Act Now!

The Winter Soldiers

posted by Peter Rothberg on 03/12/2008 @ 2:44pm

From tomorrow through Saturday the Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan hearings in Washington, DC will feature testimony from US veterans detailing what's really happening on the ground in these occupations.

They'll present photographs and videos, recorded with mobile phones and digital cameras, to back up their allegations of brutality, torture and murder. The event is inspired by the Winter Solider tribunal held in 1971 by Vietnam War vets, including, famously, John Kerry.

Winter Soldiers, according to Thomas Paine, are patriots who stand up for the soul of their country, even in its darkest hours. With this spirit in mind, the current generation of Winter Soldiers are standing up to make their experiences available to all who are concerned about the direction of our country. To provide a preview, the Iraq Veterans Against War have created a short film featuring three vets who will be testifying this week. The film includes sometimes graphic videos and photographs of Iraq from their deployments. Watch it below.

You can go here at YouTube to view part two of this harrowing video.

The hearings themselves start tomorrow. While the event itself is closed to the general public you can both watch and listen to the proceedings live online.

There are many ways you can help support Winter Soldier.

Help IVAW spread these eyewitness accounts across the country and the world by organizing a viewing event. Some local television and radio stations will pick up the broadcasts, and the entire weekend of panels will be shown live and archived online at the IVAW website. Any location with a broadband internet connection and a projector can be set up for public viewing of the broadcasts, and for higher quality video, the event will be broadcast by satellite on March 14th and 15th. (Winter Soldier viewing events can be posted on the IVAW's events map.)

Sign the Statement of Support and encourage your friends, family and colleagues to sign on as well.

Donate now. Besides the logistical costs of paying for the event's location and live broadcast of the testimony, the majority of Winter Soldier's budget is dedicated to covering the travel and lodging costs for all testifying vets. Help us make sure their voices are heard by clicking here and donating what you can. And consider holding a Winter Soldier fundraiser. Check out IVAW's Winter Soldier House Party guide for instructions on how to hold a fundraiser.

What's next for Winter Solider? Listen to a recent interview on RadioNation with Laura Flanders for details. In the months following this week's hearings, the group will continue collecting and producing resources and documentation, including videos, a book and other written materials, detailing the barbarity of the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Sign up to receive the Winter Soldier newsletter to keep informed.

Comments (407)

  1. Well, PETER, you know what you're going to get here from our local neo-cons....

    1. (the "more generous" ones) will tell us that these soldiers are a "tiny minority" and that most of the troops over there want to "win the war and support us staying and finishing the job".

    and 2. (the less generous ones) will cast aspertions on the patriotism or even the service of these soldiers a la "Swift Boat Vets".

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 3:23pm

  2. Posted by MASK 03/12/2008 @ 3:23pm

    No need to worry yourself over option 2, Mask. Most of the people that would take that route never served themselves. As for option 1, all you have to do is ask what "finishing the job" entails and how the U.S. military plays a role in what needs to be done. Then just sit back and listen to the crickets chirp...

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 4:07pm

  3. PETER: .....US veterans detailing what's really happening on the ground in these occupations.

    I'm sure the Demo Party appreciates these US vets' assistance to get a tiny snap shot of "what's really happening on the ground". Besides, I'm sure, they can't compete with beheading DVDs widely available, or of burned contractors swinging from bridges and being dragged behind vehicles. What these vests need, is a Michael Moor production!

    For something a bit more uplifting, rather than focus on the uglier side of aggression, visit Michael Yon Online for a gripping account of our Blackhawk & Kiowa helicopter pilots stationed in the Mosul area.

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 4:36pm

  4. Boy, I LOVE it when a prediction comes true- (my bolds)

    "1. (the "more generous" ones) will tell us that these soldiers are a "tiny minority" and that most of the troops over there want to "win the war and support us staying and finishing the job"."-----Posted by MASK 03/12/2008 @ 3:23pm

    "I'm sure the Demo Party appreciates these US vets' assistance to get a tiny snap shot of "what's really happening on the ground"."----Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 4:36pm

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 4:39pm

  5. Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 4:36pm

    If Michael Yon wants to brainwash me, I expect he should have the courtesy to show up with his special forces friends at my house and do it personally. Nice of you to save him the trip though.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 4:40pm

  6. I now officially owe Mask a pint (though I saw that coming too) but uhh yeah, if you can't stand the message attack the messenger.

    So how many need to speak out before you're satisfied Happy? Give me a number, I'm sure we could easily find enough who agree with the Winter Soldiers to make you HAPPY!

    Posted by yutsano at 03/12/2008 @ 4:55pm

  7. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 4:40pm

    Yon is a favorite of LVLIB (Or was it SLIVER or PONTI or CPT...oh, well, same thing) as well.

    Mr "Gung-Ho Ex-Spec Forces War's Going Great" "not a journalist but I play one on my blog"...who keeps the 30% Club enthralled with "victory" after "victory"...

    and of course completely unsubstantiated reports of "Al Qaeda cooked a young boy and fed him to his parents" atrocities to show us "peaceniks the monsters we're fighting over there so they don't cook and feed our children to us over here!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 4:56pm

  8. Posted by YUTSANO 03/12/2008 @ 4:55pm

    I'll take an Oatmeal Porter, thankee.

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 4:56pm

  9. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 4:40pm

    I read all of this guy's lengthy `stories', filled with actual names and photos.....I'm aften surprised that even many names of Iraqis he photos are posted....real heroes committed to what they are doing. Even if you disagree w/our presence in Iraq, has to make real Americans proud that they are doing their jobs.....I support this guy, not much, for putting his life out there, I don't want to read his `content' for free!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 5:00pm

  10. Hope I made you HAPPY, MASK....nothing like imitation as compliments....besides, need to occasssionaly reciprocate!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 5:02pm

  11. Interesting how this event "is closed to the public". Why?

    Posted by ACook at 03/12/2008 @ 5:45pm

  12. Posted by MASK 03/12/2008 @ 4:56pm

    Yeah, I did some research last time some conservative sung his praises and sized up what this guy is then.

    Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 5:00pm

    It's one thing to be partisan. It's another to sell propaganda as objective journalism.

    Posted by ACOOK 03/12/2008 @ 5:45pm

    Probably because they don't want the people testifying to have to speak above all the right wing nut jobs that would show up waving flags and singing "God Bless America" so loud it would defeat the point of the proceedings.

    Also, when you get rid of "free speech zones" for the Republican and Democratic parties and allow everyone that shows up to listen (and respond to) the U.S. President when he is speaking on the taxpayers dime and not screen them out, use tasers on them or whatever, then you can complain about "closed to the public" meetings of private groups.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 6:52pm

  13. I cannot understand how anyone can watch this and not be utterly horrified, not just at the carnage itself, but for the role that our nation is playing. It was one thing to have gone in under false pretenses and quite another to continue the barrage so long after our "mission" was "accomplished".

    Posted by MATTMAN at 03/12/2008 @ 7:39pm

  14. Propaganda-- ha! Go back to watching Fox News to avoid your subjection to such obvious propaganda!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 03/12/2008 @ 7:42pm

  15. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 7:50pm |

    LVLIB one of those guys who probably tried to overturn Ron Kovic in his wheelchair at Nixon's Convention!

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 8:39pm

  16. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 6:52pm

    SRJ, had to go back and re-read the first half, and just as I thought it's another fundraiser. I saw DC and I thought they were going to speak before a Senate or House panel. Shoulda guess no committee panel wants to speak to anybody for 1 hour, let alone for 4 days.... oh well, hehehe

    Posted by ACook at 03/12/2008 @ 8:43pm

  17. Got a rational argument LL? All you have written so far is invective and name calling.

    Posted by Guiles at 03/12/2008 @ 9:10pm

  18. It's another to sell propaganda as objective journalism.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 6:52pm

    Your response is rather....disappointing....

    Am I to take it, even sane Libs don't think our troops are capable of valor but only capable of massacres and brutalities? That only Al Jazeera and the New Republic are capable of bringing us the `truth' about Americans & Iraqis fighting there or running over dogs in the street?

    I will assume you know little of Yon other than as a propagandist....which is probably accurate to some degree. As an ex-Special Force, I can certainly understand his motivation but given the large number of names, from grunts to commanding officers, his reporting is as accurate as any us civilians will ever see.

    His dispatches contain mostly the `good' but he also tells of collateral `damages' with innocents & Friendly Fire incidents. Your response, simple as it is, leaves no doubt as to the laughable claim by you Libs to: "Support the Troops but NOT the mission". You support them as long as they are getting killed and not that they are killing the enemies....because that can't happen...they only kill civilians, sad!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 9:13pm

  19. Happy writes: "I read all of this guy's lengthy `stories', filled with actual names and photos.....I'm aften surprised that even many names of Iraqis he photos are posted....real heroes committed to what they are doing. Even if you disagree w/our presence in Iraq, has to make real Americans proud that they are doing their jobs.....I support this guy, not much, for putting his life out there, I don't want to read his `content' for free!"

    You realize don't you, that by putting names and photos of Iraqis that are helping the US forces, that he has greatly increased their chances of being assasinated? But hey as long as it boosts the war's popularity back home who give a crap about the Iraqis that help us. Thats why we have only let 3000 of them immigrate to the US where they can be safe for reprisals.

    Posted by Guiles at 03/12/2008 @ 9:19pm

  20. Posted by GUILES 03/12/2008 @ 9:19pm

    The anti-war mind, simpletons!!! You don't suppose Mr. Yon asks for these folks names & permissons, now, do you? Lot of his photo journals are full frontal face shots, posed! But, some of his dispatches don't reveal actual places and use only first names.......curious, lots of Ahmed and Mulhamed...like John and David here!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 10:02pm

  21. did any of you pro war morons watch the video?

    humans are really fucking stupid sometimes........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 10:16pm

  22. Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 9:13pm

    I am very well aware of the circumstances of his access and his previous occupation. I am also able to distinguish a salesman when I see one.

    I also will remind you that I supported the troops by being one. So did these people. That is a claim that you, and many of your pro-war friends on the right, cannot make.

    You can also feel free to tell us what "victory" looks like because supporting a mission means you can define the mission. "Victory" isn't a mission. "Democracy" isn't a mission - certainly not one the military can do anything about. I might even bother listening to you folks if you can actually articulate a vision rather than engage in name calling.

    Please do my a favor and not try to transpose the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of the right and pretend it is a problem of the "left" - particularly when you are doing it in an effort to paint people who have a honorably served their country as less patriotic than you.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 10:36pm

  23. Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 10:02pm |

    HAPP what about Yon's "dispatch" claiming Al Qaeda had cooked a young boy and fed him to his parents?

    Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 10:45pm

  24. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 10:36pm

    We mutually touched a nerve...that's clear! I volunteered and was in the Navy ROTC but did NOT serve. Not much, but it's something...and my dad was career Air Force. With that out of the way....

    I just find the Libs take on anything positive and slapping `propaganda' on it, as extremely insulting...it is to me and I can only guess how it may sound to those who actually served and believed in their `mission'.

    Since you've served, perhaps in combat, your `missions' vary by objectives but the broader `mission', is to fight where your country sends you, however unsatisfactorily defined it is to YOU!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 10:46pm

  25. Posted by MASK 03/12/2008 @ 10:45pm

    I had not heard of that one but I only began reading him regularly ~a year ago. I used to read Iraq the Model more regularly but it's now dormant....civilian version.

    Michael hears stories, surely.....and I need to read the actual dispatch to see how he framed the `story'.

    One thing for sure, AQ's way to inflict pain is superior to us....as `terrorists', they have a big name to live up to!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 10:51pm

  26. Posted by ACOOK 03/12/2008 @ 8:43pm

    You raise a good and valid point.

    Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 10:46pm

    I don't have any problems with positive reports. I do have problems with psych-ops being done on our own citizenry. That's what we have here.

    Also, while it is a soldiers duty to go where they are told, we are the one's asking them to go there, and we damn sure better know why we are asking them to put there lives on the line and what conditions must be met for them to achieve "victory". The fact that you people fail to outline these conditions, is prima facie evidence you don't know what you are doing.

    As the Spartans used to say, it is stupid to engage an enemy for longer than two years because it provides them with free training. They forgot that lesson and the Thebians ended up with very good soldiers as a result. And that's what we are doing in Iraq - a far cry from "victory".

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 11:09pm

  27. ....psych-ops being done on our own citizenry. That's what we have here.......we damn sure better know why we are asking them to put there lives on the line....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 11:09pm

    If Michael Yon is part of the Pentagon, is broadcast regularly on MSM, including the NYT and WaPo, I might have some sneaky suspicion that you may have something......but it just ain't so now, is it?

    It's petty easy to cover the carnage of bombings in Baghdad from the comfort of the Green Zone....bomb goes off, taxi over, take some pictures of blood, the wounded and rescue workers....that's `news', fine. Yon reports on actual day-in day-out combat missions, helicopters being shot up, gunners unwilling to fire on terrorists fleeing into crods, reports 35 AQI killed last month in/around Mosul, that's `propaganda'?

    Bush/Petraeus have given enough reasons for continuing the Iraq War...you choose not to believe in them......just as I choose not to believe in many of the Libs' Progressive programs.....there!

    Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 11:43pm

  28. thanks peter! i'm in awe of these guys. yehuda shaul says the same things. when he felt pain at losing his friends it dawned on him that palestinians feel pain and anger at death too. that's when he began to self-examine and think about the occupation in a new way. his words mirror the words of these soldiers who are truly "fighting for america's soul." i hope its not too late.

    i will help these soldiers in any way that i can. i will encourage everyone i know to listen to the stories of these winter soldiers and then do something about it.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/13/2008 @ 01:09am

  29. in a fight between a weak one and a strong one, only the strong one can stop the fight.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/13/2008 @ 01:10am

  30. frosty, you had better meditate and envision mexico. you are beginning to sound like the rest of us.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/13/2008 @ 01:11am

  31. Thanks, Peter.

    That's some extraordinarily powerful footage. You probably should have prefaced the introduction to it with some sort of warning about graphic content, yet it strikes me that more of this kind of presentation hasn't gotten wider play over the 5-plus years of the continuing debacle of our boot-to-the-throat Iraq occupation.

    Here's a fresh side-dish to accompany the rotten stench you've just exposed us to:

    "All the Money You Make Will Never Buy Back Your Soul."

    excerpt:

    This is what Solomon Hughes makes quite clear in his new book War on Terror, Inc. Corporate Profiteering From the Politics of Fear just released by Verso. Hughes is an investigative reporter that does that title proud. His work has appeared in British newspapers and the journal Private Eye. What he does in this book is nothing less than rip the mask of false patriotism and concern for the world's well-being from the faces of the corporations that constitute a major part of the today's war industry. In the process, he exposes the shallow greed and willing corruption of the politicians and government bureaucrats who hand over their nation's coffers to those companies, despite their public ineptitude and chicanery--not to mention the lies the whole shell game is based on. Meanwhile, people die for no reason....

    War On Terror, Inc. works on at least two levels. Hughes challenges the legality and morality of the roles played by these firms and, as mentioned above, he also exposes their sheer ineptitude and gross corruption. The collaboration of western politicians in this conspiracy is something that should be front page news and provoke the outrage of every citizen of these countries. The fact that it doesn't is witness to the effectiveness of the neoliberal myth that privatization is better than anything any government could do. The narrative in War on Terror, Inc. is proof that that myth is a brazen lie.

    --I would add that it shouldn't matter one iota what your political stripe is, if you're not pissed off and/or horrified by the rampant war profiteering that has been the hallmark of the Iraq debacle then you're not worthy of the name humane.

    Often the line dividing sane from insane is poorly defined. In reference to our Iraq invasion we've crossed that murky Rubicon long ago.

    And I can honestly say, speaking as a former Marine, that many of the right-wingers here --e.g. Rio, Liberty, Happy etc-- make me nauseous with their callous talk about our heroic war machine. I'd be happy to personally kick their silly, stupid asses from here to Baghdad --and then let them pull a tour in the thick of it all.

    I disagree in principle with the idea of the death penalty, but if we are to continue to entertain that medieval throwback then it's first victims should be the war profiteers, and the warmongers who engage them in a mutual fellatio-fest.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/13/2008 @ 02:16am

  32. Happy who is Michael Yon? Do you have a contact?

    I hope he does a better job of representing what is happening in Iraq than the matter in both these videos that plainly lacks any attempt at contextualization.

    These videos may be doing the anti-war cause a great disservice unless this is the best that can be done.

    No context, no names of cities towns or regions or even dates. Where are the opinions of the Iraqis (even through translators) whom these disaffected soldiers claim to represent? Do any of the soldier/commentators speak Arabic? Did they script the videos or did anti-war operatives back in the States do that?

    These are very junior men who are displaying natural emotional responses, not only to the losses suffered by Iraqis but also displaying anger toward Iraqis for not accepting, in their understanding, the American presence.

    All up a naïve, simplistic attempt, by a few well meaning American soldiers who were obviously out of their depth, when trying to produce a credible narrative.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 04:26am

  33. I disagree in principle with the idea of the death penalty, but if we are to continue to entertain that medieval throwback then it's first victims should be the war profiteers, and the warmongers who engage them in a mutual fellatio-fest. Posted by B_KOOL_66 03/13/2008 @ 02:16am

    They walked off scot-free with their fat profits & sinecures after Nam, my war, and they'll do the same again after Iraq, thanks in no small measure to the pro-war morons & paid frauds so evident in some of these posts. We saw their like 35-40 years ago, and they're no different this time around.

    With McC or Billary, there will be no change, only more war crimes. With Obama, there may be a chance, just as there might have been a chance with RFK 40 years ago.

    Posted by sloper at 03/13/2008 @ 07:18am

  34. Mai lai never happened.

    The Iraqi war is all but over.

    US Veterans are America hating Anti-US military.

    The Iraqi guvt "leaders" need to keep the oil money, not spend it on infrastructure .

    Squawk squawk

    We are winning so we need to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2008 @ 07:31am

  35. Note how the neo-cons have adapted the AQ philosophy:

    "the ends justify the means"

    But, no end in sight.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2008 @ 07:38am

  36. how dare anyone question our glorious troops? soldiers are the crown of creation, the highest profession there is. the nation will forever be grateful for whatever it is they do in those far off countries.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 07:57am

  37. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/12/2008 @ 10:16pm

    humans are really fucking stupid sometimes........

    That's what I think when I read 90 percent of your postings, FROSTY. I wonder what kind of world you live in where the things you believe are true, disconnected from reality as so much of it seems. Thus I try to understand. Do you do the same?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 08:53am

  38. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 07:57am

    how dare anyone question our glorious troops? soldiers are the crown of creation, the highest profession there is. the nation will forever be grateful for whatever it is they do in those far off countries.

    The anomaly is not the 'unquestioning loyalty' of the pro-war folks to the troops. It's your unquestioning hatred.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 08:55am

  39. So how many need to speak out before you're satisfied Happy? Give me a number, I'm sure we could easily find enough who agree with the Winter Soldiers to make you HAPPY!

    Posted by YUTSANO 03/12/2008 @ 4:55pm

    No you won't I'm afraid. As long as there is money to be made off of war, and there is my friend, people like Happy will promote war, the making of war products and continued escalation of tensions around the world to justify massive defense budgets.

    What soldiers "on the ground" have to say doesn't even register with the likes of Happy, Cheney and Bush because they are too busy counting their blood money to care or take notice. Spilling blood for profit is quite the business venture.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 08:57am

  40. I should add, EMILE, that most pro-war folks I know deem it to be be the lesser of two evils. We don't sit around thinking about what a glorious thing war is, whereas you folks clearly only want to dwell on the negative in the service to your agenda. It's you folks who seem to only see the evil in the war. It's your view that is unbalanced, my friend, and all of your insistence to the contrary is quite revealing, I would say.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 08:59am

  41. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 08:55am

    But it's okay to call the soldiers who oppose the war names or question their intelligence or even loyalty....right?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 09:00am

  42. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 08:57am

    What soldiers "on the ground" have to say doesn't even register with the likes of Happy, Cheney and Bush because they are too busy counting their blood money to care or take notice. Spilling blood for profit is quite the business venture.

    How are Cheney, Bush, and HAPPY profiting from the war, WOLFGANG? Is it your view that if anyone who disagrees with you and your pure views on the issue of this war can only be motivated by greed?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:00am

  43. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 09:00am

    But it's okay to call the soldiers who oppose the war names or question their intelligence or even loyalty....right?

    Who questioned their loyalty, MASK? The last time you and I discussed this, I asked you why you take the tiny minority of anti-war veterans as gospel, while ignoring the vast majority who clearly believe in what you are doing. Why don't you answer me that?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:02am

  44. Also, MASK, you still haven't answered my question about exactly how you think Dick Cheney stands to get rich from stock he doesn't own.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:05am

  45. As the Spartans used to say, it is stupid to engage an enemy for longer than two years because it provides them with free training. They forgot that lesson and the Thebians ended up with very good soldiers as a result. And that's what we are doing in Iraq - a far cry from "victory".

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/12/2008 @ 11:09pm

    Good point. Also, our right wing friends haven't been reading the news lately. Evidently, there have been a lot of attacks in Iraq as of late...we've lost quite a number of soldiers over the past few days. So, I would like to know exactly how this "surge" in troop levels has been effective.

    If anyone listened to what the soldiers had to say, they would know that staying in Iraq is creating more and more enemies to the U.S. in Iraq.

    If someone came to the U.S. and killed my family members, I'd be pissed off and want a piece of them. I wouldn't be too pleased about their troops rolling down the streets of where I live. I would think that the Iraqi's probably feel the same way. Everytime we kill one, we gain multiple enemies. It's an exponential certainty.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:10am

  46. Thebans not Thebians.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:16am

  47. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 09:10am

    So, I would like to know exactly how this "surge" in troop levels has been effective.

    Well, perhaps you should listen to the news, my friend. Attacks and casualties across Iraq are down dramatically since the surge was started. Even most Democrats in Congress have started talking about it, haven't you noticed?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:17am

  48. And in the naked light I saw

    Ten thousand people, maybe more

    People talking without speaking

    People hearing without listening

    People writing songs that voices never share

    And no one dared

    Disturb the sound of silence

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:20am

  49. you folks who seem to only see the evil in the war. It's your view that is unbalanced, my friend, and all of your insistence to the contrary is quite revealing, I would say.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 08:59am

    Ponti, You may want to reread your own statement and retract said statement. I didn't know that there was a good or holy part of war. Wasn't it Sherman who said, "war is hell"? It is evil. The only thing that comes from war is death and destruction. Those who control and wage the wars are far from the battefield and also never come in harms way. It's easy to be brave from the White House or at your computer. It's quite another to kill people yourself and also be a possible target.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:24am

  50. How are Cheney, Bush, and HAPPY profiting from the war, WOLFGANG? Is it your view that if anyone who disagrees with you and your pure views on the issue of this war can only be motivated by greed?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:00am

    OIL MONEY and HALIBURTON ring any bells for you?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:25am

  51. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 09:24am

    Of course war is evil, WOLFGANG, that doesn't mean it can always be avoided. War was needed to overthrow Hitler, for example. Surely you're not suggesting that because war is a bad thing, people like Hitler and Saddam should be free to do whatever they please?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:27am

  52. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 09:25am

    OIL MONEY and HALIBURTON ring any bells for you?

    Those are definitely three words strung together, WOLFGANG. But how does listing them answer my question?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:28am

  53. Well, perhaps you should listen to the news, my friend. Attacks and casualties across Iraq are down dramatically since the surge was started. Even most Democrats in Congress have started talking about it, haven't you noticed?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:17am

    Good, then why don't you move to Iraq. Better still, why don't you go over to Iraq and join in on the fun all of our soldiers are having since things are so wonderful over there.

    If things were going so well, we wouldn't need 130K plus soldiers in Iraq now would we. Yet, roadside bombs are still killing people on a daily basis. That's not any improvement.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:29am

  54. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 09:29am

    If things were going so well, we wouldn't need 130K plus soldiers in Iraq now would we. Yet, roadside bombs are still killing people on a daily basis. That's not any improvement.

    Hmmm, let's see. So since the terrorists are killing innocent people with roadside bombs, we should just hand Iraq to them? Is that your belief?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 09:31am

  55. Surely you're not suggesting that because war is a bad thing, people like Hitler and Saddam should be free to do whatever they please?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:27am

    Last I checked, Saddam never attacked the U.S. or declared war on the U.S. Hitler aggresively attacked multiple nations and the U.S. didn't declare a state of war until after we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Big difference between the history of how we entered WWII and the Iraq debacle wouldn't you say. Remember, your boys in DC tried to convince the American public that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 but we now know that whole entire story was a bunch of crap, or do you still maintain that Saddam and Bin Laden were big buddies and planned the attack together?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:35am

  56. War ! what is it good for?

    absolutely NOTHING,

    say it again.

    Barret Strong

    incidentally, that song was recorded by the Temptations too, and there is a clip on youtube

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:38am

  57. to name Hitler and Saddam in the same breath is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:39am

  58. Posted by HAPPY 03/12/2008 @ 11:43pm

    If Michael Yon is part of the Pentagon, is broadcast regularly on MSM, including the NYT and WaPo, I might have some sneaky suspicion that you may have something......but it just ain't so now, is it?

    Who pays for his chow? Who decides where he gets to go and what he gets to see? What are they getting in return for granting access? These are questions one should make of any source - and particularly any source that claims to be "independent".

    And while your argument about him getting into MSM isn't really about what he is doing, but it is about his mass appeal. I'd argue that what makes Michael Yon effective is that he can shape the opinions of people like yourself. His material is not targeted to general readers of the MSM and especially not to readers like me. There's a reason why his writing shows up in the National Review and the Weekly Standard and not the NYT - although even there he gets free advertisements in the form of major stories see, NYT on 01/12/08.

    I'd say the Pentagon is getting their money's worth out of their contractor, Michael Yon, in their front to win "hearts and minds" at home. If I were them, I'd make that investment too.

    I'll leave it to you to postulate why we don't have truly independent reporting in Iraq and why Michael Yon has an audience. Why don't Iraqis embedded in the Iraq population have an audience among right wing conservatives desperately seeking good news or the supposedly liberal NYT? Excellent question.

    Bush/Petraeus have given enough reasons for continuing the Iraq War.

    No, they talk about "freedom" and "democracy", and the one time they did talk about a mission, they said mission accomplished - meaning we no longer have one.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 12:12am

    Please feel free to share with us what war you served in and how many of your family members served in Iraq. In all your time here, I've never seen you discuss it.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 08:53am

    We know you stand ready to go to Iraq, when called. We'll all hold our breath for that.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 08:59am

    Because some of us have actually served in one and no whereof of what we speak. I hear they are offering good sign-up bonuses, maybe it's time for you to consider a career change?

    You know, that hypocrisy thing is a bitch now ain't it?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 09:40am

  59. So since the terrorists are killing innocent people with roadside bombs, we should just hand Iraq to them? Is that your belief?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:31am

    How blind can you be. How many innocent people have our soldiers killed? Everytime we hit a target with bad information we create enemies.

    Secondly, the last I checked, Iraq is not part of the United States, nor does Iraq fall under U.S. jurisdiction, so we really have no business over in Iraq being the umpire calling what a good kill is versus a bad kill. Iraq does not belong to Bush, Cheney, you are any of us. The people of Iraq need to decide which way their nation will go.

    We unfortunatley created a vacuum by eliminating Saddam from power and now, thanks to our great strategic move,the door has been opened for Iran or anyone else to try to influence the next government of Iraq. Eventually, it will come down to what the people of Iraq want because no matter how many soldiers we ship over there, Iraq still has a greater number of people evidently willing to strap bombs to themselves to take our soldiers out. It's a no win scenario for us.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 09:45am

  60. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 09:35am

    So, you DO agree that in some cases, war is both justified and necessary (e.g., in the case of Hitler), even though it is evil?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 10:03am

  61. we should just hand Iraq to them?

    we have nothing to hand to them. we have destroyed their country.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 10:04am

  62. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 09:39am

    to name Hitler and Saddam in the same breath is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

    Really? How do they differ? Bigger mass graves for Hitler? More educated use of torture and rape? Please tell me how they differ in principle, I'd be fascinated to know.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 10:05am

  63. Ponti-Read a history book about WW2 and you'll see the difference between Hitler and Saddam.Don't forget that none of you cared about Iraqis.You attacked because you were scared of Saddam.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am

  64. You attacked because you were scared of Saddam.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person

    Nah. they knew damn well that Saddam was no threat.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 10:34am

  65. emille-While the powers that be knew that Saddam was no threat Ponti and his type did believe the propaganda about mushroom clouds.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:38am

  66. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:02am

    And I asked YOU to back up your claim that "almost none" of the soldiers in Iraq were liberals? Easy to do...merely provide the voting pattern for the last election in 2006?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 09:05am

    And I asked you if Vice-President Cheney had received ANY compensation from Halliburton AFTER being elected in 2000? And perhaps even after he began promoting the invasion of Iraq, for which Halliburton made a tidy profit?

    BTW, how many BILLIONS did Tyson Chicken get out of Her Majesty?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:39am

  67. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am

    Ponti-Read a history book about WW2 and you'll see the difference between Hitler and Saddam.

    Trust me, IM, I have read plenty of books about WWII, and I see little or no difference between Hitler and Saddam. Frankly, I question the education of anyone who sees major differences. Just as I question the moral judgement of those today who make apologies for the enslavement of the entire populations of Cuba and North Korea while finding historical slavery in the US abhorrent. Or overlooking the mass murders of Saddam because it helps makes their case against George Bush, while finding mass murder under Hitler unacceptable.

    Academically speaking, it has long been a question for historians regarding how the contemporary 'intellectuals' of Hitler's time were able to overlook his mass murders. On this site, I have gained an understanding of how such things happen. People have other agendas.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 10:40am

  68. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am |

    They also don't want EVERY analogy to World War-II, I'M....

    for instance, during THAT war, we actually tried to PAY for it with higher taxes...and EVERYBODY's son had a part of the risk with a draft.

    Neo-cons like PONTI wanted "World War-II on the cheap"! No fuss, no muss, no SACRIFICES!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:40am

  69. Mask-Ponti is correct about few liberals being soldiers.Not too many are marines,either.Liberals tend to score high enough on the tests to get the better jobs in the air force and navy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:41am

  70. So, you DO agree that in some cases, war is both justified and necessary (e.g., in the case of Hitler), even though it is evil?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 10:03am

    Ponti, I think that war may be a necessary evil if, and only if we are attacked. Saddam didn't attack us. That was the point I brought up earlier. Saddam wasn't the nicest leader on the face of the planet, but he certainly wasn't alone with atrocities committed on his own people. But, the U.S. doesn't have the right to go around the world removing leaders of other countries as we see fit.

    How would you like it if a bunch of countries got together and decided that Bush wasn't fit to be the leader of the U.S. and removed him from office, had him executed, and then tried to dictate to us what kind of government we'd have since they toppled the last one?

    The U.S. can't afford to be the world's police force.

    I believe that we have the right to defend ourselves if we are attacked. So far, the only attacks we've had have been from a bunch of Saudi's flying planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. I see that we haven't declared war on Saudi Arabia though they are the nation that brought forth Bin Laden and his followers not to mention the new form of Islam being followed by this crew and AQ. Not only that, but they are funding the very insurgents in Iraq we have been fighting. Sounds like more of an enemy than a friend, but W and crew don't seem to think so.

    If the U.S. was attacked and at war, I'd be one of the first to sign up....again. I've served in the military and if my family or country was really at threat a think you'd find a good majority of the liberals posting here standing in line to help out. Iraq is not a situation that even remotely resembles our nation under a real tangible threat. We're more likely to cease to exist as a nation by imploding due to our huge military expenditures draining the nations money resources similar to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. That's what caused the collapse of a once great world power. It can happen again to us if we aren't careful.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 10:43am

  71. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 10:39am

    And I asked YOU to back up your claim that "almost none" of the soldiers in Iraq were liberals? Easy to do...merely provide the voting pattern for the last election in 2006?

    I told you at the time that I would not provide any evidence for this statement, because I knew that you would quibble with whatever source I presented. What I asked of you, rather, was that you do your own good faith investigation and answer the question for yourself. If you refuse to do so, you can believe whatever you want, which I suspect you will in any case, which is, of course, your problem.

    And I asked you if Vice-President Cheney had received ANY compensation from Halliburton AFTER being elected in 2000? And perhaps even after he began promoting the invasion of Iraq, for which Halliburton made a tidy profit?

    So you answered my question with a question? I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine. Did you read the link I provided you, wrt factcheck.org and Cheney's deferred compensation? Obviously you did not, otherwise you would realize your question had been answered. Cheney received deferred compensation from Halliburton after 2000 for salaries he earned prior to 1999. He would have been paid that money regardless of how well Halliburton did, even if they went bankrupt.

    Now, will you tell me exactly how you think Cheney stands to get rich from stock options he doesn't own? If you can explain this, you must be some sort of financial genius, and perhaps I will pay you to make ME rich in the stock market too, off of securities I don't own.

    BTW, how many BILLIONS did Tyson Chicken get out of Her Majesty?

    I wouldn't say billions. For the Clintons' help in overlooking Arkansas and federal labor laws wrt Tyson Foods, I'm sure they received millions in return for their $100,000 investment. Satisfied?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 10:49am

  72. hear me loud and clear.

    the US did not go to war against Germany because of Hitler's genocidal plans for the jews.it was because of his submarines sinking american ships, as well as supporting England.

    they did not go to war when Poland was snatched. they did not go to war when France was conquered.

    even when it was known what was going on in the death camps, at no time were the train lines to Dachau bombed.

    the war against Iraq too was not a matter of Saddam. at no time did Bush go before the nation and said, that Saddam is a bad hombre and that's why we must attack.

    why do you think they had to peddle these absurd lies to push congress and the people into the war?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 10:50am

  73. Ponti-So,Saddam had a massive military that he was using to roll over one country after another while slaughtering millions of people,like Hitler??You people don't care about mass murderers.You did nothing to stop that in Africa.You paid off the loon in North Korea.You did not and do not care about Iraqis.You trade with China,an oppressive country that has slaughtered millions including American pets and kids.You people are lying hypocrites.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:52am

  74. Mask-FDR,intelligently, preferred the pay as you fight plan.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 10:54am

  75. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person

    and how did he pay? with a 90% top tax bracket, that's how.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 10:56am

  76. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:41am

    Mask-Ponti is correct about few liberals being soldiers.Not too many are marines,either.

    Thanks for backing up my point with MASK. I don't think anybody can dispute the truth of these statements.

    Liberals tend to score high enough on the tests to get the better jobs in the air force and navy.

    What a sad commentary on your world outlook that is, IM.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 10:57am

  77. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 10:50am

    the US did not go to war against Germany because of Hitler's genocidal plans for the jews.it was because of his submarines sinking american ships, as well as supporting England.they did not go to war when Poland was snatched. they did not go to war when France was conquered.even when it was known what was going on in the death camps, at no time were the train lines to Dachau bombed.

    I think you've got your wars mixed up, EMILE my intellectual friend. The sub thing was WWI. In WWII, it was a thing called Pearl Harbor. As far as the rail lines to Auschwitz, I believe we bombed pretty much anything that moved in Germany, so I don't see how we could have missed them.

    the war against Iraq too was not a matter of Saddam. at no time did Bush go before the nation and said, that Saddam is a bad hombre and that's why we must attack.

    He didn't? I could have sworn I saw about a dozen speeches to that effect. Do you live in a cave, by chance?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 11:02am

  78. "I told you at the time that I would not provide any evidence for this statement, because I knew that you would quibble with whatever source I presented."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 10:49am |

    So....you can't tell me your evidence...because I'd make fun of it? That like "I have a girlfriend who's a model, but I won't introduce you to her because you'd steal her from me"?...heheh

    How about this for a theory, the ONLY source you'd cite would be a partisan one....www.weeklystandard.com....and you CAN'T supply a non-biased one and ....you know it?

    "Cheney received deferred compensation from Halliburton after 2000 for salaries he earned prior to 1999. He would have been paid that money regardless of how well Halliburton did, even if they went bankrupt."-----Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 10:49am |

    Soooooo....just a co-inky-dink that Cheney received over $300,000 (notice you didn't want to give the figure) from Halliburton...right after he promoted a war in which they were the ONLY bidder (again...coincidence, right?) to work on reconstruction?

    "I wouldn't say billions. For the Clintons' help in overlooking Arkansas and federal labor laws wrt Tyson Foods, I'm sure they received millions in return for their $100,000 investment. Satisfied?"----Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 10:49am |

    So in the Clinton bribery scandal...Hillary gets $100K in campaign contributions and a chicken factory gets set-up....

    and in the Cheney bribery scandal...Cheney gets $300K that goes into his Swiss account and 3900+ troops die, untold Iraqis, we spend HALF A TRILLION on the debt, install a Shiite government that just had Ahmadinejad over for tea.

    Yeah...I can see how the chicken thing is a bigger scandal!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 11:07am

  79. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 10:57am

    I'M isn't off the hook either.....got voting records for the troops in Iraq?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 11:09am

  80. Mask-Not all democrats are liberals.Many troops in Iraq are in the air force and some in the navy which is the two branches that liberals tend to join because the training is better.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:24am

  81. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 11:24am | ignore this person

    and you don't have to look at the carnage that you are creating.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:26am

  82. Ponti-It's hysterical that you used part of my statement to back up your claim with Mask,but then dismissed the second part.The entire post was and is a fact.I've been in the military since birth.I know about this subject.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:27am

  83. I'M isn't off the hook either.....got voting records for the troops in Iraq?

    Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 11:09am

    Though I don't have the numbers to prove this, I'd wager that most of the military folks vote republican, but not for the God and country reasons most of the right wingers here will say. The reason most of them vote rethug is that they believe that the republicans will spend more money on defense thereby increasing the pay of the soldiers. A lot of our soldiers in Iraq are seeing how much the Haliburton folks and mercs are getting paid for doing the same job and are getting out of the military to work for Haliburton for higher wages. They figure that if they are going to put their lives on the line, they want to get paid for it.

    So, we are paying more for a private company to do what the military could have done by itself one hell of a lot cheaper which is very unrepublican like.

    Ponti, If you don't think both Cheney and Bush sitting in the White House promoting a war that benefits industries they both worked in and still have ties to would help them, you don't comprehend what the term conflict of interest means. What's to stop W and Cheney for going back into those industries once they leave the White House? Ever thought about that one? What about paid vacations for eternity once they retire? What about campaign donations to the Bush twins or Cheney kids when they decide to run for office? There's more than one way to grease the wheels of corporate pays off than just sticking money directly into someone's bank account for services rendered.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 11:29am

  84. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 10:30am | ignore this person

    Physician heal thyself.....Hitler was simply a more successful than SADDAM....well early on. Re-read your history books.

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:30am

  85. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 11:29am | ignore this person

    Mindless conspiracy nut job tripe......Cheney has recieved a check from Halliburton since 2000. He sold all his stock in that company.

    Dont you and Michael Moore have anything original to say.

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:33am

  86. CPT-I don't need to reread history books.I know for a fact that Saddam did not have a massive military that he was using to roll over one country after another.Saddam's military lost every war it fought.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:34am

  87. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 11:24am | ignore this person

    When is the last time you were in the military????? 1970s?????? sorry bud we have overhauled that system.

    You know NOTHING of what you claim

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:35am

  88. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 11:07am

    What 300k, MASK? Got a source for that?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 11:36am

  89. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

    Point of FACT, it did not...the IRANIANS were slaughtered and he was able to roll Kuwait up and would have done the same to the Saudis

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:36am

  90. I've been in the military since birth.I know about this subject.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 11:27am | ignore this person

    I bet you looked cute in that little soldier suit.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:40am

  91. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:36am | ignore this person

    Let me know when has those "facts"

    MASK often overstates....he cant evel tell the differnece bt Arab Iraqi SHIA and Persian Iranian Shia!!! lol

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:41am

  92. CPT-I'm retired military and go on bases all the time.You have not overhauled anything.The military does not stop liberals from scoring higher on the tests and does not stop liberals from joining the air force or navy.The military mind has not changed since the very first military came into being.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:42am

  93. emille-I was adorable in my soldiers suit.My parents have pictures.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:43am

  94. CPT-saddam did not conquer Iran and lost desert storm and lost in the latest attack.His military was a joke.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am

  95. Mindless conspiracy nut job tripe......Cheney has recieved a check from Halliburton since 2000. He sold all his stock in that company.

    Dont you and Michael Moore have anything original to say.

    Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 11:33am

    You are the mindless one here. The Iraq debacle is living proof of what I say. Where in the hell is yours? Where's your proof that we are winning in Iraq? Where's the WMD's? Where's the government of the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and for the Iraqi people? Where's the money that Iraq was supposed to generate to pay for this war as quoted by Wolfowitz and the neocons?

    Starting a pointless war is the problem here, not people calling Bush and Cheney for starting a pointless war. The U.S. has gained absolutely nothing from attacking Iraq and lost lives and a lot of money. Why don't you come up with some tangible evidence proving us otherwise or take your B.S. elsewhere.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am

  96. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 11:29am

    Ponti, If you don't think both Cheney and Bush sitting in the White House promoting a war that benefits industries they both worked in and still have ties to would help them, you don't comprehend what the term conflict of interest means. What's to stop W and Cheney for going back into those industries once they leave the White House? Ever thought about that one? What about paid vacations for eternity once they retire? What about campaign donations to the Bush twins or Cheney kids when they decide to run for office? There's more than one way to grease the wheels of corporate pays off than just sticking money directly into someone's bank account for services rendered.

    Oh, okay. So you're not condemning Bush for things that have happened, you're condemning them for things you THINK might happen at some point in the future?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am

  97. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 11:42am | ignore this person

    It has changed a GREAT deal....it is kind of sad that you dont even see that

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 11:47am

  98. CPT-The military never changes in any country.The military mind is always the same and always has been.You're new to the military so leave this to the experts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 11:50am

  99. .the IRANIANS were slaughtered

    er, no. the slaughter was on both sides. you do not know even recent history.

    the Iranians, being a larger country and far more populous used human wave tactics, which are very difficult to resist even with superior technology.

    but the US told Saddam, "we will not let you lose" and provided him with battle field intelligence and most of all poison gas weapons. still the war ended in a stale mate.

    you must think you're sitting with your brain washed friends to try and pull this absurd revisionism on us.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:50am

  100. the war against Iraq too was not a matter of Saddam. at no time did Bush go before the nation and said, that Saddam is a bad hombre and that's why we must attack.

    He didn't? I could have sworn I saw about a dozen speeches to that effect. Do you live in a cave, by chance?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:02am

    Here is what Bush had to say, not only to America but also to a world audience, about Saddam being a "bad hombre" and needing to be brought to book for human rights violations in Iraq. These are stand alone reasons that did not depend upon the presence of WMD in Iraq.

    These excerpts are from his September 2002 address to the UN.

    REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

    New York, New York

    (12th September 2002)

    ".....In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

    Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state….."

    "….He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens…."

    "….If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions…."

    "…If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections…."

    "….The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it…"

    "…The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq…."

    "…. His (Saddam Hussein) regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed ....... 40 Iraqi villages…"

    "….If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times…."

    "….If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity…."

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 11:57am

  101. LvLiberty-In no way shape or form do I hate the military and when it comes to fighting against terrorists I'm more of a hawk than you are.Bush and you people are candyasses when it comes to fighting against terrorists.As I have stated multitudes of times on here dictators are evil and we need to get rid of them,but you need to find a way to rid of them without causing more problems than you solve and you need to not replace oppressive saddam with oppressive islam

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:01pm

  102. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 11:07am

    So....you can't tell me your evidence...because I'd make fun of it? That like "I have a girlfriend who's a model, but I won't introduce you to her because you'd steal her from me"?...heheh

    No MASK, I told you to do some research on your own. I'm tired of spoon-feeding you information only to have you spit it out like a two-year old. Some sort of intellectual honesty is needed in true communication, if you can't bring that to the table then you have little to offer but knee-jerk argument.

    How about this for a theory, the ONLY source you'd cite would be a partisan one....www.weeklystandard.com....and you CAN'T supply a non-biased one and ....you know it?

    How about using a little common sense? Do you really think that there are a whole lot of anti-war liberals volunteering for service in Iraq? Shit, the anti-war movement is practically assaulting military recruiters across the nation, and you think that the same folks are volunteering in significant numbers? What are you smoking, anyway, IM and WOLFGANG have already agreed with me and not you!

    Soooooo....just a co-inky-dink that Cheney received over $300,000 (notice you didn't want to give the figure) from Halliburton...right after he promoted a war in which they were the ONLY bidder (again...coincidence, right?) to work on reconstruction?

    What $300,000, MASK?

    So in the Clinton bribery scandal...Hillary gets $100K in campaign contributions and a chicken factory gets set-up....

    and in the Cheney bribery scandal...Cheney gets $300K that goes into his Swiss account

    Whaaaaaatt? Is this along the lines of 'the secret $300,000 payment that Cheney received, which we don't know about, that went into his secret Swiss bank account, which we also don't know about'?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:01pm

  103. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079

    and the endless WMD lies?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 12:04pm

  104. Oh, okay. So you're not condemning Bush for things that have happened, you're condemning them for things you THINK might happen at some point in the future?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am

    No, you are the one saying that. I condemn Bush and Cheney for the effed up mess they drug this nation into.

    They pushed there way into office, shoved this war, which has nothing to do with Bin Forgotten, down our throats and lied to us all the way about why we were going into Iraq from the get go. That is what I condemn them for.

    The question is, why did they do it? It's certainly not out of any fierce loyalty they have to the U.S. or the U.S. military for that matter since one of them had his draft eligibility deferred multiple times to save his ass and the other one sat out the Vietnam war in the reserves. Don't lecture me about how these assholes running our country are patriotic and are serving this nation with integrity because their past and present records prove otherwise. Their history shows they look out for number one, but unfortunately, that's not the kind of leader this nation needs in the White House. I'm condemning them for acts they have already committed.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 12:05pm

  105. Truly America's days of greatness will be a faint memory if these folks and their way of thinking ever takes control of our political process.

    ~The Reverend of Bloodshed @ 11:53am

    No comment.

    I'll let the irony speak for itself --and hope against hope that just the faintest glimmer, or the tiniest spark of recognition crosses a single synapse in the brain of LV "Liberty".

    It's a bit like conducting a mirror experiment on a macaque.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/13/2008 @ 12:05pm

  106. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 11:53am

    LVL. If I came here to change minds, I would have gotten discouraged a long ago. No, this site for me is only for amusement, and for honing my debating skills. Most of these people couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. But they're fun to play with.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:10pm

  107. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am | ignore this person

    You speaking of tangiable evidence???????

    We have done this before...pointless...is nowhere near the truth though you would love to believe it.

    The govt is formed and working itself out....our own took about 10 years to work out...remember the articles of confederation, shays rebellion, whiskey rebellion?? ringing any bells

    WMDS? Well SADDAMS interviewer confirmed on 60 minutes that He delibrately mislead the international community into thinking he had them. After he was told by the UN 17 times to come clean....

    The mass graves uncovered as recently as last week confirm what a great Saddam regime was.

    Proof of winning....i suppose you would just as easily ignore the inconvienent facts of near 70% drop in attacks nation-wide. But you dont like those numbers.........all you can see is the casualty numbers in front of you and not see the higher strategic purpose with which policy makers MUST bear at the forefront. Though numbers have been killed....many of the numbers have been made via AQ and anti-coalition forces......they imbed themselves into IRAQI population centers..not us, thereby DELIBRATELY causing civilian causalties.

    You guys blame BUSH for the Sunni-Shia strife and lament the loss of life and attribute it to BUSH......yet NONE of you ENLIGHTENED liberals can see that it was SADDAM and HIS policies that formented the seeds of emminty bt the Sunni and Shia. If SADDAM had not been so REPRESSIVE toward the SHIA and killed close to 600,000 of them and buried them in mass graves.....much of the violence would never have occurred......it is doubtful, had that been the case that we would have even had to invade.

    Thats why many of you enlightened liberals...though not all, are so contempible and funny to me.....it is hard to take you serious when you make such outlandish statements......but you guys have been successful in taking over the DEMOCRATIC party....so good job there.....you are going to nominate either MS LEFT or MR. EVEN more LEFT. Congrats

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:10pm

  108. They are instead consumed with a visceral hatred of our military today and our efforts to defeat radical Islam.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 11:53am

    Lvliberty, First of all, since when was it the U.S. military's job to defeat radical Islam? I don't recall that being part of the U.S. military doctrine.

    Secondly, being a veteran, I don't hate our soldiers for following orders dictated to them by a power hungry D.C. environment. I feel bad for them in having to deal with the atrocities they have to do and see, and think the best way of really supporting our troops is to get them the hell out of this no win situation they have been placed in by the reckless leadership in the White House.

    If you hadn't noticed, any commanders who disagree with W's view of the war is pretty much shown the door. W has surrounded himself with yes men who tell him things are going just dandy. If someone has the audacity to tell him otherwise, they're gone.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 12:13pm

  109. Ponti-When are you going to start playing with us?You haven't done a very good job,so far.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:13pm

  110. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 12:05pm

    Oh, okay. So you're not condemning Bush for things that have happened, you're condemning them for things you THINK might happen at some point in the future?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:45am

    No, you are the one saying that. I condemn Bush and Cheney for the effed up mess they drug this nation into.

    Well, what about the people that voted for them? Don't you blame them too, after all days da ones who done drug us into this here effed up mess too! Not the terrorists! Not Saddam! It's Bush and Cheney who are the real terrorists...and Halleyburton...and...

    Oops! sorry! I caught a whiff of kool-aid there for a minute!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:14pm

  111. you must think you're sitting with your brain washed friends to try and pull this absurd revisionism on us.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 11:50am | ignore this person

    Well my dear it is nice to know what you think of the military....and gee....the answer was in reponse to another post stating that SADDAM Army was ineffective....a stalemate with a larger country is not indicative of an ineffective military..

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:15pm

  112. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:13pm

    Ponti-When are you going to start playing with us?You haven't done a very good job,so far.

    Sorry, IM. I meant for MY amusement, not yours. And you folks never disappoint.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:16pm

  113. CPT-None of you cared about oppressed Iraqis or mass graves until you were told to care.You have done nothing to stop mass murder in Africa and you not only are not trying to stop the mass murdering Chinese,but you are helping them with your war in Iraq and with trade.You are going out of your way to make mass murdering Chinese stronger.I'm sorry to bring reality into the discussion.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:17pm

  114. Thats why many of you enlightened liberals...though not all, are so contempible and funny to me.....it is hard to take you serious when you make such outlandish statements......but you guys have been successful in taking over the DEMOCRATIC party....so good job there.....you are going to nominate either MS LEFT or MR. EVEN more LEFT. Congrats

    Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person

    And please tell us why Iraq falls under the U.S. government jurisdiction? Bush would have had to put up more of a fight taking over your home state than he did in attacking Iraq which was and supposedly still is a sovereign nation. You're home state at least does fall under the federal government's terf which by proxy puts your state under his rule so to speak. The same can not be said of Iraq

    Iraq never attacked us, nor declared war on us. No matter how many times you try to side step the issue, it remains a reality. It's actually quite amusint that you care so much about the people of another country that you would kill them all to help them out.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 12:19pm

  115. Ponti-I could state that you people never fail to amuse me,but that would be immature and a sign that I was surrendering.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:19pm

  116. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:17pm |

    So now you favor war on the Chinese? The North Koreans? The Hutus that Clinton never took action against? Or not?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:19pm

  117. If you hadn't noticed, any commanders who disagree with W's view of the war is pretty much shown the door. W has surrounded himself with yes men who tell him things are going just dandy. If someone has the audacity to tell him otherwise, they're gone.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 12:13pm | ignore this person

    FALLON was not shown the door he retired....41 YEARS!!!!!!!! of service...he might just have been tired. Thats 21 years more than he had to for retirement purposes. FALLON did NOT disagree although the leftist intreviewer made it sound that way....FALLON himself stated that he had NO disagreement with Bush....but the article created the preception of it...so he left...GATES didnt want him too...but hey 41 YEARS is a long time......to serve

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:20pm

  118. What 300k, MASK? Got a source for that? ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:36am

    Actually PONTI, you're right...it's not $300,000.

    It's $368,000....sorry.

    money.cnn.com/2003/09/16/news/companies/halliburton/index.htm

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 12:20pm

  119. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 11:53am

    Talking about emotions is the last refuge of people that don't have anything substantial to say. Let's not talk about arguments, let's talk about how you feel about them. Let me try my hand at it.

    Wolfgang and I'm Nobody,

    You must realize by now that there is no grounds for reasoned debate on Iraq with the pro-war right. Even those who are veterans like LVL (and I'm sorry I don't even have another name to add to the conjunct, LVL will have to stand alone I guess) have lost sight of what it truly means to fight evil in the world and have decided to join the ranks of evil themselves. They are instead consumed with a visceral hatred of people that are rational enough not to buy their petty "Chicken Little" arguments regarding Islamic Fundamentalism and fail to understand that wars of aggression actually make us less safe by creating geopolitical instability and providing free training the terrorists.

    Then you have CPT and Ponti and others who hate government even in causes where most conservatives need government (ie military-industrial complex central planning of the economy). They live in a world that is a fantasy of their minds and doesn't exist in reality.

    For them, no matter if we didn't find any WMD in Iraq (and we didn't), they would still have been just as hateful as they are today and want to kill more people. Fortunately, they exist as a very small minority.

    But they will tell us, look at the polls, 30% are for continuing the war. But what they ignore is that other 70% of Americans and want to pretend that in some alternative reality 30% is really 70%. And that, just like in Vietnam, if you continue with a failed strategy and no mission objectives, if you just wait long enough "victory" will magically happen. Just look at both the polls and even the MSM in the early weeks of the Iraq war. Polls and the media were very positive towards the war and Bush. Why, because of the overwhelming sense of that what we were doing was right because of the lies Bush told to the American people. The American mentality is best described by Ronald Reagan's favorite quote: "Trust, but verify," and now, nothing these malcontents say will bamboozle the American people a second time (at least for a decades or two at any rate).

    Truly America's days of greatness will be a faint memory if these folks and their way of thinking remain in control of our political process. Look what kind of damage they did just since they took control of Congress and the White House. It took Democrats 40 years to get that bad.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 12:22pm

  120. Ponti-I was pointing out that you people are hypocrites,but you already knew that.We don't have to attack china,but we don't have to sell America to them like you people are doing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:22pm

  121. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person

    Wrong again...he attacked US planes in the no fly zone...harbored terrorists...a FACT he did. He targeted Bush 41, an act of war, technically spaeking and he even said a state of war exist between iraq and the us in 1998....when Clinton passed the Iraqi regime change act.

    And why do i care...bc we are there NOW, that is the reality.

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:24pm

  122. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 12:20pm

    MASK - I have specifically explained to you that the deferred salary that Cheney received after 2000 was earned prior to his run for VP, and that this amount, since it was bonded, would have been paid regardless of whether Halliburton went bankrupt or made trillions. What about this do you not understand? Or is not the lack of understanding that is at issue, but the lack of will to understand?

    What 300k, MASK? Got a source for that? ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 11:36am

    Actually PONTI, you're right...it's not $300,000.

    It's $368,000....sorry.

    money.cnn.com/2003/09/16/news/companies/halliburton/index.htm

    Cheney is expected to receive three more installments of his deferred salary -- in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

    Over the past two years his deferred payments totaled roughly $368,000. The aide said the insurance policy would pay Cheney $140,000 a year for five years if Halliburton went insolvent and was unable to pay Cheney's deferred salary.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:25pm

  123. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/13/2008 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person

    The wonderful mind of the "enlightened" liberal....priceless, but so funny.

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:25pm

  124. MASK, if you're just playing stupid, congratulations, because it's a VERY good act.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:26pm

  125. Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 12:25pm

    Yeah, these 'enlightened liberals' are hilarious. Up until they starting assaulting military recruiters and bombing recruiting centers. All in the name of peace and brotherhood you understand!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:27pm

  126. SRJENKINS

    I detect a little of Walzer's book in your statements? Walzer and his Just War Theories???

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:27pm

  127. PONTI

    They will casually ignore those people ...and lecture us on the secondary effects and extensions of "our" thinking. The hypocrisey is rife....but they cant smell it themselves

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:29pm

  128. CPT-Fact is that saddam and iran were keeping each other in check and we were attacked,but not by saddam.You put saddam on the backburner,since he wasn't doing anything,and go after those that attacked,but you candyasses don't know how to fight against people who attack you.You need a liberal,like FDR,for that.He did not respond to Pearl Harbor by attacking some powerless third world dictator and put our resources into that..He went after and destroyed two super powers in less time than you wimps can win in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:31pm

  129. Cost of an emachines computer: $250

    Cost of an internet connection: $9.99/mo

    Cost to logon to the Nation and listen to liberals talk in circles: Priceless.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:31pm

  130. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:31pm | ignore this person

    FDR went right after the GERMANS!!!!! FIRST! and the Pacific theater was the secondary theater of war....WH transcipits bears this out to be true....FDR said "Germany first"

    OH and he didnt have to fight an insurgency in either theater......he also had a sympathetic press corps! Who NEVER would have ever thought of publishing photos of Omaha on D-Day or Iwo Jima.......

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:36pm

  131. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 12:26pm

    Hmmm....making unsubstantiated comments, then when asked for proof, say "Oh, I could provide it but YOU'd never believe it when Bill Kristol or www.victory_in_iraq.org says it, so I won't provide"....

    or comparing corruption involving a chicken factory going up...with that involving a quagmire war....

    is "intelligence"!!?!?!?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 12:36pm

  132. BTW, any of our "Iraq is like World War-II" boys (CPT, PONTI, LVLIB)....

    why is it that unlike World War-II, Bush didn't ask for ANY sacrifices from the American people? No draft....no tax increases....no rationing....as well as no Congressional investigations into war profiteering?

    Or would that make it too tough for the VOTERS (especially in 2004)...and too risky (especially for Republicans)....even in a "titanic struggle of good versus evil"??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 12:39pm

  133. FALLON was not shown the door he retired...

    hahahahahaha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 12:39pm

  134. LvLiberty-I don't care,in the slightest,what you think about me and my views of the military since your view is based on ignorance.To claim that one must support the mission in order to support the troops is ludicrous.I did not support the mission in Viet Nam,but enlisted as a non combatant medic and volunteered to go to war in order to save our troops lives and lost my leg doing that.Tell me,again,how I don't support the troops.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:41pm

  135. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 12:36pm

    MASK...you're losing it, buddy. Take a deep breath.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm

  136. CPT-Germany was actually doing something and was viewed as the bigger threat because they were far more technologically advanced than the Japanese were.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm

  137. FDR went right after the GERMANS!!!!!

    what did he do?

    six months after Pearl Harbor the US won the battle of Midway.

    no matter what he said, the facts show otherwise. there was incidentally quite a lot of opposition in America to entering the war in Europe, which cannot be said about the pacific war, which had the additional component of racism against orientals.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm

  138. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 12:30pm

    Beneath the thin veil of "I support the troops" is the reality that if you supported them you would agree with what they're doing.

    Why stop there, reverend? Let's set the standard that if you support the troops, you'd sign up to fight among them. Shoot, I'm betting the military still needs people with expertise in cluster munitions. When are you signing the contract?

    Can we cut through the bullshit? "Supporting the troops" doesn't mean jack - one way or another. It's just Republican verbal framing as they talk about supporting but not putting their own lives or their kith and kin on the line. It's the kind of world where Bush, staying home, is the hero and John Kerry is the coward. It's disgraceful.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 12:31pm

    Cost of coming up with your own ideas rather than relying on an ad campaign that was old 10 years ago? Nothing.

    It must be a hard life living as a parrot.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm

  139. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person

    Well EMILE you can chose to believe the leftist author of the article or ADM FALLON's own WORDS.

    "There is disagreement bt myself and the Administration, but the preception that there is creates a diffcut enviroment to operate"

    41 YEARS after all is long time to serve...dont you agree my dear

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:45pm

  140. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 12:39pm

    why is it that unlike World War-II, Bush didn't ask for ANY sacrifices from the American people? No draft....no tax increases....no rationing....as well as no Congressional investigations into war profiteering?

    I don't get the relevance of the question, MASK. Why do liberals always promise to raise taxes on 'rich' (i.e., other) people when they make promises to voters in return for votes? Isn't this all part of being a politician?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:46pm

  141. which had the additional component of racism against orientals.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person

    REally well the Chinese might have to say about that....you see they were our allies in the Pacific....and HATED the Japs more than us....it didnt have anything to do with the JAPANESE brutal ways of waging war did it?? nah....Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March?

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:48pm

  142. Germany was actually doing something and was viewed as the bigger threat because they were far more technologically advanced than the Japanese were.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person

    Thank you for ceding the point.

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:49pm

  143. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 12:36pm

    heheh

    MASK, are you EVER going to answer my questions? You're giggle is starting to make me nervous.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:49pm

  144. oops..

    "There is NO disagreement

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:50pm

  145. CPT-What point did I cede?As far as I can tell you did not have a point.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:53pm

  146. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CPT

    yes that's why the US went to war against the Japanese after the Rape of Nanking. way, way after.

    no, the US did not do anything until the Japanese had reached... wait for it... Vietnam, then known as Indochina. it was then the US started the war with an act of war, the embargo.

    as I have pointed out before, the pacific war was the US pulling England's coals out of the fire. come to think of it so was the european war.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 12:53pm

  147. Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person

    DO NOT USE THE WORD JAPS, it is offensive and racist.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 12:54pm

  148. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 12:53pm

    Soooooo....your point is the US is responsible for WWII, also?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 12:55pm

  149. Germany was actually doing something and was viewed as the bigger threat because they were far more technologically advanced than the Japanese were.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person

    Now take you statement and put it into the context of what we were discussing ...that of Bush and Iraq and AQ

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 12:56pm

  150. LvLiberty-Under no circumstances does a freedom hater,such as yourself,tell me what I do or do not support.I,and not you,decide what I support.I would enlist now and become a medic just like I did back then.I have that history because I support our troops and our military,but don't support the present civilian government.I'd have been willing to carry a weapon in Afghanistan and was quite upset that I could not enlist following 9/11.You don't know me and know nothing about me,obviously.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 12:59pm

  151. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person

    Really??? It is the venacular of the time.......or you pulling my leg.....cant say that word when dicussing WWII??? Fine.....i will no longer do so...

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

  152. Below are examples of Bush Family members who have profited from the war and occupation of Iraq. These issues have not been examined or reported by the mainstream media.

    Neil Mallon Bush the younger brother of the President, infamous for his involvement in the Silverado S and L scandal, has been hired by Crest Investment Company as a consultant for $60,000 per year to assist with their efforts to serve as a middleman to advise other companies that seek taxpayer-financed business in Iraq. Working with Crest puts Neil Bush at the center of multiple organizations profiting from the war and occupation in close alliance with long-term Bush Family allies.

    Crest Investment is headed by Jamal Daniel who is a principal partner in New Bridge, a Houston, TX based company with offices in Iraq and Kuwait. The main focus of New Bridge is to advise companies that seek opportunities in the private sector in Iraq, including licenses to market products in Iraq. The company highlights that the Coalition Provisional Authority decision to allow foreign companies to establish 100 percent ownership of businesses in Iraq, an unusual arrangement in the Mideast, has added to the attractiveness of the market. The company describes itself by saying:

    " New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq." (See: http://www.newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp ) .

    New Bridge Strategies , is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March 2003. Earlier he was Chief of Staff to then-Governor Bush of Texas Other directors include Edward M. Rogers, Jr. vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to President George Herbert Walker and now have close ties to the White House."

    Also related to this Neil Bush network is Diligence LLC ( http://www.diligencellc.com/index.html ). Diligence shares addresses and many Board members with New Bridge Strategies. It was formed by past members of the CIA and Britain's MI5 Intelligence Services along with experts in international law, journalism and intelligence which enables them to review all sorts of future investment projects and provide security advice. Diligence opened an office in Baghdad in July 2003 where they provided payroll protection and delivery, personnel and facilities security, review of potential Iraqi business ventures, training and management of personal security forces, and intelligence briefs. A subsidiary includes Diligence Middle East, LLC which was created in partnership with New Bridge and the Kuwaiti Coroporation, Al-Mal Investment Company.

    William H.T. ("Bucky") Bush, an uncle of George W. Bush, joined the board of directors of the St. Louis based company Engineered Support Systems in March 2000. (See: http://www.engineeredsupport.com/) Bucky Bush was one the Bush "Pioneers," the campaign contributors who raised more than $100,000 in the 2000 presidential election. Engineered Support Systems has three areas: light military support equipment, heavy military support equipment, and electronics/automation systems. Since 2000, following the presidential election and the 9-11 attacks, the company's federal contracts, revenues and its stock value have all gone up. Engineered Support Systems has been in the top 100 contractors with the DoD since 2001. It's contracts with the U.S. military have totaled over $1 billion.

    On May 1, 2003, Engineered Support Systems acquired Maryland-based Technical and Management Services, TAMSCO on May 1, 2003. (See http://www.tamsco.com/.) The following week TAMSCO announced that it had "implemented a leading edge communications technology to support U.S. Army logistics operations in the Middle East upon the successful fielding of two Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) satellite terminals as part of the Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) project in Iraq." According to the company, "This marked the first time that TDMA technology had been utilized by the U.S. Army for satellite communications."

    In February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, TAMSCO began its satellite communications network linking Germany, Iraq and the U.S. In a period of less than two and a half months, TAMSCO identified the most cost-effective technology; procured, integrated, tested and shipped the equipment; trained soldiers on its installation and maintenance; installed an antenna hub site in Germany; installed the network equipment; and established a help desk operation in Kuwait.

    The Air Force and Army were both offering contracts. The Air Force awarded TAMSCO a $44.2 million contract for a radar system in June, another $11.7 million in orders in July, and more than $21.8 million in contracts in August. The Army provided a contract for a development project totaling $700,000 in June, and $12.8 million in contracts in August 2003.

    Engineered Support Systems' enterprises are profitable for Bucky Bush. He received consulting fees of $2,500 a month in 2002 for serving on its audit committee, as well as options to buy thousands of shares of stock at $28.42 a share. The stock now trades at $62.50 a share. As of January, he owned 33,750 shares, along with his portion of 3.3 million shares owned by all the firm's officers and directors as a group. The company paid him another $125,000 in fees.

    William H.T. Bush is also a trustee for the investment firm Lord Abbott, one of Halliburton's top 10 shareholders and also a top-ten mutual fund holder in Halliburton, which has obtained prime contracts in Iraq. Vice President Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, still has between $18 million and $87 million invested through Vanguard, another top-ten holder in Halliburton stock.

    Former president George H.W. Bush only recently resigned as a board member of the finance giant the Carlyle Group, heavily associated with military and security contracts. The Carlyle Group was 43rd among federal contractors in 2002, with $676.5 million in contracts. In 2003, the Carlyle Group moved up to 11th place, with $2.1 billion in contracts, partly from the war on terrorism and partly from Iraq. Insiders at the company also cashed in millions of dollars' worth of options in 2003. (See http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/. )

    Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of George W. Bush, shares an interest in federal contracts held by companies in his firm's portfolio. Marvin Bush is also an adviser at HCC Insurance, formerly called the Houston Casualty Company, one of the biggest insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Bush was a director at HCC, which has benefited financially from the 9-11 insurance bailout legislation passed by Congress at the instigation of the White House. The departure of Marvin from the HCC board was announced the same day, November 22, 2002, as the passage of the bill.

    Marvin Bush is co-founder and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm which is part of a larger firm called the Chatterjee Group. (See http://www.winstonpartners.com/. ) According to SEC filings, the Chatterjee Group consists of Winston Partners, LP; Chatterjee Fund Management, LP; Winston Partners II LDC, a Cayman Islands-based company; Winston Partners II LLC; Chatterjee Advisors LLC; Chatterjee Management Company; Mr. Chatterjee himself; and Furxedown Trading Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Isle of Man. The address for Winston Partners II LDC is in the Netherlands Antilles. The other subsidiaries were organized in Delaware. Governor Jeb Bush is also an investor in the Winston Capital Fund, which happens to be managed by Marvin's firm.

    According to the Sept 30, 2003, issue of Mother Jones, an $80 million Iraq contract was awarded to Nour, a company which began in 2003 with ties to Winston Partners. Nour is an "international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and claims expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel."

    In January, 2004, Nour was awarded a $327 million contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and Civil Defense Corps. However, not long after it was awarded, Nour came under heavy scrutiny because of questions involving the company's president and Ahmed Chalabi, of the US appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Newsday reported, Chalabi received a $2 million "fee" for helping to arrange a $80 million contract, that was actually awarded to a firm called Erinys International "within days" of being granted the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.

    In addition, after the $327 million contract was awarded it was revealed that Nour had no prior experience in providing military equipment. Nour's response was it planned to subcontract its weapons procurement to the Polish firm, Ostrowski Arms – unfortunately, Ostrowski didn't even have a license to export weapons. After these concerns the Army decided to terminate the contract with Nour. This added to the delays in body armor and other equipment that have increased the risks for U.S. soldiers. In May 2004, ANHAM, a joint venture with Nour, based in Vienna, Va., was the winner of a $259-million contract to equip the new Iraqi army and security forces with guns, trucks and other equipment. Nour lists current Iraq projects with the Ministry of Oil, the New Iraqi Army, and Criminal Intelligence in Iraq, Security in Iraq. (See http://www.nourusa.com .)

    Winston Partners' also are heavily invested in another military contractor, the Amsec Corp. In 2001, Amsec was awarded $37,722,000 in contracts from the Navy. Marvin Bush's long-time business partner, Scott Andrews, sits on the Amsec board of directors, and the firm's CEO at the time was Michael Braham, who used to work for none other than Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

    In addition, the Chatterjee Group also owns 5.5 million shares in a security company known as Sybase. SEC filings show the shares as being divided up between, Winston Partners LP with 1,036,075 shares; Winston Partners LDC holding 1,317,825 shares; and Winston Partners LLC owning 1,221,837 shares. Sybase prepared to make major profits from the Patriot Act long before it was passed. Sybase created a product called the "Sybase PATRIOT Compliance Solution" to track money laundering by terrorists.

    Sybase also is a significant government contractor, with contracts from the Navy ($2.9 million in 2001), the Army ($1.8 million in 2001), the Department of Defense ($5.3 million in 2001), Commerce, the Treasury, Agriculture and the General Services Administration, among others. The federal procurement database lists Sybase's total awards for 2001 as $14,754,000.

    In 1993, shortly after the first gulf war, Marvin Bush joined his father, George H.W. Bush (three months out of office), on a trip to Kuwait. Where, according to the March 16, 2001 Austin Chronicle, "Marvin was representing U.S. defense firms selling electronic fences to the Kuwaiti Defense Ministry

    Democracy rising.US

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

  153. Be back later

    Posted by CPT at 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

  154. CPT-One can't compare Germany to saddam.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 1:01pm

  155. HARVEY:

    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

    The latest article "Guitar Heros", is the one where he spent weeks w/air assault group in Mosul.

    Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 1:03pm

  156. Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person

    you're so..

    sensitive. the N word too was the vernacular of the time, as were words about Italians, Irish, jews etc. we no longer use them. and no I'm not pulling your leg.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:06pm

  157. Be back later

    Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

    Don't be in any kind of a rush on our account. Take your time in coming back.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:06pm

  158. Basic Facts:

    United States soldiers are returning with stories to tell. These truths do not fit The Party Line. Those that swallow The Party Line do not want to hear these truths. This war has been going on for 5 years, the whole time we have been told how well it is actually going. There is no end in sight.

    We have been told to "listen to the roops". But clearly, we are only to listen to those troops that keep to the Party Line. See Adm Fallon, Gen Shinseki etc. Note the 9 retired brass standing with Barak Hussein (BOO!)Obama during a recent press conference. A minority? perhaps, but they have views based on decades of experience that should be listened to. The majority does not always get it right till the minority shows them the error of the ways of mass hypnosis.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/13/2008 @ 1:13pm

  159. Tell me,again,how I don't support the troops.

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/13/2008 @ 12:41pm

    I applaud your efforts both for your time in the military and maybe even more importantly what you've done with your time after the fact. Some of these guys think war is like some kind of John Wayne movie where our guys swagger into action, kick ass, drink some bourbon and swagger away with the Ballad of the Green Berets playing in the background.

    This is all like a video game to these people. It's not real. It's just something they see on the tube and hear about in the news. If the war helps their investment portfolio, then by all means continue the war. If war will save them money at the gas pumps, then by all means war.

    Coming up with solutions other than war is for cowards in their eyes. If nations aren't with us, they are against us, and we can't stand for having anyone against us. Wouldn't Jesus be proud.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:14pm

  160. PONTI, what question is there left to be answered?

    Cheney got $368,000 from Halliburton AFTER becoming Veep and he promoted a war that garnered Halliburton and its subsidiaries hundreds of millions.

    One thing I think you keep forgetting is...I'm not a Hillary fan. So...if you'd like to see HER and Cheney brought up on charges for bribery....go for it.

    As for "losing it"....you insulted me, I countered....and you consider that "losing it"?!??!?

    As for World War-II, the relevance is the fact that guys like you (and CPT and LVLIB, etc.) wanted a CHEAP "World War-II"...no sacrifices, no chance that it would hurt Bush or the Republicans politically (due to everybody having a stake in it...a la WW-2).

    Why?...because you wanted all the "glory" and political benefits of a "World War-II"-like Iraq....but (like the war itself) didn't want to PAY FOR IT in a risk to your political fortunes.

    He (and maybe you and the other arm-chair warriors) knew that if the war went badly and folks were seeing their kids get drafted...their taxes go up...and calls for "doing with less" were involved....the GOP would be doomed and Bush probably would have lost 2004.

    The "Greatest Generation" would be so proud!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 1:16pm

  161. Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 12:27pm

    I was parodying LVL. I don't subscribe to any just war theories and the reasons are simple. War is against the teachings of Christ and of the Ten Commandments. I'm also left libertarian, which makes me suspect any justification for governmental use of force.

    No, I'd rather go with Walter Wink, "There are three general responses to evil: (1) violent opposition, (2) passivity, and (3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus. Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses: fight or flight."

    Iraq is a clear example of the problem with just war is that any war can be justified - particularly, if you can play to fear in the form of WMD, Dhimmitude or other cock-and-bull stories.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 1:21pm

  162. and the endless WMD lies?

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 12:04pm

    Perhaps your inability to think straight, in that you seem to be unable to distinguish between the humanitarian and WMD components, has caused you to run away and hide from what Bush actually said about Saddam and the former. The reality that you are generally uniformed about history may also contribute to your regular foot–in-mouth discomfort. I notice Ponti comes here to sharpen his debating skills. He won't get much of a work out with you.

    Some of us or at least I come here to see if there is a set of well reasoned grounds, from those who hold a different position on the war, that makes it difficult for me to maintain my position with intellectual and moral honesty.

    However when I run into the sort of stuff you come up with I tend to think that you and your poorly crafted and contrived arguments define the whole anti-war movement. In other words perhaps you are giving your cause a bad name.

    Is there not something else to keep you more gainfully occupied?

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:21pm

  163. Wolfgang-I had the heroic John Wayne view of war,too,but it only took a few seconds to lose that.Thank you for the compliment and your service.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 1:22pm

  164. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079

    the humanitarian component? that must be the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis that resulted from this illegal immoral and unnecessary war.

    talking to you is not debating it's emptying the stables, you are a clueless apparatchik.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:27pm

  165. I notice Ponti comes here to sharpen his debating skills. hahahahahha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm

  166. LvLiberty-It isn't possible to achieve our goals in Iraq.The goal was to create a democracy that would be an ally on the war on terror,but bush created an Islamic state and Islamic states create terrorists,but don't fight them unless paid to do so,but we can't pay them forever nor were we told that we would have to pay them.I guess we should have just paid saddam and his family to leave Iraq and set them up somewhere else.It would have been cheaper.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm

  167. I don't subscribe to any just war theories and the reasons are simple. War is against the teachings of Christ and of the Ten Commandments.

    And that belief was so strong that you...joined the military??????

    Posted by Sliver at 03/13/2008 @ 1:29pm

  168. Is there not something else to keep you more gainfully occupied?

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

    I am probably more gainfully employed as you are.

    since modesty has never been among my virtues, I will just say that the Library Of Congress is one of my illustrious clients, and they owe me $5,000.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:30pm

  169. than....

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:31pm

  170. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 1:16pm

    PONTI, what question is there left to be answered?

    Cheney got $368,000 from Halliburton AFTER becoming Veep and he promoted a war that garnered Halliburton and its subsidiaries hundreds of millions.

    But MASK, by making this statement, you are implying a connection, a cause and effect, a quid pro quo, etc. What I have demonstrated to you is there there is no connection from one to the other. Cheney worked for Halliburton. He received a salary which was deferred in order to save taxes, a strategy commonly in use throughout corporate America, structured so that the deferred salary was independent of Halliburton's future fortunes. Then he was elected VP. Then the country went to war. You are implying a connection. I have refuted the connection. Thus, your statement has no logical import.

    One thing I think you keep forgetting is...I'm not a Hillary fan. So...if you'd like to see HER and Cheney brought up on charges for bribery....go for it.

    But you see, MASK, in the case of Cheney, what I have demonstrated that there is no known grounds for anyone thinking there is a direct connection. In the case of Hillary, we have what no rational person could think is anything but free money coming from the lawyer for Tyson Foods. Don't you see the difference?

    As for World War-II, the relevance is the fact that guys like you (and CPT and LVLIB, etc.) wanted a CHEAP "World War-II"...no sacrifices, no chance that it would hurt Bush or the Republicans politically (due to everybody having a stake in it...a la WW-2).

    Well, I guess we failed then, huh? You know what? We did the right thing, even if it hurt us politically. And I don't think Bush or Cheney would change their minds if they had to do it again.

    Why?...because you wanted all the "glory" and political benefits of a "World War-II"-like Iraq....but (like the war itself) didn't want to PAY FOR IT in a risk to your political fortunes.

    That's your speculation. I don't believe you're right.

    He (and maybe you and the other arm-chair warriors) knew that if the war went badly and folks were seeing their kids get drafted...

    There is no draft and no one, least of all Bush or Cheney, has suggested one.

    their taxes go up...

    only the Democrats are a threat to do that

    and calls for "doing with less" were involved....the GOP would be doomed and Bush probably would have lost 2004.

    Boy, you really are stuck in 2003, arent you? If you recall, however, Bush stated on numerous occasions that the war on terror would be difficult and long. Did you interpret that to mean he was promising quick and easy? Sorry!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 1:34pm

  171. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

    I'm betting contract work is out there, even for disabled 60 year olds. You mentioned you drove trucks, for instance.

    All a moot point really, I'm just trying to bring out the fact that there seems to be a gap in the rhetoric when people talk about supporting the troops, who don't do anything more than put a yellow magnetic sticker in the shape of a ribbon on the back of their cars. If people support the troops, and by your way of thinking that entails supporting the mission, then they need to step up to the plate and join them. If people's support amounts to the same thing I'm doing, then where do they get off talking about how they support them and I don't? Actions matter, not running your mouth on some blog site and thinking that counts for something.

    Explain what Kerry did that warrants calling him a traitor? He clearly didn't do anything that could be called treason - meaning overthrowing the government. So, this leaves a trust obligation of some sort. What trust did he betray? And how does this warrant questioning of his service to the point where George Bush, who didn't serve, looks like a "warrior" in comparison?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 1:35pm

  172. Posted by SLIVER 03/13/2008 @ 1:29pm

    I know it is hard to imagine, but people do things at seventeen that they wouldn't do decades later in light of all the experience they have gained. Perhaps you can imagine similiar things in your own life.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 1:38pm

  173. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm

    I notice Ponti comes here to sharpen his debating skills. hahahahahha.

    Took a while to think of that one, eh? Did you figure out yet when the Lusitania was sunk?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 1:39pm

  174. ... modesty has never been among my virtues.... Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 1:30pm

    I'll second that.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:41pm

  175. history? I read von Ranke, Michelet, Liddel-Hart, Weber, Durant, Catwin etc.not to mention Herodotus, Thucydides and Gibbon. be sure to tell me whom you read.

    history is more than just facts, the command of which I take no backseat to anyone here. it is the understanding of connections, ideas and movements.

    I am a student of the french school of historians, called les Annales, which Bloch and febvre were members, and Eugen Weber was a disciple of.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:53pm

  176. Posted by CRABWALK 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm

    Thanks for the info Crabster. Conflict of interest big time.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:56pm

  177. there is something far worse than immodesty, false modesty.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 1:56pm

  178. there is something far worse than immodesty, false modesty.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 1:56pm

    I agree. For someone who has me on ignore, I feel honored you'd bother to come back to tell me I'm full of shit just one more time. P.S. Give em hell.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 1:59pm

  179. frosty, you had better meditate and envision mexico. you are beginning to sound like the rest of us.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 03/13/2008 @ 01:11am

    sorry, dude. i watched the video. i don't even watch csi 'cause it's too violent. but i figured i needed to know..........

    this insanity MUST stop.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 2:05pm

  180. These are very junior men who are displaying natural emotional responses, not only to the losses suffered by Iraqis but also displaying anger toward Iraqis for not accepting, in their understanding, the American presence.

    All up a naïve, simplistic attempt, by a few well meaning American soldiers who were obviously out of their depth, when trying to produce a credible narrative.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 04:26am

    what the fuck do you care?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 2:07pm

  181. Nah. they knew damn well that Saddam was no threat.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 10:34am

    oh yes he was. when he started talking EURO.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 2:09pm

  182. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 1:34pm

    You refuted nothing. _______, a politician received a $368,000 payment from a company...that profited by that politician promoting something after receiving the payment.

    Any other name (especially a Democratic one) in that blank but Cheney...and you'd NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt.

    As for the rest, the politics are obvious. If this REALLY WAS a "titanic war of good versus evil"...Bush would have called for actual sacrifices to be made and said to hell with the political consequences.

    As it was, he went CHEAP and EASY (with cheerleading from the armchair warriors)...and it worked...for a while. He got re-elected in 2004.

    If there had been a call for a draft (which Congress would have given Bush in 2002 as they gave him the war resolution...with many Dems agreeing)...or if he had called for AT THE LEAST a repeal of his tax cut (no tax cut has EVER been made in war-time....REAL war-time, that is)....it would have hurt him in 2004.

    But then, if it REALLY WAS a "fight for our very lives" against Saddam giving his non-existant WMDs to his hated enemies Al Qaeda.....it would have been worth the risk....to a REAL leader like Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 2:12pm

  183. to tell me I'm full of shit just one more time.

    I did not do so. the modesty comment was a general one. you're not on ignore. I do find it difficult when you so blithely say something is easy, something that oh so obviously isn't. also when you state as truths things that are not so. you exaggerate what I say to you.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 2:16pm

  184. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom

    we were, I believe, talking military threat.

    I doubt that Saddam was much of a threat in the sense that you portray. OPEC is a varied bunch, and Sddam was by no means a leader there.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 2:18pm

  185. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 2:18pm

    sent a pretty clear message, though...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 2:22pm

  186. Here's a fact for Iraq war supporters.Bush did not give the military the troops and equipment they requested because Bush felt that his time flying barstools during Nam made him an expert on military tactics.Five years later we're still fighting.Bush and his supporters are candyasses who can't fight or win wars.We need a liberal POTUS to fight and win.Liberals know how to respond to attack.Conservatives don't.They try and do things on the cheap and end up costing us more.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 2:27pm

  187. Posted by CPT 03/13/2008 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person

    try "nips" next time...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/13/2008 @ 2:28pm

  188. Saddam had a big mouth. it was mostly for consumption of his arab audience.they were and are so desperate for role models, what with Nasser gone, that they actually looked up to the thug. perhaps he was jealous of all the press that Bin Laden was getting.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 2:30pm

  189. the saddest part of all this is that the iraq war need never have been fought and if not for it, our stay in afghanistan might have been a lot shorter and sweeter...might have even captured/killed the guy who attacked us.

    but when our bombs kill your loved one it better be for a good reason or you will most likely come to hate us.

    our invasion of iraq was for no good reason. we deserve their hatred. and the haliburton honchos who have loved this war deserve the hatred of the nation their hireling politicians duped us into.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/13/2008 @ 2:32pm

  190. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

    don't just look at my posts, look at what they are in response to. some apparatchik telling me I know no history. another questioning my gainful employment. etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 2:33pm

  191. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 1:53pm

    history? I read von Ranke, Michelet, Liddel-Hart, Weber, Durant, Catwin etc.not to mention Herodotus, Thucydides and Gibbon. be sure to tell me whom you read.

    You mean none of them knew about Pearl Harbor either? LOL

    Paul Johnson wrote the best books on the 20th Century I know of. Modern Times and a History of the American People.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 2:41pm

  192. So tiring to hear the Halliburton-bashing....

    Its stocks have done very well, thank you all very much for consuming oil.....from oil filed servicing.......

    KBR, as the main ex-sub of Halliburton, sucked as a profit source...I for one, still a HAL stock holder, is more than HAPPY to see KBR spun off! Long live Halliburton.....

    PS: Buy HAL below $35, now ~$38/39!

    Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 2:52pm

  193. Paul Johnson wrote the best books on the 20th Century I know of. Modern Times and a History of the American People.---Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 2:41pm

    That would be THIS "Paul Johnson", right?

    QUOTATION: "While the music is performed, the cameras linger savagely over the faces of the audience. What a bottomless chasm of vacuity they reveal! Those who flock round the Beatles, who scream themselves into hysteria, whose vacant faces flicker over the TV screen, are the least fortunate of their generation, the dull, the idle, the failures . . .

    ATTRIBUTION: Paul Johnson (b. 1928), British journalist. "The Menace of Beatlism," New Statesman (London, Feb. 28, 1964).

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 2:53pm

  194. Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 2:52pm

    I'm not bashing Halliburton....I think they got a HELLUVA better deal for their $368K than Tyson got for its measly $100K!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 2:54pm

  195. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 2:12pm

    You refuted nothing. _______, a politician received a $368,000 payment from a company...that profited by that politician promoting something after receiving the payment.

    Any other name (especially a Democratic one) in that blank but Cheney...and you'd NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Nonsense, MASK. Using that logic, anyone who has ever worked for anyone would be guilty of bribery the instant they were elected to public office and made any decision whatsoever benefiting a private company. In Cheney's case, his compensation was salary for being President of Halliburton. You're saying that three years later, after a terrorist attack, Cheney took the entire country to war for $368,000 when the guy is already worth millions? Sure. You got a bridge to sell me, too?

    And I guess you've given up on the stock options thing, right?

    In contrast, Hillary received, through the same commodity trading futures company which Tyson's attorney ran, $100,000 in 'trading profits' which she supposedly made trading cattle futures?

    And both of these are logically the same to you?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 2:55pm

  196. Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

    profitability and efficiency are not equal to decency. hitler turned germany into a pretty profitable and efficient state pretty quickly, but i would still never have invested in it.

    prescott bush did, though...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/13/2008 @ 2:57pm

  197. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 2:53pm

    Wow, you sure were ready for that, eh MASK? Yep. And he wrote the best books on the 20th Century IMHO. All NYT book selections, if I recall correctly, so even you might feel permitted to read them.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 3:01pm

  198. Germany was pretty efficient before Hitler. except in the political sense. it was a very young nation compared to say France, England and yes the US. democracy there was even younger, and was unable to withstand the enormous economic shocks of 1923 and 1929.

    culturally Germany was at a peak, thanks to no small part to its jews. read "Weimar Culture" by Peter Gay

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 3:04pm

  199. First..as Professor Farnsworth would say "Good news, everyone!"

    "You see, there are many conservatives, like myself, who are leaving the Republican party because it has moved so far to the left."-----Posted by BARRY25 03/13/2008 @ 1:52pm

    BLOG | Posted 03/12/2008 @ 12:58pm Comments for "David Paterson: Activist, Progressive...Governor"

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:07pm

  200. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/13/2008 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person

    yes you are right. except for Afghanistan. that war too was unnecessary and futile. Bin Laden escaped, I don't know if there was ever a chance to get him.

    and we plunged another country into war, basically a civil war between the Northern Alliance and the Taleban.

    the former is by no means any better than the latter as far as human rights are concerned. the Alliance too favors sharia law. above all afghanistan was a fool's errand. 30,000 soldiers in a country bigger than Texas? what a bizarre joke.

    Nyc has more cops than that patrolling one relatively peaceful city.the Taleban did not attack us on 9/11. we could just as easily have attacked Pakistan, who supported Al Qaeda far more than the Taleban did.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 3:09pm

  201. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 2:55pm

    You mean that Cheney, helping out his old buddies (as he did in the Energy Task Force meetings) would promote a war that would both satisfy his ideology AND help out a few "deserving friends"...and which he claimed would "only cost $50 Billion" tops!....might promote a war....just as Hillary might deal with somebody who knew somebody who worked for a large employer in Arkansas?.......yep.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 3:01pm

    No,no...just wanted to make sure that the guy who "wrote (one of) the best books on the 20th Century" according to you...

    was the same guy who saw the grave threat of the Beatles in 1964!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:11pm

  202. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 3:04pm

    BTW, JOHANNESROLF, along with your reknown Germano-philia (on display here yet again) and your admission of your age (61...as noted last years as JR at 60)....

    the cat's out of the bag....so...why the nick change, Professor?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:12pm

  203. I'm not bashing Halliburton....

    Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 2:54pm

    Really? It's still `in fashion' and I know, you're one fashionable dude!

    As PONTI cited deferring income or accelerate expenses are Tax Reduction Strategies 101......Cheney did nothing fancy! I just employed this for my 2007 taxes....for this year, working part-time for compensation means there are incomes I can't shift......so, I have moved some 2007 expenses into 2008 to offset the year-end 1099!

    Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 3:19pm

  204. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 3:11pm

    MASK, I'm getting a clearer view of your psychology. Sadly, thogh perhaps predictably, it is the same logic applied in the leftist parallel universe where all laws of economics and nature are a conspiracy by the powerful to keep down the weak. The same world where that famed Democratic visionary, Marion Barry, described the Law of Gravity as racist. Makes perfect sense to you folk, just like anyone who works for the oil industry is part of a world wide conspiracy.

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 3:23pm

  205. Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 3:19pm |

    Come on, HAPP...you're an investor. $368K to become the ONLY bidder on war reconstruction AND troop food and water distributor (both of which were of pre-Civil War standards)....immunity for your in-field guys....then when the profits look like they might be taxed, you set up HQ in a friendly Gulf State to avoid them.

    You can't beat that. All Tyson got was a chicken factory in Arkansas!

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:24pm

  206. Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 3:19pm

    Oh no, HAPPY. You misunderstand MASK. He says that since Cheney worked for Halliburton, and was paid for that, and since as VP he later took the country to war, that his salary was a bribe, because Halliburton is in the oil industry, you see! And that's the same as Hillary getting $100,000k for 'trading cattle futures' through Tyson's trading firm! Makes perfect sense to him!

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 3:25pm

  207. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Is that like the parallel universe where we go to war on a promise of it only costing $50 Billion (Cheney) with too few troops (as evidenced by the need for a Surge...thanks to Rumsfeld)....where the oil revenues will pay for it (Wolfowitz)...

    over the possibility that Saddam Hussein would give non-existant WMDs to a religious fundamentalist terrorist group that he feared and loathed....

    to establish a more sectarian-friendly Shiia government in Baghdad, instead of the secular Sunni one, as a "bulwark against Iran"....whose President just had a nice chat with "our guy" in Iraq?

    THAT kind of "parallel universe"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 3:27pm

  208. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 3:24pm

    So, MASK, that $368,000 Cheney earned...that didn't have anything to do with running a big company? What did Cheney do all day while working for Halliburton? Post on blogs? LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 3:27pm

  209. Still waiting, MASK, on your explanation on how Cheney got rich on those stock options he didn't own. You got anything on that yet?

    Posted by pontificus at 03/13/2008 @ 3:30pm

  210. also when you state as truths things that are not so. you exaggerate what I say to you.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 2:16pm

    I'll pay more attention not to exaggerate. You do have a point, saying something is simple when it is not is annoying. Point taken.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 3:52pm

  211. Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 3:30pm

    "PoliticalMoneyLine has just posted the 2005 financial disclosure forms for President Bush and Laura Bush and Vice President Cheney. The forms were made public by the Office of Government Ethics.

    Among the highlights, according to PoliticalMoneyLine:

    "Vice President Cheney has extensive holdings detailed on his forms. Also listed is $6,926,937 in stock options of Halliburton, and $211,465 in salary from Halliburton's Deferred Salary Payout. Cheney also received a $6,125 Colt 45 revolver from the U.S. Firearms Manufacturing Inc. He donated it to the Cody Firearms Museum in Cody, Wyoming."

    ---http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/bush_cheney_fin.html

    Good thing for Harry Whittington...he donated the gun, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 4:03pm

  212. Common among the misleading enticements are offers of training that will lead to civilian employment in good jobs; education benefits to pay for college costs and even the signing bonuses, $10,000 or more, that can seem like a fortune to the kids at the desk. The most outrageous reason for yanking back the signing benefits comes when a soldier leaves the military before the full commitment is over because of severe combat injuries. The military, insisting that the benefits are contingent on honorable discharge after completing the full term of service, has moved to take back the signing bonuses that injured servicemembers, unable to complete their tours, have already collected. To combat these practices, young people, often accompanied by veterans with their own stories to tell, are challenging military recruiters in high schools, shopping malls and other places where recruiters seek out volunteers to fill their quotas. Congressional attempts to stop these abuses have so far been unsuccessful.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/zweig

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 4:20pm

  213. For those of you who think 9/11 had anything to do with our attack in Iraq, check out the link below. This was written in 1998 and you will no doubt recognize quite a few names at the bottom of the letter that was addressed to then President Clinton. All of their accusations or fears turned out to be false.

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:24pm

  214. Good thing for Harry Whittington...he donated the gun, huh?

    Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 4:03pm

    Not so MASK. Cheney probably has an arsenol of weapons at his various hideouts to shoot people in the face with.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:26pm

  215. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person

    like many here, I do sometimes descend to a certain boorishness and bad manners. this is regrettable.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 4:28pm

  216. However when I run into the sort of stuff you come up with I tend to think that you and your poorly crafted and contrived arguments define the whole anti-war movement. In other words perhaps you are giving your cause a bad name.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 1:21pm

    you're right.

    war is excellent. let's kill.

    in fact why don't we just kill each other.

    it'll be fun AND good for business.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 4:29pm

  217. Boy, you really are stuck in 2003, arent you? If you recall, however, Bush stated on numerous occasions that the war on terror would be difficult and long. Did you interpret that to mean he was promising quick and easy? Sorry!

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 1:34pm

    war on terror.

    such stupidity.

    and you fall for it.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 4:30pm

  218. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 1:18pm

    Interesting. I would be interested in what the U.S. goals are in Iraq. I follow the issue closely and am informed on the topic, and everytime I ask people to tell me the goals, they either go vague with "democracy" or "freedom" - which is like saying you are fighting for "truth", meaningless - or they start talking about my feelings and do a little tap dance.

    So, I'm curious what those 53% think those goals are? What is the mission in Iraq? I can't tell you, and I'm damn sure that the vast majority of Americans can't either. So, what real value does this question bring to the table?

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 4:32pm

  219. particularly, if you can play to fear in the form of WMD, Dhimmitude or other cock-and-bull stories.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/13/2008 @ 1:21pm

    but they will eat your children.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 4:34pm

  220. I notice Ponti comes here to sharpen his debating skills. hahahahahha.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 1:28pm

    uh, his head, you mean....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 4:36pm

  221. like many here, I do sometimes descend to a certain boorishness and bad manners. this is regrettable.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 4:28pm

    Hey, most of us are guilty on that charge...well, maybe not Frosty, at least none that I've seen, but the rest of us have crossed the line a time or two. We're human.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:53pm

  222. We're human.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 4:53pm

    Sorry Frosty, didn't mean to say that you aren't human, I was trying to give you a compliment.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:54pm

  223. like many here, I do sometimes descend to a certain boorishness and bad manners. this is regrettable.----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 4:28pm

    JOHANNES ratcheting back the ego in his old age?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 4:55pm

  224. "... history? I read von Ranke, Michelet, Liddel-Hart, Weber, Durant, Catwin etc.not to mention Herodotus, Thucydides and Gibbon. be sure to tell me whom you read. You mean none of them knew about Pearl Harbor either?"

    PONTI, most of those historians you cite as having been read by you were rather dead long before Pearl Harbor. Moreover, their histories seem to have made so little dent in your thinking, one suspects you found their names on a list & have not in fact studied them.

    PONTI, you do emit the distinct odor of fraud. Better cash your PR firm's check fast, before the GOP funders cut off the funds, as soon as they decide to stop throwing good $$ after bad, that the game is up for awhile, as they let the Dems try to sort out the truly historic mess the rapacious GOP is leaving behind in its wake.

    Pray for Billary, PONTI, they're now your sole hope for further looting by your backers.

    Posted by sloper at 03/13/2008 @ 4:57pm

  225. Folks, check this article out. We can have our soldiers pack their bags and head home now. The surge has worked, and they don't need us there anymore. All is well in Iraq just as Lvberty, Ponti, CPT, and the rest of the gang have assured us. LOL

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7295145.stm

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 5:09pm

  226. Rio-You live in hate filled lala land and have no idea what you're talking about.You believe that the world revolves around you and love of country and love of troops is defined as whether or not someone agrees with you.You are not that important.I have proven,time and again,that I love my country and it's military,but have you?What have you done?Talk is nothing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 5:26pm

  227. Moreover, their histories seem to have made so little dent in your thinking, one suspects you found their names on a list & have not in fact studied them.

    yeah right. history is not what happened only in the last years. if you have any quarrel with any of my points go ahead. what you did was sniping.

    von Ranke is credited with being the first source based historian. I read him in German. Michelet is French and I read him in German translations. Bloch, Febvre are twentieth century and Bloch has written a definitive book on the French collapse. Liddell-Hart has a highly regarded history of WW2. Catwin is an expert on the American civil war.

    you wouldn't know who these people are if you DID find them on a list.

    the anti intellectualism of many here is pathetic and the reason I left for some weeks. but guess what, I don't care. I am not going to apologize for my erudition.

    so schmuck, attack my points if you can. I am 61 and an unorthodox thinker, a rarity everywhere. and unlike you I have an audience here.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 5:29pm

  228. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

    The latest article "Guitar Heros", is the one where he spent weeks w/air assault group in Mosul.

    Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 1:03pm

    Thanks for that Happy. Will follow up on it.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 5:30pm

  229. for those unsteady in history, the American embargo of Japan preceded Pearl Harbor by five months, and set off intense negotiations to avoid war. England and Holland joined the embargo, an act of war impossible to ignore or countenance by Japan.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 5:38pm

  230. Will follow up on it.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 5:30pm

    79, Be warned his dispatches are long....he only writes one or two per month...budget 15~20 minutes!

    SRJ,

    Here's proof just how `effective' Yon's `propagandizing' is....Harvey79 hasn't even visited his website...and he's been here a while!

    Yes, Yon recently have popped up on NYT and Fox, somehow, with the success of the Surge, me thinks the MSM had to find something....and Yon fits their needs...since their own reporters in Iraq, just can't bring it upon themselves to write anything positive about our troops & about killing baddies! But as has been for 5 years, they can write by rote, every bombing......just leave blanks for place, number of dead and wounded in their Word.doc `Template'....and get paid for filing essentially the same stories!

    Posted by Happy at 03/13/2008 @ 6:05pm

  231. you're right.

    war is excellent. let's kill.

    in fact why don't we just kill each other.

    it'll be fun AND good for business.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 4:29pm

    You are one of the more classy (efin) contributors to this forum. If you were an American we could be proud of you.

    I notice that like the rest of the peace loving heroes here you get your kicks out of the blood and guts stuff by immersing yourself in a bit of vicarious violence under any pretext. Is it possible that you are a closet B&G man? (One can observe that other resident pacifists want to boast about their past war service so you are not the only secret B&G peacenik who is a bit kooky. Then there are a few pacifists who are so "repelled" by war that they are trying to recruit us to a more active participation in this one. Can you not now see why Ponti comes here for a bit of fun?).

    I take it that was why you were so upset that someone would have the temerity to suggest that the stuff you were getting your rocks off on this time round is really quite unbelievable.

    You can't fool us; your comments are full of hatred. That emotion (or should that be sinful urge) is the source of all the murders and wars that have and do beset our race. At least according to the good book.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 6:15pm

  232. Harvey-Is there somewhere near you where you can bone up on your reading comprehension skills?I can't find one person on here bragging about a war or service record,but I do see people who were simply disproving the claim that we hate America and the troops.In fact,it is very obvious, to the extreme, that that is what people were writing about that I can't figure out how you concluded otherwise.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 6:23pm

  233. harvey-My guess that you get off on the B&G stuff and assume that everyone else does, too.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 6:29pm

  234. Harvey-Is it because you get off on the B&G stuff that you assume that everyone else does?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 6:31pm

  235. Lvliberty-Saddam was bluffing Iran.Like I said they were keeping each other in check.That was a good thing.It gave us the opportunity to crush terrorists,but you guys went off on a tangent and caused more problems and cost us lives,money,and increased the number of terrorists.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 6:40pm

  236. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/13/2008 @ 5:14pm

    I'll read that as you, like most right wing cheerleaders and other people that love military solutions, have never been in the military nor has your family. So, instead of owning up on that you have zero skin in the game, you'll start talking about people calling you on it and how they "hate", their politics of destruction, blah, blase, blah. I wonder if you are this cartoonish in real life or whether you save it all up for the Internets.

    Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 6:05pm

    Again, you are arguing about reach - which isn't the only measure of effectiveness and certainly not one that is appropriate to what Yon does.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 6:15pm

    One can observe that other resident pacifists want to boast about their past war service so you are not the only secret B&G peacenik who is a bit kooky.

    The point of raising the issue of prior military service is to serve as a contrast for all the pro-war people that have all managed not to serve. I've had these discussions before, and I typically see that people who like military solutions have never had to have been part of one and don't know anyone else who has either. That's a salient point that needs to be raised whenever we see people flag waving and whistling the Star Spangled Banner.

    You can't fool us; your comments are full of hatred...

    Oh yes, another one that wants to talk about feelings because they can't manage to make a cogent point. Join the line of other amateur psychologists - and I'll add in my two cents. You all hate your mothers and apple pie. And your pathetic rage against the "left" is a surrogate for your impotence and acts to compensate for a sorry existence that makes Walter Mitty's life look positively exciting in comparison.

    Or is that too complex? Maybe I should just repeat over and over again that it is obvious that you hate your mothers. Because that's about as interesting as your commentary....always going on about peoples fucking feelings. Bunch of sad saps. You should all join a support group and cry together.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 6:58pm

  237. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:41pm

    Actually, Congress sets the military goals. The commander-in-chief executes those goals.

    Your training terrorists in Iraq. It's a short term solution to the problem, and one that was more or less a mistake. You'll have to just stay there forever under your conception, which is one reason among many why it's a bad idea.

    I also believe that eventually the Iraqi's will come to a consensus agreement on their government.

    Perhaps. However, if history is any guide, I doubt it.

    And as has been stated repeatedly, it took us 10 years under peaceful conditions to agree on a government.

    The difference, of course, is that we fought for own own independence. How well do you think the Continential Congress would have worked out if the French or Spanish occupied our country and decided on giving us home rule - as long as it matched up with their interests. Quite a few differences in that picture.

    You are also rather selective in the polls you cite. Try these on for size. Let's take off the rose colored goggles and look for a little reality.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 7:08pm

  238. Actually, Congress sets the military goals. The commander-in-chief executes those goals.

    they do not. unless you consider a declaration of war setting military goals. I guess we would have to be more specific about what military goals means.

    good stuff about mothers. that hit the target, as you quite often do.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 7:16pm

  239. "he has a history of also carrying out his threats and using his full arsenal."----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:34pm

    And,uh, what WAS his "full arsenal" when we invaded in March 2003?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 7:21pm

  240. LvLiberty-Most of you have no clue as to what liberalism is.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/13/2008 @ 7:27pm

  241. attention Crabwalk, I don't know why, but I pictured you standing at a hot forge, and I thought you might like some inspiration.

    if you are not familiar already, check Karl Blossfeldt, not a James Bond villain, "Art Forms in the Plant World." a book of photographs.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 7:29pm

  242. there was ONE repub who did not vote for the Iraq war in the senate.read his interview over at Huffington.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 8:03pm

  243. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/13/2008 @ 6:58pm

    Well Well another one pops into view. Bit sensitive about your warmongering past? It's my understanding that soldiers are trained to kill and maim so you can hardly draw the conclusion that I rage against the Left on this issue. It is more the inconsistency that stands out like a sore thumb. I suspect that there are anti-war people here who are not leftists.

    Then there are war supporters like Hitchens who I would still regard as being on the left on other issues. So would you please observe your own admonition and stop flailing around trying to take out one of the "enemy".

    Let me tell you why I think, in the main, you are a bunch of hypocrites, who feign concern about the destruction of parts of Iraq and the death of so many Iraqis in this bloody conflict.

    I notice that the most significant thing for many is the (supposed) lies and corruption of the present administration. That history and who is to blame is about all that fills the pages and pages of posts that have appeared here since the invasion.

    Let us accept that all that is true and that there also was no humanitarian or moral basis for the war. Given that we are now involved in a struggle with groups who are not merely targeting our military but have been overwhelmingly , displacing, killing and torturing mainly innocent (not opposition militias or military forces) Iraqi children ,women and men. Then what on earth does a preoccupation with all that history have to do with helping the present plight of those for whom you claim such empathy?

    At present there is little doubt, given readily available info from a variety of different (political) first hand sources, that the present US military efforts are now working to get Iraq on a course to a more secure future. Surely on purely compassionate grounds we, as those who commenced this operation, must continue this work until a more viable and secure nation emerges. This in my estimation is not the time for playing a cynical blame game but rather to attempt to achieve those goals. The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that. At this juncture the UN, NATO or a coalition of Arab states are either unwilling or ill-equipped to take on that role.

    That is why I do not accept your tears and supposed empathy for the Iraqi people as genuine. As whatever our opinion is of our intelligence agencies and most commentators, the consensus view is that a premature withdrawal of our forces is likely to lead to more Iraqi deaths and displacement and destruction than we have yet seen.

    That some of you are willing to take a chance on that happening is a strong indicator of your true lack of concern for the Iraqi people; past, present and future.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/13/2008 @ 8:29pm

  244. Hey, most of us are guilty on that charge...well, maybe not Frosty, at least none that I've seen, but the rest of us have crossed the line a time or two. We're human.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 4:53pm

    hey, that's funny. you said i never insult people right below where i said ponti comes here to sharpen his head......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 8:40pm

  245. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 7:26pm

    You people want to talk about hate and play these ridiculous little games, and when you get a little taste of your own medicine - when someone else makes up little stories about your motivations and pretends they have any basis in reality, you want to start taking the high road. How very interesting. Your daddy never tell you that's what's good for the goose is good for the gander? And that you reap what you sow, my friend? And here's another thing, I'm not above flipping over a few tables to make my point. Maybe next time you'll think about how my comments came across when I used your techniques on you - and pass on using them on others in the future.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 8:29pm

    The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that.

    The old, we're in the saddle so what else can we do argument. Here's an idea, why not go to the U.N. and put Iraq under a commander not beholden to the U.S., bring regional players into the picture (including Iran and Syria) and make the argument that the international community has to come in and do it's part if there is going to be peace - because the U.S. made a mistake when we went unilateral and there is clearly a need to build up a true multinational peace keeping force?

    See, the argument you make is based on this notion that there are no alternatives. And there are, they just aren't one's that are consistent with why we went to Iraq in the first place. The fact that you people want to pretend that our hands are tied or worse, make lame comments like the one above that pretend we are "disinterested" is so laughable as to defy further comment.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 8:48pm

  246. The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that.

    yeah right. complete nonsense. oh and yes American shit don't stink.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 8:55pm

  247. the success of the Surge,

    Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 6:05pm

    hahahahahahahahahaha

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:06pm

  248. You can't fool us; your comments are full of hatred. That emotion (or should that be sinful urge) is the source of all the murders and wars that have and do beset our race. At least according to the good book.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 6:15pm

    i'm perplexed. have you been sniffing glue?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:10pm

  249. Saddam was offered the opportunity to leave but was misled by the French and Russians who told him we wouldn't attack.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:34pm

    this is nonsense. I knew "you" would attack.

    but it's the russians' and french's fault.........

    hmmmmm.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:12pm

  250. As far as the goals, it doesn't matter whether the people have a clear understanding. That's what you elect a commander-in-chief to do.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:41pm

    hahahahahahahaha

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:13pm

  251. You cannot hope that a madman like Saddam is just bluffing when he has a history of also carrying out his threats and using his full arsenal. That is suicidal and foolish.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:34pm

    so why does the u.s. sell weapons to every madman and his brother-in-law?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:14pm

  252. As for me, I'm in the McCain camp on staying in Iraq. If we could ensure keeping most of the jihadist activity against us centered in Iraq, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment supporting McCain or any future president who would stay that course.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:41pm

    these aren't jihadists. they are pissed off iraqis. you would be too if mexico occupied kansas.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:16pm

  253. a head of state of a sovereign nation asked to leave by the US? and what if he had left? what would that have accomplished? nothing, another Baathist thug would have taken his place. hey bible thumper, are you that dense not to see that?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 9:17pm

  254. I realize that elements within the CIA have made the same claim, but they are just as wrong as you are.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    that's right. everybody knows the cia are second rate, ¿right?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:18pm

  255. Islamic spread through violence throughout their history.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    please tell me the last time islam was spread through violence.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:19pm

  256. The number of those joining jihadist organizations has been on an exponential climb for more approximately 40 years.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    i wonder why.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:19pm

  257. there is no possibility of a downturn in Islamic violence, whether we are there or not.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    oooh, sounds like you've got your "red button" finger itchin' to go...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:21pm

  258. just leave blanks for place, number of dead and wounded in their Word.doc `Template'....and get paid for filing essentially the same stories!

    Posted by HAPPY 03/13/2008 @ 6:05pm

    maybe it's because they are to scared to leave the "greed zone".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:22pm

  259. You cannot hope that a madman like Saddam is just bluffing when he has a history of also carrying out his threats and using his full arsenal. That is suicidal and foolish.

    this is just not true. Saddam did not use WMD when he was kicked out of Kuwait. he's bluffing when he has no means to carry out an attack. the trolls always mentioned that he took potshots at American planes over the no fly zone, as if that was some kind of threat and casus belli. how many American planes did he hit?

    liverty, you have been making these tired arguments for years now. they don't improve with age like Barolo wine, but rather stink more, like Limburger cheese.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 9:22pm

  260. green

    heheh

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:22pm

  261. there is no possibility of a downturn in Islamic violence, whether we are there or not.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    as good an argument for leaving I've heard.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 9:24pm

  262. And as my dear departed father taught me, those who resort to swearing in their communication, do so because of an inability to communicate well.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 7:26pm

    bombs work so much better...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:25pm

  263. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Blossfeldt_94a.jpg

    super cool. thanks. mmmm, garlic.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 9:30pm

  264. Islamic spread through violence throughout their history.

    this is a myth. it was actually christianity that was spread by the sword, in Mexico and south America for instance. then there was a little thing called the Inquisition and the crusades, the last of which didn't even leave France, they just went down south and murdered heretics, which is another name for infidels.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 9:34pm

  265. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 8:21pm

    Well, LL, why didn't the vastly superior Israeli Intelligence, upon whom you rely more than ours...

    TELL us he had no WMDs?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 9:41pm

  266. For those who would like a more ACCURATE view of Islam in the Middle Ages and, for one example, how Muslims treated Jews in Spain...and how the Christians treated them when they "reconquista'ed"....there are several good books.

    One of my faves is "The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Karen Armstrong.

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 9:49pm

  267. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:46pm

    So Saddam was SO good that he could fool Israeli Intelligence (about having weapons of mass destruction)...again whom you put your trust in more than ours?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 9:50pm

  268. The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 03/13/2008 @ 8:29pm

    disinterested?!?!?!?!?

    hahahahahahaha

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:05pm

  269. Liberalism is led primarily by those who either have not grown up into adulthood and the corresponding requirement to be personally responsible for your life; or they fall into the arrogance of the citizens are too stupid to make those adult decisions and they require government to do it for them.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:11pm

    what?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:10pm

  270. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person

    I'm glad you enjoyed. forget the book, google has the images. wiki is good on him too.

    you can't get this from Mask, or the many anti intellectuals on these pages. sorry, but I've had it with these clowns.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 10:11pm

  271. Well, mostly from the 7th through the 12th centuries and again during the 20th and 21st century.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:29pm

    what?!?!?!?

    tell me where islam is currently conquering anybody.

    seems like whatever hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis might see the villains thumping a different book.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:14pm

  272. Well, mostly from the 7th through the 12th centuries and again during the 20th and 21st century.

    Thank you for asking.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:29pm

    wait a second.

    the fact that the u.s. is a mostly christian nation should tell you who the conquerors really are.

    or is your real name "grumpy bear" or "rabid fox"?

    and canada and mexico and south america and the phillipines and africa and australia and polynesia and and and and.

    the missionaries positioned themselves globally.

    it's like "which came first, the bible or the sword?"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:17pm

  273. i wonder why.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 9:19pm

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:34pm

    seems to me they're pissed off from being pushed around too long.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:19pm

  274. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 10:02pm

    I mentioned it as MY fave. Given you probably NEVER move outside the www.carm.org circle or John Ankerberg circle of fundamentalist apologia....I doubt if you've EVER read ANY book that doesn't back up the claim that from the 7th to 15th Century Arabs ruled North Africa, Spain, and the Mid-east like bloody tyrants instigating wars against peaceful Christians and persecuting Jews....

    since to do so would require you to alter a few neurons in a brain that is encased, frozen like a fossil, without one new or CONTRADICTORY thought created in ...what?...10-20-30 years?

    If Christians were EVER portrayed as the "bad guys" (oh, wait...those aren't "real Christians")...or the Muslims EVER portrayed as anything less than barbaric monsters....

    you'd KNOW it was a "lie"....wouldn't you?

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:29pm

  275. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:07pm

    The obvious answer is that the UN is a worthless organization, incapable of enforcing peace in the world, but especially in the Middel East. The Arab members will not provide direct help, and neither will they allow the UN to have any significant role there.

    Because the U.N. is designed to be weak with no independent peacekeeping force and a security council designed to limit the kinds of things it can do. A situation that serves the interests of countries like the United States who want special treatment and the ability to circumvent international law - like conducting a war of aggression - at will.

    The second part of your statement is also wrong as can be seen by increased concern from groups like the Arab League trying to facilitate Iraqi national reconciliation and the history behind the creation of the Multinational Force and Observers - which incidently supports point 1.

    Additionally, it downplays the fact that the U.S. has every reason to cut people out of providing assistance - because it would undermine their own influence. Change that, and a whole world of possibilities opens up beyond "we have to stay because anarchy will break out if our troops leave".

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:11pm

    Interesting how you find moral bankruptcy when someone mimics the tactics frequently employed by the right.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:11pm

    To reduce liberalism in this way either shows ignorance or arrogance. I'm betting on option 2.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 9:14pm

    Interesting how he forgets Ronnie's contributions to Saddam's arsenal. Contributions made when he was gassing people. Thanks again, Ron!

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:46pm

    Fantasy land. Are you seriously arguing that the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and everyone else was fooled and Walcott, Landay and Strobel at Knight Ridder were able to accomplish what they could not? Particularly given evidence like the Downing Street Memo?

    Most times you are consistent and reasonable. Then, you say something like this and I have to wonder how you got it so wrong.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 10:37pm

  276. Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 10:29pm

    While I think you are on point here and while LVL certainly has his flaws, I don't think not reading people he doesn't agree with is among them. What kind of filter they have to go through when he does read them - that's a whole different thing, but I think he is cracking the books at least.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/13/2008 @ 10:40pm

  277. The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that.

    disinterested?!?!?!?!?

    hahahahahahaha

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 10:05pm

    Nice to see you having a good laugh. A happy customer is a repeat customer.

    Don't think we have too much trouble with US economic and military strength do we?.

    I did think about the use of disinterested for a bit and I finally stuck with it by thinking of how much some of the American anti-war people, such as Mask, gripe about the vast sums of American money being spent and wasted on those presumably worthless Iraqis. After that the word just seemed to fly off the keyboard.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/14/2008 @ 01:08am

  278. ... about the vast sums of American money being spent and wasted on those presumably worthless Iraqis. After that the word just seemed to fly off the keyboard.Posted by HARVEY 79 03/14/2008 @ 01:08am

    Nonsense. There's nothing economically disinterested about the US war on the Iraqis. There's precious little of the hundreds of billions spent so far that's being spent on Iraqis. Except of course if you count the vast amount of explosives we drop on them as being spent on them. Most of the money doesn't leave the US, as it's transfered, in the form of US taxpayer obligations on over a trillion in debt already from our Red Communist Chinese bankers, and into the coffers of the great military suppliers who are being rewarded by CheneyBush & Co, not least of all KBR Halliburton.

    Posted by sloper at 03/14/2008 @ 05:49am

  279. from our Red Communist Chinese bankers,

    as opposed to our blue Communist bankers?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 07:39am

  280. don't just look at my posts, look at what they are in response to. some apparatchik telling me I know no history. another questioning my gainful employment. etc.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 2:33pm

    Sorry to respond so late to this. I saw their posts. They will slam anyone or put into question what anyone has to say that doesn't fall in line with their conservative right wing neocon agenda. Hell, they are even hammering on Mask and Mask claims to be a libertarian.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/14/2008 @ 07:56am

  281. hey, that's funny. you said i never insult people right below where i said ponti comes here to sharpen his head......

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/13/2008 @ 8:40pm

    Ya, but Ponti does come here to sharpen his head like the coneheads off the old SNL shows. LOL He certainly doesn't come here to win any hearts and minds over.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/14/2008 @ 08:03am

  282. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/13/2008 @ 10:40pm

    You really think LVLIB has read....Richard Dawkins, for instance?

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 10:20am

  283. Marion Barry

    N. Korean slavery

    Posted by Pontificus

    If nothing else, the idiot is predictable

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:22am

  284. Hell, they are even hammering on Mask and Mask claims to be a libertarian.----Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/14/2008 @ 07:56am |

    Well, the actual "claim" is to "practical libertarianism".

    But I mostly just like common sense and logic and fact...and there's none to guys like PONTI, CPT, LVLIB, etc.

    Or even plain honesty. For instance, (and yes, this is a reiteration)...their claim that the "War on Terror" is "like World War-II".

    It's not like World War-II. Because in that war, you had leaders who didn't sugar-coat the war effort for political expediency (to the approval of the arm-chair warriors). If it REALLY was "like World War-II" and Bush had raised taxes, instituted a draft, and pushed rationing (or some conservation move to reduce foreign oil dependence and cut off funds to the ME)...he'd have lost in 2004.

    BUT, it would have been more honest and shown that he REALLY did believe it was "like World War-II" and a fight for our civilization and our lives.

    It also would have pissed off his base of economic conservatives...but again, that's what REAL leadership is supposed to do sometimes, if they REALLY believe what they're saying.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 10:25am

  285. Boy, you really are stuck in 2003, arent you?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/13/2008 @ 1:34pm

    Marion Barry

    Tyson

    Paula Jones

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:27am

  286. The crusades never left France? Now you have displayed an ignorance of history that surprises me. LL

    LL, you've misread. ED's quote is below--

    the last of which didn't even leave France, they just went down south and murdered heretics, which is another name for infidels.(emphasis added)

    He is clearly not referring to the Crusades in general but the Albigensian Crusade in southern France. I would disagree with his contention that this was the last crusade as the anti-Ottoman expeditons in the Balkans which came to grief at Nikopolis and Varna (late 14th and early 15th centuries) were considered crusades.

    BTW ED, I know of no authority which considers an embargo an act of war. Last I checked, refusing to trade was hardly an act of aggression.

    Re WWII, we had been in a state of near war with Germany prior to Pearl Harbor. There had already been skirmishes between US destroyers and German U-Boats.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 10:29am

  287. If we could ensure keeping most of the jihadist activity against us centered in Iraq, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment supporting McCain or any future president who would stay that course.

    I also believe that eventually the Iraqi's will come to a consensus agreement on their government. They are showing signs of growing weary with disagreement now

    LUVSDESPOTS

    Nice brave Christian philosophy there, lets keep those that want us dead killing other people in their towns. Hide behind their women and children. I guess that could make one HAPPY.

    Five years after the war started they are showing "signs". WOO HOO!! the war is over!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:33am

  288. The Shia with their rise of the 12th Imam, and the Sunni with restoring the Caliphate are both equally determined to see their visions realized. If we left the middle east tomorrow, it would not change these paths one iota.

    Combine that with their equal determination to rid the middle east of Israel and the Jews and there is no possibility of a downturn in Islamic violence, whether we are there or not.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:49pm

    Kind of like the millions of American fundies that want The Rapture to wipe out all of us non-believers?

    If there is no prospect of a downturn in jihadsim whether we are there or not, why not save the cash?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:35am

  289. Posted by HARVEY 79 03/14/2008 @ 01:08am

    so, by killing and torturing, you make iraqi lives worthwhile?

    good thing the "credit's" drying up........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2008 @ 10:40am

  290. Given that we are now involved in a struggle with groups who are not merely targeting our military but have been overwhelmingly , displacing, killing and torturing mainly innocent (not opposition militias or military forces) Iraqi children ,women and men.

    Harvey, that would be a more convincing argument is we weren't now bribing and arming the same Sunni militias that had been doing that. Further, the Sunni militias had started going after jihadis before the surge. Finally, what the surge has done is put the seal on the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, since it mainly went after anti-government (Sunni) forces, thus giving the Shi'ites a free hand.

    Back to the Sunnis, there are already tensions between them and both the Shi'ites and the US. Unless you propose to keep bribing them indefinitely, fighting well bubbled up, US presence or no. Consequently, to argue that US withdrawal will cause bloodshed overlooks the fact that US presence is often an aggravating factor and that we simply can't keep this force level in Iraq indefinitely.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 10:42am

  291. Again, after reading the feelings of the neo-cons, it appears that if one actually joins the military and comes away with ones own opinion, one will be labeled an America-hater by many that never bothered to join. These people will also refuse to go to Iraq to help in whatever way they are able. They will call for lower taxes, but more arms. They will break our military then whine about military leaders that point it out.

    Sad.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:43am

  292. Furthermore, the Crusades were a response primarily to Islamic invasions into Europe (West to Spain and East to what is now Serbia).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person

    Not true. The expansion into the Balkans didn't take place until after the Crusades had taken place while the Spanish reconquista had separate origins. It was the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert and Alexius Commenus's request for aid that sparked the Crusades.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 10:44am

  293. PONTIFICUS, I know you and many of your ilk are most concerned about freedom and slavery. This is your trading partner in action:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/asia/15tibet.html?ex=1363233600& en=e02d7f98898eb501&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Add in Chimpy building bases in Uzbekistan etc, and it looks to me like you support more slavery than any leftist.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:45am

  294. If we could ensure keeping most of the jihadist activity against us centered in Iraq, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment supporting McCain or any future president who would stay that course.

    I also believe that eventually the Iraqi's will come to a consensus agreement on their government. They are showing signs of growing weary with disagreement now

    Except that the main opposition in Iraq was never jihadis, although there were the loudest and nastiest, they have always been a small minority. The main opposition has always been Iraqi. Further, you assumption that jihadi activities are somehow diverted by Iraq overlooks the increase in recruitment that the Iraqi invasion occasioned.

    Regarding the latter, well you "light at the end of the tunnel" people have been saying that for some time now. The fact is that Shi'ite factions are still squaring off against each other in Basra. Kurd-Shi'ite tensions over oil are still there, the Kurds are moving to force the issue over Kirkuk and there is friction between the Sunnis and Shi'ites (and how long can we keep paying both sides to make nice?).

    An oil bill hasn't passed, the Presidency Council vetoed the provincial bill and the de-Ba'athification bill will actually remove many Sunnis from the security ministries.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 10:48am

  295. China- WMD's, slavery, state sponsored abortion, occupies other countries, threatens Taiwan,

    When would the neo-cons like to invade?

    whats that? We cannot invade China? But it is about freedom and democracy.

    Surely we will be greeted as liberators.

    No, we must keep them as a MFN trading partner so that JOMAMA and HAPPYCOWARD can make some cash, that is much more important than protesting political gulags and guvt censorship (oh, wait, you guys LOVE guvt censorship and spying, it is part of the "freedoms" you are not fighting for)

    Situational ethics at its best.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 10:54am

  296. PONTI claims the military is just fien, only leftist America Haters think otherwise.

    Feb 22, 2008; WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Army's chief of staff told a Senate panel Tuesday that combat in Afghanistan and Iraq has left "our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight," and could affect troop levels in the near future.

    "[We are] unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future," Gen. George Casey said.

    but, POINTIFLOGIC supports the troops.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 11:04am

  297. fine

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 11:04am

  298. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    thanks for your reply. I stand corrected that these were not the last crusades, which does not however change my point.

    your understanding of the oil and steel embargo is incomplete. it was definitely considered an act of war at the time, as it threatened to shut down Japan and its war machine. why would there have been round the clock peace negotiations. Japan has no oil and did not have it then either.the embargo was a hell of a lot more than refusing trade. why else would the Japanese have attacked? the Us was no impediment to their expansionist moves. I'm sure that further reading will prove my point.

    the prewar skirmishes off the New Jersey coast resulted in the sinking of American shipping.remember the US was supposed to be neutral, a fiction.

    I am always pleased to engage a fellow New Yorker, especially one with your acumen.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 11:07am

  299. Our Red Chinese bankers in action, producing blue citizens

    http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59478&page=3

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 11:10am

  300. I am always pleased to engage a fellow New Yorker, especially one with your acumen.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 11:07am

    Isn't that the branding logo of The Emperors Club?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 11:12am

  301. Posted by MASK 03/14/2008 @ 10:20am

    I don't know. I am pretty sure that I remember him saying he had read some works - I seem to recall it was "The Battle for God" - by Karen Armstrong. But he is at least dealing with someone that believes in a God and so forth but who, according to him, is misinterpreting the Biblical message.

    If you move to a Richard Dawkins, I'm less sure - because he does have a focus and Dawkins might land outside of it. I wouldn't assume so, but it would be an interesting question to ask him.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2008 @ 11:19am

  302. your understanding of the oil and steel embargo is incomplete. it was definitely considered an act of war at the time, as it threatened to shut down Japan and its war machine. why would there have been round the clock peace negotiations.

    It was certainly a hostile act, designed to force Japan to cease its invasion of China. "Act of war" is a term with legal connotations, however. Since an embargo entails neither the use of force nor the threat of force, I doubt that it qualifies.

    I don't think US neutrality re Germany was a complete fiction. Providing escorts for ships as far as Iceland certainly strains the definition but it was a very limited use of military force.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 11:21am

  303. The US had been supporting China against Japan by selling them cheap equipment, and broke the Japanese-American commercial treaty to enable them to place an embargo on exports to Japan if necessary. When Japan occupied the whole of Indochina in June 1941, Roosevelt immediately called for an international embargo to cut off all foreign oil supplies to Japan. This way, Japan would not be able to support its army and economy and would have to cede to American pressure to withdraw completely from China and Indochina.

    how do you think this was enforced, but with military force? whether it meets legal definition it was considered an act of war by the Japanese.

    as I said US shipping was under attack by German subs during the summer of '41. the gov't asked Atlantic City to douse its bright lights which gave the German subs back lit targets. the city refused. the US was openly supplying Britain with materials, definitely not neutral.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 11:36am

  304. Crabwalk, did you enjoy old Karl's Blossfeldt's work?

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 11:43am

  305. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/14/2008 @ 11:19am

    Well, I don't see LVLIB reading Said's "Orientalism" or even "The Lemon Tree" and saying "Well, they make a fair point, but I disagree with their general premise."

    As evidenced by his bigotry towards Islam...and (when Romney was in the running) Mormonism (and constant citations of anti-Islamic or anti-Mormon "Christian" websites and authors to support it)...

    I just don't think the tenuous link between "open-minded" and "fundamentalist" is likely bridged in Reverand Larry.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 12:25pm

  306. how do you think this was enforced, but with military force? whether it meets legal definition it was considered an act of war by the Japanese.

    Except that it still isn't the use of force against Japan. Further, considering that Japan was engaged in a war of agression against China, I don't think it had a cause for complaint regarding either the provision of equipment or a trade embargo. Ultimately, the Japanese offensive of 1941 was about being able to continue the aggressive war against China.

    the city refused. the US was openly supplying Britain with materials, definitely not neutral.

    Actually, the Hague Convention on Neutrality, Art. 7 states "A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet." although it is required to apply it evenly to the belligerent powers.

    Technically, the cash-and-carry program met that requirement since the Germans could've purchased supplies if they could've made the transport arrangements. The fact the Germany was blockaded makes that a bit of sharp practice but not a technical violation of neutrality. Likewise, Articles 17 and 18 cover neutral persons. Such a person loses the convention's protection if he commits an act in favor of a belligerent. However 18 states--

    "The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of Article 17, letter (b):

    (a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 12:29pm

  307. Posted by MASK 03/14/2008 @ 10:25am | ignore this person

    MASK you talk of common sense and honesty??? Talk about hypocrisey at its worst. You are completely dishonest in your assessment. But you have ALWAYS been that way...thats how you debate.

    You blatently IGNORE points that you consider inconvienent to your arguments.

    You are the most DIShonest debater here. Most of the liberals here are at least honest debaters in that when a Right-leaning posters makes a point, they address that point, though they vehmently disagree.

    You ignore and obfuscate points that undermine your argument, you have done this quite often.

    You claim the title of the honest broker???? That is akin to John Wayne Gacy saying he is great clown for kids.

    As to your point in comparing WWII to the War on terror.....that is relavent comparasion, in that both were WARS of ideas. Freedom or tryanney that was the choice then.....the choice is very similiar....freedom or tryanney.

    You tend to come down on the Neville chamberlain side of things.....appease and retreat inward...and hope that they our policies will not antagonize them to attack us or our interests.

    You say that WWII leaders didnt sugarcoat the war??? ARE you kidding me??? Where were the pictures of Omaha beach? Where was the Congressional invetigation on the debacle at Kasserine Pass or Anzio where thousand of AMERICANS were killed due to incompetence, POOR equipment, and inadequte coordination?? Where was the outrage over Operation Cobra? Where 700 American Soldiers were killed by US bombers in one DAY???

    You talk of rationing?????? Asking for sacrifices???? When you dont even have the strategic patience to comprehend that this is an insurgency and that the nature of those conflicts requires patience. You rhetoric rings hollow and empty.

    WWII on a tactical level was conflict between LARGE armies that each with a nation and capital and a seat govenment behind them. AQ and Insurgents do not have these mechanism to speak for them....they hit and RUN and hide....so naturally it takes longer.

    So what should a President ask from you??? Oil independence??/ please....when we cant build another refinery or even exploit our own natural resouirces.....that is not practical....in the short-term to expect a move from oil....unless you have stopped driving a car.....have you? doubt it.

    And another comparasion....we have lost 4500 killed and 20,000 wounded in 7 yrs on the war on terror......we lost 404,000 killed and 1.4 million wounded in 4 yrs in WWII.

    So Mask when you lament that honest and common sense have alluded those of us who dare disagree with you, "the pratical liberitarian" talk of oxymoronic term, try having the slightest of that which you claim is absent in our arguments.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 12:54pm

  308. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person

    good stuff. the letter of the law. how people of the time interpreted it is something else. I do think that Indochina was the last straw, or the straw that broke the camel's back, in light of the subsequent war, a short twenty years later.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 1:00pm

  309. JR, I had never heard of him till just now. As I have told you in the past, I am an accidental artist with zero actual arts education. My wife is the one with the Art History degree. (no, she does not sell Freedom Fries). But, I will look up his work when creating botanicals from now on. Thanks for the tip.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 1:05pm

  310. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/14/2008 @ 1:03pm

    Prophetic symbolism is more your cup-o-joe, right? Far more accurate, and you can bend it to your fantasies more readily than history.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 1:08pm

  311. As to your point in comparing WWII to the War on terror.....that is relavent comparasion, in that both were WARS of ideas. Freedom or tryanney that was the choice then.....the choice is very similiar....freedom or tryanney.

    Actually, one was a war against a country that posed a strategic threat to the US while one is against a group of criminals who can kill and hurt a great many people but aren't nearly the threat level that Nazi Germany was. The war in Iraq, of course, had nothing to do with going after Islamist militants but targeted a country that also posed, at most, a minimal strategic threat.

    You talk of rationing?????? Asking for sacrifices???? When you dont even have the strategic patience to comprehend that this is an insurgency and that the nature of those conflicts requires patience. You rhetoric rings hollow and empty.

    Not at all, raising taxes would've paid for the war without plunging this country into a deficit. It wasn't done because the Administration believed that Iraq would be a walk-over that would pay for itself and that's how they sold it to the American people. The idea that this came from a strategic appreciation of counter-insurgency has no factual basis.

    And another comparasion....we have lost 4500 killed and 20,000 wounded in 7 yrs on the war on terror.....

    Of course, you are again conflating the struggle against Islamist militants and the one in Iraq, the one that the neo-cons said would be a cake-walk.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 1:16pm

  312. Posted by CRABWALK 03/14/2008 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    you may call me Emile. I too have no formal arts education. real education begins when you leave the halls of academe. it is one of the true and lasting pleasures and treasures of life. here in NYC it seems that everyone is doing something artistic, draw, dance, take photos.

    my good friend Bradley Eros, used to say, if you can't make anything, make dinner, or make the bed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 1:23pm

  313. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=brunowe

    my guess is that they believed their propaganda, always a dangerous proposition.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 1:25pm

  314. Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 12:54pm

    CPT, you want a CHEAP and EASY "World War-II". You'll pile up the HALF TRILLION that the occupation is cost on a national "credit card" for OTHER Administrations to pay off (so that Bush doesn't have to, via an un-popular tax hike).

    You want all the "glory" and "Next Greatest Generation"...but none of the sacrifices that the REAL "Greatest Generation" had to make.

    And the "honor" for Bush, that Roosevelt actually earned by being a leader, and not (as Bush did) by keeping the costs and participation of the war away from the American people to win re-election in 2004.

    World War-II was a true struggle against evil, fought by EVERYBODY in the US (not just a volunteer force, which had to be BOOSTED after the SecDefense went into Iraq...again on the CHEAP..with too few troops)....was PAID FOR by EVERYBODY (taxes, war bonds, etc.)...and leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill took responsibility for failure, they didn't JOKE about "Where are those WMDs?" at White House dinners.

    They also didn't allow the HOSPITALS that the veterans came back to become pig-stys....and they would have had few military men (such as yourself) EXCUSE IT if they did.

    You and the 30% Club won't be remembered as "The Greatest Generation-II"...you'll be remembered as "The Laziest Generation" as you sit back in your armchair "fighting the war on the Blogs", letting others fight, and your grand-children PAY for, this "just like World War-II!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 1:27pm

  315. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person

    What are talking about...about how the war was sold???? in the beginning????

    That is the basis for your discontent....."It wasnt what you said it was going to be"

    We didnt know it was an insurgency until about 4-5 months after the fall of Bagdad........you are still stuck on how the war was packaged....so what.....war is changing always....

    They said in September 44....home by XMAS!! it wasnt.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 1:29pm

  316. All The Bull about Iraq,won't be shown on T V. Just as the body of troops are snuck in to the U S. I'am sure the GRIM REAPER will thank all the supporters of the war.Those yellow ribbons must be worn by now.

    Posted by legion at 03/14/2008 @ 1:40pm

  317. Posted by MASK 03/14/2008 @ 1:27pm | ignore this person

    True to your dishonest form......you made my point about you very nicely.

    What are you talking about.....you dont think this is a war between two competing ideaologies??????????????????

    Brother they do.....and that is a simple FACT....that, not even you can ignore.

    30% club.....well we are STILL there.....so what is wrong with your 70%??? Can you not mobilize to change the policy? Where is this 70%????????????? If that is the case.....why havent re-depolyment orders gone out by now????? Is your 70% SO incapable of changing the tide??? It is 70% right?????

    So what is wrong????

    FDR never sent troops into battle underequiped?????? ARE you kidding me???? GEN MacArthur went to his DEATHBED saying that he could have been supplied at Bataan and held, but political considerations prevented supplies being priortiized to him, in light of the Germany first policy. And there is considerable evidence that he is right. Oh at look at Kasserine Pass and Anzio closer........more men died at Bataan, Kasserine, and Anzio than have been killed in the WHOLE War on terror.

    FACT. sorry

    Money, money money......this war is comparatively the cheapest war we have ever fought....NAM and WWII in todays dollars would make this look like minor arts funding package.

    FACT. sorry

    Oh and FDR did not have the massive social programs that we have today......otherwise we would have a surplus....no medicare or medicade or welfare programs...FDR didnt have to worry about that.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 1:44pm

  318. Oh one more thing MASK.....fighting the war on blogs....sorry brother...desperate tactic right there. And laughably not true.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 1:47pm

  319. "The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of Article 17, letter (b):

    (a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;

    Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 12:29pm

    True, but the Japanese interpretation of this was an attack on Pearl Harbor, so they considered the embargo or oil supply cut off an act of war against them. We may not have, but that didn't matter a whole hell of a lot after the fact unfortunately.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/14/2008 @ 1:55pm

  320. CPT, your credibility was shot when the Walter Reed scandal broke and you, as a self-proclaimed military officer (which we'll take as true), DEFENDED the Administration for allowing Building 18 to occur.

    Proving that you care more about political partisanship...than even the health of your fellow service-men.

    You cared more about defending George Bush and the Republican Party.

    And it is particularly interesting that your short vacation from this blog coincided with that scandal hitting its peak....???

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 1:56pm

  321. Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person

    Iraq is and always will be a war based on lies, of such a magnitude that you would have to go back to Hitler to find its equal. when invading Poland he described it as shooting back.

    it was and is an unnecessary war, as we were not attacked. there is just no way to sanitize this.

    the war maybe the cheapest one yet, but the other ones were paid by tax increases, especially on the very rich, while this one is completely off budget and on credit.

    and we have accomplished precious little in five years. that should tell you something.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 1:58pm

  322. I care about DEFENDING FACTS statements rather than mindless partisian demogagoury.

    TRUTH over incessent platitudes over ONE building and blaming the POTUS rather than the person ACTUALLY charged with maintaining those buildings......who was fired BTW.

    The CHAIN of COMMAND...does NOT mean that the person at the TOP is responsible for how a person on a lower rung is operating. The CHAIN is a CHAIN because it has a SEVERAL links not just one.....And thats why your rhetoric sounds empty to me.....you inability to recognize that......had the SECDEF allowed that General to remain...you might have a point.....but they didnt so what is your point.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:03pm

  323. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person

    I simply disagree with you conclusions.....

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:04pm

  324. CPT, no other neo-con has given me an answer to this one, a goal of OIF;

    How many new functioning democracies have been formed since 3/03?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 2:07pm

  325. Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 2:03pm

    1: The buck stops at the top. A true leader takes responsibility for the failures of those he/she oversees. Chimpy's claim to fame is that he is the Commander in Chief. He should be held responsible for all facets of the military.

    2: The head of Walter Reed was only let go after the conditions became public. It was allowed to continue for a long time before anything was done.

    3: Many officers are of the opinion that our forces are being stretched past a reasonable breaking point, it is not a myth propagated by the evil left. The evil left gets the info from the military itself.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 2:14pm

  326. Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 2:03pm

    You cared about defending Bush and the Republicans in the Administration and in Congress who oversaw the VA...period.

    Any NORMAL...loyal to his comrades-in-arms first...soldier would have been disgusted and refused any apologia over such a scandal.

    Walter Reed Scandal breaks...you don't think "USA" (as in US Army) first...you think "GOP" first.

    And if that had happened under Clinton and a Dem Congress, you KNOW you'd run it "up the CHAIN" to the top to the "draft dodger who loathed the military".

    See, you're worse than LVLIB (an ex-vet but no longer in service) or any of the other chickenhawk types....you're (supposedly) IN the military and you let your partisanship come before your fellow soldiers.

    That just stinks, mister.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 2:20pm

  327. Posted by CRABWALK 03/14/2008 @ 2:14pm

    CRAB, you KNOW that if the politics were reversed (as I said above) and it was a Dem President (especially Clinton) and a Dem Congress....

    that CPT wouldn't be blaming the "general in charge" and excusing the CIC and saying "it's a CHAIN!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 2:24pm

  328. The CHAIN of COMMAND...does NOT mean that the person at the TOP is responsible for how a person on a lower rung is operating.

    absurd. the buck stops here was a sign on Truman's desk. this is exactly what it means. what happened to the guy in charge of Pearl Harbor? the was courts martialed and punished.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 2:26pm

  329. Posted by MASK 03/14/2008 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person

    On the contrary.... I was angry...of course...but my anger was directed at MEDCOM.....not DoD. or the adminsitration.

    Why because Army MEDCOM is responsible and accountable for ensuring Walter Reed facilities are up to date.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:31pm

  330. Posted by MASK 03/14/2008 @ 2:24pm

    Would that be anything like being outraged that a president allowed one helicopter to get shot down in Somalia?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 2:31pm

  331. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

    Then why wasnt FDR brought up on charges for Pearl Harbor??

    Gen Short and Adm Kimmel were blamed....and they did share a large burden of the responsibility

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:33pm

  332. ahh, but if the war had actually been won (either one), Chimpy would have been hailed as a great leader, responsible for the military victory.

    typical neo-con logic. The lower ranks are responsible for failure, the brass for the success.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 2:35pm

  333. Still googling for new democracies in the ME CPT?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/14/2008 @ 2:36pm

  334. Posted by CRABWALK 03/14/2008 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person

    Well point of FACT is the Maj General GArrison, DID ask for more air assests and was denied BY the SECDEF Aspin.....Aspin resigned later and died regretful 10 months later. But he was rightfully blamed for poor adjacent unit coordination with the 10th MTN Div and the allied Paks

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:37pm

  335. Crab

    What was your question?

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:38pm

  336. That is the basis for your discontent....."It wasnt what you said it was going to be"

    We didnt know it was an insurgency until about 4-5 months after the fall of Bagdad........you are still stuck on how the war was packaged....so what.....war is changing always....

    The point of that is that your argument about the number in Iraq being much lower than in WWII is invalidated by the fact that the troops were supposed to be greeted with flowers. Further, it suggests an incompetence in the people behind the war the legitimately advances the argument that they can't be given much credibility now. Finally, it suggests that the surge is less about actually accomplishing anything than saving this administration from the political cost of actually having to admit their strategic blunder.

    The point is that there was no legal or strategic jusitification to go into Iraq in the first place.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 2:40pm

  337. Posted by CRABWALK 03/14/2008 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person

    Oh the new democracies.....ok......well as may have noticed Pakistan did have election. So did the Palestieans, And in the Jordan exploratory steps have been taken.

    In Iran were 80% of the population is under the age of 30.....they are have become more robust and outspoken....FACT Iranian blogs.....in 2003, about 500.....now about 50,000 all embracing WEstern style democray....seems Iranian women like the concept of Valentines DAy....That is no shit....that is TRUE...it is fun but true fact.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:41pm

  338. FDR never sent troops into battle underequiped?????? ARE you kidding me???? GEN MacArthur went to his DEATHBED saying that he could have been supplied at Bataan and held, but political considerations prevented supplies being priortiized to him, in light of the Germany first policy. And there is considerable evidence that he is right. Oh at look at Kasserine Pass and Anzio closer........more men died at Bataan, Kasserine, and Anzio than have been killed in the WHOLE War on terror.

    Of course MacArthur couldn't possibly be diverting attention from his failed "defend all Luzon" strategy, could he? Further, the defeats at Kasserine and Anzio had nothing to do with a lack of equipment. Both were the results of mediocre commanders.

    What you overlook is that we were forced in WWII, Iraq was a war of choice. Rumsfeld had plenty of time to equip the armies properly, his failure to do so was a function of the hubris that led the "Vulcans" to believe that this would be a walk-over.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 2:47pm

  339. Oh the new democracies.....ok......well as may have noticed Pakistan did have election. So did the Palestieans, And in the Jordan exploratory steps have been taken.

    In Iran were 80% of the population is under the age of 30.....they are have become more robust and outspoken....FACT Iranian blogs.....in 2003, about 500.....now about 50,000 all embracing WEstern style democray....seems Iranian women like the concept of Valentines DAy....That is no shit....that is TRUE...it is fun but true fact.

    Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person

    None of which have had anything to do with Bush policies. Bush has backed Musharraf from the get-go. Those elections took place in spite of US policies, not because of them. Likewise, any rumbling in Iran has more to do with Ahmedinejad's failed economic stewardship. If anything, US saber-rattling has given him a fine diversion for domestic political purposes.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 2:49pm

  340. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

    Well tactical mistakes were made initially....sure....but if you can name me ONE American war were tactical mistakes havent been made at the beginning, then i could buy into the argument that this adminsitration was that much more incompetent than any other adminsitration that has engaged us in a war. But that is NOT the case.

    Strategically speaking it Iraq is not a blunder....it seems now the surge mission which is now focused on security rather than purely pursuing Anti-coalition forces....has paid off.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:51pm

  341. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person

    Sorry you are wrong here....Kasserine...troops lacked the equippement to deal with the Germans......Tanks, artillery and air cover all were decisive factors. Not just Freidenall incompetence.

    Anzio.....not enough landing craft available that hindered supplies be brought ashore......they were all being diverted for D-Day which was a YEAR off.

    MacArthur wanted BATAAN resupplied....point blank.....he was adament and he wasnt off base...it probably could have been had we had the will to do so.

    Look io love FDR and his leadership in WWII....but dont make the argument that he was above anything

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 2:57pm

  342. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person

    He backed elections...sure he wanted Musharref to win, but if you dont think they exerted influence for the elections to go on...then you are just not seeing clearly.

    IRANIAN youth love the internet and have a fascination with WEtern cultrue....all the democratic talk in the ME HAS in fact encouraged many to speak out for democratic ideas, some professors have been imprisoned for it.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 3:01pm

  343. Gen Short and Adm Kimmel were blamed....and they did share a large burden of the responsibility

    Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person

    chain of command. Kimmel actually was NOT courts martialed. he was made to retire.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 3:09pm

  344. well as may have noticed Pakistan did have election. So did the Palestieans, And in the Jordan exploratory steps have been taken.

    the Palestinians had an election. Hamas won. the US and al Fatah did not recognise it. this is your version of democracy? Musharaf is a military dictator, no matter how many elections. your arguments is bankrupt.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 3:13pm

  345. Well tactical mistakes were made initially....sure....but if you can name me ONE American war were tactical mistakes havent been made at the beginning, then i could buy into the argument that this adminsitration was that much more incompetent than any other adminsitration that has engaged us in a war. But that is NOT the case.

    Strategically speaking it Iraq is not a blunder....it seems now the surge mission which is now focused on security rather than purely pursuing Anti-coalition forces....has paid off.

    Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person

    It was more than just tactical mistakes. There was a strategic assumption that only a small occupation force would be needed and that Iraq could've gotten on its feet quickly enough that its resumed oil exports would've paid for the reconstruction.

    The surge has done nothing of the kind. The end purpose of it was to foster a political solution--that isn't in the offing. First [tinyurl.com], the veto of the provincial elections bill is a huge setback. This severely diminishes any expectation of a political settlement by both the Sunnis who are, for the time being, not shooting at US forces, and the Sadrists. Second [tinyurl.com], the Sunnis who the US has paid off and who have been hunting the jihadis, are running out of patience in terms of the Shi'ites in government according them any sort of political legitimacy or membership in the security forces. A couple of commands of The Awakening have already left off cooperation with US forces. The importance of this is that much of the drop in violence stems from 1) the Sunni offensive against the jihadis, this antedates the surge and therefore cannot be attributed to it and 2) Sadr's cease-fire, some of which may be to lay low while US forces are more active but it also had much to do with his attempts to secure power politically and consolidate is control over the militia. Both of these are now fraying.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 3:16pm

  346. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person

    No its not...you just dont like it, because it does not support you preconcieved conclusions.

    Hamas won...ok, we wont recognize them to they renouce violence...simple.

    Pakistan....pay attention a little more....Musharref is no longer the Army Chief of Staff as he was just 4 months ago. That WAS his power base. Elections were held.....he will step down. Too bad though....he was sensible. The SECULARIST party won the election.

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 3:18pm

  347. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person

    Niether was the General in charge of Walter Reed....made to retire

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 3:19pm

  348. it's only democracy when our puppets win. Pakistan's elections were very democratic. you believe this shit? the Palestinian election solved nothing, it led to civil war. very much like the Iraqi elections, which resulted in a Shia puppet gov't. parliament has been dissolved. very democratic. and the Iranian youth just love democracy because we invaded Iraq? smooth. you are out of your mind with this stuff.your sophistry stinks to high heaven.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 3:25pm

  349. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person

    You see what you want to see....you wont allow this to work and you will be dammend if Bush gets any credit for it or our forces for that matter.

    Perhaps you will attribute the success on the DEMS winning the election in 06? But the FACT remains the SURGE went in.....they subside in their fight.

    POLITCAL progress has been made...but it is slower than we demand....well sorry bud.....they have made some steps but they on their timeline not ours in terms of political progess......

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 3:25pm

  350. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/14/2008 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person

    And your platitudes reek of a soft mind.

    FACT there were only around 500 blogs in Iran....none of which talked of WEstern culture in any flattering terms.......there are now over 50,000 blogs and many of those speak of Western culture in admirable terms as something that they wish to have ....The thinking goes if IRAQ can have elections why cant we?

    And you call yourself enlightened

    Posted by CPT at 03/14/2008 @ 3:30pm

  351. He backed elections...sure he wanted Musharref to win, but if you dont think they exerted influence for the elections to go on...then you are just not seeing clearly.

    IRANIAN youth love the internet and have a fascination with WEtern cultrue....all the democratic talk in the ME HAS in fact encouraged many to speak out for democratic ideas, some professors have been imprisoned for it.

    Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person

    Actually, that democratic talk goes back to the Khatami presidency. The conservatives shut it down and still hold the upper hand. Further, your assumption that the "democratic talk" in the ME has encourage what is happening now assumes, but doesn't substantiate, a causal relationship. BTW, what democratic talk? Incidentally, the most recent significant civil unrest in Iran wasn't over democracy, it was over gasoline rationing.

    Your statement about Musharraf would've been credible if, at any time prior to Bhutto's return, Bush had ever called for elections. Bottom line, it was the civil unrest occasioned by Musharraf's purge of the judiciary and the declaration of martial law that forced elections, nothing the Bush administration did. Bush certainly deserves credit for dissuading Musharraf from postponing the scheduled elections but his hand was forced by events. For example, he had no problem with Musharraf's rigged reelection in October 2007.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 3:35pm

  352. You see what you want to see....you wont allow this to work and you will be dammend if Bush gets any credit for it or our forces for that matter.

    Perhaps you will attribute the success on the DEMS winning the election in 06? But the FACT remains the SURGE went in.....they subside in their fight.

    POLITCAL progress has been made...but it is slower than we demand....well sorry bud.....they have made some steps but they on their timeline not ours in terms of political progess......

    Posted by CPT 03/14/2008 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person

    Actually, I see what is reported. The provincial election bill vetoed, no progress re oil revenues, the Kurds ramping things up in Kirkuk, the Sunni militias being disillusioned with the idea of a political solution. The FACT is that you are committing the basic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The FACT is that the Sunnis went after jihadis before the surge went in. The FACT is that there hasn't been any political progress post-surge.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/14/2008 @ 3:38pm

  353. democracy means self determination. it does not mean an outside power nullifying elections.

    the Iraq elections were a farce. only one side took part. I know that's how you fascist neocons would like to have it here, but no cigar. by fascist I mean gov't governing for corporations not people. this was the case in fascist Germany and Italy.

    all you people are history. you are garbage, that just has not been taken out yet. you will be on the trash heap of history, on or about Jan 20th.

    the Iranian youth longed for western values long before Bush. Iran was a secular country before the islamist revolution.

    Turkey attacks Iraq. yes peace is breaking out in the region. everyone wants a piece OF Iraq.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 3:39pm

  354. Oh, come on guys, let's cut CPT some slack....

    even if he is a partisan hack first, and a fellow soldier second when it comes to Walter Reed...

    maybe he'll be proven right?

    And after "100 years in Iraq" McCain'ism....Bush WILL look favorably like Roosevelt?!??!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 4:25pm

  355. there is one thing that Iraq isn't and WW2 was: TOTAL WAR

    that renders comparison void.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2008 @ 5:08pm

  356. Between the posts of CPT, Rio Bravo, Mark Canyons and the earlier posts of people like LVLIBERTY, Harvey and Ponti, it's hard to even know where to start with this carnival of error.

    1. Brunowe you are doing an outstanding job, even though I think your efforts are wasted on CPT.

    2. Mark Canyon: Why, pray tell, are people "invested in defeat"? And can you tell us what victory looks like - benchmarks, complete with U.S. military's role in accomplishing them and dates?

    3. Rio Bravo: You credibility for speaking for serviceman is awful when you've never been one.

    4. CPT: Feel free to expound on how Iraq is not a strategic blunder, what specific dividends the "surge" has gained that aren't attributable to other factors and feel free to explain to us what "victory" looks like with U.S. military role, benchmark and timeline. Just a little bit longer doesn't cut it anymore, if it ever did.

    5. LVL: I'm still waiting on this one: "Are you seriously arguing that the CIA, Israeli intelligence, and everyone else was fooled and Walcott, Landay and Strobel at Knight Ridder were able to accomplish what they could not? Particularly given evidence like the Downing Street Memo?"

    6. Harvey: Did you run out of ideas when your claims of "what else are we gonna do?" got challenged?

    In aggregate, you all make a rather sad spectacle. Falling all over yourselves to twist seven ways til Sunday to rationalize both bad ideas and bad policies. Letting lose with bizarre statements like "it wasn't a strategic blunder" and providing nothing to back up such bald face affronts to people's intelligence.

    I suspect the claims about "hating" are a projection of your own internal states. You desire to be part of a group, a political frat party that accepts your brain-damaged, insecure selves and your preoccupation about people's feelings and celebrates it with a hit from the collective beer bong. Then, when appropriately inebriated and reassured that you all are "the elect". "brothers", "chosen people" or whatever, then you convince yourselves you have special insight (perhaps telepathic powers) and can speak for many groups that you have never been a part of whether they be the military, the Founding Fathers, the poor, blacks, women or liberals.

    In this state, you collectively soak up what you can of Fox news, ring-wing talk radio, the 700 club, the business press, KKK rallies, and work that in a smidgin of your own thought (maybe) mixing and matching like shots of Stoli, Jagermiester, muscat and Pabst Blue Ribbon. And when the soft spot in between your ears get done sucking in all that excreta like an anus in reverse, your head starts swimming and you run to your keyboards to spew it all out again at The Nation like an explosive case of diarrhea - leaving the the rest of us feeling...slightly astonished, but mostly soiled.

    What do you say Rio...you think that is on par with your typical post? Or is it not repetitive enough? Does it use too many big words? Since it is carnival time, I figured I'd add something to all the local color - but I'm eager to hear how I can improve from the masters.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2008 @ 6:30pm

  357. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 6:46pm

    See, LL, I knew as long as some un-biased Christian fundamentalist websites showed that Said was a phoney and Dawkins was angry....

    that their points would be totally disproven to you!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 7:46pm

  358. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 7:56pm

    LVLIB, so you're not a "fundamentalist"...just an "evangelical"?

    Odd....reading the wikipedia def....you disagree?

    "The term "fundamentalism" is in part derived from these volumes. "The Fundamentals", were authored by a broad range of denominations in North America and the United Kingdom in which various core doctrines and traditional teachings (all considered basic to the Christian Faith) were defended against any movement which appeared to undermine the authority of Bible, the Holy Scriptures. Examples of those considered unfriendly, having the disposition of an enemy, and even hostile, were:

    Romanism (Catholicism), Socialism, Modern Philosophy, Atheism, Eddyism (Mary Baker Eddy - Christian Science), Mormonism, Spiritualism ("Channeling" etc.), and above all, "Liberal Theology"[2] (a movement which held a naturalistic interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, German higher criticism, and Darwinism)."

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 9:38pm

  359. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 7:30pm

    Because they were talking to our own intelligence people, looked at the facts and published the fact that the justifications were dubious - before the fact. This debunks your whole line of reasoning that everyone was fooled, because they weren't. If it was in the news, then the intelligence community knew.

    In fact, the more we learn, the more we find that this action was justified.

    Another example of "[l]etting lose with bizarre statements...and providing nothing to back up such bald face affronts to people's intelligence."

    You must be reading a different Downing Street Memo than I am. The one I have reads:

    "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

    Nowhere does it say anyone was convinced, and most of the document is simply explaining the American position based on this statement:

    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2008 @ 10:33pm

  360. LL: you posted no info on Said, merely opinion. Your support of the Iraq invasion & occupation war isn't based on the facts either, but appears to be more in line with your beliefs based on divine revelation. In the face of facts presented rather well by at least 3 posters here, your arguments collapse.

    Posted by sloper at 03/14/2008 @ 10:55pm

  361. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/14/2008 @ 10:33pm

    One element to remember with LL is he'll doggedly avoid ANYTHING that doesn't support his world-view...even AMERICAN intelliegence.

    Referencing the NIE that stated that Iran had stopped their nuclear program in 2003....LL informed me that he didn't believe OUR intell...just the Israelis.

    Why?...because it supports his world-view...simple as that. And allows him his dreams of "total war" against "the terrorists"...i.e. the Great 21st Century Crusade.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 11:05pm

  362. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 11:06pm

    Then you're an OFFSHOOT of fundamenalism, aren't you?

    or did the split involve an ACCEPTANCE of "Socialism, Modern Philosophy, Atheism, Eddyism (Mary Baker Eddy - Christian Science), Mormonism.... "Liberal Theology"...and Darwinism"?

    Look, we know WHY you don't want to be called a "fundamentalist"....and it's a reason you clearly see on the OTHER SIDE...same reason liberals became "progressives". The label was tainted.

    You know "fundamentalism" is pejorative and want to exclude yourself from it, despite the fact that the foundation of "evangelicalism" is rooted in "The Fundamentals" movement.

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 11:19pm

  363. I have no dreams of a great 21st century crusade or a total war.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 11:16pm |

    So when you said "tell the generals to take off the gloves"...find some "Patton-style leaders"..."think Dresden"...

    you WEREN'T advocating "total war" for the "Global War On Terrorism"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 11:21pm

  364. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/14/2008 @ 10:42am

    The point I was drawing SR's attention to was that your side cannot really escape the charge of hypocrisy when you claim to have concern for Iraqis, as many of the anti-war people do, but gloat as you and others do, presumably because you seem more intent on being proven correct in your original anti-war position, when Iraqis suffer, torture death and displacement. Now you want to gloat about the surge failing, by your uninformed reckoning, which can mean nothing less than that you are gloating over the subsequent increase in the death, torture and displacement of more Iraqis that would follow.

    Who are you to give an opinion, against much contrary evidence, as though you are uniquely in a position to give an opinion? Give us your credentials. I've read the stuff you unthinkingly regurgitate in the writings of the partisan "experts".

    It seems to me it matters little what the motivation of some of the Sunni tribal leaders had or their loyalty to the Iraqi government, the only thing that should matter to any decent compassionate human being is that the innocents are not being targeted, to the same degree they were, when the Sunni, Shia and al Qaeda militias and or insurgents were entrenched in Baghdad, Falluja and other parts of Anbar Province.

    Now you ghouls, with an academic interest in this war, may be hoping the surge fails so you are not made to look silly. I for one hope it succeeds beyond anyone's wildest expectations, not because my opinions are important to me but because I want not only to see the vast bulk of Iraqis live to eventually enjoy the same sort of rich fulfilling lives that is our birthright as US citizens. But in the mean time, that the reduction in the deaths and destruction that has been wrought upon them by the various insurgent groupings continues to decline and the present reversal in their internal and external displacements also continues and accelerates.

    For those who are interested, not with an inexpert opinion obviously gleaned, for those of us who can read, from like-minded "experts" with the same lack of concern for Iraqis, here to help you come to an informed opinion, is what a recently retired field general has to say about the same situation:

    http://tinyurl.com/2uguub

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/15/2008 @ 01:44am

  365. as many of the anti-war people do, but gloat as you and others do, presumably because you seem more intent on being proven correct in your original anti-war position, when Iraqis suffer, torture death and displacement.

    No one is gloating. Further, I don't have to be intent on being proven correct, the circumstances are doing that. Further, it is you people who have unleashed torture, death and displacement on the Iraqis.

    Now you want to gloat about the surge failing, by your uninformed reckoning, which can mean nothing less than that you are gloating over the subsequent increase in the death, torture and displacement of more Iraqis that would follow.

    Who are you to give an opinion, against much contrary evidence, as though you are uniquely in a position to give an opinion? Give us your credentials. I've read the stuff you unthinkingly regurgitate in the writings of the partisan "experts".

    I haven't gloated at all, I just pointed out from news reports that the surge isn't achieving its political objectives. If it doesn't do that, then you don't really have any contrary evidence.

    It seems to me it matters little what the motivation of some of the Sunni tribal leaders had or their loyalty to the Iraqi government, the only thing that should matter to any decent compassionate human being is that the innocents are not being targeted, to the same degree they were, when the Sunni, Shia and al Qaeda militias and or insurgents were entrenched in Baghdad, Falluja and other parts of Anbar Province.

    Typical of your obviously unthinking approach to this. Their reasons matter quite a bit since it effects what actions they are likely to take in the future. But of course a lack of forethought typifies your side of this issue.

    Now you ghouls, with an academic interest in this war, may be hoping the surge fails so you are not made to look silly. I for one hope it succeeds beyond anyone's wildest expectations, not because my opinions are important to me but because I want not only to see the vast bulk of Iraqis live to eventually enjoy the same sort of rich fulfilling lives that is our birthright as US citizens/

    On the contrary, I'm not rooting for the surge to fail, I'm just pointing out that is hasn't succeeded. The ghoulishness is on your side, since you want to keep US forces shooting and being shot at just so you don't have to admit you were wrong. The object of the surge is simply to shove the problem over into the next Administration.

    But in the mean time, that the reduction in the deaths and destruction that has been wrought upon them by the various insurgent groupings continues to decline and the present reversal in their internal and external displacements also continues and accelerates.

    You've really got to stop making stuff up. The refugees aren't coming back in any significant numbers and Baghdad remains ethnically cleansed, a by-product of this Administration's policy.

    here to help you come to an informed opinion,

    Right, via the Heritage Foundation from a general who was involved in the surge up to his neck. I'm sure he has NO reason to puff up its accomplishments as much as possible, huh?

    is what a recently retired field general has to say about the same situation:

    You can't even get basic facts right. Odierno hasn't retired, in fact he's been nominated for the post of Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, a position for which he awaits Senate confirmation. No reason to tout himself there, is there?

    Posted by brunowe at 03/15/2008 @ 02:57am

  366. The US is the only nation on earth with the disinterested economic, and military strength to do that.

    Here's an idea, why not go to the U.N. and put Iraq under a commander not beholden to the U.S., bring regional players into the picture (including Iran and Syria) and make the argument that the international community has to come in and do it's part if there is going to be peace - because the U.S. made a mistake when we went unilateral and there is clearly a need to build up a true multinational peace keeping force?

    See, the argument you make is based on this notion that there are no alternatives. And there are, they just aren't one's that are consistent with why we went to Iraq in the first place. The fact that you people want to pretend that our hands are tied or worse, make lame comments like the one above that pretend we are "disinterested" is so laughable as to defy further comment.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/13/2008 @ 8:48pm

    SR, you obviously do feel the import of the hypocrisy argument or you wouldn't have felt it necessary to offer a substitute "protector" (or what ever you had in mind) in the form of the UN.

    Unfortunately you must know as well as most, including the Iraqis, that yours is a pigs may fly alternative. Thus it still leaves you with a real moral dilemma and perhaps by your deviousness even compounds your hypocrisy.

    (And you still can't get past your obsession with the past. Surely your preoccupation with that is merely an excuse that you think absolves you from considering the likely plight of the Iraqis should the US withdraw or scale down its forces prematurely).

    BTW multi-national forces don't per se make for peace as the UN sanctioned multi-national invasion and present Afghanistan occupation by NATO indicates so that clearly is one of your less well constructed arguments. Perhaps your gullibility excuses your hypocrisy? Is there an ethicist on the forum to give a ruling?

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/15/2008 @ 03:05am

  367. "Right, via the Heritage Foundation from a general who was involved in the surge up to his neck. I'm sure he has NO reason to puff up its accomplishments as much as possible, huh?

    is what a recently retired field general has to say about the same situation:

    You can't even get basic facts right. Odierno hasn't retired, in fact he's been nominated for the post of Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, a position for which he awaits Senate confirmation. No reason to tout himself there, is there?"

    Posted by BRUNOWE 03/15/2008 @ 02:57am

    This really is a very unusual post; best rebutted by challenging you to produce the sources of your dogmatic but unsubstantiated statements on the surge.

    There is a growing acceptance, of the actual data available such as the quantified reduction in attacks on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad for example, by those who have gone to Iraq to check it out and the media specialists (except the most rabid anti-war propagandists) confirming that the "surge" has achieved and is achieving its security goals as well as some progress and continuing progress being made in the political sphere by Iraq's legislature.

    But the political dimension was not the issue but rather the improving security for many Iraqis and yours is merely a red herring introduced by you to muddy the waters and perhaps hope no one notices that you've missed the point. Which of course is the patent hypocrisy of those anti-war proponents who are agitating for the sort of US withdrawal that would very likely precipitate even greater suffering for many innocent Iraqis.

    You may not have noticed but Ordierno has retired from his job in Iraq (no longer a field general). But of more import than semantics is that Ordierno has put this article out in the public domain where it can be examined and controverted. That is best done by showing it is not in accord with the Iraq data and on ground realities.

    That you would not use something like Ordierno's article along with your other sources to come to a considered opinion gives one an insight into how you arrive at your opinions. So until you are prepared to come up with verifiable data that backs your dogmatic statements and show that the military claims and data is false you are probably better not wasting your time and ours with your unacceptable approach to arriving at a valid opinion.

    ("…. Further, it is you people who have unleashed torture, death and displacement on the Iraqis…"

    BTW one can only assume that this statement is referring to history. Showing that you along with SR and most of the war opponents are hiding, from any present responsibility to the Iraqi people, behind your particular viewpoint on the war. That viewpoint is irrelevant to Iraq and its people and what to do in 2008. And is more a measure of your indifference to the fate of the Iraqi people.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 03/15/2008 @ 05:18am

  368. But the political dimension was not the issue but rather the improving security for many Iraqis and yours is merely a red herring introduced by you to muddy the waters and perhaps hope no one notices that you've missed the point.

    Wrong. The political dimension is the main point, or do you think the idea of a political reconciliation in Iraq is unimportant strategically? Further, I linked to the articles I had mentioned that showed the lack of political progress.

    You may not have noticed but Ordierno has retired from his job in Iraq (no longer a field general).

    That is laughable. "Retired" is a word with a meaning that you just can't rewrite. When a military person is retired, it means they are no longer in active services. Odierno has been reassigned to a position that is an effective promotion, if he is confirmed by the Senate.

    BTW one can only assume that this statement is referring to history. Showing that you along with SR and most of the war opponents are hiding, from any present responsibility to the Iraqi people, behind your particular viewpoint on the war. That viewpoint is irrelevant to Iraq and its people and what to do in 2008. And is more a measure of your indifference to the fate of the Iraqi people.

    It is perfectly relevant as it establishes your side's track record of being consistently wrong.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/15/2008 @ 06:59am

  369. red herring introduced by you to muddy the waters.

    duelling metaphors, lame brain.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 09:04am

  370. Posted by HARVEY 79 03/15/2008 @ 03:05am

    The issue about what will happen to Iraqis in the event of an American withdrawl is legitimate. The problem with it, however, is it basically amounts to a "stay the course" argument. No end in sight, and all ostensibly because of our concern for Iraqis - which we both know is bunk and hypocritical.

    So, to address the argument, you have to substitute some kind of peacekeeping elements - whether provided by the Iraqis themselves or by some outside group. I don't think we can say the Iraqis themselves are prepared for the task. So, my argument is that the outside group, doesn't need to be U.S. forces or any forces that are beholden to following U.S. orders.

    And the only recourse you have against an argument like that is to say it isn't feasible. Perhaps this is true (I don't think so), but we'll never find out because the people in command of the U.S. occupation aren't interested in exploring the possibility - just as you aren't. Tell me again what is motivating you here - is it deep concern for Iraqis...or is it something else?

    And you still can't get past your obsession with the past.

    Another lame feeling argument. Will they ever end?

    BTW multi-national forces don't per se make for peace as the UN sanctioned multi-national invasion and present Afghanistan occupation by NATO indicates so that clearly is one of your less well constructed arguments. Perhaps your gullibility excuses your hypocrisy? Is there an ethicist on the forum to give a ruling?

    And you want to pretend that NATO doesn't dance to the U.S.'s tune? Or that securing a country the size of Afghanistan with less than 50,000 troops isn't an exercise in futility? Or that the available forces for Afghanistan size isn't impacted by Iraq?

    To put that in perspective, Iran, alone, has half a million full-time and another half a million reserve troops. And in the U.S., we have over half a million people providing security (we call it police) services here. Perhaps that should give you an idea as to troops levels are required for...how do you people put it? Victory, however defined.

    And, if we are going to "stay the course" with half-assed measures, why not go with the kludge like what NATO has cobbled together - but ask regional powers to contribute?

    See, with all your high and mighty moral talk, you can't get around the fact that an occupation force of this size is insufficient, when you compare to say a place like Japan which was occupied with 2 to 5 times the troop levels we have in Iraq (depending on whether you count contractors or not) and that's an island with no borders to protect. So, the invasion and continuing with the status quo is just as much of a problem as the alternatives that you don't wish to consider.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/15/2008 @ 10:09am

  371. Iraqis will stand up as we stand down; 2004,2005,2006,2007

    The surge is working: 2007,2008

    Violence is down: 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008

    The elected "government" of Iraq is making progress: 2005,2006,2007,2008

    Mission accomplished: 2003

    Iraq ethnically cleansed

    Iran ascendent

    Deaths so many they cannot be counted, but estimates are in the hundreds of thousands

    Billions of US dollars missing

    corruption rampant in Iraq and in US contractors

    War years- 5 and counting. No end in sight. "Mistakes were made" to the tenth power.

    This is "success"?

    With friends like this....

    Who do you neo-cons think will invite us into their country next, to "liberate" them?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:12am

  372. Like Vietnam, this will be debated for decades to come. What will not be open to debate is the fact the Bush has done everything his way. He got EVERYTHING he asked for. The results are hat the Iraqis live with everyday. I am not there (and I note neither are those that think this is THE most important issue facing the world), but I get the impression Iraq is not a HAPPY place to live, and that is the fault of anybody that was for this ill conceived, poorly executed cakewalk.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:18am

  373. when you compare to say a place like Japan which was occupied with 2 to 5 times the troop levels we have in Iraq

    Japan? homogenous population,no civil war, country defeated and bombed to smithereens, a country nearly without men in the aftermath of the war, no natural resources like oil.

    yes that's a great comparison to make for the neo cons.not you SR.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 10:25am

  374. Posted by CRABWALK 03/15/2008 @ 10:18am | ignore this person

    this poorly executed stuff is a blind alley, as much as it is true. the war could have had Julius Caesar AND Napoleon leading it, it still would have turned to shit, because it was based on lies.

    speaking of Napoleon, be sure to read Juan Cole's book.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 10:28am

  375. But Emile, Iraq will be JUST LIKE japan or Germany. POINTIFLOGIC said so, and he is never wrong.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:29am

  376. Japan and Germany's greatest resources have been its people. this is not something that can be said about Iraq.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 10:33am

  377. Who needs FISA type protections from the guvt? We can trust Chimpies minions to do the right thing!!

    By Dan Eggen The Washington Post

    Friday 14 March 2008

    2003-06 audit cites probes of citizens. The FBI has increasingly used administrative orders to obtain the personal records of U.S. citizens rather than foreigners implicated in terrorism or counterintelligence investigations, and at least once it relied on such orders to obtain records that a special intelligence-gathering court had deemed protected by the First Amendment, according to two government audits released yesterday.

    The episode was outlined in a Justice Department report that concluded the FBI had abused its intelligence-gathering privileges by issuing inadequately documented "national security letters" from 2003 to 2006, after which changes were put in place that the report called sound.

    A report a year ago by the Justice Department's inspector general disclosed that abuses involving national security letters had occurred from 2003 through 2005 and helped provoke the changes. But the report makes it clear that the abuses persisted in 2006 and disclosed that 60 percent of the nearly 50,000 security letters issued that year by the FBI targeted Americans.

    Because U.S. citizens enjoy constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, judicial warrants are ordinarily required for government surveillance. But national security letters are approved only by FBI officials and are not subject to judicial approval; they routinely demand certain types of personal data, such as telephone, e-mail and financial records, while barring the recipient from disclosing that the information was requested or supplied.

    According to the findings by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, the FBI tried to work around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees clandestine spying in the United States, after it twice rejected an FBI request in 2006 to obtain certain records. The court had concluded "the 'facts' were too thin" and the "request implicated the target's First Amendment rights," the report said.

    But the FBI went ahead and got the records anyway by using a national security letter. The FBI's general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, told investigators it was appropriate to issue the letters in such cases because she disagreed with the court's conclusions.

    Finger Fighters For Freedoms Forgotten; the neo-cons, an endangered species that should find it's way into the dustbin of history

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:38am

  378. These "personal responsibility" types cannot even keep their own house clean of corruption, because it is business as usual for them.

    By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 14, 2008; Page A01

    The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization's funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.

    For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

    ...Kelner said the NRCC had not met with its outside auditors for nearly five years, describing that as unusual. Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), who previously served as chairman of the NRCC's audit committee, said he had asked to meet with the outside auditing firm, Deloitte & Touche, and that the fake audits were almost perfect forgeries.

    "I sought for several years to meet with the outside auditors," Walden said. "There was always some seemingly legitimate reason why that didn't happen." The scheme began to unravel this year, when Rep. K. Michael Conaway (Tex.), the new head of the audit committee, insisted on meeting the auditors.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:43am

  379. Bush instituted a police state BEFORE 9/11.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 10:49am

  380. If Spitzer/Swallows was "client #9" who were the other 8? Who keeps the Emperors Cub in business?

    Cab drivers? Bus boys?

    no.

    "Captains" of industry and Guvt. our "leaders". Why do we not hear about any other Johns?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:51am

  381. Maybe Chimpy will declare all of Iraq a "Free Speech Zone".

    that should fix it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 10:53am

  382. And even as a citizen, I have no desire to see a total war.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2008 @ 11:47pm

    See, I can't tell if it's lying...or massive cognitive dissonance.

    Again..."tell the generals to take the gloves off"..."find some Patton-style leaders"..."(think Dresden)" ...these are LVLIB's words in discussing what we SHOULD be doing in the "War on Terror".

    Analogies to World War-II which WAS a "total war".

    Yet when called on it says "No,no...I want the Arabs to deal with their own problems".

    So what is it? Does he expect people to buy that he's ol' "Blood 'n Guts/Who Would Jesus Nuke" LVLIB one day...and Mr. "Let Them Handle Their Own Problems/I'm A Reasonable Man" the next?

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2008 @ 11:51am

  383. "Iraq will be JUST LIKE japan or Germany. POINTIFLOGIC said so, and he is never wrong."

    McCain also promotes that analogy + Korea. And Billary have effectively endorsed McC over Obama, so presumably they find validity in these absurd analogies as well.

    Posted by sloper at 03/15/2008 @ 12:04pm

  384. Iraqi police arrested dozens of members of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia on Saturday, hours after two policemen were killed in gunbattles in the southern city of Kut, police said.

    the surge worked. you just wait. the surge "worked" because the neighborhoods in Baghdad have been ethnically cleansed, because they built a wall AND because they started paying huge bribes to the Sunnis.

    the surge didn't work because the divisions in Iraq have been papered over. none of the political goals of the surge have been met. parliament has been dissolved for chrissakes. you watch, the violence will resume. which will be time for another surge. and so, on toward the next 100 years of war in Iraq.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 12:32pm

  385. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/14/2008 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person

    You are too amusing in that anyone who disagree witht he elitest liberal tlaking points must be condmened as a racist. Daily Kos pitiful playbook in effect.

    Posted by CPT at 03/15/2008 @ 12:56pm

  386. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/15/2008 @ 06:59am | ignore this person

    Despite all of your extremely biased views about the war....The FACT is that we are there and are going to be successful....Attacks are down considerably an effect of the surge. FACT. The conditions for poltical progress are better....of course that progress is not online with what we want.

    Such are the issues of political compromise in Arab world....having been there, they compromise in their way, not ours....so get over your leftist ego and accept the ideals for which you liberals claim to be the standerd bearer. Culutral understanding....is not that what you incessently keep telling us "close minded fear mongers" to have lol......

    I love it liberal hypocrisey works against them.....which it often does.

    Posted by CPT at 03/15/2008 @ 1:04pm

  387. who loves the Iraqis more? the ones who believe in war today, tomorrow and forever?

    or those who want to end the war, withdraw US troops and start negotiations?

    who loves the Iraqis more? the ones who lied and used scare tactics to further an invasion to "remove" a despotic leader, at the cost of a destroyed country and 100,000 to 500,000 dead Iraqis?

    or those who counseled patience and a unmilitary approach?

    you tell me.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 1:04pm

  388. Posted by CPT 03/15/2008 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person

    may I suggest you learn to spell the word hypocrisy, you hypocrite.

    you are working from the flawed assumption that war was the only way to address the situation in Iraq.all your reasoning from then on suffers from this flaw.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 1:11pm

  389. Posted by MARKCANYON 03/15/2008 @ 12:37pm

    all the bold type, bad spelling, and incorrect punctuation in the world will not turn this abomination

    (so orwellianly named as "operation iraqi freedom -- yeah, freedom from life)

    into anything beyond the sheer stupidity that it really is.

    this war was never justifiable, nor will it ever be.

    and for you to support it reflects the vileness and greed that have taken over your heart.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/15/2008 @ 1:21pm

  390. So what is it? Does he expect people to buy that he's ol' "Blood 'n Guts/Who Would Jesus Nuke" LVLIB one day...and Mr. "Let Them Handle Their Own Problems/I'm A Reasonable Man" the next?

    Posted by MASK 03/15/2008 @ 11:51am

    which sells more cluster bombs?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/15/2008 @ 1:23pm

  391. urge

    demiurge

    splurge

    surge

    submerge

    purge

    dirge

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/15/2008 @ 1:40pm

  392. .The FACT is that we are there and are going to be successful....Attacks are down considerably an effect of the surge. FACT. The conditions for poltical progress are better....of course that progress is not online with what we want.

    Your first assertion isn't a fact, it's a pipe dream. Your second assertion is also incorrect, the surge is only partly responsible. You can pretend 1) the Sunnis didn't go after jihadis on their own before the surge, 2) Sadr's cease-fire had no effect as often as you like. It doesn't make it a fact. Your third assertion re political progress is also unsubstantiated. You can choose to ignore the veto of the provincial elections bill, the friction between Sunnis and both the U.S. and the Shi'ites, the lack of an oil law and the increasing tension in Kirkuk as often as you like, it won't make them go away.

    so get over your leftist ego and accept the ideals for which you liberals claim to be the standerd bearer. Culutral understanding....is not that what you incessently keep telling us "close minded fear mongers" to have lol......

    Like I'm going to trust your definition of anyone's political culture. First, issues involving the Kurds aren't just a function of the Arab world as the Kurds aren't Arabs. Second, there simply hasn't been any progress. You can rant all you like about it not being the type of progress one would like to see, but you simply haven't given any tangible instances of any sort of political reconciliation.

    Incidentally, your rah-rah attitude re the surge is a lot like neo-cons' premature triumphalism re many developments in Iraq. First, it was the quick fall of Baghdad that somehow vindicated their position; then it was the elections; then it was the capture of Hussein; then it was the killing of Zarqawi. If it weren't for the fact that you guys have neither shame nor a respect for the truth, I would expect such a track record to induce you to crow small for a bit.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/15/2008 @ 1:53pm

  393. Gauge results, not dreams:

    2001: 26

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2001

    2007: 100+

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2007

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2008 @ 2:13pm

  394. "....of course that progress is not online with what we want."-----Posted by CPT 03/15/2008 @ 1:04pm |

    Which translates as "We wanted these benchmarks in 2004-2006...we'll have them in 2014-2016!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/15/2008 @ 4:28pm

  395. Posted by CPT 03/15/2008 @ 12:56pm

    I'll repeat, since you are having a hard time following the discourse.

    Feel free to expound on how Iraq is not a strategic blunder, what specific dividends the "surge" has gained that aren't attributable to other factors and feel free to explain to us what "victory" looks like with U.S. military role, benchmark and timeline. Just a little bit longer doesn't cut it anymore, if it ever did.

    I'll take it you don't have much to say. The KKK rally comment was directed at Mark Canyon - admirer of Hitler. You can't blame me from the freak show that represents "conservativism" on this board. Your comments, while still bad, are positively fantastic compared to the rest of the circus representing your "side".

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/15/2008 @ 5:01pm

  396. Posted by BRUNOWE 03/15/2008 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person

    the crowd roars, and awards the matador both ears and the tail.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/15/2008 @ 6:47pm

  397. Good video. The more graphic images are precisely what needs to be seen, but of course the owners of the boob tube are extremely clear that you will never see them: war is a good business for them, and really bad for the majority of the world, especially if you're an Iraqi, Afghani, Somali, etc., etc. Hopefully this Winter soldier round will change things, it did then, maybe now. Its astounding to me how many did buy into this war, but then again, it shows that the propaganda machine works quite well. Information is the key: education of the people - we keep trying, and thats a good thing. War is hell, always has been, always will be, maybe as a planet we're ready to learn that lesson? America: the adolescent child of Europe who said screw you to its parents - this kid is out of control.

    Posted by tp1111 at 03/15/2008 @ 8:58pm

  398. BTW, after Iraq...

    Bush explains what the next threat will be [youtube.com].

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2008 @ 4:41pm

  399. Get our troops out of South Korea, Germany and Japan first!

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/17/2008 @ 08:15am

  400. Posted by ABELL12CT 03/17/2008 @ 08:15am

    So Iraq is Germany 1949?...or Toyko 1949?...or Seoul 1957?

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 08:54am

  401. Posted by MASK 03/17/2008 @ 08:54am

    So...it's 1949...or 1957??!?

    Posted by Malcontent at 03/17/2008 @ 1:01pm

  402. '69 or '77?

    Posted by Malcontent at 03/17/2008 @ 1:01pm

  403. '89 or...nevermind.

    Posted by Malcontent at 03/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

  404. Posted by MALCONTENT 03/17/2008 @ 1:02pm

    More of the "The War on Terror is JUST LIKE World War-II" silliness.

    Yeah..."just like it"...except that 4 years AFTER Berlin fell, you could safely walk through the streets without a suicide ex-Gestapo guy blowing himself up in a market. And 4 years after Tokyo surrendered, IEDs weren't going off on the road to Osaka and Yokohama. And 4 years after the Korean Conflict, Kim Sung-il wasn't touring Seoul as guest of a friendly Communist government in the South.

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2008 @ 3:23pm

  405. Posted by MASK 03/17/2008 @ 3:23pm

    Never said it was at all the same.

    Just noted it has been 50 years. Is this a perpetual strategy, that doesn't end until we have troops, permanently stationed, in every country?

    Posted by Malcontent at 03/17/2008 @ 5:08pm

  406. 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

    www.votenic.com [votenic.com]

    Results Now Posted Instantly!

    Check Back Weekly For New Polls!

    Posted by votenic at 03/17/2008 @ 9:58pm

  407. Posted by MALCONTENT 03/17/2008 @ 5:08pm

    Thing is....the money's running out. Even the neo-cons know it.

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 09:35am

Peter Rothberg Peter Rothberg

Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
32 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
44 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
27 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
56 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman