News-Record.com

"History shows that appeasement and timidity can lead to disaster."

Sadly today we have US congressmen who not only appease the enemy, but supply them with aid and comfort by going before the cameras and calling our marines murderers and telling them they are in a 'no-win' war.

Honorable mention to the hollywood brat-pack billionaire boys' club who make movies to boost the morale of the enemy by portraying the marines as rapists and murderers of innocent children.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-11-29-us-casualties_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Myth #1. Islam is a relegion of peace.

Myth #2. Islam is a relegion.

Ah, in Walters world Saddam=Hitler & Bush=Churchill.

Except Hitler was a clear and present danger and Saddam was a nuisance.

Bush as Churchill, well let's just say that was my morning laugh & I thank you for it Walter.

No matter how you slice it we can't support Mr. Bush for doing the right thing because it was the wrong thing. Remember the gentleman you quote said that war was "sometimes necessary". It's hard to find an honest person that thinks the war in Iraq was necessary.

Support him if you wish Mr. Noetzel. I'll support common sense.

Thanks for the facts, Dan. The democratic politicians are hating it and you'll notice their vitriol about the war has subsided big time in recent months. I'll never forgive them for their disservice to our troops.

Here's where I think they went wrong. They looked at polls and saw American sentiment on the war was at an all-time low. Instead of trying to figure out a solution, their idea was to get out. Wow, big idea. Get out. They even considered not funding the war but were too chickenshit for that tactic.

The surge was the right move and a lot of folks are eating crow right now. As many have said here, there were never enough troops on the ground to do what they were being asked to do.

I'll credit Rufus with something I do agree with. We probably could have contained Saddam without a rush to war. Can't say I'm sorry that he's dead, though.

However, after the decision was made to go to war (by both parties whether they'll admit to it now or not) the politicians should have supported the effort and our troops in combat. Constructive suggestions would have been much more useful.

As it is, the problem will likely fall into the hands of democrats in about a year. If they are unable to get the Republicans to lose the war, they'll be forced into some hard decisions. My best bet is that there will be 'more of the same' even with democrats in full control.

"I'll never forgive them (democrats) for their disservice to our troops."

The disservice to the troops was putting them into an unnecessary war. The rest of the rhetoric bandied about supporting the troops is just that (rhetoric). I'll agree that too many Dems caved in the rush to war & I have problem with them too but the responsibility for this travesty (which isn't made less tragic by the surge btw which is just a marginally better strategy in what is still a stupid war) rests solely with the rocket scientist in the White House. No-one else would have taken this path. No-one else in power would have been so stupid (ok Cheney would have).

Mr. Noetzel, no batallion votes on whether to participate in the Iraq invasion & occupation - they do as ordered by their superiors. That's what you sign up for when you join the military - you salute and follow the order when it comes without question.

Soldiers depend on us, the civilian population, to scrutinize any call to war. If you automatically support a president's call to send troops into harms way, without asking whether it's really necessary, you might as well be spitting in the troops face. It's our job to question such calls, and I'm ashamed to say the American citizenry fell down on that job in 2002-3.

The current issue is whether to continue down this path or cut losses. As with Viet Nam, if we cut losses, perhaps we can apply our limited resources in a way that will lead to a victory in the larger worldwide struggle. On the other hand, if we stay there, perhaps there is something to be gained that would justify $100-200 billion/yr and the daily casualties. If so, we need to have a clear idea of just what gain would justify that cost. I, for one, see no such potential gain from that ill-advised endeavor.

"Soldiers depend on us, the civilian population, to scrutinize any call to war. If you automatically support a president's call to send troops into harms way, without asking whether it's really necessary, you might as well be spitting in the troops face. It's our job to question such calls, and I'm ashamed to say the American citizenry fell down on that job in 2002-3."

Well stated Kornbluth. In 2002-3 many folks were ready to click their heels & follow any lead in the aftermath of 9/11, congressmen included. People are starting to realize how flawed the Bush leadership is and it is a sobering reality to many. It is distressing how many people haven't woke up yet though.

What continually amazes me is how so many people believe that war actually solves a problem. Wars have been fought since humankind first began. These have waged for years at point (remember the 100 Years War). Still, there has been no lasting peace.

I purpose that instead of seeking to wage war that humanity seek to wage peace. Give peace a chance and see if it will last longer than the "supposed peace" gained through war.

Maybe if all of the fine "christian" people in this supposed "christian" nation worked on the principles of peace mandated by the Prince of Peace, there would be no more war!

I believe that it is past time to work to enact peace over war. Until humanity learns that war is NOT the answer, there will be division.

Shalom

Why do people confuse support for our troops with support for an administration that, to me, has this country on the wrong track.

I served during the first gulf war, when Iraq had invaded Kuwait. As an American citizen and member of the armed forces, I felt our intervention was justified.

Now, although I do not support this administration BECAUSE they lied about the reasons we were going to war, I still, support the troops who are following orders and doing their jobs.

I just hope that, when they return, they are given the medical, mental, and financial help they may need and deserve.

Dan, here's a good one about an Iraqi who took on al Qaeda : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2971288.ece?print=yes

Kornbluth, Rufus, and Darryl,

I agree wholeheartedly that we can question or disagree with the reason we went to war with Iraq. Was it necessary or the best strategy? I really don't think so. I will never forgive Bush and his advisors for going into war without a clear-cut goal for AFTER the war.

Frankly, we are no longer at war with Iraq. That war ended when Saddam and his hierarchy high-tailed it for the nearest hill. We're really in a war against terrorists and on a stabilization and peace-keeping mission in Iraq. The surge is having positive results. I agree with Kornbluth that "we need to have a clear idea of just what gain would justify that cost" of staying in Iraq.

However, I don't think the situation in Iraq is like Vietnam. The interrelations and stability of the Middle East is a whole different animal. Not to mention the fact that so much of the world is dependent on the oil there.

My main problem with democrats has never been questioning the reason we went for war. I also don't blame them for being critical of the strategy employed after Saddam fled. I'm critical of that too. Yes, the administration bears the most responsibility for that push. But, if the war was the wrong thing to do, the democrats hold responsibility for that. Later questioning of that decision is justified.

However, making statements that we can't win or that we should prematurely leave really doesn't sit well with me. Neither do comparisons to Vietnam. If we screwed up the place worse than it was, we have a responsiblity to do as much as we can to fix that screw up before we leave.

Iraq needs to step up to the plate, though.

Darryl,

Do you believe there is never an appropriate time for aggression?

Put on a personal level, if a man was holding a knife to the throat of your child and you had an immediate and violent way to stop him from inflicting any harm, would it not be acceptable to act?

I ask because I don't understand, not as an attempt to belittle.

Roger

VPNGSO Please be specific when you say the administration "lied". Should the war have been started? I don't know. Has the war been conducted correctly? No. Would the war be over with far fewer dead American soldiers if the Democrats had gotten on board instead of grandstanding? Possibly. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html and read the joint resolution authorizing the use of force . This was passed by both houses. Please note the dates. A lot of reference is made to the 90"s. Bill Clinton believed the same to be true of Iraq as Bush, the difference is he didn't have the guts to do anything about it just like he did nothing about Bin Ladin. Would I support Bush again? Against the likes of John Kerry, in a heartbeat.

It would have been nice if the letter writer had looked more carefully at the quote, which is more ambiguous than he lets on.

The quote begins "War, though regrettable, is sometimes necessary." It should be abundantly clear by this point that the Iraq war was wholly unnecessary. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the U.S., nor did it pose a serious threat to its neighbors. The main basis for the war--the weapons of mass destruction did not exist. I realize that decisions look different in hindsight, but knowing what we know now about Iraq's capabilities, would anyone have supported the administration's choice to go to war?

The quote goes on to say, "So it is better to solve a problem while it is manageable rather than later, when it grows so large that resolution is more difficult." In what way is the Iraq war manageable and what is it solving? President Bush (and this war) have lost the support of the American people precisely because the war is not leading to a solution. Iraq will likely enter into a violent and deadly spasm if we withdraw immediately, but it also appears that it will do the same if we withdraw in another year or two or five. The Iraqi people are not willing to make the concessions necessary to form a stable, peaceful, and unified country. Our soldiers are the only glue holding this broken pot together.

We support our troops best by using them wisely and not committing them to unnecessary and unwinable adventures.

"I realize that decisions look different in hindsight, but knowing what we know now about Iraq's capabilities, would anyone have supported the administration's choice to go to war?"

You seem to want it both ways Dave. We didn't know what we know now. Doesn't matter, those who question why we went to war in Iraq, it's a moot point. We are there, you cannot change that fact.

Do we win or lose?

I suggest reading Aaron Klein's "Schmoozing with Terrorists". He's an American Jew who interviewed many terrorists, primarily Palestinians. They share the same goal as other Islamic terrorists.

A few quotes if I may:

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is emboldened by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam:

"The mujahedeen fighters brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq".

Hamas's Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance". Re: terrorism works.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in northern Gaza Strip:

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding. Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based upon oppressing the poor and innocent people."

Brigades chair Ala Senakreh told me (Klein) he "hopes Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.".

Seems terrorists are pulling for Hillary.

These are direct quotes for this book.

Iraq is just a beginning. We will be at war with radical Islam for decades if not more. These people are savages.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/28/world/main3548251.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3548251

"Put on a personal level, if a man was holding a knife to the throat of your child and you had an immediate and violent way to stop him from inflicting any harm, would it not be acceptable to act?"

I asked Darryl a similar question a long time ago, using wife instead of child as an example. He posted that he would not act in a violent manner. That's pacifism, for better or worse.

Personally I would give my life in a violent manner if necessary to protect my wife or children. I'd gladly spare my wife's cat however.

" Seems terrorists are pulling for Hillary"...
And why not? She is the front runner in their party of choice. About the only way to tell the difference between the democrats and the terrorists' rhetoric is that the democrats claim to "support the troops" while surrendering... and the terrorists do not.

Roger,

I apologize for the delay (I had pressing matters to attend).

As a pacifist, aggressive violence is never an option. Defensive violence (as in raising an arm to deflect a blow, etc.) is allowable. In the hypothetical scenario presented, I would seek to calmly and rationally talk with the person and my loved one. A kind word goes much further than violence.

As one who has suffered a near fatal assault at the hands of another, I know how kindness can lead to peaceful resolution. What the perpetrator does after resolution of a situation with me is up to that one. I can only do as my convictions lead me. While it is my hope that others would come to this same point, I live in a real world and know that has not happened. I still must continually present peace as the better conflict resolution answer.

I hope this answers the question.

Shalom

Darryl,

Thanks.

"Defensive violence (as in raising an arm to deflect a blow, etc.) is allowable"

I might be mistaken, but, from the way it reads, you aren't much different than any other socially developed person I associate with. We all believe that, as adults, it is our responsibility to discuss matters instead of immediately going to blows. I don't know (or at least don't associate with) anyone who is aggressive, but everyone I know will react with horrible force if aggression is brought upon them.

I don't believe in verbal tricks and silly debate tactics, so everything I ask is as it seems on the surface and not meant to trap you. So I ask, sincerely, can defensive violence extend all the way to death of the other individual and still be in keeping with pacifism?

If so, I may very well be a pacifist. A pacifist with a concealed carry permit, but still...

Roger

Well I'm a little late - but if the conversaton wants to roll on, I'm game.

Dan: Thanks for the stats .. the welcome decline in troop deaths is indead good news. Just think what could have happened had we not continued Rummy's stupidity (which he was advised against, which he pursued, which those spaking against it were denounced as "helping the enemy). Just think what could have happened had we not been led with a failed policy of "Stay The Course" ... you've head the rest, but I'l be dammed if I know why folks didn't see it then and still don't see it now.

Nitpicker: "I'll never forgive [democratic politicians] for their disservice to our troops" - sorry dude - that seems a bozo statement to me. Maybe you can clarify. fwiw - I think the Dem's are now with-holdind funding - seems a dammed-if-you-do, dammed-if-you-don't situation. As for "However, making statements that we can't win or that we should prematurely leave really doesn't sit well with me." See my note to Kornbluth ( "... we should consider Iraq as merely a BATTLE .. ")

Kornbluth: "The current issue is whether to continue down this path or cut losses." Probably .. I think we need to hang in there a bit just to demonstrate America sticks by it's promises even when those promises are made by a bozo elected to high office. My bottom line is the discussion seem to considering Iraq as the be-all end-all of the "War on Terrorism" .. which sounds as empty as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty", btw (and both failed g-man adventures) .. INSTEAD we should consider Iraq as merely a BATTLE - one you can walk away from and still fight another day.

VPN: Agreed - "when they return, [we hope] they are given the medical, mental, and financial help they may need and deserve." ... but don't hold your breath.

Nitpicker (Again): Unlike our jyrene friend Neo, I was just a bit too young to enter 'nam as a gung-ho for gooks - and when I was of age, I - perhaps foolishly - avoided military service. REGARDLESS - the more you read about Vietnam, the more comparisons you will find. Try it and see. Ditto Nixon vs. Bush. The more you read, the more comparisons you will find. Try it and see.
=

joker24: yea, yea, the bozo's in Congress signed on with the Admistration. Shame on them .. but remember they were spoon fed information too .. the CIA works for the Whitehouse. I for one would LOVE to see Bush re-elected. Let him live with the crap he has created - think of it this way .. Nixon didn't have to deal with his mess - in a way Watergate saved him from the fall of Saigan and the first oil embargo and the 21% inflation and ....
=

Ribar: " ... decisions look different in hindsight" .. yea but Hans was doing a pretty god job .. Citizen support for an invasion waning fast .. The Bushies saw it and just pulled the trigger - "Ready, Fire, Aim!".
=

Dan: "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

As for your Book - I agree .. but the discussion considers Iraq as the be-all end-all .. instead we should consider Iraq as merely a battle - one to walk away from AFTER you have fulfilled your promises. I also submit the Elected Bozo has been very clever (and very Stupid) in NOT specifying what those promises really are. VICTORY - what ever the hell that is. DEMOCRACY - like the kind in Pakistan I guess. etc.

.. maybe more like Vietnam - a country we just pulled out of - remember that? A country that is Communist and not a democracy - kinda like our good friends in China .. but regardless - doing quite well these days, thank you, with 2006 GDP growth at 8.17%, unemployment of the lowest in the world (2%), 90% literacy rate, 0.4% HIV rate, deep poverty now smaller than that of China, India, and the Philippines ... etc.