Shots Across The Bow

First of all that is a baseless assumption claiming the reenlistment is motivated by the "belief" in what they are doing. It could easily have more to do with the fact that they can make a lot of money now if they stay. And they know the odds are still far in their favor of not getting killed relatively speaking.

I wonder why you think that people who think this war is bullshit blame the troops? Molly Ivins is a troop hater? Really? As far as I know there has been no organized protest or planned violence of any sort against troops related to the Iraq war. If you think that things are better now in this country or Iraq because of this war, or that in twenty years they will be better I'd say you are basing that more on your hatred of progressive social issues because if a liberal Democrat caused a mess this big based on lies this sad you'd be crying for impeachment. Most if not all of the current anger is directed towards the fact that we invaded, destroyed there stability (as brutal as it was) and then failed to replace it. We allowed hundreds of foreign zealots to enter who were not there before and they unleashed a hell of suicide bombings upon the people of Iraq. That's what most of us liberals are so dismayed about. You needed to blindly follow an obviously disembling moron in to a war just so you could be on the side of God, or because you hate hippies. If it was because of 9/11 you should have demanded we invade or at least forcefully investigate Saudi Arabia, not to mention pour all the troops in to Pakistan to GET THE ACTUAL PERPATRATORS! I suppose you make one mistake you have to continue to protect that mistake no matter how many people get blown up, especially when you have some bike ridin' to do.

Stop hiding behind the troops its cowardly.

I agree with you. They are obviously deluded. Perhaps the US government only allows Faux News and Rush Limbaugh to broadcast in Iraq.

Only an uninformed idiot would believe the lies of Bush and his accomplices. They are truly leading this country to ruin

Hey Timmons!
Spoken like a true leftie, the ones who expect better men than they to fight for their miserable
existence.Assholes like you piss me off.

Hey Weasel36, when are you signing up or, if my instincts are correct, you're nothing but another miserable cowardly chickenhawk.

You should take your anger and channel it towards something you believe in instead of hiding in your closet.

If it was because of 9/11 you should have demanded we invade or at least forcefully investigate Saudi Arabia, not to mention pour all the troops in to Pakistan to GET THE ACTUAL PERPATRATORS!

Hmm, so instead of winning in Iraq, we should run away from Iraq in the face of Islamic extermist violence and then turn around and invade Pakistan, a NUCLEAR POWER which is currently OUR ALLY. Oh, yes, that will send a clear message to the Muslim world:

The US is both crazy and cowardly.

What you will you counsel, I wonder, when Pakistan goes before the UN Security Council and complains about being INVADED WITHOUT CAUSE? Should we boldly use our veto to continue attacking an allied country?

And, God forbid, what will you counsel if Pakistan gives us 24 hours to leave or have our bases attacked by nuclear weapons? Do you plan to launch strategic strikes against Pakistan and kill millions of people? And possibly force the Pakistanis to a final strike against India, killing HUNDREDS of millions more?

For God's sake man, think before your write! If, as is your premise, it was a mistake to invade Iraq, how in the name of all that's holy can it be reasonable to invade Pakistan?

You remind me of the fools calling for the invasion of North Korea, failing to notice that apart from the NUCLEAR WEAPONS capable of levelling Japan, the North Koreans have had the ability to totally wreck the capital of South Korea within hours for decades.

Why is it that leftists think every war we're actually in is impossible to win and every war we haven't yet gotten in will be a cakewalk?

Bill Timmons:

Clearly many re-up-ers do believe in what they're doing; they say it, at the various milblog sites and to their families and friends. I'm sure they don't turn down the reenlistment bonuses; hazardous duty ought to carry a premium. My dad, a career Air Force pilot, believed in his mission every day of his career - but that didn't stop him from turning down his flight bonuses. Look at the voting records of military personnel and tell yourself again that they're motivated only by money.

You say,

Most if not all of the current anger is directed towards the fact that we invaded, destroyed there [sic] stability (as brutal as it was) and then failed to replace it. We allowed hundreds of foreign zealots to enter who were not there before and they unleashed a hell of suicide bombings upon the people of Iraq. That's what most of us liberals are so dismayed about.

It seems to me that your statement trips all over itself: on the one hand, we destroyed the stability Iraq had enjoyed (using the term very loosely) under Saddam Hussein, but on the other hand what you're most concerned about is Iraqi civilian deaths from terrorism. A hint: Saddam's "stability" had a price. (Since when do liberals embrace realpolitik?) That price is no longer being paid. The difference between a government-sponsored campaign of terror and illegal terrorist attacks decried and physically opposed by the government, including putting the lives of Iraqi security forces on the line to protect civilians, ought to be clear even to a concerned liberal.

One more bit on the troops you probably claim to support (based on talking points from "us liberals") as you call them money-grubbing morons: Morale is high in Iraq. See http://newsbusters.org/node/328 - a source you'll question, since its subhead is "Exposing and combating liberal media bias," but the Today show interview on which it comments is linked.

I totally agree that many soldiers re-enlist because they like what we're doing over there. There is however, another major reason. My son, who is committed to the Army and loves his position, just re-enlisted. He did so because he wants to have more control of his future. If he left now (after his first four years), he would have to remain in the Reserves for four more years. The reserves are being sent to Iraq in much greater numbers and for longer stretches than Regular Army. So, by re-enlisting, there is less chance he will be sent back to Iraq (he served there for ten months) and virtually no chance it would go beyond a year if he did. Plus, if he is sent over there as Regular Army, he doesn't have to worry about his job being there when he gets back. Many, many Reservists are finding that employers can use "loopholes" to lay them off shortly after they return. What I am saying is that there may be other dominant reasons why re-enlistment is up. They're smart.

Timmons:
Your speculation of reenlistment being motivated by money is at least as baseless as Rich's assumption of idealism. Read the blogs and emails from the guys actually there. There are a few who don't believe in the mission, but they're getting out, not reupping. However your comment speaks volumes about your opinion of our troops even though you didn't use the term "mercenary."

You're also spewing crap about failing to replace their (brutal) stability. First, most of Iraq is being built into a lawful prosperous society despite the best efforts of the baathist deadenders and imported jihadi. Second, civilian deaths are down since Saddam was in power, again despite the best efforts of the same characters. Bombs are killing some, but deaths from lack of nutrition, medication, and from preventable disease are way down. And the (brutal) proliferation of mass graves has stopped completely.
Your comments about invading Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are pure idiocy.

And Lark, before you start; I signed myself up in the Marines for four years in 1966 and had my tour in scenic Southeast Asia. I'm a little old for this fight, but I'm no chickenhawk.

This battle needed to be fought. Anyone who can comprehend a map and a newspaper knows why. Others have elaborated far better than I have space to here. Liberating Iraq isn't a done deed, but it's well on the way. It's also the most effective thing we can do to cripple islamic terrorism, and again others have laid out the reasons supurbly.

My opinion of the far left? Incredibly dense and clueless people with no interest in facts that don't support what they want to believe.

It certainly seems that the story of the Army re-enlistment figures is driving some members of the political left slightly crazy.

1. Regarding "baseless assumptions" you might want to check out the picture on the masthead. That's me during my Navy career. I know why people re-up and it is a combination of factors, including patriotism. However, the basis for my statement comes from more than my general knowledge; instead, I rely on the soldiers themselves, who when they speak overwhelmingly support the mission in Iraq. Obviously, there are those who don't; any large group will have a wide range of opinions. But don't make the mistake of looking at the relatively few dissenters and think that they counter the majority who do support the mision.
2. Blaming the troops. I'm not sure where I said that, or that Molly Ivins hates the troops. Re-reading my post, I can't find anything even remotely similar. What I was talking about was that the MSM reports only the bad news from Iraq, and are casting the mission as a "quagmire" and an absolute failure, a characterization that comes as a major shock to the guys who are, you know, actually there. However, given the weekly protests organized outside the Walter Reed Hospital (how tacky is that? Protesting at the wounded soldiers!) I think a strong case can be made that the anti-war crowd, at least some part of it, does blame the troops.
3. My hatred of progressive social issues. Are you sure you know how to read? Exactly which progressive social issues do I hate? I'm a libertarian; I favor les government involvement, which means I support the eradication of the frug laws, the blue laws, support gay rights, etc. I am pro-life however because I believe that life begins at conception, not at birth.
4. On God's side riding bikes with the hippies Partner, I'm not sure what you've been reading, but I don't think it's what I wrote. I don't hate hippies; I don't have a bike; and as for being on God's side, well, I don't write about my religious convictions so you're barking up the wrong tree there as well.
5. Iraqi stability I guess that's the difference between you and me. I don't consider a regime that tortures its citizens for their political beliefs to be "stable." I don't consider a regime that attacks its neighbors without provocation to be "stable." I don't consider a regime that vows to erase one of our best allies to be "stable." In fact, these actions made Hussein a decidedly unstable person, and affected the stability of the entire region. But to you, that kind of "stability" is preferable to a chance for true peace and real stability.

And that about wraps it up for Bill Timmons.

Hey toM, look up the work "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

Lark, do you really believe that the only people allowed to comment on military matters are those with military experience? If so, then kindly present your military experience. I've got 9 years in the Navy. No combat even though I was deployed to the Red Sea during Desert Storm.

Dear Rich, I'm glad you're able to appreciate my sarcasm, for that's indeed what it was.

Guess you missed that, probably like you've been unable to miss the facts about our little lying chickenhawk president.

Amazes me how the red state idiots (those who voted for Bush) and their sympathizers who habitually whined about the lying of Bill Clinton yet cannot--will not more likely--see the lies of the Bush misadministration. They planned this war before the election. They were probably extremely happy about 911 because it gave them a legitimazation for their plans about Iraq (see PNAC documentation, Paul O'Neils book, etc.). It is well documented that Bush--AWOL during his own military stint-and his fellow idiots--read neocons--had been planning this for years. Now they continue their lies and the jackasses who unquestionly obey authority (provided it comes from a political party dependent upon ignorant, red necked, Bible thumping creationists) refuse to believe otherwise. It'd be funny how ignorant the war supporters are if only America's youth weren't being spent for the enrichment of a few.

Take a little time, go out and get news from a variety of sources (not just Faux News or NRO).

I've pretty much lost hope that the war supporters can be redeemed. Their continual denial of reality (remember the NY Times article where a Bush cabinet member described their opposition as the 'Reality Based Community'?) only serve to reenforce the hopelessness of redemption.

This'll probably piss off you chickenhawks, but goddamn it you're royally f***ing up this country.

. . .see the lies of the Bush misadministration. They planned this war before the election.

Do you have a link to facts that support the above besides the blathering of a disgruntled fired employee who still voted for his ex-boss? In other words; ANY documentation?

See the following. This is just one piece. I won't bother providing anymore. I know that the devout of the Bush devotees are immune to facts and logic.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761

You're basically quoting he said, he said. You still haven't presented any evidence to back anything up. As far as the notion that Bush was "thinking about invading Iraq in 1999" it hardly seems surprising; since Clinton the standing policy was for regime change in Iraq. In other words, Clinton thought about it too.

Anyone can say they "heard" something and make an accusation but unless there is some kind of hard evidence to back it up it's just someone talking out of their ass.

Time after time the left has presented "facts" that weren't true. One that comes to mind is the false notion that Republicans led intimidation of voters and vote rigging was rampant. It was put forth by the media and leftists to the point where it was almost accepted fact. Problem is, is that it simply isn't true: http://www.ac4vr.com/

The point being is that you still have not answered my question which leads me to wonder if you are talking out of your ass.

So if we are all uniformed idiots, what does that say about you? since the majority of Americans fall into this category and elected Bush AGAIN! Since you and your informed friends can even convince us uninformed idiots to vote for you and your plan to save the country. Truth is that, the sex crazed, drug taking, Hollywood idol worshiping, smug celebrity types, and of course the anti-whatever protest community, (hey they can arrange a protest in 15 minutes flat and have a newsletter and email campaign in another 15 minutes) contribute to the decline of moral values our society more than Bush. Hey but at least they are informed, you know if it fells good DO IT. That would make you sir just a plain old idiot. Ignorance is bliss.

If you are so smart why don't you go to Iraq and talk the terrorists high on opium, sitting in a closet with a grenade and AK-47, to give it up and play nice. You can't possibly be informed and believe the dribble you spout. Have a nice delusion.

yours truly,

one of the informed now thanks to you.

My my such anger. Yes you are a pack of deluded asses following a larger ass that is bankrupting the country-both morally and financially-, attempting to remove all environmental legislation, and being successful at installing an Islamic government in Iraq.

As far as going to Iraq, how about all the young tough talking Republicans that somehow find reasons why they can better serve in the US. How about Barb and Jenna? Bush has said that military service is noble and brave, yet his daughters party on. Probably like many of you, as long as someone else's kids are dying YOU DON'T CARE. You can continue to sleepwalk and not have to think. God knows it's probably how most Americans operate.

Point is you tough guys do the talk but not the walk. If you're the average American, you're overweight and get most of your news and decision making information from TV. God help you!

You're right, your're a pack of deluded, misinformed nitwits, that voted one of your own into office. It's amazing the amount of anger you have because someone has the balls to question and challenge authority.

Hey Blue, where are the WMD?????

Oh yeah, I remember--wink wink--the intelligence agencies got it wrong!

Question authority, it's something Americans used to believe in. Not anymore, the Republican chickenhawks act like a bunch of programmed robots, unable and unwilling to have an original thought. And look at the horse's ass you follow and idolize. An intellectually incurious, incompetent, failure that skated through life upon his families coattails. Is it any wonder we're in such a mess?

Timmons, et al, what lies are you lefties talking about? Is there any proof of these lies?

If a soldier re-enlists because he believes he can make a lot of money by staying in the Army, well, it seems to me he nonetheless believes in what he is doing.

You whack liberals are idiots and not worth the wasted breath to argue with.

Bush did not lie. Bush was not AWOL. No election was stolen. These are just lies the lefties tell in a futile effort to give some legs to empty rhetoric. After all ya'll have been losing elections left and, well, left. Heh.

Until the left can win some elections, you all are irrevalent. That is why it is important to undermine the credibility and policies of the popularly elected government. Liberal ideas are losers, so next best thing is to trash the winners.

I wonder how many election cycles into the left's irrelavency can they continue to claim the elections were stolen?

Make your arguments during the campaign, win some elections, and then the lefties can call the war off. There are elections every two years. What, have the neocons managed somehow to steal three elections?

Pfft.

After their ideas and agenda are rejected--yet again--at the polls, the libs have no credible claim to make policy--unless of course the elections were stolen, or the President lied to enact policy. Thus we have the incessant, unfounded claims of stolen elections and Bush lied. (Sorry, propaganda does not count as proof.) These lies are the left's justification to claim some credibilty.

BTW, Calling people you don't know "chicken hawks" and "cowards" is childish and stupid. If you were to do that face to face, I bet 95% of the time you would get your a@@ handed back to you in a sling. The internet is not as anonymous as some of you jerkwads like to think.

Hey Skylark.
Got to Korea 3months before the cease fire in July
1953.VOLUNTEERED 18yrs old.What have you done in your miserable existence besides whine like all the other leftie wimps?.My previous post goes for you too.Btw did 21yrs and proud of it,nice little pension too...Have a nice day KOMRAD.

Wetzl, you must really update your attempts at insults, they're so right wing radioish. Komrad, really can't you be more original than that? Oh, forgot you're a right winger and probably don't think for yourself a great deal. Original thoughts are probably not your forte.

Don, I won't try to educate you. That's beyond even my capabilities. Face it though, if you're brave enough to do a little unbiased research you'll find that Bush and company played the average American for a pack of fools-and were successful at it. Somehow I doubt if you have the nerve or courage to do that, but one can always hope.

Also, Don, 95% of the conservatives I've seen are fat--if not obese--(except of course some of the young right wing chickenhawks one finds on NRO), intellectually lazy, and yet somehow proud of their narrow minded perspectives. I, however, take quite good care of myself both physically and mentally; the idea of one of these fat nincompoops hadning me my sling in an ass is as perposterous as any of Bushes arguments, which you obviously in an unquestioningly way swallowed whole heartedly.

Say I've got some great swamp land if you're interested....

Tom,

Hey Blue, where are the WMD???
And lack of WMD constitutes a "lie"? The "Bush lied" mantra is a fun theory but that's all it is.

Oh yeah, I remember--wink wink--the intelligence agencies got it wrong!

Apparently, as did the previous administration, Clinton, remember?.

I see you still are unable to point to any facts or proof. Is your insistence that "Bush Lied" based on a feeling only?

I know, I know, you throw out the smarmy condescending attitude and pseudo intellectuality but it still doesn’t negate the fact that, thus far, you are simply still talking out of your ass and repeating tired talking points of MoveOn.org whilst accusing others of unoriginality. Your accusation of others being "intellectually lazy" is laughable.

Now it’s beginning to get amusing. Not amusing in the sense that we are laughing with you but, rather, at you.

Again, can you point me to any proof that "Bush lied" or are you talking out of your ass?

Regards.

Blue, it would be ridiculous to try to argue with you. You, like too many of the right, have the zealotry of a religious fanatic. Suffice it to say the article that I posted as a link, in my opinion, provides enough evidence to have the little chickenhawk & awol Bush impeached or imprisoned. Of course that won't happen with a Republican congress that doesn't have the intellectual or moral bravery to think outside of a box of carefully crafted lies.

You could, if interested, find the evidence yourself. I have no desire to provide this info to those too lazy or unwilling to find it for themselves. If for some reason you can't sleep some night, possibly feeling guilty over the death and dismemberment of American youth for no good reason, you might want to investigate the Project for the New American Century. You'll find their plans for the invasion of Iraq went back into the 90's. Virtually all of their primary members are on Bushes cabinet. This of course will not convince you or others of your kind because your're immune to reason, facts, and logic.

Go ahead and laugh at me. I'm crying because of you and your ilk. American youth and wealth are being spent for no good reason. You and your kind obviously don't care and for that I'm deeply ashamed for you. Fortunately many in this land of ours are beginning to wake up, the tide will turn I can only hope, and the next Congressional elections will see a reversal of the insanity we've been forced to suffer by a lazy and intellectually bereft little man-who coincidentally-while American youth are being maimed, has taken more vacation time than any recent President.

I remember that W stated once that 'I sleep well at night'. Could you or any rational, feeling human sleep well after hoodwinking your countryman and sacrificing their youth for no good reason? I suspect that in addition to being intellectually lazy, the man may not have a normal human's empathy. Maybe you could, since you've unquestioninly like a good robot accepted the shifting rationales for this travesty.

This misadministration will go down as one of the worst in history. It's no wonder the rest of the world is appalled.

The right's hypocrisy is never more pronounced than when they scream about Clinton's lying and then spent millions of dollars investigating a semen stain on a woman's dress but will not spend a cent investigating the reasons for this war. Clinton was a liar but no one died for his lies. I can only wonder what the final body count will be for Bushes folly. You and all your lock-in-step compatriots will share the blame.

So, about those lies. What lies are you talking about, fatboy?

BTW, how did you get so darn smart, Tom? You are so much more intelligent then everybody else in the whole fuggin world. Must be quite the burden. How do you carry on?

So, about those lies. What lies were those, again?

Remember, propaganda is not proof.

I simply ask for any facts to substantiate your “opinion” that Bush lied and you respond with a huge diatribe that has nothing to do with the question posed. You ramble on about one moonbat theory after another and then accuse me of being lazy for not substantiating YOUR opinion. You made the accusation it's your intellectual responsibility to provide the proof which you are unable to do.

That lends itself to zero credibility on your behalf. That’s the story of the whole commie left.

What this equates to is, as I suspected, you talking out of your ass. Something that is not an opinion but something that you, by your own words, have proven.

Glad to have that settled.

Hi Don, thanks for appreciating the burden I carry. It's been tough trying to be the sole voice of reason on this thread populated by right wing ideologues that are unwilling to question or challenge authority.

Blue, I will not waste time trying to convince a flat earther that the world is round. The link I provided earlier shows ample proof that the claimed reasons for this atrocity are not true. Besides there's also the Downing Street Memo, which I'm reasonably certain you know nothing about just as I'm reasonably sure you're ignorant of the Project of the New American Century. I can't teach a dog mathematics anymore than I could convince you the earth is round, creationism is a joke, or that Bush lied about this sacrifice of life and wealth.

You think I'm speaking out of my ass, I'm pretty sure your head is up yours.

I love it when you talk down to me, big boy!

So, about those lies. What were they again?

Wow, fun stuff.

First I never said that the troops were reenlisting because of the marked increase in pay. I was stating that I had not seen any reports that indicated belief in the invasion of Iraq as the driving force. And that there were any number of potential reasons, including what one poster said about it just making good career sense.

The weird thing on these blogs, particularly the flame throwing ones, is how people deny they said anything because its all implication.

You wrote this:"Just wait till they get back and Ted Rall and Molly Ivins and the rest of the harpies show them how all along they've been raping and pillaging and repressing the Iraqis"

This line is definitely referencing your opinion prior regarding the MSM, personifying it in closing.

I applied probably too big a "you" when I wrote this having not read your bio and personal statement until after I posted, still I bet you hate hippies ;). I have to say the libertarians are the biggest conundrum to me. I mean all of a sudden they want to start liberating countries from dictators which is the most active one's government can possibly be. It's a complete disconnect. It's basically saying I don't think that my government should be involved with anything but the most basic and trivial aspects of my life, but they should definitely go in to other countries and take over the lives of those citizens.

I never said invade Pakistan I said pour our troops in there, the sentence was muddled. But then to say we need to be extra cautious because they have nukes. Wow, I wonder why Iran wants them so bad. This really highlights one of the main reasons we went there, because they were a defenseless land with no real allies. And yeah that bullshit you were hearing as Bush and Cheney rattles towards war was just that, bullshit. Saudi Arabia should have been laid bare by the entire weight of our intelligence agencies with those findings reported to the public. Instead they rose above the entire conflict, protected by some geopolitically powered invisible shield.

Another point I was making is not that Iraq had it so good, but I don't think anyone in the Bush admin was going around saying "We guarantee to bring civilian deaths down to %50 of the current total, much less blood, much more freedom". It's not the troops that are killing the majority of these Iraqi's but we provided the destabilization that is giving them a whole new way to die. That's a noble thing?

Interesting reply, Bill.

1.First I never said that the troops were reenlisting because of the marked increase in pay.

It could easily have more to do with the fact that they can make a lot of money now if they stay.

Hmmm. Now what were you saying about implications again?

2.This line is definitely referencing your opinion prior regarding the MSM, personifying it in closing.

Absolutely true. Except that my opinion was not about whether the MSM hated the troops but about how their coverage of the events in Iraq is slanted towards the negative stories. Here's an exercise for you. Find any MSM stories that do not feature either US soldiers dying, US soldiers engaged in wrongdoing, or setbacks in the process of reconstructing Iraq.

I'll wait.

Now then, is the difficulty in finding positive stories because A) Iraq is falling apart faster than we can put it together and that absolutely nothing is going well, or B) The MSM is only giving us that part of the story that fits their preconceived ideas? Given the wealth of coverage from Iraq outside the MSM, coverage that reports how many things are going very well indeed, I choose B.

3. still I bet you hate hippies ;).

Only when they smell excessively of patchouli oil.

4. I have to say the libertarians are the biggest conundrum to me. I mean all of a sudden they want to start liberating countries from dictators which is the most active one's government can possibly be.

Actually, this is where I differ from "big L" Libertarians, who were and are against the war for that very reason. On the other hand, I and many other "small l" libertarians recognize that one of the duties of a limited government is to provide for the protection of the nation. Since I recognize the threat posed by Islamofascism, as represented by Al Qaida as well as the more militant Wahabbist sects, I believe that our government must act. There's no disconnect; that idea comes from a misunderstanding about libertarianism. It's not that I want no government, just one limited in its role. Within those limits, I want the government to function efficiently, and in the case of National Defense, strongly.

5.This really highlights one of the main reasons we went there, because they were a defenseless land with no real allies.

Ummm, no. There are literally hundreds of defenseless and friendless nations we could take over if we wanted to. In fact, there are even nations in the Middle East that would have ben easier targets. Remember that before the war we were told over and over by the MSM that Iraq was a very tough opponent with a strong army and we should be prepared for 50,000 body bags to come home during the invasion. It was only after the invasion that we discovered just how hollow Saddam's forces were.

Iraq was a target for many reasons, among them Husseins defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, his inhumane treatment of his own people, his aggressive stance towards his neighbors, his extensive ties to terrorist organizations, and his ongoing efforts to field WMDs.

And for the record, I agree with you that Saudi Arabia must be watched closely, as well as Syria and Iran. Wahabbism has its strongest bases in Saudi Arabia, although they have ben strugling there as of late. It seems that slaughtering your fellow Muslims is considered bad form, and the folks in Arabia are turning away from the Wahabbists.

6.It's not the troops that are killing the majority of these Iraqi's but we provided the destabilization that is giving them a whole new way to die. That's a noble thing?

It is if they are dying in fewer numbers. And they are. It is if the people killing them are being brought to justice instead of being part of the justice system itself. And they are. (This by the way is a key distinction that is often missed by those who enjoy drawing a moral equivalency between terrorist thugs and US soldiers. As an example, consider the actions at Abu Ghraib prison. Not only were the prisoners there not treated nearly as harshly as those who were in Saddam's prisons, nobody was fed into a paper shredder, for example, but those who did get out of line and mistreated the prisoners were punished for it; in Saddam's prisons, they would have been promoted.) It is if they are gaining citizenship in a free government. And they are. It is if they are gaining the ability to defend themselves from the terrorists, to strike back and punish those who slaughter indiscriminantly. And they are. It is if they are forming a strong, independent government. And they are. Incidentally, I think it's pretty amusing how many who are anti-war seem to enjoy it every time the Provisional government moves away from the ideal government that we would like to see. It seems that they see every change as a defeat for Bush. Given that our aim is to help the Iraqis create a strong, independent government for themselves, isn't it actually a sign of success when they make a choice that we don't really care for?

By the way, thanks for a reply that concentrates on the actual issues at hand, instead of flaming away at random.

READ THIS THREAD!! WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. THE LIBERAL COMMENTS ARE SUSPECT AT BEST. POORLY EDUCATED AND THESE COMMENTS CAME BEFORE THT 06 ELECTIONS. SO LETS SIT BACK AND WATCH WHAT THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE ARE GOING TO DO NOW?

BASICALLY NOTHING!! WHILE TERRORISIM PROLIFERATES IN OUR COUNTRY?