Will They Admit Progress?

seems like the pla ce is blowing up.

MALIKI was unable to reach any of his stated objectives ALL MSM reports this as  something  much less than a great victory for MAliki even the Wall Street Journal. Sadr controls more of Basra than he did before according to CNN

Well, now we’re getting mortar fire and  Americans killed in the Greenzone.  I suppose that’s progress.  We’ve also had as nearly many Americans killed in Jan/feb march as in all of 2005. I suppose that’s progress or a sort, too.

this whole incident just shows how tenuous any reductions in violence in Iraq will be.  We haven’t defeated any major players in Iraq…just struck deals, paid off, or segrated them away.  Even if we achieve substantial gains in security, they can be reversed in a flash without continuous pressure applied.How long are we supposed to keep these people from killing each other? 

And why are we now protecting the Iranian-backed set?Is 100 years in Iraq acceptable to you?  is it worth the cost?  Will the US military remain at reduced effectiveness for the benefit of Iraqis? isn’t the US military supposed to defend US interests? You must say it’s doing so by backing the Iran-supported government… really?

All you can ask for is one more year, six more months, etc…  How many extensions do you want?If you are not willing to define failure (because presumably it is not “acceptable”), and success is not possible, then this war will never end.

So because you believe there is something called “success” in Iraq, even though it can’t be defined in any meaningful way, you are willing to wait, while others fight and die, for “success” to appear.

It’s actually quite simple:

Let’s define this thing called “failure” as what happens when we have to leave because we realize we can’t achieve our mission without significantly damaging our own strategic interests.  Doesn’t matter what that is exactly.

Then let’s define this thing called “success” as what happens when Iraqis all agree to stop fighting to we can leave without feeling “icky” about having turned the country into a flaming hole in the ground. (and lets note that this version of success has been significantly reduced from our original idea of “greeted with roses”.)

We all agree failure is possible.  I don’t think there’s much to argue there.

You think success is possible, I don’t.

Let’s say we do what you want to do and try to stay until the job is “successful”

If I’m wrong, and success is possible, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and pacifying a country, they won’t be killing each other as much and Iran will still be a powerful influence.

If I’m right, then after x more years of fighting, dying, spending countless dollars, and failing to pacifying a country, they’ll still be killing each other and Iran will still be a powerful influence.

How large does x have to be before it wasn’t worth it?  You have to admit, at least hypothetically, that there is some value for x for which this war will not have been worth it, and for which continued death and destruction would not have been worth it.

Furthermore, is there some value for x that would convince you that success is not possible?  If not, you are saying you would have the US fight this war forever if that’s how long it took to do the mission.  I would say that’s not very serious.

The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

I find it odd that a philosophy which has considered america “exceptional” and uses the concept of personal responsibility to deflect against acusations of bad behaviour towards others (ie, Castro, not the US, is personally responsible for the embargo that has helped to keep cuba impoverished), or who rail against those who “blame america first” when it is the terrorists who are personally responsible for the atrocities they commit on our soil, is unable to apply that concept to the Iraqi people vis-a-vis their own security.If we leave and peolpe continue to die, it won’t be us doing the killing, it will be them.  They can be personally responsible for that too.

Let me refresh your memory.We were told the war would take a few weeks and cost a few tens of a billion dollars.

Now, it’s over five years later;  thousands of American dead; trillions pissed away;  no end in sight.  Talk to boots on the ground, they’ll tell you that it’s a long time since we made any progress at all. What’s funny is that you and people like you have been telling us about “progress” for five years! 

Tell me, do you really believe that we’re so stupid that we’ve just forgotten all the claims you guys have made over the years, that we can keep believing your promises that something will happen in the future?

I had an employee once who seemed energetic and full of positive energy and gave me great progress reports.  Almost a month into it I said, “These progress reports always seem encouraging, but you’re really going to have to deliver some actual work pretty soon.”  He never did;  he vanished, leaving most of the work he’d said he was doing undone.

Tell us when you get actual, real progress;  when Iraqis and Americans stop *dying* by violence;  when American soldiers have left Iraq; when there’s reliable power and water in Baghdad;  when Iraqis stop dying from medieval diseases like cholera that had all but vanished from the country before the invasion.

Otherwise, please don’t insult our intelligence and your own by constantly claiming that some intangible “progress” has occurred.  It’s been five years.

A parliamentary delegation from Maliki’s own coalition defies him going to Iran to let them broker a negotiation with Sadr: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story32055.html

In essence, Maliki was ignored in Basra while negotiations in the conflict were directly with made with Sadr as Iranians underwrote them. 

Typical “sky is falling” chickenlittling hysteria everytime another “setback”, challenge, or incident occurs. Basrah will be just another comma in the history books.

According to Bill Roggio:

Sadr’s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday, 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

US and Iraqi forces are maintaining the high pace of operations against the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups. While the daily reporting from Iraq is far from over, initial reports indicate at least 18 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed and another 30 captured.

US soldiers killed 14 Mahdi fighters in Baghdad during a series of separate engagements. Iraqi security forces killed four Mahdi Army fighters and captured another 30 in Babil province, where a major offensive led by the police has been underway.

Doug wrote:

Almost every hawkish blog on Iraq I read posts Roggio for their insights into Iraq.

And almost every anti-occupation lefty willfully ignores what comes out of Iraq from Roggio, Michael Yon, Michael Totten, Matt Sanchez, and milblogs who don’t share your interpretation of the facts.

I actually do place value on Greg Grants insights, so thank you for providing the link.

Insurgencies typically take about 10 years to quell.  Throughout conflicts, there are ebbs and flows, successes and setbacks.  The question is:  Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?

The anti-war left have been a ball-and-chain to a successful prosecution of this war as much as the strategic mistakes that are a part of any conflict, and which happen in all wars.  They’ve been this way from day one, magnifying, spotlighting, underscoring, highlighting, and underlining any and all negative news as if it were the end of the world.

This is just one more challenge posed and it won’t be the last.

“Does America have the attention span, commitment, and the intestinal fortitude needed to win wars, anymore?”Here’s better questions:  Does america have the correct amount of troops and endless supply of money (or does china, which is who we borrow from) to win wars anymore.Let’s start with a draft.  One with NO exceptions.   Everybody goes to fight the greatest threat to this country EVAH!  Yes, even Bill Kristol’s and John Bolton’s kids.Then we revoke the tax breaks to the richest 1% of americans, and throw-in a 2% across the board tax on corporate profits to pay for the war and to support the troops.How about it, righties?  Willing to put your money and lives where your mouths are.My prediction: Never gonna happen.  When push comes to shove, the Right will back down and admit the whole clusterfuck isn’t worth THEIR lives and money!

Yada yada yada Robert.  Same suggestion that somehow only poor leftists get sent to war.  Newsflash, the Pentagon doesn’t want a draft because a volunteer army is better than a conscript army.  Today’s soldiers and Marines aren’t mindless drones who get “stuck in Iraq.”  Further, you can rant all you want about “righties”, but Hillary and Obama aren’t sending their daughters to war either.  Neither do most Dems (btw, Congressional Dems have a lot more money and are a lot more corporate-tied than Republicans anymore).Back to the question: what’s your plan?  I promise I won’t vote for GWB in the fall.  So, who’s gonna make life happy-go-lucky in Iraq and fullfill all the socialist pipedreams you listed?  Senator Obama’s gonna do that?Senator Clinton’s gonna do that?A Democratic Congress would do that if they controlled the House and Senate, right?Stop whining, start planning.

100yrs? Who said they want the war to continue for 100yrs?
Ya know, come to think of it, I’ve been hearing about how they’re gonna have to start drafting people for…well, since mid 2003 when Scott Ritter said the US was gonna bomb Iran in June 03. Has that draft started yet?
Also, when you say “your boys…” do you mean Senator Clinton too? After all, she
promoted the invasion of Iraq
had unique access to the finest intelligence assessment on the other side of her bed
authorized the invasion
funded the occupation
supported the occupation
called for more troops
and now she vows to continue till 2013.

Is she one of “my boys”?

McCain says 100 more years.Surely Hillary is one of your boys.  Anyone stupid enough to follow the lead of a dry-drunk fratboy who couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag deserves scorn and ridicule (that includes Hillary AND you).  I didn’t vote for him.  i didn’t think the war was a good idea.  I saw what Colin Powell showed to the UN in 2/03, and figured Iraq was no threat to the U.S.She’s all yours.  Just like the moron decider is yours.Enjoy what the half-wits you followed brought you.In a real world the whole lot of them would be tried for war crimes for attacking and ruining a country that was of absolutely no threat to them.I’m not a Dem, and never supported Clinton.  Tough break for you, there goes your entire argument.In the meantime, explain to me where you get the soldiers and money to fight a never-ending war of choice.Good luck sucker!

Wow, Robert, you have no clue how the economy works. If you have a %2 tax cut on business, you will have more jobs and the economy will grow faster than if you didn’t. Man we need economics lessons for people,along with history lessons.

And I never heard anyone say that the war would last 100 years.I heard we might be in Iraq for 100 years helping them, kind of like Japan and Germany, but no one ever said 100 years of war.

Bottom line questions about this topic, since you war supporters continue to dodge them:

1. Why have we decided to back the Badr Brigade in its civil war with the Madhi Army?

2. Why are we propping up the Iraqi faction with the most substantial ties to Iran while continuing to blame Iran for everything we don’t blame AQ on and for trying to use some nefarious tie between Sadr and Iran to make him the enemy?

3. Why are we allowing Maliki to declare war on his enemies and then have the US armed forces fight that war for him? I thought that was the whole reason why conservatives hated NATO.

4. What will the situation in Iraq have to look like specifically before we can finally declare victory and leave the area?

5. Do you think that the US building permanant bases on the largest oil fields in the country will help or hurt out long-term relationship with the people in the region?

6. Do you think the US forcing through Iraqi parliment a bill that allows Chevron, Exxon, BP, and Shell to extract oil from the land and kep the profits will help or hurt our long-term relationship with the country and the region?

You can continue to avoid these questions and then run around like toddlers shouting “BDS” and “surrender” all you want, but until you can answer these questions, you will continue to be pushed to the fringes of the conversation on what the hell we are going to do over there.

1) I’m not sure how dramatic the “backing” is, but the goal of backing any group in Iraq is to have that group support the govt efforts to bring stability to the nation

2) Whether one group or another has ties to Iran, Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, etc is debatable and fluctuating at all times. Backing a group “tied” to Iran could very well be backing a group “tied” to Iranian opposition

3) Pretty sure the US forces aren’t the ones doing most of the fighting in Basra right now

4) The situation will have to be one where Democrats and political opponents of the war in Iraq stop opposing it. When that happens, victory can be declared.

5) US permanent bases? Seems odd. I’d have to see some pics and more reports on it. To my knowledge Iraq already had PLENTY of major bases built by Saddam (in fact, UNMOVIC called them “hyperbases”). I suspect that the reports of building permanent bases have more effect than the bases themselves.

6) I don’t know about such bills, but Iraqi oil’s gotta get sold to somebody, and I’m sure it’s not just to American companies. Besides, the US wasn’t even allowed to import Iraqi oil until late 03 early 04, and that didn’t stop the “No Blood for Oil” rantings or prevent opponents of the war from pretending it’s all about America’s interest in oil and not other nations’ interests which were far stronger.

Here’s one for you Jeff….
They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge

When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams

Break up Iraq, undo the British Empire’s border-making mistake, and let everybody run their own damn show. That’s real democracy. I realize that there are diplomatic problems to such measures, but I don’t think anyone would disagree that diplomacy beats violence.

Heck, even if the new nations go to war, we can let the UN figure it all out. Let some other nations help pay for this.

Edit: you want a 100 years link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Scott,
Of course it’s a great idea. You should have been listening to me all along. If you had, we wouldn’t have to draft Chelsea, Obama’s kids, John Bolton and his kids, you, Bill Kristol and his kids, etc. (You know, the phonies that support the war from the comfort of their own living rooms). They’re bad enough, if you really want to see the fake war supporters, ask them to pay the trillions to fight the war themselves. You’ll hear every excuse they can think of.

Here’s McCain saying he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

You might remember I said the plan was to build US military bases in Iraq back in 2003. I was laughed at as a “dirty F’n hippie”. Of course, I was right (we dirty F’n hippies always are). Just like I’m right when I say we can stop the war in a matter of days if we make the supporters put their blood and money up for the war they support.
Life is tough when you’re born with common sense, but it’s just a burden I have to live with.

Robert, please show me the entire quote of Sen McCain saying he’s willing to have the Iraq War continue for the next 100 yrs. TIP: he doesn’t say that. It’s yet another half quote that opponents of the war promote as if it were truth.

The part that gosh…somehow just got left out:
“As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

They lied about the illegality of the occupation
They lied about the cost of the war
They lied about the casualties in the war
They lied about the wmd threat
They lied about the ties to Al Queda
They lied about the oil America’d be swimming in
They lied about Al Queda being in Iraq
They lied about the effects of the Surge

When will opponents of the war stand up and stop opposing the war based on half truths (half a truth ain’t a whole truth, and only whole truth is truth), half quotes, exaggerations, and pipedreams

Rand, if you aren’t an Iraqi elected official, I suggest you, US Congress, or the US military, dictating Iraq’s future as a carved up nation is a far cry from democracy. It’s up to the Iraq’s to decide their fate. Not you.

psMarc93. US “monopoly” on Iraq oil fields? You are misinformed. Iraq’s oil ministry has been accepting registrations for service contract bids on the Iraq oil fields even up to Jan/Feb of this year. The negotiations are direct - between the oil companies themselves and the Oil Ministry. There is no “US only companies” restrictions.

Unofficial sources say BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total are the current registrants. ExxonMobile is a merger of both US and UK subsidaries. BP, British, of course. Total has main offices in France. Shell is Dutch. Chevron American.

Altho all these companies operate in multiple countries with subsidiaries, and therefore hard to nail down to one country’s interests.

And frankly I hope one gets it that has distribution in the US, and not awarded to Russia or China. If we are continually forbidden to drill for our own, I would welcome another source being opened to our market. Oil is necessary for survival… whether anyone likes it or not.

They are still battling it out as to who has the final authority to sign oil deals. Kurds, of course, aren’t waiting and busy entertaining contracts for their area. Since it’s central Iraq who stands to lose the most since they don’t have the resource location, the oil sharing bit (especially for undiscovered caches) is certainly still an issue. However the plan is for some agreed upon national sharing of revenues.

LINK?

“In the Jordanian trials against these terror suspects, which is now in text and available on the internet, the terrorists confessed that the material they used to try and make VX were from Saddam’s military. They confessed to the fact that they had acquired the material to make the VX from a Ba’ath hideout in the Al Anbar province. The U.S. troops in Iraq didn’t know about this hideout until they heard the confessions, and when they went to search the hideout that the terrorists claimed to have gotten the chemicals to make VX, they found(guess what?) chemicals to make VX. This event proves that Iraq had WMD’s and that they were willing to help terror organizations carry out their attacks. So tell me, how is this not a threat to my security? How is this not a justification to remove Saddam from his position of power?”

Hang on Scott, let me get the links to them.

Monopoly? Yeah, thats why our gas is sooooo cheap nowadays.

Thanks for giving your complete lack of economics understanding away. Because monopolies lead to LOWER prices in your world right? Not to mention the supply/demand thing, but then you might be better served going back through one of your old college textbooks…you did go to college right?

Answer this, why shouldn’t we remove a government who had WMD’s illegaly, links to international terror organizations(including Al Qaeda), and who violated international protocols?

You obviously live in an alternate reality too. Keep reciting the tired old talking points of the neocons (yeah, I saw your side’s lame attempt with the recent documents ya’ll had translated), but who do you think provided him with not only the WMDs (that he NO LONGER HAD) and the biological agents (that he NO LONGER HAD), but the logistical information on how to use them on Iranian soldiers? Hint: Read the Riegle report. Answer: US, stupid primarily under Republican administrations.

I don’t want my tax money going toward forcibly opening up markets in third world countries via CIA fomented coups (read globalist class wars), under the false premise of instilling democracy (see Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.) and when those coups fail, as in Iraq’s case we just declare outright “pre-emptive” war.
FYI - I’m sure all you wingers know that the governments we’ve overthrown throughout the past 50 years have ALL been democracies with democratically elected leaders who were hugely popular in their countries. They just made the mistake of taxing the uber rich in their countries to the point that they embraced radical laissez faire capitalist goons like Milton Friedman and his cronies in the CIA, then with “our” help put his theories into place via bloody, terroristic coups which made use of torture and murder- ALL FINANCED AND OVERSEEN BY THE USA/CIA at YOUR EXPENSE as a taxpayer.

Your idea of a foreign policy is just absurd. First it was the commies (see above paragraph - THERE WAS NO COMMUNIST THREAT IN ANY OF THE CAPITALIST COUNTRIES WE F’D UP!) and now it’s the “islamofacists”. Your credibility is zero at this point. Democrats and Republicans alike have been responsible for this. But not until 9/11 did people with your distorted and bizarre paranoid worldview have the balls to rear their heads in public and actually advocate for pre-meditated pre-emptive warfare, again PAID OUT OF YOUR POCKET.

So now you all have the audacity to incredulously ask “well we know we f’d up (funny you didn’t admit that during the last prez election) but we can’t just leave! what do you lefties propose we do other than “cut and run”??!!! Pathetic.

Let me clarify my last post.

Iraq, while a democracy in name, was not. It was the only exception.

And all of the governments we backed (including Pinochet’s Chile) were brutal in repressing dissent, and all of them ran torture chambers, regularly “disappeared” people, and functioned as dictatorships after we meddled in their affairs.

There was never a single credible communist threat in any of them, they were all devoted capitalist countries, and all democracies (except Iraq, which was in name only). Oh, and did you know whose side the US was on when Saddam took power? Take a guess.

Socialists would never see or acknowledge or recognize a communist threat (let alone any threat).

Tell us, genius - just how would a communist (or islamofacist…SCARY) threat materialize, especially here in the US? In the form of labor unions? Healthcare? Where are all the “communists” hiding dude? Are they just waiting to come out and take away all your money and nice stuff and make you work on a potato farm?

Talk about tinfoil hat nonsense. The right wing in this country is as delusional as it’s ever been.

Wowza is right.

Umm we have no monopoly adn China and Russia have contracts with the Iraqi government for oil How can we have a monopoly when US companies do not een own the rights. Kind of strange when facts get int he way huh.

Didn’t Saddam say that he wanted everyone to know he had WMD and that when the sanctions were over he would start up the factories again. Kind of takes a little out of your talking points.

don;t want my taxes to go to programs that help no one and just eat away at our self reliance. This war is a fraction of all the social programs that our Dear Lord government spends every day. Do you know that we spent a half a trillion on our failed school system, but you want us to spend more on a failing system.

So Cuba isn’t communist, the whole Communist influence in Latin America was made up. I guess you should ask all the jailed and murdered people down there and. They might beg to differ with you.

And I guess Chavez was really elected on the up and up, I mean come on Carter said so.
If you haven;t noticed he has made himself dictator for life down there, ala Castro. reall democracy down there huh.

And I guess Reagan, the Pope and Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with the fall of USSR either???

Talk about delusional

Let me tell you we had a group called the Wolves in Germany killing people left and right. We did not quell them for years after the war. And some Japanese in the hinter land never got word that the war was over, and continued to fight afterwords. They had people that were at their posts up until the 90s. And would fire at any one that was not Japanese for decades. All wars have a nasty ending. Every war has had guerilla fighting after the war was over.

So havng roving bands of thugs killing people, kike Mookie Malitia is not the same. Huh, itersting. The Wolves were more organized than any of the Militias in Iraq right now. They might not have had as many men, but did a great deal of damage.

Yes the REd Scare was just made pu and no communists were trying to take over the Latin American countries. That is really good. Where did you read that from Che Guevera. FARC is a MArxists oraganiation that has been around for years, adn they were just caught with plutomium.

All the Narco-Terrorists organizations were bankrolled by Russian handlers. So was the IRA. They hand their hands in a lot of places. After the Wall fell and the USSR was no more, many documents there proved that the Red Scare was true.

Excellent Post, Richard Romano, I agree completely.

KC, Curt’s “sooooo cheap” monopoly reponse was sarcasm. Tho you demonstrate manners devoid of social civility, I’m positive you can’t possibly be that dense.

Much of what has gone done in Iraq is a direct result of the actions of a stateless enemy, calling no country home, hitting US shores Sept 11th. This makes this war completely unique by comparison to those of the past generations. This also makes some comparisons to previous wars completely absurd. One fact cannot be refuted. New governments and their mark of efficience do not happen in the span of 22 months.

Deposing Saddam was US policy attitude since Clinton’s 1998 Iraq Freedom Act. However the likelihood of it actually being implemented was probably zip, nada, nil. But it sure made for “feel good” legislation… like the Darfur resolution and so many others that accomplish nothing.

No change of implementation until, of course, 911. That’s when we “bombed” the human cockroaches out of their Taliban/Afghan nests and knew they would merely run to friendlier digs to continue proliferation. Raised in Florida as a youth, it’s not hard for me to make the jihad movement to cockroach analogy. But, if you’re not familiar with the critter, for some uncanny similarities, you may want to check out the five steps to killing cockroaches at the bottom of this pesticide site… assuming at least the common bond between us is that you are not a supporter of the global Islamic jihad movement’s agenda.

You give no credence to translated IIS documents. So we won’t even go there. However I find the the credibility you freely grant to Senatorial reports (Riegle), while you give none to Joint Forces Command, incredibly partisan, Thereby you lose viability simply because you pick a report because it best suits your particular beliefs and close your mind to anything else. I reject your counterpoints here as nothing more than anal attitude that we cannot surmount.

Your constant references to past administrations support of despotic factions tell me that you have a surprising naive black and white view. While I believe mistake by leaders have been make (and will continue to be made) thru time, reality dictates that we don’t always have a choice between good and bad, but between worse and worst. This holds true to most POTUS elections as well. Picking the lesser evil with which to deal until further in the future, and other actions and events push it over the edge of tolerance.

This lesser evil theory applies mightily to dealing with Muslim nations, of which their visions and those of the west, will never truly gel. The “hate Musharraf” campaign is a perfect example of demonizing a leader and ally who’s had to tread a fine line to aid the US with intel, and tacitly approve joint military strikes in order to keep a semblence of peace in Pakistan. We will be dealing with a world without Musharraf’s help soon enough… a not-so-distant future problem to face.

Last, while I don’t apply the “communist label” to many of the proposed DNC programs, they dance ever so close to the edge and are socialist in structure. So I do not support them, and suspect that if they are implemented, they will indeed alter life in this nation…. and not to the benefit of the ambitious. If, however, you prefer mediocrity as your life’s financial rewards, it’s gonna be heaven.

But then, I’m entering my golden years… such as they may be. So my concern lies for my granddaughter’s future in this nation. I’m sorry to be handing her the reins to a country filled with ungrateful, unambitious types that refuse to fight for all we hold dear, and prefer the government hand them everything from cradle to grave. Such a life holds no joy nor adventure. Merely a false “guarantee” that one pays for dearly.

Robert in BA #28 wrote:

I’m against the war. The easiest way to stop it, is to challenge war supporters to put their lives and money where their mouths are.

As Scott indicated, do you think it’s just lefty “kids” being forced to go to war? Do you think serving on the frontlines in combat infantry is the only way to serve your country? Regardless of whether that plays to one’s strengths or not?

Not everyone is suited for the military. Not everyone within the military is suited to being an infantryman. Everyone has their talents, everyone has their roles where they can best serve their country; where they can best serve in winning this war.

When you talk about money, who do you think donates to military charities more? The anti-war left? Or the pro-victory right?

Here’s some food for thought:

before I left I wanted to impart one more piece of wisdom. I motioned towards his encampment and asked him which of the tents before us were collecting letters, cards or care packages for troops. I asked which tent was asking for donation of shoes, clothing, toys, school supplies or other good that Soldiers can hand out to the Iraqi people to make their lives better. I told him I don’t have a problem with the peace movement and anti-war movement. But, I DO have a problem with a peace movement and anti-war movement that purports to do it in the name of supporting the troops and yet nothing there makes me feel supported. I told him the reason why his cause will never gain acceptance from Soldiers is because they go about it all wrong. I may feel more inclined to listen to their speeches and read their literature if I actually something there that REALLY supported the troops. I asked him when the last time they went to Walter Reed and brought cookies, movies, music, flowers, letter, cards, drawings, anything to make those Soldiers they supposedly support feel better. NEVER. And that, my tin foil hat wearing friend, is why I don’t support you and made an effort to thank that ONE lady standing alone on the side of the road instead of any of the many people mulling about without deodorant. I also thanked him for the civil conversation (up to the point of “chemtrails”) and that it’s a rare day that I have a conversation with people like him and don’t get called names or have to deal with screaming and yelling. We shook hands and departed.

Rand in comment #31 (and Robert in ##33 and KC in #34 linking to the same exact cherrypicked line)? Your link validates my point. I’d say “nice try, though”; but then….I’d be lying. My link trumps yours.

psmarc93 wrote #32:

As George Bernard Shaw said “Blessed are the optomists, they shall be buried alive.”

As wordsmith types, “Cursed are the pessimists, with shovel in hand they shall bury alive the optimists in a mountain of shit.”

KC writes:

And while you’re talking about sending Democratic candidates’ daughters to war, why don’t YOU address what was mentioned earlier, namely why don’t all you cheerleaders send YOUR kids first to show all the rest of us how important it is to you. Encourage them to join the forces, please! Lets increase the enlistment age to 50 so that geniuses like Kristol can join too, and of course send their kids.

Maybe you hippies should allow military recruiters onto school campuses? Make Marines feel welcomed in Berkeley?

Maybe you lefties could actually honor our war heroes, rather than make it seem like a sin to be soldiers in this war.

Do you support fighting fires? Stopping crime? Why don’t you volunteer yourself up to be a firefighter? Or force your children to join the police academy? How can you say you support the police and fire depts in fighting fires and fighting crime from the safety of your living rooms, with nothing at stake yourselves?

What do you say to the gold star parents who are the anti-thesis of Cindy Sheehan? What do you tell the majority in the military who want to win in Iraq?

Elect John McCain for President and then draft his two sons into the military. That’ll make him the leader in the anti-war movement.

Oh….wait.

Hippie? are you kidding?!

I know plenty of “hippies” that woud eat your lunch big guy.

and i’m FOR the right to bear arms.

you psychos have taken control of our foreign policy for too long…i.e 50 years.

and you’re asking for it “tough” guys. seriously. call me a “moonbat” on the street and see how many teeth you’ll soon be missing you little armchair-war-quarterback-pussies.

Seiously. Bring it you litlle pussies. I’m NOT a troll and do expect to be banned, but you chicken hawks are DONE spending my TAX dollars fighting your gift for the MIC wars.

Again, find me and back up the tough talk….better yet….enlist tough guys.