Iraq war was lost the day it started (GREELEY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 14, 2006 | ANDREW GREELEY

[Chi-townChief]

Actually, the war was lost for Greeley and sorry lefty anti-American scum like him when their main man Saddam was captured. Up until then, they had this fantasy that he was somehow still running the show just as they continue to have about their other hero bin Laden.

[ClearCase_guy]

A translation of the last paragraph: Most Americans are not as smart as moi.

[Jeff Head]

Iraq war was lost the day it started

He's right. Saddam, the Ba'athists, Al Quida, and the militant islamic terorists lost that war the day we invaded.

And now 25 million more people are freer, with an opportunity at more porsperity and peace than they ever could have imagined without our efforts. And tens of thousands of would be terrorists...are dead.

[Brilliant]

"In fact, the United States did cut and run in Korea and Vietnam. It did settle for something less than victory in these two wars."




So what is this guy complaining about? If he thinks we're losing, but it's no big deal, then why even talk about it?

[Brilliant]

"Most of the important people in the government don't have time to read."




Actually, I think it would be more accurate that most Americans feel that they have better things to do than read the trash that gets published these days.

[nikos1121]

Greeley...Maybe you don't know this...but we now have 100,000 US troops in the area...and we ain't leaving dumb@ss...It's not about anything else other than we control the game.

[PackerBronco]

In fact, the United States did cut and run in Korea and Vietnam. It did settle for something less than victory in these two wars. The United States did abandon the North Korean and Vietnamese people.

Abandoned the North Korean people??? Since when was the protection of the North Korean people a goal in the Korean War? Way to show your ignorance Greely.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

He's got the recent history of Iraq about right, and I'm afraid he's got the near-future there about right as well. A bit of recent history he ignores is that most elected Democrats got it as wrong as most Republicans, but a bit of the near-future he probably has right is that very few of those running for office, Democratic or Republican, are going to be leveling with the American people about any of these screw-ups.

And alas, he's probably got it right at the end, too: that given the sophistication of average American voters the best bet for all such politicians is to blame the the other guy and hope they can shrug their way into office one more time.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So Republicans will run in November against dishonor, flag burners, gay marriages, the New York Times, the Supreme Court and the Democrats who want to lose Iraq.

So will Democrats run for dishonor, flag burners, gay marriage, the New York Times, the Supreme Court and for losing in Iraq? Or will they pretend to be Republicans again?

[attiladhun2]

The myth about "three Iraqs" is just that. The divisions in the country are not as strong as the MSM and others have led us to believe. It is common for Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and the other ethnic groups that make up the country to intermarry, go into business together, socialize, etc. Much of the sectarian violence taking place in Iraq is settling old scores from the Baathist days. This kind of violence was frequent even while Saddam was in power. (Why do you think Saddam and his cronies all lived in heavily fortified compounds)? This nonsensical blather of Iraq "degenerating into civil war" forgets that civil war was already happening in Kurdistan under Saddam and that war is pretty much over. Sixteen of Iraq's 19 provinces are relatively quite. Even Mosul, which only a year or so ago a hotbed of insurgent activity, has settled down. Ninty-five percent of the violence in that city of several-hundred thousand has disappeared as the terrorists have been killed, captured, or driven away. Even Tikrit, Saddam's home turf, has settled down greatly. I believe the war in Iraq has already been won on the ground. The only way we could lose is if we allow the friends of all thugs and terrorists, the Democrats, to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory by returning them to power in this country.

[Chi-townChief]

About the only thing Greeley has is his head up his phony ass; note how he doesn't go anywhere near our "loss" in World War Two.

[gaspar]

Andrew Greeley is a spetuagenarian Catholic priest who in his writing combines Liberation Theology with lefist Sociology. His essays are perfectly predictable, as were his courses at the University of Arizona. There are columnists who seem to hang on forever. Greeley is one.

[joylyn]

I don't buy the argument that the dissolution of Iraq is inevitable. But even if it were true, what of it? If it took a bloody dictator like Saddam to hold the country together, then arguably, it wasn't worth holding together.

[Puppage]

If we "cut and run" from Iraq, Republican senators argued recently, we will lose our credibility, dishonor the memory of those who have already died there, break our promise to the Iraqi people and settle for something less than victory

Umm, we'd embolden the enemy. They'd see it for what it is...WEAKNESS

How I LOATHE the appeasing, surrendering, left

[Puppage]

A bit of recent history he ignores is that most elected Democrats got it as wrong as most Republicans

Not to mention the rest of the world as well.

[Bommer]

In fact, the United States did cut and run in Korea and Vietnam.

We cut and ran from Korea? Why the hell are all our troops still stationed there? RUNAWAY! Your 50 years late!!!!

[attiladhun2]

I think it will hold together because it has a common history going back to the to the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires which continued under the Assasid Caliphate. It was a single province under the Turks. There are administrative and economic ties that spread out from Baghdad to all parts of the country. The "glue" that holds the country together is probably stronger than ethnicity or religion. That is why I don't see the place dividing.
By the way, I think that taking Saddam would have had to have happened eventually, better when he was weak and isolated than after the UN had finally lifted all sanctions and he was able to secure other allies in the region.

[Jack Ian]

Greely is Priest who writes novels about hard core sex. He is an embarrasment to the Catholic church.

[Falconspeed]

Greely is a Catholic priest who deserves respect, a tenant of the John Hancock Tower in Chi-Town who deserves a rude dose of "reality therapy", and a fool who disagrees with the bright leaders of Coalition countries. Bottom line: I'll let God be the judge. Greely is repulsive.

[Mr. Silverback]

Will it work? Sure it will.

Yes, it will Andrew. Because it's the truth.