If we pull out that is a "military solution." The solution being we left and hence given the ground to whoever wants it. In this case the loonies trying to blow everything up.

Look what happens when the police leave an area of any city you've ever been to. The crazies move in and take over.

Until there is a force that can hold that ground that is currently being held by our forces any move our military makes away from the area will give that ground to the enemy.

Another example would be how France has been slowly but surely giving up ground to the radicals in their lands. They even have warnings posted on their tourist website of what areas to avoid for crying out loud! O.O!

This is so completely hypocritical.
"In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up."

So, by the same logic, we should end social programs in America, because we're telling people that no how big a mess they make, the American government will be there to clean it up.

"There is no military solution to this war."-Senator Barak Hussein Obama

He's just depressed because his namesake's about to be hanged in Iraq. It's clouding his thinking.

Obama, like so many in his party, is quite wrong. There is a military solution to the Iraq War, its known as 'defeating the enemy' and the left just isnt comfortable with that idea.

-Sadr? He should be blown to bits in his own home in a mysterious explosion. We've had it with your death-squads.

-Maliki? Remind him that heart attacks are a leading cause of death in humans and that he might have one some dark night. Start acting like an elected president.

-Iran? Send them a few dozen 'Cease and Desist' warnings in the form of random anonymous cruise missiles. You blow up a Humvee, we destroy an entire army base.

-Syria? They get CC'ed on what gets delivered to Iran. You ankle-biters need to learn that cozying up to Iran isnt good for your long term health.

The military solution involves shedding our soldiers of the shackles that limp-wristed politicians put on them. Let the soldiers do their jobs the way they know how, not the way the pols think it should happen.

Force the various constituents to the table with a message: "you play nice and work it out or you disappear and we give the job to the next guy in line."

Force the various constituents to the table with a message: "you play nice and work it out or you disappear and we give the job to the next guy in line."

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee

Agreed. Good thinking.

"And all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace."-Senator Barak Hussein Obama

And the last 1400 years of religious fighting between the Sunnis and the Shia haven't led to a lasting peace, either. Rather than continue that stupidity, President Bush has decided to introduce something new-marginalize Islam and establish freedom and democracy. We can make it work. Sunnis and Shias are full-fledged, human beings, afterall. Everyone wants to be free.

Morris,

Excellent point - hadn't thought of it before...and the fact that our lefties will argue it shows that the real problem here is that they just don't want to bother with the real world.

President Bush has decided to introduce something new-marginalize Islam and establish freedom and democracy. We can make it work. Sunnis and Shias are full-fledged, human beings, afterall. Everyone wants to be free.

Freedom1, you are a damn fool! Everyone knows that spreading freedom and democracy is a job best reserved for democrats.

Dems are the only party capable of bringing peace to troubled lands; I know this is true because the liberals have expressed their utmost concern for the Iraqi people. They really REALLY care! Why just last week Nancy Pelosi looked at a world map and exclaimed, "So THATS where Iraq is...huh."

LOL Bongos. Really put a warning lable on your posts, I could have spit my soda all over the work screen. :)

I agree with Mark about Morris's (is that grammaticaly corect?)post. Good point.

Obama, like so many in his party, is quite wrong. There is a military solution to the Iraq War, its known as 'defeating the enemy' and the left just isnt comfortable with that idea.

-Sadr? He should be blown to bits in his own home in a mysterious explosion. We've had it with your death-squads.

-Maliki? Remind him that heart attacks are a leading cause of death in humans and that he might have one some dark night. Start acting like an elected president.

-Iran? Send them a few dozen 'Cease and Desist' warnings in the form of random anonymous cruise missiles. You blow up a Humvee, we destroy an entire army base.

-Syria? They get CC'ed on what gets delivered to Iran. You ankle-biters need to learn that cozying up to Iran isnt good for your long term health.

The military solution involves shedding our soldiers of the shackles that limp-wristed politicians put on them. Let the soldiers do their jobs the way they know how, not the way the pols think it should happen.

Force the various constituents to the table with a message: "you play nice and work it out or you disappear and we give the job to the next guy in line."

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now THAT is an excellent plan!!!!

Senator Big Ears is campaigning for the DemoCRAP nomination, appealing to his base with this "phased redeployment" mumbo-jumbo. He's a regular mumbo-jumbo Dumbo.

But hey, land deal or no land deal, "Ears" is right behind Hitlery in the polls...

I do find it funny how you guys seek to use Obama's middle name to tie him to the terrorists... never mind that he actually converted to Christianity...

Anyways... he is pretty much wrong on all accounts on the Iraq war except for one... that our troop deployment can't be open ended.

As long as the Iraqi government knows that we will fighting their fight indefinitely, it has the incentive to just let us do the fighting. It is obvious that our current military strategy isn't working (three years of escalating violence can attest to that).

However, I don't think that we should do a "phased redeployment" immediately either. The way that I would propose giving the Iraqi military incentive to "stand up" is to shift our military presence from active combat to logistics. Defend what is ours from attack, and make the Iraqis do the bulk of the fighting. As you guys note, hundreds of thousands have joined the Iraqi military... they should be able to take care of themselves.

Obama has adopted the 'phrase of the day' from Democrat party talking points. He thinks that this will cause his poll numbers to rise, like so many of his comments in his 'soundbite campaign' for the Presidency.

As we have seen, Iranians are not only supplying terrorists within Iraq with weapons and money, but now we caught actual representatives of the Iranian government with these terrorists! Yet Obama says we should let Iran in on the 'solution'.

So Senator Obama, if a gangbanger breaks into your friend and neighbor Tony Resko's home, and Tony decides to defend himself, your solution would be to include the gang leaders in the 'negotiations' regarding the gangbanger's presence in Tony's home.

(In real life, Obama would call Mayor Daley direct and half the Chicago police force would be at Tony's place in 30 seconds.)

So Senator Obama, if a gangbanger breaks into your friend and neighbor Tony Resko's home, and Tony decides to defend himself, your solution would be to include the gang leaders in the 'negotiations' regarding the gangbanger's presence in Tony's home.
--Hermie

Actually, I don't think that your analogy is apt... seeing as how most of the insurgents are home-grown fighters rather than foreign-born ones, they are causing all of the trouble in their own home... A better analogy would be if Tony Resko were to hold his family hostage... but in that case police do negotiate and the analogy goes against your point entirely...

Now, if you want a better analogy Tony Resko robs a bank that decided to stop laundering his money (that he uses to influence policy). The police come and negotiate while a sniper sets up his shot..

See, there, you have Tony Resko representing the Baathists/sunni insurgents, the Bank is Iraq, money laundering represents the unilateral power that Sunnis had in the prior government, the police are Condi, and the sniper is the military...

Doesn't really address the Shiites, but it's the best I can do at 8:30 in the morning...

Message from an Iraqi citizen:

Friday, December 29, 2006

End of Another Year...

You know your country is in trouble when (Paraphrased for brevity)...

America sucks eggs.

Hey Canadian Observer...where's the link to that story you obviously cut-and-pasted? Also, can you say the very same thing about your country by substituting "Canadian" for "American"?

[deafening_silence]

Thought so. Go back to eating your Grits!

Bacon,

A few comments about your post....

1) Who exactly are "the enemy" you claim the left isn't comfortable with the idea of defeating? Al Qaeda? Sunnis? Shiites? Or just "the terrorists"?

2) You propose sending "anonymous cruise missiles" into Iran and Syria. Why that sounds quite like a Clintonesque approach and we all know that Clinton and his cruise missiles aren't the way to combat the bad guys, right? Maybe we should do the old Republican backed tried and true full scale invasion and occupation of those countries? Our soldiers can suffer the casualties, and you can sit in front of your television feeling like a tough guy. Cause that's what this is really about....face it.

3) Who are the "limp-wristed polititians" that "put the shackles on our soliders"? Last I checked, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have been running the show since 2003.

Very good Obama; now tell me what are you going to do about Iran and Syria; have a tea party.

IT'S A GOOD THING THAT THE US MILITARY IS IN THE MIDDLE EAST; WE ARE MUCH CLOSER TO IRAN THAN EVER.

Now, what needs to happen is we have to send an additional 100,000 troops; fix Iraq and then go over to Iran and deal with them before it's too late!

Obama is so foolish!

Macker

I copied & pasted the comments above from a blog written by an Iraqi citizen living under the American occupation at:-

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

CO Dude,

I just did a web trace and found the physical site in Mountain View California....you've been duped!

Some lib idiot trying to pull the burka over a lonely non-believer's eyes.

I just did a web trace and found the physical site in Mountain View California....you've been duped!

navydad

You wish!! Good try though.

they just don't want to bother with the real world.

Says the creationist who still thinks--contrary to his beloved president--that we found WMDs in Iraq. You should make friends with the real world, Noonan--it'll be much more fruitful than battling it every step of the way.

CO,

Personally, I don't even know what a web trace is, but looking at the blog, if its a person writing about the oppressive American occupation, then they sure don't have much to write about...posts are dated 12/29/06, 11/5/06, 10/18/06, 8/5/06, 7/30/06, 7/11/06, 6/10/06...not exactly burning up the 'puter writing about what a bunch of SOBs we are...whats the matter? Not enough American depravity for daily posts? Come on, the people at DU find stuff on a daily basis, and they're nowhere near Iraq...

Then there's the links - New York Times, Al-Jazeera English, Alternet, Iraq Occupation Watch, Iraq Body Count, Juan Cole, Guerrila News...these aren't the links of an Iraqi living in Baghdad, but a latte-sipping slacker living in Marin County. Does this mean its not an Iraqi? Not at all...but it isn't fitting real well with what an Iraqi would read and link to on a day to day basis...

Meanwhile, over at Iraq the Model, the statements are night and day different from the statements on your linked blog....

Sees,

Still haven't checked the DOD website on that, have you? What is the matter: afraid to know the truth?

Still haven't checked the DOD website on that, have you?

Wow, you just called President Bush a liar. Why do you hate him so much that you would smear him like that, Noonan?

"The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't."
-George W. Bush, August 21, 2006

Claiming we found WMD in Iraq puts you at the same credibility level as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Again, you should embrace reality rather than fighting it all the time.

Mark

It could be that Riverbend, living in Iraq, and not in the U.S., is unfortunate in as much as she does not have power 24/7. You know, Mark, living in a war zone as you have said, is hell. The opportunity to post is far and few between. I don't think many of us would trade places with her, would you, Mark?

Sees,

Nice bit of cherry picking - but if you go to the actual transcript, you'll see that what you are doing is twisting words...and, at any rate, you're trying to make this thread go off subject - we're not talking about WMDs in Iraq; we're talkin here about the Democrats desire for surrender. Keep on that subject, if you please.

CO,

If power outages and the other horrors of the American occupation - a strange occupation, seeing as we're there at the express invitation of the legitimate, elected Iraqi government, but no matter - explain the lack of posts, then how do you explain how Iraq the Model has posts dated 12/29/06, 12/27/06, 12/24/06, 12/20/06, 12/15/06, 12/14/06, 12/9/06...and, also, why no links to Iraqi news sources, as Iraq the Model has?

CO,

You know, I get the impression that you are a very caring, very loving person who wishes the best for all...it could be, perhaps, that people are taking advantage of you in the matter of Iraq. You might want to think and pray on that a bit.

CO,

How do you think wireless phones are traced?

Our in-house technician tracked your buddies to Mountain View California about four miles from Google HQ.

Ya just need the touch..that's all.

He (our tech) tacked down an idiot that was trying to hack into our online credit card software and he tracked him all the way to Germany, where, after we filed a complaint with his ISP...shut his ars down...for good.

No problems mate. next might be ole Morphie.

Message from an Iraqi citizen:

Friday, December 29, 2006

End of Another Year...

You know your country is in trouble when (Paraphrased for brevity)...

America sucks eggs.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at December 29, 2006 09:56 AM

It shows a lot of insecurity when you resort to sabotaging a post, Mark. (Ed. Note: Naw, it was just a boring, long rant - and off topic, too).

Which Iraqi citizen CO? An ex-Baathist that is pissed off that he has only the same rights as the rest of the Iraqis do now.

I've read a few posts and it's awful coincidental that this blogger almost never sides with the coalition, even though it's fairly obvious that he/she/it is western educated. It's strange too that he posts at nite and early am when Baghdad supposedly has no power..unless he has a generator.

Maybe your so-called buddy, which it appears may be a girl sometimes, is torqued over the roll of Saddam's little empire. Maybe...just maybe, she/he/it was a Baathist or Saddamolite that wasn't affected by an oppressive dictatorship such as Saddam's.

Look CO, we all know and have heard a billion times how tough things are in Iraq...so give it a break and start posting stuff that could help rather than this constant anti-Bush anti-American crap.

We can stand for a little bantering and sarcasm but it really gets old fast when you hear the same old trash.

One never knows, you may be the one that comes up with a real plan for victory in Iraq!

Look CO, we all know and have heard a billion times how tough things are in Iraq...so give it a break and start posting stuff that could help rather than this constant anti-Bush anti-American crap.

navydad

I feel it is important for you to realize that although the thought of war may be exciting or thrilling to many of you who post here, there are serious consequences for those victims who, by no fault of their own, are targets of the violence that has resulted from your actions.

Too often, casualties are brushed aside as being part and parcel of war, having little or no meaning, just another statistic of battle. Well, these are your fellow human beings, men, women and children, who bleed when hurt, just as you do. When a bogus war, waged for bogus reasons, leaves thousands dead and wounded, don't you think we should be able to question the validity of it all?

As for saying something positive, something to justify this madness, I just am unable to come up with anything. Sorry.

You watch too many Patton movies.

Nice dodge, Noonan. Somehow, "we thought he had WMDs. It turns out he didn't" means something other than "Saddam didn't have WMDs." Well, I guess when you're so incredibly invested in dodging reality, mere semantic dodging must be small potatoes by comparison, eh Noonan?

Again..no problem CO. At least you're honest and that's a good thing and I, along with other's here respect the fact that you can take a little innocent bantering.

In a marriage there are a few phrases that I have avoided like the plague: "I always" and "you never" are two of the most common argument introductory phrases known to man...and woman:)

Therefore, I'll not infer that your argument is redundant, only with, and respectfully...ignorant and pacifistic.

It sounds as though your desire is for there to never be war, never have casualties of war, never have confrontation that could lead to war and that my friend is called living in a dillusional world...with all due respect. We would love for this too, but we know that realistically, it will never happen as long as there are people like Saddam and UBL in the world.

I for one completely understand the consequences of battle, but only because my youngest son was in the Navy, two very close friend's son's are presently in the Airforce and Army, and one close friend lost his son in the first month of the war, so I can honestly say that I've experienced the pain of "going to war".

I have read and will digest what you have posted, however, I/we would like you to intellectually digest this: When a country has violated 17 UN Security Council resolutions, attacked their own citizens with chemical weapons, raped and tortured women and children, mordered 50-80k Kurds, had a dictator that murdered 400,000 of his own civilians that didn't agree with him over his 24 year reign, invaded Kuwait and killed innocent Kuwaitis, attmpted to assassinate Bush 41, paid $25 per family for suicide bombers to kill innocent Israelis, harbored Abbu Abbas the Achille Lauro terrorist that pushed Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheel chair, but not before they shot him first, harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was, past tense an Al Qaeda leader that was wounded in Afghanistan and fled to Iraq for medical assistance, and on...and on...and..on. I won't even mention the USS Cole, or the Khobar towers, or the first WTC attack by the blind shiek.

So, what would you do CO...try to negotiate with these terrorists, well we did, over decades and look what it got us, 911, and yes, the very same terrorists that committed 911 had gone to Iraq and Afghanistan terrorist training camps to learn how to kill westerners. Remember there is nothing but desert that separates those countries so anyone, including terrorists could travel freely from country to country.

This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why we favor action.

If all of this happened to Canada, the shoe would definitely be on the other foot.

Have a nice weekend.

CO,

You're sometimes extraordinarily ungenerous - do you really think we're thrilled with the war? That we don't realise that people are dying? In all of your supposed Canadian liberalism and openess, have you fallen into viewing Americans through the stereo-types produced by anti-American propagandists?

Well, let me tell you: we're not a bunch of dumb cowboys who don't understand what we're doing. You can call us wrong, but please don't call us inhuman.

I don't want this war to be - I want it to go away; I'd much rather be arguing over the proper level of taxation rather than over whether or not we should do things which will send thousands to their deaths. But the war is, it won't go away - it has to be fought out to a conclusion, because a war will have a conclusion, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. You may want us to stop - and, perhaps you can get us to stop...but you won't get the enemy stop unless you stop him with force. It is what the enemy believes in and works with. Deny reality all you want, but don't condemn us for living with it.

Hear..hear...Mark! But if CO comes back, which I expect him to do, with another liberal appeasement rant..my head's gonna splode.

LoL, Bongos!
:)

Again..no problem CO. At least you're honest and that's a good thing and I, along with other's here respect the fact that you can take a little innocent bantering.

Speak for yourself, navydad--CO's been an asshat ever since he came here. He has the same message, day after day. It's all hate-Bush, hate-America B/S. Hell, he even dismissed your claim about identifying the fake website. He, and the rest of the kooks here, swallow the leftist lies, and continue to believe them long after they've been debunked. I'll bet they all still believe Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite.

You're wasting your time making nice with an a**hole, but I admire your tolerance. You and Mark possess the patience of a saint, a quality I admire, but can't emulate, around these idiots...

There has been plenty of software written in Mountain View long before Google was ever started.

Do ya'll remember Listserv ???? That was written in Mountain View, I'm certain by right-wing extremists.

Just dispelling this myth that even if the people don't support you, the military does...

"For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll."

"Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003."

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

(Ed. Note: Amused Observer must have forgotten this part of his linked report:

The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole...

I mean, we here at Blogs for Bush would hate to think that a lefty blogger would leave out the most vital information in the poll - ie, that it isn't a poll, and there's no way to tell if the respondents to the mail-in survey really are in the military)

I'm still waiting for that list CO!!!

Sorry Corn! Thought I'd give this kook one last attempt before I said good ridence.

These libs are mired in a world of dillusional excrement, which has no escapable avenue other than what you've stated.

I'll try harder:) LOL

Good one, "editor". Perhaps you should have kept reading - here's the text right after what you cited!

"the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.

The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

So what does that mean?
1. It is a poll - the language is fairly specific - and all you have is this assertion that the military thinks like you do.
2. Seems like they do know how many of the respondents are in the military, considering that they have detailed statistics regarding who has deployed, which mirror actual deployment levels!

Try again.

power outages caused by who? by the way power is up 600% in iraq. by the way in oct. 05 there were 23 iraqi army battalions there are over 90 now. by the way there are 3 provinces in iraq that are completely govr'ned and secured by iraqi gov't. by the way there are numerous medical clinics, water treatment facilities, and schools built. the airport is not what it looked like in oct. 04. how do i know this? been there done that got the t-shirt. if you rely on the media who is 90% democrat to give you the real 411 on iraq you are indoctrinated not educated. iraq is only one battle in the war on terror..actually it is a war on radical islamists and their jihad. if you think that a political change (election) will stop them you are ignorant and dangerously stupid.

Typekey did not work. Please excuse double post.

Nothing new under the sun. The effort to discredit Riverbend failed now as it did in 2003:

October 30, 2003
Baghdad Burning Blog Wins Battle

Over the past few weeks, an odd campaign has been mounted in the blogosphere. An Iraqi blog, Baghdad Burning, was spoofed by a blogger with opposing political views. Yesterday, the real Baghdad Burning author returned fire. Her first shot against the dirty trickster brought him down.

In a delicious bit of irony, the real Baghdad Burning author is a young Iraqi woman and the fake Baghdad Burning author is a retired US military man and Republican party "Team Leader."

As noted previously, an Iraqi woman (she calls herself a "girl") has been publishing a blog from Baghdad in which she gives insights into day-to-day life in the shattered capital. Baghdad Burning comes out against the US occupation and often carries accounts of events that don't make it into the mainstream press.

Determining the veracity of this unfiltered personal reportage is up to the reader. Baghdad Burning gets over 6,000 per day on average. I suspect that most of those, like me, probably accept Baghdad Burning as an accurate reflection of one civilian's life in occupied Iraq.

In a bizarre, yet telling, twist to the Baghdad Burning blog story, a spoof of the popular blog sprung up on September 11 of this year. The real Baghdad Burning blog's URL is http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/. The spoof version is at http://riversbendblog.blogspot.com. It is (or was) a collection of pro-war ramblings interspersed with copy and paste work from the White House website and other official sources.

Until today, the spoof looked identical (except for content) to the real thing: same title, subtitle, layout, links, archive dates, colours, etc. While it does not have traffic in the thousands, the spoof gets over 800 visitors a day. That's a lot of blog traffic. The imposter has now renamed his blog to Baghdad's Not Burning. He's changed a few links and pulled down the fraudulent archives.

It must be noted that the real "Girl Blog from Iraq" had some help in bringing down the imposter. Bending Truth has been waging a battle dedicated to "...exposing the shabby lies of the counterfeit riverSbend blog set up by a politically motivated smear merchant..." The Girl Blogger also gives thanks to John Gorenfeld for helping to expose the disinformation campaign.

In what can only be described as a testament to his ineptitude, the fake Riverbend blogger seems to be trying out http://riverbendsblog.blogspot.com/. He misspelled "test."

AO,
You need to take a course on research methods. But even if we accept the results as they're presented, it says only about one of eight believe we shouldn't have any troops in Iraq. Almost half believe we should have more troops in Iraq. Most of those who disagree with the handling of the war by the President disagree with soft handling, and about half of our officers and troops want to take the gloves off. They want us to be there, they want us to win, and they believe we can win.

Mark and Khan,
Thanks. To get back to the actual post, what we have here is a kind of racism. Obama believes in social programs, that when black or white Americans are given second chances, they succeed. And if they don't, we should be understanding because they had a good reason for not succeeding. When it comes to Iraqis, he thinks they have less potential. What makes them require this tough love, that is what is different between Iraqis and Americans except religion, culture, and color of skin? He may as well call them ignoble savages.

"The stakes are very high over the next two years - we who support the aims of the War on Terrorism have to make our voices heard. If we leave this up to President Bush to fight single handed then we will find at the end of the day, on January 20th, 2009, that some defeatist Democrat is taking the oath of office with a program for turning over our friends to our enemies."

So it is only about the politics. BushCo neo-cons do not care about the men and women of our military. The so-called "war" on terror is not real, and is just an excuse to dismantle the U.S. Constitution. Just as I suspected.

Semper Fi!

Chester the Molester

It's too late in the day, so we'll deal with you in the New Year...OK?