Quagmire

Yes, the “Q” word again. But there’s just no denying it. When you can’t get out no matter how hard you try, you’re in a quagmire.

Facing an intensifying insurgency and a frail government in Baghdad, the Bush administration has reluctantly changed course to deepen its involvement in the process of running Iraq.

U.S. officials are taking a more central and visible role in mediating among political factions, pushing for the government to be more inclusive and helping resuscitate public services. At the same time, Washington is maintaining pressure on Iraqi officials to upgrade the nationโ€™s fledgling security forces.

The change comes at a time when confidence in the leaders elected in January has been falling and U.S. officials have grown more pessimistic about how soon Iraqi security forces will be able to take charge of the counterinsurgency effort.

Both before and after the election, the Bush administration tried to scale back its role and shift decisions to the Iraqi leadership. U.S. officials had feared that a continued high profile might prove counterproductive, giving the impression that Iraqi government leaders were not acting independently.

But in recent weeks, as formation of the new government inched along and the insurgency escalated, some Iraqi officials began telling the Americans that they needed more support and mediation to overcome differences among factions, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

No way out, not for years and years, if ever. We wanted war, we got it. We taunted the insurgents to bring ’em on, and they did. The never-ending war, sapping our money and our strength, while accomplishing very little. It’s nice that Saddam’s gone and all, but was he so terrible that we would pay any price in terms of dollars and American bodies to oust him? An old man with no weapons and a lot of hot air. What have we done?

The Discussion: 54 Comments

something that really irritates me about people in the States who campaigned during the election on the “get out soon” platform is that it’s just irresponsible. It was totally irresponsible in to go to war in the first place, in my opinion – quoting Bush’s dad – who said that they never pursued a regime change in Iraq in during the Desert Storm because it would have taken(and, having done it, will take) years and years to produce a stable government.

but we’re in it now, and we’ve got to stick to our guns and help the Iraqi’s produce a stable democracy. Otherwise we’re doubly irresponsible.

I’m so irritated at bush for using my tax dollars for this, and I’m irritated that the democrats were so flippant about exiting. It makes me want to vote for independents.

May 20, 2005 @ 2:01 pm | Comment

And furthermore! (sorry i”m on a rant now) I’m even more irritated at Bush, the neo-con “I’m-a-conservative-in-the-sense-that-I-want-to-cut-programs-as-long-as-they-are-domestic-and-help-the-poor, but-not-conservative-in-the-sense-that-I’ve-spent-more-money-than-most-liberals, but-on-some-other-country” who is funding my country’s deficit spending by allowing the Chinese to buy up our dollars by the billions!!! Way to go. Link our economy to theirs. That’s triply irresponsible.

Argh.

May 20, 2005 @ 2:07 pm | Comment

There’s absolutely no way out. No matter what we do, America is fucked. All for a sadistic old man who was in the twilight of his power, all for an inane notion that we could fight a near-bloodless war and be greeted with flowers and chocolates.

May 20, 2005 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

Hello Richard, I just posted a message for Joseph Bosco on The OJ Simpson Thread you have here on “The Peking Duck.
——————————————————————

Mario, forgive me but I need to delete the rest of this comment, as much as it pains me to do so. As you know, Joseph is a good friend of mine and I can’t allow him to be insulted on my blog. You can take it to his blog or to email, or you can tone the language down. But please, I have to maintain standards of civility (except when dealing with Republicans). I have always respected your opinion and appreciated your comments, so please understand my position. I have left your new comment in the OJ thread intact. Thanks Mario.

May 20, 2005 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

What did you expect from liars?

Let Bush try to lie his way out of this Q.

Does anyone have any convincing ideas for getting out? Like the Nixon Administration’s phony line on the Vietnam War “we won so we are leaving.”

Maybe ” we made a mistake on WMD, sorry to bother you, we will leave so you can go back to your tribal ways.”

Or, “God told me to get rid of Saddam, and I have, so we get to go home, job well done.”

On a more serious vain, how will Saddam be able to be tried? In an underground bunker with the judges and all staff and witnesses sequestered to prevent their assassinations? If Saddam is to be charged with crimes against humanity, why shouldn’t BushCo. also be charged with the same as tens of thousands of innocents have been killed in Iraq because this illegal, so-called preemptive war?

Now any trial of Saddam on crimes against humanity will certainly not have the appearance of rendering justice or rendering true justice, but only will appear to be the “victors” need for a war trophy. I think all that Saddam can realistically be tried for is as a common criminal for murder and other crimes against the Iraqi state.

May 20, 2005 @ 5:12 pm | Comment

Laowai:
I have agreed with many of your points, but “stick to our GUNS (was that a pun) and help the Iraqi’s produce a stable democracy,” IMO is plane wrong. This war is breaking America financially and making us more vulerable to those that do not like our power mongering. It would be getting people killed and injured for no purpose other than to kill and injure and be killed and injured. A vicious cycle. We started it, we must end it in my judgment and get out.

May 20, 2005 @ 5:27 pm | Comment

You raise some interesting points, Pete. Pot, kettle and all that. There’s no question Saddam was malignant, a sadist and a mass murderer. But for better or worse, fair or not, we don’t look much better in the eyes of the world (and no, I didn’t say that we are no better). And it’s all the fault of that damned librul media.

May 20, 2005 @ 5:29 pm | Comment

Hi Pete,

Yes I very much agree that it is breaking us financially. I think basically the “we” that support the Iraqi government should be the EU and the U.S.

Too bad diplomacy failed.

I think this is a lesson to leaders who want to build states: If you want to build new nation states or reform old ones, it’s not too cost effective to invade them. See what I said about GHW Bush above.

I’m not really sure what to do, but I don’t have to worry about it as much as some people, since I have no power over the situation. I basically think, though, that to leave would be condemning the Iraqis to a greater hell than they know right now. Although you know what? ultimately it’s up to the American public (and I should add that really I think the Iraqis should have a vote too as to whether they want us to stay – I think it would be a resounding “yes” despite the protests, but correct me if I’m wrong) to decide. At the moment, Bush made it a moral war and despite me not agreeing with his argument for war, I think we have a moral obligation to try to get the damn thing going right, to save future lives. You break it, you buy it. You fuck it up, you fix it.

But as I said, I’m not in power, so I haven’t thought it through too much. maybe there is an exit strategy that would satisfy my thirst for seeing the situation there stabilise soon without the U.S.

May 20, 2005 @ 6:31 pm | Comment

Tragically, I have to agree with you Laowai. There is no way out. We are trapped, and many more young Americans are going to die and lots of the working poor will be fucked because money that could have helped them get healthcare and other services that all other developed countries provide will need to be siphoned off to pay for Bush’s Folly. Oh, what a glorious mess.

May 20, 2005 @ 6:56 pm | Comment

Here’s a quote by Winston Churchill on War:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War offices, weak, incompetent or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations–all take their seat at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.

May 20, 2005 @ 7:24 pm | Comment

I don’t know what to do either. But I do not think America can go on and on in Iraq this way. Too many deaths and injured, too much cost. I do agree that America would seem morally bankrupt if we just suddenly pulled out leaving the Iraqis to kill each other and not fix what we have destroyed. But hell, we are morally bankrupt as a Nation for invading Iraq in the first place. If feel for the Iraqis the US has murdered, maimed and disrupted and those others who will suffer that fate as this play continues its run of ignominy. To allow the status quo to continue is not moral or good for America.

I am thinking this through as I write. If it can be agreed that Iraq is a disaster for the US and will continue to be and could grow into a situation where our economy will implode and BushCo cannot get Iraq resolve, could enough GOP House and Senate members revolt against Bush/Cheney to demand they step down or be impeached? The reason I ask this superficially unrealistic question is that the present Administration no doubt is “hated” in Iraq, certainly by the Sunnis and the foreign jihadists and probably most Middle East Muslims and the Arabs. BushCo. has no dialogue with those opponents. They do not want to make deals with Bush the Invader. I think we all know if a person loses their credibility, others won’t deal with that person. Bush, because of his incompetence has lost his credibility internationally. He cannot work directly with countries like Iran and N. Korea because he is disliked as a bully. He has to use proxies such as the EU with Iran and China with N. Korea and that does not seem to be working either.

What I am saying is if he can’t cut the mustard he needs to be replaced, but replaced with someone who doesn’t carry this Administration’s baggage.

The proof reader in me is not so good; I apologize for all my errors. It is plain not “plane” above.

May 20, 2005 @ 7:29 pm | Comment

Pete;
If you go to freekorea.blogspot.com you will read an interesting interview of North Korean defectors.
Also, I am confused…Bush has been critized for going it alone in Iraq. But when he is part of a “coalition” in dealing with North Korea, he is also lambasted for that approach.
Why?
Also, if you read The Asia Times and Time Magazines’ Asia edtion, there are more points of view of North Korea etc. Also, Foreign Affairs Magazine weighs in on the issue of Bush/North Korea.

May 20, 2005 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

I would highly recommend this read.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html

May 20, 2005 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

yawn. I disagree entirely. There’s no need to talk about withdrawing at this stage, there’s no crisis, and frankly on of the main culprits for encouraging the troubles that ARE occurring are those who continually and loudly predict gloom and doom. Didn’t like the war, so are going to be negative about it, come what may. Frankly, the only thing encouraging the insurgents is the fact that they believe that America lacks the willpower to stay the course, and the only people leading them to believe such things are the people writing this kind of stuff. If people believe violence will have the result they desire, they’ll use it. If they conclude that it won’t, they’ll abandon it, and try other means.

May 20, 2005 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

RHM
IMO Bush and America are disliked and he is getting stonewalled by NK. Why give in to an immature, insincere bully when they can wait him out or get what NK really wants while Bush feels the pressure from stagnation? And tweek his nose at the same time. Kim is probably the worst of the lot in the world today, but will the US start another war? Who would join his coalition? No one else is being threaten directly.

May 21, 2005 @ 12:29 am | Comment

Stinky,

ah, the old “dissent is aiding the enemy” argument. You really would love living in China where you don’t have to worry about pesky things like freedom and dissent. However, unless I’m mistaken, in a democracy wars should be started and waged with the consent of another pesky thing called the “people.” And if the people decide at some point that the government is just massively fucking up, lying through its teeth, and endagering the nation, then the people have a duty to protest the idiocy of their government.

I agree with you in one respect: if you want a system that is the most effective when it comes to winning wars, democracy isn’t for you. Just like if you want a system with as little crime as possible, democracy isn’t for you. Try dictatorship or a police state, respectively — those will work out better for you.

May 21, 2005 @ 12:46 am | Comment

9
Nice shot at us bleeding heart libruls. With people like you with your put down comments it is no wonder those peoples who distrust the US will not belly up to the bar with the US as they suspect that what honorable, reasonable negotiations it would produce will be undercut by the idiot forces in the States that seem to think force and power are the only currency that behooves Amerika. Something like Bush’s stupid claims about Yalta, altho made on a contemporary basis.

You can yawn all you want, but the Palestinians took a long time to back off striking at Israel in the face of overwhelming military force and community devastation (even now it is not completely finished) to try to rid the Israeli invaders from their homeland. It took Yasar’s death to change the dynamics there.

Why do you think our use of our rights to free speech is the cause of the prolonged insurgence in Iraq? It isn’t. The cause and motivation of that insurgency is the presence of the foreign US and coalition soldiers. Of course, underlying that is to gain power for the Sunnis and just plain kill foreigners for the foreign jihadists, but also to rid Iraq of our presence and regain control over their sovereign nation and their most valuable asset, the oil. I have no doubt they want to see the US leave like a whipped dog with its tail bent under under its belly and the US leaders and command appearing as the criminals they are.

RHM
Got to Freekorea inspite of being in China. Pathetic information. Kim is the worst of the dictators today. He needs to be removed, but by his brothers and sisters in the South, not US.

May 21, 2005 @ 1:39 am | Comment

Gordon,

I have to say, I find that post really unconstructive. Unfortunately, he spends a lot of time discrediting people who might have different opinions. While that’s fine, and his right to do so, it isn’t particularly conducive towards reconciling rifts.

I found his most compelling argument to be the following:
1. Democrats are unused to war and violence (some are, some aren’t, actually, but let’s continue with his line)
2. War is awful and requires awful actions.
3. If Democrats saw the extent of the brutality they would act in the same way and have the same opinion as I do. (I think he used the imagery of raping babies….)

I think lot’s of people would respond the way he wants them to. There are people who wouldn’t though – mostly passificistic by religion. The point is that in a democracy we need to deal with people of differing opinions…

And on another note – I get the “violation of sanctuary” bit, but why does that then mean that they can’t still be treated as a POW?

This is why I think being a superpower has really messed up the U.S. population. Because we have so much power that we turn on ourselves on the best way to use it.

May 21, 2005 @ 7:10 am | Comment

Saddam in his underwear.
It appears that R. Murdock’s 2 papers, the Sun in London and the Post in NY, are the only ones so far showing Saddam photos.

If find it suspicious that this nonsense is published a day or two after the Army’s report on the US’s torture, abuse and murder of prisoners in Afganistan. A great way to change the subject.

Follow the logic. Murdock is a right wing power broker. I think I have read he is thick with the retro Repugs and the neocons. How does it happen his papers get the photos that only could have been taken in the place of custody. The photo of Saddam in his underdrawers seemed as if he was unaware of being photographed. That suggest to me that the prison authorities were taking the photos. The implication is that US officials released them. This is speculation on my part, but with all the lying, dirty tricks, fraud and criminal behavior of BushCo it might not be too preposterous. Of course, leaking secrets is a BushCo weapon of choice.

May 21, 2005 @ 8:46 am | Comment

Murdoch is the proud owner of Faux News. How dare you accuse him of bias and dirty tricks?

May 21, 2005 @ 10:23 am | Comment

Laowai,

(in short) Having been a soldier myself I can tell you that the term P.O.W. implies a status that does not deserve to be given to cowards that do not wear uniforms.

P.O.W. status is reserved strictly for soldiers. Period.

Cowards trying to kill people who would otherwise help them do not qualify.

May 21, 2005 @ 10:25 am | Comment

Sigh.

If that’s all you got out of it, I’m disappointed.

May 21, 2005 @ 10:33 am | Comment

Those of you who think Republicans have a monopoly on military service may find this illuminating…

http://tinyurl.com/qkor

May 21, 2005 @ 12:46 pm | Comment

Great link, Lisa.

May 21, 2005 @ 3:01 pm | Comment

I guess by your reasoning then WWII was a “quagmire” since we could not get out no matter how hard we tried. Until we dropped a couple of Nuclear Bombs on Japan. Do you know how long we were in Japan until that government took over? LOL…..man you should listen to yourself. Once again I’m glad that we did not have liberals like you and your party around in WWII. The way you people undermine everything those of us who have served over there have done. I’m just waiting for you to start spitting on us, or maybe you will throw pies on us. Then when someone stops you from assualting us you will sue them for violating YOUR rights. Whatever happen to democrats like FDR and JFK, now the democrats are Dean, Ted Kennedy, Boxer and Moore.

May 21, 2005 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

Be aware that the juvenile troll board known as Pretend Warrior has targeted your site. ‘warriorjason’ is one of the trolls

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=79892&sid=a609e754dc43d565c67f9a86e458fdf

May 21, 2005 @ 4:47 pm | Comment

warriorjason wrote:

LOL….ah man what a great site I have found. These liberal fools are easy game over here. The site is called http://www.pekingduck.org/ and man are they ultra liberal. They are even pissed at the democrats for being conservative. You don’t even need to sign up to post. It is some libtards blog but the respond pretty quick. Once you start using facts then the go for the usual “racist” reply so popular by ignorant liberals.

May 21, 2005 @ 4:55 pm | Comment

Ahh….why do you have to give us away? Tolerance works both ways correct, or is tolerance only ok as long as you are goose stepping to the DNC agenda?

May 21, 2005 @ 4:56 pm | Comment

Yup…I believe jason and other would like some decent debate in the liberty forum. Just remember friends you have to use facts……unlike Dan Rather and Newsweek.

May 21, 2005 @ 5:00 pm | Comment

Gordon,

What I get most out of it is a sense of scorn for liberals. I’m not really sure what I’ve done to deserve this sense of scorn, even after having read the article. I understand that we have different points of view and I get that they may conflict, but attacking me personally isn’t going to solve the situation.

Disappointment implies to me that you had hopes? Sorry to disappoint. Does this mean that I’m less insightful than you’d thought? I’ll try to come away with more next time. I was overcome with the author’s anger, and wasn’t really able to absorb too much else. It’s like somehow because I’m against killing people, I’m somehow responsible for all the killing. It’s something I’ve gotten from a few people, including a few frustrated friends.

The source of the killing isn’t me. In the immediate, it’s the insurgents – people gripped by anger, vengefulness, hatred and feelings of injustice and oppression. Not me. How I fit into propagating this is a different story, and I expect that just by being American I’m guilty of a host of evils in their eyes. But I didn’t kill anyone and I get surprised and hurt when I’m attacked just for being on the left. I would expect it if I were in Iran, but it always jolts me when I re-discover it in the States.

May 21, 2005 @ 5:01 pm | Comment

Quit wasting time hoping for a defeat in Iraq. We are kicking ass and winning the war. Just look at what your precious “minutemen” have been forced to do out of insane frustration? They’re targeting innocent men, women and CHILDREN and then trying to justify it that that’s what Allah wants. You guys were wrong on the Cold War and you will be wrong on this. Welcome to obscurity folks! At least you won’t be lonely!

May 21, 2005 @ 5:30 pm | Comment

Richard:
Would you just block these guys like
warriorjason, rhino, jeffnavy and the other idiot? I know you want to appear fair and ecumenical, but they appear to be here just to bait and their remarks seems stupid.

May 21, 2005 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

Once again I’m glad that we did not have liberals like you and your party
around in WWII.

I love arguing with historical geniuses, people who really know their history. Now I see how stupid I was and how smart you are. Of course, we only won WWII because there were no liberals involved! Thank God we had that far-right-wing, tax-cutting, anti-common-man ultra-conservative leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt to lead us during that war.

Yikes, these guys are scary.

Pete, I won’t block them. They show us all just how scary their trailer park mentality is. They call themselves “conservatives” and they have no idea what the word means. Please, let them make idiotys of themselves. Notice how they never point to historical facts, but just regurgitate freeper generalities, blaming everything on libruls, never acknowledgeing that this is a nation founded on liberal principles subverted by the likes of Bush and Cheney and Ashcroft and Wolfowitz. Let ’em rant; it’s a sobering lesson for thinking people.

May 21, 2005 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

Richard.

I gotta I object to your using “trailer park mentality”

I don’t think it’s any more constructive than that site Gordon posted. I think it fuels the hate. Fight the urge!

Or not. Just my two cents. I’m exiting now on this post. It’s getting too personal.

May 21, 2005 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

Laowai, normally I would fight the urge as well, but these guys came here looking for a fight so I thought I’d accommodate. For any of you in trailer parks, my most sincere apologies if I offended you. It’s only far-right chickenhawks in trailer parks that I was referring to.

May 21, 2005 @ 7:32 pm | Comment

Richard,

I would just like to point out an error in your own historical reference:

“this is a nation founded on liberal principles”

Our founding fathers were nothing like the liberals of today. If anything, liberals are the ones working overtime to subvert our country and the Constitution that it was founded upon.

May 21, 2005 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

Laowai,

There wasn’t any scorn intended and certainly and I wasn’t attacking you at all. I reread my response to you, but I don’t see where you’re getting that from.

For the record, I think some of your thoughts are some of the more rational and well considered on this post.

I respect your thoughts even if I don’t agree with many of them.

May 21, 2005 @ 9:08 pm | Comment

Our founding fathers were nothing like the liberals of today. If anything, liberals are the ones working overtime to subvert our country and the Constitution that it was founded upon.

You see, Gordon, that’s exactly the kind of blanket generalizations about “liberals” that gets me so upset. There are all kinds of liberals, just as there are conservatives. I admire real conservatives who stick to conservative values, and I don’t admire those who call themselves conservative yet endorse unprecedented deficit spending, and pre-emptive war, both of which are anathema to true conservatism.

I’m a liberal, but I am not trying to subvert anything. I’ve always been involved in politics, I love America, and I believe American ideals are truly and totally liberal — freedom of speech, separation of church and state, preventing vast accumulations of wealth that result in feudal-type estates (key to our Founding Fathers’ vision), the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….

As you respect Laowai’s point of view I respect yours, but I want to request that you please realize I mean to subvert nothing, nor do most of my fellow liberals. We simply feel it is un-American to torture, to implicate by race, to justify brutal behavior by Americans sent off on a mission to capture hearts and minds. (And no matter how vile the behavior of our enemies, descending to their level is never acceptable, as it destroys our claims of being lovers of peace, freedom, liberty and justice.) We feel Bush got us into a war from which there is no way out and no justification. I know you see it differently, yet I also know you are sincere in your belief and are not trying to subvert American values by your support of Bush. Can’t you please extend to us liberals the same courtesy? Can’t you see that while our views differ, we believe with all our hearts that we are doing the best thing for America by speaking out?

May 21, 2005 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

The sad thing is that imbecile Bush would leave this whole Iraqi fiasco to his predecessors just like LBJ handing it over to somebody else till Nixon to pick it up. He looks like he is getting scot-free since he is not facing elections anymore.

May 22, 2005 @ 4:11 am | Comment

i mean successors ๐Ÿ™‚

May 22, 2005 @ 4:41 am | Comment

Gordon:

What richard had said about the Constitution fits more into a liberal framework. If the Founding Fathers were real conservatives, whats the point of fighting against the conservative colonial regime of George III?

May 22, 2005 @ 4:44 am | Comment

I’m going to take a pretty moderate view here, and take a stab at saying that the Constitution is a moderate document.

On the liberal side, it takes great pains to provide the citizens of America with extremely innovative liberties – things granted to the people on the condition that they not be abused. Freedom of speech (as opposed to sedition acts like they’ve still got in Hong Kong) pushed the limits of previously acceptable levels of dissonance into the rich discourse we are allowed today, separation of church and state, the right to bear arms (sorry, but although I don’t like people owning anything but a .22, I think this is basically a liberal thing), protections in court etc. all set the stage for supporting balance between rugged individualism you find on the frontiers of America (Crevecoeur) and the interconnection of the more established East Coast.

The conservativism is old-school conservativism, not neo-con conservativism. The FF (that’s founding fathers, not fantastic four) were concerned with instituting a government that has a whole lot of inertia, to protect the minority against the whims of the majority – a measure to ensure that while basically a democracy, it would take a huge movement to plow over the liberties given to all people.

I think at the time the sentiments put out in the Bill of Rights were tremendously ground breaking. It redefined man’s political being. In this sense, liberals feel close to the founding fathers.

However, obviously there is a tremendous amount of conservatism. Hamilton basically wanted to ensure that what he and the rest of the FF had done (revolt) wouldn’t easily happen again. The separation of powers is more thorough than I think just about anywhere else, and although I think we lost something by not having parlimentary procedure in the Senate (debate is very limited), the system works better than a lot of places. The separation of powers is basically conservative, because it tries to conserve a certain system.

Absolute conservatism seems to be an autocracy. Absolute liberalism is revolution…? This is my impression from Arendt.

The neo-cons are not really conservatives. They hold beliefs often held by conservatives, but they do not employ the same healthy fear of large government spending or meddling in foreign affairs.

Washington – expressing a typical conservative sentiment of the day, said something along the lines of it would be best for the nation to close its borders and not mettle in international affairs.

This is impossible in the world of today, but it does demark a stark difference between the days of 1776 and 2005. Relying on fundamentalist wisdom as a means of conservativism is flawed in this sense. The constitution contains both conservative and liberal initiatives, although to be a fundamentalist, the liberal spirit becomes squashed, since what was very liberal in their day is not as liberal anymore.

What d’y’all think?

May 22, 2005 @ 7:25 am | Comment

Laowai,

Well stated, but of course I disagree with you when it comes to the right to bear arms ๐Ÿ˜›

Richard,

You’re correct, I shouldn’t have put all liberals in the same basket because like you said, there are different types of “liberals” just as there are also different types of “conservatives”.

I don’t hate all liberals, I don’t like all conservatives and I dislike Democrats just as much as I do Republicans. I prefer ground somewhere in the middle, but that’s not something you see much of these days.

Thomas Jefferson was probably one of my favorite characters and yes, he was a liberal, but not the kind of liberal that I seem to be seeing the most of in today’s society.

I don’t have a problem with people who don’t support the war in Iraq, because I didn’t it in the beginning myself and I still don’t at least not for the reasons that Bush gave the public. Do I think he misled the public about WMD in Iraq? Yes I do, but at the same time I can’t really think of a war that we haven’t been involved in where we did so under the reasons that were actually given to the public. I also think the war has been poorly managed.

I don’t like seeing our men and women dying in Iraq anymore than you or anyone else does and I certainly don’t like seeing our tax dollars going to fund such an operation, but we’re in it now and I think we need to see it through. Otherwise it will be similar to Vietnam or the Korean War.

What really irks me about the majority of liberals and their stance on the war is not the fact that they disagree with it, but that they make such ignorant statements that try to equate Bush and Hitler or our soldiers and SS troops. It’s crap like that that pisses me off. Do I think what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong? Yes I do, but do those responsible actually reflect the majority of our men and women in the Armed Forces? Not even close.

Just as you pointed out that I had made an unfair generalization of lumping you together with every other liberal, many liberals are also doing the same thing to our men and women in the armed forces because of the actions of a few turds that in no way represent the military or those who serve in its various branches.

I’m going stop here because my thoughts are going in a dozen different directions right now.

May 22, 2005 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

It seems that FS9 is one of the few who believed that the Vietnam War could be won if he had lived in the 1960s. With almost 500000 troops on the ground, tonnes of bombs and Agent Orange dropped on Uncle Ho’s territory and over 50,000 body bags, FS9 would probably tell us that the US is gonna win the war.

Now in Iraq, the US troops are killed at horrifying numbers daily. Even the Green Zone is not safe (remember the Tet Offensive and the attack of the US embassy in Saigon?). And Iraqi MPs, police chiefs, Ministers, new police recriuts are being assasinated. Troops served long over their tour of duties. If these ought to make us optimistic about US predicament in Iraq, we ought to have our head examined to make sure that our intelligence is not lower than that shrub.

May 23, 2005 @ 6:58 am | Comment

JeffNavy:

You seem to have been those who believed that the Cold War was being won because of Reagan and his hawkish stance. Thats probably a Cinderella story spin by conservatives to make them look like victors. Only toddlers would buy that.
Besides you have just did great injustice to the presidents from Truman onwards for the end of the Cold War. It is the consistent containment of the Soviet empire from Truman’s tenure that finally exposed the failings of the Stalinist system and led to the implosion of the Soviet dictatorial state.

And Gorbachev is the one who realised the long term weaknesses of the Soviet system and move gradually towards the end of communism and the Cold War.
Your cowboy Reagan just dash in shamelessly to claim all the credit with all the deceit and pretence.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:11 am | Comment

SP,

Your comparison between Iraq and the Vietnam war shows your lack of knowledge on the matter. In fact, I don’t even see any relevance?

Let’s see, we started this war in 2003 and two years later our nation has endured the loss of 1600 precious men and women.

Vietnam lasted how many years? We lost that many in a weeks time during Vietnam.

You’re comparing apples and oranges, but ironically enough that same comparison is what’s going to win the war for the insurgents and it’s going to be won the same way the Vietnam war was…in the living rooms of America.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:28 am | Comment

Reagan didn’t claim to have done anything, he did it. Of course, he couldn’t have done it without the help of the Soviets themselves.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:32 am | Comment

Gordon, that makes it sounds as though the media are going to lose the war for us. Thisis a fallacy. When we rode to victory in Bagdhad at first, the media was cheering and all the news looked great. We were invincible, and Rumsfeld was like a rock star. We declared “Mission Accomplished” and we all felt great and the media gave Bush a halo. Then the attacks came and we started dying, and the media covered that. They’re just telling us what happened. Billions and billions of dollars, the most advanced army in the history of mankind, and we cannot secure the six-mile strip from Baghdad to the airport. If you want to pin this all on the US media it’s your privilege, but it’s a fallacy. You youyself point out we were in Nam for some 12 years and lost some 50,000+ soldiers. Was it just the fault of the media that we left? Of course not; we couldn’t win when the people we were there to save wanted to kill us. Now, it is different in Iraq, for sure. I believe more people there do want us to protect them, but they also hate us, and every time they see what we are doing to their people in our prisons that bond is further eroded. We still have a chance to at least with some “face” as we did in Vietnam, but there is no way we can “win” in the sense of meeting any of our original goals. No matter what Chrenkoff and Insty say, it’s a quagmire and there is no way for the US to come out of it looking good. The media are strictly doing there job. There’s plenty of representation from the conservative press, and no one is saying things are good. Only some chickenhawk bloggers posting from the comfort of their fur-lined toilet seats.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:39 am | Comment

That stuff about Reagan ending the Cold War is so absurd it’s sad. There were economic forces at work for decades. Reagan helped, the Pope helped, Gorbie helped. But to ignore the accumulation of economics factors that caused the seams to burst and attribute it all to Reagan who did nothing but increase miltary spending is patently ridiculous. No serious historian would ever say this, only those who want to deify Reagan and pretend Iran-contra never happened.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:42 am | Comment

Oh, and Gordon, what do you think of this? No wonder our media are cynical and skeptical. This is exactly why we need them to tell us what is really happening. There is a big difference between prinitng a quote that is later retracted and totally concocting a story out of thin air to intentionally dupe the public.

May 23, 2005 @ 7:55 am | Comment

Richard,

It’s close to bedtime for me ( I don’t know where the heck this weekend went. I thought it was only Sunday here), but I’ll gt back to you on that tomorrow evening. Again, I find some ground to agree with you.

In the meantime, I’m interested to know what you think about my latest post.

http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com/read/1298745.htm

May 23, 2005 @ 8:29 am | Comment

Gordon:

I am sure Reagan did not claim to have done anything.

First he trained the jihadists in Afghanistan, then he supported the white supremacists in South Africa by trying to oppose Congressional sanctions; next he befriended good old anti-communist murderers like Chun Doo Hwan, General Zia, General Mobutu, Macros etc.

And yet he claimed to be a champion of freedom and democracy and claimed the Cold War trophy for himself.

He is a typical neo-con in that their moral values need some serious self-reflection.

May 23, 2005 @ 8:33 am | Comment

SP, don’t forget the contras and the death squads.

May 23, 2005 @ 11:14 am | Comment

Richard:

Surely i won’t. The Regan Doctrine tells us that communist murders are bad but right wing murders are acceptable. But i thought the 10 commandments tell us that “Thou shall not kill”? Surely the “pro-life” Reaganites should know that.

May 24, 2005 @ 8:18 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.