In other words, you won't go to Iraq because you
find it so much nicer to be a cheerleader from a
safe distance. I can hardly blame you.

You know, I actually agree with you on a lot of this. Agreeing with or supporting a policy isn't tantamount to seeking a career in the military. I mean, our country is set up so that the people making military policy aren't in the military (civilian leadership of the pentagon). It's a safeguard against military dictatorship. While I disagree strongly with your position on the war, and most things in general, I support your ability to support an action without having to actively participate in it. That being said, I think that being there or having family there has a tendency to change ones opinion of Iraq.

Rana - good friends son killed in Fallujah. I knew his dad well in high school - and though I didn't know his son, he was a Marine. That means I did know him (most here won't get that). My nephew IS there. His mother, my sister-in-law is going there (Navy W.O.), his little sister (her daughter) was there. Me and my brother were Marines (too old and fat to help much now).

Iraq is a hell hole. The whole region sucks and is populated by some of the biggest jerks on the planet. I include Israel in that by the way. My anaology is one of a prison yard. We walked in, killed the biggest baddest guy in the yard - and took his seat. It's the best seat in the yard.

Meanwhile, in part (surely you MUST admit in part) because of the rabid anti-Bush sentiment here Iran is fighting a proxy war against us and Turkey is massing troops on the northern border of Iraq.

What will we do when a NATO country (who wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory) invades Iraq? What do YOU think we should do, because honestly I'm not sure.

Yeah, one of my room mates for this coming school year is an Iraq veteran (against withdrawal) and a marine (honorably discharged), another friend of mine is also an Iraq veteran (for withdrawal) and a sailor (GI bill), another two friends (brothers, for withdrawal) are currently getting commissions in the US army at different GA military schools, their brother has already been to Iraq, my mom's best friend's son has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not like I'm insulated from the war in the least bit.

I think that the Bush sentiment in the region certainly hinders anything that we try to do in the region, but sedition and questioning of the government over here is a natural outgrowth of our freedom of political expression. While it may hurt or hinder the policy from a global support standpoint, you can't fault people with voicing their opinions in a free and open democracy like the one we have here.

I used the "fostering discontent" definition of sedition, not the "fostering rebellion" one... Just thought I'd clear that one up. The latter is an act of treason, as the former isn't.

Mark,

You also forgot won 2 presidential campaigns.

Oh, and Kahn

As per your question... I haven't the slightest clue... I mean, if we're still there, we have to defend ourselves... I guess that we would have to defend our new ally from invasion either way...

Well even if you didn't support the military directly, don't say you've done nothing. You looked at your $4,000 bill($1.2t/$300m) and said I'll gladly pay this and more regardless of any indication of coming success.

And I just can't imagine why you would put conditions on the president's most noble call to arms. The Liberals in Afghanistan - kind of quid pro quo - but the rest of your conditions are completely irrelevant.

The "why don't you go to Iraq" yourself argument is mighty thin. Several of us supporting the fight for Iraqi self determination are veterans of other Wars that we did attend while many currently opposed have never served a day in their life.

Of course, this doesn't cover all, but it does cover quite a few.

What I find laughable in the argument is that the handful that served once before and are oppsoed now are elevated as beyond rproach. The vast majority of us Veterans that have served and support it are deemed "Chicken Hawks" and told we don't matter.

Case in point, the 2004 elections. Kerry was beyond reproach because he spent 4 months in Viet Nam and wrangled a few medals and threw them away in his anti-war days, so he said. He later changed his political stance and became a war hero to get votes and was billed as all knowing by the anti-war groups.

Along comes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and they are castigated and maligned for their opposition and for daring to speak against Kerry, the now war hero. It wa said it was dishonorable to speak against a Veteran in such a way, but you anti-war types had no problem belittling, defaming and castigating over 250 highly decorated Veterans trying to protect your boy, Kerry.

Nice double standard, guys.

Kahn: Meanwhile, in part (surely you MUST admit in part) because of the rabid anti-Bush sentiment here Iran is fighting a proxy war against us and Turkey is massing troops on the northern border of Iraq.

What will we do when a NATO country (who wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory) invades Iraq? What do YOU think we should do, because honestly I'm not sure.

Quite a dilemma, isn't it? But I think it goes without saying that you can't be an unqualified cheerleader for the surge strategy without coming to grips with the question you ask -- along with other related geostrategic questions.

With respect to your prison yard analogy... we replaced the biggest baddest guy in the yard, but we didn't take his seat. On that score our proxy (the Maliki gov't) is still struggling. In fact, their grip on said seat is getting more tenuous rather than less. So while we're asking hard questions, here's one for you: how do you feel about a coup?

"What will we do when a NATO country (who wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory) invades Iraq? What do YOU think we should do, because honestly I'm not sure."

I'm not sure what the answer is either, but if I were president, I would have the State Department working overtime trying to get Turkey and the Kurds to some kind of compromise. If Turkey invades, any chance of any kind of peace in that area goes down the drain.

My respect for you just went way up Kahn. That was a thoughtful reflection on the personal stake you have in the war and an honest description of the chaos in the region. It is a refreshing pause from all of the "victory is around the corner" nonsense I read here.

Last week my 25-year old daughter brought over one of her friends who has just left the Marine Corps after three tours in Iraq. He is relieved to be out of the service, still shocked and horrified over seeing friends blown up, and no longer supports the war. I realize he is just one guy; no more, no less.

I am terribly discourged at short term prospects in the Middle East. Too many countires are led by either old and corrupt totalitarian dictators, or weak and ineffectual heads of state. It feels like a powder keg waiting for the fuse to be lit. If we have not made the region worse, we certainly have made it no better.

I also agree with you that hatred for Bush is now a substantial impediment here and abroad. He owns much of the blame for that, having spent too much time ridiculing and questioning the patriotism of people who just honestly disagreed with him. Leave it to historians to figure out how he so badly wasted the near unanimous support he had in late 2001, but it looks like his departure is a prerequisite to a reasoned national debate on the way forward in the region.

Matt's post leaves me shaking my head. Cut through all the crap and he is saying he supports the war so long as someone else fights it. He should be embarrassed.

The words you put in my mouth were not what I said,
and they were not what I meant. What I actually
said was a good deal more charitable to you.

All very good points, but obviously not going to do any good. Liberals are moving targets, lets not worry about what they think and concentrate on defeating them. The ONLY reason to leave Iraq is if that is the only way to move on to Iran. If this war on radical Isalm is to be won, its not going to be over anytime soon anyway, we have to commit to being at war with them until they have been defeated!

Matt,

The fact of the matter is that liberals--in general--are across the board, greater, more often hypocrites, than conservatives, in a larger scale. Case in point: B.Clinton, in an interview in 1994 admitted to smoking pot, but that he didn't inhale...right. His wife, when asked if she would run for president, responded by saying "no, I plan to serve out my term in NY as Senator". Now a liberal may believe this bs, and choose to simply ignore the ramifications of these admissions/statements, but if the libs plan on holding supporters of the war accountable (as an example), then we conservatives should hold the libs accountable for their policies of appeasement that led us into the GWOT.

BTW, if these statements seem petty, just google "Clinton Lies" or "Al Gore lies" and you'll be reminded of why we should NEVER trust a Clinton or Gore....ever again..

Here's my favorite: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (Al Gore, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” 3/9/99)

ROFLMAOOOOOOO!!!!

Casper

There's no reason for Turkey to invade Kurdistan when the Kurdish reconstruction is considered a boon for the Turks.

From PM Barzani in April: "Today, Iraq is passing through a very sensitive period. We want to maintain good relations with all our neighbours, especially with Turkey. We seek that these relations are based on mutual respect and mutual interest. Our actions over many years have proven well our sincerity.

We believe that with dialogue we can resolve misunderstandings. We are not a threat to Turkey or to any of our neighbours. We have adopted a policy of peace. We want to guarantee a bright future for our people within a federal, pluralistic and democratic Iraq."

Maybe there's something to be gained from the way the Kurds have rebounded...eh?

Nice arrogance, Matt! Typical! The "every single Liberal" theory that you talk about is asinine. "Every single Liberal" does not have a blog where they regularly attack Conservatives. Most Liberals are just living their lives normally every day, and may have opinions on things, but do not regularly attack others and say that they are wrong. You and Mark run a site and wrote a book attacking Liberals and saying that anyone thinking with Liberal ideas is evil. You and Mark are ARROGANT in your beliefs, and being the most outspoken critics of Liberals and supporters of Bush, you SHOULD be risking your lives for your country and your beliefs. However, you are not. If you have the guts to bash Liberals on your blog, you have the guts to fight for your country. Otherwise, you are arrogant cowards. Either stop attacking Liberals, or actually do something that makes a difference to the war effort and stop your bitching.

Thrower,

My respect for you was chugging along, until you had to throw in the "questioning one's patriotism" talking point. You kooks made that up, and with the help of your heroes in D.C., and the DBM, have given it traction. Fact is, nobody's patriotism has been questioned. Get over it, asshat. You're--not your or yore--the one who should be embarrassed...

Matt's post leaves me shaking my head. Cut through all the crap and he is saying he supports the war so long as someone else fights it. He should be embarrassed. Posted by: Thrower
That is a lie. Thrower, you obviously did not study the subject of logic or appreciate its utilization in perceiving what is actually being argued. Matt is arguing against the double standard by Liberals in their statements and actions versus what they accuse or require of conservatives. Enough there.
The real question is to identify American interests, military and economic. Develop policies that promote and protect those interests. Then identify the best way to achieve the goals. Now, I believe the true error by the Bush Administration has been to wrongly evaluate the ability of liberal democracy and Islam to interact with each other and form a cohesive pluralistic governmental framework.
"Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” – Omar Ahmad, founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
That is the operational statement of a registered lobbying group in the United States. The belief that a majority of Muslims do not agree with Osama Bin Laden and the expansionist and violent beliefs he and his supporters hold is so far not supported by empirical evidence or reliable religious text from the Koran. The only evidence seen so far is luke warm condemnations of suicide bombings. However, that is immediately coupled with negations of responsibility and blame on the victims of terrorist attacks.
What needs to be done by the US it to evaluate our ability to democratize people that identify themselves with a religion that preaches intolerance and a mandate for subservience from non-believers. We also need to evaluate, continually, what are our true objectives. I believe that has to be the prevention of terrorist attacks on our civilians and country. The United States military is both shield and sword. We should use it as such. (That in no ways means that we should use it indiscriminately or with callous disregard for casualties to our fighting men and women.)
If Turkey invades Iraq we will likely move to protect Iraq. Turkey wont invade as long as they believe their ability to join the EU is still a possibility. That is unless Islam takes over as a governing political ideology.

You have an odd charm about you Keefer (GIGLIH), but at times I suspect someone dropped you on your head when you were young. I don't give a rat's a$$ what you think about me personally so save the ad hominem bullets for someone else.

I did read Matt's post, Dudley, and I have no interest in defending "liberals." Their hypocrisy is obvious, as is Matt's. I do agree with much of your analysis of the problems in fusing liberal democrasy with Islam. When you look at the free elections in Muslim countries, it appears those people would rather be led around by the nose than allow for the exercise of personal choice and freedom.

"when every single liberal"...

Ok - whenever you see a statement that beings "when every single" that means of course that it will never happen. Not when you have a hundred million liberals in this country or more. Of course - Matt is just looking for ways to avoid actually putting his money where his mouth is like usual...What a coward...

Ok - whenever you see a statement that beings "when every single" that means of course that it will never happen. Not when you have a hundred million liberals in this country or more. Of course - Matt is just looking for ways to avoid actually putting his money where his mouth is like usual...What a coward...

Posted by: kblack77

He is willing to put his money where his mouth is. If I remember a few weeks ago he posted about some of the extra-governmental charity opportunities he had and helped with for the families in the armed forces. I do not state this with any example to give. I believe I remember him blogging about different ways to give that he was pursuing.

Besides, his point was that Liberals say that conservatives have to fight, not just pay for the war. So your post is really off point.

Dr. Dumbass, it should be "as usual." Why are you such a dumbass? Are you and Throw-up related?

Dr. Dumbass is a coward, and a poor writer. Dr. Dumbass is a liar, and a moron...

Wow, I just have to say something about this list.

There's quite a few things listed about Democratic corruption, Clinton, Congress etc.

1) I personally don't look at this as a sports team, you know root for your side when they're down?

Every crooked piece of scum is a disgrace to this Nation regardless of party. Yes, that includes Bill Clinton. His pardon for Marc Rich was disgraceful.

2) You're making your statement as if you don't have to look at your party with a watchful eye because the other side doesn't? What kind of grade school mentality is that?

It's pretty simple. These guys on the right AND the LEFT use key issues to split us up and conquer us.

And people like the guy who wrote this piece we're commenting on are part of the problem not the solution.

Don't turn a blind eye towards ANY party.

Don't support your President simply because he's your President. It's a public office. He works for ALL of America.

Don't cheer when your side gets away with a bad call as if it's revenge for when it went the other way... It's childish and irresponsible. ALL of these quid pro quo deals are disgusting. Do you think YOU would get the same treatment by these guys?

You don't start cleaning up the neighborhood and ignore your own yard. You start there first.

I suggest anyone reading this on either side of the aisle start looking into their own backyard and help clean up the trash. Only then can this be a truly great nation.

This is why I support a draft with no Limbaugh or Cheney type deferments. Robert Kennedy realized in 1968, if the pain is not shared the war would go on and on. If my son or daughter is selected and sent to Afganastan Iwould be pround. If sent to the premptive Neocon war in Iraq, I would say screw you.

Kahn

"What will we do when a NATO country (who wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory) invades Iraq? What do YOU think we should do, because honestly I'm not sure."

Diplomacy, with sanctions.

IMO, there will be only one real solution for the "Kurdish problem" by recognizing that "Kurdistan" is a distinct ethnographic and to a certain extent autonomous region with its own language, culture, identity, tradition, etc. Problem is of course that such a Kurdistan is located in parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and most of all: Turkey. Kurdish people have been, and still are, oppressed in all of these countries. The Turkish Kurds have been struggling for more autonomy for almost a century. These countries have tried to suppress Kurdish nationalism by prohibiting their language and their culture. As you might expect: such oppression only invigorates nationalism and has led to the rise and popularity of the PKK, a Kurdish seperatist movement. According to Turkey, the PKK is now using Iraqi Kurdistan as a base for staging attacks on Turkey.

So what should we do now?
Pressure Turkey to give the Kurdish region more autonomy, probably some kind of federalist autonomy. Forcing Turkey to recognize and negotiate with Kurdish representatives, including the PKK. The EU, NATO and the UN should call for a supranational conference with these four countries on how to deal with Kurdish seperatism.

"There's no reason for Turkey to invade Kurdistan when the Kurdish reconstruction is considered a boon for the Turks." Navydad

There are several Kurdish terrorist groups that are using Iraq as a base, while attaching targets in Turkey.

Matt,

So basically, you're saying that you're waiting for liberals to take the lead. You'll be happy to be a follower. What a putz you are.

my point is that he has setup a hypothetical which is completely unrealizable. You will never get every single one of a hundred million to agree on absolutely anything. Further - the qualifications he sets up are completely irrelevant. Regardless if there are liberals in this world who are hypocrites or not he should not be one anyway. Its like saying - I won't murder anyone every single person in the US stops murdering.

Matt you are 1000% right. Our stupid liberal enemies can say whatever they want,but they can NOT CHSNGE REALITY!!!AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK!!! I said it hundred times before,and I will say it again.Would you rather be dead from terrorist attacks liberals? HUH?

Plus, I don't hear the stupid libs and the homos complaning about slick willy clinton too much nowadays,huh? When they complain about clinton and his lies and crimes,(eg. when liberal pigs fly!)then I'll gladly go to iraq.

Hey Keefer, who's Dr. Dumbass ? is it throw-up?

Well he didn't have to actually say when ever single Liberal for any of the scenerios he proposed...

All he had to say when a large number of Liberals.. actually practice what they preach.

Liberals love slogans.. and making stupid comments such as if you support the war you should enlist.

And then claim they support the troops???

Kind of contradictory for those who enlisted because they believed being in Iraq is the right thing to do.

Liberals just like catchy slogans.

Well he didn't have to actually say when ever single Liberal for any of the scenerios he proposed...

All he had to say when a large number of Liberals.. actually practice what they preach.

Liberals love slogans.. and making stupid comments such as if you support the war you should enlist.

And then claim they support the troops???

Kind of contradictory for those who enlisted because they believed being in Iraq is the right thing to do.

Liberals just like catchy slogans.

Mark, I actually think you brought up a legitimate point here. That being said... and a bit off subject, I think its important to mention something that has been of particular concern to me recently... the ability of the al-Maliki government to meet it's proposed benchmarks...

Looks like today that question was answered and it's very troubling...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070709/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq;_ylt=Anne9T9HseXIFxyHwbW8ZHqs0NUE

KBlack is right about Matt's logic. It's the equivalent of saying:

I will send food to starving children in Africa, when everyone who is against world hunger stops eating.

Or maybe in the 1960's, every person that thinks black people have a right to go to school with white people, sends their kids to an all black school.

When every person who is against laws prohibiting white and black people from getting married (the South used to be a much different place) marries a person of another race in spite if they love one another or not. (Gay marriage analogy)

If someone made these statements, you wouldn't be able to keep a straight face and would have to label them a moron.

Matt is just trying to emulate his heroes: Bush, Cheney, Wolfewitz, Rumsfeld, Gingrich, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.

They are all CHICKEN HAWKS!

I'm not saying that you have to have served in the military to be a good elected official, but it definitely brings some insights into war. Right Khan? NavyDad et al?

"What I find laughable in the argument is that the handful that served once before and are opposed now are elevated as beyond rproach. The vast majority of us Veterans that have served and support it are deemed "Chicken Hawks" and told we don't matter." LEW

I have never heard of anyone use the term Chicken Hawks to describe veterans when they are for future conflicts. When veterans speak, the left listens because many do not have the first hand knowledge of the horrors of war. Your opinion is highly regarded, as it should be.

Here's some quick JEOPARDY: ANSWER: NOT the Republican party! Question: "From what party were all Iraq war veterans elected to Congress in 2006?"

NO, the term "Chicken Hawk" is reserved for the likes of Dick Cheney, who received 4 deferments in Vietnam and had "other priorities," but continually advocates serious military blunders.

Matt,
I have been thinking about your post all day. I was once at a point in my life where I had to make a similar decision whether or not to go to war.

In 1968, as part of a youth church group, I visited the naval hospital on Agana, Guam. I was fifteen. Up to that point I had always had a romantic notion of what war was. After all, I had been raised watching W.W.II movies with John Wayne. I thought war was a game that America would always win, because this is the greatest country on earth. What happened in that hospital changed my outlook forever. I met young men three or four years older than me who had lost arms or legs, or who had had parts of their faces blown away. War was no longer a game. It had consequences.

In 1971, I was a senior in high school. Those were the days of the draft lottery. They picked birth dates and assigned numbers to them. The first report was that they would take anyone with the number 125 or lower. My number was 88.

I had a decision to make. I could have moved to Canada. That meant giving up my family and my friends. It also meant living with the knowledge that some people would probably consider me a coward. I could have joined a different service. The Air Force and Navy were considered safer services than the army and marines, but it also meant a longer time commitment. Or I could wait and see what happened. I chose to wait.

I don’t remember if I supported the war or was against it. I was eighteen. Did it matter? I do remember being sacred and seeking advise from my family, my friends and my priest. I finally decided that if my number came up, I would go. As sacred as I was of being killed or hurt, I was more frightened of being called a coward.

The war was winding down. The government dropped the numbers from 125 to 100 to 75 to 0. I didn’t have to go. I went to college instead.

Even though I didn‘t have to go, I sometimes feel guilty for not going. I had friends that died there. I have other friends that were maimed for life.

One thing I learned, those that made the decision to serve deserve a certain amount of respect. I may disagree with Kahn, keefer, Mark, and others on this blog that chose to serve their country, but I will always respect them for their service.

Now it comes down to your decision. No one can or will make you serve this country in a war you think is important. It probably won’t hurt whatever career path you ultimately take. Dick Cheney took five deferments and still became Vice-President. You can blame all the liberals you want for being hypocrites, but in the end the decision you make as to whether or not you serve is yours. You will have to live with it.

Casper,
I don't see how you could disagree with this -

John 15:13

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Jeremiah

casper..

I always laugh when people bring up Cheney's deferments...

Kerry had 4 and sought a 5th to study in Paris. It was denied. Then and only then did he "enlist" full well knowing he would be drafted.

This was admitted to by John Kerry in an interview for the February 18, 1970 issue of the Harvard Crimson and re-reported in the UK Telegraph July 7, 2004

This blog proves the left's hypocrisy. Why are people who support the war supposed to fight in it just because they support it, but people who believe in global warming are not equal to the task of doing the extreme to prevent it?

You liberals keep trying to make this about him and not going to fight in the war, when the real issue you are all deliberately avoiding is your own cowardice when it comes to truly supporting what you claim to believe in.

Mark,

You completely distort one issue after another. The main reason most Americans oppose keeping our troops in Iraq is because thousands of Americans have been killed, and more are being killed every day, with no signs of the war ending.

Thousands of Americans haven't been killed in Afghanistan. Americans aren't being killed in Afghanistan every day. American deaths in Afghanistan are very rare.

It's not necessary for everyone to drive a hybrid in order to significantly reduce carbon emissions. There are plenty of non-hybrid cars that give off low emissions. If everyone drove a low emission vehicle, hybrid or non-hybrid, carbon emissions would significantly be reduced.

There is a very big difference between lying about a consensual affair with an adult in a civil lawsuit and lying to a law-enforcement official in a criminal investigation. In order for perjury to be prosecuted, it must be relevant to the case. There is no relevance between Clinton's consensual affair with Monica Lewinksy and Paula Jones sexual harassment case against him. Just because he had an affair doesn't mean he sexually harassed anyone.

Because someone supports the right of gays to marry does not mean that they want to make it mandatory. That is completely absurd. Recognizing gay marriage does not put an end to heterosexual marriage.

Why can't you be honest and just state that you support keeping our troops in Iraq but you choose not to go yourself, instead of coming up with all of these occurrences you know that aren't going to happen.

"KBlack is right about Matt's logic. It's the equivalent of saying:

I will send food to starving children in Africa, when everyone who is against world hunger stops eating."

ACtually, Gaijin, it's the equivalent of saying "Don't tell me that in order to support A that I have to do B when you support C without doing D." He's saying that anti-war liberals demand that supporters of the war fight in it, but don't hold themselves to the same standard when it comes to things they support.

theblksheepwasright,
So how does that make Cheney braver?

Rana - good friends son killed in Fallujah. I knew his dad well in high school - and though I didn't know his son, he was a Marine. That means I did know him (most here won't get that). My nephew IS there. His mother, my sister-in-law is going there (Navy W.O.), his little sister (her daughter) was there. Me and my brother were Marines (too old and fat to help much now).

Iraq is a hell hole. The whole region sucks and is populated by some of the biggest jerks on the planet. I include Israel in that by the way. My anaology is one of a prison yard. We walked in, killed the biggest baddest guy in the yard - and took his seat. It's the best seat in the yard.

Meanwhile, in part (surely you MUST admit in part) because of the rabid anti-Bush sentiment here Iran is fighting a proxy war against us and Turkey is massing troops on the northern border of Iraq.

What will we do when a NATO country (who wouldn't allow us to attack from their territory) invades Iraq? What do YOU think we should do, because honestly I'm not sure.

Posted by: Kahn at July 9, 2007 12:45 PM

This a well-written post, Kahn.

As for the last comment, your guess is as good as mine.

All right Republicans and Democrats.....

Both of you have got it all wrong. The middle east is a powder keg. Too much money over the last half century has flown into that area via oil revenues. Leaders used that oil revenue to buy protection....even if that protection came from Muslim radicals.

You let Iraq fall (by withdrawing) and you have 1) a moral problem - for all of you democrats....how do you feel about many, many millions dieing in the worst atrocities known --- and we could have prevented it; 2) a financial problem - for you Republicans....imagine the worldwide economic havoc that would be created by withdrawing from the east to leave it in chaos.

The reality is this whether Rep's and Dem's like it or not....we are there and we are staying. With oil production peaking in 2015 and China rapidly signing contracts for oil to satisfy their huge growth rate; having a presence in the middle east is a necessity.

The world is so, so, in need of a Manhatten project to eliminate oil dependency. While Al Gore and a bunch of musicians attempt to track "carbon footprints" and feel good statements about slowing global warming....they should be focusing on the energy MANHATTAN PROJECT. Success here would most definitely mean success for their goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. It would also provide us with the ability to be virtually independent from the whackos in the middle east.

Until then....we are in Iraq. Get used to it no matter what politicians say.

mn lib

Rana and Kahn, or should I say Kahn and Rana,
Your posts at the beginning of this thread were some of the best posts I have ever seen on this blog. They were thoughtful an thought provoking. Thanks

KCJ
You are generalizing and missing the point. The point is simple - regardless of the bad actions of others - you should still act in good faith and without hypocrisies yourself. Do some liberals do the things Matt says - of course. And they shouldn't - but that doesn't change anything about what Matt should do. He is just making excuses for his own actions (or lack there of).

That is one of the major flaws of Matt and Mark. Instead of acting or advocation action which is morally correct - they spend their time thinking up why "democrats and liberals" do bad things as well. Sure - some liberals do very bad things - just like some conservatives. Rather than just falling back on partisanship - one would hope that they could grow up and learn to act morally, responsibly, and consistently themselves rather than make up excuses for why they don't have to...

Susan Collins
Lamar Alexander
Judd Gregg
Robert Bennett
John Sununu
Pete Domenici
Richard Lugar
George Voinovich
Chuck Hagel
Olympia Snowe

drip, drip, drip

rats are leaving the ship.

You neo-con, new world order, ditto heads blew it. You will never see a republican lead congress, senate or Presidency again in your lives, and if we are really lucky your children's lives, because they are going to pay the bill for your moron of a leader and his butt buddy Duck Cheney and their follies.

"Do some liberals do the things Matt says - of course. And they shouldn't - but that doesn't change anything about what Matt should do. He is just making excuses for his own actions (or lack there of)."

Don't you see what you're saying? You're saying that if someone supports the war they SHOULD fight in it. You don't see to hold liberals to the same standard, like if they think global warming is a threat then they should give up their car.

You might say, well, they can drive a hybrid instead of giving up their car. Well, someone can support the war and do something else to express their support without joining the military and demanding they be sent to Iraq.

Matt is pointing out the flawed "logic" in the argument that anyone who supports the war must fight in it. And no liberal here seems willing to admit they are wrong. instead, they accus him of making excuses...

US general warned that the fight against the Iraq uprising was "a long-term endeavour" that could take decades.
Mark, if you cannot go, maybe your children or your grandchildren can go, because General David Petraeus cited the case of Northern Ireland and Britain to show that reconciliation may happen after a very long time.

"Anybody... would recognize that these are long-term endeavors," Petraeus told the BBC from Baquba, northeast of the capital.

Let's see: The English invaded Ireland in 1171 after Pope Adrian II granted Henry the Second a papal Bull giving him permission to invade Ireland to save it from itself. I Irish fight for independence was finally won in 1922. So is Petraeus saying we will be in Iraq for 751 years?

I found the following from:

Pete Hegseth, a native of Forest Lake, Minnesota and a Princeton alumnus who served as an officer in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division.

He sees tremendous recent progress with the surge and writes the following. I think it says it all:

In light of these facts, our country faces an important decision: listen to David Petraeus and the generals in Iraq, who believe we finally have a winning strategy that will take time to execute, or bow to the political demands of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are more interested in avoiding defeat in their home districts than defeating al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq.

Gen. Petraeus promised a candid report in September. Until then, for the same senators who unanimously confirmed him and his counterinsurgency strategy in January to undercut his efforts is extremely irresponsible, and exposes how quickly war-time leadership can transform into election-season pandering.

Here's one more: When every single liberal who supports a woman's right to choose puts on a lab coat and starts performing abortions.

Casper,
Rest easy, if you had been drafted in 1971 you would not have been sent to Vietnam; only enlistees were being sent to Vietnam in 1971, no draftees.

Hey Keefer, who's Dr. Dumbass ? is it throw-up?

Rick4Bush,

No, kblack77 is Dr. Dumbass--Throw-up is just a regular dumbass. The reason kblack77 gets the title, "Dr.," is that she claims she has a PhD. Read any of her poorly-written posts, and you have to conclude that she's lying. Hell, she may have dropped out of grade school.

btw, Dr. Dumbass will claim that she writes phonetically. People who type phonetically are either clowns, stupid, or lazy. Dr. Dumbass is a stupid, lazy clown...

"Casper,
Rest easy, if you had been drafted in 1971 you would not have been sent to Vietnam; only enlistees were being sent to Vietnam in 1971, no draftees."

Dasein Libsbane,
could you please provide a source for that information.

There are two points.
1) that some people are hypocrites and they shouldn't be
2) that regardless of someone else being a hypocrite you still shouldn't be.

regardless of 1 being true, 2 is as well

"only enlistees were being sent to Vietnam in 1971, no draftees."

Dasein Libsbane,
could you please provide a source for that information.

Posted by: Casper at July 10, 2007 07:00 PM

From a CNN article:-

"over the course of the entire Vietnam War, draftees stood only a 38 percent chance of serving in Vietnam. Soldiers who belonged to that 38 percent, however, were statistically more likely to die in combat than soldiers who volunteered -- "

The trouble with neoconservative philosophy is that instead of advocating for progressing the status quo, it advocates for preserving the status quo. Fighting for self-preservation as opposed to progression for many is greed.

My friend, you are both a hypocrite and a coward.

You are a hypocrite because you rally for a war, regardless of its nature as being an unjust fuckup, without actually fighting for it because you prefer to be a cheerleader from a 'safe' distance. That is, from behind your computer, an extremely comfortable situation versus the situations of the vast majority of people ACTUALLY in the war.

You are a coward because you give a whole pile of excuses and conditions for your not being a part of the war. If you really believe in this war being fought, you wouldn't care what the liberals are fucking off to, being hypocrites themselves; you would ACTUALLY be fighting in this war.

Being pro-war is a pretty strong attitude, which would require a strong person to back that attitude. If you're not ready to make the sacrifice for this war having one more person ACTUALLY fighting on the side you advocate, in the words of many Iraq Veterans Against the War, please, kindly, shut the fuck up.

Jacob, you potty-mouthed bastard, go away...

Who is this freak referring to keefer?

OK, now I know. Well then, Jacob AKA Potty Mouth, tomorrow please help yourself to a suicide cocktail...please, it will fix everything..I promise.

And if you plan to pass by this way again, you might consider disposing of the f-bomb, otherwise, you'll get yer arse banned.

Volunteering. I volunteered and attempted to join the Navy when I was 15 and got accepted, but didn't end up going because I figured they would find out my true age and I wouldn't ever be able to serve. I then signed up the day I turned 17. I did it because I wanted to be a sailor in the US Navy, no other reason. I wanted to do it. One of the benefits of what I and millions of others have done in serving is to give every living American the right to do what they want to do. If they want to serve, great. If they don't want to serve, great. It's their choice. Thank God for the millions that gave that right to me and every other American.