The violence has reached almost mythic proportions. People are dying every hour of every day! The government is helpless, and the various factions cannot get along. You want to know what convinced me of this?
The facts are in and it is the horrific death rate of 80.6 per 100,000 persons! Can you imagine the horrible conditions and desperate please of those that must endure the madness? We must leave now, and take with us every American citizen! Our tax dollars should not be used any longer to pay for this travesty! We should have known when we first went there that it was doomed to fail. How do we abide any administration that gets us in these situations? We should immediately adopt the liberals cut and run strategy, for we must preserve the lives of our brave American youth!
But wait, what would happen in that void when we leave Washington, D.C.?
*The death rate in Iraq is a paltry 60.0 per 100,000.
You Are Among The Elite!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
WE MUST GET OUT NOW!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 Posts From Readers:
Wha... You can't use CONTEXT to explain ration and logic to a leftard! That just makes you a HATEMONGER!!!
LOL!
==Brooke
good one!!..thanks i needed that!
Hmmm....
Iraq - Total area: 169,234 sq mi
Washington DC - Total area: 61.4 sq mi
I wonder what would happen if we contained the number of deaths to actual war-torn areas...
Context indeed, Brooke. Try this one on for size:
Approximately 1.6 million people have left Iraq out of an approximate population of 28.8 million - about 5.5% of the population.
To compare that to the US, that would mean that 16 million people fleeing the US...over what you right-wingers think is just a few car bombs.
Nicho my friend, in that post yu revealed the nature of the breakdown in debate.
We do not think it is just a few car bombs. Hell, we have hundreds of bombings, or attempted one, in the US every year. Most are domestic, but still bombings.
It is the very fact that it is far more serious than a few car bombs that defines the necessity of our presence.
Or, perhaps, the necessity of our leaving…and apologizing for upsetting the delicate balance that was already in place between warring Islamic factions that have been at odds for the better part of 1300 years.
What are the statistics of bombings in the United States? (That's not being snarky, it's an honest question.)
And my pseudo-quote of right-wingers saying it's just a few car bombs is fairly accurate. After all, the first lady was on MSNBC recently saying that the news only reports the bad stuff and never the good stuff. That's suggesting that things aren't as bad as the news is reporting (which if you read the work of any daily reporter in the region actually believes that they're underreporting the sheer violence.) Donald Rumsfeld stated that things aren't that bad if you fly over the affected areas for crying out loud. (Is 10,000 feet enough height, Rummy?)
There is a breakdown in the debate, Robert. But the breakdown is acknowledging what is actually happening and figuring out the best way to deal with the problem. If we can both agree that things are really bad, then it boils down to two different schools of thought - "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" I'm in the camp that thinks the presence of American troops is only exacerbating the problem - you're in the camp that thinks our presence is the only thing that's keeping things from getting worse. (I think that's where you are, but correct me if I'm wrong - and it doesn't matter whether you agree with McCain's wish to increase troop levels.)
Since we've been there for three years and things are actually getting worse, how's about we try the "get the hell outta Dodge" approach?
So what the libs are saying is when the going gets tough, abandon the situation and go sit in the corner and suck your thumb instead. We leave, and Iraq collapses faster than South Vietnam did.
Nicho, I will have to look up the actual number of bombings. It can be found (I think) at the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. Usually that data is 1-2 years old, but it does keep data for each year, and is usually so data that it takes months and even a year to accumulate and analyze it properly.
You are slightly mistaken. While I do believe that things will get worse if we leave (Iran taking over Iraq is what will happen) I also think that we can be successful there if we endure and press forward. We have made mistakes, but they are political ones and not military ones. The political solution in Iraq is what needs changed.
I also think that success in the war on terror depends upon a measure of victory there. The rest of the world will come around one day, hopefully before they each experience their own 9/11, and it is better to be ahead of the game instead of playing catch up.
Robert, knowing what we know now, do you consider the Iraq invasion justified, and why or why not?
Laurie, after five years I would have thought you guys would give up on this senseless question. We all know that you guys don't even want to have a military, much less use them for any reason. It is ok for troops to be slaughered in Somalia under Clinton, because they were trying to feed people. Troops dying because they are actually meant to kill people is horrible!
Of course it was justified, it was justified in 1991 and no less so in 2001. The President has declared the Bush Doctrine, and I fully support it. There is a list of countries whose actions justify invasion, and in a few years we will have to invade one of them. I justhope there is someone is office you isn't a pansy and is afraid to do what must be done.
It is ok for troops to be slaughered in Somalia under Clinton, because they were trying to feed people.
"Slaughtered"? A total of 43 United States casualties is a slaughter? I shudder to think what you would classify 2,942 United States fatalities.
...and the Emmy for Best Dramatic Performace goes to...ROBERT!
And it's not a senseless question. It is one, however, that requires an honest answer and not White House talking point script. Did you even realize that you contradicted your own argument in the first paragraph of your answer to Laurie -- first claiming that we don't want a military nor want to use them for any reason, then referring to Clinton's use of the military in Somalia?
Nicho, we have been able to discuss as we have because you understand colloquial speech. If I have to break it down, it would most properly be stated as: don't want to "...use them for any MILITARISTIC reason."
From one who has served, and has served in combat, and personally knows Todd Blackburn (who is the one depicted in the movie Black Hawk Down as the one who fell from the helo while inserting. He is currently a police officer in Pensacola, Fl) there is a dramatic difference between Somalia and Iraq. Yes, Somalia was a slaughter. Lightly armed - although specially trained - troops who were sent on a poorly planned mission, denied the support requested, and then basically abandoned for 12 hours. Bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the same islamic fundamentalists as we are now fighting (Did you know that al-Queda was well represented in Mogadishu?) In Iraq, divisions of the most highly trained and well armed troops are not without support. I am not talking about body armor or armor on hummers. I am talking about supporting fires and air support and heavy weapons units. It is the circumstances that define the action, not the number of casualties. Those 43 were killed in 12 hours completely needlessly. Had the politics been left out of the mission, had we used the military in a military manner, it would never have happened. Want a good take on it? Read Gen. Tony Zinni's book (I have it, can't lay my hands on it, and don't remember the name, but it was published in the last 2 years - it is an autobiography) Zinni was intensively involved in the who Somalia affair.
And BTW, thanks for the comments at Laurie's place. Of all the people that I tie up with, I enjoy it most with you (in a strictly heterosexual manner, of course...LOL)
Sadaam gave the finger to the UN 17 times.
He did send a minister to meet with Nigeria for uranium. (Joe Wilson was a hack)
He did seriously pursue nukes.
He sent chemical weapons to Syria for hiding. (I heard directly on an interview of a Iraqi ari force officer)
He killed thousands for disagreeing with him.
Had we not gone in the first time, he would be in Saudi Arabia staring at the Red Sea like Hitler at the Eiffel Tower.
He kept the two warring religious sects plus the Kurds under control by brute force. We are civilized, thus we are ata loss there. Think about it ... if our military and President were as evil as the left screams in their moments of intellectual lapses, why haven't we started killing off thousands with carpet bombings and goon squads. We don't, we are the good guys.
Check, and Mate, Obob!
"Laurie, after five years I would have thought you guys would give up on this senseless question."
It's actually a most significant question. You see, all of the rights keep asking the question, "Do you want us to win?" as though winning and doing what's right are the exact same thing. If invading Iraq in the first place was wrong in all aspects, so is winning in Iraq. The fact that you still support the war, despite the myriad of lies and exaggerations the American people were fed, baffles me, frankly.
"We all know that you guys don't even want to have a military, much less use them for any reason."
Hold on one minute, Robert. Again, assumptions. In the kind of world we live in, a strong military force is not only beneficial, it is NECESSARY. Without our armed forces in 1941, we would have suffered a major attack without the capability for retaliation, and the same holds true for 2001. HOWEVER, it is the ABUSE of our military by those who hold the strings that moderates and leftists oppose, and being that all evidence contradicts the initial claims made by this administration, it becomes abundantly clear (for some) that Iraq was a moral mistake.
"There is a list of countries whose actions justify invasion, and in a few years we will have to invade one of them."
And do any of those countries include the ones cited for atrocious human rights records and close, amicable relations with the U.S., like Uzbekistan? Your friend obob cites Hussein's crimes against humanity, and these crimes made him our enemy. Yet, we support and financially prop up leaders of countries with deplorable crimes against humanity. We pick and choose who is evil according to our own needs and desires. That does not make one "the good guy."
obob said:
"He did send a minister to meet with Nigeria for uranium. (Joe Wilson was a hack)
He did seriously pursue nukes.
He sent chemical weapons to Syria for hiding. (I heard directly on an interview of a Iraqi ari force officer)"
Out of sincere curiosity, obob, what position in the CIA do you hold, and why haven't you released your evidence to the American people, or, at the very least, the administration, which has fumbled for solid proof of Sadaam's non-existent WMDs since 2001?
I was never part of the CIA, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express. I did research and read from sources you may or may not find the traditional media. There are reporters and gifted journalists who are outside the MSM who bring many valid and strong arguments. My personal favorite is the esteemed Christopher Hitchens. He was one the darlings of the left and opened his eyes to the tryanny of those he defended after 9/11. Redemption is good for the soul. There are rogue journalists and terrific writers who do not kowtow to the MSM. Go to realclearpolitics.com. It offers many points of view by very men and women whose writing skills surpass mine by ... I can't put into words.
I was never part of the CIA, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.
ROFL! I just had a picture of Robert E. Lee with a sprinkled donut in his hand. (I'm not certain who that is in your avatar, but that's who I conjured.)
Obob, with all due respect, you need to be able to separate opinion from fact. Yes, it's true that there is a good deal of alternative points of view out there, but the facts don't ring true to many of the theories you touted above. For example, you can call Joe Wilson whatever name you like - even if you removed him from the situation, it doesn't change the fact that the documents that were the "proof" of Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger were such blatant forgeries that they hardly required any further refutation. They were "signed" by a Niger government official who had not been in office for a number of years. That's not Joe Wilson saying that - that's everyone who has first-hand knowledge of the situation. If for no other reason, you should be refuting this because it's incredibly embarrassing that the Preznit would hold it up as fact when it didn't even clear the most basic scrutiny.
It should also be added that there is some question as to our involvement in the first Gulf War. Did you know that no other independent source has ever been able to verify that Iraqi forces were indeed poised on the border of Saudi Arabia? Saddam only made claim to Kuwait because he thought the country still a part of his own - he never threatened Saudi Arabia and quite frankly he didn't need to.
As for Hitchens: Does that mean that you, too, are against warrantless wiretapping? It what is quite possibly the world's strangest political coalition, Hitchens teamed up with not only the likes of conservative Phyllis Schlafly but also the ACLU in protesting Bush's insistence of wiretapping without a warrant. I personally view the man as a political opportunist who wasn't getting the attention he wanted from the left, so he veered right. His pro-war arguments have been destroyed by numerous other writers in both print and television appearances as being too vague to be considered seriously. By his definition of "state-harbored terrorism", the United States is the greatest perpetrator of terrorism in the world. Ironically, this is the claim of liberal writer Noam Chomsky.
And Brooke -- thank you for proving that you've nothing to offer this discourse other than blind agreement to an ideology. I halfway expect your next comment to be along the lines of "Red states good, blue states ba-a-a-ad."
nice reply nicho. I had a long winded reply, very well done IMO. It had to do with us bloggers cherry picking info for our intellectual amusement.
Just go to and read some of Hitch's articles. Even if you disagree with him, his intellect humbles most of us
Remember history is opinion after the facts. And if can't tell the heroic William T. Sherman with Lee, c'mon.
You know, I have yet to dive head first into the thick of Civil War History. That's Tecumseh, huh? I figured it must have been a union soldier after I wrote what I did, considering the uniform...but I have to confess I've never seen a pic of Sherman. I know his military tactics and even have a fondness for the tank with his namesake, but never saw a pic.
And please forgive my longwindedness...I get that way sometimes.
no offense taken. Passion is what feeds debate with a serving of intellect as an appetizer.
I can tell you a couple of things about Iraqi position during the gulf war. First, the "berm" was on the border, and immediately across it were Iraqi positions. Second, Iraq made an incursion into Saudi at a place called Khafji, and the action there is well documented. It was a boneheaded move, and the Marines obliterated the armored column that moved into Khafji, but I was there and it was clearly in Saudi Arabia.
Next, Sherman burned Atlanta. It might should be done today (as if trillions of tons of concrete would burn) but highly uncalled for at that time.
Please be longwinded - it gives me something to do when there is nothing to be done!
we are here for your amusement, plus my students tell my I am a cure for insomnia. Thanks for the eyewitness account.
"I was never part of the CIA, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express."
That's the best line I've heard in a long time. Plus, staying at a Holiday Inn Express is the civilian equivalent to working for the CIA, so you're all covered. ; )
I had to make a comment about this...
From one who has served, and has served in combat, and personally knows Todd Blackburn (who is the one depicted in the movie Black Hawk Down as the one who fell from the helo while inserting.
Namedropper.
No, seriously, you have to ask him - out of my own morbid curiousity - what it's like to be depicted by Olando Bloom in a movie. I'd wear that like a badge of honor on my dress uniform.
"What's the red ribbon with the black and yellow stripes?"
"Orlando Bloom portrayed my in Blackhawk Down."
"...Dude, you must lay more pipe than Exxon."
I guess you might have had to be around him to understand the situation, but it is a laugh line when he says "I swear I didn't fall, I was pushed." When the movie premiered, he was invited along with his entire shift at the PD to view it in Pensacola. His line about being pushed happened during the premiere and all of his guys were making fun of him.
As far as the name dropping, I am not good friends with Todd or anything, but my work a few years ago had me in Florida and interacting with the police department. I have had the honor of meeting him and talking to him for a short time. I honestly have not spoken to him outside of that situation. That movie was incredibly realistic. To those in the military, the sounds of different weapons will forever be imbedded in your mind. When all the action was going on in the movie, I could hear each distinct weapon, and remember what Desert Storm was like with the same type of terrain, sand, noise, smells, etc. So I was able to discuss thigns with him from a point of understnading, which is my point in saying all of that. He is a stand up guy, and does not take himself too seriously. One of those people who make it pleasant to call a man a hero.
"...Dude, you must lay more pipe than Exxon."
ROFL!
Post a Comment