Article

2007-07-20 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2007-07-20 09:22|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 In the future, whenever I have to endure some self-righteous, blabber mouth boomer getting up on their high horse about bringing home our poor little children (ie: soldiers) - I'm going to knock them right off it by pointing out that they are condoning the murder of perhaps millions of innocent men, women and children and that I am shocked and dismayed over the fact that are ok with it.

I'm not going to sit quietly and tolerate this upcoming humanitarian disaster. We CAN NOT casually just turn our backs, cover our ears and allow this slaughter to occur. IT IS NOT OK to justify the pitiful cries of millions with casual words. Anyone who does so is a selfish, ice-cold, black-hearted, mean-spirited, hateful wretch that is unfit to refer to themself as "human".

It is NOT OK. NOT!!!

Posted by AT 2007-07-20 12:17|| 2007-07-20 12:17|| Front Page Top

#2 It's interesting to read all the back and forth here on this forum about the war.(undeclared) We are a very, very small group compared to the general US public. The general public, finally getting some absorption of the war overall, are decidedly against it. Some polls show 70 % against; some 73 % against; some 80 %. Doesn't matter much. Basically, most are against it. The military cannot continue without public support. Being a life long Republican, I am terrifically upset at what I see from so-called Republicans today. By holding on for Bush, the Republican party is going to be decimated in the coming election. The public will have their revenge and the Dhimmis will benefit greatly. Once they have control again of the White House and Congress, they will have the power to choke this off and they will. What has been lacking all along is a public discussion of the war on Islam. Actaully the war instigated by Islam on the western world. This should be shouted from the rooftops daily by the American President. By not going to the front and leading clearly, Bush has utterly failed. The main job of President is to lead by influence. FDR wanted to go to war in 1939. He didn't because he knew the American public was not convinced of the necessity. So he led, giving many clear voiced talks on the medium of the day.. radio. The next President must conduct a public discussion of the exact situation we are in. He/she must delineate that we must have a different approach. A cruel, cold, direct appraoch which may result in the deaths of millions of Muslims. After laying the cards on the table, let the public decide if they want to play the game as it needs to be played. Otherwise, if they decide to fold, the consequences of Islamic domination ought to be pointed out in clear, concise terms which cannot be misunderstood by even the simplest ones among us.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-07-20 13:35|| 2007-07-20 13:35|| Front Page Top

#3 The U.S. public has never gone soft in its support for American involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11.

As antiwar critics have pointed out, Saddam Hussein was a secular Fascist and only tangentially connected to al Qaeda style elements. Thus, the simple refrain of "we did not find the WMDs and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11" carries weight with the general public. They seem to believe that we did not have a critical national interest there originally or since.

What needs to be publicly explained by high government officials in frank language is that Islamic radicals have long since launched a global war against us and how such distant and seemingly unrelated places as Iraq, the Phillipines, England, and Pakistan are all squares on the global chessboard in this war which we can not afford to lose. Abandoning any corner of the world to Islamic militants is too great a risk now.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-07-20 17:24|| 2007-07-20 17:24|| Front Page Top

#4 I think VDH is way off base in his analysis of the effect of a withdrawal on the military. I have to believe that the military knows they have done the job, did not lose on the battlefield and are the most powerful, competent and accomplished military force in history.

His parallel to the Vietnam war less reasonable than a comparison to the Spanish Civil War. The Soviets won in WWII in spite of the defeat of the International Brigades.

I suspect the upshot of a withdrawal would be a substantial reassessment of the relationship of the military and civilian spheres. The fundamental problem is that democracies don't do limited war well politically, regardless of how they perform militarily.

I can't predict exactly what would happen, but I would not be surprised if the next time the civilians want to employ the military, the military ask for a Total War level of commitment. Likewise I would not be surprised to see the development of surrogate forces such as a foreign legion with a path to citizenship or an expansion of Special Forces to fight Afghan type campaigns.

I would be interested to hear how 'burgers closer to those in uniform think they would react to another civilian stab in the back.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-20 18:27|| 2007-07-20 18:27|| Front Page Top

#5 All very interesting and good arguments. However the issue here is that anyone who is willing to endure another Saigon - unnecessarily leaving millions of innocent men, women, children and infants to be slaughtered and dumped in mass graves can not say that they are concerned about human life or "the war" or that they are tired of the killing. They are just a heartless jerks who probably would have looked away at slavery, or any other evil to avoid themselves from being even slightly inconvenienced.

Anyone who will turn their backs and cover their ears for a slaughter of this magnitude is an -inhumane, uncaring *(&^# who deserves exactly what they get, when they get their come around of what goes around. They need to start thinking about what their own personal come around might look like. Torture, rape, and a cruel death. Yeah - and no one will listen to your cries out for help either - you loser, low level uncaring, subhuman jerks.

The calls for of leaving Iraq is just politics, mixed with slogans and mantras repeated by half-wits who probably can't even find Iraq on a map.

Anyone reading this - if who can justify this slaughter in your mind - YOU SUCK and I hope you go to hell where you belong.

Posted by AT 2007-07-20 18:45|| 2007-07-20 18:45|| Front Page Top

#6 Yah, unless Bush makes a move on Iran, we are snatching defeat from the arms of victory. With the US out of the way, Iran will walk into eastern Iraq, and unite with the Shiites. Then they will encroach on the rest of the Sunni cities. If there is nothing between them and Mecca, then that is where they will march.

Maybe our grandchildren will make us wear t-shirts: I COULD HAVE PREVENTED IRAN'S NUCLEAR ICBM THREAT TO THE HOMELAND.

Greatest generation? We are scum at the bottom of the history barrel.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-20 20:50|| 2007-07-20 20:50|| Front Page Top

#7 almost prophetic that the generation that made this all possible was named the Baby Boomers.

God has a wicked sense of humor.

Posted by AT 2007-07-20 20:59|| 2007-07-20 20:59|| Front Page Top

23:45 Super Hose
23:39 Super Hose
23:29 Super Hose
23:21 Super Hose
23:03 Super Hose
22:15 Super Hose
22:06 djh_usmc
22:05 Zenster
22:00 WTF
21:45 Danking70
21:41 Super Hose
21:37 Mullah Richard
21:22 Frank G
21:20 Frank G
21:19 Slinesing Angomolet1065
21:19 WTF
21:16 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:16 Bright Pebbles
21:13 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:06 Iblis
20:59 AT
20:57 AT
20:55 RD
20:52 McZoid