Partitions are neither permanent nor do they “settle” things.

Cyprus was partitioned in the late 50’s or early 60’s, and in 1974 Greece invaded and tried to take over the Island (both Greece and Turkey claimed it as being theirs). War between two NATO allies resulted. And Cyprus is STILL partitioned, today, except that Turkey’s slice is bigger.

Korea is partitioned. We’re still stationed along the DMZ and the North still hasn’t given up its designs on the south. Unless the regime in the north falls, we will, no doubt go to war there, again.

Vietnam was partitioned. And we all know how that ended up. The North invaded and tried to overthrow the south. After 56,000 US KIA, we pulled out and the Democrats made sure that the next time the north invaded after that, that the Vietnames would lose and that is exactly what happened.

Partitioning Iraq will not settle anything. Shiiteland would want revenge against the Sunnis. Sunniland want’s the oil that the Kurds have. Kurdland wants their own state that would include parts of Turkey and Iran as well.

But who cares?

Obama and the rest of the traitor party don’t give a crap about any Iraqi genocide. And this includes Biden. Just like they didn’t give a crap about Cambodia’s Pol Pot and the millions he murdered or the 800,000 Vietnamese executed by the Communists and the hundreds of thousands of tribesmen in Laos who fought with us.

Liberal Democrats are the monsters among us.

They’re cold, murdering bast*rds just like their old Soviet masters were. The death of human beings doesn’t faze them — that’s why they adore abortion and “mercy killing” of the lame and elderly.

Oh, they’re willing to spend US blood and treasure on places that don’t matter to America, where we have no interests at all. So they can feel good and tingly self righteous. Places like SOMALIA, KOSOVO, BOSNIA, where they can’t really fight back. Or course, Clinton let Rawanda happen (Tutsis don’t vote Democratic anyway, so WTF and to hell with them!) in 1994. Cigarman was still smarting from the beating Osama bin Laden gave him in Somalia. Because in Mogodishu, the enemy DID fight back and Clinton, like all liberal Democrats doesn’t have the stomache (spelled COURAGE) to fight our enemies.

They’re great on “sending messages,” like blowing up asprin factories and murdering donkeys in empty terrorist camps in Afghanistan. But when it comes to actually engaging the enemy, those that don’t commit treason in helping them, run away like the little girly-men they are.

But other than “sending messages,” DEMOCRATS REFUSE to defend American national security interests. Period.

They screwed the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. They screwed the Somalians, too. And now, they’re about to screw the Iraqis. And they fully turn the sacrifice of American blood into worthless mud. God Damn Them.

georgej on July 20, 2007 at 5:37 AM

MB4: “My God, you are talking about roughly a third of Americans.”

Yep. They are the monsters among us. How else would you quantify their behavior? You have to be an IDIOT to not know that millions of people are going to die in the violent collapse of Iraq if we pull out now. Even the New York Times admits it. And yet, they either deny it, or don’t care. They want Bush defeated and to hell with the consequences.

Some of these “people” are the very same people STOOD BY and watched Pol Pot murder 2.25 million Cambodians. First they pretended that it never happened; that it was overblown rhetoric from the right. Then they started to JUSTIFY it as being necessary to achieve social justice. Then, when the scale of it reached genocidal levels, they blamed Nixon, and (believe it or not), some even try to apply moral equivalence to blame Ronald Reagan.

Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby wrote:

“In the name of a radical utopia,” The New York Times recalled in its long obituary, “the Khmer Rouge regime had turned most of the people into slaves. . . . Dictatorial village leaders and soldiers told the people whom to marry and how to live, and those who disobeyed were killed. [Those] who did not bend to the political mania were buried alive, or tossed into the air and speared on bayonets. Some were fed to crocodiles.” Nearby was a photograph of human skulls — emblem of the dreadful “killing fields” in which the communists butchered a quarter of Cambodia’s people.

But nowhere in the Times story was there a reminder that the Khmer Rouge was able to seize power only after the US Congress in 1975 cut off all aid to the embattled pro-American government of Lon Nol — and that it did so despite frantic warnings of the bloodbath that would ensue. President Ford warned of “horror and tragedy” if Cambodia was abandoned to the Khmer Rouge and pleaded with Congress to supply Lon Nol’s army with the tools it needed to defend itself.

To no avail. US troops had come home two years earlier, but American antiwar activists were still intent on effecting the “liberation” of Southeast Asia. Radicals like Jane Fonda, David Dellinger, and Tom Hayden stormed the country, denouncing anyone who opposed communist victory in Cambodia and Vietnam. On the campuses, in the media, and in Congress, it was taken on faith that a Khmer Rouge victory would bring peace and enlightened leadership to Cambodia.

“The growing hysteria of the administration’s posture on Cambodia,” declared Senator George McGovern, “seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol’s forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia.”

Liberal Democrats caused the fall of Cambodia and Vietnam. That’s history. Liberal Democrats pretended that the genocide wasn’t happening. That’s history, too. Liberal Democrats stuck their fingers in their ears and went “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” when people tried to tell them what was really happening in Cambodia. Just like they are trying to do today.

The New Republic told its readers that the ouster of Lon Nol should be of no concern, since “the Cambodian people will finally be rescued from the horrors of a war that never really had any meaning.”…

…On April 13, 1975, [Sydney] Schanberg’s dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, “Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.”…

…On the op-ed page, Anthony Lewis was calling “the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future could possibly be more terrible,” he demanded, “than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?”

As the death marches out of Phnom Penh proceeded, Lewis went on making excuses for the Khmer Rouge. He mused that it was “the only way to start on their vision of a new society.” Americans who objected were guilty of “cultural arrogance, an imperial assumption, that . . . our way of life” would be better….

…The “scholars” were the worst. Gareth Porter and G.C. Hildebrand of the Indochina Resource Center insisted that Pol Pot’s horrendous cruelties “saved the lives of tens of thousands of people…. Twenty-three years ago, American leftists cheered, justified, and denied as the communists plunged Cambodia into a nightmare of atrocity.”

And you dare to complain that I label them for what they are? They were monsters then, and NOTHING’S CHANGED! They are going to repeat their performance in Iraq!

They’re older and grayer now, but their ranks are swelled by a new generation of USEFUL IDIOTS who intend to turn a blind eye to the murder of millions of Iraqis. Just because they hate George W. Bush.

If a group of people not only stand by, but advocate the very actions which will bring about genocide, then you cannot call them anything but monsters. Because that is what they are.

And if the people of DKOS are upset because I dared to tell them that they ‘wear no clothes,’ then f*ckem. They ARE what I say they are. And they will wear that label forever.

georgej on July 20, 2007 at 7:11 AM