You want Iraq to be a success, but you want us out NOW!!
But pulling out prematurely most probably will result in that hellhole they fear.
It doesn't matter now why we invaded, we did. We're there. We ousted Saddam. The country was infiltrated by jihadis from Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Baathists and just plain criminals rose against us.
But people came out to vote. People lined up to join the police forces and Army. Many got blown up or murdered - and still they lined up.
Harry Reid told us months ago that we had lost the war. Now the Democrats are protesting that it is simply costing too much.
Get it through your head, Matt: Your side was not able to stop the invasion of Iraq. You cannot go back in time and reverse that. So you can either demand that we abandon the people of Iraq, or we stay until it's stable. The "surge" worked. More accurately, Gen. Petraeus's change of strategy worked.
I am convinced that IraqPundit is right: "It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush."
Is there any government, anywhere in the world, whose actions have not resulted in the deaths of women and children?
Has it been explicit policy for U.S. soldiers to find the weak and defenseless to kill, or has it happened primarily because the enemies of the U.S. in that region of the world do not distinguish themselves from innocents?
Who said women and children cannot be combatants. American elite hubris in ignorance on the matter aside, reality is what it is. Coming from a group who wants to emancipate children and who "have" emancipated women, yet now claim these very same to be wholly incapable of free action, it is mind boggling. How DARE YOU.
When a wolf is at your throat, do you really do an age and sex check? Grow a pair, gut it, and put on the cape. You've just become a man, if haunted, or not. Of these things, I choose not (when available from my local service provider). Now, I agree, some of you should die because of your lack of self preservation (and will with the enemies you encourage in your midst), but for me and mine, I choose life. I would choose life, for you too, but that choice thing binds my hands. Your attitude freezes my interest. Good luck.
I think it is great that things are better in Iraq. Of course, it's largely due to the fact that we have either killed, driven out, or paid off anyone that would stand in our way.
So, it's not that I hate George Bush so much that I will continue to do find things that are wrong or be mad if things are going well. It's that I know that whatever good is happening now doesn't make up for the absolute failure, that resulted in staggering loss of life, of the previous 4 years.
Mark,
I believe the point that Doom was trying to make is that not all women and children are innocent. For a fantastic example of this, read Black Hawk Down. It gives frightening examples of how women and children would shield fighters with their bodies because they knew Americans wouldn't shoot at them. I'm not saying that innocent women and children haven't been killed in Iraq (though I doubt that the US killed most of them-I'd look to the scum fighting us for most of the blame) but it happens. It is horrible, disgusting, sickening...but unavoidable. The public has gotten far too used to the fiction of a "clean" war that really doesn't exist...even though the US known for doings it's utter best to minimize the civilian impact.
Ben, from that perspective, I would agree. Women and children are not all innocent.
I do think, though, that the US is far more repsponsible for the deaths in Iraq than the media is telling us. We have an inherent trait in this country that will simply not allow us to reflect upon the ills we inflict upon the world. We live in denial.Every country does. Iran thinks they are benevolent when clearly they are not.
Mark, excuse me for putting it this way, but what have you been smoking? And why aren't you sharing?
A quick look around will show you that the American Media LOVES to broadcast any possible incident/massacre/murder of civilians by US troops, whether done by them or not, and whether or not the incident actually occurred. We don't simply reflect upon the "ills we inflict upon the world," a certain segment of the population WALLOWS in it.
The really funny thing is that you just basically defined the position against bigger government that Kevin was discussing with you in an earlier post-if government always inflicts ills upon the world...why do we want to have more of it?
BenD: I find he makes a lot more sense if you think of it as him switching between narratives, not being internally inconsistent. On the one hand, we've got the story of the Evil Empire of big government that will be (should be) brought low by the plucky heroes with hearts of gold, and then on the other hand, we've got the story of the benevolent rulers who used their infinite wealth and power to bring peace and prosperity to all.
In essence, he's proposing we fire Emperor Palpatine and replace him with King Arthur.
"American Media LOVES to broadcast any possible incident/massacre/murder of civilians by US troops"
Completely false. I have pictures of things the media will never show. CNN has video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light. I know this for a fact. That's why I laugh when I hear some folks here rip the media for broadcasting anti American images and stories.
If the media really wanted to end the war, they could end it in one day.
"I have pictures of things the media will never show. CNN has video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light."
Oh, I get it now. The media has "video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light," therefore the media doesn't like to show things that paint America in a bad light, even thought the media does actually show other videos that paint America in a bad light.
"I know this for a fact. That's why I laugh when I hear some folks here rip the media for broadcasting anti American images and stories."
And statements such as this is why we laugh at you.
"If the media really wanted to end the war, they could end it in one day."
How could they do so? Why would it work in one day?
Laugh away, DJ, but when you have a friend (former student of my father's) who is high up in CNN), then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.
BTW, thanks in advance for the debates today...home sick and I really don't feel like sitting in bed anymore.
Because CNN might have some gruesome imagry - I'd not doubt that.
But slavish devotion to Bush is not whey they're not running it, Mark.
Might want to consider.. well, hell, you're bad at that sort of thing.
What's lower than Bush's approval rating? (Other than the Democrat-Controlled Congress?)... That's right. Media approval ratings. Far below the "abysmal" Bush ratings.
What happens if CNN were to try and shock people with the carnage you hint you've seen? Sorry, keep asking.
Well, the first thing that would happen would be the erosion of respect for CNN - even more now than they've been having. Notice that they don't have a "trusted" name anymore? That would move CNN from at least making lip-service towards objectivity to full-blown-opposition to the US, US Military, and Administration.
They'd lose. They know it. Because if they thought they could make a "difference", damn straight they would. Let's talk about all the false stories has run with, and quietly dropped when it became obvious that there wasn't a good angle to attack the US military with? The Military hasn't forgotten, even if you have.
"Laugh away, DJ, but when you have a friend (former student of my father's) who is high up in CNN), then maybe you will understand what I am talking about."
Then again, maybe pigs will sprout wings and start flying.
Yet again, you've dodged my questions. That's why you get no respect. You won't earn it and so you don't deserve it.
So, save the bullshit, Mark. Lay the facts on us, facts that we can verify for ourselves, and answer the questions. Muttering, "Oh, if only you could see what I see" doesn't do that.
How could the media end the war in one day?
Oh, and Unix is still waiting for you to answer his questions.
The videos, that I know that CNN has but won't run because they depict America in a bad light, would end the war in one day because the moment they aired, the public would demand, of their Congressmen, to bring home the troops immediately. This would include a large swath of the public that supports the war at present. It might even sway you.
Obviously, it would take more than one day to safely bring home troops. But that one day would effectively end it all. Most people in this country have no idea what is really going on over there. We see the sanitized version on the nightly news and form our own opinions, usually based on our inherent biases.
And it's not just gruesome footage either. It's colossal error after complete fuck up that ends in human misery, not just death, as a direct result of our actions. So, when I hear the old tired line about the media "only showing the bad news" I chuckle because you really haven't seen shit if you think they are only airing negative stuff.
Mark, I keep asking you for facts that I can verify. Instead, you offer sooper seekrit whispers from your twisted keyboard. Whether they are right or wrong, fact or fiction, is irrelevant, because I CANNOT VERIFY THEM AND YOU CANNOT BE BELIEVED.
As Kevin stated, at this point, your credibility is shot, and your gullibility is pretty much accepted. He is right. You just don't understand what it takes to be believable and to be believed, and so you are neither.
That's not even mentioning the total failure that was Iwo Jima.
Iwo was planned, designed, to be a P-51 base. After the struggle to clear the island, 3, that is three sorties were flown where the B-29s were able to be met up with and escorted.
It was also about that time that the switch to night bombing at low-level started - obviating fighter escort.
I guess Mark thinks we should have just surrendered then to the Japanese.
There were three other reasons for taking Iwo Jima: 1) to remove it as a picket station for the Japanese, such that they could no longer provide early warning of inbound B-29 flights; 2) to remove it as a base for Japanese interceptors; and, 3) to provide a ditching base for damaged B-29s on the return leg to the Marianas.
It was successful on all three counts. About 25,000 B-29 crew members landed there, an unknown number of which would otherwise have ditched at sea and been lost. So, we'll never have accurate numbers to fill in a balance sheet of cost v. benefit for Iwo Jima, but war is like that.
DJ: all true, but also could have been met with other places.
The 25k crew figure is nice, and used as justification.... But not really that relevant. Crew casualties didn't drop precipitously after the airstrip was taken. There were some planes that wouldn't have made it back to the Marianas, sure... But most of those "emergency landings" *could* have made it back, but there was no need.
"DJ: all true, but also could have been met with other places."
Nope, not quite. The only way to prevent Iwo Jima from being a picket station and an interceptor base was to capture it. And, truth be told, I really don't know what other picket stations Japan had on other islands in the area.
"There were some planes that wouldn't have made it back to the Marianas, sure... But most of those "emergency landings" *could* have made it back, but there was no need."
Yup, and that's why I stated that we'll never have accurate numbers to fill a balance sheet of cost v. benefit. We have good numbers on what did happen, but very little on what might have happened otherwise.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/quote-of-year.html (26 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
No we want Iraq to be a success. But we understand the the US CANNOT bring that success. Only the Iraqi people- operating by themselves can do it.
Because the US government killed women and children, the US has no credibility.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071111/FEATURES15/71109001
You want Iraq to be a success, but you want us out NOW!!
But pulling out prematurely most probably will result in that hellhole they fear.
It doesn't matter now why we invaded, we did. We're there. We ousted Saddam. The country was infiltrated by jihadis from Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Baathists and just plain criminals rose against us.
But people came out to vote. People lined up to join the police forces and Army. Many got blown up or murdered - and still they lined up.
You want links?
Read this.
Or this.
Harry Reid told us months ago that we had lost the war. Now the Democrats are protesting that it is simply costing too much.
Get it through your head, Matt: Your side was not able to stop the invasion of Iraq. You cannot go back in time and reverse that. So you can either demand that we abandon the people of Iraq, or we stay until it's stable. The "surge" worked. More accurately, Gen. Petraeus's change of strategy worked.
I am convinced that IraqPundit is right: "It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush."
Is there any government, anywhere in the world, whose actions have not resulted in the deaths of women and children?
Has it been explicit policy for U.S. soldiers to find the weak and defenseless to kill, or has it happened primarily because the enemies of the U.S. in that region of the world do not distinguish themselves from innocents?
Who said women and children cannot be combatants. American elite hubris in ignorance on the matter aside, reality is what it is. Coming from a group who wants to emancipate children and who "have" emancipated women, yet now claim these very same to be wholly incapable of free action, it is mind boggling. How DARE YOU.
When a wolf is at your throat, do you really do an age and sex check? Grow a pair, gut it, and put on the cape. You've just become a man, if haunted, or not. Of these things, I choose not (when available from my local service provider). Now, I agree, some of you should die because of your lack of self preservation (and will with the enemies you encourage in your midst), but for me and mine, I choose life. I would choose life, for you too, but that choice thing binds my hands. Your attitude freezes my interest. Good luck.
I think it is great that things are better in Iraq. Of course, it's largely due to the fact that we have either killed, driven out, or paid off anyone that would stand in our way.
So, it's not that I hate George Bush so much that I will continue to do find things that are wrong or be mad if things are going well. It's that I know that whatever good is happening now doesn't make up for the absolute failure, that resulted in staggering loss of life, of the previous 4 years.
"When a wolf is at your throat"
Uh....what?
I would like an explanation for how this equates with the killing of innocent women and children in Iraq.
Some people are just perverse enough to enjoy the premature pullout...
Mark,
I believe the point that Doom was trying to make is that not all women and children are innocent. For a fantastic example of this, read Black Hawk Down. It gives frightening examples of how women and children would shield fighters with their bodies because they knew Americans wouldn't shoot at them. I'm not saying that innocent women and children haven't been killed in Iraq (though I doubt that the US killed most of them-I'd look to the scum fighting us for most of the blame) but it happens. It is horrible, disgusting, sickening...but unavoidable. The public has gotten far too used to the fiction of a "clean" war that really doesn't exist...even though the US known for doings it's utter best to minimize the civilian impact.
Ben, from that perspective, I would agree. Women and children are not all innocent.
I do think, though, that the US is far more repsponsible for the deaths in Iraq than the media is telling us. We have an inherent trait in this country that will simply not allow us to reflect upon the ills we inflict upon the world. We live in denial.Every country does. Iran thinks they are benevolent when clearly they are not.
Mark, excuse me for putting it this way, but what have you been smoking? And why aren't you sharing?
A quick look around will show you that the American Media LOVES to broadcast any possible incident/massacre/murder of civilians by US troops, whether done by them or not, and whether or not the incident actually occurred. We don't simply reflect upon the "ills we inflict upon the world," a certain segment of the population WALLOWS in it.
The really funny thing is that you just basically defined the position against bigger government that Kevin was discussing with you in an earlier post-if government always inflicts ills upon the world...why do we want to have more of it?
BenD: I find he makes a lot more sense if you think of it as him switching between narratives, not being internally inconsistent. On the one hand, we've got the story of the Evil Empire of big government that will be (should be) brought low by the plucky heroes with hearts of gold, and then on the other hand, we've got the story of the benevolent rulers who used their infinite wealth and power to bring peace and prosperity to all.
In essence, he's proposing we fire Emperor Palpatine and replace him with King Arthur.
Interesting choice of metaphors, LabRat.
Not at all coincidental, either, given that I'd just seen the word in another context.
Cue "Ohhhh!" moment.
"American Media LOVES to broadcast any possible incident/massacre/murder of civilians by US troops"
Completely false. I have pictures of things the media will never show. CNN has video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light. I know this for a fact. That's why I laugh when I hear some folks here rip the media for broadcasting anti American images and stories.
If the media really wanted to end the war, they could end it in one day.
"I have pictures of things the media will never show. CNN has video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light."
Oh, I get it now. The media has "video of things they will never show because they paint America in a bad light," therefore the media doesn't like to show things that paint America in a bad light, even thought the media does actually show other videos that paint America in a bad light.
"I know this for a fact. That's why I laugh when I hear some folks here rip the media for broadcasting anti American images and stories."
And statements such as this is why we laugh at you.
"If the media really wanted to end the war, they could end it in one day."
How could they do so? Why would it work in one day?
Laugh away, DJ, but when you have a friend (former student of my father's) who is high up in CNN), then maybe you will understand what I am talking about.
BTW, thanks in advance for the debates today...home sick and I really don't feel like sitting in bed anymore.
Actually, I think DJ (and I) can laugh.
Because CNN might have some gruesome imagry - I'd not doubt that.
But slavish devotion to Bush is not whey they're not running it, Mark.
Might want to consider.. well, hell, you're bad at that sort of thing.
What's lower than Bush's approval rating? (Other than the Democrat-Controlled Congress?)... That's right. Media approval ratings. Far below the "abysmal" Bush ratings.
What happens if CNN were to try and shock people with the carnage you hint you've seen? Sorry, keep asking.
Well, the first thing that would happen would be the erosion of respect for CNN - even more now than they've been having. Notice that they don't have a "trusted" name anymore? That would move CNN from at least making lip-service towards objectivity to full-blown-opposition to the US, US Military, and Administration.
They'd lose. They know it. Because if they thought they could make a "difference", damn straight they would. Let's talk about all the false stories has run with, and quietly dropped when it became obvious that there wasn't a good angle to attack the US military with? The Military hasn't forgotten, even if you have.
"Laugh away, DJ, but when you have a friend (former student of my father's) who is high up in CNN), then maybe you will understand what I am talking about."
Then again, maybe pigs will sprout wings and start flying.
Yet again, you've dodged my questions. That's why you get no respect. You won't earn it and so you don't deserve it.
So, save the bullshit, Mark. Lay the facts on us, facts that we can verify for ourselves, and answer the questions. Muttering, "Oh, if only you could see what I see" doesn't do that.
How could the media end the war in one day?
Oh, and Unix is still waiting for you to answer his questions.
The videos, that I know that CNN has but won't run because they depict America in a bad light, would end the war in one day because the moment they aired, the public would demand, of their Congressmen, to bring home the troops immediately. This would include a large swath of the public that supports the war at present. It might even sway you.
Obviously, it would take more than one day to safely bring home troops. But that one day would effectively end it all. Most people in this country have no idea what is really going on over there. We see the sanitized version on the nightly news and form our own opinions, usually based on our inherent biases.
And it's not just gruesome footage either. It's colossal error after complete fuck up that ends in human misery, not just death, as a direct result of our actions. So, when I hear the old tired line about the media "only showing the bad news" I chuckle because you really haven't seen shit if you think they are only airing negative stuff.
It's colossal error after complete fuck up that ends in human misery, not just death, as a direct result of our actions.
Is it on the scale of Exercise Tiger?
Or, perhaps the total fucking waste of Monte Cassino?
Perhaps the bombing of Dresden?
Sure, Mark. CNN is holding it just to spare America the shock. And not a whisper of it exists out there - except from you, who've seen it.
Should I mention France-2 and Mohammed Al-Dura, here?
Or are you channeling Brian DePalma's Redacted, and mistaking it for a documentary?
At this point, your credibility is shot, and your gullibility is pretty much accepted.
Mark, I keep asking you for facts that I can verify. Instead, you offer sooper seekrit whispers from your twisted keyboard. Whether they are right or wrong, fact or fiction, is irrelevant, because I CANNOT VERIFY THEM AND YOU CANNOT BE BELIEVED.
As Kevin stated, at this point, your credibility is shot, and your gullibility is pretty much accepted. He is right. You just don't understand what it takes to be believable and to be believed, and so you are neither.
Oh, and Unix is still waiting for you to answer his questions.
That's not even mentioning the total failure that was Iwo Jima.
Iwo was planned, designed, to be a P-51 base. After the struggle to clear the island, 3, that is three sorties were flown where the B-29s were able to be met up with and escorted.
It was also about that time that the switch to night bombing at low-level started - obviating fighter escort.
I guess Mark thinks we should have just surrendered then to the Japanese.
There were three other reasons for taking Iwo Jima: 1) to remove it as a picket station for the Japanese, such that they could no longer provide early warning of inbound B-29 flights; 2) to remove it as a base for Japanese interceptors; and, 3) to provide a ditching base for damaged B-29s on the return leg to the Marianas.
It was successful on all three counts. About 25,000 B-29 crew members landed there, an unknown number of which would otherwise have ditched at sea and been lost. So, we'll never have accurate numbers to fill in a balance sheet of cost v. benefit for Iwo Jima, but war is like that.
DJ: all true, but also could have been met with other places.
The 25k crew figure is nice, and used as justification.... But not really that relevant. Crew casualties didn't drop precipitously after the airstrip was taken. There were some planes that wouldn't have made it back to the Marianas, sure... But most of those "emergency landings" *could* have made it back, but there was no need.
"DJ: all true, but also could have been met with other places."
Nope, not quite. The only way to prevent Iwo Jima from being a picket station and an interceptor base was to capture it. And, truth be told, I really don't know what other picket stations Japan had on other islands in the area.
"There were some planes that wouldn't have made it back to the Marianas, sure... But most of those "emergency landings" *could* have made it back, but there was no need."
Yup, and that's why I stated that we'll never have accurate numbers to fill a balance sheet of cost v. benefit. We have good numbers on what did happen, but very little on what might have happened otherwise.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>