Leo,
We can't surrender because we've already won the war. Some people on this blog are always talking about how the Iraqs want freedom. IOTsn't it time to let them work things out on their own? We have had four years to to prepare them.

OT How is your son doing? I hope he is safe. My daughter's unit has returned to Germany and she came home on leave for the first time in over 2 and a half years. It was a great week.

Leo

You need to put aside your pride & arrogance and accept the fact you made a mistake.

"If we surrender, who are we surrendering to?"

Well, you invaded Iraq, so I guess it would be the Iraqi people. Thousands killed or injured, families displaced, lives ruined; why not accept responsibility, ask for forgiveness and get out.

Neither Casper nor Canadian Observer could answer Leo's questions.

Which liberal is up next?

Break the country into three states (the United States of Iraq) and guarantee oil revenue sharing to get them to see the rewards of keeping the country together as a whole. Add a common enemy wanting to take their resources (hopefully Iran and no longer America) and you may see them begin to build a workable defense and central government.
Of course there will be many conflicts and casualties on the path but it sounds better than what we're trying now. We're just aiding their self-sustaining civil war.

Leo - some times nobody wins...

The Democrats are just in it for political gain! They are playing politics with our troops. God Bless our troops and President Bush!

The liberal commenters on this site apparently aren't satisfied with the blood of only 2-1/2 million Cambodians on their hands, slaughtered by the Communist Khmer Rouge after Democrats in Congress abandoned South Vietnam in 1975. No, apparently they won't be satisfied until 10 million Iraqis have been butchered in the bloodbath that will inevitably follow a premature U.S. pullout. Sleep tight, "progressives".

I have many problems with Joe Biden but what I said above is not too far off what he sees as the future of Iraq. I think on that issue he's the closest to getting it right.

Al Qaeda Grateful to Harry Reid

(Lgf)"The leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq are very pleased by the support they’re receiving from US Democrats, and especially from Harry Reid: "The Cross Worshippers And Their Henchmen Plans Have Collapsed."

JihadUnspun: It is apparent to every watchful eye that recent events over the past few days have exposed a huge crack in America’s administration. With weak declarations from their leaders about events on the ground in Iraq just two months after the so-called “Baghdad security plan” commenced and a growing dispute about funds spent on the Iraq and Afghan wars, the American command has now said “The current security plan is the last chance for the American army and the Maliki government”.

As usual, this was followed by a swift visit by the new (American) Defense Minister “Gates” who said, “The American support to the Maliki government is not unlimited”, insinuating that the American administration is impatient with the Maliki government that is incapable of handling the strikes of the Mujahideen. This comes on the heels of an important statement by House Majority Leader Harry Reid who previously said, “The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is same as it was in Vietnam.”

JPL
Point fingers all you like but we can't occupy Iraq forever without deeply wounding our economy and our credibility and power in the world.
American politics and foreign policy has always been about protecting American interests. Sometimes with soft power, sometimes with hard but always about American interests. Do you think we can keep spending money and military readiness on Iraq, and losing our leverage with allies and trade partners without eventually also losing jobs and resources?

JPL,
Could you explain how anyone on this blog could have had anything to do with the Khmer Rouge of 1975? I was 22 at the time and was just trying to get through college. I have a feeling that most of the bloggers here didn't have a lot of political power at that time.

Here's what the Democrats do now.

I think the President will veto both war funding bills. Another bill will be passed with much of the same verbiage, but most of it will be nonbinding.

The amount the President requested will be granted (perhaps more).

There will be benchmarks, military readiness requirements, and withdrawal dates. This will all be nonbinding.

I think there will still be some pork in it but not as much.

It will probably come from the House of Representatives. I am sure Nancy Pelosi currently has a higher favorability rating than Harry Reid since he actually said the war is lost.

It will be passed before the current funding runs out.

Leo - some times nobody wins...

Posted by: kblack77 at April 26, 2007 10:24 PM

Not really true except in the liberal world where no one keeps score.

Comforting to see the wonderful plans they have. At least we still are able to have guns, we will need them with the Dems in charge.

"Could you explain how anyone on this blog could have had anything to do with the Khmer Rouge of 1975? I was 22 at the time and was just trying to get through college."

You're kidding, right? You're actually saying that college students of the late 60's / early 70's had NOTHING TO DO with America's loss of will in Vietnam? That argument is so ridiculous I'm not even going to respond.

ol'goat
Winston Churchill once said, "“In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.”
Do you really think the surge is whole hearted? It sounds like the same plan we've already had just with a few tactics and some overextended troops added to the mix.

JPL,
I didn't say college students haad nothing to do with Viet Nam. I said the bloggers here had nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge. AS for myself, my draft number in 1971 was 88 and I was willing to do my duty if I was called up. Luckily for me I wasn't.
So JPL, tell us what you were doing in 1975 and how you were trying to stop the Khmer Rouge.

"Point fingers all you like but we can't occupy Iraq forever without deeply wounding our economy and our credibility and power in the world."

Wrong. We can and we must. If we don't, you might as well get fitted for your lovely burqa and start learning Arabic.

"American politics and foreign policy has always been about protecting American interests."

There is no greater U.S. interest right now than breaking the back of fanatical Islamic fascism. That hateful, murderous movement declared war on the West about 40 years ago, except that we never fought back until 2001. We have a lot of catching up to do.

"Do you think we can keep spending money and military readiness on Iraq, and losing our leverage with allies and trade partners without eventually also losing jobs and resources?"

Yes, I do, and besides, screw France, screw Germany. They'll be under sharia law in less than 25 years. We're in this alone. Wake up from your delusional dream about "soft power," and smell the reality that it's going to take many years, probably decades, of very hard, very smart AMERICAN power to break the will of these fanatical Islamists.

JPL
Wow just...Wow!
The Taliban took hold in one of the very poorest countries in the world but you think their movement will move from the bottom of the third world to the top of the first world in my lifetime?

"Point fingers all you like but we can't occupy Iraq forever without deeply wounding our economy and our credibility and power in the world."

"Wrong. We can and we must. If we don't, you might as well get fitted for your lovely burqa and start learning Arabic."

Wow, JPL do you have so little faith in our country?
Do you really think we are so weak we will cave if we leave Iraq?
Sorry, I think we are much better than that.

ah more naive - over simplified logic by Bushies. Go Captain America.. Support victory . defeat terror..

good plan..

"I didn't say college students haad nothing to do with Viet Nam. I said the bloggers here had nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge."

Stop squirming out of what you said, Casper. You said that as a college student in 1975, you couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the Khmer Rouge. And I say that's a bunch of B.S., because college students of the late 60's / early 70's were the major force behind America's loss of will in Vietnam, which led directly to the U.S. pullout from that country, the Communist takeovers of both South Vietnam and Cambodia, and the extermination of 40% of the Cambodian population by the Communist Khmer Rouge. So you're flat out wrong; college students from that era who protested the war bear significant responsiblity for the southeast Asian slaughter that followed our abandonment of Vietnam.

"AS for myself, my draft number in 1971 was 88 and I was willing to do my duty if I was called up. Luckily for me I wasn't."

Well, I beat you there. My lottery number was 54. I fully expected to be called up and to serve upon my college graduation in June 1973. Then to everyone's astonishment, Nixon abolished the draft that spring. Since I had neither employment nor graduate school plans, for 4 months I travelled through the U.S.S.R., eastern and western Europe, and the U.K. before applying to grad school.

"So JPL, tell us what you were doing in 1975 and how you were trying to stop the Khmer Rouge."

In 1975 I was doing graduate work in U.S. national security studies and Soviet studies, was fluent in Russian, had written both a bachelors' and a master thesis predicting the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union, and was a staunch anti-communist. One thing I guarantee you I WASN'T doing was protesting against U.S. support of South Vietnam.

How about you, Casper? What were you doing in 1975 to support the defeat of Communism in southeast Asia?

Casper – refused to answer the tough questions.

Canadian Observer – no plan, not our problem.

Carsick – says break the country in three. How, if we’re gone could we do that? And, they are a sovereign nation, is it our task to carve them into states?

kblack77 – on line nothing answer.

Carsick (again) - we just can’t do it! We can’t, we can’t!

Casper (again) – I am too stupid to learn from history and refuse to apply those lessons to today’s situation.

Carsick (yet again) obscure Churchill quote to leesen the guilt of the murders liberals would cause

Casper (yet again) –I was willing to go to Cambodia, really, I was! So – it couldn’t have been liberals that caused it? Kind of weak.

Carsick (won’t he ever shut up?) – Now incredulous. Still didn’t have an answer though. Except to let them die.

Casper (him too) - Also incredulous. Still no answer except let them die and still denies history.

Great, just as expected. Where’s “cheers” boy Eric? We know what GTgrad will say; "lalalalalalalala death to America!"

"The Taliban took hold in one of the very poorest countries in the world but you think their movement will move from the bottom of the third world to the top of the first world in my lifetime?"

Apparently you don't follow what's going on in Europe. The past 20 years have witnessed a huge influx of Muslims into Europe, who favor sharia law and won't assimilate. Meanwhile, there's been a huge natural increase in the European Muslim population due to rapid birth rates, coupled with a natural DECREASE in the non-Muslim population. As a result, current projections reflect Muslim majorities in major European countries within the next 25 years.

So unless you plan to die in the next 25 years, YES, I do expect to see fundamentalist Islam take hold in the so-called "first world" during your lifetime.

"The quickest way to end a war is to surrender."

-George Orwell-

Ahh.. Ok - I will lay it out again.

So here is what I would do. I am not a master of geopolitics nor experienced with the details of how one goes about implementing massive changes - however its pretty much impossible to be less prepared than GWB was to make these decisions so here goes.

(1) Get the UN involved. Probably there will need to be peace keeping troops in Iraq - and certainly massive infrastructure build up. So we would have to get them involved and have them run things. Of course - at this point since we completely circumvented the UN on the issue of an invasion - we will have to bear the burden in terms of money for the infrastructure. If the UN believes that it needs peace keeping troops that it cannot provide - then we provide them but under UN control in accordance to the Iraqi people desire

(2) Pay reparations - the infrastructure destruction, loss of human life, and suffering brought upon need to be repaid. (Note I am not saying things were great before - but they aren't good now either). Probably this involves a massive infusion of cash, food, and infrastructure. Its not going to be cheap - unfortunately...

(3) Attend to the will of the Iraqis. Rather than building walls around communities in Baghdad which are protested by thousands and unwanted by the Iraqi prime minister - actually listen to the Iraqi people and stop pretending we know best for them.
The vast majority of Iraqi's want US troops out on the timescale of year or so. Abide by that.. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that the Iraqi people actually want US occupation of their country - then you have to withdraw.
Initially replace the US troop presence by UN peace keeping troops.

(4) hold the guilty parties for this responsible with accord with the Nuremberg principles, the UN charter, and other international instruments. Probably this would involve bringing a case to the world court to identify the motivations behind the war - how it was (mis) executed, etc...

How is this war not in America's interest?

Let's just put it to the leftists terms.

1. They say this has caused Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorists.
2. They say Iraq isn't part of the WOT.
3. They say it isn't worth the money to fight over there.

OK. So, even though Iraq isn't part of the WOT, it is a breeding ground for them over there, bringing a concentration of terrorists to fight our soldiers over there. Hmph, I don't see how that isn't part of the war on terror, but lets go on.

It is not worth the money to fight over there. Just where do you think all these terrorists that "we helped create" will go? Back to live peaceful lives in the middle east? Maybe back to selling persian rugs? The money is, after all better invested in the US, invested in the social and educational needs of America.

Take our the costs of the war there and put it in America. OK. Then when they come here, which they will, we will have more dependents on welfare and other social programs who are better educated, lying dead here. Think of the savings! Less on the public dole, less crowding of classrooms.

In the beginning of this war it should not have taken all that much thinking to realize that prior to us going in we had no launching ground for anything in the Middle East. We were seeing Iran up to its usual things. We know that a great number of their countries there would rather see us dead and cowed. If any of them got nukes, how would we go in? Where could we possibly launch from?

Iraq had, up to that point, meaningless letters from the UN wagging a finger at Saddam while raking in tons of money. Iraq had ties to terrorism. Iraq had land mass that we could use to keep the radicals at bay. A means to bring focus of their attention to a set area. A means of bringing the fight to them.

Given the choice of where I would rather face down this cowardly enemy whose perverted beliefs state that, unlike Christians who would die FOR their faith, decide that YOU should die for THEIR faith. I would rather that our trained and provisioned armed forces have a crack at them over letting them come here against innocents and unarmed, unaware civilians.

Just because leftists think we can all get along in this world does not make it so. That is the failing of the left, they are stuck on stupid because they refuse to see the enemy with eyes wide open.

I think JPL's assignment of blame for Pol Pot's atrocities to liberal Americans is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've ever read on this site. If in our infinite power we could have prevented that, why stop there? Couldn't FDR have prevented Hitler and Stalin from slaughtering millions? How about LBJ and Nixon stopping China's cultural revolution and saving millions of Chinese? Is Bush responsible for Darfur? Do we have blood on our hands because we didn't put tsunami buoys in the Indian Ocean before 130,000 were drowned in 2004?

Here's a newsflash for you JPL: we have finite stores of people, resources and will. They were tapped out in 1975, and they are getting tapped out now. As long as we are a tax cutting, draft hating, alliance destroying, "our way or the highway" nation, we can't save the world.

A Republican President began our involvement in Vietnam (Eisenhower) and a Republican President ended it (Ford), but I would never blame it on them. It was escalated by two Democratic presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) and LBJ pressed it until he was the most hated man in the country. He knew very well that if nobody is following, you aren't leading.

Casper captured the attitude of young men in the 70s very well when he voiced his aversion to dying in Vietnam so a corrupt dictatership could survive a few more months.

Leo's questions are irrelevant. Bush will veto the Democratic bill and then he'll get one that gives him his money. This crisis will be delayed for a few months and God willing, the Iraqis will come to their senses in the interim and negotiate an end to this madness.

But back to you Leo, what is next if these fools ignore the surge and keep killing themselves and each other? More troops? A new surge? More stop loss orders? A draft? Tax increases? If the Republican leadership answers yes to any of those, we will be a Democratic country for the next decade at least. Because contrary to the jingoist rhetoric that abounds on this site, most patriotic Americans have no interest in giving their lives for the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

OH yeah, simply brilliant kblack. Now it becomes clear.

First you want the UN, that organization that worked overtime to prop up Saddams evil empire, to come in. Please, tell me, what war have they won? Also, tell me how they will do anything over there without our troops. After all, it is your side who is saying we should pull out now.

Next you have us paying them because war is ugly. How many beers did you have to down to come up with that beauty?

At least you hit a home run with placing our national sovereignty under the world court. Nothing like surrendering totally and completely to those outside our interests.

I am totally convinced now though. Totally convinced that the left really do want to see the USA go down in flames in order to make it into some socialistic vassel of the rest of the world.

How can you think that total surrender is American? How is any of that list patriotic? Unless you are some relic of the old USSR, then it might be patriotic.

Thrower, you are aptly named.

Its getting deep in nasty smelling stuff from anti-American leftists around here.

Not worth the time responding anymore, not when I see the garbage posted by the defeatists.

Actually Thrower, Roosevelt DID know about the death camps and refused to do anything about them. He knew early. late in the war, American Army units were not even told to expect to find them and were suprised with no plans to help.

Read about it, it's been pointed out here before.

And as to Cambodia, well yes. You were warned and refused to listen. You were told, and refused to act. Drink deep your blame and embrace it. You are doing it again.

At least we got more answers here from the left than from the debaters! And the plan is....

VOMIT.

1. Impeach "President" Bush. Impeach "Vice President" Cheney. Bring them before a International war crimes tribunal. Since they believe waterboarding is not torture, waterboard them until they confess their crimes. Hold them indefinetely until they confess their crimes in temperature extremes, dogs snapping at their balls, Mettalica blasting about two hundred decibels. They'll confess alright.

President Pelosi will convene a world conference on the future of Iraq. All of our allies will have input and their opinions valued and considered. We will lay out a plan together, a force of common good. It may involve breaking Iraq into sections, and it may not.

We will continue to use our intelligence sources to root out real terroist's.

We will use the Red Cross, and Red Cresent human aid programs to continue to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi people.

We will do what is humanly possible to ease the transition from occupation to independence. We helped create this nightmare for the Iraqi, I don't think our democratic leadership will just "walk away". Give us more credit than that.

I must say your comments are rather infantile Leo. Kind of like "we're taking our ball and going home, it's your problem now." Baby.

Your Commander in Cheif created this mess, you supported him blindly. Don't just walk away mad Leo. Grow up. Somehow you must "man up" and work through and adapt to the new conditions as they present themselves.

And yet I expect nothing less than whinning from you and your compatriots.

I voted for Bush, and every other Republican whose run for a national office in the past 3 decades. I'm a pharmacist, and I've observed that in general 80% of pharmacists vote republican -- that is, until the last election.

Why did they switch? Let me explain. This group of voters are conservative both morally and fiscally. Further, they are akin to Reagan Democrats who supported smaller central government.

So, where did Geo. Bush lose this group of staunchly conservative's support. It wasn't on morality. Of course, Bush is anything but a fiscal conservative. But most importantly, Bush has pursued an agenda that favors big business at the expense of Middle America.

Look at a few newsworthy issues. What about illegal aliens? Never mind that an unsecured border is clearly a security risk. It's illegal!

What of illegal aliens being hired by large corporations? Who does that help? It helps primarily large corporate donors.

What about the Medicare Part D drug benefit? Who did it help? Perhaps to some extent the seniors in the short term, but in the long term, probably not. To a large extent it helped pharmaceutical manufacturers, and pharmacy benefit managers (insurance related businesses). Who did it harm?
Clearly, it harmed independently owned pharmacies who dispense 50% of the prescriptions in this country. All of the discounts in the program were extracted from retail pharmacies while they were not consulted when the plan was having the details hammered out. (a la Taxation without representation). In fact, the agreement that was struck with the govt, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and pharmacy benefit managers at the table forbids the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers for discounts. In essence, both groups are free to charge whatever they wish while pharmacy exists in a socialized pricing system. (i.e. the pharmacies have no control over what they get paid.) This is a win-win for pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers. It is a lose-lose for Medicare part D recipients, retail pharmacy, and most importantly the tax payer. Why do I say this? Many reasons, but one striking one is that pharmacy benefit managers can favor a drug produced by a big pharmaceutical manufacturer which is expensive and that pays the pharmacy benefit manage a kick-back, but none of this benefits the tax-payer or the recipient.

What about oil? Prices have not followed supply and demand as the oil companies would have us believe. Rather, gasoline and oil related byproducts are priced by "what the market will bear" and perhaps more precisely "what the political climate will allow". Again, the Bush administration has a hands off approach to the oil industry. Sadly the war machine fits nicely into this model. Add to that that maybe Bush was getting revenge for his dear old Dad, and you have a president out of control.

Consider Iraq. We invaded a sovereign country to overthrow the regime so that we could set up our brand of government that they did not ask for - Democracy. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Democracy is great, probably the best form of government we are familiar with. But, should we overthrow all non-democratic governments? What about China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezeula, etc.?

Viet Nam had a better plan that Iraq. At least in Viet Nam we were trying to prevent the spread of Communism. In Iraq, we have overthrown a government in a region that is pre-dominantly governed by Islamic Republics and tried to establish a Democratic foothold.

This a prescription for war - long term war. The USA did not like it one bit when the USSR set up communistic states in Latin America and elsewhere. But it is important to note that history tells us that communism failed not because of military coups, but because the people didn't like it, voted it out in free elections, or fought for it.

I believe that Bush had made a serious mistaqke that does not have a good solution.

So how did the American bombing campaign in Cambodia during the early 70's improve things for the better?

Thrower, you may be the biggest moral midget of all. There's a huge difference between America's failing to intervene to stop something that it's probably powerless to stop anyway (such as Mao's cultural revolution), and America's outright abandonment of a declared ally to its enemies (as the Democratic Congress did to South Vietnam in 1975, and as you advocate we do to Iraq now). The former is unfortunate, but the latter is unforgivable.

America didn't just magically "run out of resources and will" to defend South Vietnam. Its will was systematically destroyed by the actions of corrupt, cowardly student leftists, politicians and news media.

Similarly, a majority of Americans currently oppose the sudden abandonment of Iraq. If the left manages to undermine that will (as it's clearly trying to do), then it will deserve credit for the resulting slaughter.

I don't need a morality lesson from you JPL. We fail daily to intervene in issues and regions where our power could save lives and I have yet to see your umbrage over that. I wonder if you have the same enthusiasm for saving a few hundred thousand starving Africans as you have for launching military action that may kill tens of millions of Muslims.

I am also thoroughly unimpressed with your Cheney like explanation for your absence from Vietnam in your younger days. You made the same decision that Casper and I made, and that was to wait out the war in college and then let the lottery determine our fate. If my math is right, you could have enlisted in 1969 after high school when the escalation was at its peak and American bodies were needed in Vietnam. You chose not to, and reiterated that decision again in 1973. So save us the lecture.

I am not advocating the abandonment of Iraq at this point. But we are approaching critical mass when the number of Americans willing to die for those fools is not adequate to staff the mission. I continue to wait for an answer from Leo, you or any of the other patriots on this site on what the next step is if the surge fails. Believe it or not, we on this blog are a microcosm of American society. If we can't see common ground here, it won't exist anywhere else.

Leo asked, "What now, democrats?"

Democrats' answer: "Let them die."

(Thanks Kahn, for summing it up.)

JPL, Ol'Goat and Kahn-excellent posts, especially you, JPL! As for the Democrats, it's painfully obvious that none of you understand the global war we are fighting.

"The Misnomer of Radical Islam"-FaithFreedom.org (an ex-Muslim site):

There is the erroneous assertion that Radical Islam is not connected with mainstream (moderate) Islam in any way, that the religion of Islam has been “hijacked by a few extremists” that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with the Islamofascists. Such thinking is a terrible error and a grave threat to America’s national security, especially in this age of nuclear terrorism.

So what is Radical Islam and what should it be properly named? Radical Islam is actually the Islamic Military. The so-called radicals are not a fringe element; they are fully supported by the worldwide Islamic community (Ummah). If they were a fringe element, they would have been defeated long ago. The fight rages on because of strong support from the moderates both covertly and overtly. This means the Islamic Military (wrongly labeled radicals) is intimately connected with moderate Muslims who we have mistakenly labeled as innocent bystanders.

Moderate Muslims are not innocent bystanders. Moderate Muslims provide the base of operations which makes it possible for the Islamic Military to continue their terrorist operations. Hate America, demands to replace constitution with the Koran, and outbursts for Sharia law are preached openly from nearly every Mosque in America under the guise of freedom of speech and religion. Freedom of speech and religion has morphed into a weaponized tool of Islamic psychological warfare which is defeating America’s will to protect her national security. Any American who says Islam is less than perfect may become the victim of an unfair lawsuit by a “moderate” Muslim organization.

Why can one be so certain about this fact? The answer is the Koran. The Koran fuses together both moderates and their military. No Muslim dares to contradict the Koran because the penalty is -- death and loss of personal salvation. The moderate Muslims of every nation, including those in America fully support their Islamic military because worldwide conquest is the primary religious duty of all Muslims. Fellow Americans if you believe that your local Muslims are not secretly harboring in their hearts an agenda for the conquest of America by Islam then you are dead wrong, and understand nothing about the Koran.

Wow, so many comments, so few solutions. Actually, no solutions from our resident elitists.

No wonder they stay away from the "elitist" lefty blogs.

Consider Iraq. We invaded a sovereign country...

Thanks, Mike Keller--this comment alone lumps you in with the rest of the parrots...

Carsick said,

The Taliban took hold in one of the very poorest countries in the world but you think their movement will move from the bottom of the third world to the top of the first world in my lifetime?

Yes. Europe is finished. Here's what Muslims are doing to Sweden...

MUSLIM RIOTS IN SWEDEN:
"Riots in Malmö continue": Jihad Watch reader Ted has kindly sent along this English summary of this Swedish article about ongoing Muslim riots in the city of Malmö. (April 16, 2007)

Rosengård, an area with a very high immigrant population, is yet again on the frontpage as the riots from Saturday continue. On Sunday, several storage facilities were set ablaze. But the most disturbing thing was that a 17-year-old boy was brutally assaulted by a group of 6 "youths" (as the newspaper described them). They beat him so severely that he is now treated in intesive care in Lund Hospital....READ IT ALL.

JIHAD and the COLLAPSE OF SWEDEN -(Brussels Journal)

Pigophobia Strikes in Amsterdam: (Dutch News)- "School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils"

If we bring the troops home now, what is your plan when the radical Islamist elements (puppeted by Ahmadinejad) take over Iraq's oil resources and use that funding to expand the capabilities of their global jihad?
Global jihad does not exist. They just was Western occupiers to leave their country and stop supporting dictators.
If we bring the troops home now, what is your plan to restore the reputation of the United States as an ally one can trust to carry through on committments?
The only way to restore the reputation of the United States is to turn over Bush and his minions to The Hague to face criminal charges for war crimes.
If we surrender, who are we surrendering to? To the radical elements? To those who behead? To those who subjugate women? To those who hold the same ideology as those who brought down the Towers and who continue to carry out attacks on civilians to this very day??
We are not surrendering. We are obeying the will of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people do not want us there and it is their country.
What is your plan to deal with this? You want surrender? You want our troops out now? Fine--then how do you propose that we move forward?
Pull troops out now. Prosecute Bush, Chaney and company for war crimes, get all out money back from Halliburton, negate immunity to mercenaries and try them for war crimes.

Eric,

Well, since North Vietnamese Army units were using Cambodia like no boarder existed and running massive amounts of men and material along trails in cambodia - bombing told them that we could see across the boarder as well as they could and we were not going to let them invade Cambodia as part of their attack on the South.

Your right of course that its not pretty. But - thats not my fault - its the fault of those who shot first and thought later (or never thought in some cases).

Look - we have a choice now between ugly and really ugly. Between bad and worse. There is no realistic future in which somehow everyone comes out smiling, happy, and holding hands. At this point it is only about limiting the damage, repairing as much we can, and listening to the Iraqi people. Unless there is some overwhelming evidence that they actually LIKE the fact that we are occupying their country with 150K troops - which of course every poll has shown that they want us to withdraw within the time scale of a year or so- then there really is no other choice.

Regardless of the patronizing imperialistic attitude you might have - its not about what you would want. You , or President Bush , has NO authority to decide what is best for the rest of the world.

raker13,

You have removed any doubt that you have overdosed on the koolaide and suffer from terminal BDS.

"Impeach "President" Bush. Impeach "Vice President" Cheney. Bring them before a International war crimes tribunal. Since they believe waterboarding is not torture, waterboard them until they confess their crimes. Hold them indefinetely until they confess their crimes in temperature extremes, dogs snapping at their balls, Mettalica blasting about two hundred decibels. They'll confess alright."

Are you still in middle school? Or were you sleeping through civics class (if they still teach it)? Impeachment is the mechanism of bringing charges of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors against a President, Vice President, or other civil officer. Impeachment does not remove the individual from office. They must be convicted in the Senate by a 2/3 vote. As the Democrats have barely a 50% majority, the chances of that happening are slim to none. Therefore your wet dream of having Speaker Pelosi accend to the Presidency is just that: a wet dream.

Besides, your belief that the President and Vice President committed a "high crime" or " misdemeanor" is a fantasy.

I'm sure you are basing it on your belief that they "lied" about the threat of Iraq. They somehow tricked Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Oops....they weren't the President and Vice President then, were they? So I guess it was "BJ" Clinton and Algore who was misleading Congress on the Iraqi threat. Along with every other leading Democrat who saw the same intelligence reports and drew the same conclusions. So, before you impeach the President and Vice President, you should impeach every member of Congress who voted for either the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act or the 2002 Authorization for the use of Force against Iraq. That would include: Senators Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer.

Or maybe it was the Iraqi WMD. The same WMD that Saddam used to murder thousands of Kurds and Iranians. I'm confused how he was able to use WMD against the Kurds and Iranians if he didn't have any. And then there's that pesky report by the Iraqi to the weapons inspectors on their WMD programs. They admitted to producing the following:

Biological weapons:

Anthrax - 8,400 liters
Botulinum toxin - 19,000 liters
Clostridium (gas gangrene) - 3,400 liters
Aflatoxin - 2,200 liters
Ricin - 10 liters

Chemical Weapons:

Mustard gas - 500-600 tons
G agents (sarin, tabun) - 100-150 tons
VX - 50-100 tons

The following prohibited WMD are STILL unaccounted for:

Scud missile components, warheads and propellant
17 tons of growth media for the production of BW agents
Items of CW production equipment
4000 tons of CW precursors
750 tons of VX precursors
100 al-Hussein missiles
31 000 CW munitions
20 R-17 Scud-B -type missiles
40-70 CBW-capable missile warheads
Significant quantities of biological warfare agents
Significant quantities of 155-mm ammunition rounds

So I guess the President and Vice-President didn't "lie" about that threat.

So exactly what did the President and Vice-President do that rises to level of a "High crime or misdemeanor"?

kblack77,

"we are occupying their country with 150K troops"

Last time I checked, the democratically elected government of Iraq WANTS us there until they are able to provide for their own security. We are not "Occupying" their country. An "occupation" occurs when the victor in a war (that would be us, regardless of what the defeatist Democrats believe) rules the country. We have turned Iraq back over to the Iraqis through free elections. So stop with the "occupation" crap.

A-10 - the people of Iraq are quite clear - according to all opinion polls that they us to with draw within the time scale of a year or so.

To me - that is an occupation. When the will of the people is for us to leave - and we don't - that is an occupation.
But - its semantics at any rate

kblack77,

Fortunately, governments don't goven by polls. They goven by what is right for their people. At least democracies do.

It really doesn't matter what the polls say. And we know that poll questions can be designed to get a pre-determined response. If those polled were asked if they supported a withdrawal of US troops before the Iraqi Security Forces were able to provide for the countries defense, I would wager that a majority would say NO. If they were asked if they supported a withdrawal of US troops if it meant that it would probably result in increased violence and more attacks on innocent civilians, they would say NO. If asked if they want the US to leave, most would say YES.

And simple yes and no responses don't reveal the reason for the answer. Did you say yes because you know that if the US troops have left the Iraqis are providing for their own defense, or because you support the terrorists.

A good analogy is Rep Kucinich's recent vote on the Supplemental Funding Bill. He is a hard-core "cut and run" advocate. He want's the troops pulled out NOW. Yet he voted NO on the Supplemental Funding Bill. Does that mean he opposes the timelines for defeat? No, he doesn't want any more $$$ spent on Iraq and the troops withdrawn now. But he voted with most Republicans against the Bill.

I think everyone, from the President down to the most disillusioned liberal, wants to bring our troops home. I do. I personally know dozens of soldiers and airmen currently serving in Iraq. Id' like them home, safe and sound. But, and this is a huge BUT, we want them home when the entire mission is completed: When the Iraqi can provide for their own defense. We are nearing that goal. Not as fast as we would like, but we are nearing it.

To withdraw prior to that point is turning Iraqi over to the terrorists. Why would anyone want to do that?

There are only three reasons: One - you hate America so much that you cheer for its defeat. Two - you hate President Bush so much that a defeat in Iraq is a small price to pay for damaging the President. Three - you are on the side of the Islamo-fascists and want them to defeat us. Or it could be a combination of all three. Where do you fit it?

For those of you who want to return to the Viet Nam debate and believe we are doing most things right in Iraq, here's an active duty officer who disagrees with you. He doesn't seem to be blaming the hippies and he is calling for intervention from Congress.
From the Armed Services Journal
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

" For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress. "

And before you start going after the author realize this:
"Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tall Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan underway in Baghdad."

"He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel: He attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies and has written for one of the Army's top professional journals, Military Review."

"Fortunately, governments don't goven by polls. They goven by what is right for their people. At least democracies do."

Hmm. So if 90% of the population believes in position X and the democratically elected leader does Y. Thats government by democracy?

I think you need a lesson on how democracy works - yes you have elected leaders to make day to day decisions that you can't possibly have a daily country wide vote for. But -NO - its not democratic when a democratically elected leader continues to act in a fashion which is not supported by the vast majority of its population.

kblack77,

Can you provide proof of your 90% poll, or are you just pulling it out of your @ss, as usual?

Speaking of acting in a fashion which is not supported by the vast majority of its population, I expect to see our elected representatives ban abortion since the Pew Research Center poll found that about 70% of the population do not think abortion should be generally available.

The same poll found that about 60% oppose Same-Sex marriages, so I expect legislation to ban Same-Sex marriages.

In a recent Gallup Poll, only 2% thought their federal income taxes were too low, so Congress should follow the will of the people and never raise taxes.

You didn't answer my question, where do you fit? Are you motivated by hatred of American, hatred of President Bush, or support for terrorism?

where to start..

a) the 90% number was a hypothetical - not related specifically to anything we were mentioning here

b) your other poll numbers are of course non-sense and not worth replying to..

finally - no I am motivated precisely because I want good for this country- its that I disagree with your methods. Shame on you Sir for resorting to the "you hate america and support terrorism tactics". Its shameful and shows how little backing your position has

I think you need a lesson on how democracy works

kblack, where is this "democracy" of which you speak. Certainly not the good ol' US of A, since we are a representative republic. Seems to me you are the one in need of a civics lesson.

"I don't need a morality lesson from you JPL."

Apparently you need a lot more than a morality lesson, Thrower. You need a reading comprehension lesson.

For example, NOWHERE did I argue that we have a moral obligation to intervene wherever people in the world suffer. In fact I said pretty much the opposite, i.e., I wrote that there's no moral obligation to intervene to stop suffering if intervention would be futile. The example at hand was the U.S.'s failure to intervene in Communist China to try to stop the Cultural Revolution, and I was observing that that failure wasn't immoral, in part because intervention would have been futile.

Similarly, NOWHERE did I offer an "explanation for [my] absence from Vietnam in [my] younger days." Casper simply asked what I was "doing in 1975...to stop the Khmer Rouge," and I described my 1975 graduate work in Soviet Studies and national security studies because, well, it was a direct answer to Casper's direct question. The fact that you needed to read some sort of "morality lecture" into it tells us a lot about your biases.

kblack77,

So your 90% was hypothetical? So everyting after that was BS. Thought so.

As for the polls I referenced, "non-sense and not worth replying to"? In other words, you got slammed and have no response. For your information the data is available here, here, and here.

So you think it is good to allow Islamo-fascism to grow? You think we shouldn't stop terrorism in their backyard, rather than mainstreet America? You think we should surrender to the terrorists?

You liberals had 8 years to work on the terrorist problem and Islamo-fascism grew stronger and stronger. Because of the Clinton approach - let them attack, then have law enforcement solve the crime - we got the 1st WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and 9/11.

We're trying a different approach - take the fight to the terrorists, wherever they are. In Afghansitan, in Iraq, in Somolia, etc. Since we took this approach, how many attacks have there been on US soil (to include US embassies)? I'll answer for you: NONE.

"I don't need a morality lesson from you JPL."

Apparently you need a lot more than a morality lesson, Thrower. You need a reading comprehension lesson.

For example, NOWHERE did I argue that we have a moral obligation to intervene wherever people in the world suffer. In fact I said pretty much the opposite, i.e., I wrote that there's no moral obligation to intervene to stop suffering if intervention would be futile. The example at hand was the U.S.'s failure to intervene in Communist China to try to stop the Cultural Revolution, and I was observing that that failure wasn't immoral, in part because intervention would have been futile. On the other hand, once we do intervene, we do have a moral obligation not to abandon those we're intervening to help. That's why suddenly abandoning our Iraqi allies right now would be a monstrous wrong.

Similarly, NOWHERE did I offer an "explanation for [my] absence from Vietnam in [my] younger days." Casper simply asked what I was "doing in 1975...to stop the Khmer Rouge," and I described my 1975 graduate work in Soviet Studies and national security studies because, well, it was a direct answer to Casper's direct question. The fact that you needed to read some sort of "morality lecture" into it tells us a lot about your biases.

Let me be clear then JPL. The responsibility for the Cambodian genocide resides with:

1) The Cambodians themselves who could not control their murderous impulses.

2) The world as a whole who stood by and watched it happen.

3) And maybe third, Americans whose leaders bit off more than its citizens were willing to chew in Southeast Asia. For you to blame it on liberals and college students is hypocrisy. You didn't go, Cheney didn't go, Bush didn't go, Casper didn't go, I didn't go, and on and on.... I'm guessing we would all make the same decisions again and that goes for you too.

Maybe you can take a pause from puffing up your credentials as a seer and world security expert to answer the serious questions I posed. What do we do if the surge fails? Do we call in more troops and, if so, where do we get them?

If in the end Americans determine to step back and let these ancient enemies indulge their murderous impulses, the blame will reside with American leaders who made the decisions to go there in the first place, and then completely mismanaged the strategy and its execution. It won't belong with the American people.

Let's see, I would ramp up training and infrastructure operations, tone down active combat... We would of course, defend our own, but we would not actively pursue targets on our own, though we would probably provide logistics for Iraqi troops.

I'm curious to hear who admitted to producing the chemical agents (post 1992), whether it was confessed before or after the invasion, and whether or not it was before or after the waterboarding and mental anguish.

I would also wonder whether the stuff we've found, that was mostly depleted and would barely give you a rash, warranted a full scale invasion, resulting in the massive lost of blood and treasure.

Saddam definitely wasn't the first or only person to defy the US or the UN... do you also want to invade China, Sudan, Nigeria, Liberia, or a host of other countries? What made Iraq so special... the oil? the pop-shot they took on George Sr.?

This reminds me of a tv show I watched...

On this particular episode of Mythbusters, they were trying to prove or debunk the myth that sound waves can be used to put out fires. They ultimately proved that it was possible, so, since they like to blow things up, they wondered if the sound caused by an explosion could do the same. So, using a large quantity of high explosive, they were able to put out the flame with an explosion... they also charred all of the ground around it in a 10 ft radius.

That works as a metaphor...

A similar one would be trying to kill a fly on your friend's head with a sledge hammer... sure... the fly is dead, but how's your friend doing?

Thrower, I give you credit for being wrong consistently. Your arguments boil down to saying that (a) the American people have no moral obligation to do anything they don't feel like doing, and (b) unless you served in Vietnam, shut up.

Well, both arguments are loads of crap, and hypocritical too, since you probably think Vietnam veterans are idiots for voting about 70/30 in favor of Bush in 2004.

I find it comical, yet sad, how Americans think the solution to Iraq is dividing it into 3 parts. Are we not curious why Iraq doesn't agree? When their government explains how their major cities resemble the US in terms of being a melting pot, how would they go about dividing the country? The Iraq Ambassador to the US recently said that they would consider this proposal when the US decides to move all Catholics to one state and all Protestants to another. Perhaps that gives a proper visual to Americans how poorly conceived this idea really is. Did segregation work in the US? When we look back to the days when African Americans were segregated in our society, are we proud? Do we view that idea as a successful one? Yet we actually have citizens and politicans state that idea for Iraq as though it contains brillance. And how would these politicians, like Sen. Biden, propose separating people? And how would they handle the numbers of families that contain multiple religions -- according to the Ambassador it is commonplace. Do you separate their bedrooms? It amazes me that lousy ideas perpetuate for decades. What screams to me as a terrible memory for our African American citizens is now viewed as a "reasonable plan" for citizens thousands of miles away.