Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Why Now? |
Posted by: Shamalama 06-Dec-2005, 12:41 PM |
The past few weeks, it has seemed as if someone turned up the volume on the Iraq war debate – not the war, the debate. Actually, the war appears to be going better than ever, with the number of deaths falling, the Iraq economy growing and a political campaign in full-swing with participation levels shaming most U.S. elections. The Iraqi army now controls the ground in areas which used to require coalition troops, local Iraqis are turning in the foreign fighters who have so brutalized them in the past two years and the insurgency has fallen to putting out faked videos of their "offensives." Yet the debate blares louder every day. "Pull out! Now! Not later, NOW! You know you’ll have to anyway sooner or later! It’s a lost cause, so get out! There’s nothing more we can do! OUT! OUT! OUT! NOW! NOW! NOW!" Oh sure, there are a few more "controlled" voices calling for timetables to temper the outrageous suggestions – but their point is the same as the screamers: We’ve already lost, so let’s tuck our tail properly between our legs and accept the inevitable. The argument is strange, and the mainstream media’s wall-to-wall promotion of it is frustrating and excessive, even if not surprising. Still, why now? Why has this suddenly hit the top of all their talking points? Why are they now coalescing around this message? Why not 14 months ago, when it might have gotten Kerry elected (and things seemed at least as bad, if not worse, on the ground)? Why not last spring, when insurgent attacks remained high despite the first Iraqi election’s success? Why not this summer, when London was attacked and the momentum against the war internationally was peaking? Why, when nearly all indicators have improved and there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel, do these opponents – many of whom once favored the war and until recently remained willing to "stick it out" until we achieved our goals - suddenly call for our precipitous exit? Today it finally dawned on me: They want out because they now recognize we will soon achieve victory! Your thoughts? |
Posted by: WizardofOwls 06-Dec-2005, 02:31 PM |
By George, I think you're on to something! If we were to win the war now, it might put a sudden halt to the DemocRATS' momentum! It could bring all of their vicory parties for the next presidential election (which I'm sure are already in full swing) to a screeching halt! I guess I can't blame them though. If my political agendas were as shabby and shady as their's are, I'd want to protect the only leg I had to stand on too! |
Posted by: birddog20002001 06-Dec-2005, 09:19 PM | ||||||||||||||||
It isn't our leg, it is the leg of all of the guys my brother has been telling me about or their hand or the bradley that gets blown up and flipped into the tigris river all of these quotes are just from the last e-mail I recieved from him most of this has happened in the past month. Just last week a cousin of my wife was killed in Baghdad, he was a marine. Two weeks ago a guy that graduated from my high school was killed in Iraq.The fact is this is a war based on lies and American men are dying and being ripped apart because of those lies.
|
Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Dec-2005, 11:15 PM | ||||||||||||
War is hell, haven't you heard that? You talk about "victims" and "whining" (reference the religious persecution thread) after posting a message like this? Your brother needs to vent all he sees and all he experiences, rather than keep it all bottled in. During the course of his time served, until his return home, I hope you can find the solace to be that sounding board, and will reserve your harsh criticism for the war as it may serve only to weigh him down. |
Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Dec-2005, 11:17 PM |
The cries from the left are getting louder, and more ridiculous too. Here's what http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF has to say on the subject. |
Posted by: CelticCoalition 08-Dec-2005, 11:05 PM |
I'm sorry, maybe I'm confused. I didn't think we were at war with Iraq, i thought we were supposed to be at war with terroism. How is pulling out of Iraq losing the war? How is winning in Iraq winning the war? |
Posted by: SCShamrock 10-Dec-2005, 02:58 AM | ||
You nailed it, you are confused. |
Posted by: CelticCoalition 11-Dec-2005, 02:13 PM | ||
It seems you are as well. Or are you simply trying to say that if someone doesn't know the answers to those questions they aren't worthy of discourse? Or perhaps you are just as confused as I am and trying to hide it in blind support of your fellow right wingers. |
Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Dec-2005, 03:53 PM | ||||
Take your pick, I don't care. I refuse to banter back and forth about an issue that you refuse to address. So far, your offerings have been:
In one breath you said you didn't know we were at war with Iraq, then in another that you didn't know pulling out of Iraq was losing the war. By implication, being at war in Iraq is synonymous with being at war with Iraq. You, in one sentence, have forever changed history. False dilemma. |
Posted by: birddog20002001 11-Dec-2005, 04:45 PM | ||
And I nailed it when I said you were an asshole. God knows celticradio is the best but some times integrity is worth being banned . sorry Macfive |
Posted by: SCShamrock 11-Dec-2005, 09:22 PM | ||
What integrity? Of whom do you speak? Is it a lack of integrity to point out someone who is blathering about a topic to which they can and should speak more coherently? I am referring to CelticCoalition, who by the way is the one I said is confused. Or possibly you think it integrity to post excerpts from a letter of a serviceman deployed in a war zone, as if our reading it would magically change our collective opinions (by the way, I got the distinct impression those excerpts were specifically chosen to give the appearance of coming from a scared little boy, which is something I guarantee your brother is not). I do think you reveal something about integrity, but sadly it is miles and miles and miles away from you. |
Posted by: subhuman 11-Dec-2005, 11:49 PM |
Whether or not going into Iraq in the first place was "right" or "justified" can be debated elsewhere. However, here's how things stand as of now: We went in, and eliminated their government, military and police forces. Leaving them in that state before they can take care of themselves is a disaster. Until they are able to police themselves, protect their own borders and govern themselves pulling out would be irresponsible and unethical. Before the argument is raised that entry in the first place falls into those categories, ask yourselves if compounding the problem would be acceptable. Yes, there has been a price paid by coalition forces- in lives, equipment and money. However to pull out prematurely and leave Iraq in a state of anarchy, dictatorship, or letting it be swallowed up by a greedy neighbor would be a travesty. As things stand, by staying the course, the sacrifices have a chance to mean something. Would we like to look back on this as a wasted effort, or would we prefer to look at it as costly but ending with improvements? |
Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Dec-2005, 12:40 AM | ||
Subhuman, That is precisely why top democrats are pushing so hard for a withdrawal. They realize that victory is near, that the job is nearing completion. If we stay the course in Iraq and leave her well equipped to handle her own affairs, that is bad for the democrats. However, should they succeed in their attempts to bolster public support for an immediate withdrawal, then the disaster you mention would come to fruition, which consequently is good for the democrats. Why? Because it would fuel their anti-Bush engine, making his entire presidency and our military involvement an utter failure. Of course, without that withdrawal the argument for failure is still waged, but with far less momentum. |
Posted by: subhuman 12-Dec-2005, 03:01 AM |
If we stay the course, disaster is a possibility. If we withdraw, disaster is almost assured. It could happen either way, however one way it's more likely than the other. It's ironic, a very similar threada stareted about 90 minutes ago on another boards I frequent. I don't normally cross-post links, but for this topic I'm breaking my rule: http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=6684 |
Posted by: Emmet 12-Dec-2005, 07:37 AM |
Whether or not we're winning or loosing is no longer an issue; we've already lost. Our unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq has been declared illegal by the United Nations, and strongly opposed by everyone around the world with the exception of Tony Blair and Bush's "Coalition of the Coerced". The largest political demonstrations ever held in the history of the world were held internationally to oppose Bush's invasion of Iraq. According to the British Ministry of Defence, 82% of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the US occupation, and 72% have "no confidence" in coalition forces, and up to 65% believe attacks on American and British troops are justified. Less than 1% of Iraqis support the US occupation. Here in the US according to the most recent CNN poll 62% of Americans don't believe this war is winnable (and 51% believe it's increased the risk of terrorist attacks against the US, not lessened them), and according to the latest CBS/New York Times polls, 59% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, 52% believe Bush "intentionally misled" the country to start this war, and 58% believe we should set a timetable for withdrawal. With virtually no support internationally, at home, and especially among the Iraqi people themselves, we haven't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything other than piling up more bodies. We lost 58,184 brave Americans (and 2 million Vietnamese) before the last helicopter flew off of our embassy's roof in Saigon. How many kids are we willing to butcher in the name of George W. Bush before the same thing inevitably happens in Baghdad? Only 6% of Americans think things are going "very well" in Iraq (CBS News/New York Times 12/6/05). They're either profoundly ignorant, profoundly stupid, or profoundly dishonest...or perhaps simply in a state of profound denial; an increasingly absurd illusion which members of the military and their families must grit their teeth and tenaciously cling to simply to keep from screaming. |
Posted by: sniper 12-Dec-2005, 08:37 AM | ||
I'm not sure how this tidbit came out of the BBC but it flies in the face of some of the claims being made in the post above. I'll highlight the pointsw of contradiction:
As this latest realistic poll, not some skewed poll put out by the insidious CNN (remember the Cheney "X"?) or NYT (can you say Jason Blair?) which are wholly eating out of the democRATic hand that feeds them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4511688.stm |
Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Dec-2005, 12:03 PM | ||||||||||
Stellar job in addressing the latest Sheehan-like contribution from the yammering left. Here are a few key points I would also like to make note of.
Authorized by UN Security Council resolutions.
Funny how we haven't been attacked since 9/11 wouldn't you say. I think 51% in this poll must be on heavy doses of barbiturates, as the trend from the Clinton administration for terrorist attacks against the US makes Bush's term look like peace time.
More than 52% of 8 yr olds believe in Santa Clause. Who cares what a poll says about people's opinion over "Bush Lied?" Haven't you already been adequately shut down in previous threads over this nonsense to be such a glutton for more refutation. You start to look completely idiotic after a while, forever glomming onto the DemocRats talking points. Get a new act.
The movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was scarier than this tripe. Try as you may, the world is not made of puppets ONLY, but contains some highly capable people willing to listen to the truth. I think Sniper licked the red off that piece of candy quite nicely, and from the BBC no less......imagine that!
Ridiculous. Anyone who reads this will just have to imagine Sally Field's performance at the cemetery in the movie "Steel Magnolias." Just so dramatic. |
Posted by: Emmet 12-Dec-2005, 02:09 PM | ||
Not according to the United Nations. Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, has explicitly stated that the unilateral decision to invade Iraq "was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the (UN) charter point of view it was illegal." Or Richard Perle, who said "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Or Lord Richard Goldsmith, the British Attorney-General, who stated that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action...the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law." Before you geniuses sneer and tell me how completely idiotic I look, please do try to do some research; everything I post here to support my arguments is public record, easily accessable to anyone with an Internet connection who's literate enough to read (sadly, abstract reasoning ability and rhetoric is clearly another matter entirely). |
Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Dec-2005, 06:12 PM | ||||
Then again:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/em831.cfm While you may wish to argue over the UN Resolution authorizing member states to use any means necessary to force Iraq to comply, it is nonetheless still standing, as Resolution 660 specified the restoration of international peace and security to the area. This particular stipulation was never fulfulled, thereby leaving resolution 660 unfulfilled, thereby giving the US indefinite UN approval. Resolution 1441 renews this authorization. AS IF WE NEED IT. I for one am glad that the weasles who demand we seek UN approval before defending ourselves do not run the military. In case there is questions about the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein, a brief overview of Congress' Authorization To Use Force might make good reading. Remember the smiley faces should be "b's"
|
Posted by: CelticCoalition 13-Dec-2005, 11:50 PM | ||||
It wasn't banter. I was asking honest questions. Questions that SubHuman gave me answers to that actually made since instead of simply dimissing me because I tend to hold views that differ from his. There is so much sarcasim and tonguue in cheek foolishness in this forum I understand why you might have thought I was trying to banter. However, i find it increasingly difficult to discuss the issues in this site, especially when a simple request for clarification or information is simply dismissed with a rude insult. I do not understand why you prefer to use insults and act superior to others to present your opinions. Sub Human. Whether you believed that my questions were genuine or not I appriciate you addressing them seriously. Your comments about the necessity of staying behind to help a county rebuild after destroying their defenses make sense to me. However, I know that Iraq does have an army left that is supposedly fighting with our troops, and fought with us during the war. I don't understand why we need to stay around when they have these troops. |
Posted by: subhuman 14-Dec-2005, 01:02 AM | ||
I don't have actualy numbers to quote here, I'm basing my reasoning on logic- at least what seems logical to me. 2 1/2 years ago, the Iraqi army was virtually nonexistant. They had troops, but almost no officers. Training a competent officer takes time- you don't go from raw recruit to being in charge of a nation's defense during a few weeks of basic training. The few officers that were not removed during the initial occupation (yes, I'll use that word- I'm even tempted to say "coup") were not in sufficent numbers to effectively run a nation's army. While oyu can train your average foot soldier tactics (small-scale combat) fairly quickly, teaching strategy (large-scale combat) as well as coordination of supply takes years. An army without leadership is nothing more than an armed mob. Our current methods, having Coalition and Iraqi troops work together to stabilize hot spots then having the Iraqis maintain peace is one that I applaud. This will reduce US resentment among the Iraqi citizens, and is the only course of action likely to yield useful results. I support a reduction (and eventual elimination) of US/Coalition troops as Iraqis are able to maintain peace on their own country. I also can't help but consider another implication of early withdrawal. Iraq is a country with a relatively small population, but with vast natural resources in oil. If coalition troops were to withdraw and Iraqi troops were occupied with insurgents, would Iraq present a tempting target for another nation? Can we in good conscience withdraw before Iraq's military can control both the insurgents plus defend her own borders? On the other hand, if Iraq's elected government asks us to withdraw, can we in good conscience remain? |
Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2005, 10:18 AM | ||
The author of this <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20469">article</a>, David Bellavia, is a former Army Staff Sergeant who served in the First Infantry Division for six years. He has been recommended for the Medal of Honor by his leadership, and has been nominated for the Distinguished Service Cross. He has received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Conspicuous Service Cross (New York states highest combat valor award) and was recently inducted into the New York State Veteran’s Hall of Fame. His Task Force 2-2 Infantry has fought on such battlefields as Al Muqdadiyah, An Najaf, Al Fallujah, Mosul, and Baqubah. His actions in Fallujah, Iraq were documented in the November 22, 2004 cover story “Into the Hot Zone” by award winning journalist Michael Ware. He is 30 years old. I tend to listen far closer to the words of this man, someone that has lived directly in the mouth of the dragon, than any pontificators preaching from the bully pulpit of their cozy recliners while sipping overpriced cognac. This guy knows both the real benefits and risks far better than any one of us typing on our keyboards. I would dare any "cut-and-run" advocate to debate this hero. The Left wants Iraq to crumble for the simple reason of satisfying their obsessive hatred of the man that sent Gore back to Tennessee (where he belonged anyway). And yet we sit here and debate the stupidity of so-called polls. There's a new one from CNN/USA Today/Gallup. 1,003 Americans were interviewed by telephone and asked the following question: "Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq: - The U.S. will definitely win, - the U.S. will probably win, - or the U.S. will not win? " 49% said we will not win, 21% said we will probably win and 25% said we will definitely win. So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. The media conducts polls like this in order to create news. To put it another way, they create the very news that they then cover. Their goal is to ask certain questions a certain way so that they can present their political point of view, in this case a leftist, anti-war slant. How can you tell? Well, simple. Why not ask people "Are we going to win the war in Iraq or not?" Presented that way, more than half would probably agree we'd win the war. But when CNN/USA Today/Gallup gives the three options, it makes them able to show a majority of people don't think we'll win the war in Iraq. They also get the benefit of deducting the people who don't care or have no opinion from the total, further diluting the support for the war. Now is a good time to point out that at no time during our Revolutionary War, from 1776 to 1783, were a majority of Colonists in favor of the war, nor did a majority think we would win. Cogitate on that for a moment. (Oh, and for those of you that went to our government's 'schools', "cogitate" means "to ponder or meditate on".) So many of today's polls are drafted to become simple liberal media propaganda. Polls are a way for the press to create and shape the news out of thin air. Oh, and why just 1,003 people? Who gets asked? Did anybody ask you? |
Posted by: Shamalama 14-Dec-2005, 10:52 AM | ||
And there is more, if you care to actually read it.
Ben Connable, Major, USMC http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html --- Isn't it a shame that while Major Connable says "many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people", there are so many elected officials, and writers here at CelticRadio, that would prefer to abandon the Iraqi people? And yes, you know exactly who I'm talking to here. I am so glad that those people are safe here in the US and not on the front lines. |
Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Dec-2005, 11:13 AM | ||
Great posts Shamalama, and isn't it nice to hear from the heros for a change. As to the quote I captured here, I'm also glad the detractors (very mild, kind word) are safe here at home and not on the front lines. There is no telling just what kind of acts they would commit in the name of objection. I was watching the news coverage of the Iraqi elections yesterday, and I paraphrase a woman who said it best: anyone who thinks Iraqis shouldn't have elections, or hates Bush can go to hell. Again, sentiments in stark contrast to what the "polls" are telling us. |
Posted by: MacEoghainn 14-Dec-2005, 05:47 PM | ||
From: The Crisis By: Thomas Paine December 23, 1776 THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated..... When Paine wrote those words things were not going well for American Independence and I don't think I would be wrong to say the majority of the people were ready to give up and throw in the towel. Two evenings later General George Washington threw the dice one more time and crossed an ice choked Delaware River and attacked the Hessian garrison in Trenton NJ. The rest is called "History". Things in Iraq have never even been close to as bad as it was during that Christmas season in 1776, yet the "Sunshine Patriots" continue to demand we "cut and run". I will never understand such people, nor will I ever try. If I'm going to listen to anybody it will be people like Staff Sargent Bellavia and Major Connable! |