Daily Kos diarist: Still thinks troops are “morally retarded”
Update 8/6 12:11pm Eastern. La Shawn Barber muses on the sea of middle-aged white males at Ykos.
Update 8/6 9:05am Eastern. Must-read of the morning–Rick Moran reflects on his adventure at YKos. He reports on nutroots zeal, the unbearable whiteness of the left-wing blogosphere (and the double standards in making such observations), and concludes with a warning that I’ve made myself before:
Ignore or make sport of the netroots at your own peril. Underestimate them and you will get the holy living crap kicked out of you in 2008. These people are organizing far beyond blogs and blog readers. And that organization extends almost down to the precinct level as I’m sure next year’s Netroots Convention will show (they’ve decided to rename the shindig in order to move it away from one guy’s blog).
They are determined, well funded, optimistic, committed, and excited. The GOP is uncertain, underfunded, hopeful but pessimistic, dispirited, and seemingly leaderless, rudderless, and without an agenda.
Who do you think is in better shape going into next year’s contest?
***
Well, the YearlyKos convention is over, but the nutroots are still marching on. A few weeks ago, Kos himself assailed “nasty rhetoric” that was “rampant in the primary war diaries” of the Daily Kos website. Yet, the site went ahead and featured a troop-bashing rant by Saturday Night Live has-been A. Whitney Brown, who wrote:
“Do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded.”
The guy is itching for more attention. I know I’m violating the no-troll-feeding rule here, but the post sheds needed light on the same anti-military animus that led to the squelching of Sergeant David D. Aguina at the YKos convention last week (see Rick Moran’s interview).
Brown has posted another diatribe at Kos repeating his smear on our men and women in uniform as “morally retarded.” A snippet:
For this view, I have been called Anti-Military.
My response is this: Who on earth could be Pro-Military! The purpose of a military is to kill. It is at best a necessary evil. Necessary only because someone else has a military that threatens our survival.
Pro-Military? That’s like being Pro-Abortion! Or Pro-chemo-therapy!
No! In a world of ignorance, greed, and ambition it is a practical matter that we defend our peace and security against the militaries of others, but the goal is always to have as little military as needed, and no more than absolutely necessary. Currently we spend more than all the rest of the world put together.
A military is an extortion demanded of us by other militaries, a practical acquiesence to the world as it is, but only a sadist, a brute, a glory-monger, a thief or a tyrant can look at a military as a good thing, noble in itself.
Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.
Here is an Unknown Known – something we all know but are not aware we know: A Man Cannot Be a Hero in Service To an Unjust Cause. What kind of society would rob it’s (sic) soldiers in such a way? A twisted, sickened society.
Hillary? Obama? John Edwards? Any comment?
***
More Kos Kraziness: Swooning over Gitmo poetry.
***
Frank J. follows up on the squelching of Sgt. Aguina and boils down moonbat debate tactics:
So here is how liberals avoid debate on the war for those keeping score:
* You’ve Never Served: You’re a chickenhawk so they ignore the merits of your argument.
* You Did Serve: You’re still a chickenhawk for not serving now so they ignore the merits of your argument.
* You Are Serving: It’s illegal for you to speak about the war so they ignore the merits of your argument.
Collin B. thinks Kos should address his inconsistency.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Daily Kos diarist: Still thinks troops are “morally retarded” « Provide for the Common Defense
- Clancypalooza…CaPD « Love, Mom (Notes from the fridge)
- YearlyKos Review | Hennessy's View
- Memo To Malkin: Today Is August 5th. » The Pungo Picayune
- Bill's Bites
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Media Matters Defends Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn's Progress Fearing Statement on Iraq
- Well, at least the Leftosphere is a consistent lot « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Blogs of War: Need to Know 8.6.2007 - The State of Conservatism, Giuliani Spam, Korea, Fred’s Website, Trends, Beauchamp, and Global Warming
- Mudville Gazette
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Daily Kos diarist: Still thinks troops are “morally retarded”
- Right Truth
- The Kos Meltdwon Aftermath | Political Vindication
- La Shawn Barber's Corner
- Who cares? « Cowardly political musings…
- Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian Daily Kos diarist: Still thinks troops are “morally retarded” «
- Mark Nicodemo
- Double Tap Blog » A. Whitney Brown doesn’t back down from his trashing of the troops
- Leaning Straight Up
- Blogs For Fred Thompson
- TEN JACK TEN » Blog Archive » This Week In Stupid - 8/11/07
- Kos Kids Support The Troops, YAY! « Nice Deb
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Nutroots, They don't support the troops
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Founding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularDoug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksDoug Ross @ Journal
» The CRU Climate Scam In 90 SecondsHot Air
» 3rd quarter GDP 2.8%, not 3.5%Mudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Mike B wrote, “Why is what an underemployed comedian says such earth-shattering news. Why not really debate Iraq policy?”
Who said it’s earth shattering? It’s just relevant not earth shattering.
Iraq policy is debated daily. This is the wrong thread but…. if you were closing your eyes a few hundred times on those threads… there are leftist leaders who agree (leftist as an adjective is relevant in this discussion to hopefully pursuade you a little) that we must find a way to “win” in Iraq. “Re-deployment is a recipe (these leftist leaders agree) for a humanitarian crisis. What Mike B (if you’ve finally seen this 1,001st mention of this) is your reaction to that evaluation of “re-deployment”.
Mike B with irrelevance said, “So, lets ignore polls and discuss objectives: Elminate WMD?”
After defeating Japan and Germany we could’ve said “no” to the occupation of Germany and Japan for 10 and 7 years because of the argument – objectives: eliminate Japan and Germany as a threat to the world. We were a responsible nation and filled the power vacuum with the occupation. Imagine the world after 1945 afterwards had we made a different decision….
Mike B with simplicity said, “Create Iraqi parliament? Done”
The key would be that the Iraqi parliment and government as a whole can sustain itself, defend itself from an onslaught, and for a foreseable future.
So… we see things differently. That is fine. Disagreement is fine. What the thread is about whether you like it or not is the idiocy of many on the left and guess what? It is relevant !!
From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/3940/86488
I found this too funny.
He does not walk into the room but is Marching. He is on a mission. Why? Because he is wearing a uniform.
Now you would think he thought he lost his mind for going to the DailyKOS in uniform right? Nope.
I guess if you are in Uniform you have to crawl into a hole instead.
After serving as both Enlisted in the Navy and an Officer in the Army, I get a laugh reading stuff like this.
Would someone please answer my question (#36) so I can go back to baking brownies for some special Marines in Iraq?
Political progress can not exist without security progress. Security progress is being made in large strides thanks to the Surge. Thus, shortly, we will see political progress.
There has already been talk of handing over even more providences to the Iraqis by the end of the year. it would make the total 15 out of 18 handed off and in Iraqi control. That sounds like fairly solid progress.
USMCgramma just go here:
http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2
Kos is Markos Moulitsas nickname.
Wolverine,
I was trying to point out that Brown (and Mike) are accurately quoting viewpoints that we conservatives not only founded, but should embrace.
And we should then beat them (verbally) over the head with them since they omit the reason that these arguments were made in the first place.
Ike was right in warning us about the Military Industrial complex – but that doesn’t mean that Ike, of all people, ever felt that we should be weak.
Sherman was as anti-war as any man could be, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t prosecute the Indian War (a war of Imperialism, if ever there was one) ruthlessly, or that he advocated pacifism.
Of course the West depends upon the USA for its defense. Yes, we have effectively subsidized the whole Western World with our military, and all we get is grief over it.
What scary is that Brown (and Mike) are willing to be “erudite” when talking about the supply side of this equation. “Do we have too much military?” they ask, quoting Ike, and even Washington.
What they foolishly, and childishly, refuse to even ask is “is it enough?”
When a Muslim voting majority exists in a NATO country – and that day is fast approaching – things will get interesting.
Not that Mike and Brown, or Ellen Goodman for that matter, will notice. As long as they get to live in their bubbles, courtesy of the military they hate so, “all is well.”
Brown and the others are the worst kinds of fools. The kinds that stop half-way in an argument and think that they’re done.
MikeB, your statements show how short-sighted the left is.
Sure, the troops can leave now, but what will happen is an absolute eruption of chaotic violence that a new Iraqi government will not be able to control.
It is imperative that control and order be kept for the establishment of some form of governance. At this stage, an implementation of your solution would create anarchy.
I also believe, as I think many behind the scenes do but won’t state publicly, that this anarchy would create an opportunity for both Iran and Syria to cease control of Iraq, having devestating consequences for the Iraqi citizens and for the world economy.
But, I suppose there’s no need to think ahead like that, we’ll just leave that problem to our kids.
Also, I’m waiting for those of you who support pulling out of Iraq to justify the support of military intervention in Iran. After all, there are no WMD’s there, so why go?
Edit: Didn’t proofread the last post:
Meant to say:
Swj… Polls don’t equal democracy and I don’t believe anyone said that anyone would/should/could be elected by a poll. But the fact of the matter is, it is almost impossible to poll an entire population so you take a sample and try to form a picture from that snapshot. Political Strategists are employed to measure people’s thoughts and opinions on issues. Polls aren’t perfect, but they can be helpful. It was just 2004 when every newspaper and TV poll came out deadlocked that we knew that it was going to be a wire-to-wire result. Candidates are able to allocate their resources better when polls give them an idea on what states are no longer “winnable.”
jrlgreenbay… calling anyone “morally retarded” is wrong. But it is especially wrong when it is used against a member of the U.S. Military. This language is not tolerable in any circumstance. I just think the tendency is to just say “this is what all anti-Iraq War people think.”
Also, I going to assume that your point #3 was in regards to the Washington Post article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
I included this quote because I don’t think that Clyburn’s assesment is that far off. It says less about what the Democratic Party as a whole wants, but more about how split the Dems are on the issue because it would tear the camp into two.
Thank you, Pressto – I have no desire to see that web site. What I saw on O’Reilly was enough. My brother (and the Barbel crew) died for this?
MikeB, while I disagree with you, I like the fact that you at least attempt to have a discussion on the issues rather than just name-calling and flaming.
I’d like to address one of the issues you pose: “On the political side, there has been no progress.”
NO progress? Really? There have been two general elections already, with a greater percentage of Iraqis voting (at great personal peril) than US citizens voting in our general elections. A coalition government has been formed, and operates arguably no more adversarially than ours does. It was criticized for taking a month vacation during a perilous time, coincidentally at the same time that our own Congress took its one-month vacation at a time when we are threatened with our destruction by multiple enemies. The Sunnis have just started assisting us in ridding their provinces of Aq Qaeda, a dramatic political decision. And all but a handful of provinces are currently functioning peacefully, with at least one (Kurds) a model of a bustling, thriving democracy that says it “loves” the United States.
Please elaborate on your “no political progress” statement.
THings are getting a little heated here. Let’s try and keep things on a substantative level and away from the personal stuff.
MikeB and his critics: Let’s lay off the name calling.
Rick, see Planetgo’s remarks, I think I have tried to lay off name calling although I have been almost universally deemed a “troll.”
Planetgo, I, was happy about the nationwide elections in Iraq. I was also pleased about the Kurds’ progress. The Kurds never should have been part of Iraq in the first place, but that’s another topic. But, see my post #85 on the outstanding issues. I would put the question back on you: At what point will you (1) think we have accomplished our mission and can send the troops home or (2) think we can do nothing more and send our troops home?
DarkKnight quotes:
DarkKnight says:
DarkKnight apparently doesn’t do the math:
Sorry, I had to point that one out. I’m a statistician.
For the record, I am pro-chemotherapy. It’s helped a lot of people.
“Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.”
Please, everyone! Let’s put the courageous A. Whitney Brown on a plane to northeast Pakistan where he can conduct peace talks with UBL and Al-Qaeda. We’ll see who convinces whom!
Yay! Just believe in the ability to persuade and the courage to try! Yay!
My guess is that it won’t take long for him to wish some moral retards would come looking for him.
Mike asked, “(1) think we have accomplished our mission and can send the troops home or (2) think we can do nothing more and send our troops home?”
1) When the experts whose interests are in succeeding think so – for you to convince me Mike B. you’d have to show your interests are in succeeding and show your credentials with visits and foreign policy studies (degrees or whatever)
2) The NY Times editorial by the two leftists last week (is your credentials better than theirs) did NOT think we could do nothing more. Quite the opposite. They thought we were a) making progress b) saw light at the end of the tunnel c) tried to convince readers that we need to succeed.
See comment 90 also if you missed it.
First Serious question. When is it OK to judge success or failure of intervention in Iraq?
Second, same Question: Afghanistan?
Third, is such an up/dowm indicator possible in your opinion Ed?
DarkKnight,
1st serious answer: In 50 years. It is in my opinion short sighted to have judged our success or failure in intervention in Germany and/or Japan in 1952 (while we still occupied them).
2nd answer: Same as above
In general, I think a major problem this country has is the ’shake-and-bake’ mentality regarding military operations.
Desert Storm was a relatively quick action and a success. Minor military involvements we’ve undertaken have been successful and quickly extracted out of.
Now we find ourselves in a battle which could last a long time. And due to the relatively quick resolutions of past, recent incursions, the tendency is to see our current situation as a failure because we didn’t ‘win’ in 6 months.
When looking at political victory – I simply point to our own fledgling country after 1776. It was a full 11 years before we had a ratified constitution. ELEVEN YEARS! Iraq was freed 4 years ago and has a much stronger force opposing it ( i.e. insurgents and foreign countries ) than we did.
We cannot expect Iraqis to jump through hoops and ‘just settle things’ so we can leave, especially given all the turmoil within their own ranks and from forces without.
Is our military mission complete – yes, at least the initial one.
This is a far more complex issue than those who say, “Let’s just come home” are willing to admit.
Has it been executed correctly? No – not at all. Many aspects of this conflict, including foresight and planning, could have been done MUCH better.
But that does not relieve us of our duties and responsibilities, now that this all has been set forward, to stay and do our best to allow Iraqis to succeed in forming their country.
Huggy, absolutely right. My apologies. The same poll showed on 11/06 the “Not Worth It” crowd at 53%.
The figure jumped to 61%, 64%, 66% before “leveling” at 63%. So in theory, it still could be 66%, or it could be 60%.
My point was more along the lines of the figure growing over time.
I appreciate the correction.
Bak, I read your post. It was Mr. Bush who told the U.S. that he wanted a “more modest” foreign policy and that the US should not engage in “nation building.” So, you believe we should have the same policy in Iraq as we did in Germany and Japan post-WWII? Here’s the problem with that–First, the American citizenry does not support this objective. Congress specifically rejected permanent military bases in Iraq. Second, Germany and Japan were in ruins after the War and there was no civil war raging. Third, we rebuilt Germany and Japan and most of Western Europe as part of a strategy to fight Communism in Eastern Europe. Fourth, Germany and Japan were world powers, Iraq was no where near them. The US had a great interest in making sure that totalitarianism did not rise again in those nations. Iraq was never a threat, I repeat never, a threat to the US. When Iraq invaded Kuwait we, along with allies, stopped them. When Iraq fought Iran in the 1980s, we supported Iraq, remember. Historical analogies are good up to a point, as you can see.
Also, if you want analogies, remember what I said about Lincoln. Lincoln’s career almost died in the 1840s due to his questioning why we entered a war against Mexico, i.e., he demanded Pres. Polk tell the U.S. what proof he had that a Mexican in Mexico fired on the U.S. military. No proof was ever furnished, by the way. My point: If all of you were around then, Lincoln’s career would be over and he would be forever known as a “moonbat” or “nutroot.”
Darknight, unfortunately there’s not. It’s up to history to decide success and failure of such large scale interventions. But, on such a short timescale, how can we know what is right and wrong?
I pointed to MikeB’s statement that Lincoln opposed the Mexican-American War, yet when we look back on it, that was an essential ingredient in defining America, although it may have been unpopular at the time.
Right now, to many people, the costs are not justified by the current outcome in Iraq. I would argue that this is a shortsighted view. There is a lot at stake in both Iraq and Afghanistan, from standpoints of humanity, our military, and our economy.
The middle east has been plagued by sectarian violence for centuries and has largely been ignored. However, as our economy becomes more and more globalized, it is necessary for us to try to facilitate the creation and success of stable governments. Iraq is a key point here, because, keep in mind, if we leave Iraq we leave it in the hands of Iran and Syria, which I think we all can agree is a fairly negative consequence.
The US is making progress in Iraq and the hope is that a democratic Iraq may create a domino effect that inspires the citizens of nations such as Iran and Syria.
In the real world the whole ‘Can’t we all just get along’ thing doesn’t always work, and there is a justifiable need for a military to provide for the defense of our nation. If you have some surefire way of getting through to someone who wants us all dead and beheaded then please by all means enlighten us. The floor is yours, Kevin.
You do know that Mexico lost Texas to the Texans, right? And that they claimed that the border was about 100 miles North of the Rio Grande, and that the initial fighting – regardless of who shot the first shots – happened on land that is today part of Texas?
Lincoln WAS wrong on that one. Texas had already fought, independently as the “Republic of Texas,” for their independence. They had asked to become part of the USA using borders that followed the peace treaty they had drawn up with Mexico, but Mexico never ratified.
If you presume that the Rio Grande IS the border of Texas, and you accept that the Republic of Texas had asked for admission into the Union, then Mexico’s military was on Sovereign US Soil when we engaged them.
I know that defending the border doesn’t matter to a lot of people these days, but it’s pretty clear that people have actually died to protect it…
Lincoln was elected in spite of his bad decision.
Giuliani might get elected, even though his record is LOADED with issues that are repellent to a lot of people. Hillary might get elected even though she has enabled a husband who is, objectively, a sexual predator.
Americans have a spotty record when electing presidents, I’ll grant you that.
Not sure how this makes Brown or you any less wrong, but still…
Mike B pulled a pre 9/11 thought process by repeating, “It was Mr. Bush who told the U.S. that he wanted a “more modest” foreign policy and that the US should not engage in “nation building.” ”
You’ve been around. You can SEE our perspective that things have changed because of 9/11. At some point you should know the answer right? You are fairly respectful and if you would like to be even more respectful you could try to understand the logic at least enough to stop bringing up the point. To us it is irrelevant and says nothing of a post 9/11 reasoning. Let’s just chalk it up to the fact that MOST of us were naive pre 9/11. There was no political will or desire to go in and do anything to any country to fix the GROWING problem. See?
Mike B wrote, “Here’s the problem with that–First, the American citizenry does not support this objective.”
Putting the decision on the American public as you’ve seen us say here a few times is not the best logic towards creating a humanitarian crisis. Simply put – your use of the American public support to argue for a policy that could create a disastrous future for us and the Iraqi’s is avoidance of that topic and dismisses what LEADERSHIP is about. It is a return to pre 9/11 ways to lead based on what Americans could or would support or not. If you remember, Yugoslavia was done from 15,000 feet only after the media gave a thumping drumbeat on that topic making the American public support DOING something. American public support for doing something can be shown in test case after test case to be THE result of a constant drumbeat by the drive-by dominant media.
Mike B wrote, “Third, we rebuilt Germany and Japan and most of Western Europe as part of a strategy to fight Communism in Eastern Europe.”
I’ll re-write your sentence.
Third, we rebuilt
Germany and JapanIraq andmost of Western Europemuch of the middle east as part of a strategy to fightCommunismIslamofascism inEastern Europethe middle east.Mike B wrote, “Fourth, Germany and Japan were world powers, Iraq was no where near them.”
The relevancy here is? The 14 month long rush to war in Iraq was decided pre March 2003. That debate is long over. I guess you disagreed. ok ! you did ! I understand you did. Moving on to today and whether or not we should either a) succeed or b) create a humanitarian crisis
Mike B wrote, “Historical analogies are good up to a point, as you can see”
The historical analogy that you MISSED was a response to the question asked about when we judge success of failure. It simply is true that during any occupation it is relatively difficult to judge “success” or “failure”. Japan had very ROUGH going for a full decade after even 1955 and quality of their products wasn’t achieved well into the a decade later. We can easily see and judge success now and I was simply pointint out (you missed it) the chronological perspective of judging success or failure now or even soon from now would be difficult unless you had the foresight of knowing what you know many years later.
President Lincoln led Mike B. You can’t be missing this this badly. He did not operate by American support. He led.
I prefer ‘moonbat’ to describe the left. It’s gently condescending. But read the DK for more than five minutes and ‘whacko’ quickly comes to mind.
During all my years in San Francisco, one thing became clear. The liberals tear down traditional institutions and leave nothing in their place. I registered as a Republican.
MikeB, I hereby apologize for calling you a troll. As someone who has defended your ability to post on this site and create discussion in the past, my behavior was a bit childish. However, I stick to my original statement when I say that at 8:30am on a Monday morning is just too early to have this discussion. Let us finish our coffee at first:)
No sweat, DarkKnight. That wasn’t meant as an attack on you – glad it wasn’t taken as one.
I appreciate your reponse Ed. Well crafted and articulated. Cheers to you.
At the moment, the number of our Brave Men and Women the have given the Ultimate Sacrifice stands at 3,669.
3,669.
Frankly, sometimes I start to wonder if there are people who support the War even know this figure.
At the same time, I know that people use this figure for their gain too.
For example, on the Michael Moore site, the number 3,669 is easily visible.
However, I don’t know when it the last time I saw the number of troops casualties on a conservative website… MichelleMalkin.com included.
I’m sure there are legit reasons for this, both for and against. It is just an observation.
And that is why he would never have been considered a “nutroot” rather, more of a “wingnut”.
DarkKnight….
I, for one, as a supporter of this Iraqi effort, do know the KIA number.
I don’t know how anyone who looks at a newspaper even a few times a week couldn’t. It’s in our faces.
While the number is important – it is also a tool used by the MSM and others on the left to inject a feeling of dispair and failure, in my opinion.
Look at some of the major battles in WWII where we lost upwards of 3000, 4000, 5000 or more soldiers in one battle in a war?
Can you imagine a running daily total in an American newspaper during WWII of how many soldiers were lost so far?
That’s like driving a cross country trip and stopping every hour to judge the amount of wear your vehicle has taken and then saying, well, this isn’t worth it because my tires are getting too worn.
It takes the focus away from any objectives and only focuses attention on the cost.
I absolute hate the use of polls in the Media now with them saying it is an accurate reflection of the US. Not a single one agrees with my family or friends or reflects the ideas and values we have.
We of course are those people who when sitting at the dinner table and get a call from these pollsters hang up on them.
The other problem is that if I wanted to I could poll 1000 people and have it support any view I wanted. It all in how you word the questions and who you target.
We’re aware of that figure. Remember; We tend to be the ones with family members who are serving or have served. War causes death. We get that. Our soldiers get that. That is precisely why we find it vulgar that they are called “morallly retarded” etc. It disgusts us that someone who has basically nothing to contribute to helping society or our country would call someone else who is willing to die for the freedom of others, die for their country, follow through on the most difficult mission knowing that he or she might die, “morally retarded” or spit on them or pull any of the other antics that leftists pull regularly. It’s precisely why we get very upset when some dumb worthless POS commedian says something ridiculous about our soldiers.
Dark Knight focuses on the horrible deaths of our troops as the reason for….I don’t know what by saying, “At the moment, the number of our Brave Men and Women the have given the Ultimate Sacrifice stands at 3,669.”
Are you saying you “care” more? Does it mean that those who were in favor of taking Iwo Jima “care” less? There was a higher number of our troops dying in taking Iwo Jima.
DK said, “Frankly, sometimes I start to wonder if there are people who support the War even know this figure.”
No DK. You are smart and we are dumb. Please tell us again because the dominant drive-by media hasn’t. If you mention it more we just might realize it and start “caring”. Is that the attitude you have?
DK says, “However, I don’t know when it the last time I saw the number of troops casualties on a conservative website… MichelleMalkin.com included.
It isn’t relevant to the points we are making DK. What is relevant is getting BEHIND our troops with support and SUCCEEDING and meeting our objectives.
If CNN existed during Iwo Jima and posted for all (including our troops) to see an incessant depressing story – we surely would’ve have more defeatists like yourself back then. If you object to the adjective ‘defeatist’ then please allow us to change our perception of your tactics when it seems your objective is to “win” by your actions changing.
Ok, Bak and jrl, I guess your point is that it is too soon to make judgments on our Iraq policy. That is true, but not helpful for policy makers and citizens operating in the present. In fact, it is harmful and undemocratic.
As far as political progress, Sec. of Defense Gates said specifically that there was “disappointing political progres.”
If a President’s response to any criticism of his policies is “it’s too early to make a judgment on that, history will prove me correct,” he or she need never adjust his policies, much less reverse them.
All of you must agree that a good leader must be flexible and pragmatic. If something isn’t working, it must either be changed or halted completely or reversed. A president should never be too stuborn to admit he or she made a mistake and do the best he or she can to correct him or herself. The problem with Bush, in my opinion, is that he believes that he doesn’t ever objectively evaluate his policies. Remember, when marines were killed in Lebanon in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan “cut and run” and completely retreated from Lebanon. Was Reagan not a leader?
In my opinion, based on the facts on the ground, our policy in Iraq is harming the US must more than it is helping and leaving Iraq would be far better than staying there. A good President or Secretary of Defense or General will make a decision based on all available information and never ignore facts because he believes history will judge him kindly.
Goodwin in the Lincoln book points out that Lincoln learned from his political mistakes. He had an uncanny ability to sense where public opinion was and would not attempt to push too far away from public opinion.
You are keeping score for the wrong team, my friend .
I was not saying anyone was smart or dumb Baklava. I have no idea where you were taking that from. The point I was trying to make is that the blood and treasure cost for the U.S. forces keeps going higher, but that the attention paid to such costs are not being paid attention to as it used to be. BOR made an excellent point in that eventually Americans will get fed up and say “enough.” I’m not saying I “care” more. It’s that it seems to me, that those costs are seeming to not be paid attention to and thus aren’t seen in the same light. Again, just an observation.
If the point is to stand behind the troops Baklava and be mindful that there are people in the country who do not (especially people who say anyone is “mentally retarded), then we are in agreement. It just isn’t helpful to label someone a name, lump them in with all other people in a party, then end it at that.
That was why I was grateful to EdDantes for his answer. It is this kind of dialogue that makes this country and moves discussion forward.
Raging, I’m just as interested in reading how many Sunni have killed Shia and vice versa. As well as of the Enemy that has been killed. Are there estimates out there?
Doesn’t make the American troops count any less important to know when talking about policy.
Foxforce, Raging, and Bak, I think Dark Knight’s point is that Iraq war supporters hate to discuss casualties, but that’s important. If some terrorist group was fighting us here on US soil, I would agree that casualty figures are irrelevant we have no choice but to win, no matter what the cost in US lives. Iraq is completely different. There is a civil war raging there and our troops should get out of the way.
U.S. Toll in Iraq Lowest in 8 Months
Jrlingreenbay, I was not saying that all people who support the War don’t know the number. Remember when the KIA were on the front page of the paper, and the top of the broadcast. Now in the evening news, it’s barely 15 seconds.
MikeB – you stated:
“All of you must agree that a good leader must be flexible and pragmatic. If something isn’t working, it must either be changed or halted completely or reversed.”
I agree with that 100%. 8 months ago, GWB announced a change in strategy in our military approach to Iraq.
But because it wasn’t a withdrawal, those on the left dismissed it, and continue to do so.
Now, we see that there are signs that this change is producing positive results.
AP Story today: “Analysis: Military Shows Gains in Iraq”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1
If these changes are truly occurring – why in God’s name would Democrats and the left, if they wish victory for the US and Iraqis, want to change course again and pull out?
I understand that the military success is not the same as the political success – however, military success is CRITICAL to even allowing political success a chance.
We must gain the upper hand through our Military before the politicians can do what is needed.
As for pulling out and letting the Iraqi’s know they’ve only got so much time with us holding their hands:
How many of those forces who are now stepping up to assist us against insurgents and Al Qaida, would have been doing so if the President hadn’t stood firm and pressed forward as he’s done? If he’d been wishy-washy or even agreed with the left and said, we’re leaving by “this date” – would those who are standing up now ever dared to do so? I would guess not.
You fail to give reason as to why that is in the best interest of the United States. And no, its not as simplistic as ‘because troops are dieing’. You don’t run away from a battle simply because troops are dieing. Our troops have made the decision to join the military to be put in harms way for the good of our country. They didn’t enlist and/or go career military just to be sitting state side sunning themselves on a beach.
So why is it in the best interest of the U.S to pull our troops out of Iraq?
Raging said: “So why is it in the best interest of the U.S to pull our troops out of Iraq?” Fair question. I would answer as follows: I don’t believe we have any vital interest in staying in Iraq. If we leave, there likely will be a (more) violent civil war. There is a strong possibility that Iran will get in on the Shia side and Saudi Arabia and Egyp would get involved on the Sunni side. Eventually, a treaty will be reached, borders will be drawn and there will be three states: Kurdistan, Shiaville, and Sunniside. I know, I know, some of you will say what about genocide. That may occur, but as mentioned outside forces will stop that. There are continuous civil wars in Africa and we do nothing.
“Iraq’s parliament shrugged off U.S. criticism and adjourned for a month, as key lawmakers declared there was no point waiting any longer for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to deliver Washington-demanded benchmark legislation for their vote.”
I think this is an important fact to include as well.
It makes sense because citizens in the US don’t like to see casualties of war and we live in an age where that information can be tallied and circulated instantly. Democrats grasp this because they are the party of the present and will seize on an opportunity to smear Republicans and Bush.
Keep in mind, the Democrats, for the most part, are running on the anti-Republican, anti-Bush campaign and Bush has been hard-nosed on staying in Iraq.
The Democrats can’t attack Bush on other social issues that they normally would, such as the economy and the job market. Remember in 2002-2003 when they were criticizing Bush policies for holding back the economy? Now the DOW is at an all time high.
Other than that, there is no tactical, logical reason to pull troops out, unless the reason is to keep more troops from dying.
MikeB stated: “There are continuous civil wars in Africa and we do nothing.”
True – but the hue and cry from the liberals is that we SHOULD do something.
All the talk of Darfur and other locations where these slaughters are taking place – and how the US & UN should get involved….
But yet, there we are, already IN Iraq, where the signs of a potential slaughter are visible ( if we leave )….and those same compassionate liberals want us out of there now!
I GUARANTEE YOU – if we WERE to go to Darfur, and suddenly started losing soldiers ( like you do in a war ), those same compassionate liberals would demand we leave and say, “It’s a civil war, we shouldn’t be involved in it”.
So what. Our congress takes vacations all the time while our troops are in Iraq. Where is the outrage over that.
That would put the Republicans using the War for political gains as much as the Dems currently are. And two wrongs never make a right.
I disagree. If we pull our troops out of Iraq it will cause an even more dire situation in the Middle East, and one that will result in us having to return and have to face an even greater mess then what we are faced with now.
Bingo! The current situation in Iraq is by definition the only war democrats have ever wanted to fight. One of nation building and saving innocents from ethnic slaughter.
So what makes Iraq different?
1. Their insatiable hatred for all things George W. Bush
2. They view this as a political card that may win them back the White House.
Might I add, that both reasons are despicable. Is it any wonder why the far left wing loons are reffered to as “un-American, unpatriotic, and anti-troop”? If I served in the armed forces I would be outraged!
Mike wrote, “If a President’s response to any criticism of his policies is “it’s too early to make a judgment on that, history will prove me correct,” he or she need never adjust his policies, much less reverse them.
Black or white thinking? sheesh. You can make assessments on progress and alter your movements and tactics during a war and then not be told you are failing so you might as well get out. Our military rightly adjusts and will continue to make adjustments.
Mike B wrote, “All of you must agree that a good leader must be flexible and pragmatic. If something isn’t working, it must either be changed”
Um. Yes. Tactics have changed hundreds of times during this fight. On the higher level – a surge is what was determined to “succeed”. So I guess you disagree. Leading continues…. despite your defeatist solutions…
Mike continues on with irrelevance by saying, “A president should never be too stuborn to admit he or she made a mistake”
Let’s hit the point home again. During WW2 how helpful would it be during some of these battles for the commander in chief to take a I’m sorry we made mistakes attitude? We are sorry your “feelings” want a president that admits mistakes but what is the outcome of that? The outcome is propagandist videos being produced by the DNC/Al Qaida/Al Jazeera. It’s usefulness towards “winning” is nil.
Mike B says (as if he knows what is in our minds – he doesn’t for me), “I think Dark Knight’s point is that Iraq war supporters hate to discuss casualties, but that’s important”
I don’t hate to discuss casualties. I just did. I pointed out that it is horrible and said it doesn’t help us during a war to be behind “winning” usually. Next time you make an accusation as to what is in my mind – just remember you dug your own hole labeled wrong.
I SEE why Mike B says what he says when he said, “I would answer as follows: I don’t believe we have any vital interest in staying in Iraq.”
There in lies the disagreement. Al Qaida whether you believe it or not HAS stated that they will win in Iraq and then create an Islamic caliphate and bring the fight to the U.S. using the gained resources… You can choose to keep believing what you believe and I’ll continue to disagree with you. But bringing in all of the other irrelevant points of view about US and our arguments doesn’t advance your argument. What you should FOCUS on is how to convince us that the Islamic caliphate statements by Al Qaida really weren’t from Al Qaida or isn’t their goal after all. Because there-in lies the key to convincing most people here that you are right that this battle isn’t of any consequence, the lives that will be lost there or no significance, that success is irrelevant.
Raging, you stated: “2. They view this as a political card that may win them back the White House.”
And it has been so since 2004.
I truly am ashamed and disgusted when the obvious use of a war where we have boots on the ground is used in this manner.
From the Senate Majority Leader stating that we’ve lost the war, to another Politician saying that positive news is bad for their party….
Doesn’t it make sense that a true Patriot, a true Statesman, regardless of their political affiliation, would honor and accept and even cheer the fact that our military situation is improving during wartime?
Instead, they deflect the positive observations and IMMEDIATELY talk of how there is no POLITICAL advancement.
Our elected officials ( on both sides for various reasons, depending on the topic ), are too ensconced in their awarded positions. Their views are not alligned with those of the American People, and they skew further away with each time they are re-elected.
When winning an election is more important than the well-being of our country and our citizens, we have gone over the edge and must, as a nation, find a new direction.
You want a change of course? How about changing the course of our Government by electing new types of leaders from top to bottom.
But I thought pro-abortion was a good thing. So how can comparing Pro-military to pro-abortion be a mad thing for the military.
Sorry, trying to get the left to make sense again.
“AQ in Iraq, by all accounts, is not powerful at all and is being fought off by the Shia.”
- Currently with the aide of US forces. Without them there, at this point, would they still be able to?
“If we want to kill AQ, it is better to kill them in those countries than Iraq.”
- But the fact remains that AQ in Iraq, is still IN Iraq. Moving ’some’ of our troops to Afghanistan, and if permitted, Pakistan, would at this point counter-effect the surge is having.
We have seen, since the surge reached it’s full numbers, an increase in positive effects. To continue to argue that our real enemy is elsewhere and we should decrease those numbers to fight in those other locations, minimizes this battle to a one-dimentional focus.
It is not EITHER Afghanistan OR Iraq – it is both, like it or not. And BOTH must be addressed simultaneously.
DarkKnight in #37
According to the numbers you quoted we (the U.S.A.) have basically no troops involved in U.N. peacekeeping forces …
However, I was including the 42,500 American Troops that are still in Korea … and that is a peacekeeping force put in place as a result of a U.N. action … the Korean War … although other countries took part in the war the bulk of the ongoing peacekeepers are American … Those numbers don’t seem to be reflected in the ones you quoted … guess many have forgotten that Korea was a U.N. war …
Thanks for the interest in the post …
Been out of pocket all day and couldn’t respond to you until now …
Dear Raging Republican,
Please read my entire post next time. Doing so will result in fewer foolish, unnecessary, and angry replies from you. We are playing on the same team. I was quoting the distinguished A. Whitney Brown.
Sincerely,
A former moral retard
Brown needs to meet some of the fine young men and women that I serve with everyday.
There is the occasional moment that I just stare at a young Airman and wonder how they got in ‘my’ Air Force… but more often than not I’m impressed and PROUD that I’ll be leaving the AF in good hands one day.
To be honest, I start to tear up when I think of all the fine young men and women standing ‘watch’ right at this moment so that I can lay in bed next to my wife and type this.
Kevlaur
Kevlaur
Well said … as a former Marine I thank you for your service and pray for you and all your comrades to be safe as you protect even those of us that are too dumb to appreciate your sacrifices … sleep well and safe …
Forest Gump said “stupid is and stupid does”
So Brown proves to us he is stupid, why have an Army, hey why have Policemen or even Fire fighters.
Why have ambulances, or courts and judges.
Hey lets all live in caves, ride bickes oh no take that back, cant have bickes because there is no manufacturing. Oh yeah cant even wear fur so we can only wear fig leaves “yeah thats the ticket”
What a MORON !!!
I assume that this poll also has a 3+- MoE, which would mean that there could be a statistical difference between the two polls.
Desert Lover,
Thanks, I appreciate that.