I know!…

Its really interesting….

How about a foreign policy that looks ahead decades, not just to the next election.

How about refusing to install and support dictators and tyrants just because they are on our side.

How about refusing to support nascent terrorist groups like Al Qaeda just because they oppose our enemy.

How about giving the Iraqis self-determination by leaving them alone.

Sadly, I agree with MB4. While we shouldn’t leave, and if the Dems have their way, they will pull out of the whole War on Terror effort and it will be the 1990s all over again. But George “Stubborn as a mule” Bush won’t change his strategy. He’s not capable of listening to anyone. And if you wonder why Al Qaeda gained a foothold in Iraq, it’s because of this war. They were not there before. There was no proof of it, except what the Bush administration made up to go to war.

mram on September 17, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Hey, way to regurgitate the “Big Lie”. Bravo. You’ve done your deed for the day, automaton.

Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq BEFORE we went in there. Zarqawi was operating at Ansar al Islam out of Northeastern Iraq. Zarqawi also fled to Iraq after being chased from Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001.

Besides, the bigger point is Saddam was one of the most powerful terrorists himself – certainly in the Middle East if not the world. He funded terrorist organizations, and he gave safe harbor to world-reknown terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. He also operated terrorist training camps — the most well-known is Salman Pak located south of Baghdad.

Saddam went after Abu Nidal in the summer of 2002 because he didn’t want to be seen as harboring terrorists (but Saddam was doing exactly that). Abu Nidal, as reported by Iraqi officials, killed himself when Saddam’s secret police showed up to arrest him.

The U.S. captured Abu Abbas (April 2003) in Iraq shortly after we went in to depose Saddam.

Do you think either Nidal or Abbas went to Iraq for some vacation time? Isn’t it odd that two of the world’s most notorious terrorists were living in Iraq?

Iraq was a terrorist state under Saddam Hussein. It funded terrorism, it harbored terrorists, and it engaged and facilitated terrorist operations. And that’s the bottom line…

Most Americans know one thing: they don’t want our soldiers to continue dying at the rate of two, three or four a day.

B26354 on September 16, 2007 at 5:51 PM

I like that jab about 2 or 3 soldiers dying a day. How about the dozens dying in traffic accidents every day? Or from crime violence? Frankly, the death rate for soldiers in Iraq pales by comparison.

Professor Blather on September 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM

While not intended to be harsh or unsympathetic or ungrateful to our fine soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, Professor Blather is correct.

How long have we been in Iraq (this time)? Since March 2003, and it’s now September 2007. 4 years and 6 months. And how many U.S. war deaths have there been? As of Sept. 16, 2007, the figure is 3,782. Source:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_US_Deaths.html

For comparison purposes, do you even realize, B26354, how many U.S. combat deaths happened in the Korean War? Or are you like “most Americans” and you really don’t know jack-sh!t about history.

The Korean War lasted for three years, and the U.S. had approx. 33,00 combat deaths. Thirty-three THOUSAND in THREE YEARS. Source:

http://www.va.gov/oaa/pocketcard/korea_summary.asp

The bottom line is you don’t know jack-sh!t about American history, and the sacrifices that have been made before. And sadly, there’s a large chunk of the American populace who are also ignorant of American history and what sacrifice really is.

“Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way”

(another way of saying that criticism without a constructive alternative is just immature whining)

All actions have consequences. Bush’s “nation building” in Iraq is having a benefit/cost ratio that is very deeply in the red.

MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 3:23 AM

And what is the “benefit/cost ratio” of pulling out MB4? Surely our troops would be “safe”. But for how long? Don’t you think that at some point we would have to do it all again? And as for “nation building”, so it would have been better to just leave once Saddam was gone?

Leaving at this point can not be an option until Iraq can do for itself what we are doing. Leaving now would only show weakness, as Bryan pointed out. It would embolden not just the jihadist but many who oppose us. These are the consequences I spoke of.

Futhermore, allowing the anti-american/war radicals any glimmer of winning would also give rise to something more terrible, IMHO than what we have today.

You still have a Kerry/Edwards 04 sticker on the back of your Volvo.

It’s so boring to quote Macho Machiavelli. So how about a jealous, probably drunk, long forgotten German general:

God is on the side of children, drunks and the United States of America.

And it’s always cool to quote Casablanca (1942):

[about Rick]
Major Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My impression was that he’s just another blundering American.
Captain Renault: We musn’t underestimate American blundering. I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918.

And a pro pos to you:

Rick: Don’t you sometimes wonder if it’s worth all this? I mean what you’re fighting for.
Victor Laszlo: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we’ll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Rick: Well, what of it? It’ll be out of its misery.
Victor Laszlo: You know how you sound, Mr. Blaine? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart.

JohnnyD on September 17, 2007 at 6:20 PM

All actions have consequences. Bush’s “nation building” in Iraq is having a benefit/cost ratio that is very deeply in the red.

One must be as a lion to frighten off wolves, but as a fox to recognize traps.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

The wise man does sooner what the fool does later.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

Having read thru all of the comments, I think it can be said that this is the best site for spirited debate. While I don’t agree with all, I’m still baffled by the “cut and run” crowd. You all seem to just dismiss any idea that if we left there wouldn’t be any consequences.

We will see something worse than we see now I’m afraid.

Let me just say, after being downwind of the moonbats, I found myself needing three things: a shower, new sinuses, and that detox stuff in case I get drug tested in the future.

Old: Military defeat, followed by a restructuring and rebuilding of the German and Japanese governments in order to replace dangerous repressive regimes with more democratic governments less likely to wage war on the rest of the world. Results: after a long, hard effort, successful Germany and Japan are now allies whose populations are very productive, much better off than before, and no longer a threat to others.

New: In response to attacks and the continuing world-wide threat from a stateless enemy, the US declares that their protectors will be held responsible, and then proceeds to follow through by attacking enemy suppliers and strongholds, and replacing the dangerous repressive regimes with more democratic governments less likely to wage war on the rest of the world. Results: after a very short effort, largely successful in reducing the threat to the US and Isreal, and reducing danger from/to other countries in the Middle East. Major progress in rebuilding has already forced the formerly hard-to-locate enemy into the open in Iraq, where its concentrated forces can be identified and defeated militarily.

On the other hand, we have immature, unreasoned responses to complex problems which present no alternative solutions at all:

It’s hard, let’s quit, let’s bang a drum….oh look, a squirrel!

silverfox on September 17, 2007 at 4:26 AM

You are just being silly now foxy. I could not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq on my most powerful day, even if I wanted to. I’m not Clark Kent.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is what Bush did when he decided to stay in Iraq to “nation build” that “shining example” for the rest of the Muslim world.

Thanks for your presence at the Gathering of Eagles. It’s truly a newish thing and certain to pick up steam in times to come, probably with much due to the help and publicity of the HA team. Please: Keep Up the Good Work.

I recognize your pessimism, Bryan. I used to feel the same way when I attended college, a state university and town in N. Cal. rated very highly by the Utne Reader. Need I say more? Humboldt State University in Arcata, to be exact. Being surrounded by those toxic attitudes, rabid anti-Americanism, just bleeds confidence, and there is no doubt about it. I remember this guy in chem lab who had made his own “bullet riddled” t-shirt, even sewing in red squares of cloth under the holes and adding more blood with a red marking pen, upon which was scrawled “US OUT OF EL SALVADOR.” I don’t think he wore it every day, because sometimes he broke up the monotany with a Che Guevarra shirt. Seriously, no joke.

Doesn’t El Salvador have troops in Iraq now? My God, we’re good! No wonder the moonbats are going batpoop crazy.

I, too, am becoming concerned, even alarmed, at the stances of Russia and China. The days of Boris Yeltsin and Deng Xiaoping seem like forever ago. However, they seem to me like they have more ambition than actual power still.

Por ejemplo:

Putin just made a national holiday begging people to have more babies. And those rickety bombers that pootypoot is sending out… How many are broken down back at the base for every one he can send up? Victor also thought poisoning his critic, Litvinenko, in London with plutonium whatnot-7 was a smooth move? Is Pathetic a river in Russia?

China can’t make simple plastic toys or dog food or drugs that don’t poison kids and pets. Whether ignorant or not, does that make a difference? And these Olympics coming up in Beijing, what can one say? Comedy aplenty. Does the Pathetic River flow from Russia through China, too?

But still, they have resources, potential and ambitions. Feelings of dark concern are valid.

MB4 and that other guy with the letters-and-numbers name: Man, do you guys really want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Contrary to such popular belief, the Middle East had many places and faces that were very cosmopolitan and secular as recently as the 60s, even the 70s and 80s. The peoples of Iraq, Iran, Egypt and especially Lebanon were full of friendly, modern and somewhat secular world citizens. The region was not rife with, as Hamid Karzai put it, this “godless” Islamism. IMHO, I trace all this BS to what happened in the 1972 Munich Olympics, when the Palestinian terrorists, ooooooooooooohhh Black September it was called, kidnapped and killed some Israeli athletes. This fight is decades old, not centuries, and it is fuelled and/or oxygenated by our beloved creature: ABCNBCCBSTimeNewsweekCNNNYTimesLATimesWAPOCNN.

This is not a hopeless fight. It’s a good fight, a just fight. And like the Good Book says: Fight the good fight… Mourn our grievous losses, we must, but many of our fallen would tell us: Enough now, off your knees, pick up where I left off and win this victory.

Let us win
John Lynch

The dynamic in Iraq has changed, but more important is the dynamic in America. …
…

mjk on September 16, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Kum-Bye-ya ??? I rather doubt it too, but at least not whistling past the graveyard would be an improvement.

BTW, I have never advocated leaving everywhere. I do not even advocate leaving Iraq completely as I think that we should keep a few tens of thousand of troops in Kurdistan, the one bright spot in this tarbaby. Possibly even a base or two in the rest of Iraq, depending.