47 comments

  1. John Konop says:

    Both sides are trying to score political points instead of dealing with the reality in Iraq. The truth is a surge or withdrawal is a tactic not a plan.

    The real issue is Iraq is torn apart by sectarian tribal violence that traces back to 700AD. The concept of forming a strong federal government in the near future in Iraq, that is like the west is not achievable.

    The other solution of local control in Iraq is merely a containment strategy that requires the U.S. to get off Muddle East oil ASAP.

    It does look like the new strategy is to build up strong local control while the military fades out of fighting in Iraq. And I find it strange that Hillary, Obama and Biden are against this idea since they claim they support the concept.

    The only real debate is do we have a long term military presence in Iraq. Yet all the front runners from both parties seemed to support the idea of our military being in the Middle East long term. It seems both parties want our military to protect our oil interest in the Middle East and not focus on getting off their oil. This is the part I disagree with!

  2. IndyInjun says:

    The questions I have remain unanswered.

    1. Define ‘victory’
    2. If the war is worthy of continuing,how will it be funded? (continuing to borrow war funding from the Chinese is not an acceptable answer.)
    3. Since Vietnam taught us that war should be fought with all of the resources of the nation and that ALL should participate, why is resumption of the draft to MAN the war excluded.

    If we cannot define winning, are unwilling to man the war with our own children, and are unwilling to pay taxes to fund the war, exactly WHAT are WE?

    Since there are no answers, the war is not worthy of even one more American life.

    Perhaps next time we will heed the lessons of Iraq and Vietnam.

  3. jsm says:

    1. “preserving the freedom to live our lives without the fear of violence against our citizens.”
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21110.html

    2. Whatever it takes. This generation has put money ahead of principle. You are correct that borrowing from China is not acceptable.

    3. A volunteer force is preferable to a draft for reasons of willingness, morale, administration, etc. A draft is necessary only when the volunteer force is inadequate.

    Now I have a question:
    How many battles/skirmishes have we lost in Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter)?

  4. Federalist says:

    The draft is no solution. As a matter of fact there is nearly no solution left other than leaving and letting the consequences take their course. The administration has seriously confused the hell out of the public by trying to make the war in iraq the frontline of the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is ambiguous enough to allow the gop to exploit their one political strength…defense/nat. security. I really do not think that the president wants this war to end…ever. I can see that the rat in the WH (sorry at crawford, tx) would rather these kids in iraq get killed than the gop lose political clout.

  5. Federalist says:

    I can honestly say that I am still not sure what Petraeus really thinks…his statements and reports were written by the White House, not by General Petraeus.

  6. Federalist says:

    John Konop…I completely forgot who you were. You ran against Price in the 6th last year didn’t you? You actually received my vote against price when I lived in woodstock.

  7. Dawgfan says:

    Federalist that is a lie! The General stated before Congress and stated that he wrote the report and it was not cleared by the White House. To say otherwise is to accuse a distinguished Four Star General of Lying before Congress

    Second, if the place where we are fighting and killing terrorist is not the front lines of the War on Terror I don’t know where is.

    Finally, I think you learn a lot about people

  8. rugby_fan says:

    Dawgfan:

    Iraq is hardly a war on terrorists.

    Even if we are to say that we are fighting terrorists, the ones we are fighting are not hoping to overthrow America but rival religious factions.

  9. GodHatesTrash says:

    “Second, if the place where we are fighting and killing terrorist is not the front lines of the War on Terror I don

  10. IndyInjun says:

    Dawgfan wrote:

    “There are no set piece battles. No formations attacking enemy positions just death and destruction. The only purpose is to create domestic political pressure so the US withdraws from Iraq.”

    This is much as the British complained about the tactics of one Francis Marion a.k.a. the Swamp Fox………………………..

  11. IndyInjun says:

    Recommended reading is George Will’s column of today in which he uses the statements of Bush and Petraeus when the ‘surge’ began to prove that it has failed by their own standards.

    The last I checked, Will was not a Democratic party sympathizer. Neither are William F. Buckley and Peggy Noonan.

    We true conservatives are not lap dogs for the worst POTUS in US history, nor do we excuse the inexcusable perpetrated by the DC GOP incumbency.

  12. rugby_fan says:

    “The goal of those we fight in Iraq is to defeat the US.”

    Incorrect.

    Your analysis is inherently flawed if you believe this.

    While yes, some of the people we are fighting may want to see the US overthrown, the insurgents are fighting for control of Iraq. Its a civil war.

  13. Dawgfan says:

    Indy Injun you can kiss my ass with that “true conservative” Bullshit.

    If by “true conservative” you mean those who wish the US to run in the face of an enemy than you can exclude me.

    If by “true conservative” you mean someone who thinks it’s the policies of the US Government that causes terrorism then I’m not one of them.

    If by “true conservative” you mean someone who supports leaving an ally to face the enemy alone then I say no thank you.

    If by “true conservative” you mean someone as delusional as you the by all means count me out!

  14. Federalist says:

    How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from, or even had ties to terrorist groups in, Iraq? 0. Iraq is a diversion from the real goals that America sought the day after 9/11/2001. As for my previous statement about what bush’s intentions are…it stands. It may seem dispicable to you, but surely not to him. Whether Petreaus has lied about anything or not, I do not know. Surely if he were to lie about something he would have made “his” report more optimistic about the possibility of this shenanigan not being a quagmire. Furthermore on officials, high and low, lying before Congress. In the past few years we have seen the president, the vice president, the attorney general, and a number of other high level executives lie before congress. Just because he is in the military does not mean he is above lying for political gain.

  15. Federalist says:

    There is no more justification for remaining in Iraq. All that seems to remain are a few people (less than a quarter of the surveyed population) that do not want to admit that they were wrong or that they were duped into supporting ,what has be construed by many outside the the U.S., a state sponsored terrorist plot to occupy a sovereign nation.

  16. Federalist says:

    Well that maybe too intelligent of an answer…afterall a quarter of the population (remarkably this percentage coincides with another percentage of the population) is borderline retarded…or worse. This maybe an underestimate as well. There are geographic factors.

  17. Dawgfan says:

    Indy Injun you started out pretty good with the “Swamp Fox reference, but then you went delusional.

    Rugby Fan

    “the insurgents are fighting for control of Iraq. Its a civil war.”

    The US is the dominate power in Iraq. Those who wish to control Iraq for must defeat the US where is the flaw?

  18. Federalist says:

    Dawgfan, The U.S. is not the dominate power in Iraq. When we get some intelligent people in the WH and pull out of that country,…do you really think that insurgents weilding rpgs and ak-47s are going to be invading the US? I can assure one thing. When we leave…power will be usurped by the Shia-Arab majority and there will be some form of dictatorship again. Democracy is incompatible with many cultures, and Iraq is one of them.

  19. rugby_fan says:

    Because Iraq is a sovereign nation.

    The Shi’a militia wants to rule the Iraqi parliament. The Suni’i want to kick the Shi’a out. And the Kurds want a separate state.

    That is the battle that is being waged. It is not against the US, but it is internecine warfare for domestic control of Iraq.

    If we were to leave today, the warfare between the factions would continue to fight with each other.

    Whether US troops die or not is inconsequential to them.

  20. IndyInjun says:

    Dawgfan – Figuring that George W. Bush is the WORST POTUS in American history is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation from the conservative POV.

    He was never a conservative, only an opportunist, and before his term is over he will have destroyed the GOP thoroughly and completely.

    I have to live with myself for ever voting for such a destructive, demented man.

  21. John Konop says:

    Obama and Hillary are for a military build up and a long term military presence in The Middle East as are the GOP front runners.

    The Generals, CIA, and military experts all agree our military presence is fostering terrorism.

    Why do the lawmakers and frontrunners not agree with the experts?

    OIL

    Why do both sides not talk about the oil issue?
    Why not have the real debate about how much we should all sacrifice if you support the troops.
    I did a small part and got rid of my BMW 700 and now drive a Ford Freestyle that gets 28 miles per gallon. My family also flew home soldiers for the holidays.

    In WW2 people and companies sacrificed for the greater good of the Country. I see a lot of grand standing from both sides and not any real sacrifice. Concepts like profiteering of soldiers use to be unpatriotic.

    I do want to make it clear my contribution is small but actions do speak louder than words.

  22. rugby_fan says:

    You know what is odd John, is that I was coming over to Peach Pundit to post a link to that very article (I finally got a chance to read it), and decided to click on the recent comments and saw this.

    Odd.

    At any rate, George Will is a conservative who hasn’t abandoned conservatism in recent years.

    He should be applauded by the RNC and GOP activists, yet I find it hard to believe anyone will stand by him.

  23. Federalist says:

    Stability in the ME is going to be important until we stop using petroleum and stop caring about Israel. Use the environment issues to wittle away at oil companies and manufacturers of products that require petroleum products to operate (car, boats, etc.). Oil is not brought up alot because our leaders do not want Joe Lunchbox america asking how many pints of blood are in a gallon of gas. Hey did everyone in here hear about Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. and his little scandal? Check out the size of the contributions his partners and company made to Bush as governor of Tx. All of these morally corrupt people and their support of that opportunist Bush 43. It is sickening.

  24. Federalist says:

    Hey Konop…WW2 was a real war. America faced a real threat from the countries we were fighting. I do not think that the “5th street ” militia of Baghdad will be attacking the continental U.S. …ever.

  25. IndyInjun says:

    Maybe some of the Bush GOP apologists should read Peggy Noonan more often, AMONG OTHERS in the conservative movement…..

    In her latest column Ms. Noonan penned: “From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. “The people who say there’ll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?” His foreign policy: “Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders.” After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on.”

    “Ron Paul’s support isn’t based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.’

    As theyfall to the elephant boneyard at the bottom of the cliff, the last sounds will be their derisive hoots directed at us, the REAL CONSERVATIVES.

    Like the GOP stalwarts Vic Gold, Richard Viguerie, and Bill Buckley have opined, it is increasingly clear that the GOP must die and be born again.

    At this point, I would just as soon vote for an avowed Satanist as Rudy McRowpsonbee, they of the gibbling and catcalls.

    It might even be satisfying to see the lifeless carcasses at the bottom of the cliff.

  26. GodHatesTrash says:

    Today is Day 2191 of “Where’s Osama?”

    Hint #1 – He ain’t in Iraq.

    Our Chickenhawk-in-chief is clueless.

  27. John Konop says:

    Indy

    I agree with you, but we have to be realistic that going into Iraq created issues that makes it hard to walk away without a plan.

    If the Congress and the President listen to people like Ron Paul, read the NEA report, listen to the CIA or even pulled up old quotes from Dick Cheney why we did not invade Iraq the first time we could of avoided the mess.

  28. IndyInjun says:

    John Konop,

    Up until about 8 months ago, I agreed with you.

    No more. I do not see staying without a plan, while getting our folks killed and maimed and spending $2 billion a week, is any better than withdrawing with no plan.

    I keep inviting the “conservatives” to man the war, fund the war, and define the objectives, but so far not one has taken me up on it.

    WAR is to be pursued with the very last resource that a nation has, but we elect to send the children of others, borrow from the Chinese, and follow ‘leaders’ who change rationales for the war at a whim, all the while inviting us to go out and spend.

    When the epitaph of the USA is written this will be the cause for our fall.

    Sacrifice became an alien concept and realism was sacrificed on the alter of GOP loyalty, not conservative thought.

  29. John Konop says:

    Indy

    It is hard to argue with what you wrote. As a conservative and an American I am as frustrated as you with the concept of Party before Country.

    That is why I did my small part and ran against Tom Price. I only hope people like me have help create a path for Americans to challenge incumbents from both Parties.

    If you ran for office I would give you money. We have lost the concept of citizen representation.

  30. IndyInjun says:

    I suppose I best quit ‘gibbling’ and say I meant the “altAr of GOP loyalty” before Bill Simon starts scolding me about spelling.

    He ‘alters’ my thinking too much as it is.

  31. Federalist says:

    Mr. Konop, I do think that there is an issue with oil, and securing oil resources. Unfortunately, I believe that this issue is beyond the United States’ ability to solve. There are too many competing interests, but only a few powerful and unified fronts…the oil companies and petroleum exporting countries. Few people actually know where the U.S. gets most of its oil from. Morons like James Marlow think we get it all from Saudi Arabia and from terror sponsoring states. The two primary sources of oil to the U.S. happen to be Canada and Mexico. Then Venezuela and Saudia Arabia…that is beyond my point though. The United States can not function without foreign oil. Candian and Mexican oil is one thing, but if the remaining petrol exporting nations cut off the U.S. do you think we would be “screwed”? Fact is we still rely, somewhat, on Middle Eastern and even north african sources of oil. Particularly with our continued military presence in the region. I do not think anybody cares enough to let the problem be solved…if that makes sense. When policy is proposed to raise emission standards, create other environmental policies that are not “oil friendly”, taxes to curb exessive consumption, etc. the policies and sponsors are labeled as liber, tax and spend, environmental, anti-business, socialist, un-american, al-qaida sympathizers. The conservatives that want these changes made hush up though…republicans do not get elected because of environmental policies, and when oil is brought up, well…the public already has their opinion about the GOP and BIG OIL. You brought up WW2 earlier. If the people in the U.S. could unite like we did then, then maybe the oil problem could be solved. As it stands though, our citizens would rebel if we had to buy cars with wooden bumpers because the other industries were committed to the war effort. It appears that the last generation or two has driven this nation into a state of shallow, cosmetic complacecy.

  32. IndyInjun says:

    Federalist,

    The Cantarell oil field in Mexico, the second largest in the world, went into sudden and irreversable decline in the last two years, with production falling off by more than 20%.

    The Mexicans project that the field will be nearly depleted in 7 years.

    This leaves us entirely too dependent upon the leftie Chavez, who hates the USA with a passion.

  33. Federalist says:

    I did not use projected figures in my statement. Thank you for the info. I think we are too close to Saudi Arabia. Dangerously close. It is odd that we are such good friends with the country to berthed 17 of the 9/11 hijackers and we did think to invade it. Rather we invaded a country that did nothing to the US…ever.

  34. IndyInjun says:

    The Saudi Oil fields are in decline also.

    The Iraq oil fields have never been fully developed, explored, and subjected to modern extraction methods.

    70% of the world’s light oil is in that region. Add the fall-off in Mexico and one can see that the Iraq is probably about oil, but the USA cannot admit it.

    However, if it is a war worth fighting we should man it, finance it, and set objectives of winning at all costs. Bush et al are unprepared to do these things.

    In the absence of these things we should get out and make crash preparations toward energy independence.

  35. Jmac says:

    Dawgfan …

    The goal of those we fight in Iraq is to defeat the US. That is why they use terror.

    That is why some of them use terror, but the vast majority of the folks in Iraq are fighting with each other. In fact, the U.S. is engaging and supporting some Sunni elements to drive out AQI, including providing payment for not attacking U.S. forces and focusing on AQI. In reality, AQI is a very small faction in Iraq that is insignificant in most areas.

    I

Comments are closed.