The IRA blew up kids and women in their time; and they finally compromised with the Brits. So your analysis is wrong.

Mark -

Are you saying that since "They" "blow up kids", then we need to torture people (even if some of those people were likely caught up in wide dragnets)?

Is that what you're saying Mark?

So if we torture, it's for a good reason, while the enemy tortures just for fun? That may be a distinction that you make, but no matter what the validity of that distinction (and I do think it has some validity), it's not a distinction that the Arab world is likely to appreciate.

Same too with your facile "blow up kids" dichotomy. Unfortunately, there have been many incidents of US troops accidentally killing women and children - even Michael Yon, who you laud here, plainly and regretfully reports that. You would say that the US military accidentally killing kids is a regretable by-product of war, that the war itself is the fault of terrorists, and that the US does its best to minimize those kinds of incidents - as opposed to the terrorists who don't care about collateral damage. However, this is a distinction that doesn't resonate with the victims' families or with the public at large in the Middle East.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Middle Easterners blame the the US - not terrorists - for accidental civilian deaths at the hands of US military. But here's the real kicker: not only do we get blamed for the deaths of civilians caused directly by military actions, but we also are seen in the region as at fault for the deaths caused by the suicide bombings and other killings related to the sectarian conflict.

In other words, a Sunni blows himself up in a market place, and most Iraqis fault the US.

You blame these perceptions on the media and groups like Amnesty International, but your ire is misdirected, Mark. Even without any of the reporting you see as so biased against the US, the feeling among Middle Easterners will always be that none of this sectarian strife would have been unleashed if 1) the US hadn't invaded in the first place, or 2) the US had brought adequate security to bear to protect civilians in the very early post-invasion phase. This second point reflects a long-standing conviction among Arabs that has been formulated over decades: that the US (and the West in general) does not value Arab lives. This is something that is deeply ingrained in an Arab society that has always suffered, going back to colonial times, a disproportionate loss of civilian lives in any conflict with western powers. Thru Arab eyes, it is believed that the US thinks 1 American life is worth more than 10,000 Arab lives (and you have to admit - that is in fact how most Americans probably think).

These long-held perceptions were merely reinforced when the US military spent far more resources in the days right after the invasion in securing oil ministries than it did in securing civilian neighborhoods, or museums containing the cultural heritage of Middle Eastern civilization. The message the Arab street heard was this: "Your people and your culture mean nothing to us - we're here for our own strategic interests".

Whether any of these perceptions seem fair to you or not is beside the point. They are there, they've been there for historical reasons, and they are only made worse, despite the very best efforts of our military, by the continuing US presence in Iraq. Admittedly, leaving at this point will probably not do much to repair damage done - but at least it would put a stop to causing yet more damage.

Remember, a war against extremism is a war of hearts and minds. This is something you seem not to understand. Case in point - Over and over again, Mark, you've said that US media do not report any of the good news in the conflict. But to demonstrate what you consider "good news", you posted reports from Michael Yon, who wrote about the fact that in most battles, the enemy losses far far outweigh US losses (specifically, he cited a recent battle in Southern Iraq where 40 enemy were killed, while British troops suffered no casualties). However, while this may be "good news" in a very limited military sense, in the overall picture it is almost irrelevant. The average Iraqi civilian doesn't give a damn that kill-ratios are lopsidely in favor of US forces (and indeed, in a guerrilla conflict, such kill-ratios are even of dubious military value). What Iraqis see is after 4 years of US occupation is the economy in ruins, unemployment is huge, it is not safe for kids in many urban areas to go to school, clean water is scarce, and electricity is sporadic, and large numbers of them are getting killed every day. Yes, things were terrible under Saddam, and yes, they most hated Saddam. But most also question whether life is any better now.

In the war of hearts and minds, we are losing. That is not the fault of the media, nor human rights organizations. And it is not the fault of our troops in the field. It is instead the fault of the overall no-win situation the troops have been placed into. The fine dictinction you want to make, Mark, that neatly divides everything into "don't blow up kids" and "blow up kids" camps are not distinctions that are made by Arab civilians. And yes, there is "enemy" propaganda that somewhat contributes to the framing of the Arab outlook - but what you fail to recognize is how much the US invasion and oocupation of Iraq has played directly into the hands of this enemy propaganda.

Blaming your favorite boogey-men, CNN and Amnesty International, may feel good, but it does nothing to understand our current situation in Iraq.

Excellent post, Aarontime. You have made many true and insightful points. Good work!

So if we torture, it's for a good reason, while the enemy tortures just for fun? -aarontime

So Aaron, what is the agenda of the terrorists? Why do they torture? What end result do they want? And do you consider that end result noble and worthy?

Same too with your facile "blow up kids" dichotomy. Unfortunately, there have been many incidents of US troops accidentally killing women and children - aarontime

So do you advocate battles then where no one gets hurt? Should we only fight wars where we can guarantee that no women or children are harmed? And if we can not guarantee that, maybe we shouldn't fight?

....not only do we get blamed for the deaths of civilians caused directly by military actions, but we also are seen in the region as at fault for the deaths caused by the suicide bombings and other killings related to the sectarian conflict. - aarontime

Geez I wonder why that is? It couldn't be because of the cowards here in this country advocating the same thing because of their utter fear of the enemy, lack of self confidence to win the battle and void of the vision required to see why the battle needs to be won? Maybe?

In other words, a Sunni blows himself up in a market place, and most Iraqis fault the US - aarontime

And so do the liberals.

...the feeling among Middle Easterners will always be that none of this sectarian strife would have been unleashed if 1) the US hadn't invaded in the first place, or 2) the US had brought adequate security to bear to protect civilians in the very early post-invasion phase. This second point reflects a long-standing conviction among Arabs that has been formulated over decades: that the US (and the West in general) does not value Arab lives. - aarontime

First of all, you're buying nto the rhetoric of the very small minority of jihadists that exist in the Arab world. Do you really believe that the people of Kuwait, The UAE, and Jordan, etc, feel the same? Secondly, the part of the middle east currently in conflict has been in conflict with, much atrributable violence, for decades if not centuries. To infer that the current mayhem is oslely atrributable to the US is dishonest (what a shock)

Remember, a war against extremism is a war of hearts and minds. This is something you seem not to understand. - aarontime

No, we tried the "hearts and minds" angle with miserable results. It's a two fold strategy that incorporates the military component. The first strategy is the preferred strategy of cowards because it requires very little effort and continued mayhem though with an acceptable death rate according to liberals.

Please answer these questions aarontime. I want to guage exactly the amount of brain damage you have suffered.

I must have missed something in Mark's post because I can't see anything that resembles the long rant posted by Atime.

An excellent article ... a must read for neorads.
It's called YOU BET WE CAN WIN.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/05/21/2007-05-21_you_bet_we_can_win.html

Oh, in case the neorads forgot ... You do not support the troops if you do not support their victory.

The following was just reported on Powerline. You see Aarontime, when liberals continually undermine the US, and commit treason, and continue to support our enemies, it pretracts our engagement with them. People usually have an understanding of this sometime after the 5th grade, but apparently this concept has escaped people such as your self.

Why would the the broader Arab community, primarily those in harms way, support the US when even the Democrats wont?

Yesterday's ABC News Blotter carried an item that began:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

Aaron,
Your post is verbose and lacks critical thinking; only regurgitates the talking points while building a straw man of Herculean proportions. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being George Soros; you’ve scored a 9. Thanks for playing.

First, there is no moral equivalence between intentional killing of innocents and torture of combatants. We do not torture, period.

If "Middle Easterners" blame the West for the suffering caused by the terrorists it’s only because the West is more concerned for the Middle Easterners than the terrorists; no good deed goes unpunished. I would also like to see the figures and the source of your contention that the victims of al Qaeda blame the US for their plight; this is a popular myth among liberals equivalent to the “they’ve been fighting each other (Sunni/Shiite) for centuries” myth. One need only look at the Syrian/Iranian cooperation to put this to bed. Insurgents have played on ancient rivalries to foment violence. In the short term this can be successful; but isn’t a long term plan for keeping the participants in line.

As the tragedy in Lebanon unfolds, we see Palestinians victimized by al Qaeda, Lebanese forces trying to care for innocents and no-one supporting the terrorists’ agenda. This is the Petri dish for Iraq; as Iraqis become increasingly independent of the insurgents they are able to take back their neighborhoods; this is why we fight, a free Iraq is a good ally to have.

Finally, your straw man regarding the “good news.” Michael Yon, B4B and every milblog and conservative pundit point to the schools, hospitals, safe neighborhoods, and lack of fighting as “good news” from Iraq; not one has ever touted military victories as a counter to the daily barrage of car bomb and beheading stories. We just wish the reporting of themilitary actions could be balanced. Do not confuse this with the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

If "Middle Easterners" blame the West for the suffering caused by the terrorists it’s only because the West is more concerned for the Middle Easterners than the terrorists - rathaven

Very well stated!

neocon -

"So Aaron, what is the agenda of the terrorists? Why do they torture? What end result do they want? And do you consider that end result noble and worthy?"

Strawman alert! Show me where I have ever said or even remotely implied that torture by terrorists is "noble and worthy".

"So do you advocate battles then where no one gets hurt? Should we only fight wars where we can guarantee that no women or children are harmed?"

Strawman alert! Where have I implied that "we should only fight wars where we can guarantee that no women or children are harmed"? Yes, any adult undertsands that innocent women and children get killed in wars. Lots of women and children got killed in WWII - but what you utterly fail to comprehend, neophyte, is that this idiocy in Iraq ain't WWII. The are just wars... and then there is stupidity.

...void of the vision required to see why the battle needs to be won?

LOL! oh please, do enlighten us with your extraordinary "vision", neocon! Seems to me, however, that the neocon "vision" never amounted to more than a wishful, naive pipe dream. And again, it is easy for you to spout off about "courage" you are not the one doing the fighting over in Iraq.

"...the part of the middle east currently in conflict has been in conflict with, much atrributable violence, for decades if not centuries. To infer that the current mayhem is oslely atrributable to the US is dishonest (what a shock)"

Strawman alert! No where do I say that "the current mayhem is solely attributable to the US". And in fact, I have gone out of my way many times to point out that one of the reasons we should not have invaded Iraq is that it would unleash sectarian conflict that has long historical roots (ie, such blood letting was "predictable and predicted"). Also, I write at length that current Arab perceptions are shaped by a long history, going back to the colonial era in the Middle East.

"No, we tried the "hearts and minds" angle with miserable results. It's a two fold strategy that incorporates the military component."

Oh really? Look, I am not against war in all cases (another one of your Strawmen accusations, no doubt). But war is not an adventure to be taken lightly. We have to be smart when it comes to when and against who we wage war. Unfortunately, the war of choice in Iraq was never in our best national interests, and it certainly has turned out to be a horror for Iraqis.

To dumb things down a bit for you, maybe I can use an anology. And since you toadies like WWII analogies, how about this: The US invading Iraq after 9/11 is much the same as if FRD had invaded Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. Does that crystallize it for you?

Furthermore, the "military component" of invading and occupying Iraq has totally undermined the real war - which is one of hearts and minds pitting moderates against extremists.

Neocon, if you wish to continue in your favorite past time of battling strawmen, go right ahead. Give me a call when you have the courage to actually debate me instead.

rathaven -

"On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being George Soros; you’ve scored a 9. Thanks for playing."

Wow, this Soros guy seems to be all the root of all evil these days in the wingnutosphere! Dailykos and Bill Clinton will be disappointed in their demotions on the wingnut demonization scale.

"We do not torture, period."

You're quite sure about that? Now that would explain why everybody from Dick Cheney on down in this administration have been busily making the rounds on Sunday talk shows making the case that the US has the right to torture anyone it deems an enemy combatant. And then there is the unfortunate photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib - but that must be my lying eyes acting up again.

"...this is a popular myth among liberals equivalent to the “they’ve been fighting each other (Sunni/Shiite) for centuries” myth."

Ah. So Sunni/Shiite haven't been fighting each other for centuries? I'm glad you cleared that myth up, rathaven. But your adoring fan neocon says that all these guys have indeed been at each others' throats for centuries. What say you, neocon, about rathaven's contention that what you say is a myth?

"Finally, your straw man regarding the “good news.” Michael Yon, B4B and every milblog and conservative pundit point to the schools, hospitals, safe neighborhoods, and lack of fighting as “good news” from Iraq; not one has ever touted military victories as a counter to the daily barrage of car bomb and beheading stories."

Uh, "not one", rathaven? In case you missed it, go back and read Leo's B4B post from just yesterday entitled "Michael Yon is there...where are the rest of the "journalists"? In that post, Leo points to a report by Michael Yon - as a counter the daily barrage of bad news stories - in which Yon writes about the fact that US forces kill many more insurgents than they kill of our guys.

You'll have to excuse me now - I have a high level meeting with George Soros.

Aarontime.....

I ASKED you those questions. I did not infer that you implied those, but your lack of honesty and courage to answer those very simple questions speaks volumes about your character. Instead, you offer up the old tired liberal rebuttal of strawman. You're a good puppet.

however, that the neocon "vision" never amounted to more than a wishful, naive pipe dream. - aarontime

STRAWMAN ALERT! Two can play your juvenile game.

To dumb things down a bit for you, maybe I can use an anology. And since you toadies like WWII analogies, how about this: The US invading Iraq after 9/11 is much the same as if FRD had invaded Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. Does that crystallize it for you? - aarontime

No, instead FDR invaded France as an indirect result of Pearl Harbor. Remember, we just dropped a bomb on Japan.

Neocon, if you wish to continue in your favorite past time of battling strawmen, go right ahead. Give me a call when you have the courage to actually debate me instead. - aarontime

You're too stupid, too dishonest and your head too firmly planted in the Soros spin machine to carry on any resemblance of a coherent debate. But thanks for the offer.

LOL! oh please, do enlighten us with your extraordinary "vision", neocon! Seems to me, however, that the neocon "vision" never amounted to more than a wishful, naive pipe dream. And again, it is easy for you to spout off about "courage" you are not the one doing the fighting over in Iraq.

Let me get this straight, pulling out of Iraq to help the Iraqis isnt the very definition of a pipe dream? And, believe it or not, we do need courage at home. It doesnt take courage to say "The war is lost", it takes courage to fight to win. I would never say the people here have ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of courage that our soldiers do over there. But fighting to lose is un-American and dare I say it, cowardly.

"Oh really? Look, I am not against war in all cases (another one of your Strawmen accusations, no doubt). But war is not an adventure to be taken lightly. We have to be smart when it comes to when and against who we wage war. Unfortunately, the war of choice in Iraq was never in our best national interests, and it certainly has turned out to be a horror for Iraqis."

Lets lay this out step by step so you can understand.

In 1998 the president and congress passed the 'Iraq Liberation Act':

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Clinton makes many statements about how we need regime change in Iraq.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Fast-forward, September 11th occurs. The country changes. People want action against phsychotic middle-easterners. Afghanistan. Now we look to history to see who is the greatest danger to peace in the middele east. Saddamn. The congress votes almost unanimously to invade.

We didnt invade just becuase Bush felt like it was a good idea to make lots of money, like you guys seem to think. You have to look at all the crap Saddamn pulled during the 90s, then put that through the 9/11 filter. I dont think anyone saw the mess that would ensue. After all, NOBODY can see the future. They can only see the past with perfect 20/20 vision. The only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes, and do what it takes to be successful.

Ah. So Sunni/Shiite haven't been fighting each other for centuries? I'm glad you cleared that myth up, rathaven. But your adoring fan neocon says that all these guys have indeed been at each others' throats for centuries. What say you, neocon, about rathaven's contention that what you say is a myth? - aarontime

Ah yes, aarontime you contradict yourself. rathaven is misguided as these two factions have been warring for years.

Your brain dead contention is that all was peaceful prior to the US "LIBERATION" and that the US Military is primarily responsible for the mayhem.

So which is it Aarontime, have they been warring for decades or did the real mayhem just begin in 2002?

You certainly lack the brains and the courage to answer hard questions as evidence by your deflection of your earlier post, but I will try again:

What, in your brain damaged view, are the jihadists goals? What are they trying to accomplish?

I know that's two questions and you can answer just one if you get confused.

We didnt invade just becuase Bush felt like it was a good idea to make lots of money, like you guys seem to think. You have to look at all the crap Saddamn pulled during the 90s, then put that through the 9/11 filter. I dont think anyone saw the mess that would ensue. After all, NOBODY can see the future. They can only see the past with perfect 20/20 vision. The only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes, and do what it takes to be successful. - jbiccum

Great post jbiccum. But what you're missing is that Aarontime does not deal in facts or history. His recount of history as it pertains to this battle begins in 9/11/01. They do not want to acknowledge the atrocities of the jihadists that precipitated 9/11 because of their utter lack of courage to confront them and their rush to isolationism for fear that this could happen again.

Clinton makes many statements about how we need regime change in Iraq.

jb, man, an admirable effort, but you're pissin' up a waterfall. The Dems in the Senate that unanimously supported the Iraq Liberation Act and the Dems in the House that overwhelmingly supported it knew one thing going in: Clinton wasn't ACTUALLY SERIOUS about doing anything more than firing off a few cruise missiles (which he did a couple months later). You think there would have been that level of support from Congressional Dems if they had thought Clinton was serious. They're mostly cowards, pure and simple. Now what really worries me is what happens if the Dems increase their margins in Congress and win the White House in 2008. We're gonna be lookin' at a conflict that makes Iraq look like a sandbox spat between a couple of 4-year-olds.

The are just wars... and then there is stupidity. - aarontime

More aarontime supidity.

Confronting Hitler was a just war and I am surprised you admitted it because Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews, as are Islamic Jihadists. So using your definition of a just war, this current conflict would then be considered just.

Thank you.

Secondly, Hitler invaded his neighbors as did Saddam. So again using your definition of a just war, this current conflict would then be considered just.

Thank you.

Moreover, Islamic Jihadists have perpetrated atrocities that Hitler never did, for example, flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people, blowing up commuter trains, blowing up nightclubs, and the mother of all atrocities, shooting school children in the back as they attempt to run for their lives. So using your definition for "just" wars, it appears that this current conflict meets and exceeds your standards.

You should be 100% supportive of this effort, but because of your pissing-down-your-leg fear and cowardice and your utter dishonesty, you seem to side with the very regime that violates your oh-so-high standards.

You should be proud.

crickets........

It seems that Aarontime has pulled a Murtha and re-deployed.

Actually, we do kill innocent women and children. We do so knowingly and accept it as a necessary part of warfare. We do not target women and children specifically, which is one of the things that differentiate us from the terrorists. To claim that the deaths of innocent women and children were accidents is a lie. The opening shot of this war was a missile strike on a restaraunt where Saddam was believed to be. Many Innocent Iraqis were killed ant the target was not even there. To expect that anybody would see this in the same light and accept it as Americas do is foolish

I think the democrats have lulled Americans into a false sense of security. Almost all of those running for the 2008 election do not even think there is a war on terror.

Something is coming, it is going to be big, the democrats will be left rattled.

"...Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews, as are Islamic Jihadists."

Uh, Saddam was not an Islamic Jihadist. He was a lot of really brutal things, but Islamic Jihadist wasn't one of them. Indeed, Baathist Saddam had a long history of conflict with Islamic Jihadists.

Further, Israel was not too concerned about Saddam in 2003 - and as we all know, the Israelis are widely acknowledged to have the best intel in the region. If Saddam were really a credible threat to "exterminate the Jews", do you think the Israelis would have had any hesitation at all to take him out themselves? After all, Israel is all about the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, and they are more than capable in this regard.

"Secondly, Hitler invaded his neighbors as did Saddam."

Yes, Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance, and then invaded tiny Kuwait. But in 2003, Saddam was, in the words of Colin Powell, "well contained and not a threat to his neighbors". That is why none of Iraq's neighbors joined the coalition to invade Iraq in 2003.

Furthermore, to compare the threat to the US posed by Iraq to that posed by the Third Reich is absurd. Hitler's Germany represented a true threat to dominate the world - and he had the military means to do it. Saddam was a tin-pot dictator ruling a poor third world country whose military capability in 2003 was pathetic. Saddam posed no credible threat to his immediate neighbors, much less to the US.

"Moreover, Islamic Jihadists have perpetrated atrocities that Hitler never did, for example, flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people..."

uh, yes, Islamic Jihadists did that - but not Iraq. As Mr Bush admits, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nice try at confabulation, neocon. You never seem to tire of this tactic, do you?

"You should be 100% supportive of this effort, but because of your pissing-down-your-leg fear..."

I find it rather ironic, neocon, that you repeatedly throw out these accusation of fear - because in fact, it is fear that has come to define you and your steadily dwindling "movement" ever since that fateful day in September, 2001.

Yes, we live in a dangerous world. You and your scared little cohort here need to stop peeing your pants over it like scared little girls. And that's exactly what this rush to invade Iraq was: an irrational, fearful, knee-jerk, pee-your-pants kind of response that ended up doing a lot of harm to everyone, while doing absolutely nothing to combat terrorism.

Combatting terrorists is not the same thing as invading random countries because you're scared sh*tless and easily manipulated by Daddy Cheney. He and his ilk appealed to your worse, most fearful, and basest instincts. Meanwhile, you and your ilk were small, terrified cowards - and that's how our great nation rushed into a destructive and needless war that has forever tarnished our national honor, caused so much death and destruction, while doing nothing to fight our enemies. You brag about your patriotism, and yet you hand-wringing nellies have done more to harm this country than any of any of our enemies could possibly dream of.

Further, Israel was not too concerned about Saddam in 2003 -

Really? Other than Saddam paying $25,000 to the families of palestinian suidice bombers. What's there to be concerned about?Now of course, you're assuming to know what Israeli's are concerned about. You are quite magnanimous.

Yes, Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance

um.....NO. Iran is the country that crossed in Iraq during that conflict.

and then invaded tiny Kuwait

Oh, if it's a small country I guess it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, to compare the threat to the US posed by Iraq to that posed by the Third Reich is absurd. Hitler's Germany represented a true threat to dominate the world - and he had the military means to do it. Saddam was a tin-pot dictator ruling a poor third world country whose military capability in 2003 was pathetic. Saddam posed no credible threat to his immediate neighbors, much less to the US.

Talk about "confabulation" Did Hitler have the military might to invade and occupy Europe AND the US. um.....NO!!!!! Did Hitler possess chemical weapons that could wipe out hundreds of thousands people...um.....NO!

uh, yes, Islamic Jihadists did that - but not Iraq.

Oh that's right, Saddam was a secular moderate who wouldn't even think of speaking with elements of an Islamic faction that shared a common enemy. WOULDN'T EVEN THINK OF IT!!!!

I find it rather ironic, neocon, that you repeatedly throw out these accusation of fear - because in fact, it is fear that has come to define you and your steadily dwindling "movement" ever since that fateful day in September, 2001.

Staying on the offense, as I, and others, advocate takes courage. Advocating re-deployment, suggests lack of self confidence to finish and win the war smacks of fear and cowardice.

that has forever tarnished our national honor,

Now you're afraid of what "tiny" countries think of you. Grow a spine, try and muster up some moral clarity and stop listening to Rosie O'Donnell.

Do you think she's hot?

Aaron,
Try to keep up, neocon didn’t say, (Sunni/Shiite) [have] been at each others' throats for centuries.” What he wrote was, “the part of the middle east currently in conflict has been in conflict […] for decades if not centuries.” Big difference; you distill this down to a Sunni/Shiite civil war; neocon correctly demonstrated the regional nature of the conflict; crossing clan/religion/borders/family and race (Arab/Persian). At different times throughout the millennia these groups fought with and against each other; like Americans and British; British and French; Germans and everyone else. Sunni/Shiite can find peace and cooperation with one another; liberal racists believe they are incapable of mutual respect and cooperation, shame on you.

We as a people and a government do not torture; those responsible for a naked pig-pile of detained criminals were charged and prosecuted with the crimes. Your ilk seem to draw an equivalence between torture, cutting off heads and forcing family members to watch their loved ones raped, mutilated and murdered with taking a photo of a persons genitalia. We would, in case of an effort to save American’s lives be fully justified in aggressive interview techniques, but make no mistake, we do not torture.

Finally, because you’re being purposefully obtuse, I’ll explain it again; the desire to “report the good news is not the same as fairly reporting the military conflict by journalists. Your attempt to blur the lines is an old trick from your side of the debate; advocates of a free Iraq ask why the good news about the reconstruction/liberation of Iraq is not reported and you want people to think of military victories instead of the human successes of the Iraqi people. Nice try, but beyond the talking points, you still have presented nothing to indicate that Amnesty International has a valid point in their contention.

“Yes, Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance,” blatant lie, you should be banned for that one alone.

Tell the one about how Rumsfeld was selling armiments to Saddam; I love that fairy tale.

“to compare the threat to the US posed by Iraq to that posed by the Third Reich is absurd”

Actually, according to your side of the aisle, he was a much worse threat to America’s interests; do a little research before pontificating. Read the Iraqi Liberation Act.

Again, blur the lines between the Global war on Jihadists, and the Iraqi liberation. Can we fight one by engaging the other? Why yes, even your boyfriend OBL has stated that Iraq is the central front in the war, maybe you should include him in your status conference with Soros; he seems to be missing the memos.

No, Mr. Useful Idiot; “Daddy” Cheney didn’t appeal to our worse fears; the Jihadistsdid when they attacked us on our soil, maybe you missed it, though I don't know how; it made all the papers.

Finally, because you’re being purposefully obtuse,

Rathaven, as the Warden said in the movie, "Cool Hand Luke", " what we have here is a failure to communicate", and I think you've stumbled onto the reason why, heh, heh.

Combatting terrorists is not the same thing as invading random countries - Aarontime

RANDOM COUNTRIES!!!!! Did you pay attention at all to what your hero Billy Clinton initiated in respect to Iraq?

Did you even read jbiccum's post, if not I suggest you do.

Random brain damge is more like it.

"um.....NO. Iran is the country that crossed in Iraq during that conflict".

My oh my - where do you get this nonsense, neocon? It is a well known fact that Iraq initiated the invasion of Iran, and not vice-versa as you erroneously claim. Check it out for yourself - or in case you are too lazy or intellectually challenged, I would simply direct you to the wikipedia entry for the Iran-Iraq war:

Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980, claiming as a pretext, an Iranian assassination attempt on Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.

With your basic ignorance of the Middle East and its history (and not to mention your general fear), it is no wonder that you were so easily manipulated into supporting this ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.

In any case, I grow weary of taking advantage of your ignorance. Ciao bambino.

liberal racists believe they are incapable of mutual respect and cooperation, shame on you.

In a nutshell....

Great post rathaven.

In any case, I grow weary of taking advantage of your ignorance. Ciao bambino.

Several cross border excursions in that battle.
And I have yet to see you address the points jbiccum and rathaven have made.

So......Aarontime pulls a Murtha, hasta la vista moron.

Dub Taylor; "Fail-ya ta' Commun-kate"
Are we dealing with a learning disorder or willful obstinacy? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks neo,

In fairness I should point out that the Sunni/Shiite conflict is overrated on our side of the pond; to us it seems like a bloodbath lasting hundreds of years, to them it’s a mutual distrust of one another’s interpretation of the faith and condemnation of the other’s practices. When poked in the eye each will respond with a fist to the other; but left to their own devices they will and have fought side-by-side to protect the greater good of their religion. ObL said that even the faithful can fight in the aid of the secularists (Iraq under Saddam) if it brings victory to the Mohammedans’ as a whole.

The Iraqi army/government and coalition forces are trying to stop the insurgents from fomenting the distrust of these two groups into action; if the Iraqis believe it can be done, why do liberals believe it’s not possible? Further Sunni Syria and Shiite Iran believe there can be mutual cohabitation, why do democrats think their more expert that the Mohammedans themselves?

Could it be that they're racist?

rathaven -

Try to keep up, neocon didn’t say, (Sunni/Shiite) [have] been at each others' throats for centuries.” What he wrote was, “the part of the middle east currently in conflict has been in conflict […] for decades if not centuries.” Big difference; you distill this down to a Sunni/Shiite civil war; neocon correctly demonstrated the regional nature of the conflict; crossing clan/religion/borders/family and race (Arab/Persian). At different times throughout the millennia these groups fought with and against each other; like Americans and British; British and French; Germans and everyone else. Sunni/Shiite can find peace and cooperation with one another; liberal racists believe they are incapable of mutual respect and cooperation, shame on you.

You're right, rathaven - I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have a feeling you're trying to appear intelligent with this muddled mess - but you're failing badly at it.

Your ilk seem to draw an equivalence between torture, cutting off heads and forcing family members to watch their loved ones raped, mutilated and murdered with taking a photo of a persons genitalia.

I don't recall having made any such equivalence.

Finally, because you’re being purposefully obtuse, I’ll explain it again; the desire to “report the good news is not the same as fairly reporting the military conflict by journalists. Your attempt to blur the lines is an old trick from your side of the debate; advocates of a free Iraq ask why the good news about the reconstruction/liberation of Iraq is not reported and you want people to think of military victories instead of the human successes of the Iraqi people.

Once again, rathaven, it was Leo's post yesterday that wanted people to think of military victories as the good news. Not me. Leo. Go read his post, and then my response to it again.

“Yes, Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance,” blatant lie, you should be banned for that one alone.

Blatant lie? It is well documented that the US provided Saddam with military intel to assist his war against Iran. This is not something of historical dispute. The Reagan Administration regularly provided Saddam with satellite imagery of Iranian troop positions and other key intel. Do you really want to dispute this? Go look it up yourself.

"Actually, according to your side of the aisle, he was a much worse threat to America’s interests; do a little research before pontificating. Read the Iraqi Liberation Act."

Again, blur the lines between the Global war on Jihadists, and the Iraqi liberation. Can we fight one by engaging the other? Why yes, even your boyfriend OBL has stated that Iraq is the central front in the war, maybe you should include him in your status conference with Soros; he seems to be missing the memos.

Soros, OBL, Jihadists, liberation... oh my! Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

"Blurry" indeed seems to be the apt word here... for your random dribblings. First, I don't think you know what "my side of the aisle" is. I am well aware that there were many cowardly Democrats who went along with this idiotic idea of invading Iraq. I personally would never vote for any of them. Let me ask you this, rathaven: do you really want your best argument in favor of the Iraq debacle to be that Democrats supported this mess too? You might want to rethink that.

Secondly, what OBL said was that the invasion of Iraq furthers al-qaeda's interests. Why are you so anxious to do what OBL wants, rathaven?

"No, Mr. Useful Idiot; “Daddy” Cheney didn’t appeal to our worse fears; the Jihadists did when they attacked us on our soil, maybe you missed it, though I don't know how; it made all the papers."

Right. So let me get this straight. Jihadists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt attacked us on our soil. Check. And same said Jihadists were funded by Saudis. Check. And same said Jihadists were trained in Afghanistan. Check. And same said Jihadists are currently harbored in Pakistan. Check. Naturally, we respond by invading... Iraq?

Iraq. Ruled by a brutal dictator, but also the most secular, anti-Islamist country in the region (after Turkey). Yep, makes sense to me.

The way I see it... we have this war on terror, which is not a war on Islam. We then respond by profiling Muslims... ummm... that tends to make it look like we are fighting Islam...

"Uh, Amnesty, the world was divided BYTHE ENEMY...you know; the people who BLOW UP WOMEN AND CHILDREN. That divided the world between those who don't blow up children, and those who do. This is a very deep divide and there's not too much chance for compromise across this particular partisan divide...you know, there's no way to blow up half a child, so I'm afraid we on the "don't blow up kids" side of the aisle will just have to keep fighting the "blow up kids" people, ok?"

You know, I don't get this paragraph at all.
Where does AI say that some extremists DON'T blow up women +children?
Where the #@%* did you guys come up with the "blowing up half a kid" scenario?
Where does AI say it supports the blowing up of children?

And do you guys maintain that human rights AREN'T being flouted in Iraq right now?
Oh, I forgot, you're the party that says torture's fine...which would actually mean that you guys are morally wrong...

ThELefTYFoOL

You leftists are trhe biggest bunch of ignorant people on the planet. We do harsh interrogations. Big deal.

Look at some of the videos our idiot press refuse to show here. Why? Why refuse to show it? Because it would make us "too angry".

Warning - don't download them unless you're prepared to see the brutality of our enemies.

http://www.terroristmedia.com/nukem/

You leftists are trhe biggest bunch of ignorant people on the planet. We do harsh interrogations. Big deal.

Look at some of the videos our idiot press refuse to show here. Why? Why refuse to show it? Because it would make us "too angry".

Warning - don't download them unless you're prepared to see the brutality of our enemies.

http://www.terroristmedia.com/nukem/

Aaron,
Sadly the first part of your diatribe is so convoluted I cannot respond except to say that you should take the time to read instead of simply looking for the talking points that you think match the situation. Your ramblings lack any discernable coherent pattern.

I have checked the history of US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war; there was no, repeat NO US involvement in the Iraqi invasion of Iran. On this you are simply lying. The first US involvement in the war was in late 1982; almost three years after the invasion.

“ I don't recall having made any such equivalence.“

Let me help you; I wrote, “"We do not torture, period” you responded, “And then there is the unfortunate photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib"

Real torture (Islamists) photos of genitalia (Abu Ghraib); remember now?

Why do you leftists continually try to link Iraq to 9-11? “Jihadists [] attacked us on our soil. [] we respond by invading... Iraq” Are you stupid or just don’t care about the truth? Never mind, we all know the answer to that one.

Aarontime..

Can you please tell me more about how the Israeli's did not fear Saddam considering they militarily took out reactors and had to face Saddam-financed suicide bombers? Please, can I hear that fairy tale one more time?

And I have yet to hear an answer on what you believe to be the jihadists goal. You certainly seem to know every nuance of Islam and exactly what the Israelis fear and don't fear, so I am sure you can enlighten us with your brilliance on what the jihadists hope to accomplish.

I know it's hard answering simple questions, but just once, try and focus.

neo & rat-

Aarontime is kicking your butts intellectually.

babykillingliberal - well i guess to your PCP fogged brain it would appear that way.

Excellent post, Aarontime. You have made many true and insightful points. Good work!

Actually, Airheadtime, you have made many redundant, b/s talking points.

OTOH, excellent rebuttal, neocon--you have exposed both Airheadtime and CO for the morons they are. Both blame America, and one has no dog in the hunt.

We then respond by profiling Muslims...

Gee, dumbarse with the funny name, has it ever occurred to you that 98% of all the current world conflict involves Islamic extermism? Hello? Hello? Wake up, you pitiful waste of oxygen!

neocon -

"Can you please tell me more about how the Israeli's did not fear Saddam considering they militarily took out reactors and had to face Saddam-financed suicide bombers? Please, can I hear that fairy tale one more time?"

Uh, neo, the Israelis took out the Iraqi reactor at Osirak back in 1981. Now, what I wrote was, "Further, Israel was not too concerned about Saddam in 2003". In other words, Saddam in 2003, after years of containment actions, was not a threat to his neighbors. And the fact that the Israelis pre-emptively attacked the Osirak reactor back in 1981 proves my point: namely, that had Saddam posed the threat to the Israelis in 2003 that you imply, they would have had no compunction about attacking Iraq unilaterally and pre-emptively.

rathaven -

"I have checked the history of US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war; there was no, repeat NO US involvement in the Iraqi invasion of Iran. On this you are simply lying. The first US involvement in the war was in late 1982; almost three years after the invasion."

So which is it, rathaven? The US gave NO assistance to Iraq in its war against Iran (which is the exact wording I originally used), or did the US in fact provide military assistance starting in 1982, as you admit? Pick one.

"Let me help you; I wrote, “"We do not torture, period” you responded, “And then there is the unfortunate photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib"

No, let me help you, rathaven. You said "We do not torture. Period", to which I responded by referring you to the photographic evidence from Abu Ghraib. You then wrote back, "Your ilk seem to draw an equivalence between torture, cutting off heads and forcing family members to watch their loved ones raped, mutilated and murdered with taking a photo of a persons genitalia". Again, I made no such equivalence. Where did I say that photos of genitalia are the equivalent cutting off heads while family watch? That was something you wrote, not me.

bleh - I'm so done with you two. George Soros is going to be so mad that I'm late for the meeting.

neo & rat-

Aarontime is kicking your butts intellectually.

Thank you b.e.l., it's been a stressful day and I needed a good laugh.

How are the fries coming along?

The way I see it... we have this war on terror, which is not a war on Islam. We then respond by profiling Muslims... ummm... that tends to make it look like we are fighting Islam...

By God, Rana, I think you're on to something. Clearly, we should be profiling Presbyterian Missionaries.

Uh, neo, the Israelis took out the Iraqi reactor at Osirak back in 1981. Now, what I wrote was, "Further, Israel was not too concerned about Saddam in 2003". In other words, Saddam in 2003, after years of containment actions, was not a threat to his neighbors. And the fact that the Israelis pre-emptively attacked the Osirak reactor back in 1981 proves my point: namely, that had Saddam posed the threat to the Israelis in 2003 that you imply, they would have had no compunction about attacking Iraq unilaterally and pre-emptively.

So Saddam mellowed over time right? And the "credible" weapons inspections were going along so well.

Israel never stopped fearing what Saddam might be capable of as evidence by the bounty to the families of palestinian suicide bombers.Hadn't you noticed a decline in the despicable behaviour?

Also for a country that is surrounded by Arab countries, many of which harbor a special form of extremism in the modern era, HENCE 2003, they had to take much more care of their actions. The political world was much different in 1980, mainly, there were much fewer radical liberal cowards such as yourself protecting the jihadists.

By God, Rana, I think you're on to something. Clearly, we should be profiling Presbyterian Missionaries. - RS

That's priceless.

I swear liberalism should be classified as a form of brain damage.

Aaron writes, “NO assistance to Iraq in its war against Iran (which is the exact wording I originally used),”

No it’s not;

Aaron actually wrote: “Yes, Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance,”

You see how your lies catch up with you?

“[] torture” = “photos of abu ghreib”

Aarons credibility = 0

“I'm so done with you two” = “I’ve used up all my talking points”

Saddam posed the threat to the Israelis in 2003 that you imply, they would have had no compunction about attacking Iraq unilaterally and pre-emptively. - airheadtime

That's just a flat out LIE! They currently have huge "compunction" about pre-emptively attacking Hamas, because of the liberal political climate.

How much does Soros pay you?

Saddam posed the threat to the Israelis in 2003 that you imply, they would have had no compunction about attacking Iraq unilaterally and pre-emptively. - airheadtime

That's just a flat out LIE! They currently have huge "compunction" about pre-emptively attacking Hamas, because of the liberal political climate.

How much does Soros pay you?

rathaven -

So which is it - did the US assist Iraq in its war with Iran or not?

hint: It's a yes/no kind of a question.

The US was not involved with the invasion of Iran, ergo, you are a liar.

hint: are you simple?

I find it rather ironic, neocon, that you repeatedly throw out these accusation of fear - because in fact, it is fear that has come to define you and your steadily dwindling "movement" ever since that fateful day in September, 2001

So taking action against people who want to kill you is fear? Sounds like quite the opposite to me.

Oh, and Aaron's absurd assertion that Israel wasn’t concerned with Iraq in 2002;

“Israel also has ‘clear indications’ that Iraq resumed efforts to produce fissile materials, Mossad leader Ephraim Halevy said while addressing a closed session of the council Wednesday in Brussels. The Mossad has, ‘a reason to believe’ Iraq managed to preserve some of its chemical and biological warfare capabilities. It has ‘partial evidence’ that the Iraqis resumed production of VX and possibly anthrax germs, he added.” NewsMax wire June 28, 2002

From the article:
discriminatory counter-terrorism strategies

no right is sacrosanct

LOL! Poor widdle terrorists! They're human beeeeeings too! How dare those bad Western nations not respect their strife!

Sorry, bedwetters--jihadis get (less than) zero sympathy from me, and shouldn't get any from any civilized people. To defend them is utterly contrary to the very core principles of liberalism. I guess that doesn't matter, though, when there's a Republican in the White House. Amnesty Int'l (and the bedwetters defending their idiocy) has become a parody of itself!

LOL!

rathaven -

the US was involved with the war initiated by Iraq's invasion of Iran. In fact, the entire 8 year war was an extension of that invasion, and Iran's subsequent attempts to fight off that invasion. To say that the US was not involved because it only started assisting Saddam in his war with Iran 2 years into the 8 year conflict is pretty disingenuous.

To say that the US did not particpate in Saddam's war against Iran because we gave assistance after he invaded is a little like saying the US did not participate in WWII because we didn't join until 2 years after the Battle of Britain.

Right. So let me get this straight. Jihadists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt attacked us on our soil. Check. And same said Jihadists were funded by Saudis. Check. And same said Jihadists were trained in Afghanistan. Check. And same said Jihadists are currently harbored in Pakistan. Check. Naturally, we respond by invading... Iraq?

Did you know that the Saudis hate OBL as much as we do? You talk about knowing the middle east, but I guess you dont when it suits you.

Here let me quote myself so you can understand why we invaded Iraq...

In 1998 the president and congress passed the 'Iraq Liberation Act':

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Clinton makes many statements about how we need regime change in Iraq.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Fast-forward, September 11th occurs. The country changes. People want action against phsychotic middle-easterners. Afghanistan. Now we look to history to see who is the greatest danger to peace in the middele east. Saddamn. The congress votes almost unanimously to invade.

We didnt invade just becuase Bush felt like it was a good idea to make lots of money, like you guys seem to think. You have to look at all the crap Saddamn pulled during the 90s, then put that through the 9/11 filter. I dont think anyone saw the mess that would ensue. After all, NOBODY can see the future. They can only see the past with perfect 20/20 vision. The only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes, and do what it takes to be successful.

I swear liberalism should be classified as a form of brain damage.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder--Michael Savage...

OH, I see, Aaron, what you said was “Saddam invaded Iran, with US assistance” but what we should have gleaned from this absurd statement is “Iraq invaded Iran quite on it’s own after the Islamic revolution 1979 in Iran and equipped with the latest Soviet materiel; 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft, after the MIG-23’s and MIG+-21’s attacked Iranian airbases and destroyed the Iranians capabilities for airborne retaliation. And after almost three years of a protracted ground engagement that saw the Iranian forces push Iraq beyond Khorramshahr, while Saddam was beginning to recall to international borders and signal that he was willing to accept a settlement of hostilities … then the US, after deciding that our enemy at the time Iran would benefit from a losing Iraq, a chance we weren’t willing to take would offer Iraqi’s satellite images of Iranian troop movements during Operation Dawn V, but would later rescind efforts to allow Iran and Iraq to fight to a stalemate because Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran and we couldn’t be seen cooperating with illegal W’sMD (even though we didn't know much less condoned such actions). So the US sold a few non-military short range helicopters and a dozen flatbed trucks, instead.”

Is that about the extent of your statement?

Now, if you compare that "involvement" to D-Day and the war against Germany you're more simple minded than even I gave you credit for.

Considering all of the above this will probably seem OT, but does anyone have a link to the actual Amnesty International report? I tend to view reports about reports with a great deal of skepticism - especially when they clip quotes down into phrases, and especially when they don't link to the document they report about. I'm not saying it's the case, but it definitely does suggest an intentional attempt to take the comments out of context.

I do find it interesting, though, that Mark called Amnesty International a "once honorable group". What changed? Was it their definition of what constitutes human rights abuses or ours? We do seem to be having a lot of trouble with definitions on this thread. One of the biggies is the definition of "torture". Apparently some here prefer a more subjective definition along the lines of... "any activity that is less heinous than the worst the enemy cooks up". Anything less is defined as "enhanced interrogation techniques", which is okay. But if it's okay for us, then it's okay for everyone else, right? So I guess that depending upon where you draw the line, it could very well lead to a "downward spiral of human rights abuse".

Another important question is, question is... do these techniques work for any more lofty purpose than to satisfy revenge? In other words, do they really result in actionable intelligence more often than other techniques, or do they result in hearing what you want to know so often that it swamps whatever useful intel you're likely to get?

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with waterboarding someone, or peeing on their holy book, or whatever, if there was a good chance it would save more lives than it was likely to put in jeopardy. But I do have a problem with doing it just for the hell of it. Because that's what it will result in -- the hell of it.

Irene Khan is another America hater. In a speech today, she compared Gitmo to the Gulag!!

“Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law. If Guantanamo evokes images of Soviet repression, “ghost detainees” - or the incommunicado detention of unregistered detainees - bring back the practice of “disappearances” so popular with Latin American dictators in the past."

Oh really, Irene? Me thinks you need to read some history books.

Here's a brief description of the labor camps in Russia:

Conditions in the camps were extremely harsh. Prisoners received inadequate food rations and insufficient clothing, which made it difficult to endure the severe weather and the long working hours; sometimes the inmates were physically abused by camp guards. As a result, the death rate from exhaustion and disease in the camps was high.

Nick Cohen of the UK’s Observer put it this way:
If they [AI] exclude the millions who died of starvation, disease and exhaustion, they will find that 776,098 prisoners were murdered in summary executions in the gulag between 1930 and 1953.

At Guantanamo Bay, no one has died of starvation, disease or exhaustion and no prisoners have been executed. Not one. If Amnesty’s American obsession prevents it from seeing the worst crimes of the 20th century for what they are, how will it sound the alarm about the worst of the 21st?

Great post, Kimberly. And I'll bet Irene Kahn thinks of herself as a reasonably intelligent woman. Sigh!

rathaven -

Ah, so now you admit that the US gave assistance to Saddam in the war he launched against Iran (this after initially saying the US gave NO such assistance). Now you've retreated to saying that such assistance was small - just a few satellite images, some flat bed trucks, and some "non-military" helicopters.

However, the biggest contribution to Saddam's war effort was money. From the wiki bio on Saddam:

The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. Saddam's Iraq became the third-largest recipient of US assistance.

From an article by former ambassador Peter Galbraith:

The Reagan administration offered Hussein financial credits that eventually made Iraq the third-largest recipient of US assistance. It normalized diplomatic relations and, most significantly, began providing Iraq with battlefield intelligence. Iraq used this information to target Iranian troops with chemical weapons. And when Iraq turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988, killing 5,000 in the town of Halabja, the Reagan administration sought to obscure responsibility by falsely suggesting Iran was responsible.

On Aug. 25, 1988 -- five days after the Iran-Iraq War ended -- Iraq attacked 48 Kurdish villages more than 100 miles from Iran. Within days, the US Senate passed legislation, sponsored by Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island, to end US financial support for Hussein and to impose trade sanctions. To enhance the prospects that Reagan would sign his legislation, Pell sent me to Eastern Turkey to interview Kurdish survivors who had fled across the border. As it turned out, the Reagan administration agreed that Iraq had gassed the Kurds, but strongly opposed sanctions, or even cutting off financial assistance. Colin Powell, then the national security adviser, coordinated the Reagan administration's opposition.

Even more stunningly, Galbraith goes on to note:

The next year, President George H.W. Bush's administration actually doubled US financial credits for Iraq. A week before Hussein invaded Kuwait, the administration vociferously opposed legislation that would have conditioned US assistance to Iraq on a commitment not to use chemical weapons and to stop the genocide against the Kurds. At the time, Dick Cheney, now vice president, was secretary of defense and a statutory member of the National Security Council that reviewed Iraq policy. By all accounts, he supported the administration's appeasement policy.

In 2003, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons 15 years before as a rationale for war. But at the time Hussein was actually doing the gassing -- including of his own people -- they considered his use of chemical weapons a second-tier issue.

Pretty damning for all you Bushbots who now keep harping about the gassing of the Kurds - 20 years after the fact.

The National Security Archives further show:

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan...

Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

Gee, I wonder if being the 3rd largest recipient of US aid allowed Saddam to buy weapons on the international market. You think? Oh, but the NSA archives go on:

Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis...In April 1984, for example, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.")

Some of these very same Bell and Hughes helicopters were later used by Saddam to ferry troops into combat areas in southern Iraq during the brutal suppression the Shi'a uprising after the first Gulf War.

aaron - well, yah we helped Sadaam against iran after Iran raised a big Jihadist Army bent on sweeping through Iraq into the rest of the mid-east. Duh. We also helped that asshole Stalin fight Hitler. So? Its not like we propped them up or something and its not like we got them into their wars. Its just a matter of choosing the less of two evils. That measurement changes over time by the way.

So?

You all say we torture - bull. You look at the video links I posted earlier. Find me videos of our goes doing those things - and we'll talk. Until then, I'll just assume that you don't understand war or the thugs we're fighting. This isn't some game. How could we possibly trust the security of this country to idiots like you? I want paople in power to act with unwavering clarity of purpose to kill our enemies.

Maybe I can put some perspective on torture. My uncle was a POW curtesy of the Japanese during WW2. As part of my Uncle's torture besides the customary beatings and starvation, he was castrated. So it is not surprising when WW2 vets who suffered horrendous torture laugh at Amnesty International and their pathetic rants against the USA. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that torture does NOT work if the victim is so mentally and physically impaired he will answer to anything. With that being said, for those of you who insist that the USA tortures their POWS, I suggest you speak to the International Red Cross who has an office just outside of Gitmo. Amnesty International is the same organization who shouts USA torture and then when Gitmo releases a prisoner to their home country, this same organization shouts the prisoner can't be released as they will be tortured in their home country. For those of you who thinks the USA tortures their prisoners, talk to some veterans who suffered POW status at the hands of the Japanese, Germans, or VietCong. Then get back to me. Or better yet, go volunteer at a VA hospital or a Human Rights Org. Make a trip to the Sudan, go visit some of the refugee camps, talk to the Muslims raped and sodomized and sold into slavery by their own people. And if all that fails, try watching the beheading videos and then tell me if you see a US soldier beheading a prisoner.

People who blow up children and women are much, much less of a threat to Americans than guerrillas and militia men who take up arms against Americans. Even non-Americans are more likely to be the victims of people who blow up children.

Under the Bush Administration, one terrorist state now has a nuclar bomb (North Korea) and now it is learned that the Military dictatorship of Myanmar is very close to getting their own bomb.
Bush cannot do anything right.

Read the Asiantimes article: Myanmar drops a nuclear 'bombshell'
By Larry Jagan

Without getting bogged down in the overall debate, I wanted to respond to one point:

I dont think anyone saw the mess that would ensue. After all, NOBODY can see the future. They can only see the past with perfect 20/20 vision. The only thing we can do is learn from our mistakes, and do what it takes to be successful.
-- jbiccum

Actually, the outcome here was perfectly foreseeable. Even me, with my admittedly limited knowledge of all the factions and politics at play in the region, could see this quite well.

In 1992, responding to criticism that the US had not "gone to Bagdad" and taken out Saddam after the Gulf War, Dick Cheney said "the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." (emphasis mine)

So yeah, the whole thing was completely predictable. The real question for me is why we did it anyway. I still don't know.

In more shocking news, I ended up defending Matt and Mark in the comments section of a negative Amazon review. I really need a hobby or something.

Thanks Aitch. Got some percentages and numbers to back that up? Blowing up innocents is HOW these people fight us. Its called asymmetric warfare – Jeessshhhhh – I am sick and tired of educating ignorant liberals. Yopu all come here and parrot the same inane talking points and you don’t have a clue about anything. What do you think terrorism is – not the acts, think about the actual damn word TERRORism. Doesn’t it make you think that maybe, just maybe TERROR is the tactic or strategy? That killing innocents to sap our will to fight is the actual plan? Hmmmmm? I wonder? (You idiot)

Oh, and Aaron - the help we DID give Sadaam was mostly just satellite intelligence on Iranian troop movements. Not much use against anyone BUT the Iranians and also with a very short shelf life.

We are in a fight against a brutal and evil enemy. Wake up to it. No one watched the videos yet? Anyone find comparable ones with Americans doing the deeds?

Oh - and thanks Uffy - thats exactly right. But the characters we're talking to here will run over to the daily KOS to get arguments to use against us rather than actually thinking about it.

Wow Arrontime, just one question, SO WHAT?

In 2003, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons 15 years before as a rationale for war. But at the time Hussein was actually doing the gassing -- including of his own people -- they considered his use of chemical weapons a second-tier issue.

Pretty damning for all you Bushbots who now keep harping about the gassing of the Kurds - 20 years after the fact.

Who considered it a "second-tier issue"? "They"? Do you have a quote or something of "they" saying gassing thousands of poeple is a "second tier issue"? No you dont.
You site Peter Galbraith. Who is he? Oh a Democrat who is extremely anti-Bush. Sounds to me like your citing an anti-Bushie as fact.

I know we helped Saddamn in the 80's. We also helped Iran overthrow the Shaw of Iran, thanks Jimmy Carter. We thought Saddamn was the lesser of two evils. Clearly we were wrong to help EITHER of those two countries.

Notice how I say "we" even when I talk about Jimmy Carter. Thats because I am an American. Like it or not Aarontime, we are all Americans. Bush is our President. Our LEADER. White hot hate of our president does nobody good. BTW I am not a "Bushbot". I disagree with him all the time. I think most Republicans disagree with all the time. Take the Dubai port deal, and his immigration reform. Shouldn't we agree with that if we are all "Bushbots"?

BTW I am not a "Bushbot". I disagree with him all the time. I think most Republicans disagree with all the time. Take the Dubai port deal, and his immigration reform. Shouldn't we agree with that if we are all "Bushbots"? - jbiccum

Another great point. Bush has angered me on more than one occassion, specifically the Harriet Meiers debacle, teaming up w/Kennedy on NCLB, his out of control spending, in fact, one thing the liberals should love Bush on is that he spends almost double on entitlement compared to what Billy Clinton did. And the latest immigration shamnesty disaster is outrageous. I also believe his stewardship of this war is average at best.

But I will ALWAYS stand behind the greatest country on this planet, the USA.

The more I hear Giulani (I hoped I spelled that right), the more I like him. He could also wipe the floor with any current Democrat contender.

What the libbies have a hard time with is that they have become hostage to the far left fringe and their party will suffer as a result. They're almost fascist in their approach, shouting down dissent in even amongst their own. It's almost hard to watch.

And as evidence of the fascist far left, I present the following:

Enraged by what they considered capitulation by Democrats, anti-war leaders vowed to redouble their efforts at defeating the next funding request when it comes up as expected in September. The group MoveOn.org, which previously had been an ally of the Democratic leadership on the war issue, in a statement raised the specter of "in-district advertising and recruitment of primary challengers" as punishment for Democrats who supported the deal.

All this conversation is worthless. What's done is done. You cannot go back and change history.

What we have now is a failed state in Iraq, and an occupation with no end in sight. This war is NOT winnable for the United States. It will never be calm or peaceful in iraq as long as american troops are there. Frankly, those troops are targets for ALL the factions fighting.

And NO you ignorant republicans. Shiites and Sunni's have NOT been warring for centuries. Over the last 100 years, they have been living peacefully in the middle east. Shiites in Iran, and Sunni's in the rest of the middle east. Syria has both sunni and shiite and they have NEVER had a major civil unrest between the two groups. The shiite uprisign in Southern Iraq was due to US urging. And in the end, they let the shiites have an uprising and it was over before it even started.

This civil war was started in part because of the power struggle between RADICAL factions of the shiite and sunni community. The majority of shiite and sunni's don't hate the other. It is the few that do. Those are the ones that are fueling the flames of civil war in Iraq. They also take advantage and kill americans while they are at it.

I feel bad for the US. Stay, and you will have declining support for the war from within your own country. Withdraw and you will have left a failed state that will be in support of Iran and Syria with the current Shiite dominated majority in government. hahaha, have fun messing with that one.

WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO PRINT MY COMMENTS MARK?! ANSWER ME DAMNIT INSTEAD OF IGNORING ME YOU COWARD!

(Uh, I've been in Mesquite, and so wasn't interested in monitoring the blog for the past 48 hours or so? Did you think of registering so that your comments would appear automatically?)

This war is NOT winnable for the United States. It will never be calm or peaceful in iraq as long as american troops are there. - realist

A Vietnam drug junkie pipes in. Tell me about all of the violence up in northern Iraq.

The shiite uprisign in Southern Iraq was due to US urging. And in the end, they let the shiites have an uprising and it was over before it even started. - realist

The drugs have obviously taken over.

They also take advantage and kill americans while they are at it. - realist

The fighting is over power and control of oil revenues, moron. And the only ones trying to kill the Americans are the AQ idiots, who have unfortunately gotten a few, but comprise only 5% of the fighting because of their diminishing status. Also, if you consider 10,000 fighting insurgents out of a population 27,000,000 citizens, a civil war, you're sadly blinded by talking points.

I feel bad for the US. - realist

Spare me the tears. The US is the most powerful, most benevolent country on the planet. You should be concerned more about your country, in whatever failed state condition it is.

This war is NOT winnable for the United States. It will never be calm or peaceful in iraq as long as american troops are there. - realist

A Vietnam drug junkie pipes in. Tell me about all of the violence up in northern Iraq.

The shiite uprisign in Southern Iraq was due to US urging. And in the end, they let the shiites have an uprising and it was over before it even started. - realist

The drugs have obviously taken over.

They also take advantage and kill americans while they are at it. - realist

The fighting is over power and control of oil revenues, moron. And the only ones trying to kill the Americans are the AQ idiots, who have unfortunately gotten a few, but comprise only 5% of the fighting because of their diminishing status. Also, if you consider 10,000 fighting insurgents out of a population 27,000,000 citizens, a civil war, you're sadly blinded by talking points.

I feel bad for the US. - realist

Spare me the tears. The US is the most powerful, most benevolent country on the planet. You should be concerned more about your country, in whatever failed state condition it is.