Why We’re Screwed In Iraq
Tweet
Senator Carl Levin cut to the quick about Bush on Meet The Press this morning:
He’s not going to make admissions, he’s not capable of admitting mistakes.
This is the heart and soul of why the Iraq mission was doomed from the beginning, why it has been a screw job since it began, and while it will continue to be so until we have a change of presidents. 
President Bush is incapable of doing what so many American presidents of either party have done in the past for the good of the nation. He is simply unable to bring in evidence from multiple sources and come to a decision that may reverse a previous position he had. For George Bush, no matter what, it’s his way or the highway. Not only has he pushed America off the cliff, he pushes down harder on the gas getting there.
And his supporters and apologists are no better. Witness Glenn Reynolds fumbling like a blind man looking for some reason to strike out against Iran, or Jeff Jarvis muttering that the whole thing is in anarchy as if this situation just happened overnight and thousands of us had not sounded the alarm almost four years ago.
I’m often accused of being too blunt or simplistic. But frankly blunt and simplistic are traits that have served people much more powerful and smarter than me well. I’m not averse to using force to defend America, but I knew before the first shot was fired that the Iraq War was the wrong war. Hussein was contained, he was not a threat, and our first priority should have been to dismantle the Al Qaeda network and any groups, nations or individuals allied with them. As Atrios has noted several times, the Very Serious People on the left wrote words and words justifiying the invasion and occupation of Iraq but at the end of the day those of us on the side of brevity were sadly right.
Now comes the present day. It began with the election, but every day more evidence comes out that shows us that the president, his advisors, and his supporters have no damn clue what to do, and for the mere sake of retaining what is left of their machismo refuse to do the right thing. The stock answer to leaving Iraq is that the country will become a bloody hellhole and America will look week. News alert: those things have already happened.
Iraq is a hellhole. Every day people are blown up by bombs and shot by guns. Despite the pathetic efforts of the right to compare Iraq’s instability to urban areas in the U.S., the facts tell the tale. Similarly the idea that the press is to blame instead of the military commanders and ultimately their commander-in-chief is beyond obvious. The press, ideally, is to report news of consequence. I dare say a bomb that kills fifty people in broad daylight is of more importance than a school that is being painted. The only difference between an Iraq with America playing babysitter and one with us out of the picture is that less Americans are killed in the latter scenario.
We already look weak. The same country that beat the Nazis and unleashed hell on the Japanese, as well as securing the Balkans and liberating Kuwait now looks to the world almost like a paper tiger. Not, as the right-wing would have you believe, because of a botched joke by John Kerry or because we elected Democrats to control the congress, but because Republicans are clueless on national security. Because of the poor planning of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of that crew of cronies, we cannot even secure Baghdad – three years after the city supposedly “fell”. Too often conservatives believe that the rest of the world doesn’t have a memory. Our threats have become hollow, because the world has already seen how badly we botched Iraq while also torturing people at the same time. If one were to buy in to the conservative perversion of “balance” you could probably count up all the good and bad to come out of our occupation of Iraq and declare it “even”. But that would probably mean absurdities like torture at Abu Ghraib and handing out candy to kids were just “two sides” of an issue. It just isn’t true.
The world sees America stuck in Iraq, with radical Islam growing because of it. Leaving Iraq isn’t going to change that one war or another, but less Americans will be killed and we’ll be able to use our military to defeat actual threats to our freedom.
But it’s all moot. George W. Bush will not listen. Because for George Bush to not only admit an error, much less that the right course of action is coming from the other side of the aisle, is like stabbing out his eyes for him. He’s a more powerful and morally perverted version of the guy who won’t take directions from anyone else in the car, even if they’ve got a GPS unit and he’s only got “a feeling”. It’s that stubbornness that has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans, and less importantly, his poor standing amongst the American people that will most likely linger way past his time on earth.
95 Responses to “Why We’re Screwed In Iraq”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
the problem with the american left is that it only remembers what it wants to remember.
Bush said from the beginning that Iraq was going to be long haul, and difficult (check his SOTU address). The same leftists who said Iraq was going to be “a mistake” also said that we would never get out of afghanistan and that we would suffer thousands of casualties taking baghdad and that their would be streams of people leaving iraq and living in UN camps.
But someone HAS to make a decision. There is no way of knowing that Iraq wouldn’t have reconstituted its known WMD programs. We KNOW they were gaming the Oil for food program with a bunch of our european “allies”. The idea that saddam was “contained” is an absolute farce, along the lines of having “discussions” with the iranians who have already promised the destruction of our one true mid east allie, Israel.
George won’t listen cause it ain’t a lost cause, unless we MAKE it a lost cause.
We had to listen to Oliver before WWII with the Chamberlain appeasement crowd….it didn’t work.
A wise man once said..”millions for defense, not one cent for tribute”, we would do well to follow that council.
Except that the Hussein was contained, and the administration did say Iraq would be easy (“Weeks, not months”). We have suffered thousands of casualties and deaths in Iraq, whether that’s in the case of taking Baghdad or barely holding on to it like we are now is moot.
The problem with the right is that it denies reality. Since you think Iraq is going so great how soon till you get a plane ticket over there?
come on Oliver….Iraq WAS easy…as a military operation. The leftists were dead wrong about that.
I have said again and again, Iraq isn’t “doing great”. It sucks…and I was with the VEEP and thought the Iraqis would stand up the minute the collar of hussein was taken from them…I was wrong about that. But it doesn’t mean we just take our toys and go home.
The typical “chicken hawk” argument that you guys throw up when you start to lose the argument is getting old. I was forward deployed when 9/11 happened, and stayed forward deployed throughout Afghanistan and Iraq…my money was where my mouth is.
I’ve been watching ‘Band of Brothers’ again, and it is a good thing we didn’t have the media coverage of WWII as we have now.
People like Oliver would have been declaring the D-Day invasion a complete failure. He would have been railing against the war machine for “sending troops into Bastogne to die” because they didn’t have enough warm clothes, food and ammunition.
And of course, Oliver unleashes the bullshit if you don’t agree with him that the Iraq war was a total fuck-up from day one, it means you believe things are “going so great.”
It’s the same boring nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
And it is lame. What is more lame is the notion that killing terrorists coming from other countries into Iraq is bad, while using Oliver’s idea of dropping troops in all over the world to kill the same terrorists is the way to go. Oliver, to this day you have not been able to explain your rationale on that one.
Bush said from the beginning that Iraq was going to be long haul, and difficult
I was with the VEEP and thought the Iraqis would stand up the minute the collar of hussein was taken from them.
So, which statement is it that you agree with? Bush or Cheney?
“People like Oliver would have been declaring the D-Day invasion a complete failure.”
Get a new line of bullshit, Jay, unless you want to quote from actula coverage of D-Day, instead of just, you know, repeating whatever stupid talking point you heard on Limnbaugh or Hannity. Gawd you guys are dumb.
Jay: The best way to deal with your nonsense is to note that 4 years after D-Day, WWII was done with and thousands of Americans weren’t being killed after Hitler and Tojo surrendered. You guys insist on comparing Iraq to WWII as long as we disregard the facts of the two conflicts. I’ve watched Band of Brothers, and its great those guys had actual LEADERSHIP back in Washington from one of those LIBERAL Democrats.
As far as the terrorists go, very few of the people blowing stuff up in Iraq are foreign terrorists. They’re brand new ones minted in Saddam’s absence. We’re killing and being killed by them while the ones around the rest of the world who are tar getting us have been given a free hand to operate. The next attack, especially since we are so wide open to it because of Republican dithering, will be on George Bush’s head. Thanks to him thousands of Americans have and will die.
pedro: The initial military action went fair to fine, but the current military action isn’t (started going sour from about the point we allowed Baghdad to be looted, an action which at the time was blown off by the Sec. of Defense). Only the wingers are drawing an imaginary line between the two, when it’s plain to all that they are one long operation.
I’ve been watching ‘Band of Brothers’ again, and it is a good thing we didn’t have the media coverage of WWII as we have now.
No matter how much you want it to be, an unprovoked attack on Iraq is not World War II. All you do is insult all those that served, lived through and worked during WWII when you compare the two.
–WKW
“What is more lame is the notion that killing terrorists coming from other countries into Iraq is bad, while using Oliver’s idea of dropping troops in all over the world to kill the same terrorists is the way to go.”
Brain dead. Totally brain dead. Jay, your understanding of who were actually fighting over there is apalling its simple minded ignorance.
Since it’s obvious that you haven’t been paying attention to the news because the truth hurts your brain, we are not simply fighting the “terrorists over there.” We are, in fact, fighting a home grown Sunni insurgency as well as the homegrown Shitte militias that have risen up in reaction to it, with the terrorists, you speak of, making up a smaller percentage of our overall opposition.
The “drain the swamp” argument might have worked for the first year after the invasion, but now that it’s clear we are bogged down in the domestic, Iraqi sectarian civil war it’s full idiocy has come into view.
Of course advocates of the “drain the swamp” rationale for the war have never come close to answering the inherent contradiction between the desire to turn Iraq into a flowering democracy while also turning it into a charnal house of violence and death by attracting to it the world’s most crazy extremists.
It hilarious that your post should deride the repetitiousness of the Left — “over and over and over …” — when all you’ve done as a rebuttal is rehash sorry old talking points about World War II and “draining the swamp” that no one with half a brain and an ounce of reason really believes any more.
“The same leftists who said Iraq was going to be “a mistake” also said that we would never get out of afghanistan …”
We’ve left Afghanistan?
Indeed. Military operations in Iraq were a cakewalk. Cuz you see, nothing that’s been going on over there for the past several years is a military operation. For some reason.
I swear sometimes I think your trolls have to be parodies, Oliver. Nobody could possibly be this stupid, this plainly delusional.
I hope that we do not pull out of Iraq until there is a viable leader and a legitimate government. To pull out now would be selfish on our part. There are so many people who have put their lives on the line to help us with what they do, and if we leave their lives are over…..literally. What we do from this point on is not a benefit to us, but to the kids who will be running Iraq in the future. This kid is a Sunni and realizes that Amercians are “not so bad”.
That statement in of itself is what is going to turn the tide of Radical Islam in Iraq. Radical Islam is not growing as you say, it is merely diverted itself toward us moreso than ever before. Trust me. My guys are rounding up bad guys, finding weapons caches, and providing security for folks that didn’t have it before we came, and who will certainly be killed if we leave. I don’t care about looking weak, saving face, or admitting wrong, but I have literally seen the bodies of people who were killed for helping Americans. I want to go home at this moment, but if I had to an indefinite amount of time until this is over instead of my tour I would be inclined to do it. Only a person without an ounce of compassion in his heart could live with walking away and what the consequences of that would be. Just my opinion.
Invasion of Iraq != D-Day.
And comparing the two…I’m not exactly a champion of good taste, but dude.
We picked up on the idea, in Vietnam, that wars were “icky,” and the sooner we ended them the better.
But wars are not like duct tape we can slap on a leaking pipe as a work around until the plumber comes. WE are the plumbers. Terrorism will not get fixed until we fix it. My understanding is that we have killed 40,000 terrorists.
That ain’t beanbag.
Fighting terrorism is really about one thing, and one thing only — not being terrified.
If we leave Iraq precipitously, we will look like we are terrified. The terrorists will never give us any peace.
During Tet 1969, Charlie had the annoying habit of rocketing our base at 4:00 in the morning. BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! and gone. Why? One, to get away before his location could be obliterated. But, secondly, Charlie knew that we were due to wake up at 5:30. Charlie also knew that our alerts were mandatory 1 hour.
Charlie was waking us up one and a half hours early! And getting away with it — until we speeded up our response time, so we could get him before he got away.
And that’s the point — guerrillas and terrorists have to be killed, or made to realize that their actions are ineffective.
There is no other way.
Blood! More blood!
Perpsective.
We are in Iraq (regardless of how we got there). Period.
Staying in Iraq will be costly.
Leaving Iraq on a set timetable, regardless of the in-theater political/security situation, will be costly.
Iraq is deadly, but not nearly as deadly as Vietnam, Korea, and the World Wars.
An enemy who thinks they are nearer victory fights harder.
Iraq (and the Mideast) is very important geopolitically and economically. Only an idiot pretends thats not true or that we have no concerns in the region.
I’ll say it again. There is absolutely no easy answer. Not one. Anybody saying all we need to do is withdraw into some sort of Dien Bien Phu enclave is ignorant of history. Anybody saying we can turn around bitter centuries of ethnic strife in a backward region and make it a model democracy in amtter of a few years is a fool.
Stay the course.
@ Dugger,
I completely agree with your perspective. I am all for redeploying when the time is right, but the situation on the ground should be the criteria for deployment….not the calendar.
The forgotten piece of history with the WWII analogy (or the end of it more accurately) is that we (or allies) took over the governments of germany and japan. We essentially wrote the constitution of germany/japan and were truly an occupying force.
We tried to be mr nice guy this time, with an expectation, incorrect as it turns out) that the Iraqis would stand up on their own. We definately made mistakes (disarming the remaining army for instance), but that doesn’t give us the right to leave the vast MAJORITY of peaceful Iraqi’s in the lurch.
On a smaller scale, who remembers Somalia?
If you are going to continue to talk about World War II, then let’s look at two things that seem to preoccupy the “Iraq os a disaster” crowd: The civilian cost, and the “exit strategy.”
First, there were hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, not counting civilian prisoners held by the Japanese and the Germans. It took years of administrative hoop – jumping, personal deprivation and emotional anguish for every one of them to get back home, get their households in something resembling order, and reuniting with those members of their families that survived the war.
Anyone have any idea how many civilian casualties there were (not counting Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
Second, the exit strategy (outcome). Germany, and other areas of Europe, like Italy, were obliterated.
All of eastern Europe ended up under the Soviet totalitarian thumb. Germany was split in two.
China became, and is to this day, a Communist dictatorship.
Still want to talk about “wonderful” World War II?
Would you like something like that in the Middle East, which, by the way, was also involved, and damaged, by World War II?
Smith:
I’d like to see the photo you posted, but I get a “You are not authorized” message when I click your link. Any ideas?
“We tried to be mr nice guy this time, with an expectation, incorrect as it turns out) that the Iraqis would stand up on their own.”
We tried to be Mr. Nice Guy? Pedro, in case you haven’t been paying any attention we invited ourselves into this disaster. We had no choice but to play mr. nice guy because the Iraqis never attacked us and it ain’t our country.
You talk about not wanting to leave innocent Iraqis in the lurch in the same post that you suggest we should have firebombed Fallujah and Sadr City then handed the Iraqis a constitution written in DC.
It’s a wonder all the inherent contradictions of convservative rhetoric hasn’t given you an aneurysm.
Dumb comparisons to World War II and Hussein to Hitler helped get us into this mess. They aren’t going to get us out.
We invited ourselves?
After flaunting 12 UN Resolutions for over a decade, gaming the oil-for-food program to evade sanctions, shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly-zone (UN approved), we “invited ourselves”? Should there be no consequence for flaunting international law Paul? Or do you only want to enforce it if it goes against the U.S. or one of it’s allies, say, Israel?
My point, which you deliberately ignore, is that whether we fire-bombed fallujah, or tried the “nice guy” approach, the american left would have castigated bush.
Why..?
Because you don’t WANT america to help the Iraqi’s establish a democratic, peaceful regime. It goes against all of your plans for electing a democrat in ’08. And now that you believe it worked so well for you in the mid-term elections, the leftist are going to be even more vehmently opposed to any possible success in Iraq.
Ergo, everytime a US soldier is killed, Oliver writes it down, but he ignores the thousands of terrorists killed, terrorists who will never get an opportunity to hurt the US or it’s allies.
The same leftists who said Iraq was going to be “a mistake” also said that we would never get out of afghanistan and that we would suffer thousands of casualties taking baghdad and that their would be streams of people leaving iraq and living in UN camps.
Umm… we’re still in Afghanistan, and nearly 3,000 American soldiers have died without Baghdad being secure to this very day. And according to the UN nearly 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country monthly. You forgot the part of the argument where you bolster your own case.
But someone HAS to make a decision. There is no way of knowing that Iraq wouldn’t have reconstituted its known WMD programs. We KNOW they were gaming the Oil for food program with a bunch of our european “allies”. The idea that saddam was “contained” is an absolute farce, along the lines of having “discussions” with the iranians who have already promised the destruction of our one true mid east allie, Israel.
Damn, you got me there. You’d be totally right if only the exact opposite of what actually happened, happened. I can’t win against logic like that.
Our “nice guy” approach in Iraq included completely dismantling the army and governmental bureaucracy. (Something we did *not* do in WWII.) We told tens of thousands of Baathists (most of whom joined the party to get a job and weren’t close to Sadaam) to just go home and wait for the civilian infrastructure to be completely rebuilt from the ground up. Which we then proceeded not to do.
Sheer stupidity.
In hindsight squaker, you are absolutely right…sheer stupidity.
So now we just take our toys and go home because one of our strategic plans was in error?
August your short memory is epic.
We were told than tens of thousands of americans were going to be killed in the invasion…we have lost about 3K in 4 years…that is less than what we lost in one day on Iwo Jima, a single battle, in a single theater of WWII. Afghanistan is not the “quagmire” we were promised, though if simply having troops there is considered a “quagmire”, then add germany, japan and bosnia to the list. As far as your last sentence goes…well, stick with your incoherent cartoons, cause your attempt at understanding logic is even more inept than your artistic skill.
“My point, which you deliberately ignore, is that whether we fire-bombed fallujah, or tried the “nice guy” approach, the american left would have castigated bush.”
Deliberately ignore? Pedro, if the US had taken the WWII total war approach to pacifying the Iraqi population Bush would have and should have been crucified. Do you not see the inherent contradiction between invading a country to remove its dictator while simultaneously bombing the hell out of the civilian population we want to liberate? Can you not also recognize the immorality of a total war policy when applied to Iraq?
As to your second point, the segment of the left that was opposed to this war period was opposed to the war no matter how it was prosecuted so your “damnded if you do, damned if you don’t” criticism doesn’t really apply to them. Onthat score, your point is moot, it’s a total non-sequitor.
Now if you are talking about that portion of the left that support the war but is not criticizing Bush for his mishandling of it, your point still doesn’t stand. Because it is not the “Mr. Nice Guy approach” that had failed here, it is the Bush administration’s total incompetence or reckless disregard that has caused it to fail. The lack of troops, the handling of reconstruction projects, the disbanding of the Iraqi military, the expulsion all Baathist civil servants, the tone deaf response to the sectarian realities of Iraqi society and on and on are all mistakes that could have been avoided if the Bush administration wasn’t so shockingly incompetent.
When the left that supported the invasion now criticize Bush, they are by and large not criticizing the “Mr. Nice Guy” approach, they are criicizing Bush’s obvious failure to execute it properly or with an ounce of competency.
So all the around, I was not “ignoring” your point. Your point is simply irrelevant. It’s just more right wing fantasy exscuse-making with no basis in reality.
Uh, Pedro, the no fly zones were unilaterally declared by the U.S. and Britain (and initially France) and were not U.N. approved.
We have been beating the living sh*t out of Iraq since the Gulf War.
The Food for Oil “scandal?” You serious? The scandal that went on with virtually the full knowledge of the U.S. and Europe? The scandal that pumped oil to western allies and put millions into the pockets of U.S. corporations like Halliburton? That horse is stone cold dead, time to stop whipping.
Who claimed tens of thousands would die in an invasion? That sounds like fringe talk or made up bs along the lines of “40,000 terrorists killed.”
Yes, Oliver, when will you write about the thousands of “terrorists” killed. I’m sure the army carefully maintains an orderly body count that can distinguish between civilian and insurgent, insurgent and terrorist. No way they would inflate the numbers or flat out make them up. This from the people that don’t do body counts.
And still the daft comparisons to WWII continue…
“And that’s the point — guerrillas and terrorists have to be killed, or made to realize that their actions are ineffective.”
That’s the point?
You guys sound more and more like sports announcers who, in a desperate need to fill the void of dead air, say the most obvious thing that pops into their head as if it was some deep insight: “What they really need to do today is score more points than the other team.”
is this thing fixed yet?
If it’s so damn obvious, why does that point elude the left?
If there were another way to fight terrorism, perhaps someone somewhere would have mentioned it already.
You want to know what’s obvious? That the terrorists throughout the world will be thrilled if we pull out of Iraq. Anybody have a “work around” for that little problem?
Afghanistan is not the “quagmire” we were promised, though if simply having troops there is considered a “quagmire”, then add germany, japan and bosnia to the list.
The U.S. has been occupying Afghanistan for over five years with no specific objectives or exit strategy. Borrow a dictionary from a classmate, sport.
You want to know what’s obvious? That the terrorists throughout the world will be thrilled if we pull out of Iraq. Anybody have a “work around” for that little problem?
Too true. Remember how the terrorists were totally trying to influence the U.S. elections, and now that Democrats took over Congress, they stopped committing acts of terrorism since they got what we knew they really wanted?
Me neither.
Oh, a quick update, by the way: 14 U.S. troops have been killed in December already, but it’s totally okay because the Black Death killed, like, 800 times as many in the same amount of time.
“If there were another way to fight terrorism, perhaps someone somewhere would have mentioned it already.”
Uh, gee, fd, I think they call it “counter-terrorism.” Ever heard of it?
Pollak, the reason no one remembers saying that the terrorists would stop if the Democrats won, is because no one, anywhere, ever said that.
It does seem to be true that there is a better chance of a quick American withdrawal under the Democrats.
This just in: Bolton is out — that’s good news for the terrorists, courtesy of the Dems.
You want to know what’s obvious? That the terrorists throughout the world will be thrilled if we pull out of Iraq.
You know what makes it even harder to come up with a workaround for that problem?
This: The terrorists throughout the world will be thrilled if we DON’T pull out of Iraq.
Pollak, the reason no one remembers saying that the terrorists would stop if the Democrats won, is because no one, anywhere, ever said that.
And no one in the DNC ever said we should do something because the terrorists would like it. So why’d you even bother opening your damn mouth?
bill you got all the leftists talking points but missed the actual facts.
The oil-for-food scandal wasn’t that there was oil being pumped out of iraq,it is that Saddam was paying off european officials to get goodies.
As far as the no-fly zones are concerned the last Democrat administration seems to disagree with you..
” Well, I think, first of all, the Pentagon will give you more information and operational details. But I do want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the basic facts of the no-fly zones.
They were established under UN Security Council Resolution 688 following the Iraqi regime’s brutal action against its own citizens in the south and the threat against Iraqi citizens in the north. The American and British flights in the no-fly zones are there to maintain protection for Iraqi citizens in those regions”
http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/0006/000616db.html
Obviously we weren’t beating Iraq enough, as they managed to completely violated 12 Un resolutions during that time.
Bolton is out — that’s good news for the terrorists, courtesy of the Dems
Yeah… cause Bolton’s recess appointment was the only thing keeping global thermonuclear apocalypse from hitting I’m so damn sure. You can hear the conversation now:
“Mr. Bin Laden, due do bipartisan opposition to a nomination for a UN ambassadorship, a man who has a history of hostility to the UN itself and a longer history of not getting along with people will no longer be considered a de facto diplomat!”
“Break out the Kebab, Rahim, tonight we make Party!”
No seriously man, how are the terrorists happy over this? How is the fact that The Shaggy D.A. is no longer a temporary diplomat to the U.N. any good for them?
Oh wait, incomint newsflash. This just in: Bush still has no definition for victory in terms of goals our military is capable of attaining, no belief that, whatever he may want to accomplish, it can be done before 2009, no interest in listening to any critic of his policy of war in the name of forced peace, or the sanity behind sending in a small force with minimal body armor to, you know, remove a dictator, collapse his power structure, rebuild it from the ground up, re install a new government and get everyone in the country to be cool with that, and keeps people in his senior staff that seem to have to real comprehension of what is actually happening on the ground over there – Thats good news for the terrorists, courtesy of the duhrrrrrrrr…
Also, pedro, you are objectively wrong about everything. Please go away.
Obviously we weren’t beating Iraq enough, as they managed to completely violated 12 Un resolutions during that time.
Obviously, we’re not beating them now either, since no one has any idea what constitutes a win.
“Oh, a quick update, by the way: 14 U.S. troops have been killed in December already, but it’s totally okay because the Black Death killed, like, 800 times as many in the same amount of time. ”
And November was a low month. The late winter months have been high for US casualties in Iraq.
We are at war. People die. Hate it. But its a fact of life. Many more browns-kinned people died per year under Saddam – aproblem we fixed due to the sacrifice of US soldiers and what Bush and the bi-partisan Congeress did. The US caualties in Iraq have been down each year.
How many casualties will a Democratic president accept before he quits any military action. After 5 does he/she automatically surrender? 10? 100? 10,000?
FDR lost 300K, Truman/Ike 34K Korea, Johnson/Nixon 47K (all combat). We have lost around 3K in Iraq.
Here it is. Either come out against all wars – regardless – or argue against this war on its own merit. Otherwise, selectively using death counts is cheap BS.
Hindsight DrP? When every single reconstruction plan developed by actual technocrats was ignored by this administration? When they were warned at the time *not* to dismantle the gov’t and did it anyway?
In hindsight, Bush should have listened to the people who knew what they were talking about, not a bunch of political sychophants.
“Either come out against all wars – regardless – or argue against this war on its own merit. Otherwise, selectively using death counts is cheap BS.”
Dugger that doesn’t make any sense. People who refer to our casualties in Iraq ARE taking the war on its own merits and reaching the conclusion that it hasn’t been worth the cost in US lives.
When you bring in the casualty count of other wars as a relative measure of our current casualties, it’s you who not taking Iraq on its own merits.
If 300,000 American lives was the acceptable cost to defeat the Axis powers, does that it would be acceptable to lose 300,000 Americans in Iraq?
Taken on its own merits, is bringing democracy to Iraq worth a half a million US casualties? Do you seriously believe this?
What is fascinating here is how so many of you who spend time here busting the chops of Dugger and Pedro have not written one word to dkelsmith other than Quaker wanting to see the picture he posted.
Any thoughts from any of you on what smith wrote? (You certainly can’t call him chickenhawk, now can you?)
Dammit it’s not a good thing that fewer (non-indigenous brown) people have died in Iraq than in Iwo Jima. Stop making comparisons like that, you sick assholes.
Well, Marty, then we need to see actual improvement in the on-the-ground situation for that to be a valid criteria for withdrawal. For years now, the left has clamored for change in the way the US has approached this occupation, all the while the situation spiraled down toward a civil war, with the right cheerleading Bush’s denial of the situation. You’ve been wrong. Things haven’t gotten better as we’ve past all the fake goalposts you guys set up, capture of Hussein, elections, constitution. When you guys get something right, you can bring something to the table, until then, why should America listen to you?
Alas, poor dugger, he so wanted to put his skin where his mouth is, but Mommy won’t let him. Your Iraq war has no merit, none whatsoever. Saddam was not worth one life, one dollar unless it be yours. Every time I see someone demagogue for a war, I know the war is strictly for domestic political consumption: Panama, Grenada, Iraq, all farces with read horrors and real deaths. Cowards like dugger and other chest beating hawks don’t understand and never will; their lives and courage are all vicarious, won on the gaming fields of Xbox and Play station.
“We’re at war. People die.”
Which is exactly why we shouldn’t be at war unless we have no other choice. There were a shedload of choices other than invading Iraq. Not invading Iraq comes to mind.
“We’re at war. People die.”
Which is exactly why we shouldn’t be at war unless we have no other choice. There were a shedload of choices other than invading Iraq. Not invading Iraq comes to mind.
And if you think TEH TOURISTS care one bit whether Walrus Boy has his job or not, you’re crazy.
“We are at war. People die. Hate it. But its a fact of life.” Love, Pedro
It’s amazing the flippant attitude regarding war. Because of the points so eloquently spoken above, I wonder what Pedro would suggest as justification for starting a war. Maybe if Iraq had been a fetus sanctuary he would have hoped for a more careful approach.
Dugger’s “people” is a wonderful, faceless other. Death is all fine and dandy when it happens to others.
Four further corrections to Dugger: 1) More folks are dying now in Iraq than under Hussein, especially the latter part of his rein (Hussein’s greatest killing spree was from 1987-1991). 2) Americans are perfectly willing to accept high casualities if they think the cause is right. (FWIW, I think only the first one was worth human life.) 3) Casualities nowadays are lower because of better body armor. A number of folks who would have died in ‘Nam now come back permanently disabled. 4) Three thousand Americans have died. The number of Iraqis? Over 100k.
You liberals think you are the only ones who care about people….its funny how shortsighted your care is.
You didn’t much care when saddam had prisons made to torture children right Mike? And of course, Dugger served in the military, so he doesn’t speak from simply behind a keyboard…how ’bout you mike?
We heard from the one guy here who REALLY knows what is going in Iraq today, Dkel, but I notices the lefties here refuse to even CONTEMPLATE what he is saying, much less address HIS issues….your chickenhawk argument doesn’t work so well there does it.
Dkel: That’s all well and good and your heart is in the right place, but it just isn’t working. For every bad guy you guys round up, another two comes back in their place. Your just being there, regardless of how well you do your duties, helps to incite the very bad situation we’re in. Of course I want to provide hope to the Iraqi people, but a judgement has to be made as to whether working towards that is worth depriving American families of their mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, and daughters. Your mission, thanks to the commanders, is incapable of righting itself. That’s my simple point here. You can buy into the argument of the folks who say we just need a little more time, but the data says otherwise. We cannot even control Baghdad at this point, and there is no stomach – with good reason – to send in more troops. The operation was FUBAR from day one, and the best we can do is to leave. Yes, life will be bad for the Iraqis, but that’s still a preferred outcome than having life be bad for the Iraqis and US.
I’m going to make a $5 bet against anyone who’s interested that Pedro cannot, will not allow himself to make another post on this or any topic that, within three paragraphs, does not degrade into a rant about how all leftists (and here we are, of course, talking about the majority of Americans and indeed people across the globe who support us getting out of Iraq) are stupid, short-sighted, selfish, torture-supporting, pro-dead-soldier, terrorist-appeasing, and somehow wrong about every thing in the history of the world, doubly so when the facts support the “leftist” argument. Any takers? Should we get a running pool going to see how many paragraphs he lasts? Just that I’m noticing from him, hell from everyone on the right that theres no real discussion of “We’re in a bad spot, lets discuss things to try and come up with what we think is the best plan” but a whole lot of “you’re always wrong about everything, and I’m not, so die,” which is, of course, oh so very much the helpful. Please go away pedro.
you lose…..
you should actually read my posts I guess rex. We’re in a bad spot. I don’t abide by the popular liberal idea that we are “creating” terrorists by our very presence. By that logic we should just fold up the very United States of America, cause we are just pissing off the muslims. Hell, Israel REALLY ticks them off…better shut that down too.
I am really fond of Olivers’ “daddy knows best” tone of voice used to speak to an Army office, on the ground in Iraq though. That self-righteous, holier-than-though attitude really comes shining through.
“Yea Dkel, your HEART is in the right place”….thats really….big …of you Ollie …but maybe you just don’t know what you’re talking about? Maybe you spend just a little too much time with superman comic books and Jessica Alba action figures (oooh…bad mental image…) to understand how the big bad world really works.
Oh, and Rex, where do I pick up my $5 clams ,knucklehead?
Don’t forget that Pedro is utterly full of sh*t.
What? You don’t support the war, but then you must be in favor of baby prisons and dalmation fur coats.
Here’s why people aren’t jumping down Dkelsmith’s throat about his position on Iraq.
Sincerity, or at least the impression of it, and a polite tenor to his posts.
Do I agree with him? No. I think that his presence is endangering the very people he hopes to protect (an ironic fact he acknowledges when he mentions that people seen as being sympathetic to the Americans are routinely targeted). We can’t get consistent fresh water or electricity flowing, but you’d better believe we got, what, three HUGE permanent military bases up in no time flat. What message do you think that sends to Iraqis? Remember that it was our bases in Saudi Arabia that were a prime trigger for that guy, what’s his name, Oksana…no that’s the skater…Obama, no, that’s the foot in Hilary Clinton’s ass…Osama, that’s it, the guy nobody hears about until the Fall elections. More importantly, what does it say about our long term intentions? What does our apparent willingness to shove out the door any elected leader who criticizes us? Concerned force for democracy or Imperialist occupation? What about the enormous level of unemployment? What do they think when they see billions thrown away to corrupt officials and contractors while they sit impoverished and idle? Remember when we immediately secured all the oil facilities but let the national museum be looted and burned? Abu Ghraib, Haditha, the levelling of Fallujah? Miltias are infiltrating the police force, gangs are free to kidnap and murder at will. But hey, if you use Dugger math and roll back the clock over 20 years and average all the people who died under Saddam, you’ll see that things are much better now in Iraq. We’ve dug quite a hole and I believe that until we pull out, monitor the situation, and then craft a coherent policy based on reality, things will likely not improve in my life time or before this nation goes bankrupt.
but I notices the lefties here refuse to even CONTEMPLATE what he is saying, much less address HIS issues….
Sez you.
Mind reading again, Peedro? You’re guessing at people’s reactions to what Smith wrote.
Here’s my guess why no one has posted in response: what Smith has to say is entirely uncontroversial and irrefutable. He explains his own opinion and he writes respectfully in regard to Iraqi civilians, his fellow military personnel, and even other posters here.
There’s really nothing to say othere than, “Good post, Smith. Keep ‘em coming.”
And Smith:
If you or your guys need anything we can send, do let us know.
Pedro, at a certain point you should shut it, you just make yourself look bad. Project much? Daddy issues? Mommy issues?
Rex Mundane | Dec 4, 2006 10:07:11 PM
I’m going to make a $5 bet against anyone who’s interested that Pedro cannot, will not allow himself to make another post on this or any topic that, within three paragraphs, does not degrade into a rant about how all leftists (and here we are, of course, talking about the majority of Americans and indeed people across the globe who support us getting out of Iraq) are stupid, short-sighted, selfish, torture-supporting, pro-dead-soldier, terrorist-appeasing, and somehow wrong about every thing in the history of the world, doubly so when the facts support the “leftist” argument. Any takers?
Please go away pedro.”
I’m TOTALLY in, Rex!!
dr pedro | Dec 1, 2006 8:02:15 PM
“I never said you couldn’t have a valid argument about the military unless you served…never.”
dr pedro | Dec 4, 2006 9:37:35 PM
“Dugger served in the military, so he doesn’t speak from simply behind a keyboard…how ’bout you mike?”
Yaaaawwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn
@ Quaker,
You are absolutely right, I didn’t make a post with an intent to make it a lightning rod, there is already debate about the subject. Everyone has an opinion, and to a certain degree there is no “wrong” answer in what everyone is saying. This is a very, very difficult situation and any decision we make from this point on will have repercussions. I, personally, would be happy to fold my hand if I had a good feeling that “retribution” would not be the endgame once we un-ass this place. I can’t go into detail about how I feel about certain things, or what things have changed my thoughts for obvious reasons. Despite the semi-anonymous web presence I keep, I am also bound by MNC-I rules for posting and political statements. If you can’t see the picture through the link I provided, just click my name at http://dkelsmith.blogspot.com and look in November posts. If anyone wants to send anything, don’t send it to me, I have everything I need, but the kids here love when we hand out stuff on patrol. For some reason they have an affinity for #2 pencils. We also supply schools with donated paper as well. They love Chocolate also, which they pronounce (shuck-a-lotta).
[If you would like to send anything, contact Dkelsmith at dkelsmith@gmail.com]
Message received, Smith. I’m talking logistics with Oliver.
“I’m TOTALLY in, Rex!!”
See I cant in good conscience let you do that cause you would have already lost, pedros first 3-paragraph post (“you lose…” ha, because Silent Cal right?) starts with “Librul Logic dictates that the US should dissolve” and he then later claims he’s earned my $5. We can work something out differently though as far as a pool, but if he’s going to keep opening with attacks on ieh librul we’d have to make it number of words instead of paragraphs.
Well, I’m not going over the math again unless someone is serious about it. The numbers clearly show a higher deathr ate per year under Saddam than post Saddam. And the US casualty rate in Iraq is much lower than any other US war.
You idiots choose to argue casualties as a reason against this war. I point out the thoughtlessness of your arguments. And its easy because you don’t debate on content and you cant escape your little leftists apradigms.
I’ll ask again: if casualties are an issue against Iraq policy, what will be the Democratic Presidential candidate cut-off number for surrender? How many? 10? 100? 10,000? And if there is not a cut-off point, why does the left argue casualty numbers in Iraq? We voted to go to war – both parties. People die in wars. Fact of life. This war has seen the lowest casualties of any.
FUCKING PEDUGGER IS STILL ARGUING DEATH RATES?
Dear Dugger:
I DO NOT CARE IF FEWER AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN IRAQ THAN IN THE CIVIL WAR OR WORLD WAR THREE IN THE FILM “THE DAY AFTER” OR WHATEVER
ONE IS TOO MANY GOD DAMN YOU, THAT ANYONE AT ALL HAS DIED OVER THIS BULLSHIT IS WRONG, HOW CAN YOU TREAT DEATH SO GOD DAMNED CASUALLY WHAT DO YOU LIVE IN A BUBBLE OR SOMETHING, HAVE YOU LEFT NO SENSE OF DECENCY?
Yours sincerely,
Common Sense.
(s/w, dictated but not read)
Geez nimrod, are you still crying over the deaths of Uday and Quasay Hussein. I know you miss the torturing SOB’s, but try to get over your grief, I mean I know you think that “ANYONE AT ALL HAS DIED OVER THIS BULLSHIT IS WRONG”…but sometimes, it IS justified.
Yours Sincerely
(Whats left of..) Your Conscience
Sometimes. Almost never. WWII is an example.
Oh, also fuck you. “Crying over Uday and Qusay”, Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
Hey!
Can you people stop hollering at each other long enough to go back upthread and read what Smith said?
Pencils and chocolate!
When he and his guys are on patrol, they can make friends with the kids they come across with pencils and chocolate.
I’m proposing we get together as a group and send his unit a whole mess of pencils and chocolate.
If you support the war, then this is for you. You can chip in to buy something that will make Smith’s patrol a little easier.
If you oppose the was, this is for you too. For just a few bucks, you can reach out to a little kid in Iraq with a message of peace and hope.
If you’re in, post here. We’ll figure out the logistics as we go.
Quaker
So Nimrod, maybe ONE isn’t too many?
I don’t know, you lefties can’t really maintain a consistent argument from minute-to-minute, I am just trying to keep up here…
I don’t have much but I’m in for what I can.
Pedro what are you talking about.
Count me in …
Pedro’s logic:
Drunk driving is GOOD! That’s right. Every year, a few people who die in accidents caused by drunk drivers are evil shitholes who deserve to be dead.
So let’s all rally our support behind drunk drivers. I mean, you don’t want evil shitholes to live, do you?
Working on it…
the capture of saddam and the killing of his spawn by our troops is the equivalent of drunken driving? Not sure I agree with your conclusion ND…
Nimmer, For Chrissakes get a grip, old chap. The quote is “have you no sense of decency”.
And this is a dilemma of your own making. Is it the policy you disagree with in Iraq or is it the casualties. If casualties, are we supposed to pretend history and perspective don’t exist? That mankind should stop thinking because leftist want to suspend logic so they can scream incoherencies at Bush? You ballyhoo casualties as a factor, we evil conservatives put them in perspective. If you are against all csaulaties, in any war fine. Say so and we know you also oppose every Democrat elected this year and this century and your own Labour Party.
BTW, thanks for Churchill, Blair and Maggie Thatcher.
“If casualties, are we supposed to pretend history and perspective don’t exist?”
Um, Dugger, didn’t you just suggest that we should be taking Iraq on it own merits?
Okay, Pedro. I’ll try to go slower.
In my little analogy, the Iraq war is symbolized by drunk driving. I used that example because a lot of people are killed every year by reckless selfish people who drive drunk. (It’s not a perfect analogy, I know, but try to work with me.)
People (such as MADD) argue that drunk driving is bad because it kills a lot of innocent people. (See how that correlates to the Iraq war? A lot of people are needlessly killed before their time.) They are fighting to end drunk driving, because one person killed by a drunk driver is one too many.
By your twisted retard logic, the Iraq war is okay because it allowed us to kill Saddam’s two sons. If we’ve killed 50,000 or 100,000 or 650,000 Iraqis, it’s okay because we killed these two warped fuckers.
So back to my analogy, if there are a couple of evil shitholes killed in drunk driving accidents, then that makes drunk driving okay. No matter how many innocent people are killed, no matter how many lives are ruined, no matter if 3,000 police officers die because of it, those few evil dicks being killed makes it all worth it.
Does that make sense now?
I’m with you Quaker. Everybody STFU for a minute. PENCILS AND CHOCOLATE!!!
Thank you, Marty.
I’ve been talking to a friend in the wholesale office supply business. His “off-the-top-of=the-head” price for plain ol’ #2′s was about 50 cents a dozen. He’s still investigating to see if he can find us a better price.
We can get them in cases of 120 dozen for roughly $60 a case.
When I get a final price, I’ll let everyone know. Then we’ll get in with each other to iron out the details.
Next up: chocolate!
Good work Q!
Good work Q! I know that DHL has been operating in Iraq for quite a while, but perhaps dkel can give us some info on how to get stuff to him. (Maybe in his blog…)
Both, don’t pull a muscle patting yourself on the back there champ, and you’re welcome to Thatcher.
And the quote is “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
I would like for a supporter of this war to explain for me how this is EVER going to end. What is our strategy for getting the Iraqis to stop being pissed at us, other than leaving them the hell alone?
Quaker,
I’ll gladly help anyway I can. Sign me up.
Nimmer,
I know. That showboating old Foagie Joseph Welch against the blustering idiot McCarthy. And I love Maggie Thatcher – I’ll take her. Can I also have The Mousetrap at St Martins. Upper and Lower Slaughter, and Cornwall.
No you bloody well can’t have Cornwall, that’s where I live.
We should get a couple of gross of pencil sharpeners too…..
“No you bloody well can’t have Cornwall, that’s where I live.”
Congratulations. But I guess I get the Slaughters.
Bloody American emmets.
Quick, Google enmets.