A Message to All the Cut and Run Freepers Currently Polluting Free Republic

Friday, November 24, 2006 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

I'm reading an astonishing number of comments on Free Republic these days by posters who have joined the ranks of the anti-American left in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some claim to have military experience, some claim to be patriotic Americans and some claim to be smarter than the rest.

These posters are joining the Murtha-Rangel-McDermott treason caucus. Oh, they say they love the troops, but their decision to abandon them in the field speaks otherwise.

Three years ago, the United States led an international coalition to rid the world of one of the worst regimes on the planet. Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist: He financed terrorism, he trained terrorists and he harbored terrorists. He waged war on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He waged war on the people of Iraq, including genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.

Saddam successfully subverted the Oil-for-Food program and was wearing down support for continuing the sanctions keeping him in check.

He had numerous contacts with al Qaeda over the years. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He maintained research capabilities to implement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as soon as the sanctions were lifted. There is evidence that some of these programs would have been operational within a year even with the sanctions in place.

The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.

Three-and-a-half years after Iraq and the world were liberated from Saddam and his terrorist regime, there are those on Free Republic who are clamoring to give up, surrender, cut and run, stab the troops in the back, betray the Iraqis, betray our allies in the GWOT, spit on the graves of our fallen heroes and join Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Ramsey Clark in bringing about America's defeat in the GWOT.

It's only been three-and-a-half years--only six months since the freely elected government in Iraq was formed. In that time, what has been called a mini-Marshall Plan of construction and reconstruction has come to fruition. The Iraqis have held three national elections, they have held numerous local elections, fourteen out of eighteen Iraq provinces are relatively peaceful and stable.

Six months ago, when the Iraqi government was formed, the experts said the war would be taken to Baghdad because our enemies in the region could not abide the example of a free, democratic society in the Middle East. For once, the experts were right. The battle of Baghdad has been a prolonged Tet Offensive style operation of headline-grabbing attacks intended to sap the morale of Americans and Iraqis alike.

From what I've been reading on Free Republic lately, a lot of Freepers have fallen for the enemy's ploy and are howling like barking moonbats for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some of that talk is couched in talk of 'we're fighting a PC war like Vietnam!' The soldiers I met in Iraq recently told Debra Argel Bastian to pass on a message to the Vietnam vets criticizing the war: With all due respect to your service, this is not Vietnam. It is not being fought like Vietnam. Please let us finish our mission.

But our enemy is playing the Vietnam ploy to great benefit. They know they can count on the American and world media to broadcast their propaganda. They work with leftist Americans to sabotage the war effort at home. They know these leftist Americans have allies in the Democratic party. They know they do not need a military victory--only political and psychological victories are needed to defeat America.

You guys are playing right in to their hands. Congratulations.

There are those who argue that murder and dictatorship is the mindset of the Middle East and that will not be changed by our actions. Funny how those who smugly denigrate the Arab peoples' capacity for freedom forget the wholesale slaughter of millions of Westerners by Westerners at the hands of Western dictatorships just a few generations past.

I hear complaints that the Iraqis aren't standing up. Yet, to use one common example, when police recruits are slaughtered in bombings, Iraqis line up the next day at the same recruiting center. The insurgency is small in number, but they are able to do enough damage on a daily basis to stretch out the time it will take to secure the whole of Iraq.

At this time of our testing, the American people are starting to go wobbly. Sadly, many Freepers are too. Our troops and their Commander-in-Chief are not, thank God. It's only been three-and-a-half years. The progress made has been phenomonal. Throw in the towel now, and you'll just have the terrorists follow us home. Everyone knows that, including you. I'm not willing to pay that price, not now, not ever, but you are.

Let me close by offering similar sentiments recently offered by two men 'in the know' on the situation in Iraq who are not giving up. First, Kurdish Regional Government Prime Minister Barzani: "When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn't return."

Next, Gen. Abizaid: "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."

[Sally'sConcerns]

I have a step son in law (to be since I'm engaged) whom I met for the first time a couple of months ago.

He's served two tours in Iraq and was on a month's leave before he was scheduled to leave for his third. His major gripe about Iraq was all of the waste he sees going on. However, it didn't stop him from being anxious to get back over there.

As he said, "When you're over there you hate it but as soon as you're stateside, you can't wait to get back."

[KantianBurke]

Whoever demanded "removing support" for the troops?? Cite names and specific threads please!! Oh wait. In your universe being critical of how the war is being run and making suggesting regarding its alteration qualify as "spitting on the troops." Pathetic. FWIW, it is YOU who is putting words in people's mouths, not I. And finally once agian, it is YOU who have championed those who have abandoned any and all conservative principles over the years. For you claim that FR isn't a conservative site anymore and therefore you're going to leave is sheer chutzpah!

[IslandJeff]

FR poll is up, BTW.

[Prokopton]

"I would also like to see a poll!"

I suggest the following for the poll questions. Let's make everybody happy.


1. Do you support staying in Iraq indefinitely, no matter how many trillions of dollars it cost the U.S. taxpayers and no matter how many U.S. soldiers are killed and maimed, because even the slightest chance for freedom and democracy for Iraqis is worth any cost that Americans must bear.

2. Do you support cutting and running from Iraq even though it demonstrates that you do not support the troops and even though it will be a great victory for al queda and mean that there will now be attacks in the U.S.

[FreeReign]

"Rumors of yesterday's atrocities included one report of six Sunni men who emerged from services at a Baghdad mosque and were doused with kerosene and burned alive. But two Baghdad imams, in an interview, denied that the incident took place."

Yes, I saw the report yesterday that the six were doused and burned and that security forces stood by and watched. All the MSM ran with it.

This is the first I'm seeing of a denial.

[Torie]

Pity the partition thing was not an option. That is the talk of the town as the course change, for better or worse.

[leadpenny]

I'm baaaaaaack . . .

You cannot say you support the troops and bash their mission at the same time.

. . . just in time to see you put forth the biggest lie of the thread.

How could I not support the troops? I was one and my son is one . . . who is in Iraq.

In the Army we called it, "being able to chew gum and march at the same time."

[Valin]

Thanks.

[I see my hands]

"Cut and run is not what many on this thread are suggesting"

That's what you contend. That's what a poll asking that question would determine

[DanTheAdmin]

I think your argument is with Kristinn as well...

[wtc911]

WW 2,in aprox. three and and a half years 407,000 troups died.In about the same time frame in Iraq, 3,000 troups died.

---------------------------------------------

Yep, but in those three and a half years we concquered the Axis powrs and threw them out of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Austria, The Philipines, the Marianas, New Guinea, The Gilbert Islands, the Marshall Islands, Burma, Iwo Jima, Okinawa.....in the past three years we haven't even gained control over one stinking country the size of California....so, what's your point?

[Defender2]

Jim, I looked at Torie's poll. It did not state enough info, so I corrected it and sent it back to Torie!
Torie, here is your corrected your poll:

Regarding US policy in Iraq, do you think the US should:

1. Stay the course until a stable united Iraq has been achieved and the terrorists have been defeated.

2. Expand the war to Iran and Syria to defeat the head chopping off terrorists.

3. Support partitioning Iraq which wil not help with the terrorists situation.

4. Withdraw US troops from Iraq expeditiously so the terrorists can build a base inside Iraq so it can launch more 09/11/01 style attacks upon the U.S. in the future.

5. Don't know

[processing please hold]

I'm debating between, send in the bombers and do whatever it takes to win. I wish that was one choice instead of two.

[sissyjane]

The poll is already posted on the bottom of the scroll-bar.

[woofie]

How about:

"Do you think the events of 9/11 was Americas fault and the result of neo cons meddling in other countries busisuss during the Clinton adminiistration?

Do you think maybe Bill Clinton was a bit preoccupied during his 8 years in the WH and he was content to "kick the can down the road" as many Fleepers now seem prepared to do?

[Glenn]

3. Support partitioning Iraq which wil not help with the terrorists situation.

You're a professional polster, aren't you?

[FreeReign]

I think several of the decisions that have been made have undercut the military's strength, clout, and morale. As stated somewhere upthread, the decision to pull back instead of taking Fallujah the first time was one of these.

I believe the decision to wait on Fallujah until there was a Constituion and until there were some Iraqi security forces who were ready to go was signed off by the CIC.

I don't think it was a bad decision.

It was the first battle in which Iraqi security forces participated and it worked.

[Valin]

The HORROR, The HORROR, The HORROR
/worldclass sarcasm

The sad thing is some would say this photo is just anecdotal

[null and void]

I think we should completely flatten Iran, no "Nation Building", no restoring infrastructure, just flatten it.

When the lib-uh-rhuls b!tch, blandly say the we simply don't have the troops to rebuild Iran, until Iraq is settled down. And, oh by the way, we have plenty of bombs left for anyone else who wants to get frisky.

They'll have to wait for US aid until Iraq AND Iran are sorted out.

In the meanwhile, france, Russia, and Saudi are welcome to rebuild Iran...

[Torie]

For instance we can put some symmetry back into warfare and kill Sadr and his 'crew'.

You at this juncture would have to defy the Iraqi government to do that, and the government would dissolve, and/or maybe order the US out. "Sadr and his crew" are part of the governing coaltion, de facto at least, and maybe de jure. I think that would be the match to really ignite the civil war. Just my guess.