The images from the Stability and Security DoD 2-17-2006 report is up on the MFVOV blog Feel free to use them for debates and pass them along.
Posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:07 PM PST by CometBaby
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
That's about where my thoughts have ended up too, and it's very disturbing.
You're a funny person! LOL...
Funny, isn't it. LOL
Actually, interesting may be a better word.
No, and there should not be. I respect individual rights, and that includes the right to have an opposing viewpoint. If someone becomes vulgar and abusive when expressing that opposing viewpint, I will exercise my right to label and dismiss them. I am not infering that Mr. Buckley did that, I am just answering your question. :-)
Armies are not created for, nor should they be in the business of nation building. Based on your definition of failure, every Vietnam vet is a failure because the mission failed. You and I both know that is ludicrous.
While I applaud and admire the dedication and sacrifice of your nephew, my brother and all our servicemen and women, the best they can do is to stabilize conditions in Iraq to the point that we can let them govern themselves. What happens after that is out of their hands and reaching that point without a protracted occupation is less than guaranteed.
The most disheartening news coming out of Iraq right now, is the possibity of a civil war. If that happens, there is not much we are going to be able to do. We cannot go out and shoot civilians and involve ourselves in an internal conflict. If Iraq allows itself to be drawn into a civl war, they could lose their Democratic government and all their new freedoms in a heartbeat. This could be a successful tactic for Al Queda and it would be devastating for the Iraqi people if this happens.
Because there was an endgame there. BTW, all the people on the planes on 9/11 were Saudis, so why are we in Iraq?
That's a HUGE generalization. Since this was such a general comment on your part, I cannot address what it was, specifically, that caused you to make this broad indictment of Republicans. Are you suggesting that everyone who supports the War on Terror only does so, to support the President?
I rather suspect your problem has more to do with Republicans who don't agree with you on every issue.
(TKO'd, Tet-style I only meant that the situation can become so bloody and violent and prolonged that the American people, already impatient, will not stand for it ~eventhough~ we were in no sense militarily defeated.)
Great article. It articulates the dread I have had regarding a civil war in Iraq. Thanks for the link.
I did not insult Mr. Buckley .. I disagreed with him.
do we not owe him our respect?
Disagreeing with someone is not disrespectful. Respect is earned, not "owed". When respect is demanded, only fear is given. Where respect is commanded, it is freely and admiringly offered.
I couldn't agree more.Every time our government suggests to poor people or immigrants, they don’t need to learn English, they are cheating them. English is the language in which they will get ahead in this country.
I hope that question was rhetorical. The Iraqi's have certainly suffered enough, but don't take my word for it. Just look at the mass graves we have found. Iraqi's don't deserve this .. nobody does. They are and have been an oppressed people, and you have to take that into consideration. I think they have embraced Democracy and are trying very hard to help build a new country for themselves.
Unfortunately this latest press by Al Queda, of bombing the temples, may be successful and throw the country into a civil war which would certainly be devastating for them. I don't believe for a minute, that the Iraqi people have not suffered enough.
I didn't call him "senile" .. that is your word, not mine.
If you are looking for solace there are other conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh who will do that for you.
No, I am not looking for "solace". I am voicing an opinion about an article he wrote. You have a problem with that?
Yeah, that's the problem with threads. People come in mid way and lose the context. : )
Actually, I'm referring to the automatic support for Bush and the administration by some, or most in some threads, this is one of them, who when challenged, can't even support their own position. I think it's reasonable that if someone support the President or anyone else on a matter politically, that they at least be able to articulate why when challenged. And I don't mean by saying high-level superficial things that don't delve into the details.
Kind of like after elections. Conservatives can talk your head off if asked why they voted one way or another. Liberals can't speak intelligently, most of them, particularly the average voting liberal. Hell, most of 'em can't speak intelligently on politics any time. LOL
There is an endgame in Iraq. It is part of the WOT. We are trying to kill the people who murdered over 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11, as well as those lost at our embassies in East Africa, and the USS Cole.
All the people on the planes on 9/11 were not Saudis. Moh. Atta was an Egyptian, two came from the UAE, and one was from Lebanon. We are not in Saudi Arabia because the government of Saudi Arabia did not support the hijackers or AQ nor did they have a WMD program or act as a state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, AQ has attacked Saudi Arabia with one of its objectives being the removal of royal family.
Why are we in Iraq? See my post #293 and read Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed By The United States Congress We are in Afghanistan for similar reasons.
As long as AQ is in Iraq, we need to stay the course. We are in a war. We don't have the luxury of a unilateral retreat. The problem is that the American public still does not grasp the enormity of the threat. If AQ acquires a nuclear weapon and destroys an American city or sets loose a biological attack, perhaps then people will understand the significance of this struggle.
I may not agree entirely with Buckley on the premise that we've lost Iraq. But I agree with him that we need to consider alternatives. We can't have the same situation continue after the end of this year.
Why the arbitrary deadline? Do you think that AQ feels the same kind of time pressure? We were attacked. We must defeat the enemy or be defeated. AQ is not going away. A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq will encourage greater support for AQ and militant Islam.
BTW, sure, the Dutch wielded influence, but I don't think you can say that the Netherlands guided the Indonesians into democracy. In fact, the Indonesians waged a war against the Dutch to establish their independence. Not exactly an example we want to repeat in Iraq.
Guided no, but the Indonesian legal system is based on Roman-Dutch precedent. As was the case with many former colonies, the new, independent countries adopted many of the institutions of colonizers. The Dutch were in Indonesia for nearly 300 years. When I lived there, it was a mark of an educated Indonesian that he/she could speak Dutch.
We waged war against the British to gain our freedom. In any event, the situation in Iraq is not analogous. We are in Iraq at the sufferance of the elected government. It won't be necessary to wage war against us to force us to leave. We freed Iraq from a tyrant in much the same way that we removed Hitler and Tojo.
What are you a tough guy? I replied not to you but to the people who were dismissing him. You have absolutely nothing to do with my reply. I replied to the article not to anything you wrote. In fact I agree with your position.
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.