Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

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

QUOTE

I'd want to protect the only leg I had to stand on too!

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.

QUOTE

Later on we were driving all over the damn map and back, and we
heard a boom. The SPT team got hit.

QUOTE

I dont remeber if I had told you, I had a friend lose his leg the
other week. His brad ran over a shaped charge with a preasure switch. It went
right through the driver hull. then the brad rolled over into the canal.

QUOTE

A mortar round hit the mp barracks across the road from us one night

QUOTE

yesterday 1/64 armor had a brad get hit by a couple efp's all at
once. the brad went up in flames and all the rounds cooked off, but the crew
was fine. thats the second time thats happened. the brads are really
holding up good here. two drivers lost there legs in my unit. and then parsons got
hit by a rocket

QUOTE

I was on patrol one morning and I was scanning in thermals cause it was still dark, and a rocket came out of no where and hit the brad in front of me.

QUOTE

My friend had a 155 go off while he was driving. It knocked him
out and he broke his leg. so he doesn't leave the gate anymore. that was his
second accident so he is kinda weirded out you know. He was driving when his
truck rolled into a ditch and williams broke his neck and died.

QUOTE

I sawn a humvee hit a landmine and it just blew it a few feet and
took out the tire and some mechanical stuff. The only real problem here is the efp's explosivly formed projectiles. They go through humvees like butter. they have a kill ratio of 2.5 deaths per efp. Im not really worried about the arty rounds and mines. unless i'm on a canal road.

Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Dec-2005, 11:15 PM

QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 06-Dec-2005, 10:19 PM)

QUOTE

Later on we were driving all over the damn map and back, and we
heard a boom. The SPT team got hit.

QUOTE

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

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 09-Dec-2005, 12:05 AM)

You nailed it, you are confused.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 11-Dec-2005, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 10-Dec-2005, 02:58 AM)

You nailed it, you are confused.

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

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 11-Dec-2005, 03:13 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:

QUOTE

How is pulling out of Iraq losing the war? How is winning in Iraq winning the war?

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

QUOTE

You nailed it, you are confused.

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

QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 11-Dec-2005, 05:45 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

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

QUOTE (subhuman @ 12-Dec-2005, 12:49 AM)

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.

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:

QUOTE

The latest survey of opinion in Iraq shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos.

The figures will provide evidence for supporters of the invasion and occupation to argue that the international media have got it wrong - that, despite everything, most Iraqis are wedded to a democratic future in a unified state and have faith it will come.

The findings are in line with the kind of arguments currently being deployed by President George W Bush.

In a recent speech, he referred to reconstruction and, as an example, this survey shows the rapid growth of consumer buying in Iraq, led by mobile phones and satellite television.

However critics will claim that the survey proves little beyond showing how resilient Iraqis are at a local level.

They will argue that it reveals enough important exceptions to the rosy assessment, especially in the centre of the country, to indicate serious dissatisfaction.

Indeed a high level of optimism was evident in surveys last year and yet the situation has hardly improved.

The question, therefore, is whether the desire for stability shown by the survey can overcome the centre of resistance.

The immediate problem is that these attitudes - optimism, faith in democracy - have not been enough to overcome the insurgency.

On the other hand, they offer the possibility that it might be overcome one day.

Regional differences

The survey splits Iraq into four regions - Kurdish, the Centre, Baghdad and the South.

The most important exceptions to the overall findings are revealed in the centre of Iraq, the band of mainly Sunni territory where the insurgency is strongest.

As long as that dissatisfaction continues, so, it seems, will the insurgency itself.

There are regional differences, with the Kurds showing a significant interest in quality-of-life issues compared to the rest of the country, which is still preoccupied with security.

The Kurds have moved on. They even approve of a unified state in larger numbers than they did before.

Indeed such is the concern about security in Iraq that there is a yearning for a "strong leader", though within a democratic framework.

And none of the current leadership appears to meet that requirement. Religious leaders are respected, but not overwhelmingly so.

It is interesting that, asked to look five years aheadIraqis stressed democracy more than strong leadership as the priority they would look for then. Again, the future is looking better to them.

Stable attitudes

This is the fifth survey in Iraq carried out by Oxford Research International (ORI), on behalf of five media groups, including the BBC.

Its researchers, who were Iraqis, spread out in minibuses across the country and carried out 1,711 face-to-face interviews.

This figure was lower than in previous surveys because of security considerations but even so, according to ORI director Dr Christoph Sahm, it produced a result in which "Iraqi households were talking to us".

Since the international media cannot get out and about in Iraq, the findings are of particular interest, though for the same reason the results cannot easily be tested against experience.

What Iraqi households are saying, according to Dr Sahm, is consistent with previous surveys. "In attitudes," he said, "Iraq is remarkably stable."

But, he added: "We are beginning to lose the centre. The centre has gone sour. It has a siege mentality.

"As for other Iraqis, locally things are getting better. Life goes on. Their satisfaction level is above the global average and is going up.

"Their desire for a strong leader within a democracy shows that they want a Konrad Adenauer, not a Saddam Hussein." Adenauer was the first chancellor of post-war Germany.

Optimism prevails at the individual or family level. Most - 71% - said their lives were very good or quite good. This is the same result as in the poll last year.

Part of this may reflect the fact that, for Iraqis, family life is so important and they have managed to cling to their families during these times.

The narrow confines of their lives are suggested by the finding that 89% say they have to be careful what they say. The level of trust in society is very low.

However, this finding is balanced by the results of the very first question, which asks about the state of the country, not the state of the individual.

And here the picture is gloomier. Fifty-three percent say the situation is bad and 44% that it is good. The country is split.

A similar division emerges from the question about the US-led invasion.

Some 50% said it was wrong and 47% said it was right, compared with 39% and 49% respectively in the last poll - so support for the invasion has gone down.

And the occupation troops are unpopular (65% are opposed to them, though again with regional variations) with much greater favour being given to indigenous Iraqi security forces.

They put their trust therefore in their own institutions - not in those of foreigners. This is evidence supporting the US policy of handing over security to the local forces as much and as quickly as possible.

However, majority opposition to the occupation is not matched in support for a quick withdrawal.

Some 45% said the foreign troops should leave now or after the elections, with 31% saying they should stay until security is established.

Voice for the majority?

The elections on 15 December will provide a test of all these findings. The first test will be to see if those who said they would vote (83%) actually do so. Many of these would not say who they would vote for.

There is political optimism. Seventy-six percent said they had confidence that the elections would create a stable Iraqi government, though again the figure was smaller (45%) in the Centre.

That is very much the picture. And it leads to the question: The majority are having their say, but given the strength of the minority, will the majority have their way?

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

user posted image

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.

QUOTE (Emmet)

Our unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq has been declared illegal by the United Nations,

Authorized by UN Security Council resolutions.

QUOTE (Emmet)

and 51% believe it's increased the risk of terrorist attacks against the US, not lessened them

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.

QUOTE (Emmet)

52% believe Bush "intentionally misled"

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.

QUOTE (Emmet)

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.

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!

QUOTE (Emmet)

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.

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

QUOTE

Authorized by UN Security Council resolutions.

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:

QUOTE (Brett Schaefer)

International law confirms the right to self-defense . The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law, which recognizes that sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves from attack, and the United Nations Charter, which reflects that law. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

That right to self-defense also incorporates the centuries-old principle of "anticipatory self-defense" in the face of an imminent threat to national security. In the 16th century, the British applied that principle when they attacked Spanish and Portuguese ports in anticipation of an attack by the Spanish Armada. The United States used it more recently in placing an embargo on Cuba to prevent Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles there.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has stated publicly his intention to engage in a war against the West, particularly Israel and the United States. He seeks to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear WMD and the ability to deploy them against his enemies. The U.S. government has identified Iraq as an imminent threat, justifying military action in anticipation of an attack.

America does not need U.N. permission to use its armed forces. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization a veto over U.S. actions otherwise lawful and fully in accordance with the Constitution.

America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

U.S.-led forces in the Persian Gulf War accomplished the first objective swiftly, but the second has never been achieved. U.S. and allied air forces have been in nearly constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was repelled. Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remains in effect. Further, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate is a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace has never been achieved.

America would be acting in the interests of international peace and security, as all U.N. members pledge to do. Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Saddam Hussein is the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, continues to support terrorism, and poses a clear and ongoing threat to the United States and the region. He has shown no compunction about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran. His willingness to use them in the past illustrates the threat he poses should he gain access to more devastating WMD and the means to convey them to his enemies.

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"

QUOTE

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
Oct. 16, 2002
[H.J. Res. 114]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1499
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities
that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress,
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable’’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
Authorization for
Use of Military
Force Against
Iraq Resolution
of 2002.
50 USC 1541
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1501
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(

PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (

is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
© WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(

of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1502 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
Æ
(

SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this
joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution
(Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as
a single consolidated report to the Congress.
© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in
the report required by this section, such report shall be considered
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 13-Dec-2005, 11:50 PM

QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 11-Dec-2005, 03:53 PM)

QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 11-Dec-2005, 03:13 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.

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

QUOTE

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.

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

QUOTE

Rather than acknowledging the vital mission being carried out by the troops, the Democratic leadership prefers to disparage our efforts. My fellow soldiers are not appreciative of Senators Kennedy and Kerry’s daily attempts to uncover mistakes made by this administration as we come under fire thousands of miles from our homes. In the era of the digital satellite, these senators never consider the bigger picture, and have put us on trial for executing a war as it unfolds.

Former administrations ignored the present danger in this region for years before 9/11, and today we in the trenches pay the price for our past inability to confront our enemies. Each day, the enemy hopes that one more ten-plus death toll inflicted against coalition forces will be the last straw of the American collective will. The actions of Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, et al.—voting against the immediate pullout of the troops and then supporting Murtha’s ignorant remarks on every television program that offers an invitation—constitute a political attack on the troops, an attack that is aiding our enemy.

Though soldiers bleed for the right to dissent, we must remember that at times dissent will embolden our desperate Islamofascist enemy, especially when they read accounts of the growing fecklessness of the American people and her policy makers. Each day, legislators like Murtha move us closer to losing a winnable war and abandoning a worthy ally. Instead of supporting our cause, they stoke the fires of the Islamist faithful, those who would see a pullout in Iraq as a greater victory than the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.

Neither Rep. Murtha nor any other Congressional representative has held a position in a skirmish line under fire in Iraq. Nonetheless, they pontificate to the masses about “their” war experience. Not one has borne witness to the extreme close-quarter nature of this fight or commented on the tearful thanks from a deserving and proud Iraqi people who need us to stay the course.

Instead, Rep. Murtha has the audacity to call my fellow soldiers “broken.” But despite such pessimism, amplified by a cynical media, we are not “broken,” On the contrary, we are winning. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian-trained Hezbollah terrorists, as well as Chechnyan, Wahabbi, and local mujahadeen militants have been pacified by our young patriots. It is regrettable that a man like Murtha, who made his career detailing his undisputed heroism under fire, is the first to chip away at my generation’s valor. Nor have we, as Senator Kerry recently claimed, “terrorized Iraqis in their homes.” And while many anti-war Democrats would have you believe otherwise, we are most certainly not “living hand to mouth.”

These and similar attacks have succeeded only in tarnishing the reputation of the American soldier. Each day, the Iraq War veteran grows closer to the embarrassing disrespect once heaped on the Vietnam warrior. Not only does the Democratic leadership deny the transparent fact that Iraq is indeed the front line in the War on Terror, but it feels the need to apologize for our nation’s ability to deliver unrelenting, but prudent lethality onto our deserving enemies. Thus, their warped template for fighting a war: pull out when the blood starts to flow.

Against this strategy of defeat, the president has called for staying the course. Staying the course isn’t a campaign slogan; it is a life support message for those of us in the midst of battle. Congressman Murtha above all others should know the perils inherent in dictating military policy from across the Potomac. I imagine he can still taste the spittle of anti-war protestors from 30 years ago. As was the case in Vietnam, the American soldier cannot be defeated on the field of battle. It is only the failure of the political class to stomach the hardships of combat that stands in the way of our victory.

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.

QUOTE

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

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

QUOTE (Shamalama @ 14-Dec-2005, 11:52 AM)

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.

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

QUOTE (Shamalama @ 14-Dec-2005, 11:18 AM)

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.

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!