Posted on 11/24/2006 6:46:08 PM PST by 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."
I'm not saying I disagree with you but the first thing you need to do is back off the theological aspect when discussing this issue. Wilsonians used arguments somewhere along that line back in WWI that it was the duty of a Christian Republic to 'spread democracy'. And I've seen some of the same nonsense in the past three years. Nationalists who choose to inject their patriotism into a theological view tend to use this as a fallback position. We're really doing God's work you see? You can't be a good 'Christian' if you don't support the State.
You know, it's possible to disagree with someone without calling them treasonous or claiming that they don't love our troops. It's attitudes like this that discourage actual discourse about what our alternatives are. Once you say that your personal position is the ONLY position possible for a patriotic American to take, you make it impossible to discuss the issue intelligently.
As for President Bush's plan........one of the reasons that I pray for him daily as my brother in Christ is that he will be seeking first the Kingdom of God, and submitting his will to the Lord's. It is his obligation as a believer to submit to God's will for him and for the nation, and millions of us are praying that he will keep that as his goal.
You clicked on my profile and read my background - I did not bring it up!
(I take back the anti-Semitic [ I never used the term 'racist', btw....once again, misleading deliberately?]. Maybe it was someone else, like Babylon, but someone mentioned that since the Muslims in Iraq are mostly semites, they are a race and therefore I'm racist.
Incidentally, while we're talking about you........you never answered about whether or not you were a student of a New England University.......or recent graduate. That would explain a lot of your problems as well. I'm assuming you won't give me grief for talking about myself ;)
I'm 34 years old and married. I went to a liberal school - the University of Michigan - but that was more than 10 years ago. I've been a conservative for a bit over 2 years now. I switched just in time to vote for W in 2004. A vote that I'd make every day of the week and twice on sunday.
But God's plans tend to end out very different from how we envisioned them.
(And I clicked on your profile page because you sounded like a liberal elitist, and when I read it, I said, Aha! Now I know why).
Nancee
Hiya Billbears,
I think you need to understand the background of the thread. I made this statement early on: Muslims are not capable of democracy. They clicked my profile in which I mention being a Christian, and decided that I was being a bad Christian for "condemning" millions of Iraqis to tyranny.
Bad theology has been in the thread ever since.
I'll explain this one more time to you. If you don't understand the point I don't have any more to say to a dogged, argumentative and totally wrong individual who could be diagnosed with a negative IQ!
Here goes it: we CAN'T invade Iran for two thousand reasons that are stated in this thread, phew!!
One of the problems with Iraq is that it makes it politically difficult to invade Iran.
IT AIN'T POLITICAL, IT'S PHYSICAL, STUPID! (An expression only)
Jib, no offense, I'm just exasperated!
Hindsight is 20/20, but even Iraq war supporters do not always concede that Iraq has made Iran tougher. But in any case, we can take the troops out of Iraq and put them in Iran. Conquering a nation is easy, it is the occupying that is difficult.
Jib, no offense, I'm just exasperated!
None take - the feeling is mutual!
We just trust in Him and know that in His Sovereignty ALL events will turn out for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
Now, unless this conversation returns to the support of our troops and their mission in Iraq as is the topic of this thread, I think we have taken enough time (or hijacked enough of the thread), and this conversation should end.
Knowing that you do not support the mission, and that you don't agree with my son, who spent fifteen months in Iraq, that the Iraqis are a people who deserve to be free in spite of the culture and false religion they have been raised with, we don't agree on much of anything here.
An end of this entire discussion between us is best.
Maybe, maybe not. But that's for them to decide (of course this opinion is about as unpopular amongst 'conservatives'...). Either way democracy cannot be spread by the gun. It comes through free trade, exchange of ideas, etc.
They clicked my profile in which I mention being a Christian, and decided that I was being a bad Christian for "condemning" millions of Iraqis to tyranny.
Well of course it is. That's the Wilsonian nationalist theology. It's God's Will we spread democracy around the world (please note I don't remember reading anywhere in the Bible that the State should be used to do such a thing. Wilsonians however purposefully misinterpret the Word to fit their worldview but it is a misinterpretation). Of course they don't seem to have much of an answer when you point out that democracy as we currently have it (we are no longer a Republic) in the hands of the Muslims will lead them right back to a theocracy. A form of government that's twice as worse than a secular dictatorship. And then there's not much discussion either when you point out the Christians that were in Iraq are leaving because there's no one to keep the Muslims off their backs.
That's the third time, and that makes a pattern and not an error.
Try to be honest here, OK?
I think that is a good point. But I wonder if theocracy is best. Under dictatorship (particularly puppet regimes to major powers), the regular Joe blames their problem on the dictator and the major powers. But with a theocracy they have no one to blame but themselves.
Look at Iran. It was a disaster in '79, but now we have a secularized youth that freely rejects theocracy (even if they do not have the will to overthrow the current regime). Perhaps Iraq has to go through a similar transition.
And then there's not much discussion either when you point out the Christians that were in Iraq are leaving because there's no one to keep the Muslims off their backs.
yup
LOLOLOLOL
General Jib, this is not chess: Q to QB3, et voila, a move is made, an invasion is completed and done with. I think I'd rather let some military FReepers take care of the details and tactics because of your on-its-ears-logic is beyond my capability.
Father Jib, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.
..........is Bliss.
"A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back," says Cpl. Peter Mattice, of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment.
| --- Islam and Territory This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic. This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important. The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created. Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/abulkazem/face_of_islam.htm |
”What do you say to the Islam that's taking over Western Europe? Where is the territory involved?”
I thought that was rather obvious to most freepers, Islam is taking Europe back.
What do we do with Iran once we take it? Make sure it doesn’t go back into the hands of Islam.
”It's (Massive bombing on Iraq and Syria) the only way given the shortage of time.”
I call that a desperate act that will just back fire in our face. Nixon did the same thing at the end of Vietnam; he did a huge bombing campaign which did nothing but force congress to pull the plug on the supplying the war effort, which created an almost panic removal from Vietnam. It was a huge mistake.
I still believe we have to reset the clock and the only way to do that is to get a bloody face.
One of our local republicans that often goes on the morning show here has heard the theory from Washington insiders that Bush actually preferred the results he got during this election for two reasons. He was getting nowhere on his Amnesty Program with the republican lead congress and senate. The second is that now that Saddam has been toppled he wants out of Iraq but with the republican lead houses he could not do it (for whatever reason) and feels that it will be easier to get out of Iraq with dems in control. Maybe the theory is based on the dems threatening to stop funding the war which will guarantee an exit strategy.
I found it hard to believe until I see how giddy he appears with Nancy Pelosi lately.
I still dont understand why Al-Sadr wasn't taken out when he only had 200 supporters. Now he's got tens of thousands of supporters.
This whole plan could backfire on him politically as it seems that Chavez recently made a political speech to his people mentioning that he offered to help Iran and Syria by sending troops if the US agreed to let Syria and Iran go in and win the peace in Iraq.
Stay tuned, I guess.
"What's your point?"My point is we wouldn't have won WW 2 by today's standards.Could you imagine what headlines like " Thousands slaughtered and wounded on Normandy beaches-military blunders abound." or "Almost 7,000 marines killed on Iwo Jima.For what? A tiny volcanic island?" would have done to civilian morale?
I've thought the very same thing myself. Have you read this thread?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744667/posts
I still dont understand why Al-Sadr wasn't taken out when he only had 200 supporters. Now he's got tens of thousands of supporters.
I don't know whay that bassturd wasn't worm food a long time ago.
Stayed tuned...yup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.