Michael Moore names two new suspects in murder of U.S. troops
posted at 4:30 pm on December 1, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Hint: they’re not jihadis. They never are.
That’s the second time he’s used that collage device. The first was the morning after the 2004 election when, in a fit of spite, he posted an image of Bush. It’s outrageously unfair, nakedly emotional, and not 100% clear in its message, which is to say it’s a perfect encapsulation of his style. (See especially “Bowling for Columbine.”) He went ahead and fleshed it out a bit in a new letter to his “friends”. Behold, at long last, the root causes:
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That’s because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to “win” the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
The fatal flaw in our plan? The fact that Iraqis are cowards who have never demonstrated a desire to be liberated, either now or in the past. Or maybe Saddam just wasn’t that bad.
The one way [to liberate a country] that DOESN’T work is to invade a country and tell the people, “We are here to liberate you!” — when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam’s convoy passed them by? I guess ol’ Saddam was a cruel despot — but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks.
And finally, the message behind the collage. Cut the funding or else:
The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren’t kidding around, Democrats, and if you don’t believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush’s War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.
This is what we demand:
1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can’t win. We’ve lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.
Alas for the portly propagandist, it looks like the troops will be there until 2008 at the earliest. But he can take heart in this: Bush is worried that in buddying up to the Sunnis to get them to join the government he’s alienated the Shiites, so he’s going to ease off and let the Iraqi politicians work things out for themselves. Except that they won’t work things out for themselves because each side is afraid of being deemed a traitor by its own militias if it makes nice with the enemy. The only way to break that impasse is to neutralize the militias, but that would require a lot more troops than we’re willing to send. So we’re going to muddle through for another year or two and just hope things work out, and in all likelihood, it’ll end up as the disaster Chubs thinks it will. So he gets the last laugh. Ha.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Oy vey…
EFG on December 1, 2006 at 4:33 PM
He keeps that up, he’s going to lose his box seat.
Slublog on December 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM
He’s right, you know. Which is sad.
Enrique on December 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM
GFY Enrique
cms on December 1, 2006 at 4:38 PM
And so it begins. The moonbats want their pound of flesh because “They” gave the election to the democrats.
Moderation be damn we want our leftist agenda even if you have to force it down the american peoples throats. You have the power become our advocates or face our wrath.
I will sit with glee and watch the moonbats start eating the democrats.
William Amos on December 1, 2006 at 4:39 PM
Damn, if only he would say all this in French like Dr. Dean soes Fox News would hate him…
HATE HIM I TELL YOU!
I’d like a few of the French liberals to tell us all what would happen were we to leave Iraq, all at once and tomorrow.
What do they think would be the result.
I don’t recall meeting to many deeply thinking liberals so this is an inquiry that will fall on deaf French ears and imbecilic personalities. If they need four options, we shoul d be able to provide them with four fair choices.
Maybe a scale from 1-10 with 1 being golden fields and water shooting forth from rocks and 10 being a dark hellish swamp of terrorists and mass murder.
benrand on December 1, 2006 at 4:42 PM
You mean that fat tub of lard hasnt died from a heart attack yet?
EnochCain on December 1, 2006 at 4:43 PM
I suppose I should remind Moore that after GW 1, the Shiites did rise up.
It didn’t turn out too good for them.
I guess he thinks they should have tried harder.
Or maybe he thinks we should be “crueler”.
Whatever Mike. *Tsst!*
EFG on December 1, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Whoa! I forgot that *Tsst!* is a southpark video and has some profanity.
EFG on December 1, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Its too late…I have heard profanity and I am offended…srsly.
EnochCain on December 1, 2006 at 4:45 PM
Shameless plug for show on Fox News tonight on Brit Humes program called “American Heroes” Go ahead and click the link the photo alone is worth it.
LakeRuins on December 1, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Another defeatist who thought we couldn’t win before we even went in. The quagmire is the PC bull this anus spews that handcuffs our foreign policy. Moore is an enemy of the US and cant admit he is wrong.
infidel on December 1, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Where were the suicide-bombers before the invasion? Well, some of them had Saddam paying their families 25 grand an attack. Yes, these attacks didn’t happen in Iraq, they happened in the so-called Palestinian territories. However, if anyone cares to, google search bombings in Southern Iraq during Saddams reign of terror. What you will find is staggering. Iran, through it’s proxy, shia militias, were conducting daily terror bombings in Southern Iraq. Have you heard this before? Probably not. I happened to stumble upon a single story, an AP story(I know, it’s the AP so can we trust it) I believe, sometime in 2000-2001. According to this report, this had been going on for years, with hundreds of bombings. Yes, Mr. Moore, Saddam’s Iraq was a paradise, as was Lebanon a great place to vacation in the 80’s…………
ritethinker on December 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM
Whoops!
EFG on December 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM
Moore-on forgets. All of the Iraqis that opposed Saddam are in the mass graves containing over 500,000 — That’s Five Hundred Thousand Bodies.
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
As of 2003… 400K. Far more have been found since then… http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
Mazztek on December 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM
You know it bugs the crap out of me that guys of his ilk act like the troops are being victimized by being in this war. I can’t understand how they would presume to speak for me or my comrades. We are not underprivileged losers that run to the Army as a last resort. We are volunteers, well educated and very dedicated to our country. It really pisses me off! I would love to kick his fat, greasy, arrogant ass. Thanks, had to vent.
Trooper on December 1, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Oh yeah in the articl there is this:
I know those in the military will know that it should read
Air Force Technical Sergeant Travis Crosby,
a member of the Air Forceattached to the Army’s Third Infantry Division.Man these people really need to hire some military folks to proof read their stuff.
LakeRuins on December 1, 2006 at 4:50 PM
So what’s he gonna do to the Dems? Make another crockumentary? Farenheit 11/7.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM
How would this guy, handle Michael Moore?
Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 4:53 PM
MMMM…a man in combat fatigues=totally hot
KelliD on December 1, 2006 at 4:56 PM
Thank you LakeRuins
KelliD on December 1, 2006 at 4:56 PM
Trooper, I know you never would, but you have my permission. Thanks for allowing this free peace of flabby a-s to disply his infinite stupidity, while also making money from it, and while never realizing why he still can do so…
Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 4:58 PM
Correction – s/b “piece of flabby a-s” :(
Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 5:00 PM
His popularity and success is a shame. He’s using up perfectly good air and it’s offensive to say the least. He would be an awesome politician given his uncanny ability to only tell part of the story and make it seem (to his followers at least) like the truth.
Yakko77 on December 1, 2006 at 5:03 PM
Look at the picture – all the swine needs is a few lettuce leaves to hang out of his mouth, to be complete.
Entelechy on December 1, 2006 at 5:06 PM
This is exactly why the Dems have not revealed their plan for victory in Iraq. Its not only that they don’t have one, its that they don’t think its even possible.
American People: “What is your strategy for victory in Iraq?”
Michael Moore et al: “We don’t have a strategy for victory in Iraq because victory is IMPOSSIBLE. It was impossible before you even started. There is nothing you could have done, you should have sat at home and did nothing. That’s what I did and look at me now.”
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 1, 2006 at 5:10 PM
Thanks for spelling out the WTF, etc. I’m an older gal so I need all the help I can get to understand a lot of what my grandkids say. And, although I love the alphabet, letters strung together don’t mean much to me. So, thanks.
sharinlite on December 1, 2006 at 5:18 PM
I was going to say “badass”
I wish I knew of a clip on YouTube of Moore from Team America, with the hot dogs. When I saw that the first time (in the theaters) it cracked me up!!
urbancenturion on December 1, 2006 at 5:32 PM
sharinlite, I find this site helpful, but the language there is explicit, so take care who’s around
urbancenturion on December 1, 2006 at 5:35 PM
The thing that gets me about Moore’s drivel is that one major reason we were able to win WWII so “quickly” was because we fought with a great deal of violence. We lost a lot of men, we killed a lot of civillians… we nuked japan, for crying out loud — TWICE!
Had we carpetbombed/nuked/not been as “careful” in this war, we may have been able to secure Iraq a little sooner, but do you think El Chubbo would have liked that? Nope… something tells me that had we done something drastic and “won” the war 6months ago, Moore’s letter would be telling us “Why couldn’t you have gone about things at a slower pace, if it would have preserved lives? What’s the rush?? Were you afraid the OIL wouldn’t be worth as much if you didn’t get to it right away???? Sure, you were able to achieve a hollow, worthless so-called “victory”, but AT WHAT COST? Was it worth it, Mr Bush?” etc.
(btw I’m not advocating nuking/fighting dirty, just pointing out that it’s a lot easier to win big in a relatively short period of time when you go all out than it is when you are fighting with both hands tied behind your back)
dead-duck on December 1, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Michael Moore is one of many “antiwar” types in this country (and the West in general) who is well-acquainted with the first sentence of Bracht’s poem, but not the second. For a while after 9/11 I thought as a country we finally understood both sentences, but the moment has long passed.
It’s easy to declare defeat, or to long for defeat, when you think that it won’t affect you, or that it will only hurt your self-declared domestic enemies. It’s easy to think in terms of “accepting” if not welcoming defeat when your only model for war is the one in Vietnam, after which the Viet Cong and the NVA didn’t follow the boys home and pick up here where they left off over there.
http://www.InstaPunk.com has some good commentary up on this kind of thinking; it uses a boxing analogy:
What’s “impossible” isn’t so much winning in Iraq, I suppose, but trying to get Michael Moore to put down the box of donuts long enough to wrap his head around what Brecht understood nearly a century ago and remains just as true today.
Spurius Ligustinus on December 1, 2006 at 5:55 PM
I second that!!
Viper1 on December 1, 2006 at 6:10 PM
Invade a country to liberate them when they have done nothing to liberate themselves…sounds like something many of our relatives did a little over 62 years ago, and funny how that worked,huh Michael?
jcon96 on December 1, 2006 at 6:11 PM
And I third it.
Bullshit we can’t win. Bullshit. No other word for it.
We may well “lose,” although every time someone calls an American choice to quit fighting a “loss,” I wonder if they’ve taken a good long look at the other guy. Go ask a Viet Cong if we lost the Tet Offensive.
If you can find one that was there and survived.
We might “lose,” if walking away means we lost (and, of course, the anti-American liberals and the defeatest like Enrique will label it a “loss,” regardless of the factual truth).
But if we “lose” like that, it won’t be because we CAN’T win.
It’s because we won’t win. Because spineless liberals and wastes of space like Enrique won’t let us win. Because leadership gives into the pessimism.
Saying we can’t win is nothing but a lie. A laughable one. If you want argue that we won’t win – because we don’t choose to – fine. But “can’t?” Please. Puh-leeze.
And for what it’s worth, victory or defeat in this kind of conflict isn’t decided today, and certainly isn’t decided by losers like Moore and his ilk. It’s decided by the history books.
People keep telling me we lost Vietnam … but all I see is that 1) we won the Cold War, 2) the Soviets spent a lot of resources in Asia from 1959-1975, and 3) today, despite being nominally Communist, Vietnam is a booming focal point of American industry.
That’s a loss?
If the future of Iraq is that our time there decimates the Iranians and the Syrians, and ultimately leads to Iraq becoming a vibrant economic partner … I’ll take that loss. Enrique and Moore can gleefully call it whatever they want.
“Can’t win,” my ass. If we just booted everyone like Moore and Enrique out of the country, we could win tomorrow. Before lunch. And still have a time for a nap.
What a bunch of ninnies.
Professor Blather on December 1, 2006 at 6:36 PM
The long-awaited rift in the Democratic Party seems to be forming. This could mean big trouble for the MSM. They’ll have to choose sides…again, which means they’ll lose a big chunk of their audience…again. Of course, they could get themselves out of this hole by simply practicing journalism instead of politics. I’m betting that they’ll just keep digging.
RedWinged Blackbird on December 1, 2006 at 6:41 PM
Well said Spurius!! Well said!
Troy Rasmussen on December 1, 2006 at 6:52 PM
When are we going to
celebrateread about suspects in MICHEAL MOORE’S MURDER?????Huh??????
seejanemom on December 1, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Hey Mikey, talkin’ is the only way fix this mess. We need somebody who can talk to the terror… uh, *freedom fighters* … and reason with them. Somebody with oratory skills, a man of great intelligence and who knows how to articulate a way for us to leave Iraq in a way that makes everybody happy. Now where can we find such a man? hhhhhmmmm I don’t know … hey wait a minute, I know! Naaaaah, nevermind, you wouldn’t be interested in that, would you Mikey?
Tony737 on December 1, 2006 at 9:38 PM
…it isn’t as easy as that. Moore and the folks down in his infra-red part of the spectrum were *ROOTING* for us not to win since before we even went it. He says, ” It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won…”, when in fact he meant to say, “It is a lost war, lost because *THIS NATION* has no right to defend its ‘racist’, ’sexist’, ’speciesist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘imperialist’, ‘homophobic’…wait, did I say ‘homophobic’ twice?…self….”
He hates this country…but, like the tick that he is, he feeds upon it.
Puritan1648 on December 1, 2006 at 10:08 PM
Note to self: Never take political advice from someone who made the movies Canadian Bacon and Roger and Me.
danarchy on December 1, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo right!!!
Well said – how ironic is it that Moore thrives upon what he hates – which in turn gives him the freedom to do what he does in the way that he does it?
In any case, history will judge the right and wrong of the matter. Our troops need our support to fight – win – and in their time, withdraw. From there, the Iraqi people will have to sort out for themselves whether they believe that their freedom is worth fighting to keep.
We gave it to them and they will have to keep it.
After all, though France helped us win our revolution, they didn’t stick around to make sure that we stayed free – they knew that if we treasured it enough that we’d have to fight to keep it.
Well over 225 years and going strong.
May God Bless America and our soldiers!
I may be in a minority, but years ago he seemed to have occasional good points every now and then (primarily upon business inequitiy related subject matters). I just every now and then wonder what went wrong……..
Emmett J. on December 2, 2006 at 12:53 AM
.
Fourth it. OIF / Operation Iraqi Freedom is mostly won, but could still be lost–if this ridiculously slovenly tub o’ lard MM get his way, His People will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Janos Hunyadi on December 2, 2006 at 1:08 AM
I’d like to have an honest discussion with some people here. If they could answer my questions, and maybe even ask some of their own (without any namecalling) that’d be great. Why do our troops need to be driving around the streets simply waiting to be blown up by an IED or shot by a sniper? Will this lead to the victory in Iraq? How? And how do the people on this website see the United States actually “winning” in Iraq–is it feasable? When? Is it worth it? How so?
Thanks.
Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 3:08 AM
I’d be sort of interested to know what Michael Moore thinks the purpose of a military is.
SouthernGent on December 2, 2006 at 3:19 AM
All this talk about winning and losing. Bah . . .
The goal was to remove Saddam from power.
Mission Accomplished!
Sweat the petty things, but dont pet the sweaty things.
iNeXuS on December 2, 2006 at 5:16 AM
Easy – they are the only organization (outside of the UN) that is capable of delivering his “meals on wheels”!
You know – airlifted and mass transported food in bulk for the hungry?
Check it out.
Humor helps when dealing with attack film makers.
Emmett J. on December 2, 2006 at 8:09 AM
He was quite vocal in 2004; the Dhimmis lost. He was virtually silent in 2006; the Dhimmis eased by. Are we sure he isn’t on Rove’s under-the-table payroll?
Honestly, I have to admire his misplaced sense of self-relevance. It’s almost like a Greek tragedy.
SailorDave on December 2, 2006 at 9:22 AM
nonfactor, not surprisingly, you have misrepresented what coalition forces are doing in IOF. Until you honestly state what the mission and honestly state what has been accomlished so far, an “honest discussion” with you is not possible.
My guess is–and this is really a stretch here–is that you watch TV and soak up the print media, so you don’t know shit. Learn a few things before you open your mouth, and you might actually begin a worthwhile discussion
Janos Hunyadi on December 2, 2006 at 2:45 PM
Good one, Janos. You say I misrepresent something, but you conveniently don’t say what I misrepresent. How about you state the mission for me? Can you? And then tell me how we’ll complete this mission, because from my point of view setting up a completely new government in a nation engulfed in Civil War isn’t an easy thing to do, and I don’t see the point in having our troops walk around in the middle of it. Do you?
You need to take a few deep breaths, realize that I didn’t insult your mother, and either answer my questions politely or state your opinion, or shut up.
Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 5:21 PM
nonfactor, you cannot even read. I said you misrepresented the mission in Irag, and you did. It is more than driving by IEDs, or “walking around”. There is no possibility of discussing anything with someone who either does not know enough, or cannot express it, so I will follow my own previous advice and Not Feed Trolls
“insult your mother” Good one…..
Janos Hunyadi on December 2, 2006 at 6:14 PM
I will take you at your word that you want an honest exchange. And while I cannot speak for everyone, I’ll do my best to answer your questions and ask a few myself. And I won’t call you names, as long as you stay intellectually honest.
Our troops there do a great deal more than just patrol the streets waiting to get blown up. They’re heavily involved in reconstruction of the infrastructure and have done an amazing job. Those efforts are not being reported.
But to answer your question directly, in the cases where they are out patroling, they are not doing so by themselves. They are doing it with Iraqis. What they’re doing is leading and teaching and training by example. They’re doing the scary, dangerous, and vital work to help people with no real reference to what freedom means, learn to protect and defend themselves. Because something is dangerous and difficult does not mean that you shouldn’t do it. Our troops are to be respected and admired for the progress they’ve made.
Well, that remains to be seen. Helping the Iraqis birth their democracy may turn out to be a failed effort. I have serious concerns that sunni and shia will ever get past age-old grudge matches. I believe it could lead to what will be determined to be a victory. It really does come down to whether or not the Iraqi People think democracy is something worth having for themselves. But the Iraqis are not going to get any help from our MSM or the current far left dems. And that greatly complicates and endangers the ultimate outcome. Right now they’re attempting to re-run the script they used during the Vietnam era. And, to be honest, right now it looks like they’re pulling that off. One problem is that people are stamping their feet impatiently and indignant that we haven’t pulled off a historical democracy in the ME in 3 short years. Take a look at the history of the democracies of the world and how long it took them to solidify and mature. We suffer from collective cultural ADD, much to our collective detriment.
The only way we CAN win it is with undeterrable and steadfast determination. That really is as simple as it is. We just refuse to quit and give up. Unfortunately, we have factions within that are systematically weakening our resolve to win. We very definitely CAN win. The real question is, will our own side weaken our collective will so effectively that we walk away?
The “When?” question is kinda irrelevant, isn’t it? Wars and conflicts aren’t won and resolved on timetables. In fact ANY kind of problem isn’t solved if it’s walked away from. Problems get solved when you find a solution. We’re still working toward that solution in Iraq and the larger ME.
Very definitely so, in my opinion. I appreciate the concern for our fighting men and women. I honestly do. But they are not victims, conscripts sent against their will to do things they don’t believe in. That’s just a patently false appraisal. And it insults them in the extreme.
Perhaps if the regrettable death toll of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were put into historical or even domestic comparison it would help. Do you realize that illegal aliens kill 12,000 Americans a year? And that that’s been happening since 2000? That’s three times the current casualty rate of our troops in the greater War on Terror. A similar number of Americans die in auto accidents every year. Context is everything.
Compassion for our troops is admirable, but a wiser expenditure of emotion would be to support them AND their mission.
The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is a historically significant effort to make fundamental changes in the ME possible. It really is a nobel and worthy effort.
Because the truth is, if we fail in this mission, the undeterrable islamic jihad will gain in strength and resolve. And that will have to be faced at some point anyway. Doing it now, while they are relatively weak and unorganized, is the wisest choice. Dealing with things like a nuclear iran will only be resolved with unthinkable quantities of blood. Theirs, AND ours.
I’m heading off to play with Mrs. B. I’ll check back in later tonight or tomorrow for your response.
techno_barbarian on December 2, 2006 at 6:39 PM
Yes, I know they’re doing more than waiting to be killed, but I want to know why they need to be doing it. I’m sure everyone appreciates the fact that they’re helping in reconstruction (I think that should be one of the main issues to address).
Do you think it helps, or is it worth it? How long do you think it will take to train up a large number of Iraqi forces, sufficient for U.S. troops to stop riding around the streets so Iraqis can do it?
I think here’s one of the main dividing issues between the pro-war and anti-war crowd. The pro-war people are willing to take the gamble, and the anti-war crowd doesn’t think it’s worth the money and the lives to establish a democracy that might not even hold.
The issue I have with this is that I don’t think that democracies can be brought upon by military overthrow and occupation, and the only place where something similar kind of worked was in Korea, and Asian countries are a lot easier to control than Middle Eastern ones.
I think we can “win” too (if by win you mean kill all people fighting the Americans), but in the process of “winning” I think we’d also take out half the Iraqi people. I agree that this is a battle for hearts and minds, but we can’t stop Sunni from hating Shi’a, and we’re not going to be able to get the Iraqis behind the government if they don’t trust it. It seems like what you’re suggesting is that we’re going to need to stay in Iraq for a few decades to actually be able to establish a government that may or may not work.
I think in certain wars it is very relevant. In WWII the question of “when” (retrospectively) isn’t viable, but in Korea and Vietnam the question of “when” was very viable because a “loss” in those countries wouldn’t end up destroying the United States. I don’t believe a “loss” in Iraq will end up destroying the United States (terrorism won’t cross seas for the sole reason that the U.S. isn’t engaged in the Civil War in Iraq). If Iraq can definitely be “won” in 5 years I’d be a champion for the war, but since even our own government doesn’t know how long it will take, and at the most conservative estimates we have the war lasting 10+ years I don’t think it’s worth it.
I don’t think there is a single solution in the Iraq war, even your own words about how to win were pretty vague: “steadfast determination.” Do you really think we’ll find a solution that will somehow end the war in Iraq?
Sorry, I just don’t like the death comparison point you’re trying to make. Why? Because you can make any death or deaths seem insignificant if you do that. Yes, the troops are willing to die for their country, but I don’t think our mission as it is currently is directly protecting U.S. interests.
Thanks for answering the questions; it’s given me a bit better understanding of the divide between the American people. We both want Iraq to be stable, we both want our troops out, and we just need to figure out what’s feasible.
Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 7:41 PM
Nonfactor,
Thanks for your comments. This is going to be a long post.
Again, you seem unrealistically obsessed with time. You’re demanding things happen on some kind of train schedule-like timeline. I honestly don’t know how long it will take to get the Iraqis to stand on their own. I do know that it is important that they do so. And without our help, iranian factions will step in and establish Baghdad as the center of the shia-run islamic caliphate.
You bring up an excellent point, but you position yourself oddly. You say the pro-war people, by whom I assume you include me, are willing to take the gamble and anti-war types are not. As if we’re all standing around a smokey craps table rollin’ bones and just hoping on a winning roll. I’d like to remind you that regime change in Iraq was established as US policy (and a wise, albiet very late one at that) by Clinton’s administration in 1998. I will also remind you that almost every single dem now bleating about withdrawal and going ‘anti-war’ passionately supported this US policy with a level of rhetoric comparable to anything W has said. And that was long before W’s time at the wheel.
The thing I’m seeing now is that America, well about half of it anyway, seems to have lost its collective will to defend itself and what it traditionally believes in. We are unwilling to step up and be the singular superpower in the world that we are.
Not factually true at all. Germany and Japan are just two excellent examples of democracies brought about by military overthrow and occupation. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than overthrow and occupation. In contrast to most conquering forces that intervene and overthrow a country, the US and our allies are attempting to do what we did so successfully in Japan and Germany. Again, look at how long each of those democracies took to take root and mature. And also please note that we still ‘occupy’ both of those vibrant civilizations, and that both are quite independent and unoppressed and that they maintain their own voices and opinions and influence on the world’s stage. Also note that both are US allies and important trade partners. So yes, democracy not only can be brought by overthrow and occupation, it already has been.
As for being easier to control than middle eastern ones, I’ll agree with you. We’re attempting to do something that has seldom, if ever, been done in the ME. If it works, many great, good, and positive things will follow in time. If we fail, well then, like Clinton says, at least we tried. Because the next step after that is all out confrontation. And not just from factions inside Iraq, but global islamic factions bent on bringing about a worldwide caliphate. They literally aim to rule the world with sharia law. You should seriously check into the facts behind the words the imams preach to their masses of billions of followers. I believe they mean what they say. You should too, my fellow American.
The sad thing about your desire to retreat from this conflict is that the ME is already at the point of all out confrontation. What I think you’re failing to realize is that islam is at war with us, (and has been since at least 1979), whether we want to be at war with them or not. We have no choice in this matter. Our decision has already long ago been made for us.
Even if we were to walk away from the ME right this minute and promise never to bother them again, do you honestly think it would slow or deter them from their stated goals in any way? The key word you need to focus on when thinking about the islamics is ‘undeterrable’. Study islam for yourself. Make up your own mind. Don’t take my word or anyone else’s. Do your own research.
Kill half the Iraqi people? That’s not happening and not going to happen, unless we leave prematurely which will create a power vacuum that will be filled by iran and russia. Can’t say I really blame the Iraqis for not trusting us (especially the Kurds). We have people, with attitude’s and opinions like yours, who’s leaders set US policy and then waffle away from hard positions and decisions at the first political opportunity, and start pointing fingers when the going gets tough. Running away from problems rather than facing and solving them. We are not a serious nation anymore. We seem to be trying to win a global high school-level popularity contest, and I’m concerned that our shallowness and inability to take the very long historical view will eventually doom us.
Once again, not historically factual. We were fighting more than just the Vietnamese in that conflict. We were fighting against the wider spread of worldwide communism. And the fact that our own media and far-left US population forced us to stop paying for a war that we were winning, by any measure you care to take (sound familiar?), is another reason why our allies aren’t likely to trust us and be eager to help us out. The leaking of our national defense secrets by the NYT and others are also reasons our allies have ample reason to distrust us. Right now the entire world expects us to cut and run. What a sick sad legacy we’ve obtained for ourselves. It’s cowardice, pure and simple. Weakness that emboldens our enemies, who aren’t troubled by concepts like mercy, compassion, understanding, fairness, freedom and opportunity. Insh’allah, as they say (god’s will).
Some Americans, and from your words you may be among them, seem all too willing to sell out their future for what they perceive to be a quick solution by retreat and defeat. But that’s putting a band-aid on the scimitar wound. Ultimately, it won’t work. This enemy; OUR enemy; Will. Not. Stop. That is, until they have destroyed or subjugated us. Doesn’t really matter if you believe that or not. They most definitely do. And all of our recent actions only serve to encourage them and encite them. Weakness is provocative. In essense, by being weak, we’re inviting a greater escalation of attacks against us. It will happen. Watch and see.
Also, you should know that hamas, is the largest terrorist organization and has cells currently in more than 40 U.S. States. Right now. And growing. And that’s just one of our enemies here among us already. Deny it if it makes you feel better. But a wiser decision would be to find out more about that little problem. And start thinking and contributing possible solutions. I’m willing to work with you, as a fellow American, on any of that.
You say you’d support our actions if you can be guaranteed victory in 5 years, but not if it takes 10. In armed conflict, especially one as complicated and unpresidented as this one, expectations like yours are simply unrealistic. This isn’t a video game. And there is no reset button so that you can practice over and over to learn the patterns of the program so you can ‘win’ it. This is real life. Messy and pretty much completely unpredictable. If you stop fighting for victory. You lose by default. Simple as that. And you need to think about the consequences that losing will bring about.
Totally agree with you on the lack of an all encompassing single solution for Iraq. It’s telling, though, that you find the words ’steadfast determination’ in any way vague. It means exactly what it says. A refusal to give up. A refusal to accept defeat. A determination to meet every challenge and work through it. Now that doesn’t mean to stop adapting constantly to ever-changing realities on the ground as the situation unfolds (which, incidentally our Troops are doing an amazing job of adapting to this new kind of warfare). It means having the resolve to see things through to a set of solutions that work for both the US and Iraq and the greater ME. Giving up and running away is a solution you seem to embrace. That will only prolong the ultimate and inevitable conflict. And it will result in very likely millions dead on all sides.
Sorry, but the fact that just because you don’t like my comparison in no way negates the validity of that comparison. My goal was not to make the deaths of our Spectacular Troops insignificant, but merely to place them in the context of greater world realities. The price we’ve currently paid is miniscule, compared to any other military conflict in the history of warfare (save Gulf I). We are currently fighting the most humane war in history. But we are getting no credit at all for that fact.
I have to disagree with you also about not protecting our US interests. I think our military are the only ones currently doing exactly that. Iran is growing bolder by the minute. Lebanon is having it’s democracy toppled right this very moment by iranian/syrian backed hezb’allah. Hamas is cranking up the propaganda machine once again in gaza. And russia is systematically reverting back to its old kgb ways. Like it or not, the world is becoming an ever more dangerous place. For ALL Americans.
And you know what I saw last night on cnn? Time magazine is considering hugo chavez for its person of the year. As I said earlier, we are not a serious society at the moment. There is a truely global conflict errupting right now. And many are advocating talking to it. Running from it. Hiding from and appeasing it. Such actions are foolish, and ultimately suicidal.
You’re welcome. I appreciate your remarks as well. You’ve been civil and I commend you for your civility. But you presume to speak for me as an American, and you should and do not.
I would rather have America stand strong in Iraq and show the Iraqis and the world at large that we CAN be depended upon to finish what we start. We have to reverse our tendency to be a feckless and untrustworthy superpower. That we’re willing and able to fight throught the truely difficult challenges and work with the Iraqis and help the millions there that actually WANT some kind of free and democratic society. I’m not really hung up on if it mirrors ours or not. I’d be satisfied with something completely new that fits their culture, although I’ll be the first to admit that something like that will require a reformation of islamic teaching and belief. And, really, that’s what we’re facing right now. We’re trying to lead by example, except that we’ve forced our military to fight and wage this war with our hands tied behind our backs in the most unrealistic battle rules of engagement in the history of warfare. And this against an absolutely viscious opposition force with no concept of mercy or compromise. Difficult tasks indeed.
But the first step to making any kind of progress at all is to believe that success IS, at some point, possible. Many, like you, have concluded long long ago that it is not. The media is and always has been on your side; so real and important information is left unreported at best and tragically skewed as enemy propaganda at worst. Your collective short-sighted decisions will soon doom millions that would otherwise not have to die.
I wish it were not so, but I see America, and Western Civilization in general reaching a point of no return. A tipping point from which future history will be radically altered from the results of what could be stemmed right now (albiet not without great sacrifice and determination), if we only had the will and the resolve to apply the force that’s required as the strongest nation on earth. But truthfully, it’s not looking good right now. Western Civilization seems to be heaving a collective sigh of resignation to its decision to commit suicide. I honestly hope that is not the case and that I’m wrong. I really do. I want a lasting peace at least as much as you do.
Those are the issues as I see them. I would be interested in any responses you may wish to send.
techno_barbarian on December 3, 2006 at 2:55 PM
I wonder if he has the permission of every persons photo he is using…
I’d demand it be taken down.
rightside on December 3, 2006 at 11:46 PM
techno_barbarian, you’re a better man than I am for taking on the thankless task of trying to reason with and inform an empty skull like nonfactor– but all you go for your efforts was uneducated and uninteliigent sophistry and cliches
I wasn’t surprised; were you?
Janos Hunyadi on December 3, 2006 at 11:53 PM
Janos,
Thanks. I appreciate that. But I really think that if there’s any chance at all to open the eyes and ears of other Americans who’ve been completely misled by their media and the democrats, then maybe it’s worth the time.
Nonfactor, to his or her credit, didn’t devolve into name calling and mindless pure vitriol.
One of the best things about HotAir is that people get their say. They don’t get banned, and their comments don’t get dissappeared (the comments that don’t come thru sometimes are technical glitches, and usually show up shortly, but I’ve had a few vaporize myself). I like the debate on topics here. I think it’s healthy and educational. For all sides.
I would like to hear foggy’s take on Nonfactor’s points, as I enjoy his insight and clarity.
And I still think that Nonfactor will come back to this thread and address what I’ve written above. If you see him/her on a thread, encourage him/her to take a look.
Thanks Janos.
techno_barbarian on December 4, 2006 at 8:55 AM
techno_barbarian, you’ve already done an admirable job taking on the shallow arguments of Nonfactor.
He lives in a different world from you and I, where truth is found on the front pages of the New York Times or behind the anchor desk at CBS, where thinking for oneself is time-consuming and unnecessary, where fighting a war for whatever reason is unthinkable, where winning a war is unimaginable, where losing a war spells victory for him and his fellow critics, whiners and Bush-haters and where 9/11 is either forgotten entirely, accepted as a small bump on the road or a catastrophe engineered at the evil hands of Bush and Cheney in a quest for Middle East oil.
Arguing with that kind of predetermined mindset brought on by liberal academic psychosis and MSM brainwashing, a flawed basis of argument that you’ve already characterized in your posts, is a complete waste of time.
fogw on December 4, 2006 at 11:47 AM
Thanks foggy. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I don’t know Nonfactor, and the invitation to what seemed like could have been an honest exchange made the effort worthwhile.
I keep waiting for them to wake up and realize that we’re fellow Americans that need to put a lot of our differences aside and start working together to solve the greatest challenges that face us.
Maybe one day that’ll actually happen. I honestly hope so.
techno_barbarian on December 4, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Just got back to this thread and finished reading your response, techno. I have a lot of work to do, but I hope to respond to the parts in your post by the end of today.
Nonfactor on December 4, 2006 at 7:21 PM
And quickly, while I’m here I’ll respond to fogw’s post because it’s shorter.
I don’t read the New York Times, I don’t watch CBS, your insinuation that I’ve forgotten about 9/11 is immature and insulting, I’m not a pacifist (many wars are justified) so quit making blind assumptions.
You seem to think that you have my mindset pinned down; you’ve set up a straw man so you can disregard what I want to say and feel good about yourself.
Nonfactor on December 4, 2006 at 7:25 PM
Is there something wrong with wanting a war to end in on a reasonable timeline? You seem like this war is necessary and time is no option. That’s just not realistic. I also think that no matter what we do in Iraq the Shi’a will come out as the main dominating force, with or without Iran.
That’s untrue. I think a good majority of Americans want to protect our nation, believe it or not. And the loss of faith in the war in Iraq doesn’t represent a sweeping loss of will to defend what we (Americans) “traditionally believe in.” Unless you have any more corroborating pieces of evidence.
Of course the situations in these two countries were entirely different than those in Iraq, namely that we entered after a war was over and in one of the countries we didn’t systematically change the government (all we did in Japan was institute the MacArthur Constitution and leave the high level officials to do what they wanted), and in Germany we shared the burden of establishing West Germany with Great Britain and France.
To reiterate, not at all like Japan and Germany. Most obviously is the fact that we entered the countries after treaties were signed to end the war; we didn’t try to change the government while we were still fighting on the streets of Germany and Japan. Which is why I still believe Korea is the only example comes anywhere close to what we’re doing in Iraq, but the differences are still vast.
This is what I mean by gambling.
I know quite a bit about the extremist Muslim movement and the preaching in the Qu’ran, but I don’t believe it is something that can be defeated by bombing Tehran or destroying Mecca. If we want to have any influence on changing this ideology we’re going to need to come up with a strategy that doesn’t involve armed conflict. Do you think there’s a way we could stop the spread of extremist Islam, militarily or non-militarily?
I’m not suggesting “walking away” from the Middle East at all. And the reason I don’t support continued military involvement in Iraq is because I don’t believe staying in that nation helps America (training troops and political support is what we should be there for), and the most violence taking place in Iraq isn’t due to terrorist groups, but to competing religious factions vying for control of the government/country.
Don’t blame me for weakening the resolve of the Iraqi people, and don’t associate me with the people who dreamed up the concept of “changing” the Middle East. I’ve very serious about situations that involve the United States military, I just know when something is pointless, a concept you don’t yet seem to grasp.
I hadn’t planned on saying anything about your character, but after a few of your paragraphs where you claim to know what type of person I am I can’t help. It’s people like you who want the U.S. to stay in a war because it makes us look tough and people like you who don’t care how many lives are lost or how long it takes because if we stop it’ll make us “look bad,” or “weaken our resolve in general.” It’s stupid policy and it’s unrealistic.
Which amazingly didn’t spread across the world after we left Vietnam like those in power said it would.
Seriously? You call that winning? What do you call us doing in Iraq?
Again, you’re blaming the fact that we aren’t trusted not on the people in power, but on people like me, or liberals, or people in the news media. Do you have any facts to support your claim that our allies see liberals in the United States and then don’t trust us, or are you simply using that argument because it diffuses blame from the people you support?
You’re still relying on the argument that leaving Iraq will make us “weak” or that it shows a pattern of “low resolve” in how the United States conducts its policy. It doesn’t. Can you explain how wanting to leave a civil war in Iraq so more of our troops aren’t killed shows weakness or lack of willpower?
So let me get this straight. You think it’s possible to stop the idea of extremist Islam, but one of the only ways to stop this movement is to stay in Iraq because if we don’t it will show weakness and thus make the extremists come to the United States? What is this based on? You need to realize that what you’re proposing isn’t realistic; we can’t have our troops stay in a country forever simply because if we leave it’ll make us look weak. You can’t defeat extremist Islam with the military. The main question I have for you is do you think that there is a way to defeat extremist Muslims? And “steadfast determination” isn’t a realistic answer.
Why would I deny that? It’s most likely a fact, but the truth is is that we’ll always have terrorists inside (and outside) the United States. Terrorism is an ideology that can’t be defeated so long as there are violent people who want to blow something up.
This is the type of mood I like. We’re all Americans who want a better America; we just have different ideas at how to accomplish that goal. It’s sad to see so many people on the right and left saying stupid things to each other when what they really should be doing is compromising (people on the far left and far right will cringe at those words).
I am trying to figure out solutions, and I’ve asked you for your ideas for solutions, but as it seems to me extremist Islam cannot be defeated by the military, so we’re going to need to figure out some way to defeat it, killing and being killed in Iraq is not a successful option.
It wasn’t an expectation, it was a retrospective statement. I know it’s unrealistic to know how long a certain war is going to take; I was simply stating how this war in Iraq is/was not worth more than 5 years of U.S. involvement.
Don’t you see this as a Catch-22 that results in the United States never leaving Iraq and the Iraqi’s never completely taking control? We’ll leave Iraq once the Iraqi’s are able to take over for the U.S. once we leave. Will we ever know that they’re ready to take over for the U.S.? If the U.S. is “determined” where will that determination realistically get us aside from years and years of “stay the course”?
How so?
I never said it wasn’t valid. The comparison doesn’t justify or somehow make the war in Iraq better like it seems you’re trying to do: “well only XXXXX many people have died and only XXXXXXXX amount of dollars have been spent so this is a ‘good’ war.” Frankly, it’s bullshit.
Not to debate history, but I think there’ve been quite a few more inhumane wars than this one.
As opposed to bombing it, occupying it, and living with it? You describe reality as if it’s something that should be changed, but the changes you’re petitioning for aren’t plausible. We can’t ignore Iran forever, we can’t stay in Iraq for 50 more years, and we can’t use our military to defeat a religion.
So when I said that we both wanted a stable Iraq and that we both wanted to leave the country I was wrong? Or did you just not like the fact that I said something that you wanted that you didn’t say you wanted?
As do I, but when a religious Shi’a government is put into place don’t be too surprised, or when Hugo Chavez is re-elected don’t be too surprised, or when Hamas sweeps the elections again don’t be too surprised, because we can force democracy onto people, but we can’t make them vote for a certain candidate.
You haven’t convinced me that “success” in Iraq is a viable option. You’ve laid out the reasons why you think we need to “win” in Iraq, but you haven’t told me how, practically, to do that; you’ve given me a mindset we should have (determined), but nothing that can realistically be accomplished. I’d like to turn the Iraqi government into a foreign nation that can stand up to Iran and Syria and support the United States in our foreign policy decisions we make there, I know the goals the neo-cons had in mind (and if it worked it would have been great), I just don’t think it can happen in the real world.
Let’s not forget that the media acted as a cheerleader for this President and this war in Iraq at it’s beginning, and has only recently begun to widely criticize the strategy.
There are those words again. Sadly, I think your world vision is drastically different from mine, and in the back of my head (and the heads of millions of other Americans) I can’t help but think “If guys like you were wrong about so many things in this war on terrorism, what makes you so sure you’ll be right about predicting the future of what will happen if we leave Iraq?”
My main theme is obvious: reality and how it conflicts with the way the pro-war people view Iraq–the past, present, and future. Thanks again for answering the questions and stating your view.
Nonfactor on December 6, 2006 at 3:43 AM
I posted a response, but it hasn’t shown up. I’m just testing to see if this post shows so to see if I need to repost my entire response.
Nonfactor on December 6, 2006 at 4:36 AM
Here it goes:
Is there something wrong with wanting a war to end in on a reasonable timeline? You seem like this war is necessary and time is no option. That’s just not realistic. I also think that no matter what we do in Iraq the Shi’a will come out as the main dominating force, with or without Iran.
That’s untrue. I think a good majority of Americans want to protect our nation, believe it or not. And the loss of faith in the war in Iraq doesn’t represent a sweeping loss of will to defend what we (Americans) “traditionally believe in.” Unless you have any more corroborating pieces of evidence.
Of course the situations in these two countries were entirely different than those in Iraq, namely that we entered after a war was over and in one of the countries we didn’t systematically change the government (all we did in Japan was institute the MacArthur Constitution and leave the high level officials to do what they wanted), and in Germany we shared the burden of establishing West Germany with Great Britain and France.
To reiterate, not at all like Japan and Germany. Most obviously is the fact that we entered the countries after treaties were signed to end the war; we didn’t try to change the government while we were still fighting on the streets of Germany and Japan. Which is why I still believe Korea is the only example comes anywhere close to what we’re doing in Iraq, but the differences are still vast.
This is what I mean by gambling.
I know quite a bit about the extremist Muslim movement and the preaching in the Qu’ran, but I don’t believe it is something that can be defeated by bombing Tehran or destroying Mecca. If we want to have any influence on changing this ideology we’re going to need to come up with a strategy that doesn’t involve armed conflict. Do you think there’s a way we could stop the spread of extremist Islam, militarily or non-militarily?
I’m not suggesting “walking away” from the Middle East at all. And the reason I don’t support continued military involvement in Iraq is because I don’t believe staying in that nation helps America (training troops and political support is what we should be there for), and the most violence taking place in Iraq isn’t due to terrorist groups, but to competing religious factions vying for control of the government/country.
Don’t blame me for weakening the resolve of the Iraqi people, and don’t associate me with the people who dreamed up the concept of “changing” the Middle East. I’ve very serious about situations that involve the United States military, I just know when something is pointless, a concept you don’t yet seem to grasp.
I hadn’t planned on saying anything about your character, but after a few of your paragraphs where you claim to know what type of person I am I can’t help. It’s people like you who want the U.S. to stay in a war because it makes us look tough and people like you who don’t care how many lives are lost or how long it takes because if we stop it’ll make us “look bad,” or “weaken our resolve in general.” It’s stupid policy and it’s unrealistic.
Which amazingly didn’t spread across the world after we left Vietnam like those in power said it would.
Seriously? You call that winning? What do you call us doing in Iraq?
Again, you’re blaming the fact that we aren’t trusted not on the people in power, but on people like me, or liberals, or people in the news media. Do you have any facts to support your claim that our allies see liberals in the United States and then don’t trust us, or are you simply using that argument because it diffuses blame from the people you support?
You’re still relying on the argument that leaving Iraq will make us “weak” or that it shows a pattern of “low resolve” in how the United States conducts its policy. It doesn’t. Can you explain how wanting to leave a civil war in Iraq so more of our troops aren’t killed shows weakness or lack of willpower?
So let me get this straight. You think it’s possible to stop the idea of extremist Islam, but one of the only ways to stop this movement is to stay in Iraq because if we don’t it will show weakness and thus make the extremists come to the United States? What is this based on? You need to realize that what you’re proposing isn’t realistic; we can’t have our troops stay in a country forever simply because if we leave it’ll make us look weak. You can’t defeat extremist Islam with the military. The main question I have for you is do you think that there is a way to defeat extremist Muslims? And “steadfast determination” isn’t a realistic answer.
Why would I deny that? It’s most likely a fact, but the truth is is that we’ll always have terrorists inside (and outside) the United States. Terrorism is an ideology that can’t be defeated so long as there are violent people who want to blow something up.
This is the type of mood I like. We’re all Americans who want a better America; we just have different ideas at how to accomplish that goal. It’s sad to see so many people on the right and left saying stupid things to each other when what they really should be doing is compromising (people on the far left and far right will cringe at those words).
I am trying to figure out solutions, and I’ve asked you for your ideas for solutions, but as it seems to me extremist Islam cannot be defeated by the military, so we’re going to need to figure out some way to defeat it, killing and being killed in Iraq is not a successful option.
It wasn’t an expectation, it was a retrospective statement. I know it’s unrealistic to know how long a certain war is going to take; I was simply stating how this war in Iraq is/was not worth more than 5 years of U.S. involvement.
Don’t you see this as a Catch-22 that results in the United States never leaving Iraq and the Iraqi’s never completely taking control? We’ll leave Iraq once the Iraqi’s are able to take over for the U.S. once we leave. Will we ever know that they’re ready to take over for the U.S.? If the U.S. is “determined” where will that determination realistically get us aside from years and years of “stay the course”?
How so?
I never said it wasn’t valid. The comparison doesn’t justify or somehow make the war in Iraq better like it seems you’re trying to do: “well only XXXXX many people have died and only XXXXXXXX amount of dollars have been spent so this is a ‘good’ war.” Frankly, it’s bullshit.
Not to debate history, but I think there’ve been quite a few more inhumane wars than this one.
As opposed to bombing it, occupying it, and living with it? You describe reality as if it’s something that should be changed, but the changes you’re petitioning for aren’t plausible. We can’t ignore Iran forever, we can’t stay in Iraq for 50 more years, and we can’t use our military to defeat a religion.
So when I said that we both wanted a stable Iraq and that we both wanted to leave the country I was wrong? Or did you just not like the fact that I said something that you wanted that you didn’t say you wanted?
As do I, but when a religious Shi’a government is put into place don’t be too surprised, or when Hugo Chavez is re-elected don’t be too surprised, or when Hamas sweeps the elections again don’t be too surprised, because we can force democracy onto people, but we can’t make them vote for a certain candidate.
You haven’t convinced me that “success” in Iraq is a viable option. You’ve laid out the reasons why you think we need to “win” in Iraq, but you haven’t told me how, practically, to do that; you’ve given me a mindset we should have (determined), but nothing that can realistically be accomplished. I’d like to turn the Iraqi government into a foreign nation that can stand up to Iran and Syria and support the United States in our foreign policy decisions we make there, I know the goals the neo-cons had in mind (and if it worked it would have been great), I just don’t think it can happen in the real world.
Let’s not forget that the media acted as a cheerleader for this President and this war in Iraq at it’s beginning, and has only recently begun to widely criticize the strategy.
There are those words again. Sadly, I think your world vision is drastically different from mine, and in the back of my head (and the heads of millions of other Americans) I can’t help but think “If guys like you were wrong about so many things in this war on terrorism, what makes you so sure you’ll be right about predicting the future of what will happen if we leave Iraq?”
My main theme is obvious: reality and how it conflicts with the way the pro-war people view Iraq–the past, present, and future. Thanks again for answering the questions and stating your view.
Nonfactor on December 6, 2006 at 4:40 AM
Comment pages: