My Iraq

Great article and photo’s. The only problem is that not one democrat in government gives a s*** about anything or anyone except power for themselves and they’ll take that if they have to bow to every criminal in the world. It’s really hard for any democrat to be respected. They won’t even accept the fact they are responsible for the slaughter of 3 to 5 million is Southeast Asia. Hanoi John even denied recently that the well documented slaughter happened. There is no help other than death for the slime in the democrat party.

amen and amen.

Chris: Thanks for that first-person-experience post! I wish all the doom and gloomers whose only information about Iraq comes from the defeatist media would read it.

A very excellent piece that simply says why we fight, the progress that’s been made, and the importance of why we need to win.

I offer my smart salute to ChrisG.

“But the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than they are now!” That is another moronic statement I hear far too often. It not only shows a disgusting amount of historical ignorance, but an even more disgusting amount of unwillingness to see the truth.

The Iraqis themselves do not appear to feel they are better off. See here, for example.

The media fails to mention the million plus bodies we dug up in mass graves.

Can you suggest some source to support this figure? I can find estimates that Saddam killed about a million people, about a quarter of whom ended up in mass graves. Actual bodies dug up don’t seem anywhere close to a million though according to anything I can find.

Balanced against these million that Saddam killed (over a period of twenty years), consider the estimates of civilian excess deaths under American protectorship, here. Perhaps a million, perhaps somewhat fewer, over a period of four or five years. Of course the culpability for these deaths falls (with a handful of exceptions) on the insurgents, but it probably goes a long way to explaining the results of the poll linked to above.

The Iraqi People gave “The Finger”

Democracy unfortunately is no panacea. There are enough Shiites that I expect any national election to result in a Shiite state prime minister. Hamas won Palestinian elections, but they are not a force for freedom.

If we cut and run from the Middle East, we WILL have terrorists on our own streets in America. Will you grab a gun and defend our home then?

We already have a handful of terrorists every year. But since you seem to envision some sort of massive increase: yes, of course, if our other lines of defense somehow fail I’ll happily defend this country. Thing is, your scenario doesn’t make any sense to me. No middle eastern country is capable of seriously threatening us.

If we win here, the terror supporting states surrounding Iraq will fall

Sounds like you’re on board for an attack on Iran.

If we lose, a nuclear armed terror empire will surely form with the goal of our complete genocide

‘Surely’? When did you acquire prophetic powers? And when you look at the current political situation in the Middle East, why do you think in terms of unity and empire rather than fragmentation and civil war?

…because they are too selfish and pathetic…your cowardly treason…your worthless, traitorous hide

Another guy who can’t believe that someone would disagree with him without being a total moral degenerate. You know, there are even people in the armed forces who don’t support the war (in the sense that they think it should end with our swift withdrawal, not in the sense that they don’t do their duty). I did software development work for advanced C4 systems (CPOF), used by the third ID in Baghdad. Even people who help the war effort don’t necessarily agree that it’s a good idea.

Thank you for your work on the C4 systems we use. I am happy you found the few percentage points of Soldiers who support your views. I and a VAST majority of others DO NOT. And yes, very visible and loud portions of the “anti-war” movement ARE moral degenerates and violent ones at that. I am glad you do not count yourself among them.

First off, you continue to quote the lancet study with other studies from “independent groups”. I have to doubt how “independent” these studies were, but at least you cite that US troops are NOT going around shooting civilians. Your “anti-war” comrades, however DO NOT.

Now for Saddam’s mass grave data you seem to have trouble finding.

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

http://www.brookesnews.com/062407iraqgraves.html

There are dozens of others, but the spam blocker will probably not let the post go with them (too many links). The ROUGH figure is 5 million died under Saddam. This does not count the Kuwaitis and graves yet to be found. Nor does it count the Sunnis Saddam killed/imprisoned.

“No middle eastern country is capable of seriously threatening us.”

I beg to dissagree. No Middle Eastern country has to have ICBMs to threaten us and not all threats are weapons in the direct sense. These countries have terror training camps (Saddam had Salmon Pak and the Ansar al Islam camp and backed homicide bombers in Palestine). These terrorists then come to the USA and, though we catch some of them, our courts are ineffective in protecting the populance. Some Islamic nations have nuclear weapons facilities (Iran and now hints that Syria has weapon sites). They have assistance from North Korea and financial backing from groups in the West (CAIR and others). They also have chemical and biological agents and the will to use them. Biological weapons are perhaps the most dangerous as they do not require large delivery systems to create weapon stocks (a little botulism goes a long way). Plus, a bio-agent is difficult to trace and causes mass panic. Just look what a little food contamination does to the populace. In addition, the countries do not have to threaten us, they send in their colonial jihadists to hunt “kuffers” (one was caught in Dearborn, Mi a week ago) and impose their society on the West. Europe is not being threatened by a Middle Eastern country, but it is becoming less and less safe for non-Muslims to live. Even now in Belgium, a Muslim can protest all he wants, but any counter-protests are suppressed. France suffers from organized “spontaneous” riots and cannot patrol many of its cities. In England, sections of cites are no longer truly under English control.

“Sounds like you’re on board for an attack on Iran.”

While I have a few pieces of Iranian munitions to return to Iran, if/when we are victorious in Iraq, Iran could fall without a US shot. Iran is not a stable country and her people are calling for their leaders and the mullahs to step down. They are met with armed religious police and many are killed and imprisoned. What I want is to give these people, and others in the ME and alternative to Jihad and Islamic dictatorships bent on global jihad. That will stop the wars and THAT is what I meant: A domino effect. A successful Iraq could prod others in the region to move against their theocracies, dictators, and kings. It could also relieve a lot of pressure on Lebanon when Iran and Syria become too busy putting down pro-freedom insurrections to help Hezbollah. It may not be pretty and it may not reflect everything the West desires in the end, but if the people are victorious, then there is hope for a more peaceful M.E.. Notice that “hope” is not a guarantee.

That said, time is running out for Iran. I doubt they will get the 12 years Saddam had to disarm. I do not doubt that the UN will be just as ineffective as it was with Saddam. However, even typically spineless EU governments are very concerned that a nuclear armed Iran with North Korean missiles could easily hit central EU countries. Hitting the EU will hurt the USA almost as much as a hit on Los Angeles or New York.

“‘Surely’? When did you acquire prophetic powers? And when you look at the current political situation in the Middle East, why do you think in terms of unity and empire rather than fragmentation and civil war?”

Prophecy is not required and don’t call me Shirley. Part of my job is pattern analysis. Two and two equal four. For example, not responding in the 1990s to increasing terror attacks made each one more devastating and culminated in 9-11 for the USA. A growing number in the US military were stating this throughout the 90s. Running away from Iraq and Afghanistan will leave large power vacuums and not only will M.E. countries step in, but China and Russia also have aspirations for the region.

Now, will there be unity or a Shia/Sunni civil war? Probably no true unity for a few years, and maybe even a decade and there will be fighting along sect lines. However, of all the geo-political regions, the Middle East, historically, has formed large empires and that is when they were the strongest. There are many ‘wild cards’ in the area:

-A strong Iran with a puppet Syria
-China and Russian interests and support
-Sunni countries with large, untested armies and masses of ready to die human bombers with large birthrates (Iran also has a growing issue with IEDs in Pashdun areas).
-AQ with populist aspirations of providing an alternative to kings and Islamic states with one Caliphate to take on the world with.
-A socialist West too mired in its own self-hate to stand against anyone or even stand-up for itself.
-A section of the West very ready to stand against the rising tide of global Islam.

Out of this comes the following for the M.E.:
1-Endless civil war which disrupts oil production and forces the world to act in order to stop it (Europe and China are the largest exporters of M.E. oil; the USA gets %17.6 of our oil exports from the Persian/Arabian Gulf). Some would say this is the best result as it draws the radicles out of the West and to the M.E.. However, resource cost skyrocket and unless the USA starts drilling on its own territory and building refineries NOW, we will suffer greatly at home (something we have not had to do at all during this war). Also, as much as we wish there was something besides oil to run on, very little exists operationally for a 300 million+ people nation which will allow us to at this time, despite the Billions of dollars spent on research. Also, the world would demand we go in and stop this civil war. We would be back to square one.

2-Civil War followed by a Persian Empire: Iran creates nuclear weapons and dominates the rest of the M.E. or in some other way wins the civil war. The Persians now unite the M.E. with the singular purpose of destroying the West and subjugating all other religions and peoples.

3-Same as #2, but with a Whabbahist in charge of a new Sunni Caliphate. This Caliph now relentlessly attacks the West with everything they have.

4-No civil war. Some power (Shia or Sunni) takes control of Iraq and turns it into a terrorist safe haven. The USA is too paralyzed to react and is attacked by graduates of these camps (again).

5-The USA/Coalition stays in Iraq, beats both the AQI and Iranian backed Shias. We help their government actually run with a minimum of corruption (unheard of in the M.E.) and provide for their people. The People of Iraq get their acts together and work with each other, creating a better Iraq, free of Whabbahism and Shia theocracy (it still will not look like a USA/EU mirror, but it will be different than anything yet tried in the region). People of other Middle East nations see that the Iraqis have good things in life and live at a high standard. They demand the same from their governments, who cannot deliver and try to suppress the dissenters. Instead of giving in as they have in the past, these dissenters topple the governments and ask for Western help on how to run the new governments.

#5 is the most difficult to do in the short run, but if we do not change the face of the M.E., we will be attacked again and again by terrorists with cloaked support from the Islamic nations which fund them.