Say Anything Blog

It’s not that simple a question for a liberal.  They can’t admit Iraq is a front in the war on terror.  They’ve got too much invested, politically, to admit that Iraq is anything other than a failure.

But here’s another question for the liberals: If Iraq is such a god-awful mistake, why aren’t the Dems in Congress pushing to de-authorize the war?  Or at least defund it, something that would be despicable but at least consistent with their rhetoric on the war?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m not expecting many answers.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

why are the terrorist fighting us in Iraq?

Most of the people fighting us are Iraqis.
What do you call someone who fights for his
nations sovereignty?

Why is Iran and Syria interested in the outcome in Iraq?

The Iranians are espescially interested since they have lost their oil resources to western powers before.
Remember the Shah? Foreign troops near their borders make them nervous.  Christians against Muslims incites the whole regions gov’ts and peoples.

Why aren’t the terrorists fighting us here, in America?

They would , if they had they ability.
They are few , though more than before we invaded and occupied.
We came to them, they got home court advantage, unlimited time outs , hospitable officiating.
Every power group has its eyes firmly on the immense
oil wealth that sits on the table of Texas Hold’em Iraq.
We play in their casino. They shave the deck and pull from
the pot.

goal of democracy in Iraq is so wrong

The sham democracy we have installed in Iraq
is now the scabard of the sword of Islam.
The police , the army , the ministies are dens of vipers.
The leaders we are paying speak of and to us derisively.
We have no true friends in that part of the world.

Most say we can’t win in Iraq.

I say we have already lost. No self sustaining
Iraqi government will put up with occupation and
foreigners selling off their resources.
That means in the end we are out o there.
We have lost the Iraqi people, and a good part of our military. Are the American people going to accept
years/decades of our military stuck in conflict
to support an ungreatful foreign gov’t?
An Islamic gov’t running on Shirra law? NO.
Our reach has exceeded our grasp.

If Iraq is such a god-awful mistake, why aren’t the Dems in Congress pushing to de-authorize the war?”

Some are , as well as some Repubs.
The trick here is to leave the mangled dismemberred
body of Iraq without appearing to be responsible
for the carnage or a reannimated
Frankenstein.
Dems want to firmly tie Iraq in a noose around
GW Bushes neck.
Repubs want to be nowhere near the perpertrator-in-chief. They are not going into the 2008 elections carrying his dirty water.

Most of the people fighting us are Iraqis. What do you call someone who fights for his nations sovereignty?

This doesn’t answer the question Woof.

They would , if they had they ability. They are few , though more than before we invaded and occupied.

They proved they had the ability on 9/11, what changed so that they now do not have the ability?

Dems want to firmly tie Iraq in a noose around GW Bushes neck.

So who is playing politics with our soldiers lives?

WOOF asked, Most of the people fighting us are Iraqis.
What do you call someone who fights for his
nations sovereignty?

Are you assuming that they’re fighting for their nation’s sovereignty? They already have sovereignty.

They are few , though more than before we invaded and occupied.

Often claimed, but never explained.

The sham democracy we have installed in Iraq
is now the scabard of the sword of Islam.

That’s “scabbard”, and the way you used it makes it redundant. Anyways, what makes it “sham”? It is certainly not perfect, but these things take time. It’s coming along quicker than any other democracy in its infancy. For comparison, it took Germany four years to hammer out it’s first constitution. Iraq got it’s constitution in just over half of that time.

The leaders we are paying speak of and to us derisively.

So what. They don’t have to like us. Again, look at Germany. It took decades before we got any appreciable favorable word from them.

I say we have already lost. No self sustaining
Iraqi government will put up with occupation and
foreigners selling off their resources.
That means in the end we are out o there.
We have lost the Iraqi people, and a good part of our military.

We’re not “selling off their resources”. Those resources are theirs. As for your claim that we have lost a “good part of our military”, what proof do you have of that statement? Some stacked and biased poll, no doubt.

Are the American people going to accept
years/decades of our military stuck in conflict
to support an ungreatful foreign gov’t?

I don’t know, how long do you think we’ll stay in Germany?

Truth be told, America won’t have much of a choice. That area of the world is explosive and our military is smack dab in the middle of it. We’re not leaving. We’ll be there for decades.

Dems want to firmly tie Iraq in a noose around
GW Bushes neck.
Repubs want to be nowhere near the perpertrator-in-chief. They are not going into the 2008 elections carrying his dirty water.

If we play politics with this life and death mission, then we’re asking for a more unstable world.

we have lost a “good part of our military”, what proof do you have

How bout the annual Military times poll

this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.

The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.

Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Military Times Poll

Most of the people fighting us are Iraqis.
What do you call someone who fights for his
nations sovereignty?

Apparently Woofie would have us call the monsters fighting to plunge Iraq back into tyranny and extremism freedom fighters.

What a jackass you are, Woof.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

woof, try to come up with something new.  The Military Times is not produced by the military but is a branch of the Gannett corporation, a large probably liberal news organization.  The credibility of their surveys have come under scrutiny in the past and are probably just as suspect today.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

It appears you’re right Rob. Only one liberal has offered answers.  I kinda thought they would rather not face the answers.

Thanks Woof.  At least you tried—even if you never answered the first question.

Woof didn’t answer anything.  As usual he just obfuscates the debate with inflamed rhetoric and recrimination.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If our military efforts and goal of democracy in Iraq is so wrong, why are the terrorist fighting us in Iraq?

Because Iraq is a part of their turf...many Arabs resent the presence of western forces in the Middle east and some even go so far as to fight them. If the ultimate goal is to set up a great big fundamentalist Moslem regime then it is incumbent upon the fundamentalists to clear the foreigners out. What better way to show the Arab community that the fundamentalists are better than the westerners than to demonstrate how weak the west is...thus the interest in prolonging the fight in Iraq for as long as possible and the 911 attack for that matter.

Why aren’t the terrorists fighting us here, in America?

Because you generally clean up at home before you move on to more distant venues.

Why is Iran and Syria interested in the outcome in Iraq?

Because Iraq is in their neighbourhood and they prefer a regime sympathetic to their interests rather than America’s or the West’s. Think in terms of the Munroe doctrine and how many Americans get so exercised about the Communist regime in Cuba.

If Iraq is such a god-awful mistake, why aren’t the Dems in Congress pushing to de-authorize the war?

Because when push comes to shove Democrats are Americans and they hate to admit when they’re losing or beaten...not very brave of them I agree.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

...Democrats are Americans and they hate to admit when they’re losing or beaten…

To the contrary!  The Dems and the MSM have been trying to sell failure and defeat in Iraq since before we got Saddam, so that one won’t float.  The truth is, we beat Saddam and his army, and we will beat the terrorists.  If we don’t, Canada will become a very unsafe place, since they want to take over the entire world.
BTW, the Commies had missiles in Cuba; nuclear ones.  No parallel there. Your attempt to make an equivalence between the US and the terrorists in Iraq is particularly odious, and wrong.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Mike A,

Given your answers are correct, and I think they for the most part are, I cannot imagine why anyone would think America leaving would be a good idea. 

Your first answer points out exactly what our President has been saying.  We leave and the terrorists are going to swarm that place in order to grab a strategic advantage.  We leave and the terrorists are going to “demonstrate how weak the west is” and “prolong the fight”.  Leaving won’t end anything.  Rather it will be a new beginning for the terrorists.

Your second answer agrees in part with what our President says as well.  We took the fight to them and so we are not fighting them on American soil.

Third answer—right again.  Iran’s radical and extreme ideology is better served by a sympathetic neighbor, or ideally, an ally.  Allowing this would be a very bad thing for not only America, but Israel and all neighboring contries who are not Islamic states.

Your last answer is wrong however.  Many Democrats don’t mind America losing this war at all.  They have everything to gain politically if we lose and much to lose politically if we win.  They have taken a political posture that can only be served by defeat in Iraq.  I think Woof got this one right.  The Dems are playing politics with our soldiers lives.

HG...I agree that our thinking is in the same ballpark at least. I’d argue that it’s more in the “terrorists’” interest to see America bogged down in Iraq but I’m sure that most of the Shi’ites will be happy to see them go so that they can consolidate power...kind of ironic given their opposition to and oppression by Saddam but it just goes to show how complex the world really is. It would be easier to figure things if the “terrorists” were one homogeneous group instead of a variety of thugs with their own fish to fry.

As to your Democrats, I may be naive but I just don’t see their interests served by a defeat in Iraq...just as I think Bush’s motivations for undertaking the mission are genuinely held for what he believes the best of reasons. It really is possible to disagree on the merits of the case without abandoning the core beliefs that we share. There are extremists on both sides of the argument but they tend to reside in universities and think tanks and blogs and don’t necessarily argue from the vantage point of reality.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

...if the “terrorists” were one homogeneous group instead of a variety of thugs with their own fish to fry.

They all share a common goal:  Kill or subjugate the infidels. What part of that don’t you understand, Mike?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It would be easier to figure things if the “terrorists” were one homogeneous group instead of a variety of thugs with their own fish to fry.

As R108 said they share a common goal.  This is clearly seen in the latest reports about Bahgdad.  “In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment.”

So I have to ask why should the US leave given the answers you provided?

"If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own,” said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That will spark real change.”

International Herald Tribune.
Democrats plan symbolic votes against Bush’s Iraq plan

Mike A,

Woof was right.  The dems want to let the President dig his own political grave so they are willing to let events play out thinking they will get worse and that will be to the Democrats advantage politically.  Again, Dems are playing politics with our soldiers lives, that is if they really believe things will get worse, which they do.

if the “terrorists” were one homogeneous group
Cripes,what do you want them to do?  Wear name tags pronouncing that “I AM A TERRORIST”?  The terrorists are ALL muslims.  The vast majority of the terrorists are from Arabic nations where muslims are the majority and Islam is the national religion.  Is that homogenous enough for you?

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Most of the people fighting us are Iraqis.
What do you call someone who fights for his
nations sovereignty?

The Mafia “fights for their sovereignty” too you know…

The difference in Iraq is now that ALL citizens have the same claim to liberty—and the right to fight for sovereignty.  Not just the thugs anymore.

Liberty is a grand thing, worth dying for.  Even american liberals used to understand that much.

No longer, apparently.

[Feet make good soup!]

HG...I understand your point about Islamic terrorists hating the West but it’s not like they’re all on the same team or that they can be in the same room without trying to kill each other. I would recommend these brief items to get the gist of what I’m saying. I still don’t buy into your views on the Dems, even with your supporting evidence from the redoubtable Woof, but who knows.

dd...silly comment my friend and the sooner you learn to differentiate the players the better.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Bad links...try thisand this.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Mike, I agree there are diffent names with slightly different perspectives.  But whether or not there is a difference, your answers to these questions remain.  It clearly would be a major victory for the terrorists and insurgents if we leave.  As your answers strongly imply, if we leave the enemy gains a strategic victory with huge payoffs, leaving will mean the terrorists are free to now attack the US at home, and leaving will mean Iran will have an ally and possibly control through shia fundamentalists of the government.  To leave Iraq is a lose lose scenerio.

silly comment my friend and the sooner you learn to differentiate the players the better.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as I don’t think it’s silly at all.  Worldwide, the muslims have been on a relentless march of domination by what ever means are prudent. The world muslim growth rate is given here.  Where ever muslims have established a majority or have gain government control they have installed Islam as the national religion and muslim law, Sharia, as the ruling doctrine.  This is already starting to be a problem in Europe and I’m sure that you would not like that to happen in Canada and I in the USA.  Like Robert Spencer and many others, I view fundamental Islam as the centerpiece of a homogenous effort to conquer the world.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.