Pass The Ammo

Concerning torture: We can change what we do, but not always what the other side does. Guantanamo Bay is a national disgrace, simple as that. It does not have a critical national security function that could not be fulfilled otherwise and makes America look like they are no better than the terrorists. Shame on Donald Rumsfeld, that slimeball Gonzalez, and anyone else who condones the practices at Gitmo. I have yet to hear an explanation of how holding terror “suspects” for 4 years without trial under inhumane conditions is helping us fight terror. At this point it is obvious that the prisoners who have not gone insane or committed suicide either:

1) Are not terrorists and do not have useful information or crimes for which they can be charged
2) Assuming they are terrorists, are never going to give us the information we need.

Put them on trial and execute them, or release them, it’s your choice, but the current situation should not be acceptable to anyone who lives in a country that claims the moral high ground in this conflict.

The reason the MSM is outraged by Guantanamo but not by the killing/torture of Americans by terrorists is that THEY AND THE PUBLIC EXPECT BETTER OF THE U.S. For the terrorists, brutality is business as usual, while the brutality at GuantanamoAbu Ghraib is unusual for us.

US is evil = news
Terrorists are evil = not news

And I for one would like it to remain that way. The day American atrocities cease to be big news is the day I leave this country and don’t come back.

I’m sorry Chad, this is one of your worst entries ever.

It’s titled “Where’s the outrage?” and then you pull out a laundry list of Straw Men about “the left”—first that they are “blaming America” (they might blame the administration, but that’s not nearly the same thing), then that we want the NYT to “be in charge of this war” (WTF are you talking about?), but mostly that there is not sufficient “outrage” in the “MSM” and “the left” about these soldier’s deaths.

You’re pissed that instead of being angry at the people that did this, that the liberals are instead “blaming America” or blaming Bush, not blaming the people who committed this horrible atrocity.

But Chad—that’s EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST DID. Except for a short blurb at the beginning, where’s your outrage? The lion’s share of your anger is directed at Americans, not at the terrorists. Don’t you understand that if assigning partial responsibility for this to anyone besides the terrorists who did it is “blaming America,” then YOU’RE blaming America too? There is absolutely no difference at all.

Of course, the “MSM” doesn’t dictate our foreign policy. Neither do “liberal morons” or “The Left.” None of those people are making any decisions in this war. But that’s absolutely beside the point.

Where is your outrage Chad? You’ve used this horrible situation for a partisan attack every bit as much as any of the “extreme left” has. Take a step back and look at what you’ve done.

Maybe you listened to Limbaugh today, because he did the exact same thing. His outrage and indignation was not directed at the insurgents who tortured and killed the American soldiers. No. His hatred and contempt were directed at the “crazed liberals, hate-America” crowd, and at the “drive-by liberal media.” He said that he went to the “wacko lefty” sites and that “they’re happy these two soldiers got tortured!”

Of course, that’s a total lie. Nobody is saying that, on the right or the left. Maybe some extremists, like the WWP (Maoists) on the left or the Westboro Baptist Church on the right, but they certainly are not representative of either side. The MSM hasn’t blamed America or written anything traitorous about what happened—or do you have some problem with this report?

All I have seen in the lefty blogs I read—certainly more of them than you do—is disgust and sadness at what has happened. Most of the major left blogs—Kos, Atrios, etc—haven’t even posted anything about it as I write this.

Why should they? What is there to say? Other than the fact that these men died in a particularly gruesome way, why is this a story that’s more important than Spc. Jeremiah S. Santos, 21, of Minot, ND who died this week when an IED went off next to his vehicle? Or Spc. Brent W. Koch, 22, of Morton, MN who also died from an IED? Or Cpl. Michael A. Estrella, 20, of Hemet, CA who was shot this week? Or the three guys that were killed in Afghanistan this week?

And hell, Chad, beheaded bodies turn up in Iraq every single day. Dozens. Some have been tortured with drills. There were suicide attacks, bombings, and shootings today. Both innocent Iraqis and US soldiers died today, and die every day. But when that plain fact is reported, you people get pissed at that, you call it traitorous or biased or a whole slew of other nonsense, and blame them for reporting what any person in Iraq can see with their own damn eyes—the place is a total hellhole in the midst of an honest-to-god civil war and going downhill fast.

Make up your mind—are we supposed to talk about soldiers dying or aren’t we? You can’t have it both ways. Do you want the truth, or do you want some candycoated cakewalk fantasy story that makes you feel better for supporting a total clusterf–k of unimaginable magnitude?

The Department of Veterans Affairs has nearly 20,000 new cases of post-combat stress disorder this year, more than six times the number of cases that officials had expected. Where’s your outrage?

It’s nowhere. You don’t post about the people who die every day, about the soldiers having their legs blown off. You don’t want to hear about it.

No, your outrage is mostly reserved for Americans.

My heart goes out for our service men and women and the family that is left behind. It is a sad state - when you hear on the news about a capture…and you know already that they have been brutally killed. No humanity-No compassion. There is no Honor in their methods. We send our own servicemen to trial for “murder” yet they witness their “buds” being blown to bits by bombs strapped to young kids and women. I can not imagine the horror our troops face each day. Then to have to be concerned about being tried on murder charges.

OK, so let me get this straight—you’re under no obligation to spend more than 20% of your post raging against the actual perpetrators of this atrocity because we’re all supposed to already know how much you hate them, but everyone else is supposed to devote their entire commentary to nothing but rage and insults at the terrorists? And if they do anything less than that, then they are “not pissed”?

That’s what I’m talking about, it’s a total double standard. And anyway, who are these people you’re talking about who are not pissed at the terrorists? I haven’t seen any. Did you even read any lefty blogs about this or are you just assuming that we’re all dancing and having parties?

I blame the troops lack of morale, and inability to carry out a war in the manner that it should, on the MSM.

Can you explain to me precisely how the MSM has jacksh-t to do with how this war is prosecuted?

You keep talking about the NYT, but let’s be honest here Chad—do even read the New York Times? Seriously? If you did, you’d know that the NYT, during the run-up to war, supported the invasion. You’d also know that it played a large part in drumming up support for the war by publishing a series of articles by Judith Miller about all the supposed WMD we were going to find.

The MSM was largely unquestioning during the run-up to this invasion, a fact that us on the left were angry about, because the holes in the official story were so obvious and nobody in the MSM was questioning it. And as it turns out, we were right.

The day after the military base in Mosul was bombed in 2004, the NYT’s front page story was: Fighting On Is the Only Option, Americans Say. What about that is not sufficiently supportive in your eyes? What do you want them to say?

It is not the job of the media to publish angry stories screaming at the terrorists for this. They are supposed to print stories like the two that are linked in the comments—they are supposed to report on what happened, and what people are saying about it. If you want angry rants, you’ll have to look in the op-ed pages or blogs.

You blame the troops “lack of morale” on the media? You make it sound like our soldiers are pansies who burst into tears and start blubbering “let’s just give up” as they anxiously read the Washington Post every morning. I mean, that’s kind of insulting—how sensitive do you think they are?

You don’t think their lack of morale might have something to do with the fact that they are being attacked and bombed every day by people who were supposed to shower them with candy and flowers? Or that they’ve been back and forth on tour after tour, away from their families, humping 70lbs of gear around in 120° heat waiting to be shot at as they act like policemen in an occupation with no clearcut objective or exist strategy while their friends get blown to pieces around them?

No, none of those things effect their morale at all. It’s the media.

Why the hell aren’t they marching in Washington on account of the slaughterings that the terrorists pull.

Dude, what are you talking about? Why the hell would anyone march on Washington about something some other people did? That doesn’t even make any sense at all. You’re not thinking straight.

And like I said, why such outrage against this particular story? American soldiers die every single day in Iraq. Every day. But you don’t even want us to mention that. You don’t want to talk about soldiers dying in Iraq unless you can use it as a way to scream at liberals for some crap they didn’t even do.

CS,
Fighting with our gloves on is what makes America the good guys in this conflict (and I thoroughly believe they are). Our rules do not permit torture, indiscriminate killing, and other senseless brutality. If we need to stoop to the terrorists level to win this war, then I hope we lose. My respect for all of our armed forces, in Iraq and elsewhere, is based entirely on the assumption that they do not behave like animals - that they do not kill unnecessarily, that they do not illegally imprison their enemies (or people who they suspect to be their enemies), that they do not torture and kill prisoners. And if you do not have the same expectations of our forces - and are not similarly outraged when US troops fail to meet those sort of standards, then we clearly have a very different idea of what having the moral high ground means.

Our troops should absolutely be taken to task every time they break the rules - not as a warning to the others, but because they make all the good soldiers out there look bad. The terrorists have no such standards to meet, and condone brutality, which is why no one is all that surprised when they do something vicious like this. That’s “where the outrage” is.

Chad,
“they go to war EXPECTING bullets and bombs”

They also go to war expecting to have tangible objectives and some sort of idea when the war might potentially stop. When the war started, did your brother expect to playing “Baghdad street cop” four years on?

And if anything, the left has been far too supportive of the war for my tastes:
http://passtheammo.com/what-the-dems-said-about-wmds/

I think the people who are really mad at this point about Iraq are the ones who never supported the war (there were plenty of them) and feel betrayed by the pathetic democratic party. I can certainly sympathize. (and before you start: the reason i never supported the Iraq war was because
1) I was patriotic and thought that the war would be bad for america and its interests, something which I still think.
2) If you were looking for ruthless and dangerous dictators to overthrow (something I support) in 2002, then Kim Jung Il had to be at the top of your list.)

This thread is so sweet. I don’t have much time right now, but I will chime in soon to piss off Guav… for some good laughs of course. I know, I know.. my time is limited between the whole full time and part time job, remodeling my house to sell, and the wife and kids. But I will be back soon. Let not your hearts be troubled.

Opps.. I forgot to spell it out. Taking the gloves off is getting politics out of war. Lets give the job over to our Military and let them do what they do best, win this war!

Yes, my day job as a graphic designer enables me to do things like browse the internet and make comments in between projects (when my workload allows), a luxury I’m aware that not everyone has. Sometimes I can do it, sometimes I can’t. Slow week

I guess, how I really feel about this war… is that it should be run by the military. who cares about attrocities, undies-on-the-head, etc … Either that, or pull out and drop a hydrogen bomb or two.

Chad, if this was a war, I’d agree with you. But is not—this is not WWII, even though people love to make absurd comparison, and it’s not even Vietnam.

We are not at war in Iraq. We never declared war, we have supposedly turned over control to a sovereign, elected Iraqi government. We are now occupiers, and our troops are acting as little more than police.

We are not fighting a country. We are not fighting an army. We are fighting a tactic—terrorism. This is a not a zero-sum game where all we have to do is “kill all the terrorists”—that is absolutely impossible. Impossible. It will never happen. Ever.

And the longer we stay there, and the more collateral damage we cause, the more terrorism we are fostering. This is not to say that if we left, terrorism would no longer exist—of course it would. It always will. There will always be those who hate us, sometimes for things we have done, often for things we have not. And we will always have to infiltrate and liquidate those terrorist cells.

But we cannot ignore the fact that we can conduct ourselves in ways that decrease terrorism, or we can conduct ourselves in ways that increase it. Collateral damage increases hatred and terrorism.

In regards to dropping hydrogen bombs or nuking the country, you can’t flip-flop back and forth between that and saying that we are there to liberate the Iraqis from a horrible dictator. Are we there to help the Iraqis or to turn them into glass hahahah. I mean, I wouldn’t fault you for either stance, but they’re not really compatible, you know?

As far as the links you gave me, what I see is three blogs ranting and raving about the same stuff you did—Where is the outrage? Why are Human Rights groups not condemning the terrorists? I’ve already addressed the first thing, how our media (no media, for that matter) reports on the buildings that didn’t burn down today, they report on the one that did.

As far as the human rights organizations go, which you railed against in your entry and which Celestial Junk sarcastically tells us won’t be condemning the murder of these two men … well, did you guys even bother to see what HR groups had to say about it? No, you didn’t. Because if you had, you’d see that Human Rights Watch posted Iraq: Insurgents Commit War Crimes:

Yesterday’s recovery of the bodies of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, reportedly with signs of torture, highlights the serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by insurgent groups in Iraq.

All combatants in Iraq are subject to attack. But captured combatants must be treated humanely. Torture and other cruel treatment, as well as summarily executing a captured combatant, are war crimes.

They then went on to link to an extensive report they issued last year about the war crimes these insurgents and terrorists commit every day A Face and a Name: Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq.

Likewise, Amnesty International announced:

“Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured.

A.I. condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals.

A.I. again calls on armed groups in Iraq to immediately cease all executions, torture or ill-treatment of people. Armed groups, like other parties to the conflict in Iraq, are required to comply strictly with international law and remain accountable for their actions.”

They then ALSO went on to link to a report they had released last year about the war crimes these insurgents and terrorists commit every day: Iraq, In Cold Blood: Abuses by Armed Groups.

It was a total Straw Man argument from the beginning.

As far as human rights groups being “America-haters,” it’s simply not true. The overwhelming bulk of reports issued by these groups have absolutely nothing to do with America at all, they mostly have to do with the Third World countries, dictators and despots that normally are condemned for these sorts of things. But no, the United States is not exempt from criticism, nor should it be.

Only by ignoring violations by Americans would they be biased.

Of course there’s a difference in how they addressed it, the situations are completely different. First of all there’s nobody specifically to criticize in the torture and murder of these young soldiers.

It wasn’t about underwear or naked piles of Brokeback Mohammads, there was actual torture going on. “Torture” doesn’t mean skinning people alive, most torture is non-lethal; just horribly painful. But people were raped, beaten, and some were beaten to death. Maybe you don’t think being forcibly sodomized with a chemical lightstick is torture, but that’s because one isn’t being rammed up yer bum right now.

Keep in mind that most of the thousands of prisoners—including women and teen-agers—were just civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. There was a small number of suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency, but most people there were common criminals or had traffic violations and crap like that.

There was also more outrage—at least from me, I can tell you—for a few reasons:

1. Because I expect terrorists to behead people. What is the point of publicly condemning terrorists for being … er … terrorists? But when our stated purpose in Iraq is to spread democracy, free the Iraqi people, and “close the torture rooms”, then it seems pretty ridiculous to do these kinds of things.

2. Because the actions in Abu Ghraib endangered Americans. Rage over what was being done in Abu Ghraib resulted in stirring up more hatred towards coalition troops that I’m sure ended up getting some killed—it worked against everything we’re trying to do there now. The people who should be most pissed off at Abu Ghraib are the troops stationed in Iraq. And don’t say that’s why “the media” shouldn’t have reported it, because the Iraqis don’t read the US media to find out what is going on right in front of them—they already knew what was going on there.

3. As you said, soldiers go war EXPECTING bullets and bombs, they are well aware that they might be killed. They are combatants. Being imprisoned and raped or beaten to death for stealing a TV is the kind of stuff that went on under Saddam, remember?

It damaged our credibility, damaged our image, and set back both the war effort in Iraq and the fight against terrorism, which is much more than a military battle. I was not more pissed because I hate America, I was more pissed because I love America.

Sorry Simon, I tend to be vague.

I for one am outraged by the way the liberal-slanted MSM have handled this. Their template holds that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Haditha are unforgivable atrocities and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. Their anger knows no bounds, even while our American justice system is at work investigating any claims of wrongdoing. The tepid media reaction to the barbaric slaughter of Menchaca and Tucker is more like, “They were members of Bush’s occupying army, and don’t you think they kinda deserved it? There was even an Islamic court that said so.”

The prisoners at Gitmo don’t just get regular meals every day; they get ETHNIC meals in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. We supply them with Korans and free dental care. Do you think Menchaca and Tucker were offered Bibles, some apple pie, and a trip to the dentist before they were tortured and hacked to pieces? Or do you think they were just tortured and hacked to pieces?

The coverage is right in line with all the liberal assumptions: George Bush is the real terrorist, America is the biggest threat to world peace, this is an illegal war, the insurgents are freedom fighters protecting their homeland, the U.S. military is evil. I know exactly how liberals think.

“And Bush a moron, not a terrorist.”

How Terrific!!!! We have a veritable genius in our midst!!! Simon, you seem to have all the answers, what do you propose the moron Bush should do differently? In fact, perhaps YOU should be in command of US forces in Iraq, I’m sure YOU know exactly what to do to establish a democratic nation and get out.

That one plays your way too, big boy.

Idle Hour, I want to see examples of the “angry” reporting by the MSM on Abu Ghraib, you know “anger knows no bounds” type. Show me exactly what you’re talking about, because I don’t recall ANGRY reporting about anything.

You’re probably reading editorials, which in any newspaper are simply the opinion of one person, not to be confused with REPORTING. And then you’re mixing blogs (Kos & DU) into the whole equation, and referring to it all as MSM coverage.

It’s not, you’re just making crap up. Show us what you’re talking about as far as MSM coverage goes. Show me the OUTRAGE (rather than the reporting the information that is coming in on a breaking story).

And I completely reject your absurd claim that terrorists being … uhm, terrorists … is some breaking news story worthy of a month’s worth of coverage. Like I said, people turn up beheaded in Iraq every single day now, sometimes dozens. And US soldiers are killed every day in Iraq. What is it about this particular case that you feel merits day after day of coverage, and what the hell can they write about it? If there’s no new information, there’s nothing new to write.

You guys don’t want the MSM to be reporters, you want the newspapers to be full of angry op-ed’s of people screaming about how angry they are at terrorists. Ridiculous. That’s what blogs are for.

The prisoners at Gitmo don’t just get regular meals every day; they get ETHNIC meals in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. We supply them with Korans and free dental care. Do you think Menchaca and Tucker were offered Bibles, some apple pie, and a trip to the dentist before they were tortured and hacked to pieces? Or do you think they were just tortured and hacked to pieces?

Of COURSE our prisoners get treated better than the prisoners taken by TERRORISTS. Why do you keep comparing us to terrorists? What is your point?

I doubt that every one of the New York Times’s 32 consecutive front page stories offered details so fresh that it should be front page news again and again, day after day, for over a month.

You “doubt” that because you obviously never read them. There was new information coming out every day immediately after it initially broke.

In fact I do have a plan for Iraq. It’s called Victory, and it won’t be achieved by cut-and-run Democrats.

That’s not a plan, that’s a NAME of a plan. Original though: VICTORY. Has a nice ring to it.

However, the president has no plan. He wants to stay in Iraq forever. He’s like an owner of a business that’s slowly going out of business: He doesn’t know how to save the situation so he won’t get more money or resources to fix the business, and he won’t just liquidate and save what he can because then he’d have to come to grips with the fact that he’s failed—so his policy is denial and slow failure. Bush’s “plan” is to keep us bogged down there until he can pass the problem onto the next administration.

You attack Democrats for wanting to establish a timetable to start a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, meanwhile the top US general in Iraq has just created a detailed timetable for partially withdrawing US troops from Iraq, and the president himself has seemingly signed off on it.

And by the way, the Iraqi government is proposing a timetable for our withdrawl. You know, the “sovereign, elected” democratic government of Iraq? They want us to start leaving.

Remember when I made the observation that Guav enjoy’s to Bush bash, which sent Guav into a crazy tirade on how I never stay to the point of the post, yada, yada, yada (yawn).

At risk of putting ole Guavy Boy into another crazy tizzy-fit, I have noticed that he sure enjoys defending, tooth and nail, the Drive-By Media. He either 1)Knows and is aware of the incredible bias and chooses to ignore and defend these numbskulls or 2) he is a numbskull. I am not saying he is either, that is for you all to decide. I wouldn’t want to come off as an insensitive, cold-hearted, evil conservative. Things to make ya go ‘hhhmmmmm.”

Someone had to be angry about Abu Ghraib to run 32 consecutive front page stories about it in the New York Times. How else to account for that kind of coverage? Of course there was new information coming out every day. My doubt is whether the new information was startling enough to merit printing on the front page again, and again, and again. Why couldn’t it go on page 2 or 3 or page 16? Some angry liberal with an agenda was making a value judgment.

I don’t actually expect a month of front page stories about Menchaca and Tucker. I expect there to be greater outrage over that than there was over Abu Ghraib, because what happened was far, far worse, and my point is that the liberal media has now set the outrage bar so high with Abu Ghraib that it would now take a month of front page stories.

I was in the periodical publishing business for nine years. I know the difference between an editorial column and a news story. And I know that liberal blogs and message boards are not the same thing as the mainstream media (MSM). I never said they were. I was however pointing out that they’re all working from the same set of liberal assumptions. Our local paper recently ran a headline that said, “America bigger threat to world peace than Iran?” That kind of loaded writing and the thinking behind it has an umbilical connection to the “George Bush is the real terrorist” rants on the liberal web sites, which I mentioned because apparently Simon was not aware that there are liberals using the word “terrorist” to describe President Bush. John Kaminski wrote a piece called “The Real Terrorist is George W. Bush,” for example.

My point about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is this: liberals accuse the U.S. of torture and inhuman conditions and rights violations. They get bent out of shape when they hear that a Koran was flushed down a toilet. Truth is we’re providing these prisoners with ethnic meals, medical and dental care, and yes Korans, all at tax payer expense. Then the terrorists capture American soldiers and show you folks what real torture and human rights violations are, and the best you can come up with is “Well, what do you expect, they’re terrorists”? I don’t understand how liberals have so much energy and vitriol and ink at the ready to condemn America, yet shrug off real torture and human rights violations.

As for staying in Iraq forever: you do know that we still have American troops in Germany and South Korea, don’t you? Better get used to it.

I will find a reference. It wasn’t about Abu but the recent “murder”. A Senator came out and was way laying the troops, no evidence to support his lashing out, as of yet.

So are the conservatives. That’s what being a politician is about - trying to get people to agree with you. And it’s not as if the Bush admin has no control over the MSM. When Bush makes a speech (rarely) or answers questions (even rarer), I certainly listen, and it is broadcast on every network TV station and written about in all the newspapers.

Do I even have to explain what I mean about politics being in the way? The President has the media’s attention maybe because he is the President. He doesn’t spew conservative dogma at every speach. I’ll quote John Snow,”He (the President) understands that. If somebody had taken a poll in the Battle of the Bulge, I dare say people would have said, ‘Wow, my goodness, what are we doing here?’ But you cannot conduct a war based on polls.”

Iraq was the only nation that was a substantial threat to stability in that region. I wouldn’t have invaded Iraq but I’m not the leader of the greatest nation on earth either. Iran and North Korea are a bit more dangerous in my oppinion - Iran may be next on the invasion list if they keep touting nuclear war with Israel. China by far is the greatest threat to our country. Who wants to go to war with a country of nearly 2 billion people? Democrats and Republicans will agree on that one.
Great leaders do make mistakes and admit when they are wrong but not at the expense of soldier morale. Or at the expense of altering the course in a major way when we are so close to being finished with major objectives. Iraq has a freely elected government now. What is done, is done. We hold politicians accountable by not voting for them. Bad leaders need NO votes. This is President Bush’s second time around. He has stayed the course, that is admirable.

Guav,
Thanks for pointing out the battle of the bulge. I to think that Iraq and WW2 have nothing in common. My point was polls. Who cares what polls say. They can be and have been slanted on many occasions.

I may be lost here but what are thinking? Afganistan was the first place we hit and cleaned up. Saudi Arabia was pumping out WMD’s nor have they, that I know of, comitted crimes against their own people. They have not threatened any nation - that I remember reading or hearing about. BTW did you not know we conquered Iraq in 3 weeks? We are in a war on Terror, a war that has never been fought and may very well be WW3. The US acted in order to prevent another 9/11. We are building a nation now. We have liberated a people and have made them free as in, choose your own destiny. I think our time there is ending.

Do even know what it is like being a leader? Sometimes (gasp) you get information that isn’t public knowledge. It is a leaders responsibility to act beyond personal feels or public oppinion and do what they feel is right.

When you are in a war you do not publically admit to mistakes especially when the mistakes are mostly oppinion. Don’t worry tho Guav, all our oppinions will not matter if something doesn’t change the fundamentals of our nation. Liberal nor conservative will just be a philosphy of the poor. In a few years we could be a 3rd world nation, monetarily. China, is the US’s greatest enemy. All this other stuff is only bumps in the road.
Guav the passion of your writing is refreshing even tho I do disagree with some or most of what you say. I heard a liberal say this weekend that our soldiers were not heros that someone who goes into a burning building was a hero but our soldiers wasn’t. It was upsetting, I held my peace. I think that statement represents an unspoken belief that most liberals feel.

CS:

Afganistan was the first place we hit and cleaned up.

Iraq was a distraction, we never finished the job. Large parts of Afghanistan are still under Taliban control. The insurgency there is escalating. The only place that’s truly secured if Kabul, the capitol, and President Karzai is essentially unable to leave the capitol, and has no control over most of the country. Two coalition soldiers were killed during combat in Afghanistan today, and a suicide bomber rammed his car into a convoy of coalition troops. It’s hardly “cleaned up” at all.

Saudi Arabia was pumping out WMD’s…

No, they pump out suicide bombers and hijackers. Which is, of course, the real threat to us, not WMD.

…nor have they, that I know of, comitted crimes against their own people.

Unless you consider torturing prisoners, beheading 100 people a year for things like robbery or “sorcery,” chopping people’s hand or feet of for “drunkeness,” and restricting religious and political freedom, executing homosexuals, and denying Saudi women freedom to education, employment, and the justice system. I mean, if we’re not including those things, then yeah, they don’t commit crimes against their own people.

BTW did you not know we conquered Iraq in 3 weeks?

I know we officially declared that, but Iraq does not look very conquered, does it? The entire military just melted away to fight us later. If you consider that conquering, then yeah, we sure did. But if we had actually conquered Iraq, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in today.

We are in a war on Terror, a war that has never been fought and may very well be WW3.

The “War On Terror” is a war only in the sense of the War On Drugs or the War On Poverty. It’s a euphemism, it’s not an actual war in any conventional sense, and it’s solution does not lie in military power.

The US acted in order to prevent another 9/11.

No, we did not. If anything, we’ve made another 9/11 more likely, not less likely. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and our invasion and occupation has not done a single solitary thing to prevent another such attack. It has been a waste of resources, weapons, credibility, money and lives. A huge strategic blunder for which I fear we will not know the repercussions of for many, many years.

I heard a liberal say this weekend that our soldiers were not heros that someone who goes into a burning building was a hero but our soldiers wasn’t. I think that statement represents an unspoken belief that most liberals feel.

I do not think that soldiers are inherently heroes any more than I think firefighters are inherently heroes. Heroism doesn’t come with your job description, it comes with your actions. I would be suspicious of anyone who automatically denied soldiers as being heroes as much as I’d be suspicious of anyone who automatically conferred hero status upon soldiers.

1) The killings/captures of each of those people was reported on (to a lesser/greater extent depending on their importance) at the time of its occurence. It is no longer news that Saddam Hussein was captured, or that Uday was killed. But at the time, nobody tried to hide it.

2) The building of schools and other infrastructure has occured, but extremely slowly, with major logistical problems and at much greater cost than it should have (courtesy Halliburton) And i think we all know how shaky Iraqi democracy. Also in terms of reporting - the MSM changes with the times. I recall being dismayed at CNN’s glorification of the initial invasion of Iraq. They had all sorts of “high-tech” battlefield diagrams, and the excitement of their reporters and correspondents about the ultra-cool laser light show being put on by the US armed forces was obvious. That is because they were feeding on the public sentiment of the time. Now the public wants to know why there are still 100,000+ troops in Iraq, and why they are still being killed daily, and why the insurgency is growing, and basically what went wrong. So that’s what the MSM tells them.

CS:

I ment, WASN’T pumping out WMD’s hence the NOR.

I understood that was a spelling error, and knew exactly what you were saying, which is why I started with “no”, as in “No [they were not pumping out WMD, but] they pump out suicide bombers and hijackers. Which is, of course, the real threat to us, not WMD.” I’m totally with you.

But you’re still making pre-war arguments in a post-war world. You’re still saying things about Saddam pumping out WMD. But … uhm … he wasn’t. My point is that, even if he had been, my city was not attacked with WMD on 9/11. It was attacked by Saudi Arabians with boxcutters.

The destroyer was killing his own kind much like Hitler.

Please stop with the WWII analogies. The attempt to put Saddam’s Iraq on par with Nazi Germany is ludicrous. Hitler’s Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the world when it began its conquests in the late 30s. Iraq was a poor Third World country that was under the strictest military and economic embargo in world history for more than a dozen years after having much of its civilian and military infrastructure destroyed in the heaviest bombing in world history. Virtually all that remained of its offensive military capability was dismantled under the strictest unilateral disarmament initiative ever.

Back in the 80s, when Iraq really WAS a major regional power and had advanced programs in weapons of mass destruction—back when this “killing his own people” was actually occurring—we did not consider Iraq a threat at all; in fact, we provided extensive military, economic and technological support to Saddam’s regime. But still, Iraq spent the entire 80s failing to conquer Iran despite US support. So at the height of Iraq’s power he couldn’t successfully take over Iran, then we kicked him out of Kuwait and crushed his whole country—but you want me to believe that Saddam in 2003 was comparable to Hitler?

WMD’s WMD’s WMD’s. I’d say that and a mad man as the leader of Iraq would make us worry about them backing another 9/11.

THERE WERE NO WMDS. And why would you worry about him backing another 9/11 when he didn’t back the first one? He had frickin nothing to do with it. And WMD had nothing to do with 9/11 either. I LIVE IN NYC. I was there on 9/11. If you think I don’t understand the danger of another attack, you’re insane. But the real threat here is low-tech. I’m much more worried about a damn pipe bomb on a rush hour subway train than I am about some ridiculous nonsense about remote-controlled drone planes carrying Anthrax. It’s not gonna happen like that. It’s gonna be bombs and boxcutters.

So you resort to talking down to me? Or am I just overly sensitive?

I wasn’t talking down to you. I felt that you were presenting the War On Terror as if it was an actual war—you called it “WWIII”—and I disagree completely.

A war on terror is a diferent brand of war that we have never engaged in before.

But other countries have been engaging in this type of war for decades. This is not a new type of war. Terrorism is age-old.

We took the fight to 2 countries and so far we haven’t had another 9/11.

Yeah, we haven’t had another 9/11, but we will. It was eight years in between the first attempt to take down the WTC and 9/11, remember?

Have you ever stopped to consider that they are actually concentrating on their on home front and not my city or yours? We took it to them.

No, we took it to IRAQ, which did not attack us (like invading Australia after Pearl Harbor). You’re using the “flypaper theory.” Of course, the problem with the “flypaper theory” is that we’re the ones stuck in the flypaper. In addition to which, the flypaper theory rests on the totally irrational and unsupportable foundation that there is a fixed number of terrorists in the world, and all you have to do is lure them all to Iraq and kill them, and then terrorism is defeated.

“Terrorism” isn’t a country populated by “terrorists,” and it’s not a zero-sum game—it’s a strategy. And far from Iraq being a facility for the destruction of terrorists, according to the CIA, it’s a facility for the creation of terrorists. And there are more worldwide terror attacks now than in any other time in our history—they have at least tripled since 2003.

An Israeli think tank analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners caught entering Iraq to fight the United States and found that the vast majority of them are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war.

Interrogations of nearly hundreds of Saudis captured trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding calls to “drive infidels out of Arab land.” An analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior al Qaeda operatives, “the vast majority of non-Iraqi Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.”

Honestly think about what that means for a moment. This isn’t flypaper; it’s more like flinging dog crap all over the place: the flies will come, enjoy themselves, breed, we’ll kill a few, and the rest will fly off, ready to strike at some other time.

Furthermore, you need to address the morally indefensible tactic of creating terrorist “flypaper̶