This is soooo 2003-2006

Loading

Still at it, protesting yesterday’s war with yesteryear’s talking points to mark the 6th anniversary:

Read ’em and weep celebrate.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Where are the “Impeach Obama” signs?

Moveon must be losing funding due to people forgetting about them. Guess they had to do something about it.

More like soooo 1969. Are they going to resurrect Abbie Hoffman?

Nixon is right- this IS 1969, in more ways than one.

As before, we are offered two…and only two positions from which to choose- unquestioning support for the war, or immediate pullout.

Sorry, thoughtful and reasoned arguments are not desired or tolerated. Screaming slogans and bumpersticker quips are mandatory.

The folks in the video are not worth taking seriously- but there SHOULD be a serious discussion about what our goals are in this war, and more importantly, what we plan to do about the OTHER war.

We began all this in order to “prevent another 9-11”.
Is the only way to prevent a terrorist attack really to occupy and pacify the entire Islamic world?
It seems like that is our strategy, as we morph from our original goals into a slowly escalating war involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, possibly Iran, someday Somalia, Yemen, and on and on.

Even after all this energy, effort and money…how difficult is it to make a terrorist attack on America? Not very- with a couple assault rifles and grenades, even a tiny handful of terrorists could paralyze the nation.

The best-case scenario for Iraq is that we will “win” in 3-5 years, leaving behind an Shiite-dominated state that is exceedingly friendly with Iran. It isn’t all that unreasonable to wonder if this is a net plus for America, compared to leaving anti-Shiite Hussein in place.

With over 100,000 US troops in Iraq – it’s perfectly legit and democratic for people to protest this – whether you agree with them or not. It’s hardly an non-issue. In fact I would of thought some of you would love the fact that war protestors are still out there and campaigning against Obama’s timetable for the withdrawal of troops.

1. Wordsmith, thank you very much for your comments.

2. To the GaffaUK and ChipD ilk, you remind me of those Japanese Imperial Army holdouts that clung to their belief that the Emperor was still expecting them to hold fast in their isolated jungle hideaways 40 years after the war was over. Bet you look good in your loin clothes and pith helmets! Sayonara, chumps!

What does pointing and laughing at them have to do with legitimacy?

Look at your title of the post. I’m saying it’s still a 2009 issue. Pointing and laughing is fine:)

Where is anyone advocating that their democratic right to protest be stripped away?

Nowhere. Didn’t say you or anyone else were advocating that.

Are you attempting to take away my “legit and democratic” right to call them fools?

Not at all

In 2009, what is there to protest? “Out of Iraq NOW“? Logistically impossible and morally irresponsible.

Protest that the US is still there and of course it is logistically possible to pull out. Morally – that debatable. Whilst I disagree with the – the timetable as set out by Bush and later by Obama is better. I don’t agree with those protestors BUT it’s still an issue. Iraq is not a modern functioning democratic country that can stand on it’s own two feet. I would agree pulling out now would make it worst.

For those who profess to be “anti-war” and “pro-peace”, will abandoning Iraq prematurely and squandering the gains we made in 2007-present make Iraq a more peaceful place? Will it end the suffering or escalate it by a hasty withdrawal?

No – but that’s not my point. We are where we are. Practically it’s better for a phased withdrawal in line with continued increase in stability.

These protestors are protesting 2003-2006, arguing against yesteryear’s headlines. Our presence in Iraq isn’t the problem. It’s part of the solution to stabilization and a reduction of body counts.

I would argue it isn’t 2003-2006 but 2003. Once the US and UK went in – Iraq became a tar baby. Rather than go through all the pros and cons of going in the first place – the US is there now so it needs to see the job through. BUT those consistently against the war and wanting an immediate withdrawal are a legit and necessary democratic voice which is getting smaller. So why worry about it?

You mean the timetable that essentially amounts to Bush’s timetable?

Yes

Who says I don’t “love the fact” in some sick and twisted partisan smirkiness?

No one is saying that

I give them a leg to stand on when they opposed the war before we invaded, but after that? Mmmm….not so much.

Well I imagine most of those who are impassioned enough to keep protesting are probably peaceniks who originally opposed the war. Whereas I’m sure there are many US and UK citizens who felt they were either lied to or that the intelligence was purposefully twisted and hyped – particularly over WMDs when presented to them. Personally I say I was against the invasion as I felt it was an unneccessary diversion from Afghanistan which was more important – and is still a mess.

Neither do they think what the consequences of having kept Saddam in power might have entailed

Possibly with some. But we can argue all we like about whether the West who propped up Saddam for long enough really went in because of their sudden concern for the people of Iraq. I wonder if the people of Sudan, Korea, China, Zimbabwe, Iran etc are holding their breath and waiting to liberated.

(not that anti-war activists really care. Regardless of the “D” or the “R”, peace fascists won’t ever recognize a good and just war if it spat them in the face; to them, all wars are bad

Yes I agree – there are some who are paficists.I don’t get that – seems very naieve. But there are also those who agree with all wars and/or what ever their country does is automatically right.

If they truly care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, they’d be rooting for our success and our support of a budding democracy and go protest the takfiri terrorists and insurgents and former baathists who have purposely sewn discord and chaos and made the civilian populace the focus of their violence

Well I’m certainly glad Saddam has gone. But look at the price in Iraqi lives.

Who’s winning hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan? Soldiers or the so-called self-proclaimed “peace” activists?

I don’t think peace activists even feature in the hearts and minds of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would expect the feelings of the people in those countries towards the soldiers depends on their experience under the Taliban or Saddam compared to the soldiers. If friends or family died in fighting against the US or they themselves were harmed then they may be bitter and angry – whereas if they believed their treatment of themselves, family and friends being tortured or repressed by the Taliban or Saddam was worst then they may think the US/UK invasion was a blessing.

Tell me what the arguments are? Listen to the “man on the street” interview in the AP broadcast. Are their reasons to protest based upon the situation on the ground as it stands today

As long as money continues to be spent and lives lost in Iraq – even with a significantly improved situation in Iraq – it will raise protests. Irrespective of the anti-war brigade – I’m sure there are Iraqis who would like the US to leave sooner than later. Of course you and I disagree with their views BUT there are reasons to protest. And I don’t think you can unshackle the whole lead up, justification, invasion, insurgency etc from the situation today. Yes it would be folly to throw up all the struggle to get to this point but the slate hasn’t been wiped clean. People will have to rebuild their shattered lives – in Iraq and in the US and it’s allies.

but whether or not Obama now understands something he doesn’t; that he is privvy to information that has made the pragmatist in him realize that an “immediate pullout”- which is what these moonbats want- is not possible. Nor will it bring the peace they crave for, if they got their way.

Whilst I’m sure Obama has had some info from the generals it is also the difference between what people say on the campaign trail and what they do in office. How many politicians have been guilty of that? Reminds me of FDR promising that the US wouldn’t get involved in WWII. Easier said than done.

How should I interpret that? You’re the one telling me it’s their “perfectly legit and democratic” right to protest….you set up the strawman, not I

I wasn’t implying that you wanted to legally strip away their rights but saying similar to ‘hey shut up you idiots’ is kinda of trying to silence debate. Of course not that anyone would listen. With the build up to war I remember there wasn’t enough critical debate on the war in the media- it was deemed in some quarters to be ‘unpatriotic’ to even question the intelligence reports and what we were fed.

That’s a “duh”. But it’s not the reasoning they use. And it is 2003-2006; for as “your side” likes to point out and which I concede (at least in this thread for the sake of argument), it hasn’t been all roses, with the war “mismanaged”.

That’s the trouble with ‘your/my side’ – it sounds like there are only two polar views to Iraq. I think there are more views than that between those totally for the war, the reasons for going in and for staying the course and those totally against it from the start and want to pull out now. I was (and remain) against the war but I don’t support a hasty withdrawal.

At the height of the insurgency violence, I can understand some of the voices who wanted us to leave in 2005-6 (whether they felt that way in 2003 or not). But in 2009?!?! When Iraq is trending in a positive direction? All the gains made can be lost whether we stay or go; the future has many variables and anything can happen. But leaving prematurely all but insures that the gains made in 2007-9 is squandered, with Iraq returning to more violence and innocent lives lost.

I agree.

I wonder if you miss the point. You again bring up the non-issue of them having a “legit and necessary democratic voice”. They can bitch all they want and I can bitch about them bitching.

Again I don’t see it as a non-issue. I think their numbers of protestors are growing smaller BUT I believe there is a danger of the media and people in general forgetting about Iraq as if it’s all a bed of roses now and can be forgotten. The job is not done until the soldiers return home. I want to know the news – good and bad – from Iraq. I want US and the UK to draw lessons from this and see we can find better ways to resolve such issues. Yes and that also means reforming a corrupt and bureaucratic semi-funtioning UN.

I agree most of them probably are. And what I am arguing is that they are applying 2003 (pre-war arguments plus “no wmd”/”Bush lied”), 2004 (abu ghraib), 2005 (Haditha), and 2006 (so-called “civil war”) headlines and arguments against remaining in Iraq to the situation on the ground today in 2009, post Surge-success. It’s the kind of blinders on mentality that has them only highlight every set back, every negative, every flag-draped coffin, every penny spent, without seeing any of the investments and any of the gains, any of the successes, and any of the consequences we and Iraq might suffer from a premature and irresponsible withdrawal. It’s the same kind of mindset that has John Kerry and Jane Fonda not acknowledge that more suffering happened, not less, when we failed to honor our commitment to defending our South Vietnamese allies. The hippies had their way, but it didn’t bring about less killing; it didn’t bring peace. It had the opposite effect.

I agree to the extent that a lot of anti-war protestors seem to highlight the bad things and some may even want the US and UK to fail. There probably only a few who would actually praise Saddam’s regime. On the flip side – you also have people who only jump on everybit of ‘good’ news about Iraq over the last 6 years, who wear rose-tinted glasses, who post only pictures of soldiers giving sweets to Iraqi kids – who underplay the amount of lost done in lives that this cost. I guess you never seen that? All I’m saying is that the debate is over polarised – that there are notable extremes on both sides and the truth most likely lies in the middle.

As for Vietnam that draws an interesting comparison. The US got bogged down in that civil war for over a decade – inherited from the French. A lot of people in the US say it was a ‘draw’ which I think is wishful thinking. Certainly it cost many more US soldiers lives with little to show for it. And it was a Republican who withdrew. Hippies can protest all they want but you don’t have to listen to them. You can bomb the VietCong as much as you want but it didn’t seem they were going to go away. With Iraq – this didn’t start as a civil war – it was a pre-emptive strike. I think the US can put in enough stability in Iraq so it can withdraw. What would be unfortunate is if a country like Iran stepped in once the US goes or if there is another coup internally within Iraq. Is the US going to continually yo-yo back with troops to ensure there is democracy in Iraq?

Today, the key to peace and stabilization is to support our efforts in Iraq. 4,260 U.S. soldiers and 179 British have died serving in Iraq. One way to make sure the anti-war activists achieve the reality of their belief that those lives were meaningless deaths, is to pack our bags and basically give up all the hard-fought gains made for the last 6 years.

Essentially, the anti-war message in 2009 is one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I agree.

Absolutely. But what does that have to do with the situation on the ground TODAY???? What I am asking them is to face the reality of today. Not 2003. Those arguments about wmd and flawed intell and whether we were lied into war is irrelevant to dealing with where we find ourselves now. I think you understand this. Anyone making the case for withdrawal in 2009 because “no wmd found” and “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ is stuck on stupid.

I agree but support for the war did drop when people believed that their governments hadn’t been entirely straightforward with them. That’s not a reason to go now.

I’m sure some actually are; but we didn’t go to war out of concern for the Iraqi people any more than peaceniks are concerned for people by standing up for the Castros of the world. And by the West “propping up” Saddam…you mean France and Germany supplying him with the majority of his weapons, along with China and Russia? Basically, the ones who opposed our U.S.-led invasion for oil contracts and billions owed them by Saddam?

Of course Russia and France go their hand caught in the cookie jar. As usual they were posturing about how concerned they were for Iraqi people which was BS. They had massive contracts with Saddam. However the US and UK did give Saddam money and did very little to stop Saddam before the Gulf War. The US and UK have geopolitical reasons to be in Iraq. It isn’t primarily about the concern over WMDs or Iraqi lives. Oil plays it part.

No one I know…

No one you know personally or generally? Have you never heard such views where people are automatically pro-war and see any protest against war as being unpatriotics?

The cost has certainly been high. Far higher than anyone would have liked; but I don’t know any plan that is ever mistake-proof. And I still believe that the world is much safer now that Saddam and his murderous sons are pushing up the daisies. It’s a legitimate question to pose, as Peter Feaver points out in his blogpost. The case for removing Saddam centered much around his capabilities and intent to acquire wmd as much as the uncertainty regarding his wmd status. Marry that to his sponsorship of exported terrorism. Terrorist proxies + wmd = bad news.

By 2009, how many more Iraqi deaths under Saddam had he remained in power? Most likely not as many. But whereas I forsee improvements in Iraqi lives and possibly less senseless dying as time moves on, under Saddam and his sons succeeeding him, what would that future have held for Iraqis?

Well I don’t know the exact cost in dollars or lives but if someone had said it’s going to cost about a trillion dollars and going to cost over 100,000 human lives to remove one dictator out of many who represses his people and to find out that he was bluffing over WMDs – no thanks to dodgy intelligence – I wonder how many people would have wanted to spend that in cash & blood. I’m more concerned with Afganistan and Pakistan which I feel – along with Iran – have been neglected. Saddam was boxed due to sanctions. He wasn’t the highest priority. I can’t see a President (Republican or Democrat) launching a third war with Iran after the Iraq War. Iran exports far more terrorism than Iraq I believe.

And I don’t see Iraq (unfortunately) becoming a beacon of hope and democracy for the Middle East where suddenly and magically the other rogue states around it will sudden have democratic revolutions. Again – I feel the whole Iraq War has little to do with Iraqi lives. How would the US feel/react if Iraq chooses to tilt heavily towards the Shite brand of Islam in an election, become anti-US, sell oil only to France & Russia etc? Or wouldn’t Iraq have that free will to truly do what it wanted. Would it be all worth it then?

Missed a Quote box above – so it’s out of sync from about a third of the way down…