This is what we have to endure, part four (the last!)
Continuing directly . . .
Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for.
So? That makes it right? Franks was clearly wrong, although I would guess that he was hardly the final arbiter of that decision . . .
We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.
I thought this was a 27-year war or some such thing. What does deposing Saddam have to do with anything? And how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice before saying they aren't "light"?
The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.
We're trying to be nice? Abu Ghraib ring any bells? "Nice" has nothing to do with this. We have no idea what we're doing there, so there's no way to do the right thing. You think it'd be better to "flatten Fallujah" regardless of casualties? What kind of monster are you?
2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.
This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean.
No, it supposes that we would have known what we were doing in the first place. Who commits a nation to a war without having a plan? That's insane.
That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.
We aren't fighting a guerilla war; they are. That's why we're not doing so well. The idiots who went into Iraq and the morons who support it didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam, clearly. When has an occupying, invading army ever subdued a native populace not willing to submit, and how does us being an occupying, invading army jibe with what America stands for?
3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.
This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security.
How can you tell? There was no plan, remember? At least, you didn't answer your question about it by saying we did.
It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I thought it was WMDs. Or to make the world safe from Saddam Hussein. Or . . .
The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.
That's been the story for 3 years now, with no progress whatsoever. Would you like to change your story again?
It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.
What, is that some sort of magic phrase for you? And you're an attorney? That's a sad statement on our legal system . . .
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
Clearly, given what you've retained from your schooling.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years.
And how many lives did we lose during that "war"?
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon,
The first half? HAHAHAHA. Waterloo was in 1815. Clue up, pal.
and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
Except for 1872-1914 and 1919-1939, that is. So let's see, that is 75 years minus 42 minus 20, give or take. How about 11 (although the Franco-Prussian war actually lasted less than a year, so that's another year less, and WW1 only lasted a total of 4 years and a couple of months, so there's another year less, so really, we're talking 9 years total)?
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation,
Not this again.
and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan.
Tell yourself up above.
World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept. The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
Key phrase: so far. And besides, what does this prove, exactly? That this is a doable war, based solely on casualties? You are one cold-blooded mindless troll.
But the stakes are at least as high ... a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
Yeah, or not. Your interpretation of events, causes, and motivations do not support your beliefs. You might want to try reading some actual history books (written by professionals) before jumping to any other conclusions.
I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this.
Because we actually deal in facts and reality. You might want to do this yourself, sometime.
They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.
Huh? Who said? And you said you want to kill them. That's not much freedom, is it?
300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem.
No, they're just our legacy as well, you butcher.
The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?
What the hell are you talking about? No other country in the world has the ability to do that to us, so propping up another straw man to knock down does not help your argument here.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.
Really. Except for anyone living anywhere else in the world, that is. Perhaps you missed it, but millions of people all over the world are, and have continually protesting our war against Iraq.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?
Because those are oppressed people where demonstrating against the government would result in their deaths. And don't think for a second that there haven't been demonstrations there, either. We'd never hear about them or see them because the state owns the media. Kinda like here, where you don't see our demonstrations either. Hmmm.
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
Liberation? Is that what you call what's going on? And for the last time, Jihadists have only gained power in Iraq since we invaded! We created this mess by trying to impose our will on their people.
If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism ........ And American Liberals just don't get it !
Sadly, it is you who doesn't "get it". "The Jihad" is incapable of "killing liberalism", because terrorists are not capable of destroying societies or governments without the cooperation of like-minded individuals inside those governments. If we left Iraq and pulled our financial and political support from Israel and Saudi Arabia (which has always been the foremost complaint against the US among Islamists), terrorists would have no reason to hate us any longer. End of Jihad, no killing necessary. Imposing our way of life on others is not American, which you would know if you had remembered any of your "schooling"; you are clearly willing to sacrifice our nation's ideals in order to exterminate a few thousand people. That sounds pretty sick and demented, let alone unpatriotic, to me. Fool.
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.
That's rich. This "history" is unknown to anyone because it's not "history". This contains so little that is factual or truthful, I am amazed this could be believed by anyone. Unfortunately, the author's low regard for Americans' ability to reason and think is simply proven by his own work. Ick.
Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:
1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.
We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for.
So? That makes it right? Franks was clearly wrong, although I would guess that he was hardly the final arbiter of that decision . . .
We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.
I thought this was a 27-year war or some such thing. What does deposing Saddam have to do with anything? And how many Americans are you willing to sacrifice before saying they aren't "light"?
The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.
We're trying to be nice? Abu Ghraib ring any bells? "Nice" has nothing to do with this. We have no idea what we're doing there, so there's no way to do the right thing. You think it'd be better to "flatten Fallujah" regardless of casualties? What kind of monster are you?
2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.
This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean.
No, it supposes that we would have known what we were doing in the first place. Who commits a nation to a war without having a plan? That's insane.
That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.
We aren't fighting a guerilla war; they are. That's why we're not doing so well. The idiots who went into Iraq and the morons who support it didn't learn the lesson of Vietnam, clearly. When has an occupying, invading army ever subdued a native populace not willing to submit, and how does us being an occupying, invading army jibe with what America stands for?
3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.
This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security.
How can you tell? There was no plan, remember? At least, you didn't answer your question about it by saying we did.
It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I thought it was WMDs. Or to make the world safe from Saddam Hussein. Or . . .
The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.
That's been the story for 3 years now, with no progress whatsoever. Would you like to change your story again?
It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.
What, is that some sort of magic phrase for you? And you're an attorney? That's a sad statement on our legal system . . .
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
Clearly, given what you've retained from your schooling.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years.
And how many lives did we lose during that "war"?
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon,
The first half? HAHAHAHA. Waterloo was in 1815. Clue up, pal.
and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
Except for 1872-1914 and 1919-1939, that is. So let's see, that is 75 years minus 42 minus 20, give or take. How about 11 (although the Franco-Prussian war actually lasted less than a year, so that's another year less, and WW1 only lasted a total of 4 years and a couple of months, so there's another year less, so really, we're talking 9 years total)?
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation,
Not this again.
and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan.
Tell yourself up above.
World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept. The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
Key phrase: so far. And besides, what does this prove, exactly? That this is a doable war, based solely on casualties? You are one cold-blooded mindless troll.
But the stakes are at least as high ... a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
Yeah, or not. Your interpretation of events, causes, and motivations do not support your beliefs. You might want to try reading some actual history books (written by professionals) before jumping to any other conclusions.
I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this.
Because we actually deal in facts and reality. You might want to do this yourself, sometime.
They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.
Huh? Who said? And you said you want to kill them. That's not much freedom, is it?
300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem.
No, they're just our legacy as well, you butcher.
The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?
What the hell are you talking about? No other country in the world has the ability to do that to us, so propping up another straw man to knock down does not help your argument here.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.
Really. Except for anyone living anywhere else in the world, that is. Perhaps you missed it, but millions of people all over the world are, and have continually protesting our war against Iraq.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?
Because those are oppressed people where demonstrating against the government would result in their deaths. And don't think for a second that there haven't been demonstrations there, either. We'd never hear about them or see them because the state owns the media. Kinda like here, where you don't see our demonstrations either. Hmmm.
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
Liberation? Is that what you call what's going on? And for the last time, Jihadists have only gained power in Iraq since we invaded! We created this mess by trying to impose our will on their people.
If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism ........ And American Liberals just don't get it !
Sadly, it is you who doesn't "get it". "The Jihad" is incapable of "killing liberalism", because terrorists are not capable of destroying societies or governments without the cooperation of like-minded individuals inside those governments. If we left Iraq and pulled our financial and political support from Israel and Saudi Arabia (which has always been the foremost complaint against the US among Islamists), terrorists would have no reason to hate us any longer. End of Jihad, no killing necessary. Imposing our way of life on others is not American, which you would know if you had remembered any of your "schooling"; you are clearly willing to sacrifice our nation's ideals in order to exterminate a few thousand people. That sounds pretty sick and demented, let alone unpatriotic, to me. Fool.
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.
That's rich. This "history" is unknown to anyone because it's not "history". This contains so little that is factual or truthful, I am amazed this could be believed by anyone. Unfortunately, the author's low regard for Americans' ability to reason and think is simply proven by his own work. Ick.
posted by bryduck at 9:38 AM
2 Comments:
Write a book! Run for office! Arrange a lecture! Do something to stop the spread of such BS. Well said, bryduck, well said.
:*
-TBO
Hey, yeah! Why don't you write a book? If you did, would anybody have the - er- you know whats - to publish it?
Post a Comment
<< Home