Dems Demand That America Lose In Iraq

When you're a loser, in for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose. Here's what I don't get. Drudge claims Reid: Says Iraqi children 'bed wetting, stuttering'...

Hell, Ted Kennedy, ABSCAM Jack Murtha and Robert KKK Byrd have been bed wetting and stuttering for years. Why isn't Harry Reid more concerned for them?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.

Reid said the legislation "immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war." He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."

The Democrats have been abdicating their responsibility for Iraq for some time now, no matter that they pretend to not have voted for the war. They know that the only way for them to win in 08 is for America to lose in Iraq. These traitors bring betting against the home team to a new low.

The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi’s office said “scheduling conflicts” prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon video conference with Petraeus on March 8.

Here is Barone's take on the Supplemental. Meanwhile, the scumbag Leftists bloggers take off their gloves and reveal how little they support the troops. Actually, support doesn't even factor in. Just like Bill and Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi and Reid, the US military is simply one more thing for Liberals to loathe.

When will we see an investigation into the continuing slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US troops and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the US military command to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Can we question their patriotism now?

Comments

[mike]

Actually, we LOST this war a long time ago. Now we deserve all the scorn and ridicule we get!

[Zifnab]

You know what you should do about this, Dan? You should cry about it. Maybe stomp your feet and pound your fists. Then post a few more spank'n Sheryl Crow remixes while you strangle a picture of Al Gore and bemoan the collapse of the Republican Party.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

"You know what you should do about this, Dan? You should cry about it. Maybe stomp your feet and pound your fists."

So what you're saying is that Dan should act like a demonrat?

[Kelvin]

Newsflash, clowns. Your war was lost YEARS ago. This is merely the 'final throes' of an expensive, humiliating failure. Merry Christmas, morons.

[warrenb]

What?

Dude, The US lost the war in Iraq a long time ago.

[southdakotaboy]

What Bush needs to do is grow a pair and have the Army take these guys into custody and ship them off to Gitmo. We have not lost this war no matter how much you nitwits on the left say so.
The Dems better be really carefull about bringing all those troops home like this. The Dems might not like who the soldiers hold responsible for a Dem impossed defeat. And don't kid yoursleves all you lefties who post here. The millitary will reguard this as a stab in the back by the Democrats.

[Capitalist Infidel]

The vicious and rabid hatred that the above democrats have for our fine men and women in uniform is stunning!

[Legalize]

"The vicious and rabid hatred that the above democrats have for our fine men and women in uniform is stunning!"

For example. Oh, my bad, you guys don't do that. Continue foaming at the mouth with faux outrage.

In any event, winger logic astounds me: suggesting that the Geneva Conventions be enforced is akin to hating teh tr00000pz!!!!!! In any event, keep barking, Fightn' Inbred Heros of the Cheeto Brigade; the American public has LONG since abandoned you and your syphilis-ridden insanity.

[Zifnab]

"What Bush needs to do is grow a pair and have the Army take these guys into custody and ship them off to Gitmo."

Hahaha! Yeah, that's it. Drag the Majority Leader off in shackles for passing legislation against the war. Horray for Democracy! Then he should outlaw the Democratic Party, end elections, and abolish the Reichsta... I mean, Congress.

Bush doesn't have the balls.

[nowinger]

Any minute now the wingers are going do to another of their stunning about faces, admit the Iraq war is a failure and blame the Democrats. They will shriek 'we woulda won, but the mean Democrats didn't give us another 10 years and few trillion dollars. They're still shrieking about winning in Vietnam 30 years later. This is the way wingers deal with reality. When it is no longer possible to declare that red is green, you admit red is red, but say its the fault of the liberals, if they hadn't interfered by golly red would be green.

[Kelvin]

'The Dems better be really carefull (sic) about bringing all those troops home like this.'

Careful? About what? Are they going to go postal? Vote republican? What?

[ConserView]

It's Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy to you.
(It's an old Indian word that means "coward leaves drowning girl in car to save his own worthless ass".)

[LOL]

Dan doesn't value democracy. In an earlier thread he suggested that civil rights are merely luxuries.

Now he's suggesting that the democratic process is merely a luxury, to be revoked when the people's vote disagrees with his. You seem to inhabit the same kind of narcissism that Cho had Dan. And the same kind of disgust for democracy and liberalism that Islamists have.

The only thing you lack, is their will to act.

[Legalize]

Good point, LOL. Riehl is falling into the paranoid victim-state that marked Cho's mental and emotional decline. The objects of their respective mania's just happened to be different: in Cho's case it was ... well, that's kinda unclear (bullies, the rich, the powerful); in Riehl's case, it's those EVIL Dems who don't understand that they have no role in a world where incompetence, cronyism, hate, biggotry, and unearned privilege belong by right to ONLY white, anglo, protestant, males. UNLIKE Cho, however, Riehl will probably never act.

The Democratic process, our founding principles, and constitutional liberties, rights, and duties are merely convenient devices to be utlized as the Fuher sees fit - most often in order to placate the masses.

[ET]

It is simple, really. If you are a democrat, you support a congressional leadership that has invested its political future on failure in iraq and will now do anything within their power to produce that failure. That must make all of you so proud.

I have yet to hear anyone answer the question I have posted many times before...what do you expect to happen in iraq in the 30 days after we pull out on the dem's timetable? peace and tranquility? or the slaughter of thousands? Oh, I forgot, dems don't care about iraqi lives. they just want to embarass Bush because he is the devil.

RANT ON PUSSIES!

[nowinger]

It's sad what has happened to the Republican party. While I've never agreed with their pro-business to the exclusion of all other considerations stand, Republican's used to have at least a cogent philosophy: low taxes, pro business, voluntary regulation before gov. regulation, tough on crime, small government, states rights vs. federal gov. and conservative on social issues.

Since the wingers took over the party its an embarassment. You have to wonder what type of person is either so ignorant of how government works or so full of hate he doesn't care to suggest that Reid be arrested and deported. This idea that Congress has no power to regulate wars is something wingers have made up out of thin air. It is directly and specifically contradicted by the US Constitution.

In other news, Albert Gonzales is still the attorney general, despite his pathetic "I can't remember" performance, worthy of a mafia don or a tobacco executive.

George Bush doesn't care about the wingers, the Constitution, or the Iraq war, he cares only about NOT LOSING. He doesn't care how many dead soldiers, maimed soldiers, dead Iraqis it takes in order for him to leave office NOT LOSING the Iraq war, that was basically lost when the looting of Baghdad was pooh poohed by Rummy and Bremmer sent both the bureaucrats and the army home.

[nowinger]

PS, The politically cynical and easy move for the Dems would be to give him all the rope he wants to hang himself, so that when the 'temporary surge' is still 'turning the corner' in Nov. 08 there will be no defending the war.

What they are doing is what they believe is the best thing for the country. They are expending a huge amount of politcal capital and taking a huge risk by doing what they believe they were elected to do: bring the troops home and stop hemoraging money and blood in Iraq.

They could be sitting back and waiting for another one of Bush's promises to fail, they're not. The action they are taking has nothing to do with political expediency or a desire to see the Iraq war fail, its' already failed. Even the military says DEFEATING THE INSURGENCY IS NOT REALISTIC IN THE SHORT TERM.

[Phoenix]

Work hours. uh oh. His boss is paying him to write this stuff:

Come on. Why do I have to hold your hand through these things every single time? If you're not careful, I will have to begin indirectly mocking you to save time, instead of mocking you directly.
Posted by: Legalize | Monday, March 05, 2007 at 02:09 PM

Another! oh my...

Please speak only when spoken to. Unless you are Darth in disguise, go stand in the corner until I am ready to smack the idiocy out of you.
Posted by: Legalize | Friday, February 23, 2007 at 11:18 AM

[Phoenix]

On a Wednesday, yet. ooh dear...

This site is the best parody site I've ever seen. :)
Posted by: Legalize | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 09:08 PM

.
Scroll down, numbnuts. Then pass me your lunch. I'm in the mood to demonstrate parody for you.

[ET]

--They are expending a huge amount of politcal capital and taking a huge risk by doing what they believe they were elected to do: bring the troops home and stop hemoraging money and blood in Iraq.

If you believe this statement you are as dumb as a box of rocks. The dems are ringing bells and sounding alarms without doing anything substantive to really bring the troops home. Why? Because they know that to do so would be a disaster, for the US and the Middle East.

"stop the war" is an impotent sound bite. The dems won't put any bark in their bite...they will make noises and wait and hope that the new strategy fails and pray that more US soldiers die so they can blame Bush and ride into the white house.

--DEFEATING THE INSURGENCY IS NOT REALISTIC IN THE SHORT TERM

Once again, proof that lefties can't grasp the big picture. If you equate this statement with "failure" you are ignorant of military history and tactics.

I had occasion to confront some anti-war/anti-bush protesters over the weekend. i asked them the same question I have repeatedly put to the lefties on this sight..."what next?" One held a sign reading "bring the troops home now". i asked him, "then what happens?" He has no oppinion, nor does he care. He has not gotten past sloganeering, just like the typical dem.

What will happen to the iraqi people in the 30 days after we pull the troops out? Libs can't answer because a) they don't think that far ahead or b) they know thousands will die in bloody riots and ethnic cleansing, and they don't want to admit that they are willing to pay that price (or have the iraqi people pay for them)to embrass Bush and the US.

Another guy had a sign that read "impeach Bush." Again, I ask, "then what?" the question seems to stun these idiots. He didn't seem to realize he was advocating a Cheney presidency.

Slogans. Symbolic bills. Pretzel logic. Liberals suck.

[Charles Warren]

"What will happen to the iraqi people in the 30 days after we pull the troops out? Libs can't answer because a) they don't think that far ahead or b) they know thousands will die in bloody riots and ethnic cleansing, and they don't want to admit that they are willing to pay that price (or have the iraqi people pay for them)to embrass Bush and the US."

ET, we owe the Iraqi Sunnis nothing more than we owed the Sudeten Germans or the Ostdeutsch. They could have chosen to live in peace. They could have chosen to work with us. But instead they wanted their privileged status quo back. They did everything they could to provoke the Shiites with one terrorist attack after another. So what business is it of ours to protect them from the Shiites' revenge ? Do you want American boys to die protecting the people of Fallujah ?

The Sunnis wanted this war. So let them have it.

[mkultra]

Wingnut option: Leave the troops in Iraq so they can die in service to the Iranians and the Shia terrorist thugs Maliki, Sadr and SCIRI

Democratic option: Bring the troops home.

Americans, 2-1, prefer the Democratic option. Wonder why.

[Zifnab]

"I have yet to hear anyone answer the question I have posted many times before...what do you expect to happen in iraq in the 30 days after we pull out on the dem's timetable? peace and tranquility? or the slaughter of thousands?"

Wow. Get a god-damn TV. You pretend like we're not seeing daily massacres in Iraq already? Perhaps yesterday's double truck-bombing escaped your notice. Or the day before when a dozen people were mowed down by rival death squads. Oh no, I hope pulling out doesn't cause a civil war!

Five bucks says the day after President Hillary assumes office FOX News won't be able to get pictures of chlorine truck bombs, torched mosques, and dead Iraqi babies off the TV. But 'till then? What slaughter? Where dead Iraqis? It's all peace and tranquility right now, but pulling our troops out would clearly cause the destabilization of the region. Please be less disengenious.

[ET]

--Please be less disengenious.

You still didn't answer my question. What will happen to the iraqi people in the 30 days after we pull our troops out?

Your answer is: there is violence in Iraq!! No shit, sherlock. It's a war zone.

You KNOW that the level of violence and the death toll will rise significantly, that the entire region will fall into chaos. So does your impotent democratic leadership. You are all willing to ignore this because you don't give a damn about the iraqi people. All you want is for Bush to PAY! Damn the consequenses.

Talk about disingenious.

[mkultra]

"You still didn't answer my question. What will happen to the iraqi people in the 30 days after we pull our troops out?"

The Shia will make short work of the Sunnis, massacring thousands. The Shia militias will neutralize Al Qaeda. AQ will not know what hit them.

That's your answer.

Now, you need to explain why this won't happen if we stay 1, 3 or 5 more years. C'mon - I've answered your question, you answer mine.

Wingnuts simply will not admit the obvious: The Shia are in no mood to cooperate or reconcile with the Sunnis. And 1, 3 or 5 more years of American occupation, an occupation under which Sunnis have killed thousands of Shia, is not going to change that. Why would it? Why are the Shia going to be more likely to reconcile a few hundred more car bombs from now?

Why is this so f*ck*ng hard for wingnuts to understand? Do you really believe that Sadr and SCIRI have any desire to share power with the Sunnis? Really?

Get a grip - the Iraqis are playing for keeps. And wingers' hallunciantions and fantasies and dreams of kum bay yah are not going to change that.

There is a special place for wingers who want to sacrifice American lives for their Mesopotamian fantasies. You people will have to answer some day.

[ET]

--Now, you need to explain why this won't happen if we stay 1, 3 or 5 more years. C'mon - I've answered your question, you answer mine.

Peacekeeping forces have been successful at minimizing violence and maintaining enough stability for a central Govt to function. See: Bosnia

At least you are honest enough to admit that you don't consider iraqi people worth saving. You are happy to see them die in droves to save American lives. I understand that position. thankfully, American soldiers are capable of grasping the strategic importance of Iraq, and are less selfish than you. they are willing to sacrefice for the greater good. Thanks for answering my question and proving my point that lefties are too small minded to comprehend the big picture.

[mkultra]

"Peacekeeping forces have been successful at minimizing violence and maintaining enough stability for a central Govt to function. See: Bosnia

At least you are honest enough to admit that you don't consider iraqi people worth saving. You are happy to see them die in droves to save American lives. I understand that position. thankfully, American soldiers are capable of grasping the strategic importance of Iraq, and are less selfish than you. they are willing to sacrefice for the greater good. Thanks for answering my question and proving my point that lefties are too small minded to comprehend the big picture."

Sure, peacekeepers have been successful in other, non-analogous situations. (The Balkans had to be split up before peace was achieved. Wingers are against partition in Iraq. The Balkans are an inapt comparison for several other reasons.)

But, you need to explain why they will be successful in Iraq. And you can't. You can't explain it. Therefore, you lose. You cannot explain why the Shia will want to reconcilce with the Sunnis. You cannot explain how the Sunni insurgency will be defeated with our limited number of troops, and our worn out army. We cannot continue to extend tours of duty. We cannot continue to cycle troops back so quickly.

The Sunni insurgency cannot be defeated with our current efforts. Look at Diyala today. 9 Americans killed. And I remember when wingnuts such as yourself were touting Diyala as a success. The violence has been rapidly escalating there.

And as I mentioned above, Iraqis are going to die one way or another. Whether we stay or go. My happiness or unhappines is beside the point. Sacrificing American lives to delay the inevitable is insane, if not traitorous.

You don't get it. We are fighting for the Iranians. You are seemingly happy to sacrifice Ameriancs to protect a government made up of Sadr's cronies. Of the Iranian backed SCIRI terrorists. I am not. That's the difference between the left and the right. The right wing loves Iranians. It's why they sold Iranians arms in the 80's. It's why they are willing to shed American blood for them today.

You're right - I care more about Americans than Iranains. You obviously don't. There is a word for your kind. Starts with a "T."

[ET]

mkultra, you are delusional. People a lot smarter than you think you are full of shit. Here is just one example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/losing_the_war_in_congress_not.html

Also, I suggest you read Buzzy's post from this very site. I'll paste it here for you:

There was more truth in one little picture of Iraqi voters proudly holding up an ink stained index finger, proving they had voted, than in all the vile crap our left has posted about Iraq since that time. The Iraqi people want democracy, they want the freedom to determine their own political future. They are opposed by two factions the Sunni Baath Party terrorists who want the nation to lapse back into the horror that was Saddam's brutal hold over the nation and the Iranian backed Shi'a militias who want Iraq to be under the thumb of the Mullah's in Iran. Fully 90% of the people of Iraq want nothing to do with either of these groups and those are the people whose blood is being shed by the terrorists every day there. Those are the people we are fighting to protect and give a future in a democratic Iraq. Those are the people who will end up in mass graves if we leave now.

From a person who has been there let me tell you that as much as you may disagree with President Bush's war plans in Iraq, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton's etal. plans lead directly to the death of a democratic Iraq and the death of millions of good honest people who only want freedom and peace.

Although I disagree strongly with the manner that President Bush has implemented the War in Iraq I support the cause of a democratic Iraq. I supported it in 1998 when President Bill Clinton announced Operation Desert Fox and I support it today. Sadly Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party has developed amnesia about the bombs he dropped on Iraq for years and the soldiers he put in harms way for that cause but that doesn't change the fact he was correct about the importance of a democratic Iraq in shaping the face of a peaceful middle east in the decades to come.

Thanks for giving me your permission to speak and now since neither you nor BiS have been to Iraq I'll expect you to follow your own suggestion and STFU.

So, Kamasutra, you consiracy theories are not shared by normal people. Take your paranoia back into the closet. You are a cut and run coward, nothing more.

[Charles Warren]

ET are you still ranting that neocon nonsense about turning Iraq into Switzerland ? Hasn't your brain processed the fact that Saddam was no crueler than the people he ruled ?

And it is stupid of you to talk about what 90% of the Iraqi people want. Didn't you see the article a few days ago about the Pentagon deciding not to make training Iraqi troops a priority ? About their practically giving up on the notion that Iraqi troops will 'stand up' any time in the forseeable future ? About how after four years and billions spent our wonderful Iraqi Army flatly will not hold ground ? About how it is a pipedream to expect Iraqis to 'take the lead' as Bush so grandly promised when he began the surge ? If Iraqis even at this late date cannot be trusted to fight for their 'democracy' then obviously it is the militias that command the loyalty of the Iraqi people. In a tribal culture, tribe comes first. Is that so hard to understand ?

If Iraqi boys will fight for blood and clan but not for the Maliki government what the hell are we doing ? How long do you expect us to carry a government its people will not fight for ? The Iraqi people have to decide their own future and it is not our business to protect them from themselves. They are a violent, clannish culture of revenge and yes, it will be bloody. But that's what they are like. The hard, historical truth is that wars of religion are the worst kind. They are massacre, ethnic cleansing, atrocity after atrocity. But that is what it took for Europe to arrive at religious tolerance. Imagine trying to put 'peacekeepers' in the middle of the Thirty Years War. Wars of religion just plain have to burn themselves out.

You whine and preach about our 'duty' to squander blood and treasure protecting people from themselves and history. You refuse to see the Iraqis as they are, instead seeing only wishful thinking. The American people are fed up with your nonsense.

[Charles Warren]

ET, I suppose the most ludicrous aspect of your sermon is the way you go on as if the Sunnis are somehow helpless innocents who we must protect.

Like hell !

Democracy ? Whenever Arabs vote, they vote for tribe, jihad, and revenge. Has your brain ever processed the fact that you cannot have democracy if you do not have religious tolerance in your culture ? You see, if your culture does not have religious tolerance then you do not know how to peacefully agree to disagree, now do you ? You can't have democracy unless your culture has reached a point where someone being of a different religion or ethnic group isn't a perfectly valid reason to kill him.

[wardmd]

I'll support the Murtha (cut and run) plan IF those of you who think we SHOULD pull out of Iraq (NOW) will agree that we should (therefore) pull out of EVERYWHERE in the world that we currently have troops (Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Korea, etc., etc., etc.)!

Let's just pull back to the way we were on December 6th, 1941 (keep our heads in the sand, and leave everyone else to their own devices)...

THEN, I also expect you to STOP criticizing Israel when they DEFEND THEMSELVES against the Palestinian "insurgents" (car bombs, suicide bombings - sound familiar?).

But I digress...

YOU say we should pull out of Iraq. YOU, the same people who SUPPORTED President Clinton when HE stated that HIS policy was to achieve "regime change" in Iraq (AND cited the SAME intelligence reports that President Bush relied upon). Oh, and on the subject of WMD - can YOU (anyone) tell us EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED to the Chemical and biological weapons that the United Nations Weapons Inspectors SAID THAT HE HAD?

Where are they? NO ONE has accounted for them. They magically disappeared? Oh, that's right, Saddam TOLD US that they were destroyed - that's right - the SAME Saddam who told us that Iraq WAS developing Nuclear Weapons. I see, the Nuclear Weapons development was a LIE (and President Bush KNEW it), but Saddam was telling the TRUTH when he said he destroyed the WMD...

That's right... It's SILLY to disbelieve Saddam - after all, he had such a GREAT track record of honesty (just look at the 17 United Nations resolutions he followed! What? Oh, that's right, he violated ALL of them, didn't he?

So tell my, you brilliant Liberals... What should it be? We pull ALL our troops from EVERYWHERE, or we continue to support democracy and fight injustice around the world - which is it?

Wasn't Joe Bidden (recently) DEMANDING that we send troops to Darfur? What, exactly, is the U.S. National Interest in Darfur?

[ET]

wow, charles. you have a low opinion of arab culture. If I am understanding your rant, you contend that we should abandon the subhumans in iraq because they are too brutal a race to want freedom and democracy. They will keep killing each other anyway, so let them go at it.

I am sorry I don't share your warped view of human nature. Like Buzzy (whose post I quoted and you responded to) I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in peace and freedom. The terrorists are small bands of thugs and warlords and we will eradicate them so the rest of the population can find a way to coexist.

You sling a lot of mud about wingers for a racist degenerate. Your party is proud of you. Thanks for revealing your true colors, bigot.

[mkultra]

"wow, charles. you have a low opinion of arab culture. If I am understanding your rant, you contend that we should abandon the subhumans in iraq because they are too brutal a race to want freedom and democracy. They will keep killing each other anyway, so let them go at it.

I am sorry I don't share your warped view of human nature. Like Buzzy (whose post I quoted and you responded to) I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in peace and freedom. The terrorists are small bands of thugs and warlords and we will eradicate them so the rest of the population can find a way to coexist.

You sling a lot of mud about wingers for a racist degenerate. Your party is proud of you. Thanks for revealing your true colors, bigot."

I see. So you assert that Iraq is sorta the "White Man's Burden," huh? See, the Arabs can't get along without the white man. The "savages" in Iraq need the Americans there, otherwise they will act out. They need the guiding hand of George Bush to teach them about democracy.

You would have been at home in the Belgian Congo, French Algeria, or British India.

And you have the nerve to call others racist.

You need psyhcological help. And then a class in race relations.

It might enlighten you to learn that Arab culture was enlightened when Europeans were living in mud huts. But then a right wing supremacist like yourself would never seek enlightenment. After all, only the white man can lead the brown people, right ET?

[Charles Warren]

ET, you embody the enlightened sort of Victorian racism that assumed that every 'native' had an inner Englishman that it was his duty to provide 'uplift' for. The sort that looks in the mirror and sees the pinnacle of human civilization and sighs, "wouldn't the world be wonderful if everyone was just like us.". You want to be White Missionary to the world.

Well, the natives don't want to convert. In fact the track record of 'civilizing and uplifting the Muslim savage' is dismal. After 40 years Israel has given up trying to rule the Palestinians. They gave up on trying to turn Lebanon into a pro-Western democracy ( you tried 'regime change' and 'nation building' in Lebanon in the 80's and the results were only less dismal because Reagan had the wisdom to realize you neocons were fools and stopped listening to the very same people who sold Bush on the Iraq war. He sensibly cut his losses and got the hell out).

Every statement of your is an assertion of faith. "I believe" in classic White Missionary paternalism. Well, you're not Livingstone on the Tigris. You are someone who refuses to absorb a fundamental truth that the American people, as last election's results showed and next elections will hammer into even your head, i.e., that all the effort in the world will not make someone change who does not want to change. You should try a little less faith and a lot more common sense.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

I can't help but wonder if any of you anti-warriors have a REAL reason to be against this war or is it the typical bullshit of your kind. I also wonder if any of you John Wayne's out there have any REAL excuse for being behind it. I see a lot of talking point type rhetoric, same old BS mostly, but not a single opinion that doesn't read like it came from talk radio hosts. Well, Warren comes closest to an actual, thought out opinion................

[Phoenix]

You are someone who refuses to absorb a fundamental truth that the American people, as last election's results showed and next elections will hammer into even your head, i.e., that all the effort in the world will not make someone change who does not want to change. You should try a little less faith and a lot more common sense.

Posted by: Charles Warren | Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 08:23 AM

Common sense? What about believing that all humans deserve the same freedoms and liberties we have? You know - freedom from and freedom to. Common sense tells us that if we lose the shackles and fetters of culture, religion, race, and gender all peoples are HUMANS. Because some humans are born into cultures that do not honor individual freedoms does not mean they do not deserve it. Is it not a noble gesture to give all human basic rights like freedom and the pursuit of happiness? Maybe it isn't to you - that seems to be what you're saying. Get real. Scrape off all man-made constructs and religious dogmas and you've got a human being. "Wanting" to change might not be in the internal lexicon of the oppressed because they know nothing else, but that does not mean we should shrug it off because trying to lift people up is a waste of money and effort.

"....election's result showed..." that too many Americans are willing to look the other way when human suffering infringes on their self-perceived importance. How utterly tragic.....

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Phoenix, You're absolutely correct that humanity, generally yearns to be free. But freedom is relative, mine vs yours and thiers vs ours. All people choose parameters for their freedom. Sheese, just look at our two parties in the states and then the various levels of their intensity. I dare say our versions are likely to be very different from each other, though we both love our freedom, even incomplete as it is. I cannot imagine moving into one of these gated communities and paying someone to tell me what I can park in my own driveway.....plenty of others seem to think it's wonderful to give up their freedom to keep other people from moving next door....get the picture?

[seekeronos]

I'd have to say that the track record of the region tends to show that the Arabs (less so the Persians) tend to be tribal and/or clannish. They really do not have the means to unite, much less self-govern, simply because their culture and their wicked, devilish religion of lies won't allow it.

The only times that the Arabs have looked past their immediate tribes and clans have been when one particularly strong conqueror or overlord forced his will on them... such as Salah Al-Din (Saladin), or any of the stronger Caliphs, and especially the false prophet of Allah, Mohammed (who is responsible in large part, along with his mentor, Satan, for this madness in the Middle East). Or more recently, Saddam Hussein... an al-Tikriti Arab who wielded his Baathist iron grip over Iraq, under whom many more people perished who he saw as rivals or enemies.

However, remove an Arab from Islam a generation or two, and he becomes as civilisable as the next man. In fact, to call an Arab (or a Persian) a "brown man" is not very accurate either. They are ethnologically much closer to the Caucasoid family of races than they are to being Asiatic or African.

Let an Arab find Christ, and that will change him all the more, freeing him from the bondage that is "submission", or Islam.

As for this gem:

"It might enlighten you to learn that Arab culture was enlightened when Europeans were living in mud huts. But then a right wing supremacist like yourself would never seek enlightenment. After all, only the white man can lead the brown people, right ET?"

Wrong. That the Europeans were living in a state of squalor at the time, they did so upon the ruins of the Western Roman Empire; its sister to the East, Hellenistic Byzantium, stood a bulwark against the evils of Islam until it too, was finally subdued, and its peoples killed or made to pay the Jizzyah tax.

Any real search of the Caliphate's so-called advances would find that most of these were gained from the Europeans and particularly the Byzantine Christians that were captured by the Musselmen, or from captured scripts and texts from p[laces like Alexandria.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Was the library at Alexandria looted by the muslims? I remembered it only being burned to the ground by the peaceful religion of islam. Strange too that so many multi-cultralists assume all muslims to be "brown"....a bit bigoted I think considering the numbers of muslims which cross every racial and ethnic boundry.

[Charles Warren]

The neocon arguments are simply the same old BS.

Useless invocations of "I believe" optimism. Well, after four years, 3,200 lives, and half a trillion dollars optimism isn't enough. You are supposed to have tangible results. You are supposed to be making visible progress towards a self sustaining democracy. ET babbles about how 90% of the Iraqi people don't support the insurgents or the militias. Well , if that were true then we should just step aside and let the Iraqi 'government' deal with the insurgents and militias as handily as the Argentine colonels dealt with the Montoneros and the Iranian mullahs dealt with the Marxist Mujihadeen, now shouldn't we ? But since the government has no reliable armed forces that kinda says the government has no reliable public support.

Phoenix babbles about giving freedom to the world. Fighting for people who can't fight for themselves is worthy. Fighting for people who won't fight for themselves is being a chump. You can't give freedom to people who won't fight for it themselves and the Arab defines freedom as power, not tolerance.

There is a racism that infantilises other people. That tries to turn them into helpless victims who we must protect. That is what the war supporters on this board are doing. The Sunnis are NOT innocent victims. They were the ruling elite who want their BMW lifestyle back. They chose to provoke the Shiites with terrorism. They sowed the wind and will now reap the whirlwind. We have no responsibility whatsoever to protect them.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Ok Charles, I see the "neocon" (stupidest term I've ever heard) arguments as being the same old BS. But except for yours, most of the other comments are the same old "george bush lied" crap. You're one of very,very few that have actually studied the region and have a notion why we should not be there.

[Phoenix]

Charles and Peas,

Nothing to debate with either of you. My point is that all the fighting and divisiveness over what we 'should' do and what we 'shouldn't' to can, really, be boiled down to what brings out the best in human nature. Freedom. I get your point about what constitutes freedom, Peas, but I went below that to the essential 'rights' of humans. I'm not speaking from a religious platform or a political platform or a cultural platform. And I have no misguided beliefs that we can solve the world's problems. Far from it.

It's just that sometimes it is soothing to my soul to note the truth of the human spirit and how it flourishes under freedom.

Actually, it's not that soothing to me come to think about it. Too many people fighting and dying out there for that freedom - even if they don't understand it as we do. I guess I'm engaging in wishful thinking. That's all. Hope, maybe.

[Phoenix]

Charles,

One rethink: "There is a racism that infantilises other people." That is a harsh statement. There is also an element of thinking that it is a kindness to help those who cannot help themselves. There are people who can't fight for themselves.

I might not be able to do anything about it, but I can express my sorrow for it.

[nowinger]

Oy god this transparent hypocracy is mind numbing.

One minute you dumbfucks are babbling about carpet bombing Iran and Syria, 'teaching them a lesson, and changing the rules of engagement in Iraq to give the troops more leeway to shoot civilians. Those positions strongly suggest a total disregard for muslim/arab lives, if we have to kill a few hundred thousand or million to get the governments to do what we want, that's a fair price to pay and besides 'they' will have made us do it, and some collateral damage is expected, clackety clack.

In the next breath you're babbling about your deep and abiding love for the Iraqi people and how its our duty to bring them the same freedoms and we have here in America, no matter what it costs American soldiers and American tax payers. You are sickened by the idea that the Iraqi people might not be able to live in a democracy that they so richly deserve as fellow humans.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

no wingless, that's just the voices in your head again........there are no entries here that say anything like you mention. Ask your shrink to check your meds and call animal control about the neighbor's dog.

[nowinger]

Ah, typical winger logic. This blog is FULL of posts just like that, but I guess they don't count if they aren't on this thread.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

You really aren't well. Do you live in a hole in the wall with your children, murder and mayhem? That dog again huh? Lithium just not working for you? Try thorazine poor little wingnut........

[Charles Warren]

It is heroic and good to fight for people who can't fight for themselves.

But the Iraqis have had plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to fight for this 'democracy' and they flatly refuse to do so, starting with the 'Self Defense Battalions' who cashed their paychecks, ditched their uniforms, and ran at Fallujah. If the Iraqis are only willing to die for clan and tribe, what are we doing ? They WON'T fight for his vision of democracy we think we're giving them.

And the term 'neocon' is completely valid for the Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz crowd and their acolytes (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, William Safire, Eliot Abrams, etc). The parallels between Iraq today and Lebanon 81 are amazing.

THE SMOOTH TALKING EXILES PROMISING THE SUN AND THE MOON BUT DELIVERING NOTHING
Chalabi and his 'Iraqi National Congress' now and the Lebanese Maronite Christians then.

THE GULLIBLE RULERS WHO THOUGHT THEY COULD TURN A MUSLIM COUNTRY INTO A PRO WESTERN ALLY
Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin then and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld now.

THE MUSLIM TROUBLEMAKING CONTRY
Syria then, Syria and Iran now.

THE NEOCON INTELLECTUALS WHO WERE CERTAIN A MUSLIM COUNTRY WOULD ALLOW INFIDELS TO HANDPICK THEIR GOVERNMENT
Except for William Safire who is dead, the exact same people.