Iraq: How Much Patience Will We Need?

It's hard to imagine what creates sub-human scum like we face in Iraq, so comitted to killing innocent people. And reading about their daily crimes takes a toll. We just have to remember that the surge has just begun and this is a fight we need to stay with until the end.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Insurgents launched a brazen coordinated attack on a U.S. combat post Monday, sending in a suicide bomber and clashing with American troops. Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded, the military said.

The assault began with a suicide bomber exploding a vehicle outside the base north of Baghdad, said the military statement. It gave no further details beyond the number of dead and wounded.

As for the situation in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area, it looks to me like a wonderful place for a tactical nuclear weapons test. We should bury the whole lot of them under the mountains in which we hide.

It is unsurprising that the Waziristan Accord has failed: the truly astonishing news is that so many analysts waited until now to declare it a failure.

But then, I don't want the terrorists to win? Do you? You can find out via a quiz linked by Jules. I'll give it a go and update with my results.

Update: Damn, perfect. But I don't get what Jules is talking about. I never called them Freedom Fries either. Obviously his weakness lies elsewhere - what would you expect for a journalist!!

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 0%

Congratulations, Patriot! Wave your flag proudly, stand tall, and bask in the glory of George Bush's America. The terrorists will never win so long as there is a sufficient number of people like you out there. Never question, never doubt. You are on the right side. America's side. God's side. Rush Limbaugh has told you so. Rah rah, go Bush!!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"It's hard to imagine what creates sub-human scum like we face in Iraq, so comitted to killing innocent people."

Yes, and we all know that these are all lifelong hardened killers who've been lurking twenty, thirty years, just waiting to start beheading people willy-nilly.

Here's a weird thought, though. Speaking hypothetically. What if these "sub-human scum" were pretty much average Iraqis (maybe Iraqi soldiers, but certainly not Snidely Whiplash) until this misbegotten war and its hellish aftermath?

Might we then have a clue what happened?

[Dan Riehl]

"Might we then have a clue"

You wouldn't have a clue if one came under the cap of your soda pop, dude.

[Rob Kaufman]

More idiocy from Dan, quite a streak of stupidity you are on there. I think your streak rivals Cal Ripkin Jr's streak. Keep up the good work Dan.

[templar knight]

I wonder if scar would have a clue as to what is causing all the murder and mayhem in the formerly peaceful nation of Thailand. It must be a "misbegotten war and its hellish aftermath". Or maybe someone just got into an argument over religion. It doesn't take much to set off the sub-human scum.

[91B30]

Something tells me that scarshapedstar has got a raging clue.

[Jeff]

I got 19%.

Hey, scarshapedstar, I have a straightforward question for you: Do you want us to win in Iraq?

After you answer this, I have one more for you.

[Rob Kaufman]

I will answer your pathetic question Jeff if you can define what winning means.

[Jeff]

Rob, I wasn't talking to you, but winning in Iraq means tha the Iraqi Army will be able to hold its own and not be overrun.

Now Rob, if you think this is idiocy why do you read it? Dan isn't the idiot, you are. But anyways... liberal trolls eh?

I understand why LGF and HotAir closed registration... filtering morons like the couple above out.

[Rob Kaufman]

Thank you Jeff for your reasoned analysis, no wonder you are one of the 33%. Now please resume your moronic questions, they amuse me.

[templar knight]

Yes, Jeff, it is a moronic question to ask a liberal if he wants the US to win in Iraq. They don't, and that has been obvious for quite some time.

[Rob Kaufman]

Sorry temp, no matter how much you beg me to call you on your stupidity I have promised to do my best to not pick on someone who rides the short bus.

[BobInStamford]

I got an 85%. At least I'm on the winning team, sheep. You toothless flat-earthers are always on the wrong side of history. Best wishes, patriots!!

[Legalize]

It's funny that picking the most reasonable, factually-based answer and not the extreme answer earns one a higher score. It is also funny that picking the answer that purports to espouse American virtue rather than an irrational, knee-jerk lust for violence as a means to power also earns one a higher score.

So rejecting everything that is inherently American is the means by which we "win" the war in Iraq - remarkable logic.

[Rob Kaufman]

Come on Legalize, you don't see the logic that to 'win' the War on Terror we need to become unamerican? The sad thing is the right wing nutjobs will never see the irony in their claim.

[Legalize]

The torture question was especially chilling. I'm not sure why when the military has traditionally argued so vociferously that torture is a horrible tactic that rarely if ever yields actionable intelligence; and since the U.S. essentially championed international torture bans after WWII because of what we learned about the horrible practices of the Nazis; and since our society was essentially founded on the premise that a man should not be tortureed into confessing disloyalty to the King, with that confession used against him in a kangaroo tribunal - why anyone would eagerly argue in FAVOR or torture, or how that being pro-torture is somehow MORE American, when clearly, given basic history, torture is entirely UNAmerican. The usual explanation for this is that "terrorists" do not deserve human rights protections. Yet being labeled a "terrorist" is a an operation of law.

They make themsevles feel comfortable with these glaring contradictions by letting their humanity slip away one little bit at a time, and by declaring that what they advocate simply "needs to be done" - when no, not really, it doesn't. And, in fact, such practice does potentially irreperable harm to our society.

The only answer I can see is that exercising torture relieves some sort of feeling of impotence, and / or pleasure at exercising dominion over another who is seen as somehow less human, by definition - much like our good old pals the Nazis, the Turks in Armenia, Stalin-types, etc.

[Darth Malice]

I think that conservatives should demand victory now!Conservatives have everyright to demand GW either win this thing or get out but decide on which one.This "surge"is just too small to affect anything.

[Doc]

My, Dan, you do have your share of lib commenters, don't you? I won't quibble about 'winning' or whatever in Iraq. We've already won. The only question now is whether we hold the place and keep it from again being used as a resource by Muslims who take the Koran seriously enough to want to kill infidels qua infidels. We can hold it by occupying it for a long time, or we can hold it by proxy, i.e. letting those whom we have good reason to think will also not let it so be used hold it.

Having said that, I fear that the current administration is a bit wrong-headed on the subject, having too much hope that simply empowering Iraqis to vote will somehow lead to a situation where Iraq will not be a haven for terrorists. So-called 'Palestine' undermines that belief. We ought to simply have conquered the place and used it for a staging area to attack Iran and Syria. However, I prefer the current admin's approach to any other alternative that actually had a chance of being implemented: i.e., anything any Dem would have done.

Iraq should be seen as a sideshow, the equivalent of a little light colonial policing, not THE issue of our day. Goodness, if the incredibly light casualty rate of the pacification of Iraq causes such a fuss, what will we do if we're in a REAL war?

Indeed, the question is not do libs want to 'win in Iraq' or do they 'support the troops'; clearly the troops don't think the Dems want to win, nor do they think they support them. Any lib who disputes that should consider this: what if we were to propose that only the military could vote? Who do you think would win?

The real question is one we should all be posing to any candidate for national office: what should we do if a nuke goes off on US soil? If every nation from Algeria to Indonesia disclaims responsibility, and we can't reasonably pin it on any particular nation? If AQ and/or some other violent Islamic group claims responsibility? If 1/2 the Muslim street is rejoicing, including our 'buddies' the Saudis and the Pakistanis? What do we do then? I'd love to hear some ideas.

Short term, who knows what will happen. Long term, presuming there is a long term, is actually a bit more hopeful, if we can avoid dhimmitude in the short term. That's because libs have negative reproductive value. They're breeding (or failing to breed) themselves out of existence. Case in point, my family. I'm the youngest of 4, the last generation of liberal parents to have anything but a small family. In general, >/= 80% of kids maintain a similar worldview when they grow up as their parents did. In my family's case, that means 3 out of 4 (my 3 older brothers) are all secularists of one stripe or another, and tend to think that someone like Al Gore or John Kerry is too conservative, but they vote for him out of fear that someone like Bush will win. Out of those 3 brothers, only one has kids, and he has only 2. I suspect he'll be lucky to get 2 grandkids out of those 2. I'm the black sheep, the rightwing conservative Christian. I have 4 kids myself, and am likely to get 4-6 grandchildren from my oldest, not to mention what the others will give me. So guess whose worldview will be preferentially propogated into the next generation, especially since I decline to let the liberals in charge of the government schools have any influence over my children's minds? Just think of it as evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.

Doc

[Legalize]

Correction, Darth, W should have injected the proper number of troops into Iraq when "victory" was still a plausible outcome. Absent a draft and an economy entirely devoted to this effort, there will be no military "victory" in Iraq. But I guess we can just keep throwing good money after bad and getting more of our folks killed while they police a civil war long enough for the GOP to decide how it wants to finally address this issue as a political matter.

[Darth Malice]

Legal if AlQuaeda sets up in Al-Anbar a terror state do we leave them alone.

[Darth Malice]

Doc,it is true that liberals have few children,but using illegal aliens and the underclass vote they will stay in power.

[Legalize]

No, Darth. Al Quadea is a very beatable target in Iraq. We've proven that; they have not recovered since we took out Zarqawi. Pulling out of the capital, while forming a perimeter, while focusing our power in Anbar would be a very smart thing to do. Going after those fellows in a targeted fashion EVERYWHERE would be a very smart thing. Problem is, this is not the fight in Iraq any longer; the fight now, is policing a civil war and kicking in doors. This does not make us safer from Al Quaeda; it distracts us and wears down our military. I'm all for fighting the necessary fight, and I'm all for killing Al Quaeda types where they stand, wherever they stand, but I am also for doing it realistically and smartly. Being bogged down for the foreseeable furture in Iraq, fighting for a "victory" which is not tenable pursuant to the current means of attaining it, does not accomplish any of our goals.

[Darth Malice]

So if we leave Iraq with our tales between our legs this hurts Al-Quaeda?hmmmm

[BobInStamford]

Wow, congratulations Doc! You win for the nuttiest 28%er of the day. Your prize is a tour of one of the many WMD facilities in Iraq. S

[LOL]

u realize that "quiz" is making fun of republicans i hope

http://www.gotoquiz.com/results/do_you_drink_republican_kool_aid

a related quiz.

[Jon G]

From someone who actually knows something about all this, and thinks we should get out:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

[BobInStamford]

William Odom is an evil-doer. He hates our freedom. The 28%ers see this and won't listen to him. Only their great leader knows what to do in Iraq.

[Darth Malice]

I do not trust Odem to defend us.This guy should never had risen above LT.......Curse these Clinton generals who are much more comfortable in the Anti-war movements.

[Legalize]

"So if we leave Iraq with our tales between our legs this hurts Al-Quaeda?hmmmm"

Dammit. Every time I think that you might be capable of debating a rational point without misrepresentation and bizarro hyperbole you prove me wrong every single time.

[Legalize]

I knew that quiz had to be a gag on GOPers. It's just stupid enough for them to think that it espouses the anti-American "virtues" they hold dear.

[Jon G]

Actually, Odom's a Reagan general. From 1985 to 1988, he served as the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.

I think this exchange is applicable:

WO: And following…let me ask you. Are you enthusiastic enough to put on a uniform and go?

HH: No. I’m a civilian.

WO: Okay, but we can recruit you.

HH: I’m 51, General.

WO: And I don’t see all these war hawks that want to…none of them have been in a war, and they don’t want to go.

HH: Well, General, are you advocating that only uniformed military should have opinions on this?

WO: No, you can have an opinion, but if you…you can’t start telling me that you’re going to just pay no attention to what people like myself say.

[Darth Malice]

Legal the bottom line is that if we want to survive we need generals who are willing to fight.

[Jeff]

"You toothless flat-earthers are always on the wrong side of history"

If I remember right, the Democrats were defeated by the Republicans when the they (the Demonrats) desparately tried to prevent slavery from being abolished. Yea, we were on the wrong side of history. What about when the Democrats in Congress were saying that we had no reason to go to Germany in 1939, because they never attacked us and it was a sovereign nation. (Of course when we were attacked the Dems wised up and decided to suddenly become true patriots and support the war.)

And legalize, you put victory in quotes, which means that a) you are quoting someone, and you aren't, or else b) quotes are put in to represent something that is unreal. Now, you claim that we should have done the war correctly in the first place so that we could achieve victory that you do not even believe is real or possible.

You may claim you are a patriot because you support us leaving Iraq, and getting our stupid troops (paraphrasing Jon Kerry (whom I can't criticize because he served in Viet Nam)) out of Iraq. Now if the MSM would actually show that our troops overwhelmingly want to be in Iraq fighting for the country that they swore to defend, I think that the Dumocrats would have to totally change their argument.

There is no good reason to leave Iraq, there are good reasons to stay. Sure Iraq costs us money, but so does welfare (why don't we stop welfare? It's a quagmire.)
Iraqis are dying, but they died under Saddam, and if we left it would be so much worse. The Iranians and Saudis would sweep in and fund terror within Iraq so the government would have no hope of control... Then they would battle each other, with civilians in the cross-fire, so the argument of civilian deaths is absolutely absurd, and downright idiotic.
Our troops are dying. Yes. And many more died in WWII when we invaded a sovereign country (Germany) who never attacked us. Of course I support our troops liberating Europe, but it is nearly moronic to say that we can tolerate more than 3000 troops dying per day in Germany which was a sovereign country, and you can't support what we are doing now.

See, I just destroyed liberal ideas of Iraq. It was pretty easy, so I must be a genius compared to your average liberal.

Wait, being smarter than an average liberal doesn;t mean much.

[LOL]

hey jeff, u r bringing up events when u weren't able to vote or even alive to prove that you're right about iraq. Hmm... guess you can't run on your own record eh?

btw, comparing today's republicans/democrats to ww2 parties or even civil war parties shows an ignorance of history.

[Jeff]

"btw, comparing today's republicans/democrats to ww2 parties or even civil war parties shows an ignorance of history."

BTW the Democrat party has never had a spine. The party of the weak, spineless, and brainless has always been that way.

Using history shows that I have an ignorance of history? Interesting.

I understand that the Democrat party would like us to forget history, they have done very little, and the little good that they have done has happened because of luck, and because situations fell upon them, that frankly, they couldn't screw up.

Hey LOL, I would also suggest you reread your posts, they are barely coherent. I am assuming that by the first "sentence" (if I can call it that), that you are saying that because I wasn't alive during WWII that I cannot mention it as a historical context and reference.

I know I used some big compound words, if you need help with any of them feel free to ask what they mean.

OK buddy?

[Jon G]

Dems never had a spine? I guess you missed World War II - the last war that was actually worth fighting. FDR prepared the nation for war and then lead it to victory. He was probably the greatest president of the 20th century. Truman spineless? That's a laugh. JFK ran the Berlin Air Lift and then the Cuban Missle Crisis. Reckless perhaps, spineless no. LBJ would have eaten you for lunch.

Dem's done very little? You really don't know much about history.

[Buzzy]

Reading comments here I'm surprised that some seem to think that every Iraqi is on one side or another but both against the US. It simply isn't so! The Sunni insurgents are ex Baath party fascists still loyal to Saddam along with al Qaeda fighters and the Shi'a insurgents are comprised mainly of operatives for Iran's agenda of taking over Iraq. The other 80% of the population are simple average people who want to raise their families in peace without the tyranny of Saddam or the terror of Iran in their lives. Surrender at this point will only cause untold death and terror in Iraq as one side slaughters the other and the people caught in the middle. A vote to leave Iraq now is a vote to watch a democratic Iraq die in waves of genocide much as what happened in the killing fields of Cambodia in the 1970s after the "peace" people made the US abandon SE Asia. Now as it was then the anti war movement has the same political goals as the tyrants that are doing the killing and torture. While they claim our interests in Iraq is all about oil they won't tell you that they represent Russia laying claim to Iraqi oil. The Cold War is rearing its ugly head once again, don't be fooled.

[Doc]

"Wow, congratulations Doc! You win for the nuttiest 28%er of the day. Your prize is a tour of one of the many WMD facilities in Iraq."

Wow, what a powerful critique of my comments. You've certainly made me see the error of my ways. Way to take on the substance of my post and not stoop to name-calling.

And you have how many kids to propagate what passes for your ideas? And you propose that we do what exactly after AQ or someone like them looses the man with the tall hat over a US city?

Doc

[Jon G]

The facts seem to contradict you Doc. Face it, it's more Fun to be a Dem.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/October%20Dailies/OctoberPartyAffiliationTrends.htm

In the final full month before Election 2006, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has fallen to its lowest level since we began reporting this measure of partisan trends in January 2004. As a result, Democrats have their biggest net advantage of the past two campaign cycles.

In October, just 31.5% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s a startling decline of nearly six percentage points from 37.2% two years ago. It’s also down nearly a full point from last month.

Democrats have also lost a little ground since October 2004. Today, 37.7% identify themselves as Democrats, down a point from 38.7% on the eve of Election 2004.

However, Democrats now have a 6.2 percentage point advantage over the GOP, their largest recorded over the past 34 months. In October 2004, the Democrats advantage was a miniscule 1.5 percentage points.

[LOL]

i guess you just didn't learn that the parties switched on issues over the generations?

idiot. Look at the career of Strom thurmond: "He later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to 1964 as a Democrat and from 1964 to 2003 as a Republican." Remember who praised him on his retirement? The Republican majority leader.

So yeah, not recognizing that the parties switched positions on issues over the generations shows that you are ignorant of history. Any fool with even a high school US history understanding could get this, but I guess that's too much to expect from a winger.

[Jeff]

"Face it, it's more Fun to be a Dem."

I know. I love lies, deceit, slander, and tin fol hats.

Some of the benefits of being party of the Dummercratic party.

[scarshapedstar]

"We've already won. The only question now is whether we hold the place"

You mean occupy it forever? Yeah, historically, that worked out AWESUM!!! for every other collapsed empire in history.

[Jon G]

Dummercratic. Man, that's hilarious. I mean, what a wit.

I left out the Depression on my previous post. And Civil Rights. And the New Deal. More accomplishments from those spineless Dems.

As for your last post. You're confused. THESE are the lies - you know: WMDs, Mushroom Clouds, drones that fly across the Atlantic, Al Qaeda Connections, cakewalk, won't cost use anything, mission accomplished, etc.

And these are the guys that brought them to you:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

[seekeronos]

What you dhimmicretins (democrats) fail to understand is we need to commit to destroying our enemies.

Right now, our enemy is Islam.

And guess what? Islam suffers absolutely no qualms whatsoever about reducing us to dhimmi chattels or dead men.

Therefore, it behooves us to pay them back ten-fold, until they cannot do us harm any longer. Deport the Caliphatist/Islamist enemy aliens from our nation; reduce the population of those who resist, and let the few who survive be reduced to throwing rocks and scratching an existence from desolate glassified deserts.

Absolute, total, and unshrinking war is what is needed for our "Islamische Endlösung".

[Darth Malice]

Seek we need a brute in charge.GW cannot do what must be done.We need a Patton,Ming the Merciless,and Darth Sideous all rolled into one to destroy Islam before it destroys us.GW is a VERY weak man.

[Jon G]

Islam is our enemy? Brute in charge? What planet are these guys on? There's 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world, the vast majority of them simply want to live peaceful lives. Declare war on their religion, that'll probably change.

Seekeronos and Darth Malice, and I say this with complete honesty, are morons.

[Darth Malice]

Well with 1.5b we better get busy building up our military.The United States along with our good allies cannot remain on the same planet.I agree with Ann Coulter"Kill their leaders,force them to convert to christianity"hey they will like being methodist:)

[LOL]

final solution, im beginning to think seekeronos is satirizing wingnuts

[Northerner]

91%, excellent! But then, being one of those mentioned in the "who most wants the terrorists to win" question, that wasn't really a surprise, was it? Of course we Dutch want the terrorists to win, I would love to be forced to convert to islam and live under sharia law. Don't knock it before you've tried it!
But then of course all of you don't know that this is a cunning Dutch plan: once this country is overrun by the terrorists, we will encourage them to hold a big anti-USA conference here and when all the terrorists are assembled, every Dutchman will pull his/her finger out of the dykes and the bad guys will all drown! We will have saved the world.

Well, that story is as believable as the quiz anyway.