Melanie Morgan's OpEd

[Colossus_500]

Liberal journalists: 0, America: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Melanie Morgan
© 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Did you hear that high-pitched screeching noise Wednesday morning?

That was the sound of thousands of liberal journalists shrieking in agony as Democrats on Capitol Hill failed to force surrender terms upon our troops serving in Iraq.

The media were the biggest losers in Wednesday's vote on Iraq. The rest of the country was treated to their true feelings. You saw it on TV, read it in the newspapers, heard it on liberal radio. They were quite simply devastated that their allies in Congress couldn't make their call for "retreat" a reality.

Things are about to get even worse for the defeat-retreat-surrender ranks in the press corps. A plan is afoot that will mobilize a major backlash of American patriots who have had enough of the media's defeatism; the battle will reach a crescendo this September, when Gen. David Petraeus issues his report on the progress of "the surge" in Iraq.

For the past two years, liberal journalists opposed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war against terrorism have done everything they could to beat down the resolve of the American people in an attempt to convince the public that defeat in Iraq was our only hope.

The relentlessly negative and biased reporting has certainly taken its toll. I get e-mail from a number of readers who believe in the mission, but admit that they fear our nation has lost the resolve to win.

Creating a depressed and defeatist attitude among the ranks of pro-troop supporters is exactly what these liberal journalists were aiming to do.

I should know – I've seen these tactics used over and over again by my liberal colleagues in the journalism field during my career in the news industry.

The tactics of journalists haven't changed one iota since they engaged in similar behavior during the Cold War (Reagan was a stupid cowboy who was going to get us all killed, we should just let the Communists do as they please) and the Vietnam War (why should our troops die for someone else's war, we can't win, it's not like the Communists will ever be a direct threat to American security anyway).

Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader sums up my thoughts perfectly:

We are fighting in the right place, at the right time and for the right reasons. Al-Qaida made Iraq the central front in the global war on terror, which is why we must confront them there – not just for the safety and security of the Iraqis but for the American people, too.
The same people are wringing their hands and saying we've lost the war, or are fighting the wrong enemy, or other such lamebrain arguments, are the same people who would have us leave the battleground in defeat. That would leave our enemy – the Islamic jihadists – a new base, the nation of Iraq, from which to organize a sustained campaign of terror against the United States and our allies.

I wish every Democrat and Republican senator who wants to surrender to our Islamic enemies would spend a few days in the trenches with our soldiers, as I have done. That might change a few votes, but I digress.

Not long after the treacherous traitors at MoveOn.org ran television ads calling the mission in Iraq a "quagmire," the national newsweeklies such as Time and Newsweek rushed to follow suit, splashing the word "quagmire" on the front pages of their publications.

And so it is now that we have the media happily defending Sen. Harry Reid and his announcement to the nation that "this war is lost."

This week, however, it was Sen. Reid and his allies in the liberal media who were the big losers.

Helping save the day was 1st Lt. Peter Hegseth, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who leads the organization Vets for Freedom. Lt. Hegseth brought a contingent of Iraq war veterans to Capitol Hill to deliver the message to Congress that despite the media's negativity, the troops remain committed to victory.

These heroic individuals sweated in the blistering sandbox in Iraq, risking their lives and seeing some of their friends lose their lives or limbs, and now they stand here wondering if the American public will lose the nerve to fight this war with victory as the goal.

Sept. 3-15 the pro-troop organization I lead, www.moveamericaforward.org will mobilize tens of thousands of patriotic, pro-troop Americans in a giant caravan across the nation to Washington, D.C., in the "Fight for Victory Tour."

It's by far the largest such effort undertaken in Move America Forward's three-year history, and we need the help and support from every person reading these words.

Six years after Islamic terrorists murdered over 3,000 American citizens, the leaders in Congress will have to decide whether to find the resolve to win this war, or whether we will give up, give in and surrender.

I won't stand for American surrender to the jihadists.

After this week's defeat of the those who called for surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, the scoreboard reads thus: Media: 0, America: 1

But the battle on the home front has not yet been won, and this September we must stand together united, by the thousands, and support our troops and their mission in Iraq.

[Decker]

She is deceiving fool.  I have no patience for those kinds of fools.

Here is why she is such a fool:

President Bush ordered the military to attack Iraq b/c Iraq was not letting WMD inspectors into the country, in violation of UN res. 1441, even though the inspectors had been on the ground for months inspecting any area they chose.

So the US attacked Iraq on illegal, thus immoral, grounds:  A war that should never have happened.

We have no right to be slaughtering Iraqi people.  They didn't attack us.  They were not in league with Al Qaeda.  They were not about to attack an ally of ours.

The War Party is essentially calling for more murder and more destruction.

By what right? 

We don't know b/c tools like Morgan go for the nutsack with their propaganda:  defeatocrats, traitors, surrender etc., instead of discussing facts.

She also cannot tell her ass from a hole in the ground regarding the basic facts:  The battle with so-called "Islamic-jihadists" is really the murder of Iraqi citizens who've had enough of the killing of their people and co-opting of their property:  They fight back and are killed.  Foreign fighters comprise less than 5% of the insurgency.  We can call them Al Qaeda if that makes the War Party happy.

As for predictions, the War Party has been 100% wrong on every single prediction made:  A cakewalk, a weak insurgency, greeted as liberators, roses thrown at the feet of our soldiers, it'll turn the corner as soon as Hussein is caught, when his kids are killed, when the government's installed and there's so much more.

So the putative prediction this feeble Nostradamus makes is that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the US leaves.

Sure.

Only if they can elbow out the Shia Majority between rounds of Civil War with the Sunni minority.

It is such a shame that stupidity like the kind spread around by Ms. Morgan is passed off as informed opinion.

She's not only embarrassing in her intellectual dishonesty, she's a damn poor american.

[headhuntersix]

More to the point..she fucking right. Decker, your drifting more left every day.  . War Party? The Dems have been in power during many of our major wars. Dems were against Civil Rights...dems loved the commies...Libs anyway. Most troops feel that the media and most of America could care less about them.

[Decker]

More to the point..she fucking right. Decker, your drifting more left every day.  . War Party? The Dems have been in power during many of our major wars. Dems were against Civil Rights...dems loved the commies...Libs anyway. Most troops feel that the media and most of America could care less about them.

It is too bad that the troops feel that people could care less about them when the democrats are busting their asses to get them out of Iraq only to have republicans carry on a 30 hour filibuster to kill the debate.

How's that for treating the troops?  The republicans won't even give a goddam up or down vote.

With the terminology "War Party" I am referring to those supporting the Iraq war and that is almost uniformly Republicans.  I'm not referring to the history of Republicans/Democrats with the terminology. 

Morgan's not only wrong in her analysis, she's an insulting piece of shit too.  She really tells it like it ain't.

My challenge is still open.  If anyone can show me how Bush's invasion is not illegal, I will admit it like a man.

Until then, the war supporters are fooling themselves about the propriety of the war.  Morgan and her ilk will do and say anything to support partisan politics--law be damned, loss of life be damned, ignore the incompetence in the administration's handling of the terrorist problem and just cheer-lead and slander/libel your opponents as traitors.

Oh yeah, that's something to be proud of.

[Colossus_500]

She is deceiving fool.  I have no patience for those kinds of fools.

President Bush ordered the military to attack Iraq b/c Iraq was not letting WMD inspectors into the country, in violation of UN res. 1441, even though the inspectors had been on the ground for months inspecting any area they chose.

Are you forgetting that President Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq because Saddam Hussein was pulling the same stunts?  How many times were we going to be "diplomatic" about his nonsense?  Also, if President Clinton were still in command and ordered the attack on Iran, could you admit that you'd be ok with that decision versus President Bush making the same verdict?

[headhuntersix]

Look man, like Vietnam, plenty of guys wanted out of that war but they were also pissed that we left without winning. We, in uniform, want to win. Especially seeing  fucking idiots we're fighting. Sure they can IED us to death, but in a stand up fight they fold like  a house of cards. We lack the political will to win. Based on BS drive by media reports and the Dems and now the Repubs, caving to public opinion, based on those same media reports. It was a good article.

[Colossus_500]

Look man, like Vietnam, plenty of guys wanted out of that war but they were also pissed that we left without winning. We, in uniform, want to win. Especially seeing  fucking idiots we're fighting. Sure they can IED us to death, but in a stand up fight they fold like  a house of cards. We lack the political will to win. Based on BS drive by media reports and the Dems and now the Repubs, caving to public opinion, based on those same media reports. It was a good article.

Good post, HH6.  I liken what's happening in Washington to the football coach who caves in to the fans and decides to go for it on 4th and inches when the offense is at it's own 31 yard-line (in the first half mind you!).  That's what Washington is doing, totally caving in to the public.  The same public that is being hoodwinked by the media. 

[Decker]

::)Are you forgetting that President Clinton ordered air strikes on Iraq because Saddam Hussein was pulling the same stunts?  How many times were we going to be "diplomatic" about his nonsense?  Also, if President Clinton were still in command and ordered the attack on Iran, could you admit that you'd be ok with that decision versus President Bush making the same verdict?

Clinton was not a liberal president.  He was the best conservative president the US has had since Eisenhower.  I didn't support Clinton then b/c he reneged on the deal with Hussein to lift sanctions if inspectors were let back into Iraq.  Blind bombing is horrible policy and sure enough, didn't he take out a pharmaceutical warehouse?

You know, as strange as it sounds, this is not about Bush.  This national script that describes criticism of Bush as the venting of blind, bush hatred is insulting and far too convenient a cover.  If Clinton ordered the invasion of Iraq based on Iraq's noncompliance w/ Res 1441, even though it was complying that would still result in an illegal invasion any way you look at it.

Either we operate according to system of laws or we do not.  There is no middle ground here.

By what right does the US have to invade and occupy Iraq?  You are a thoughtful guy and I would appreciate your response.

 

[Decker]

Look man, like Vietnam, plenty of guys wanted out of that war but they were also pissed that we left without winning. We, in uniform, want to win. Especially seeing  fucking idiots we're fighting. Sure they can IED us to death, but in a stand up fight they fold like  a house of cards. We lack the political will to win. Based on BS drive by media reports and the Dems and now the Repubs, caving to public opinion, based on those same media reports. It was a good article.

I know you want to win.  But win what?

We know you guys are the best fighters in the world.  But there's a time and a place for everything.

The Vietnam war was flawed in design and illegal on so many fronts that it had to end somewhere and odds are it wasn't going to be pretty. 

Essentially the President repeated the mistakes of Viet Nam--propping up a government that the indigenous people just did not want.  Now it's the fault of democrats that this ill-conceived war is going badly?

Times have changed.  The glory of the battlefield harkening back to WWII ended the day we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The game changed.

Guerrilla wars and the nuclear threat are what its all about now.

You want to win right?  You do realize that the military is destroying a people that did nothing to us?  Most of them view their acts as self defense.

Answer me these questions please.

At what point do we achieve victory?

By what right does the US have to continue fighting in Iraq to achieve that victory?

[Colossus_500]

Clinton was not a liberal president.  He was the best conservative president the US has had since Eisenhower.  I didn't support Clinton then b/c he reneged on the deal with Hussein to lift sanctions if inspectors were let back into Iraq.  Blind bombing is horrible policy and sure enough, didn't he take out a pharmaceutical warehouse?

You know, as strange as it sounds, this is not about Bush.  This national script that describes criticism of Bush as the venting of blind, bush hatred is insulting and far too convenient a cover.  If Clinton ordered the invasion of Iraq based on Iraq's noncompliance w/ Res 1441, even though it was complying that would still result in an illegal invasion any way you look at it.

Either we operate according to system of laws or we do not.  There is no middle ground here.

By what right does the US have to invade and occupy Iraq?  You are a thoughtful guy and I would appreciate your response.

 

I'm glad to hear you say that, Decker.  And you're right, this shouldn't be about President Bush.  

I think you are right that there is no middle ground, but I do believe that we were right to take action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, because he clearly was doing just enough to stay under the radar.  The UN was going to do NOTHING, and ultimately proved to be impotent because of its corruption within.  Grant me that much, please (the UN is beyond corrupt).  Who's to say where we would be should we have continued to allow Saddam Hussein to be in power to this day?  I dare say that we are privy to much more information that we were before he was overpowered.  

We're not trying to occupy Iraq.  I don't know of any documentation that backs that notion either.  I never heard our president say that we wanted to "occupy" Iraq.  It appears as such because the Iraqi's clearly do not want to govern themselves.  And regardless of how we got there, you would agree that Presidents Clinton, Eisenhower, Truman, Rooselvelt (Teddy or Franklin), or Reagan would bow out of this situation and leave it as is right now, yes?  

[Decker]

Have a great night fellas.  I gotta go home.

[headhuntersix]

Here's another issue....Ur an American dammit...these people, who we are fighting, want to kill your countrymen. They have killed your countrymen over here and abroad. Don't allow your party to hijack the war for political gain. Mine already has, in the name of continued power. If they hated Bush less, maybe we could win this thing and get home.

[Colossus_500]

Have a great night fellas.  I gotta go home.

Have a good one, bro.

[Decker]

I'm glad to hear you say that, Decker.  And you're right, this shouldn't be about President Bush.  

I think you are right that there is no middle ground, but I do believe that we were right to take action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, because he clearly was doing just enough to stay under the radar.  The UN was going to do NOTHING, and ultimately proved to be impotent because of its corruption within.  Grant me that much, please (the UN is beyond corrupt).  Who's to say where we would be should we have continued to allow Saddam Hussein to be in power to this day?  I dare say that we are privy to much more information that we were before he was overpowered.  

We're not trying to occupy Iraq.  I don't know of any documentation that backs that notion either.  I never heard our president say that we wanted to "occupy" Iraq.  It appears as such because the Iraqi's clearly do not want to govern themselves.  And regardless of how we got there, you would agree that Presidents Clinton, Eisenhower, Truman, Rooselvelt (Teddy or Franklin), or Reagan would bow out of this situation and leave it as is right now, yes?  

As a matter of law, Iraq was a soveriegn nation subject to the demands of UN resolutions after the first Gulf War.  We may not like the slow turn of the wheels of Justice, but the US had no damn right to attack Iraq.  If Saddam were in power to this day, I predict that there would be no civil war in Iraq, no Al Qaeda in Iraq and no Iranian Shia assistance of Iraqi freedom fighters/insurgents.  Also, the US would have 700 billion back in its treasury, 3000 soldiers would still be alive, and 100,000 iraqis would still be breathing air today.

You make an interesting point that past presidents would continue the battle in IRaq b/c the US troops are there and we are fighting enemies on a daily basis.  I suppose it is possible that another president would continue the war on that rationale. 

But I have problems with that.

The people we're fighting in Iraq are mostly Iraqis.  The Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11.  Yet we continue to fight b/c we are told that Iraq is now the central front for battling Al Qaeda and leaving Iraq would leave Al Qaeda either in charge of Iraq or with a safe haven. 

The entire war fiasco from beginning to this point has been so horribly mismanaged by the Bush administration that we are left with this as the best rationale du jour for staying Iraq.  I think that that conclusion does not follow from the premises and is just another propagandistic ploy to scare the american people into supporting the continuance of our failing IRaqi policy.

Other considerations in this problem include:  The US invasion put the Shia in charge of Iraq.  Iran is Shia.  Didn't we think the two might meet up some time you know, being neighbors and all.

Not only that but the Iraqi people and government don't want us there anymore.

I think the US has done enough and should let these people sort out the mess we've made.

[Decker]

Here's another issue....Ur an American dammit...these people, who we are fighting, want to kill your countrymen. They have killed your countrymen over here and abroad. Don't allow your party to hijack the war for political gain. Mine already has, in the name of continued power. If they hated Bush less, maybe we could win this thing and get home.

My patriotism is measured by my fidelity to the US Constitution.  Not to any person or party.   

What is victory for you in Iraq?

Outside of annihilating the country, I don't see many options for us.  They can outwait us b/c it's their country.  I have laid out reason after reason why the invasion was a horrible idea from the beginning and why our continued use of force there is not justified yet you still bring up this nonsensical "Bush hatred."

You are damn right I hate Bush.  I hate what he has done to this country.  He has marginalized the operation of our Constitutional form of government.  He has mismanaged this country and corrupted our foreign policy.  He is losing the war on terror.  Al Qaeda is not destroyed, our borders are wide open, Osama Bin Laden is at large, and Baghdad is still unsecured.

How many chances do you give a loser?

[rockyfortune]

Look man, like Vietnam, plenty of guys wanted out of that war but they were also pissed that we left without winning. We, in uniform, want to win. Especially seeing  fucking idiots we're fighting. Sure they can IED us to death, but in a stand up fight they fold like  a house of cards. We lack the political will to win. Based on BS drive by media reports and the Dems and now the Repubs, caving to public opinion, based on those same media reports. It was a good article.

Read your history HH6...We were in Vietnam for 15 years and we couldn't win that war...and i have two uncles and a father in law who were in Vietnam and none of them were complaining that they got the f**k out of dodge...

[rockyfortune]

Liberal journalists: 0, America: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 20, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Melanie Morgan
© 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Did you hear that high-pitched screeching noise Wednesday morning?

That was the sound of thousands of liberal journalists shrieking in agony as Democrats on Capitol Hill failed to force surrender terms upon our troops serving in Iraq.

The media were the biggest losers in Wednesday's vote on Iraq. The rest of the country was treated to their true feelings. You saw it on TV, read it in the newspapers, heard it on liberal radio. They were quite simply devastated that their allies in Congress couldn't make their call for "retreat" a reality.

Things are about to get even worse for the defeat-retreat-surrender ranks in the press corps. A plan is afoot that will mobilize a major backlash of American patriots who have had enough of the media's defeatism; the battle will reach a crescendo this September, when Gen. David Petraeus issues his report on the progress of "the surge" in Iraq.

For the past two years, liberal journalists opposed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war against terrorism have done everything they could to beat down the resolve of the American people in an attempt to convince the public that defeat in Iraq was our only hope.

The relentlessly negative and biased reporting has certainly taken its toll. I get e-mail from a number of readers who believe in the mission, but admit that they fear our nation has lost the resolve to win.

Creating a depressed and defeatist attitude among the ranks of pro-troop supporters is exactly what these liberal journalists were aiming to do.

I should know – I've seen these tactics used over and over again by my liberal colleagues in the journalism field during my career in the news industry.

The tactics of journalists haven't changed one iota since they engaged in similar behavior during the Cold War (Reagan was a stupid cowboy who was going to get us all killed, we should just let the Communists do as they please) and the Vietnam War (why should our troops die for someone else's war, we can't win, it's not like the Communists will ever be a direct threat to American security anyway).

Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader sums up my thoughts perfectly:

We are fighting in the right place, at the right time and for the right reasons. Al-Qaida made Iraq the central front in the global war on terror, which is why we must confront them there – not just for the safety and security of the Iraqis but for the American people, too.
The same people are wringing their hands and saying we've lost the war, or are fighting the wrong enemy, or other such lamebrain arguments, are the same people who would have us leave the battleground in defeat. That would leave our enemy – the Islamic jihadists – a new base, the nation of Iraq, from which to organize a sustained campaign of terror against the United States and our allies.

I wish every Democrat and Republican senator who wants to surrender to our Islamic enemies would spend a few days in the trenches with our soldiers, as I have done. That might change a few votes, but I digress.

Not long after the treacherous traitors at MoveOn.org ran television ads calling the mission in Iraq a "quagmire," the national newsweeklies such as Time and Newsweek rushed to follow suit, splashing the word "quagmire" on the front pages of their publications.

And so it is now that we have the media happily defending Sen. Harry Reid and his announcement to the nation that "this war is lost."

This week, however, it was Sen. Reid and his allies in the liberal media who were the big losers.

Helping save the day was 1st Lt. Peter Hegseth, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who leads the organization Vets for Freedom. Lt. Hegseth brought a contingent of Iraq war veterans to Capitol Hill to deliver the message to Congress that despite the media's negativity, the troops remain committed to victory.

These heroic individuals sweated in the blistering sandbox in Iraq, risking their lives and seeing some of their friends lose their lives or limbs, and now they stand here wondering if the American public will lose the nerve to fight this war with victory as the goal.

Sept. 3-15 the pro-troop organization I lead, www.moveamericaforward.org will mobilize tens of thousands of patriotic, pro-troop Americans in a giant caravan across the nation to Washington, D.C., in the "Fight for Victory Tour."

It's by far the largest such effort undertaken in Move America Forward's three-year history, and we need the help and support from every person reading these words.

Six years after Islamic terrorists murdered over 3,000 American citizens, the leaders in Congress will have to decide whether to find the resolve to win this war, or whether we will give up, give in and surrender.

I won't stand for American surrender to the jihadists.

After this week's defeat of the those who called for surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, the scoreboard reads thus: Media: 0, America: 1

But the battle on the home front has not yet been won, and this September we must stand together united, by the thousands, and support our troops and their mission in Iraq.

I wonder how many tours in Iraq/Afhanistan Melanie Moore has done...or by her family.

[headhuntersix]

Read your history HH6...We were in Vietnam for 15 years and we couldn't win that war...and i have two uncles and a father in law who were in Vietnam and none of them were complaining that they got the f**k out of dodge...

My dad and Uncle both fought there. My dad did two tours. He was pretty bitter about the support at home and the hap hazard way we fought, not really trying to win. I have read a ton on the war, so if youra draftee , maybe you just wanted to make it home.. Those who were members of the professional army, those who stayed after the war, were pretty bitter about what they were left with. I work with tons of Vietnam vets here. They all feel the same. they don't want to loose this one like we lost Nam. I've been twice, I don't want to loose. As far has her going, neither have most of the Dems, andf by their record, they could care less about the militray or the war. How many republican/conservative blogs call American soldiers terrorists/physcopaths or murders. Um NONE!

[Decker]

My dad and Uncle both fought there. My dad did two tours. He was pretty bitter about the support at home and the hap hazard way we fought, not really trying to win. I have read a ton on the war, so if youra draftee , maybe you just wanted to make it home.. Those who were members of the professional army, those who stayed after the war, were pretty bitter about what they were left with. I work with tons of Vietnam vets here. They all feel the same. they don't want to loose this one like we lost Nam. I've been twice, I don't want to loose. As far has her going, neither have most of the Dems, andf by their record, they could care less about the militray or the war. How many republican/conservative blogs call American soldiers terrorists/physcopaths or murders. Um NONE!

It is very easy to throw one's support unquestioningly behind one's political party.  That's the republicans' support in a nutshell. 

I'm not sold on their brand of support for the troops.  Anyone remotely raising a critical point of the administration's execution of this war is branded a traitor not supporting the troops.  They go with the flow unquestioningly.

The people wanting to end this war b/c of its many failings do care about the troops.  We want the troops home--not dying for Bush's mistake.  We open ourselves to accusations of aiding the enemy or being traitors by our less-than-ethical opponents.  It might be bullshit, but accusations have a nasty habit of sticking.

Here's an interesting excerpt from an article written about the president, history and Iraq:

"Still, it is hard for me to believe that anyone who knew anything about Vietnam, or for that matter the Algerian war, which directly followed Indochina for the French, couldn't see that going into Iraq was, in effect, punching our fist into the largest hornet's nest in the world. As in Vietnam, our military superiority is neutralized by political vulnerabilities. The borders are wide open. We operate quite predictably on marginal military intelligence. The adversary knows exactly where we are at all times, as we do not know where he is. Their weaponry fits an asymmetrical war, and they have the capacity to blend into the daily flow of Iraqi life, as we cannot. Our allies—the good Iraqi people the president likes to talk about—appear to be more and more ambivalent about the idea of a Christian, Caucasian liberation, and they do not seem to share many of our geopolitical goals."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/08/halberstam200708?printable=true&currentPage=all

Please try to read the whole thing, it's pretty good.

[rockyfortune]

My dad and Uncle both fought there. My dad did two tours. He was pretty bitter about the support at home and the hap hazard way we fought, not really trying to win. I have read a ton on the war, so if youra draftee , maybe you just wanted to make it home.. Those who were members of the professional army, those who stayed after the war, were pretty bitter about what they were left with. I work with tons of Vietnam vets here. They all feel the same. they don't want to loose this one like we lost Nam. I've been twice, I don't want to loose. As far has her going, neither have most of the Dems, andf by their record, they could care less about the militray or the war. How many republican/conservative blogs call American soldiers terrorists/physcopaths or murders. Um NONE!

so you read a lot on the war...do you realize that a republican led the country through much of that fiasco?  do you realize that a republican is leading this country into another fiasco?  you talk about how it's the dems fault this war is going south and that they don't support the troops..yet it was the republican administration of this president that dismissed the well informed opinions of generals wesley clark, anthony zinni and eric shinseki...i'm tired of hearing it's the dems fault, and it's the liberal media's faults..how about placing blame on the enablers that went into a war underfunded, undermanned, and completely overmatched when it came to fighting the guerrilla war it became.  how do you blame the liberal media, and the democrats for those mistakes? who is to blame for the course of this mess?

[Colossus_500]

As a matter of law, Iraq was a soveriegn nation subject to the demands of UN resolutions after the first Gulf War.  We may not like the slow turn of the wheels of Justice, but the US had no damn right to attack Iraq.  If Saddam were in power to this day, I predict that there would be no civil war in Iraq, no Al Qaeda in Iraq and no Iranian Shia assistance of Iraqi freedom fighters/insurgents.  Also, the US would have 700 billion back in its treasury, 3000 soldiers would still be alive, and 100,000 iraqis would still be breathing air today.

You make an interesting point that past presidents would continue the battle in IRaq b/c the US troops are there and we are fighting enemies on a daily basis.  I suppose it is possible that another president would continue the war on that rationale. 

But I have problems with that.

The people we're fighting in Iraq are mostly Iraqis.  The Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11.  Yet we continue to fight b/c we are told that Iraq is now the central front for battling Al Qaeda and leaving Iraq would leave Al Qaeda either in charge of Iraq or with a safe haven. 

The entire war fiasco from beginning to this point has been so horribly mismanaged by the Bush administration that we are left with this as the best rationale du jour for staying Iraq.  I think that that conclusion does not follow from the premises and is just another propagandistic ploy to scare the american people into supporting the continuance of our failing IRaqi policy.

Other considerations in this problem include:  The US invasion put the Shia in charge of Iraq.  Iran is Shia.  Didn't we think the two might meet up some time you know, being neighbors and all.

Not only that but the Iraqi people and government don't want us there anymore.

I think the US has done enough and should let these people sort out the mess we've made.

I can respect your viewpoint, bro. 

However, there's one clear point as to why we can leave, and you hit on it (in bold red).  Instead of saying "we're told" that Iraq is a breeding ground for Al Quaeda, wayward Saudi's, Iranians, and other groups sympathetic to the Muslim movement, let's admit that this is fact and not speculation.

[Decker]

I can respect your viewpoint, bro. 

However, there's one clear point as to why we can leave, and you hit on it (in bold red).  Instead of saying "we're told" that Iraq is a breeding ground for Al Quaeda, wayward Saudi's, Iranians, and other groups sympathetic to the Muslim movement, let's admit that this is fact and not speculation.

Thanks, it is mutual.  I believe that our battle is with Al Qaeda and not with Muslims.  Narrowing the scope makes success much more likely.

I will admit that anyone analyzing this attack before hand would concede the following points:

1.  overthrowing Hussein's government would result in a de facto shia run government.

2.  Iran is Shia and elimination of the buffer zone created by Hussein's Iraq leaves Iraq prone to the whims of its (much more dangerous) neighbor.

The above statements are pretty much true.

The 'terrorists' we are attacking in Iraq are largely the iraqi people and not Al Qaeda.  Although Al Qaeda is going to Iraq to take potshots at our troops, it is not to be identified with the insurgents.  Al Qaeda is a decentralized enemy which is why police work is better suited to the problem than military attacks.

Iran is a much more striking problem than IRaq ever was or could be.  An ongoing military confrontation in Iraq is bound to draw Iran into the fray at some point in time.

That would be a huge error.

I am of the opinion that:

1.  battling terrorism is a police problem

2.  withdrawal from Iraq will, thanks to the president, result in a Shia Iraq with sympathies to Iran

3.  Iraq will settle down after US withdrawal

4.  Diplomacy and sabre rattling are our best current options in dealing with Iraq/Iran

That's my opinion

[headhuntersix]

Diplomacy does not work when dealing with ideologies who regard action as strength and diplomacy as weakness. Further, those bent on dying because of a religious creed are not going to listen to reason. These people are not commies willing to compromise to stay in power. They could care less about life, standard of living or anything that the West could recognize as normal. Battling terrorism takes the combined efforts of our entire government. We are better positioned in the military to wipe out AQ because we have less legal entanglements. Calling them a law enforcement problem, marginalizies the enormity of the threat. Our law enforcment agencies don't have the logistical and manpower requirements to do it all.

[Decker]

Diplomacy does not work when dealing with ideologies who regard action as strength and diplomacy as weakness. Further, those bent on dying because of a religious creed are not going to listen to reason. These people are not commies willing to compromise to stay in power. They could care less about life, standard of living or anything that the West could recognize as normal. Battling terrorism takes the combined efforts of our entire government. We are better positioned in the military to wipe out AQ because we have less legal entanglements. Calling them a law enforcement problem, marginalizies the enormity of the threat. Our law enforcment agencies don't have the logistical and manpower requirements to do it all.

Respectfully I disagree with your conclusions.  I think my conclusions are more accurate for reasons stated.  Including the fact that diplomacy worked with Iraq--No WMDs.  Diplomacy flatout works.  It's not 100% but its better than shoot first and ask questions later.  War is the last resort.  Not a first option.  Besides, we don't negotiate with terrorists.  We negotiate with countries.  I hate to see us meld Al Qaeda into Iraq or Iran.

I am starting to change my way of thinking though.  I still believe that battling crooks using terrorist tactics is a police problem.  The military could be used for special circumstances but excursions such as the Iraq invasion are counterproductive b/c they swell the ranks of our enemies and weaken us politically and fiscally.  Al Qaeda is a decentralized association w/ no geographic/state identity. They can outwait us in any foreign country while pecking away at our men with IEDs.

On an unrelated matter, I still can't figure out why Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis's request for more troops at Tora Bora was turned down by Centcom.  By the Gen.'s account, he had Bin Laden cornered.  By this guy's account as well.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I mean if I were looking at this whole problem with fresh eyes I'd see this:

9/11 Al Qaeda attacks US
US attacks Afghanistan and has Al Qaeda leader cornered but he escapes b/c Command w/holds troops
US attacks Iraq which had zero ties to the 9/11 attacks
The invasion is done on the cheap with chaos and failure resulting which lasts years
And after over 4 years of fighting the US military machine cannot even secure 1/2 of Baghdad.

There are some serious issues here.

[headhuntersix]

Your looking to short sighted as far as diplomacy...historically speaking its got a poor track record, especially with the nutbags we are currently facing. I guess a glaring one would be WW2. I can't debate this entirely but i would u invite u to read to LTC Ralp Peter's new book Blood and Faith. He is in no way a Bush ball washer so its as fair as possible. I got an advanced copy because I'm an immensly powerful person and I snagged the Generals' copy. 

http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Blood-Faith-Conflicts-Century/dp/081170274X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3765283-7333634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184015414&sr=8-1