This whole war, this ungodly mess is to be laid at the feet of Bush and his cronies, the ones who sit around and wonder where they can next send America's sons and daughters to further there own agenda. It takes no cute little 'Church of Lefties' to see what the man has wrought. I really don't see how you can pretend otherwise.

I do wish I could put on some rose colored glasses and smile and smile and smile away the pain and horror we are now involved in worldwide, but I cannot. I just remember what Shakespeare said about those who smile...

As to your argument that we are there because of oil, that is nonsense. If it had been about oil only, this is what would have happened.

....US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

There would have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

What I can't understand is how you, and others of the Left, didn't provide just a bit of help for the Iraq people.

After all, it is possible to be against Bush and for the Iraqi people being rid of Saddam and having a republic in the US image, even if not exact.

I supposed their furious indifference was reasonable. They had many good arguments that I would have agreed with in other circumstances. I assumed that once the war was over they would back Iraqis trying to build a democracy, while continuing to pursue Bush and Blair to their graves for what they had done. I waited for a majority of the liberal left to off er qualified support for a new Iraq, and I kept on waiting, because it never happened - not just in Britain, but also in the United States, in Europe, in India, in South America, in South Africa ... in every part of the world where there was a recognisable liberal left. They didn't think again when thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by 'insurgents' from the Baath party, which wanted to re-establish the dictatorship, and from al-Qaeda, which wanted a godly global empire to repress the rights of democrats, the independent-minded, women and homosexuals. They didn't think again when Iraqis defi ed the death threats and went to vote on new constitutions and governments. Eventually, I grew tired of waiting for a change that was never going to come and resolved to find out what had happened to a left whose benevolence I had taken for granted.....

Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left?

It is time for reasonable people to recognize that the killing now is the killing of Moslems by Moslems for no better reason than their particular religious beliefs. The way you stop this is kill those who are involved in the killing.

That is nasty and brutal. But outside of surrendering, I see no alternative.

But what type of person do you think drives a truck loaded with a ton of explosives into a market area and kills innocent men, women and children because of their religion? Do you think these types of people can be tolerated?

You know, I wish I could believe you do not understand that, but since we both remember the comment you made agreeing that the Left's demonstrations cost us the Vietnam war, I know better.

Re: Bush on Iraq: 'I'd Do It All Again' (none / 0) (#58)
by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:59 PM EST

Jim, I never said you said Bin Laden was a feminist. Sigh. I was making an analogy, based on your statement that "radicals" ended the Vietnam war. Cronkite, as the nation's foremost anchor at the time, was one key piece in changing public opinion. And he was no radical. Trot out Gen. Giap all you want, you're stating the obvious, that protest worked. Sorry it helped "the enemy", but no Vietnamese communist fighting Western colonialism ever did a thing to me. How you fail to see our folly baffles me, but that's nothing new. The West NEVER had a chance in post-colonial Indo-China, and didn't deserve one. Had we used a bit of self-critical humanity we might have gotten a better result. But you don't agree, blah blah blah, we know how far apart we are. So be it. Have a good one.

That shows me that you are willing to ignore the fact that this has prolonged this war to allow you to play politics. Truly, nothing changes.

BTW - I love the transistion from "no Vietnamese communist never did a thing to me" to your claim that Iraq had no connection with terrorists.

They've never before been able to define what "winning" means, or what they hope to "win".

But... I've been doing a bit of research, and I think I've found the answer. It's his way of life he's afraid of losing.

I have never said that. Must I again and again point out how you claim the right to smear, with no special attention to the facts?

I was writing of what the view is of coming in with additional troops.

The protests were not that small at the beginning of the war. It was only that you had the majority of Americans believing the lies. Protests ndidn't change the opinions of Americans, the reality of the war on the ground did.

You failed to include the positive statement.

That's plain as the nose of your face.