Maybe it’s because I’m feeling a bit on edge tonight, but I’m sitting here thinking about how much undermining of the war has gone on by the bogus accusations of ‘lies’ by Democrats in Congress and it makes me sick. I just cannot get over how so many of them are working to turn this into Vietnam in terms of the war being fought on two fronts - both abroad and in the press. Anti-war sentiment and negative press DID have an effect on the Vietnam war in terms of support … and the same crap is happening all over again.
It fascinates the he** out of me that so many Dems in Washington can say “we’re doing our patriotic duty by expressing dissent” … hogwash. As if dissenting is the only way to be patriotic. It also amazes me that they like to claim that their ‘dissent’ doesn’t hurt troop morale and embolden the enemy - yet another lesson they DID NOT LEARN from Vietnam. I mean, think about it: for example, let’s say the president of the company you work for has assigned a team of employees for a specific long term project. Several of the board members begrudgingly go along with the plan while privately expressing reservations as to if it is even necessary to each other. Over the course of time, when the long term project isn’t going so well, they start to repeatedly say “it can’t be done” or “we need to scrap this project and have these employees get back to their normal responsibilities.” After a while, those negative comments are going to have effect on morale and the people involved in the project are going to get uptight and edgy - and probably mad, too. It’s human nature. I have no doubt that it’s the same for many of our men and women fighting - they see people here fighting at home over the very reasons they were sent to Iraq in the first place, Democrats lying in speeches on the House and Senate floor about being ‘lied to’ and eventually it can and will affect morale.
When we win this war - and we will - it will be in spite of the incessant whining coming from the mouths of the Democratic liars in Congress and their cohorts in the MSM.
Oh, the Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers learned the lessons of Vietnam quite well actually. What makes you think that undermining our efforts and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory isn’t their goal? I think it’s extremely naive to assume that defeat and disgrace are not their goals, they are. All in order to attempt to return to power, discredit their political foes, and also because philosophically, they want a weak America.
Whenever these idiots go on about how dissent is “patriotic” I wonder what they thought of the people who came out to protest desegregation. Were the people who protested, and threw rocks and bottles at the National Guard and black students trying to attend school just doing their “patriotic” duty to dissent?
Whether they admit it or not, not all dissent is patriotic or right. Some things are obviously right, there is a right and wrong, no matter how much moral and cultural relativism they preach. Their dissent on these issues is self serving, anti-American, has caused more deaths of US servicemen and women (and Iraqis), and designed to weaken the country.
And yes, I’ll say it, I am attacking their “patriotism.” If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s likely it’s a duck.
Comment by Severian @ 12/1/2005 - 9:17 pm
Those who sow into the wind, will reap the whirlwind. I cannot wait for the back lash that will come to the democratic party for their treasonous actions now. We are going to win, and the Iraqi people are going to be FREE!!! - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/1/2005 - 9:29 pm
I guess your mood isn’t helped by more comments from Murtha!:mad:
Comment by Pam @ 12/1/2005 - 10:04 pm
Indeed Pam!
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/1/2005 - 10:13 pm
Didn’t Hillary, during the Clinton years, talk about how you shouldn’t question the president in times of war? I think this was during a lot of the wag the dog speculation about the bombings…does anyone know? Guess I have some research to do.
Comment by ArizonaTeach @ 12/1/2005 - 11:19 pm
Dissent is as patriotic as washing your car. Neither are necessarily bad things, but neither are patriotic.
And public dissent during wartime, though not remotely illegal, is completely unpatriotic. By demoralizing your troops and encouraging the enemy, you are lengthening the fight, and causing more casualties. It takes an incredibly self-centered person to believe that going out and protesting is more important than soldier’s lives.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 12:44 am
I originally supported the war. I regret that now, if only because I believe that they’ve completely screwed it up. By they I don’t mean the guys who are out there having to deal with it, I mean the higher ups. The planners. And I think that corruption, to some degree, has been rampant.
But That’s hardly me wanting the enemy to win, or not wanting a free iraq. But I’m afraid that the chances for a free and stable iraq has become slimmer and slimmer. And that’s terrible. Especially since we completely could have succeeded.
The reason vietnam keeps cropping up is not just because of ‘the left’…you find lots and lots and lots of references to it by both sides. (look at the election!) And there’s a very simple reason for that. Look at who is ‘in charge’ now. The Baby Boomers. And Vietnam looms very large in their mental landscape, and as basically every human being does, this shapes how they cast things.
Comment by Rachel @ 12/2/2005 - 4:50 am
The left is comfortable with the left winning but the right must never win. The past wars that the left supported were wars for left wing causes but not necessarily for democracy.
Comment by stackja @ 12/2/2005 - 6:51 am
The Democrat and the media have no morals, no integrity, no ethics, no spine, and they wish to impose that same lack of character upon the rest of the country.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 7:59 am
>I’m afraid that the chances for a free
>and stable iraq has become slimmer and
>slimmer.
Stop listening to the MSM and listen to our troops on the ground and the Iraqis themselves. You might get a different picture.
Comment by CavalierX @ 12/2/2005 - 8:45 am
Rachel I agree with Cavalier. Stop listening to the MSM and those that want to lend credibility to what the MSM is saying. Want to believe again listen to the soldiers stories. Many of them are coming back saying how victory is so imminent. Like I said on another post, I work for the DoD, and my lead accountant has been there for over a year. She is back for the holidays, but goes back for another year, which she volunteered to do as a civilian. She was talking to me about how happy the Iraqis are that we are there. How much they are looking forward to the next election, and freedom. How much the Iraqis don’t want us to pull out before the mission is finished. I have worked with this woman for over 5 years, she is in her 50s, and went to Iraq to help with our mission for the DoD. She is done with what she went there for originally, now the Army has asked her to take on a new mission. She says how she is guarded by Iraqi military, and says that you can see how much they appreciate us being there. Here is a couple of websites for you, and anyone else that doesn’t believe me. I know that these are biased, but it is hard to find someone that isn’t. It is time to believe that this mission, the freedom of the Iraqi people is almost done, and it is going to work out just the way we hoped for.
http://www.defendamerica.mil
Comment by Lorica @ 12/2/2005 - 9:23 am
What, really are we doing in Iraq? If you leave the US “psy-ops” out of it, and just look at actual fact, things get curiouser and curiouser…like this:
Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani explains, “there is no way Kurdistan would accept that the central government will control our resources.”
Turns out that the Kurds are gunning full steam for independence- US policy be damned. To prove their mettle, they have signed an oil drilling deal with a Norwegian company, telling the Baghdad government to fu** off.
To me, it seems very likely that within 5 years there will be an independant Kurdistan, that is not very sympathetic to US concerns:
In his speech Tuesday, Barzani, the nephew of Kurdish politician and former guerrilla leader Massoud Barzani, eschewed the language of the law and couched the deal in political terms. He invoked the Kurds’ years of deprivation at the hands of the Sunni Arab-dominated government of Saddam Hussein.
“The time has come that instead of suffering, the people of Kurdistan will benefit from the fortunes and resources of their country,” he said during the ceremony in the western portion of Kurdish-controlled territory.
This kind of situation is exactly what has people like me up in arms about the Iraq boondoggle. Pure incompetence. Paul Bremer should be Rummy’s bitch in a cell in southern Illinois, right next to Manuel Noriega.
The problem with “Kurdistan” has been known from the get-go, and should have been officially considered from the start. I think that maybe they should be allowed to form their own state, which would make Iraq a basically Shia-controlled Islamic state.
Again, not the original game-plan…oh, wait! There was no game plan, so it’s all OK.
Most people here who support the war did so initially because they felt that it was vital to US security. A shrinking number of those people still feel that way – yourself included.
Then people went along with the war because they thought that we were building a US style democracy, with American values to the middleeast. Many of us- myself included- saw that as impossible hogwash. Even our closest ally, and the closest thing to a democratic government in the ME- Israel- is a theocratic state.
In the end, there will be a free Kurdistan and a Shiite Iraq. Like the Tibetans, the Sunnis will move to Michigan or be killed.
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 10:39 am
Zorro,
What galls me about you Liberals is that you all want things perfect if you don’t run things, and when you do run things, you’ll let the Saddams kill people as they will just so you don’t lose power.
You have no plan except cut, run, stick your head in the sand.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 11:05 am
PCD,
what galls me about people like you is that you engage mouth before engaging brain. Your statement as a rebuttal of my comments make absolutely no sense.
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 11:37 am
Zorro,
It makes sense. It is an observation of you and your fellow travellers.
It must hurt since you resort to a personal attack as your rebuttal.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 12:15 pm
Notice that Zorro had to get the usual leftist dig in against Israel, in a post that had nothing to do with Israel.
So far, you’re following the typical Leftist script pretty well.
Comment by Severian @ 12/2/2005 - 12:19 pm
Zorro, his statement makes very good sense. He is saying that you are complaining about such a small thing as who exactly will control the future of Kurdish Iraq, but were mute, or at least unwilling to remove him when Saddam was killing them.
Ask a Kurd what they think about our efforts in Iraq. You won’t hear any disapproval.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 12:22 pm
Kevin, pay attention. We are talking about the very real possibility of 2 nations being spawned here: Kurdistan, and Shiite Iraq. neither one would be very well aligned with US interests.
I wasn’t making a dig against Israel, just pointing out that there is no US-style democracy in the middleast, before someone said “yes there is…look at Israel!”
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 12:38 pm
Kevin,
Also note that Zorro’s condesension that no one in the middle east can function in a democracy, that anyone he disagrees with is stupid. Just goes to show how disengaged he is.
Zorro, you are so smart, show us what Saddam did with his WMD. He DID have it and the whole world knew it, even Bubba and Hillary.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 12:39 pm
we’re discussing serious issues here, and you guys are worried about “condescension”? This is ridiculous…or are you trying to say that there IS a US-style democracy in the middleeast?
We know what Saddam did with his WMD- he destroyed them, just as ordered by the UN. But he bluffed so as not to look weak to his citizens and neighbors. There was a lot of bacvk-channel wrangling going on before we invaded…in the near future someone, most likely Colin Powell, will come clean that they knew all along.
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 12:51 pm
*snapping to attention* I disagree that Kurdistan would not be aligned with the US, but I also consider it unimportant.
In the unlikely event that Iraq breaks into parts, the parts will be democratic, thanks to the coalition’s good work there. True democracies are rarely a threat to other democracies. Heck, the french government despises us. How much damage has that done to the US?
Zorro, pay attention. The world is a better place with democratic states. We went to war because it was vital to our security as you mentioned. We are finishing the job because it is both vital to our future security, and vital to the freedom of 26 million Iraqis. Don’t talk about shoulda coulda wouldas, and offer some helpful advice for the future. Quit whining about how it is not being done to your specifications, and rejoice that it is even being done at all.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 12:55 pm
Really, Kevin. If the Kurds form their own soveriegn state, Turkey will immeadiately declare war on it. They have already said so. Turkey is our strongest ally in the Muslim world…
…no problem, you say.
Save your rejoicing for the temple…the real problems in Iraq have not yet begun.
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 1:05 pm
Zorro,
Stop whining about being forced to face yourself and how you “debate” with, more like dictate to, others.
Show us proof of the WMD destruction and that the WMD did not get buried or sent to Syria. Otherwise, blow off your left wing (non)talking points.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 1:13 pm
After looking at all the facts, and the reports, including some I have been exposed to in my work, I am completely convinced that Saddam did NOT destroy his WMD stockpiles. I firmly believe that most of them have been hidden and/or moved out of the country in the long long march that led up to this war (18 months, that’s sure a “rush to war” isn’t it?). What he didn’t have in the way of stockpiles was unimportant, he also was maintaining dual use facilities that could (and would have been) rapidly and easily reconfigured to make chemical weapons.
The reports of the weapons inspectors, complete with their reports of malfeasance by the Iraqis, hiding of papers, assasination of scientists, people going out the back door with materials and equipment while the inspectors were being stalled at the gates, and convoys of trucks heading to Syria and other locations, lead to no other conclusion.
Comment by Severian @ 12/2/2005 - 1:28 pm
for an adult discussion of this topic, please click:
Zorro, I don’t link up to Daily Kos here. People know the URL if they want to visit. If you don’t think you’re having an adult conversation here, maybe you should ‘give up on us’ and return to your ‘adult conversation’ there. –ST
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 1:39 pm
Zorro,
Thank you for confirming one prejudice you have. That you think anyone to the right of you is not an adult, not educated, not smart…and I can go on about how you can’t address arguments and facts with your betters. You have to denigrate people in order to win your arguments.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 1:54 pm
>We know what Saddam did with his WMD-
>he destroyed them
Got proof? Take a look through the 6 March 2003 UNMOVIC report, “Unresolved Disarmament Issues.” It lays out the details of what the UN KNEW Sadam had that he hadn’t turned over or proved destroyed. Now, do you also call the UN liars? Will you at least pretend to be consistent?
Comment by CavalierX @ 12/2/2005 - 1:54 pm
The Kurds are not going to split with Iraq, but I’ll go down your road one more time.
I am aware that Turkey is against a Kurdish nation, since they have a lot of Kurds in Turkey. But if you honestly think that Turkey, our ally would attack a newly created Khurdistan, also our ally, and the US would not stop it before it started, then you don’t understand America. Standing by our allies is what gets us in trouble so much. We would immediately side with the non-agressive country, and the war would not occur.
I find it saddening that you are so concerned about future violence that you would prefer these people had continued to live in dictatorially enforced peace. PCD is right, you really don’t think they can take care of themselves.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 1:59 pm
That was a link to my diary with the same topic…a number well informed people had much to say. You shouldn’t have your blinders on so tight Sistah!
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 2:01 pm
*sigh* Even if WERE wearing blinders, I’d still have enough sense not to visit there for them to be ‘lifted’.
I DO appreciate your visit to my blog, though - I’m sure it was an act of selflessness on your part to try to educate us all.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/2/2005 - 2:05 pm
To Zorro:
Pot, meet kettle.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 2:05 pm
A very informed comment that you didn’t link to:
Why won’t you respect my rules? –ST
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 2:10 pm
zorro,
We don’t have time to waste on moonbat drivel. You got something to say, cut and paste your diary. The only thing is that is your diary, not any objective analysis or on scene observation. Don’t get your widdle feelings hurt if we reject them and go back to the adult discussion.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 2:15 pm
“You got something to say, cut and paste your diary.”
I tried and ST edited it out.
Comment by Zorro @ 12/2/2005 - 2:20 pm
You reposted someone ELSE’S comments onto this site, so what you had was something someone else said from your DK diary, not your comments themselves. This was from the same link I asked you not to use, after you posted it and asked us to visit it for a more ‘adult’ convo.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/2/2005 - 2:29 pm
Zorro,
No, the good Sister cut your link to “Daily Krap”. If you really are an adult, you can type your arguments and link to credible sources, not the lies, venom, and drivel spewed at sites like “Daily Krap”.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 2:30 pm
I think we should all be happy that a person with a diary on Kos has lasted this long without swearing.
But seriously Zorro, if you came here to convince us that the war is a failure or that we should bail, or even that the Bush administration is evil, you’ve come to the wrong place. We’ve all seen the information, and we’ve all come to whatever conclusions we have come to. You should know that some ‘double-secret never-before-seen memo’ or idea is not going to change that opinion. Just as I know that if peace broke out in Iraq tomorrow, the troops came home and democracy spread, you would still consider the war a failure.
Oh darn, I re-read his first post, and he did swear
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 2:57 pm
Kevin,
I really resented zorro’s haughtiness in telling us we are all wrong, inferring that we were the children when he tried to lead us by the hand to his fellow children making mud pies in the sand box when he was cornered. Also, you lay charges on him, and like a true lefty, he ignored them and move back to his the right is wrong mantra with out refuting a thing.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 3:27 pm
Somewhere, in the fantasy universe Liberals live in, they are convinced that they can undermine the decision to support Saddam’s overthrow that was made on the basis of rational thought, logical argument and over a decade of documentation by screeching, “Bush lied!” Unfortunately for them, we keep asking for some rational basis for that claim, and there isn’t one. Either that, or they scream, “run away!” because {gasp} people actually die when fighting brutal, vicious terrorists. Of course, we could name several thousand who died while not fighting terrorists, but minding their own businesses one fine fall morning.
Comment by CavalierX @ 12/2/2005 - 3:29 pm
Cav,
I know. I emailed a link to the good Sister where some GOP students in Colorado confronted Ward Connerly and asked him to circle the names on a banner of people Connerly thought deserved to die in 9/11. Connerly blustered and backed away from actually slandering any victim in particular, just leaving his blood libel unproven in public.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 3:38 pm
Hah! That sounds like an interesting read. Hope she posts it.
Comment by Kevin @ 12/2/2005 - 3:45 pm
Drudge is reporting that the Terrorists have set a 8 Dec. deadline for Iraq and the Coalition to surrender or the 4 activists they kidnapped will be executed. Watch for excessive kvetching by leftists the world over.
Comment by PCD @ 12/2/2005 - 4:05 pm
This is nothing more than the typical right wing intolerance of opposing views, where anyone who opposes the president is unpatriotic and harming our troops. I doubt that any criticism of the president by the Democrats is hurting our troops’ morale nearly as much as some of the poor decisions made by the civilian leadership, such as not providing enough armored vehicles for our troops. When American soldiers were being killed by roadside bombs because their vehicles lacked armor, Sister Toldjah was silent, but when some Democrats criticize the president, she is outraged.
I seriously doubt criticism of the president has much effect on the troops. I’m sure they’re a lot more concerned about avoiding bombs and bullets than what is going on in Washington D.C.. The fact is that in practically every single war fought by the United States, with the exception of World War II, there has almost always been strong opposition to the war by many Americans. Despite this opposition, in most cases our troops prevailed. In the article below, Larry Elder documented the strong opposition to many wars fought by the U.S.:
LINK
Comment by Brian @ 12/3/2005 - 4:47 am
Your snide comments about me aside, this is nothing more than typical ignorance of the overall issue by people like you Brian who refuse to see the big picture.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe or not that comments made here affect the morale in Iraq. They do. Why don’t you ask a Vietnam vet how much the over the top criticism during Vietnam here hurt morale there and emboldened the enemy? It is DOCUMENTED.
This is the thing about some people on the left: the NEVER LEARN from mistakes from the past. They just keep repeating them. Well this time, lives are at stake while the liars in Washington continue to make bogus accusations of ‘lies’ and ‘misleading’ - it’s not about average criticism, it’s about criticism that is knowingly FALSE made for purposes of politcal gain during a time of war. It doesn’t surprise me that you support such faux ‘criticism’ but it makes me sad all the more that you guys continue to not get it. Some of you guys on the left do not have a clue how to conduct yourselves during a time of war. Not a clue. And it hurts our chances of winning. We WILL win this war, but it will be in spite of the constant lies and whining by the usual suspects.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/3/2005 - 7:14 am
I have to agree with you Sis. We will win this war, we are winning this peace. Things are working out in Iraq, Iraq will be free. We will not turn and run this time. We are not under a democrat President, who, due to bad poll numbers, pulls the troops out before the mission is finished.
As far as the Kurds go. Actually we knew they wanted independance since Desert Storm. It is no surprise that they are acting on their own now. But I have no doubt that they are committed to a democratic Iraq, since they are given a voice in the new government.
I long for our troops to come home. They desire it too. But they also know the importance of the mission, and they will stay and do what they know is the right thing to do, for the Iraqi people and for the United States.
This war was a long time in coming. Saddamn attacked the US as much as he dared. He was constantly testing our resolve by ordering his pilots in the no fly zone. Several times he tried to sneak radar and radar jamming devices into the no fly zone to help his planes. Good thing our jets have rockets that home in on such signals. He tried to assasinate a former US President. That alone is reason to go to war. He was killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, he developed weapons he was not suppose to have. He bought weapon systems and equipment that he was not suppose to, thanks to our “allies”. He broke 14 UN resolutions and was bribing UN and world officials with oil money. All the while these officials looked away as people in Iraq were starving and dying of cureable deseases, while Saddamn built palaces. Noooo we shouldn’t have gone to war in 2003. We should of went to war in 1996, but then when a country is run by a poll believing idiot, it would of hurt someone’s image to do the right thing. - Lorica
Why wasn’t the same standard invoked to get us into Kosovo, used to get us into Iraq?? And when it is, people kvetch about it. (thanks PCD)
Also I noticed my earlier post was missing a link.
http://www.army.mil
Comment by Lorica @ 12/3/2005 - 9:27 am
Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army responded:
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.”
Now, what was it you were saying about criticism hurting the morale of the troops and the war?????
Comment by NC Cop @ 12/3/2005 - 12:55 pm
No fair! NC Cop is using facts! You are not allowed to use facts when having a discussion with a liberal. You are only allowed to use woulda shoulda couldas, like “If we would have only done such and such, the world would be at peace, therefore Bush is evil/stupid.”
When you throw facts into the mix, it is impossible to have a long drawn out pointless argument. So cut it out
Comment by Kevin @ 12/3/2005 - 11:44 pm
NC Cop,
Your quote from a North Vietnamese Colonel does absolutely nothing to show that criticism of the Vietnam War hurt the morale of American Troops. Your comment was from someone from the North Vietnamese Army. What does his comment have to do with the morale of American Troops?
By all accounts I’ve read of the Vietnam War, most American Soldiers fought bravely against opposing forces. The reason why the United States was not successful in Vietnam was because of poor leadership. The morale of American troops was not a factor in the war. The same thing can be said about Iraq. The reason why the United States so far has not been successful in Iraq is because of poor leadership, not because of any criticism of the war. Bush supporters, such as Sister Toldjah, are trying to shift the blame for how badly things are going in Iraq away from the president and onto the Democrats. The fact is President Bush and the Republicans have complete control of government and they have full power to run the war as the see fit. Congress has not interfered with how President Bush has been running the war. President Bush is the one who is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of what happens in Iraq.
Did you even bother reading the article I linked to? There has been strong opposition to practically ever war the U.S. has ever fought, yet in most wars the U.S. has prevailed.
Comment by Brian @ 12/5/2005 - 12:20 am
Kevin,
NC Cop’s “facts” had nothing to do with whether or not opposition to the Vietnam War hurt our troops morale. The fact is, there has been strong opposition to practically ever war the U.S. has ever fought, yet in most wars the U.S. has prevailed. This fact seems to be lost upon you.
Comment by Brian @ 12/5/2005 - 12:24 am
You just never will get it, will you Brian? Believe whatever you want to, but people in the military who’ve been around the block a few times with respect to fighting in wars will tell you that negative comments - whether they be foreign or domestic - DO hurt troop morale and embolden the enemy. Your ignorance (especially considering the admission by the Bui Tin) doesn’t change that fact.
BTW, NC Cop is THERE. You are not. I think most of us will accept his word over yours in terms of how what we say here at home affects our troops. He has one on one interaction with them. YOU do not.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/5/2005 - 12:27 am
Brian,
You’re right, what was I thinking?? Why take the word of a high ranking North Vietnamese official who basically said that the anti-war movement helped them win the war?? What does he know, anyway? That has absolutely no bearing on the Iraq war!!
Also, I work right beside the soldiers over here, and beleive me, they don’t look at the anti-war protestors and say “Oh, thank God someone is speaking out for me, they really care about me!!”
The bottom line is that Al Qaeda is doing the exact same thing the North Vietnamese did. Waiting and watching the anti-war movement do their job for them. If you can’t see the similarities, then I feel sorry for you, because you’re living in denial.
Comment by NC Cop @ 12/5/2005 - 1:08 am
Ouch Brian Got cha there!!!
Nothing quite like 1st hand revelation, not processed garbage in, garbage out, like the MSM will give you. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/5/2005 - 7:12 am
Brian,
You are the epitome of intolerance. It has always been your way or the highway with you. Maybe you ought to go back to DU or Daily Krap. Edited. –ST
Comment by PCD @ 12/5/2005 - 8:30 am
Sister Toldjah,
You’re the one who doesn’t get it. You have absolutely no understanding of the situation. Your views are based 100 percent on what you want to believe and zero percent on what the facts are. You have yet to provide a single fact showing that criticism of the war is hurting our effort. You’ve decided that a North Vietnamese colonel is qualified to know what the morale of American troops was like during the Vietnam War. I assure you there were plenty of colonels in the Confederate Army that were confident they would win the Civil War when there were massive anti-war protests in the North. Guess what the outcome was. The Soviet Union did not allow any domestic opposition to their war in Afghanistan. How could they possibly have lost?
You continue to insist that opposition to the war is hurting the war effort. Can you please cite one case of Americans troops running away from the enemy or refusing to fight because people in the United States are opposed to the war? Can you cite a single battle that was affected by opposition to the war in the U.S.? There have been cases where soldier refused to follow orders because they were not provided with armored vehicles but I haven’t heard of soldiers refusing to follow orders because of domestic opposition to the war.
You said:
“BTW, NC Cop is THERE. You are not. I think most of us will accept his word over yours in terms of how what we say here at home affects our troops. He has one on one interaction with them. YOU do not.”
Here are some comments from Army Spec. John Kulick who was there and died there:
“Iraq was a hell hole” “When they swept a town, the insurgents would return just days later. Foreign fighters were allowed to slip easily through unsecured borders. Army leadership seemed disorganized and disconnected from the ground. Certain tactics such as 3 a.m. house raids, created a new generation of terrorists”
It’s very clear that what is hurting troop morale more than anything else is seeing how badly things are going. I saw a lot more opposition to the first Gulf War, yet I never saw higher troop morale than I did back then. It also doesn’t help that our troops were not given what they needed to win. There were not enough troops, not enough armored vehicles, not enough Arabic-speakers. Nearly three years after the invasion, the typical company of 150 men gets by with one or two Arabic-speakers. It’s very clear that the main problems in Iraq are a result of poor leadership, not opposition to the war.
Comment by Brian @ 12/6/2005 - 12:04 am
NC Cop,
As I said in my previous post, I assure you there were plenty of colonels in the Confederate Army that were confident they would win the Civil War when there were massive anti-war protests in the North, but it did not turn out the way they expected.
You said, “The bottom line is that Al Qaeda is doing the exact same thing the North Vietnamese did. Waiting and watching the anti-war movement do their job for them. If you can’t see the similarities, then I feel sorry for you, because you’re living in denial.”
You are listening to too much conservative propaganda. Al Qaeda is not behind the insurgency in Iraq. Most of the insurgents are Iraqi nationalists who want the Americans to leave their country. Al Zarqawi and the foreign fighters have little support in Iraq. The main reason they are tolerated is because they are helping to fight the Americans and they are far more willing to die than the Iraqis are.
The main similarities I see between Vietnam and Iraq is the same poor leadership and the same mistakes. The borders have not been secured, the intelligence is very poor, soldiers are rotated out after they learn what they’re doing and replaced by soldiers with little experience, there is no strategy for winning, etc.. If you can’t see these similarities, you’re the one living in denial.
Comment by Brian @ 12/6/2005 - 12:44 am
You’re lying Brian. You do not have a clue on this issue, none. That’s very evident in how you try to dismiss not only established fact but the thoughts of people who are CURRENTLY THERE - as if you being here trumps what people on the ground in Iraq say. LOL. You must have a mighty high opinion of your opinion to do that.
You cherry pick your ‘evidence’ to suit what you believe is a ‘fact’ - and you do it to justify the BS coming out of the mouths of the people in the DNC about how this war was based on “lies.” It’s shameless, but I’m not surprised you’re defending it. What we say here DOES affect troop morale and embolden the enemy whether YOU want to admit it or not! For every troop you quote who talks about what’s going on there, there are others who acknowledge the big picture and that is that there are a few problems, not just one - I never said that what was going on here was the sole cause of the problems there. Learn to READ what I WRITE. I said one of the problems is that troops cannot count on the support of people here like the people in your party who are denigrating the mission they are fighting. It’s PATHETIC - WAKE UP!
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 12/6/2005 - 6:57 am
This is nothing more than the typical right wing intolerance of opposing views, where anyone who opposes the president is unpatriotic and harming our troops. Said Brian…. No Brian, we don’t think anyone with an opposing view is unpatriotic, just people like Kerry and Dean who continue to talk out of their a$$*S. They are unpatriotic as they side with anyone but America and all for political gain!
Sister is correct..this thread is yet another example of just how simplistic your limited thought capability is.
Comment by Pam @ 12/6/2005 - 1:24 pm
You know the real funny thing is that Brian’s North/South example really proves what we are saying. How many more Union soldiers were killed due to the FACT that there were anti-war protests in the north, making the Confederate Soldiers believe they would win. How much harder did The Confederate Army fight in battle to see their eventual hoped for result. The final result is not an indicator of what you are trying to say Brian. Also the reverse of this happened in Vietnam, didn’t it?? So the comparison makes no real logical sense, critically thinking.
Also I was talking to a Private Blow yesterday, and Joe said that things were better than the MSM ever would admit. /Sarcasm OFF
- Lorica
Come On Brian!!! Provide a link, we would never trust you to be truthful or not take things out of context. We don’t trust the President blindly like that we certainly wouldn’t trust you. You could be quoting the democrat underground, and we all know they are the most honest and believable group out there. Oppps /Sarcasm off again
Comment by Lorica @ 12/6/2005 - 1:29 pm
Sister Toldjah,
If no one ever made a single statement critical of the War in Iraq, I doubt that things would be any different there than they are today.
If President Bush properly planned for the war and occupation and provided enough troops and resources to successfully carry out the mission, things would be a lot better in Iraq then they are now. There has been one bad decision after another, which is why things have become so bad. In spite of the many poor decisions made over the past two years by this administration, about the only thing I ever see you blog about regarding the war is to attack anyone who criticizes the president’s war policies. Your posts come across as more as partisan attacks rather than concern for the troops. I am very critical of the president because his policies are harming our troops. I hate seeing our young men lose their lives. It has nothing to do with partisanship. I was very critical of President Clinton for what happened to our troops in Somalia. I very strongly support all of troops in Iraq and anywhere else and I think they deserve much better leadership than what they have now. I see poor leadership doing a lot more to undermine the war effort than any criticism of the president.
Comment by Brian @ 12/6/2005 - 10:39 pm
Lorica,
My North/South example doesn’t prove what you’re saying. You’re putting your own meaning into what happened in order to support your position. You don’t know that the South would have fought any less hard if there were no opposition to the war in the North. In World War II there was absolutely no opposition to the war in this country but that did not stop the Germans from fighting very hard for every inch of ground right to the very end. The Japanese fought just as hard in Iwo Jima and Okinowa. If you’re going to insist that opposition to the war encourages the enemy to fight harder, then please explain why the Germans and Japanese fought so hard against the United States in World War II. Why wasn’t the Soviet Union able to defeat a small backward country like Afghanistan when their government did not allow any opposition to war at all?
If you want to see the article where I quoted the soldier, here is the link:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13266919.htm
Comment by Brian @ 12/6/2005 - 11:00 pm
Brian,
Your dissent is the empty Bush is wrong, I want to cut, run, and hide under my bed meme that is juvenile and senseless. Look at what is going on and stop only taking Bush Haters in the MSM as Gospel. They are as partisan as you are, which is very partisan.
Comment by PCD @ 12/7/2005 - 8:11 am
Brian Yes they all fought hard. Your article only proves what I was saying, your rebuttal does not in any way disprove what I am saying or inspires me to change my thinking. This extreme dissent from the left, is per people I have talked to that have been there, IN IRAQ, only hurting morale, and they feel it is encouraging our enemies. It is stupid thinking at best for a Senator of the United States of America to go to the extreme as some of these fools have. Accountability is one thing, but name calling is a wholely wrong in these times.
As far as Afganistan goes, PULEASE, the US funneled MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars into the rebels there. Stinger missles just dont grow on trees in Afganistan. Again your argument is lacking logic. Nothing fights harder than a person on there home territory, that goes for Afgans or Germans or Japanese. But what about the Italians. They surrendered almost immediately. Also wasn’t it the German High Command that tried to Blow Hitler up in his bunker, so they could surrender to the Americans??? Yes some fighting will there. Japanese are much like our enemy now, religiously motivated. I do not feel I stand corrected in any way. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/7/2005 - 10:31 am
Thank you for the link Brian, I was able to read it just now. It was a very interesting article. Showing the life of a wonderful man, and obviously an excellent soldier. I tend to wonder the context of the “hell hole” comment tho. Since it is quoted on it’s own I only have the writers word on it’s intended meaning. Also the paragraph below that does not nessarily back up the “hell hole” comment. He could of been talking about war in general in one, and about leadership of the National Guard in the other. Not that I am presuming to know what he meant, but the writer of the article seems to be leading us to where she wanted us to go. I will not disagree that Iraq is a hell hole, but so is all war. I consider it a great shame that evil in this world forces us to take up arms against it. Here is a quote from the article that was made just prior to Spc Kulick’s death.
“I think that the world is a much better place without Saddam,” he wrote on Aug. 4 to Michael Tremoglie, a Whitpain resident who corresponded with Kulick. “Someone needs to be the Police in this world and the only superpower is us. The 1800 soldiers did not die in vain, and the war was justified. It’s sad but I think the American people forget their feelings they had after 911.”
Which is exactly why I believe that the writer of the article took comments out of context. Sorry Brian, but this again does not prove your point and does lend credibilty to our belief that the MSM is ignoble in there writing. You see Brian Spc. Kulick said himself that he believed the war was justified. God Bless him for eternity, and May God Himself comfort those that Spc. Kulick left behind in this world. Always - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/7/2005 - 1:33 pm
PCD,
I never said anything about cutting and running. What I am opposed to is the poor leadership our troops have been given. There has been one bad decision after another made by the president ever since the decision was made to go to war. I don’t know how you are unable to see this.
Comment by Brian @ 12/7/2005 - 9:48 pm
Lorica,
In 1990-1991 there was a great deal of opposition to going to war against Iraq. In spite of the strong opposition and protests against the war, the United States and our allies won a decisive victory against Iraq in a few months. The anti-war protests had little effect on our troops or the outcome of the war.
The reason why things are going badly in Iraq today is because of the many mistakes that have been made over the past two years, not because there are people in the United States that are opposed to the war.
The same thing you said about Afghanistan can be said about Vietnam. The Soviet Union funneled millions upon millions of dollars to the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. They also provided the North Vietnamese with advanced anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
In World War II, a few German generals didn’t represent the entire people. The German troops on the ground fought very hard right until the very end. I’m sure there are also many Iraqis on the ground in Iraq that will continue fighting against the American troops until they’re no longer there, regardless of what public opinion of the war is in this country.
I’m glad you got a chance to read the article. I also thought it was very interesting. I never said anything about whether or not the war was justified. I agree that the world is a much better place without Saddam. What I am opposed to is the way the war was planned and has been carried out. If things had been done right, Spc. Kulick, and a lot of other good men, might be alive today that aren’t. There is no reason why our soldiers should risk their lives to sweep a town, only to have insurgents return a few days later and there is no reason why foreign fighters should be able to easily slip through unsecured borders as Spc. Kulick said in the article.
Comment by Brian @ 12/7/2005 - 9:51 pm
Thank you Lorica for sharing your wisdom.
Brian wrote, “In 1990-1991 there was a great deal of opposition to going to war against Iraq.”
Yep. Mostly Democrats opposed to Pres Bush senior. Isn’t the pattern funny.
Brian wrote, “The anti-war protests had little effect on our troops or the outcome of the war.”
Thank goodness we were only freeing a country who had a functioning government and didn’t have to establish everything like Japan and Germany did after WW2 and Iraq did after Iraqi Freedom! We were able to kick butt and go! Next invalid criticism….
Brian wrote, “I agree that the world is a much better place without Saddam. What I am opposed to is the way the war was planned and has been carried out.
Thanks for making a point to agree to the obvious that many Democrats can’t come to say… that is that the world is a much better place without Saddam. . If you have a problem with the way the war was planned and has been carried out then level your criticism against the Pentagon because NO president plans wars and carries them out. They simply choose from the many plans that are presented by the Pentagon to the President. I assumed you knew that and that has made an — out of me.
I’ll have to now make sure you know that in the next 50 posts because your INCORRECT accusations are just that… INCORRECT.
We’ll be glad to have you on board for the war and FOR the U.S. finishing the job!
Comment by Baklava @ 12/7/2005 - 11:09 pm
Brian, you are a liar. You want nothing done. You don’t think logicly and I doubt you do other than listen with your mouth flapping at full speed.
Comment by PCD @ 12/8/2005 - 8:23 am
Thank You very much Bak. I will defer to your arguments to Brian, as they are a reflection of what I would of said. Thank You again.
Brian it is good to have you on board. To help you get the correct information and to help you know properly who you need to discuss this stuff with I am providing a line that will do just that. It is one of my personal favs as it helps me understand this war and several others.
http://www.army.mil/
Lots of good info there Brian, and Eye Witness accounts of stuff that is going on.
Comment by Lorica @ 12/8/2005 - 1:36 pm
Lorica, Brian won’t read a thing there. In his biased mind, there is nothing factual thera. It is not like Daily Krap, the America Hating MSM (especially CNN) or Democrat Underground as a source of facts and news that Brian will accept.
Comment by PCD @ 12/8/2005 - 1:59 pm
Brian,
If you have a problem with the way the war was planned and has been carried out then level your criticism against the Pentagon because NO president plans wars and carries them out. The presidents simply choose from the many plans that are presented by the Pentagon to the President.
Just making sure you know this because you wrote, “What I am opposed to is the way the war was planned and has been carried out
Comment by Baklava @ 12/8/2005 - 2:43 pm
Ohhh Brian, call me an eternal opptimist but I believe that people are curious by nature, and that truth is more powerful than deception. “I once was blind, but now I see”. I have only ever heard of 1 true atheist, everyone I have ever met came to know The Lord the closer they came to the end of their lives. Every One!!!
It matters little to me whether Brian does or does not believe what is on that website. I know the truth, and I know that we are doing the right thing. I cannot sit here on Monday morning and critize Brett Farve when I was not even in Wisconsin on Sunday. LOL
Peace - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/8/2005 - 8:34 pm