Liberal Lunatic of the Day (3/14/2005)

Liberal Lunacy ^ | 3/14/2005 | Beckwith

[Beckwith]

Scott Galindez, argues in his essay, “Why We Must Withdraw from Iraq", that “As long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq, the perception of the resistance will be that the Government in Iraq is a puppet of the United States. Our presence in Iraq is destabilizing, and I would like to pose this question: how much worse could things get if the United States pulled out of Iraq?”

Galindez proposes, “… a regional multinational solution, not one led by the United States or the UN … that will be the first step to a peace process with a majority of the resistance in Iraq?

Galindez then describes this solution, “Now for the plan: the new Iraqi Prime Minister should request a date-specific withdrawal of U.S. troops, while negotiating with Muslim nations for a multinational peacekeeping force … with the sole purpose of training Iraqi Security forces.

He argues, “If the fighters loyal to Saddam saw, for example, Jordanian troops training a new security force, they might be more willing to lay down their arms and come to the bargaining table. As long as U.S. forces are there, they will continue to fight.”

Stating the obvious, he writes, “To the forces loyal to Saddam, the United States is the enemy. The United States invaded their country and continues to occupy it. While they are not pleased that the Shia majority is forming a government, the Shiites didn't bomb them, the Shiites didn't invade their country. There would be a much greater chance that they would lay down their arms and re-join Iraqi society if the United States were gone.”

He concludes, “George Bush is not likely to agree to this plan, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pushing for it. I for one am not ready to advocate a smarter occupation, one with fewer mistakes. The biggest mistake is occupying Iraq at all. The only way to correct that is to end the occupation.”

link:  Why We Must Withdraw

[Beckwith]

Another liberal genius heard from and the entire essay is written with the appeasement of the terrorists and murderers in Iraq as its single goal. In the complete essay (link above), he never alludes to a real peace, but repeatedly to a “peace process”. His “peace process” hinges entirely on the United States withdrawing from Iraq. What is it with these “process over substance” lunatics?

He writes, “If the fighters loyal to Saddam saw … Jordanian troops … they might be more willing to lay down their arms.” Sure, since the fighters loyal to Saddam are Sunnis, I expect they would be delighted with the Jordanians, Saudis and Syrians, all Sunni-ruled countries. I expect they would feel less secure with Iran, Oman and Bahrain which have Shiite majorities and are ruled by Shiites.

This puffy little twit’s “plan” is focused on making peace with the resistance.  Resistance, he calls the murdering bastards.  Making peace with the “resistance” is called surrendering and to a small minority of terrorists, Baathists and assorted criminals who are blowing up our guys and murdering civilian men, women and children daily for the purpose of restoring another Baathist dictator or worse.  I guess Galindez is cool with that.

Basically, this fool is arguing that the Coalition and Iraqi forces should surrender twenty-five million Iraqis to the “resistance” that, by any measure, is numbered in the thousands. Where, oh where, do these whackjobs get these notions?
 

[Rummyfan]

Scott Galindez? Who cares what a figure skater thinks about Iraq!

[standupfortruth]

The fact that he could even ask this question: how much worse could things get if the United States pulled out of Iraq?” proves just how clueless he is.

[ClaireSolt]

The very last thing any nation wants is to have their neighbors' armies in their country when they are weak. Morons like this think something dumb like all Arabs look alike. Note that Iraqis have consistently said no to such suggestions.

[The_Victor]

Stating the obvious, he writes, “To the forces loyal to Saddam, the United States is the enemy. The United States invaded their country and continues to occupy it. While they are not pleased that the Shia majority is forming a government, the Shiites didn't bomb them, the Shiites didn't invade their country. There would be a much greater chance that they would lay down their arms and re-join Iraqi society if the United States were gone.”

So why then do the terrorists keep indiscriminately killing Iraqis by bombing Shia mosques, security forces sites, markets... etc? If the above assertion were ture then the terrorists would be killing Americans, exclusively if possible. Instead, they are blowing up anything that represents progress toward a free Iraq. Perhaps the author didn't major in logic.

[Beckwith]

BTTT