Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

[OldMercsRule]

A couple of articles about the big mistake all the experts on homosexuality n' victimhood are now in the process of makin': supporting the enemies within!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/after_iraq.html

Monday Michael Barone:

http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/dont_pull_the_plug_on_the_surg.html

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

I listened to "Meet The Press" Sunday mornin @ RR island. Anybody struck by how little, as in very small, Senator Jim Webb, (Freshman Democrat Senator from Virginia), appeared as he argued that pompous Senators n' Congressmen should be the ones directing our Military tactics to inhance domestic political gain fer themselves instead of the Executive branch, (as the Cornstatution calls for: BTW), with the advice of Generals on the actual ground during time of war?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005066/

 

[PW2]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Once again the right likes to distort the argument from the opposing viewpoint.

I guess it's easier to invent the opposition opinion and argue against that than it is to really examine what is being said and comment on that.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

You would know best about that, pw2.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Once again the right likes to distort the argument from the opposing viewpoint.

I guess it's easier to invent the opposition opinion and argue against that than it is to really examine what is being said and comment on that.

Hmmmmmmm, I luv these openended non specific broadsides. Is it me that "distorts; invents opposing viewpoints or the oppostion opinion", Dr Sowell, Michael Barone, or Jim Webb?

Here is a transcript of what Senator Webb said Sunday morning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694666/

Please note the response to Tim Russert's question.

Mr Russert: "Senator Webb, are you trying to run the war?"

Sen. Webb: "No, I don't think that there is a war, to start off with."

This arrogant little piece o' s*** thinks this is nothing more then another political exercise to elect Democrats at the expense of a Republican President and the 20 page "living breathing" document that specifically gives the executive civilian branch of government comand and corntroll of the military. It is hard to read those plain words, (see the entire transcript) and find a different meaning but give it a try: by all means. We all know that to Liberals n' Democrats the ends do justify the means: right?

 

[QC]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

From After Iraq: Part 2 by Sowell "What has gone right is that the Iraq war is already over. Our troops won it."

Why does no one say this? Or even better, why doesn't everyone say this? By all measures previously used in history, the "mission (was) accomplished". Now we have a new mission: maintaining order until they can themselves. Why is there even a debate? This is so clear to me that I simply don't get any of it. I am just naive enough to think that people wouldn't use this as a means to win an election. Somebody please explain to me how I can maintain that naivete. There seems no other explanation for the Republican infighting or the Democratic opposition.

Somebody needs to stand up and re-congratulate our soldiers for what they did accomplish. At the same time they need to stand up and say thank you for helping Iraq reinvent itself. They also need to say thank you for helping the Iraqis rid their country of murderous scum sucking scumbags, and until they are all dead we will wait patiently as you go about this difficult and noble task. Like I said before: I simply do not get it!!!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

To expand somewhat on what QC just said. One needs to be an expert on all aspects of homosexuality n' victimhood with their head in the sand drinkin' loads o' Kool aid to not be able to see what CLEARLY has happened since 9/11/2001.

We got hit on our own soil as bad as we have ever been hit in history by any foreign attack on 9/11/2001 by Islamo Facists. The Democrats were actually the most furious of all Americans at the time, n' pushed fer action, (go back and read what they said at that time). Once they had the American people, the Executive branch committed, (and of course our precious military) they, (Democrats n' Liberals) turned their fire inward at our leaders n' military FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

They, (Democrats n' Liberals) worked closly with the MSM and our Islamo enemies to widely publisize any and all bad news they could come up with about America, (this includes successfull tactics used against Islamo Facists that were secret prior to the front page of the NYT). Guess what: IT WORKED REAL WELL. Any potential enemy of America, (which is much of the existing world: BTW), knows that we have a hate America first MS media, and a willing group of Democrat pols who will exploit the publically educated experts on homosexuality n' victimhood, who will gladly slit the throats of fellow Americans fer political gain.

Democrat montra: enemies of America: hit us anytime you want, we will cheer any initial response from our side just fer the effect, (but once our side is committed), n' when the going gets tough: we will help ya cut the throats of our own countrymen n' women, ta get the power we desirve.

It is both pitifull n' painfull to watch. We have been envoled in the Balkins for over ten years where there is no decernable American interest at all, yet: not a peep from anyone about costs et al.

Iraq is clearly not important to snooty Liberal Eurpopeans who hate our guts and want us relagated to the dust bin of history, n' the American Left thinks they know more then the plain words of the Islamo Facists themselves. That said: the Democrats want defeat so bad they don't care what the cornsequences are, THEY WANT POWER. They will not let General Patreas have a few months to try to stabilize matters, they want Islamo facists to know they are disabling our military from their seats in congress right now. It is hard to spin those very plain facts any other way, it is even harder to act like it isn't happening like PW2 apparently feels. JR

 

[12Footer]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Once again the right likes to distort the argument from the opposing viewpoint.

I guess it's easier to invent the opposition opinion and argue against that than it is to really examine what is being said and comment on that.

By that, I would assume the left is in agreement with Mr Sowel.
I know they are not -- a generalization, of course. Glad to hear you're on the American side of this issue, PW.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

I find it terrifying that the dems and some republicans want to pull out by April of '08 without Iraq being secure.

So if we do pull out before it's secure, do we do anything about the ethnic cleansing / genocide that will surly take place? Do we just turn a blind eye to it? DO we go back in to a even more dangerous Iraq to try to stop the killing? Does the MSM report on it once a week for 30 seconds, or maybe not at all? I would like answers to these questions from those that want us out now, before Iraq can handle it own security.

People talk about Darfu and and ethnic cleansing, that we, the USA should do something about it. But it's a civil war in Darfu and according to some, we have no business getting involved in civil wars (as some feel Iraq is now).

 

[treedancer]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Quote Thomas Sowell

<Should American troops stay in Iraq indefinitely?
Nobody has ever wanted that. Our whole history shows that American troops have repeatedly pulled out of countries around the world when wars ended and enough order was restored to turn the country over to its own people.>


po
I have to take exception to that statement seeings as we still have 74,796 troops on Germany, around a 100,000,in Okinawa and 37,000 in South Korea.


He also states the following< What do they think will happen if we do? >



IMOProbably a continuation of the low level civil war that is going on now, but at a much higher level. I agree with him whole hardily when he stated that it" would be ?a formula for a bigger disaster? if we pulled out now.


Lets look a bit of history on our past wars/ conflicts .WW two; we still have troops in Okinawa. Germany, still have troops there. Korea, 37,000 still there ,but there thinking about reducing that number because of the surge in Iraq, hell we still have troops in Kosovo .


My point is it was a mistake to go in there in the first place, and it is also my opinion that the people responsible should have their feet held to the fire.



This adventure in nation building/regime change should be on everybody?s mind as the next election cycle comes up, both nationally, and local elections. Every ?R? you see in an election, should be followed by a picture of President Bush.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Why does no one say this? Or even better, why doesn't everyone say this?

Simple QC, 'cause it wouldn't serve their purpose of bringing down the tenacious remnants of the conservative domain.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

I think tree is on to something. Behind every D on an election ballot should be a picture of Karl Marx waving a white flag.

 

[QC]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

we still have 74,796 troops on Germany, around a 100,000,in Okinawa and 37,000 in South Korea.

Does that mean we are losing? Never won? Can't have this one both ways tree . . .

I agree with him whole hardily when he stated that it" would be “a formula for a bigger disaster” if we pulled out now.

So, by that (and above), I must assume that you believe we should stay.

Lets look a bit of history on our past wars/ conflicts .WW two; we still have troops in Okinawa. Germany, still have troops there. Korea, 37,000 still there ,but there thinking about reducing that number because of the surge in Iraq, hell we still have troops in Kosovo

I think I am getting it. We are losing in all of those places . . . No, wait, we won in all of those places. Man, I am getting so confused . . .

My point is it was a mistake to go in there in the first place, and it is also my opinion that the people responsible should have their feet held to the fire.

Man, that's a big list . . . hmmmmm . . Maddame Speaker, Hillary, Heck Bill also, Kerry, Big Bad Al was involved until he found his new (ludicrous) calling . . . Oh, wait, that's right we're all victims of the evil Bush oil conspiracy. Maybe we should send Big Oil Execs too, they were in on it according to most of you knuckleheads. Oh, almost forgot, gotta get Cheney and Halliburton Execs too. Like I said, big flippin' list . . .

This adventure in nation building/regime change should be on everybody’s mind as the next election cycle comes up, both nationally, and local elections. Every “R” you see in an election, should be followed by a picture of President Bush.

Now wait, you want to lock everybody up and you don't want to leave, so isn't the only logical vote 100% Republican? At least some of them still understand this mission and it's importance and the human suffering that will ensue. So, again, it would sure seem that a Republican vote is the only thing consistent with your post. Glad to have you aboard Treebuddy

 

[treedancer]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Quote QC

Does that mean we are losing? Never won? Can't have this one both ways tree


Nope we won, just ask anybody on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003. "Mission Accomplished?, plus the fact that Iraq Prime Minister Nouri as Maliki said Saturday, that the Iraqi army, and police, are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want. But unfortunately we will be there for at least twenty, or more years, because of the incompetence of this administration. That was the point I was trying to make.

< So, by that (and above), I must assume that you believe we should stay. >

Unfortunately yes, quoting ?General Powell?, as I have many times on this forum, ?we broke it we fix it?, which went unheeded by our President and, Rummy.

<<I think I am getting it. We are losing in all of those places . . . No, wait, we won in all of those places. Man, I am getting so confused .>>

Keep trying you?ll figure it out.

<<Man, that's a big list . . . hmmmmm . . Maddame Speaker, Hillary, Heck Bill also, Kerry, Big Bad Al was involved until he found his new (ludicrous) calling . . . Oh, wait, that's right we're all victims of the evil Bush oil conspiracy. Maybe we should send Big Oil Execs too, they were in on it according to most of you knuckleheads. Oh, almost forgot, gotta get Cheney and Halliburton Execs too. Like I said, big flippin' list .>>

.Just maybe this ?knucklehead,?can thin the list down a little for the knuckleheads that still believe the lies that this administration has fed them.

On Oct. 7, 2002 President Bush In a speech in Cincinnati, declared that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a "grave threat" to U.S. national security. CIA Director George. Tenet was able to persuade the White House to drop one questionable claim: that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

According to Tenet the information was too fishy.


The President dropped the claim that Saddam was shopping for uranium, but cranked up the bomb threat. This scenario followed the Aug 26,speech by Cheney, in Nashville, at the 103rd national convention of the VFW, That Hussein had ?resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.?




On Jan. 29, 2003 President Bush during his State of the Union Address uttered these words that will outlive you, our grandchildren, and me, as they try to pay off the debt that this band of fools has got us into. ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.?) He stated this with full knowledge that is was false.


Three months earlier documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger were turned over to the U.S.Embassy.They were turned over by an Italian investigative reporter by the name of Elisabetta Burba. Three months later the claim that Saddam had uranium would become justification for war.


On December 14,2005 during his State of the Union address President Bush made this statement (And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -)


How many of the above do you think would have voted to invade Iraq if they knew the truth..hhhmmm?

 

[QC]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Sorry about knuckleheads, that one was eating at me a little. Think of it as a term of endearment . . . yeah, that's it . . .

Three little quotes negates 100s of quotes by all of the others?

 

[PW2]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

As far as misstating the argument, this is what I'm referring to.

That somehow democrats want to precipitously leave Iraq. It's simply not true. Most democrats do not want to continue fighting an Iraqi civil war, but do want to continue fighting AlQaida and the terrorists. There is a difference. They are not the same thing.

While I consistenly think it was folly to go into Iraq in the first place, I do agree that American forces accomplished their mission, and they have done what they can do from a military perspective. That is the point. There is no military solution to the current situation in Iraq. There is only a diplomatic and political solution (As the Iraq study group suggests).

And why do you think the Iraqi government wants to leave for vacation without achieving any progress? Because the Shia dominated government of Iraq think they are winning this civil war, and why would they share power with the Sunnis, when they can let the Americans secure victory for them and end up with everything?

That is why there needs to be some sort of regional diplomatic effort to resolve this, and American forces should withdraw from helping the Shia government (and Al Sadr and Iran ) in their civil war, and concentrate on involving the region in a diplomatic effort, while continuing to fight AlQaida.

No, it won't be easy to do this. We should have known this (and many did) before we went in. But what we are doing isn't working, and will never work. If Shias and Sunnis want to kill each other that's unfortunate, but it is simply not the American military's problem, and they can't fix it.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

As far as misstating the argument, this is what I'm referring to.

That somehow democrats want to precipitously leave Iraq. It's simply not true.

OH Really? Hmmmmmm, a little mind reading PW2? Where did ya hear or dream this lil' fantasy up, got some quotes? Methinks the Democrats actually just want power and they really are very ruthless when they go after it and do not care at all about cornsequences. Many Democrats do in fact want a precipitous exit from Iraq, (ya don't really think Okanowa, [ever heard of John Murtha?] is in Iraq do ya?), and would be quite happy to have all moderate Iraqis slaughtered and an Islamic Caliphate intsalled there to attack the West, (a nutural cornsequence of the Democrat plan), if ya have a functional brain cell ya care to engage in critical thought fer a moment or two. Most Liberals seem to hate the American military and are clearly working openly to secure their defeat, especially if the treasonist MSM is willing to attempt to hang the defeat on a Republican President fer a power gain.

Most democrats do not want to continue fighting an Iraqi civil war, but do want to continue fighting AlQaida and the terrorists.

So I guess you want to ignore the plain words of the Islamists who clearly see Iraq as their most important goal as they have stated repeatedly? It is sooo nice that Liberals are able to give us their nuanced parsing of Geopolitics were they explain that fighting terrorism is soooooooooo simple and easy if yer not a "incompetant" as the Bush Administration. Sure they just want to fight Al Qaeda and the terrorists in the most inefficient way to gain maximum government power over all of us. They want them to attack America from the Iraqi Caliphate that they want Al Qaeda to establish so they can raise taxes and have government unionized workers that reliably vote Democrat to stand at every street corner n' inspect 80 year old lady's hand bags. They know that the experts on homosexuality n' victimhood will approve their tactics.

There is a difference. They are not the same thing.

While I consistenly think it was folly to go into Iraq in the first place, I do agree that American forces accomplished their mission, and they have done what they can do from a military perspective. That is the point. There is no military solution to the current situation in Iraq. There is only a diplomatic and political solution (As the Iraq study group suggests).

And why do you think the Iraqi government wants to leave for vacation without achieving any progress? Because the Shia dominated government of Iraq think they are winning this civil war, and why would they share power with the Sunnis, when they can let the Americans secure victory for them and end up with everything?

That is why there needs to be some sort of regional diplomatic effort to resolve this, and American forces should withdraw from helping the Shia government (and Al Sadr and Iran ) in their civil war, and concentrate on involving the region in a diplomatic effort, while continuing to fight AlQaida.

No, it won't be easy to do this. We should have known this (and many did) before we went in. But what we are doing isn't working, and will never work. If Shias and Sunnis want to kill each other that's unfortunate, but it is simply not the American military's problem, and they can't fix it.

Hmmmm, turn Iraq's oil reserves over to Iran n' Syria eh? Nelvile Chamberlain would be proud of ya. JR

 

[PW2]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Your problem is that you continually listen to Rush for an explaination of what the dems believe, as opposed to actually listening to the dems. While I don't speak for them, even Murtha has all along advocated something similar to what I stated. There are variations on this theme, and unlike Repubs, Dems are capable of thinking for themselves and not all agree on every aspect of this, but the general theme is the same, and all the Dems I know of are in agreement that what we are doing will not and cannot work.

The radical Islamics really like the US right where they are, in the role we are in.

It takes just a handful of extremists to keep the mighty US military occupied in our current role. Don't you think it is possible, just possible, their public statements are what they want us to believe, as opposed to what they really think? All's fair in love and war, you know, and call me crazy but I don't always believe what our enemy tells us!

 

[QC]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

unlike Repubs, Dems are capable of thinking for themselves

Methinks the Democrats actually just want power and they really are very ruthless when they go after it and do not care at all about cornsequences.

I know I have not always been as nice as I should be, but it is statements like those that derail these discussion. I don't believe for a minute that Democrats are automatically stupid, or in lock step, or are all ruthless. And it is logically impossible that all "Repubs" get their guidance from Rush and/or have some sort of group-think meeting that defines all of their positions on all issues. Please give "us" the same courtesy and benefits of doubt that you expect for yourself, and visa versa. Thanks . . .

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Dr. Thomas Sowell: "After Iraq"

Your problem is that you continually listen to Rush for an explaination of what the dems believe, as opposed to actually listening to the dems.

How do you know that PW2? You don't know me and have no idea where I gain insights. Pretty cornfident in yer mind readin' capabilities aren't ya?

While I don't speak for them, even Murtha has all along advocated something similar to what I stated.

Why would a totally currupt Congresman's schemes to gain power at the expense of our military matter? Does the Congeress run the military? Many Democrats state that they want withdrawal.

There are variations on this theme, and unlike Repubs, Dems are capable of thinking for themselves and not all agree on every aspect of this, but the general theme is the same, and all the Dems I know of are in agreement that what we are doing will not and cannot work.

Although I still don't agree that you or any Liberal can read minds, (you have no idea of wether Repubs think for themselves or not); is is apparent that not all Democrats are in agreement. Most Dems as judged by their actions and statements "are in agreement that what we are doing will not and cannot work"; and they are clearly working with our enemies to make sure this mindset prevails. Many of these same back stabing Dems voted for General Petraeus a short time ago. The Democrats investment in our defeat and plans to secure their power after such an arrangement are evident to me.

The radical Islamics really like the US right where they are, in the role we are in.

I agree. The Democrats and the MSM are their best friends.

It takes just a handful of extremists to keep the mighty US military occupied in our current role.

No, they are not allone. They have domestic Democrats and the MSM on their team.

Don't you think it is possible, just possible, their public statements are what they want us to believe, as opposed to what they really think?

Can't read minds as you seem to think you can. The Islamists are stating that prevailing in Iraq is important to them, and the Democrats are very clearly helping them win. Only Liberals seem to be able to dictate what others think insead of reading or listining to what they actually say. JR

All's fair in love and war, you know, and call me crazy but I don't always believe what our enemy tells us!

True, and to Democrats all is fair in politics, ends justify the means. With regard to our enemies; I would recomend you listin' and ponder their actual words rather then 'project' yer own. JR