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."

[RobbyS]

The Crysades were a war against Islam, but the rulers of the Crusader states found Muslim allies, and local Muslim prices sought out Christians as allies. We are fighting "Islam" only in the sense that we were fighting the Germans in 1917-1919, and in 1941-45.

[TexKat]

BTTT!

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"What I want is MORE troops. I want to fight to win this thing.

Which leads me to another subject. Are we so low in forces that it would be a strain to send more troops to Iraq? Is 140,000 or so troops all we can muster?"

How many more do you want? You do know that there are over 300,000 Iraqis trained or being trained, don't you?

[rfp1234]

--Neoconservatism is an aberration--

We'll never know. Most "neocons" left (or had already left) the Administration after the 2004 elections. They were probably dissatisfied that their plan had NOT been fully implemented, due to opposition by Powell and the rest of the State Dept.

The only direction to go after the fall of Baghdad was forward (i.e. into Damascus). After Assad saw that "insurgents" were able to enter Iraq from Syria with impunity, and Iran felt emboldened to prop up Sadr et al., the Coalition's momentum was stopped in its tracks.

Now, the only solution to Iraq may be regime change (not necessarily by military means)in Tehran and Damascus. The only Americans in government with the guts to support such policies would be appropriately called "NEO-NEOCONS". They may yet emerge; the next decade will be "interesting" to say the least.

[The Old Hoosier]

If you want a list of our accomplishments in Iraq, here's mine:

1) Created the conditions for a Civil War in Iraq.
2) Created the conditions for increased terrorist presence in Iraq (OK, this one is good to the extent that they're not in Nebraska, but it's bad to the extent that they joined the Jihad to fight us).
3) Created a favorable regional situation for a newly nuclear Iran to dominate its neighborhood uncontested.

I don't think any minor accomplishments can make up for these enormous blunders, especially the third one. We have put ourselves in the position over there of being the only thing preventing total chaos.

And our positive accomplishments?

Saddam is no longer sending large checks to suicide bombers' families.

And the last Iraq-backed suicide bombing in the U.S. was when? Or was Saddam behind 9/11?

For a savings of a trillion dollars and 2500 American lives, plus the avoidance of a crushing GOP defeat at the polls this year (and in future years), we could have been the ones making that deal under the table with Saddam.

[Valin]

"Name one good thing it has done for us to have him gone -- and I mean for US, not for freedom or democracy or the Iraqi people or any of that BS."

Freedom? BS?
100 years ago the answer would be nothing. Today however the world is a much smaller interconnected place. Having someone like Saddam in power is a threat to everyone.

[bjcintennessee]

PING

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Are you going to answer his question? Name names.

That poster and others don't have names. They're simply accusing other conservatives of sabotaging THEIR neo-Wilsonian agenda just because they disagree with it. Kinda sad, that the diehards have to resort to lib tactics.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Especially post #311

Well, since you have cited my post, I feel obliged to share-

The pattern that has been noted is the cult of personality for George W. Bush and the neoconservatives in the Republican party driving a wedge between conservatives and the rest of America, and a good chunk of the world. If anybody dares to speak up and question the prevailing wisdom from a cabinet of yes-men, they are cast as unpatriotic and accused of undermining the commander in chief. Many of the long term conservative posters here have been mostly silent after witnessing your factions behavior, and the resultant zottings. Everybody appreciates what sacrifices our military and their families have made in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also appreciate those still serving in Germany, ROK, Guam, Okinawa, Africa, South America, and everywhere else we station troops. Most of us look forward to SandRats good news posts more than you will ever know. Just because others on this forum have diligently researched a tremendous amount of information, disinformation, propaganda, and even outright lies; and come to the conclusion that staying the course for an indeterminate amount of time (and treasure in Coalition lives and currency) should be debated, does not give anyone moral authority to accuse us of undermining our troops. If you seek an echo chamber devoid of dissent and debate, you shall surely get it by damning and castigating all contrary opinion.
How do you like me now?

[wku man]

So in other words, you aren't going to answer his question. Okay, let me help. I have found one...one...so far who says we need to pull out now. Many say we should arm the Kurds and help them as much as possible, then leave, but that's not exactly "cut and run", is it? A couple have questioned the sanity of having our sons and daughters die or maimed for a bunch of 7th Century goat humpers who have no desire for freedom and democracy, but that's not "cut and run", either.

So, the question I have is, do these legions of "cut and run" FReepers really exist? Or is the whole question just an exaggeration by the Pubbie/RINO/Country Club faction of this forum? Isn't this whole thread just another temper tantrum thrown by RINO and Pubbies angry that they lost the election?

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[I see my hands]

gcruse ('98): "The alternative is to declare victory and come home. It worked before."

This in response to the question: We are killing them over there, what is the alternative?

[PhilDragoo]

Expanding intelligence on Iran

Today, the United States and its allies still know far too little about the strategic capabilities of the Iranian regime. By the admission of American officials themselves, U.S. intelligence on Iran, its strategic programs, and the internal correlation of forces within the Islamic Republic is virtually nonexistent. Such a state of affairs is unacceptable. Quite simply, the United States cannot afford to be “a day late” in its estimates about the maturity and pace of Iran’s nuclear program. Neither can it afford to misjudge the extent of Iran’s political activity in Iraq, the scope of its sponsorship of terror, and its likely political evolution. To correct this critical deficiency, the United States must immediately embark upon a crash program to “get smart” on Iran. Such an effort must include identifying Iran as the number one priority intelligence target. Greater surveillance of the Islamic Republic, using all available sensors, as well as expedited work to rebuild America’s once-robust HUMINT (human intelligence) network inside that country, is essential.

So says the AFPC report of 2006. And who is responsible for the lack of HUMINT? Carter's DCI Stansfield Turner fired 820 case officers Halloween 1977 and the agency never recovered. That would be the administration Zbigniew Brzezinski served.

And what do Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates recommend? Iran:Time for a New Approach--Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations calls for negotiations, engagement, a "grand bargain"--in short, everything Neville Chamberlain did to appease and nothing Winston Churchill recommended to correct.

My question is what good does the word of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do if it is merely given to delay our curtailment of his nuclear weapons acquisition?

What "sanctions" will prevent his nuclear blackmail of us, of Israel, if we allow him to attain nuclear capability?

What is the downside of annoying the Arab street, the world press, the diplomatic spokesmen of Russia, China and France by prosecuting the pursuit and destruction of the forces arrayed against us in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran?

For I will repeat that the downside to allowing this islamofascist enemy to attain its nuclear dimension is our precipitated downfall, abetted by the fifth column Left and its media whore.

[RobbyS]

Not many Americans have access to any information except what they read in the papers or on TV. Furthermore, so much of what is reported to taken from the AP or Reuters or the NYT. If the view of Iraq presented by the administration has been too sanquine, that of the media has been over the top, and "facts" gathers by Arab stringers and filtered through editors who have been hostile to intervention from day one. Reports from Iraq tell us that while things have no gotten "better", they are by no means as bad as what is reported. The thing to remember is that the Muslims--all of them-- do not want us in the Middle East, they do not want us to set up a client state, and certainly they do not want Israel. If they had their way, they would get us to give us our unconditional support of Israel, which has been the cornerstone of our policy since Nixon's time. I think the Europeans, or many of them, would love to be rid of Israel.

[The Old Hoosier]

Among many other things, it prevented Iraq from tying its oil sales to the Euro rather than to the petrodollar (which, with other oil producers following suit, would have had a devastating effect on the US economy).

This is the only thing you list that actually benefits us. You're saying that we did it for oil. We can see how many people are ok with that.

But the fact is, the other oil producers, especially Iran and Venezuela, are still talking about switching to the Euro, so it could well happen anyway.

[MaineVoter2002]

The news media spins an artificial reality and politicians feel compelled to play the game

Even worse than that. I'm far from being a Clinton fan but do you remember when the USS Cole was bombed and on Veteran's Day Clinton wanted to speak about the Americans who lost their lives and the Voice Of America (supported by OUR tax dollars) refused to allow Clinton to mourn the deaths of our military men on the VOA because it would not be fair to the Palestinians who had recently died in some unrelated attack around the same time. The VOA felt that to mention the US Military deaths in the USS Cole would be offensive to Palestinians.

We have a MAJOR problem folks. It's NOT just the MSM

[Sam Cree]

"FoxNews has been running a bit where GW is saying "I'm not sure what we are going to do [in Iraq]."

"That is very unsettling. If HE doesn't know, who DOES?"

Yes, very unsettling if he actually said or thinks that. I think that W has kind of screwed the pooch on the war, at least so far, but cutting and running is still the worst thing we could do. I'm not a military man, but I'd be inclined to say that we ought to do what we have to do to win decisively, even if it means more troops. Cutting and running on our part would amount to a major victory for Islamic terrorism, which isn't exactly what we set out to do over there.

[Red_Devil 232]

A cut and runner with a hawkish stance? I don't understand how a cut and runner wants to win this war. I guess I am confused?

Also I do not understand this statement:

Politically and Strategically we CANNOT lose Iraq. So, we either fight or we leave.

If, as you state "...we CANNOT lose Iraq." then leaving is not an option!

It should read: Politically and Strategically we CANNOT lose Iraq. So we fight.

[wku man]

I forgot to ping you on my last post, so have a look at #330. I get the feeling that this is just an extension of the "you conservatives left my sandbox and took your toys home, so you're all doo-doo heads" reaction following the election. Kind of a...temper tantrum...wouldn't you say?

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[MaineVoter2002]

We should be monitoring the anti-americanism being broadcasted around the world from our own government

http://www.cafenetamerica.com

[FreeReign]

...Pubbie/RINO/Country Club faction of this forum?

Identify this so-called faction. Who are this thread has made remarks that are really just Republican in name only? Who on this thread is God forbid a country club member? Identify the "Pubbies" on this thread? I would guess that means these are people who vote Republican even if the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat. Identify these people on the thread.