best R&D community in the world. It's the 2nd biggest economy in the world. And it has the 2nd or 3rd biggest military in the world.

Yet more importantly, perhaps, the US has a catastrophic trade deficit. In fact the only thing that keeps the dollar from collapsing - and I mean collapsing as in taking a nose dive through an event horizon, not just dropping a little - is... China. Only the fact that China keeps buying US bonds keeps the weels from coming off the US economy. China is, if you will, the single biggest shareholder in US inc. Suppose they decide to sell their shares. What would happen? The US economy would collapse, and there'd be diddly-squat the US could do about it.

Now think what would happen if the price of oil was upped by a few hundred percent. What would happen then? The EU would get hurt. The US would get hurt a lot harder. But China would collapse. As in hitting-the-pavement-like-a-brick-chucked-from-a-15th-floor-window collapse.

Operation Iraqi Screwup has conclusively proven that the US is capable of starting a civil war anywhere in the Middle East. And China knows that. Iraq is simply a tool in a new kind of power balance, revolving around good, old-fashioned, cold-war style MAD.

Always assuming, of course that what we're seeing isn't just the full, unveiled incompetence of a regime engaged in an ill-advised military adventure started on a whim. I wouldn't put that beyond them either.

Whew, this was a long post...

2132, actually (Skin quotes a larger figure earlier, but that's including allied troops).

I used this as my source (http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm). It not only lists graphs of those killed in each month, but the names, ranks and often circumstances of their deaths.

With regard to "anti-semite," I do understand that it is colloquially used to be synonomous with "anti-jew," but this is an ignorant term used by ignorant people. I point it out for clarification in order to further drive home the futility of using, subscribing to, or allowing rhetoric to dominate our culture rather than logic and common sense. Anti-semitic means what I said and is easily infered from this link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Asemite&btnG=Search).

If people want to say "anti-jew" or "anti-israeli," they should say it. I suspect, however, that Jewish people modified the term in attempt to legitimize their claim to Palestine by implication that they are the "Semitic" people and all others are not. Its poppycock. I'll not subscribe to it.

Your points above are all good ones. I think, though, if you read my posts here (http://www.echonetwork.net/vb/showthread.php?t=3362), you might see a more complete perspective on my position regarding the "oil" hypothesis. I'm more than willing to revise my hypothesis regarding the true reason for our invasion of Iraq, but so far, this is how it all seems to fit.

Ah, you actually managed - at long last - to produce the resolution itself. I will reiterate that the demand for a roll call vote looks like an attempt to close the issue by turning it into a partisan trench war over a proposal that bears very little resemblance to what he actually said. The democrats didn't rise to the bait. Take a cookie, and get on with it.

As I said, the Repubs twisted it, quite eloquently disarming the Dems. You'd think they'd see that coming, but, oh well...

First off, let me say that I think the US should stay in Iraq, but for somewhat different reasons than the neocons. "You break it, you buy it" still applies in international politics.

Well, we broke the dictatorship. Even if that wasn't our original intent, that's still enough for me. We know that he is responsible for countless deaths of his own citizens.

Operation Iraqi Screwup really has been an outstanding failure, however, and any who claim otherwise are either horribly misinformed or lying in their teeth.

Has it failed to end a dictatorship? Has it failed to at least help set up a constitution? The only failure so far is that we aren't able to get out b/c of terrorist attacks.

I've just run a little plot of the number of 'coalition' fatalities broken down by month. I got an interesting little graph (http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9876/operationiraqiscrewup2mx.jpg) I want to show you.* Then I want to hear you explain how you consider those numbers to be 'measureable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq,' as you allege is the case. Alternatively, you could give a reasonable explanation of why the number of coalition fatalities is a bad measure of the security situation. If you manage either of those things, we'll run through the same little excercise with the Iraqi body count. I don't think you'll like that chart either.


Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/)

As you wish.

The numbers are rarely a good thing to go on because:


They never mention objectives anywhere.
They don't measure progress.
They can be so f**** up and wrong that they are by no means "accurate" (Remember lies, damned lies, and statistics?)


Not to say that that is useless: It certainly shows that we are paying a price in this war, a price we as US citizens regret to pay. Nonetheless, can you count the number of people a soldier saved when he said to Sadaam: "President Bush dends his regards", and captured him? How many more people would Sadaam brutally torture and kill? If you can truly count them, you are omnipotent, and I know of only one being who is.


Quick googling failed to return any independent analysis of Iraq's economic situation. Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of us why you think that Iraq's economy is improving? Or maybe you called the statement a lie because you don't believe that security and prosperity are essential to promoting the emergence of a democratic government?

Security, i.e. kicking the enemy's @$$. But as for Iraq's economy... no comment, I don't have enough info on that one. I'll look it up and get back yo you on that.

That's what our analysts and newsies concluded (virtually unanimously) about a year ago this side of the Pond. What makes you think differently?

You have reason to doubt that figure?

2132, actually (Skin quotes a larger figure earlier, but that's including allied troops).

How is this a lie? Please include my above graph in your explanation.

OK, that one may or may not be kosher. The last figures I heard were somewhat lower.

OK, the proposal I agreed with at first: The Dem who proposed this said he wants to get out "at the earliest possible convenience". The Republicans twisted it, and they may have f***** up the numbers too, so they seemed worse than they wore. But that's just speculation, no proof. Don't quote me on it, it's just an idea.


There is more to a democracy than elections. Egypt has elections too. Lebanon has elections. Syria has elections. Even the US has elections...

When was that in dispute?


And calling the Iraqi government 'independent' is a bad joke. Heck, calling it a government is a bad joke. 'Perpetually ongoing meltdown' seems a more accurate description.

IIRC, The US had more than a few problems getting the govt. set up, and we still suffer the consequences of bad politicians. Give it a chance. In the meantime, it will meltdown if we let the terrorists do it.


Hmm... I'd be wary of announcing success without having achieved victory. That seems to me to be courting Daemon Murphy. Or Nemesis...

Succees does not equal victory. We have had successes, but we haven't achieved victory yet.

I am tempted to google 'PATRIOT ACT civil rights violations' and 'CIA GESTAPO tactics', but in the interest of keeping the debate civil and to the point I'll refrain from it.

Not to mention liberal sites are rarely bi-partisan. just look at MoveOn.org for a highly popular example of people who will skew any number to get their chance to bash Bush. One report from a liberal source (I'm trying to find it again, damn internet) said 100,000 Iraqis had been killed in Iraqi Freedom - or maybe it was 8,000. When I do find it I'll let you know.


Try googling 'London Bombings' and 'Madrid 3-11'. Exactly how do you propose a continued presence in Iraq would counter that?

I don't need to Google it, I watch the news. ;P It's that easy with Verizon. I too want a chance to pull out of Iraq. Obviously, we can't stop it all in Iraq. But as soon as the gov't is set up (or at least kick-started) then we can get out. But we do need to stop terrorism, and a good start would be creating a government who supports our efforts.


Because Operation Iraqi Screwup has such a great track record when it comes to preventing terrorism around the world, right?

No, because the US army is the most powerful army in the world, and we can do anything.

Eer, WWI, anyone?

I am not 100% sure, but I think the Civil War has more casualties. I'm 95% sure on that, but I'll look it up.

From muggings? Because surely you don't mean from a terrorist attack? The risk of being murdered by a terrorist is still less in D.C. than in the Deep South - as this story shows (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/06/mirecki_treated_after_roadside_beating/?ku_news) - and it is far, far less than dying from lung cancer caused by exhaust fumes from unrestricted SUV driving.

9/11/01, anyone?

No country or civilisation in history has been brought low by terrorism. Quite a few have, however, been brought low by their excessive reaction to terrorism.

Such as?

First of all, people who attack an occupation force aren't 'terrorists' in any meaningful definition of terms.

So, you are saying that homicide bombing which kills innocent civilians (there was one just this morning) is OK?

Secondly, nobody said that. But staying in Iraq accomplishes exactly nothing - zero, zip, zilch, nada - on the 'preventing terrorism' front. That can only be done by competent domestic security services and police.

Are you saying that our troops that die so you can spout liberalism are incompetent? Could you do better on the front lines? Or, are you saying that police are better equipped to handle terrorism? Our troops are training them, you know.

Get a grip. Any reasonably competent chemist can cook up a chemical bomb in a bathtub. From off-the-shelf components. Sitting in Iraq does absolutely squat to prevent it.

Agreed. So, let's set up a gov't to deal with it, and move on to the next challenge after our troops get a MUCH deserved break.

Bush Sr. didn't move on Baghdad because, unlike his son, he could find his own ass with both hands without a control tower, a ground radar, a detailed flight plan, and a half-dozen nav beacons. If he had moved against Baghdad, his coalition would have fallen apart around him, and he'd have ended up in much the same situation now facing his son.

And your psychic powers tell you this... how?

The problem with that kind of brute force approach is that you are confronting a problem that isn't ameanable to brute force solutions. You face a problem that is really more properly the job of police and intelligence types than soldiers and tanks. You'll need the soldiers and tanks in Iraq for years from now, because if they leave, there is a very real risk of civil war, but the fundamental problem is one soluble only by spooks. And that is going to take a looong time.

You are going to hate me for saying this, but since when have I been accused of being Politically Correct? I say, get the civilians we can out, and let them have their civil war. The victor woruld emerge weak, and we can more easily quell terrorism, and get the gov't back in place. IF it means a temporary collapse of the gov't... well, it doesn't necessarily have to. They can do what we did.

And if you'd bothered to listen long enough to catch the coherent argument, the point is that there aren't enough troops right now. You need to commit far more heavily or pull out entirely. Which is no contradiction at all. Oh, I'll grant you that there are probably a few militant pacifists who want the troops home now and hang the consequences, but they are nowhere near a majority amongst the critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

First off, edited just to see if it'll piss you off. Second, do you really think we are not sending as many troops as we feasibly can? Anyone with half a brain will tell you we have to keep at least some troops here in case of - you guessed it - another 9/11.


What you call 'palestinian terrorism' is actually much of the time (don't have the exact figure, doubt it's possible to compute it) directed against legit targets (such as Israeli soldiers in the Territories, illegal settlements in ditto and the border checkpoints illegally blockading Palestine).

FYI, Palestine isn't on the map. It has no borders, and no constitution of any kind. It is a collaberation of Arabs who want Jerusalem, and the rest of Israel to go hang so they can have it.

And I think the US should clean up Iraq and Afghanistan before it dallies off on another adventure.

For once, agreed.

That should read:

"The issue is if Saddam supported 9/11 terrorists, which he didn't. We all know by now that that intelligence was faulty cooked. Even if he supported Palestinian terrorists, that would be irrelevant. Palestinian terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

Do you know he didn;t support them? Even if he didn't, he sure as hell applauded when the North Tower fell! He spat at our last chance we gave him, and even now at his trial he spits on the US and hates us with a passion not known by the Star Wars Sith! He is a heartless, arrogant bastar*, and deserves to die for what he did. Anyone who ways even one good thing about Hussein, I refuse to even read.

Why does that remind me of the 'God Bless' that is usually the closing line of creationist hate mail :-)

Let's keep religion out of this one. I am a Creationist, FYI, but I sure as hell don't spout hate mail. The great majority of Christians will agree with me. It's the activist wackos you get hate mail from.

Afghanistan actually had the potential to come out ahead after the removal of the fascist Taliban. I believe it still has. But it's going to require that we start doing something about it.

Surprisingly, agreed. It seems to have been ignored as of late.

Yet more importantly, perhaps, the US has a catastrophic trade deficit. In fact the only thing that keeps the dollar from collapsing - and I mean collapsing as in taking a nose dive through an event horizon, not just dropping a little - is... China. Only the fact that China keeps buying US bonds keeps the weels from coming off the US economy. China is, if you will, the single biggest shareholder in US inc. Suppose they decide to sell their shares. What would happen? The US economy would collapse, and there'd be diddly-squat the US could do about it.

If I can use your terminology, bull. Show your cards! (read sources)

Always assuming, of course that what we're seeing isn't just the full, unveiled incompetence of a regime engaged in an ill-advised military adventure started on a whim.

Prove that it was ill-advised. Prove that our government cooked this up. And, if so, Prove that the leaders of the UK and Australia aren't more incompetent that John Kerry. If they are nearly as 'smart' as you, they'd see right through this, no? But, these people are not stupid, and they willingly went into Iraq, just like us.

No, because the US army is the most powerful army in the world, and we can do anything.

:disaprove

OK, that was a little off the top. But, we are the most powerful army in the world, realistically. And nothing to say of my other points?

But, we are the most powerful army in the world, realistically.
Actually our army kinda sucks, it's mostly marine forces that get things done, the army is just grunts.

I'm fairly certain if England wanted to, they could kick our ass.

Actually our army kinda sucks, it's mostly marine forces that get things done, the army is just grunts.

I'm fairly certain if England wanted to, they could kick our ass.

The army and marine are seperate forces, though.

Marines kick ass.

Army is the clean up crew-occupation force. Not really professional fighting, so much as a "police force." Even then, I still think they're fairly well trained and equipped, as far as armies go.

About the only thing the British could probably rival us is in the navy...and that's unlikely. You know, considering the only real borders we have are the ocean(Mexico and Canada wouldn't dare to attack us. We Americans are crazy ****.)

We are being attacked by Mexico. But that's for the immigration thread, not here.

OK, took Nyquil, things got nuts. I was lucky to get that uber-post out with only one error in it. And it wasn't a spelling error, which is odd... anyways. Yeah, the Marines are what get the job done, agreed. But what would really get the job done is to drop a few more presicion-bombs. Of course, we need a target first. But had we done more bombing runs in the "Shock and Awe" phase - did you watch Fox News the night a lot of terrorist bas*ards met Allah, BTW? - Could we have killed Zarqoui (sp?) or Sadaam? Heck, we may not have needed a firefight to kill Sadaam's sons.

I know, we need a target to bomb. But this is how war should be executed, IMO. You bomb them to hell, and break their will to fight. You cannot tell me that won't work. It certainly made Japan think twice about pissing us off again. Boy, did we retaliate for Pearl Harbor! If we think of 9/11 as the 21st century pearl harbor, then we have reason to go kick some ass. If I may grow biblical, here - I would not rest until for each person killed on 9/11, 7 times 7 would die by our hand. I reserve my hatred for the absolutely deserving. Anger I give out freely. Hate I save for those who sought to bring our great nation to our knees. I would make Sadaam regret every death of soldiers from the US, UK, and all other nations who are fighting to protect not only the freedom of the US, but the freedom of the world. Even Iraqis wanted liberation from tyranny. For the good of every nation on Earth, we are going to fight for freedom until the bitter ends have come, when all who are fighting now have long been buried of old age, and, eventually, when there will finally... be... peace.

Until such ends are reached, we cannot ignore the threat to all mankind* by these Islamo-Fascists.** My point is this: Who are we to allow these barbarians to determine our fate? We are the land of the free, because of the brave. These are far from empty words. I'm not just saying it to be conservative. I truly mean that those who give their lives for our freedom are with honor. Why should these deaths be in vain? We will fight, and make those Islamo-Fascists** die for their countries! And that phrase is none the worse for being a sig somewhere.

*I refuse to be PC, so don't start calling me a sexist.
**Of course, I mean no insult to all who practice Islam in general. The religion of Islam has a sizable minority of extremists, like a political party, and I refer to those in my post.

The problem with mass bombings is it tends to kill more civilians than legitimate targets (refer to Hiroshima & Nagasaki).

We are being attacked by Mexico. But that's for the immigration thread, not here.

OK, took Nyquil, things got nuts. I was lucky to get that uber-post out with only one error in it. And it wasn't a spelling error, which is odd... anyways. Yeah, the Marines are what get the job done, agreed. But what would really get the job done is to drop a few more presicion-bombs. Of course, we need a target first. But had we done more bombing runs in the "Shock and Awe" phase - did you watch Fox News the night a lot of terrorist bas*ards met Allah, BTW? - Could we have killed Zarqoui (sp?) or Sadaam? Heck, we may not have needed a firefight to kill Sadaam's sons.

Thing is, though, that they're less precision bombs and more "smarter" bombs. They'll hit the neighborhood you're after instead of the one to the left. But yeah, houses? Very rarely.

I know, we need a target to bomb. But this is how war should be executed, IMO. You bomb them to hell, and break their will to fight. You cannot tell me that won't work. It certainly made Japan think twice about pissing us off again. Boy, did we retaliate for Pearl Harbor! If we think of 9/11 as the 21st century pearl harbor, then we have reason to go kick some ass. If I may grow biblical, here - I would not rest until for each person killed on 9/11, 7 times 7 would die by our hand. I reserve my hatred for the absolutely deserving. Anger I give out freely. Hate I save for those who sought to bring our great nation to our knees. I would make Sadaam regret every death of soldiers from the US, UK, and all other nations who are fighting to protect not only the freedom of the US, but the freedom of the world. Even Iraqis wanted liberation from tyranny. For the good of every nation on Earth, we are going to fight for freedom until the bitter ends have come, when all who are fighting now have long been buried of old age, and, eventually, when there will finally... be... peace.

Going to war for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Until such ends are reached, we cannot ignore the threat to all mankind* by these Islamo-Fascists.** My point is this: Who are we to allow these barbarians to determine our fate? We are the land of the free, because of the brave. These are far from empty words. I'm not just saying it to be conservative. I truly mean that those who give their lives for our freedom are with honor. Why should these deaths be in vain? We will fight, and make those Islamo-Fascists** die for their countries! And that phrase is none the worse for being a sig somewhere.

There's a minute difference between defending our freedom and launching a crusade. I have no problems defending US soil, even if war has to launched abroad. However, when we rally under the belief that we're better than everyone else, we've turned into what we have fought against. We have to be careful in launching our "cleansings" upon countries we deem enemies of Freedom.

And when a soldier dies, it'd be a pity if he does so in vain- but it's a travesty if others die for his death.

Going to war for peace is like screwing for virginity.

Pax Paritur Bello.

It's invariably related, Ty. Ideally yes, you are right. But realistically, it's the way things always have been, and always will be.

Not that it's right to go bouncing into Iraq wage an idiotic war, however.

Pax Paritur Bello.

It's invariably related, Ty. Ideally yes, you are right. But realistically, it's the way things always have been, and always will be.

Not that it's right to go bouncing into Iraq wage an idiotic war, however.

But we've never really gotten peace, though. Moments of tranquility, yeah, but never honest to god peace. There's always a war looming over the hill.

Which isn't to say that defending yourself shouldn't be encouraged, it's just that actively waging war will do little to bring any peace at all.

Since fighting for freedom is so important, I suppose Bush and supporters would have no problem turning American's industry towards liberating people from poverty and hunger, all of which afflict many innocents as well, perhaps more than all the dictators of the world combined? Speaking of dicators and freedom, we've still got some ass kicking to do in eastern Asia and Africa. Maybe it'd just be faster if we Declared World War III and got it over with.

You see why I'm a bit cynical about people who argue that the weapons of mass destruction issue is now secondary, or even irrelevant. Particularly when it comes from a party that has traditionally elected to engage in war only when security interests were threatened as opposed to humanitarian ones. When I see Bush and his supporters hand the peoples of Third World countries the opportunity to earn and buy as much as Americans do in their own lands, in addition to toppling the mass murderers of the world, then I'll start to buy into his grand vision of a free world. It seems like such a no brainer, considering the former would cost far fewer lives and save more in the process! Until then, spending huge wads of cash launching an invasion here and there will have to suffice. I guess???

*sigh* What I'm trying to say is that knocking over a dictator here and there is one thing. But there are plenty of "free" countries out there that would accept aid of other kinds. Someone said we (as a nation) could do whatever we want to; why not invest our massive resources in raising the standard of living the world over as well? It seems easy to get the populace excited and energetic for war. Why can't they get as energized about the humanitarian aspect too? :(

toms, if you don't know that by now, you've had your head in the sand for years now.
So he gave money to the families of already dead terrorists/freedom fighters who in no way threaten or attempt to attack america. Darn him.. must be the US's enemy number one with actions like that :confused:


No, because the US army is the most powerful army in the world, and we can do anything.
Hmm... i wonder why everyone dislikes the US when they have a nice attitude like that. :p *kidding*
(ps, the british army is damn well trained, but very small and horrendously underfunded in terms of equipment. They are at least trained in peacekeeping though, as that is their main activity these days... )

Of course, we need a target first. But had we done more bombing runs in the "Shock and Awe" phase - did you watch Fox News the night a lot of terrorist bas*ards met Allah, BTW?

As far as I know a grand total of ZERO terrorists met their end in the Shock and Awe phase of the attack on iraq. Some Bath party members - sure, some iraqi army (conscripts?) - definately, Much of iraq's power and water supplies - yup. Some "collateral damage" - sigh.

Still, it impressed impressionable people in the US, so i guess it achieved it's main goal!

Shock & Awe in Afganistan worked a little better... but even then 90% of the victims were taliban, rather than terrorists or Al quaida.

Shock and awe didn't work very well for japan at pearl harbour, or for al quaida at 9/11. It just pissed people off and made them more determined to retaliate... why would you think it would be different for the other side. (and it's been subsequently proven it isn't)

All military analysts agree that its impossible to win a war by air power alone. the US keeps trying it and it never works... too much collateral damage and not enough control of the ground. I guess the exception might be nukes, but the cost of that is horrendous, and even then it only works if the enemy is lead by a responsible leader. Just cos the japanese emperor surrendered when his cities were nuked doesn't mean bin laden would surrender if you nuked anything.

If I may grow biblical, here - I would not rest until for each person killed on 9/11, 7 times 7 would die by our hand. I reserve my hatred for the absolutely deserving. Anger I give out freely. Hate I save for those who sought to bring our great nation to our knees. I would make Sadaam regret every death of soldiers from the US, UK, and all other nations who are fighting to protect not only the freedom of the US, but the freedom of the world. Even Iraqis wanted liberation from tyranny. For the good of every nation on Earth, we are going to fight for freedom until the bitter ends have come, when all who are fighting now have long been buried of old age, and, eventually, when there will finally... be... peace.
Have you been drinking too much coke again??? :blink:

What a load of rubbish.
7 x 7 of who? Or doesn't that matter?
There weren't 7x7x3000 al quaida after 9/11... thoug there probably are now.

"bring our great nation to our knees." - whatever. Its managing to do that fairly spectacularly from the inside from where i'm standing.

"not only the freedom of the US, but the freedom of the world" - not my freedom thank you very much. And i see no evidence they give a crap about the rest of the world.. especially considering the crap they pulled on the poor countries they forced to support them after 9/11. And if they want to fight for freedom at home maybe they should stop passing more and more laws that curtail it. Just a thought.
Or maybe it was the freedom of those 5 british guys they detained in cages in a legal limbo without trial or lawyers for 3 YEARS and then released without charge because there was NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.

Gosh, with all the freedom we are gaining I think i might start skipping with joy!!!! [/sarcasm]