Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman

Posted by: Bryan

Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 01:27 PM

John Al-Murtha calls for cutting and running<br><br>Zarqawi has to be smiling....he's got a U.S. Congressman doing his work for him!<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 01:42 PM

Except for immediate withdrawal, I agree with everything he said. Especially his remarks about Cheney's speech (a new high in arrogance - even for Cheney).<br><br>But I still think we've now got to stay and fix what we've broken.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 01:43 PM

Maybe. He's probably even chuckling harder about having a U.S. president doing the heavy lifting for him. It seems terrorist recruitment in the middle east has never been higher. Thank you Mr. President!<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 01:45 PM

damn biased media:<br><br><br><br><br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: DLC

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 02:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Zarqawi has to be smiling....he's got a U.S. Congressman doing his work for him!<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>NAH he has a US President who's been doing that for YEARS, Bryan...<br><br>sends too few troops, <br><br>ill equipped, <br><br>uses torture and gets caught (inflamatory) ....and <br><br>he has NO PLANS to change a damm thing !!<br><br>THAT made OBL and Zarqawi very happy !!!<br><br>Might as well put out a Recruiting poster with BUSH on it and in Arabic say "I WANT YOU !" <br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 02:56 PM

Marine Colonel Murtha is the only one making sense. There is no fixing what we have broken. Every day we stay is just putting off the inevitable a day. Six months or six years. The only thing that will have changed is that we have created more terrorists and more dead US soldiers.<br><br>As Senator McCain has said we need some humility from the President. Admit a mistake and leave takes humility. Unfortunately the one we have has none of that.<br><br><br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 03:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There is no fixing what we have broken.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not totally, no. But the effort has to be made in earnest. And the contritian that's been missing all along. The admission of mistakes and misrepresentations needs to be a big part of that effort.<br><br>Yeah, yeah. I know. Don't hold my breath. <br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 03:39 PM

For Cheney to be calling the critic's claims "dishonest", and for Bush to be calling them "irresponsible" is as comical as it is disgusting. It's embarrassing, and they don't know it.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 04:23 PM

interesting article in the atlantic this month.<br><br>i will link to it, but i don't know if it's available to everyone or not (i can't remember if i registered and get special access for having a subscription or not). here's the link:<br><br><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/iraq-withdrawal">www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/iraq-withdrawal</a><br><br>and, here's a snippet (i'll post more if the link fails):<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Would the withdrawal of U.S. troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?<br><br>No. That civil war is already under way—in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents. Sunni leaders have said this in official public statements; leaders of the resistance have told me the same thing in private. The Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiites, would lose its quisling stigma. Iraq's security forces, also primarily Shiite, would no longer be working on behalf of foreign infidels against fellow Iraqis, but would be able to function independently and recruit Sunnis to a truly national force. The mere announcement of an intended U.S. withdrawal would allow Sunnis to come to the table and participate in defining the new Iraq.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the article is short and far too simplistic, but i think the author might be on to something? nearly everyone on both sides of the aisle appears to claim that we have to be in iraq for the time being sans a very few small voices thus far. is this because they're trying to be truthful and believe what they say or because the thought of up-and-leaving could make a politician seem weak militarily and supportive of the insurgency (read: supportive of "terrorists") or something? col. murtha might just provide a nice voice to test that line of thinking.<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 04:37 PM

Makes complete sense. (It is subscription only)<br><br>So the only reason we are allowing our soldiers to be killed right now is so Bush does not have to admit a mistake. That is so fscked up.<br><br><br><br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 05:26 PM

Interesting commentary on Zarqawi.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 05:31 PM

I'm sure there are reasons other than saving face to maintain a presence there for a while longer. Not saying that cavalierly or with disregard for the lives of our GIs. But to just say seeya-buh-bye and bolt seems wrong, politically and logistically. You make a mess, you gotta at least help get the cleanup started. And in this case, the biggest mess we made is the insurgency.<br><br>Now if the Admin could bring itself to say "Ok, we made a boo-boo, so we'll stick around 'til [date] to get such & such done, and we'll be complately off your stoop by [date]...<br><br>But when I think of Bush/Cheney admitting something, I get this image of The Fonz saying "I was wr... I was wro... I was wr..." <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 08:02 PM

You seem are always telling people you don't agree with what they think. How the f*ck would you know who their favorite politician is? You could make a good guess for George Bush. He gave Al Qaeda and other groups the perfect training ground and morale booster in Iraq and he even brought chemical weapons etc. in where there were none before. How can they not love him? He is probably responsible for killing more "terrorists" than any other president or politician, but he also inspired, gave training ground to, and armed 10 times more than he has killed at least. Good show George!<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: sean

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 08:36 PM

here's more (practically the whole thing):<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> But if American troops aren't in Baghdad, what's to stop the Sunnis from launching an assault and seizing control of the city?<br><br>Sunni forces could not mount such an assault. The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this. Sunni fighters wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam's tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed, and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias. Most important, Iraqi nationalism—not intramural rivalry—is the chief motivator for both Shiites and Sunnis. Most insurgency groups view themselves as waging a muqawama—a resistance—rather than a jihad. This is evident in their names and in their propaganda. For instance, the units commanded by the Association of Muslim Scholars are named after the 1920 revolt against the British. Others have names such as Iraqi Islamic Army and Flame of Iraq. They display the Iraqi flag rather than a flag of jihad. Insurgent attacks are meant primarily to punish those who have collaborated with the Americans and to deter future collaboration.<br><br>Wouldn't a U.S. withdrawal embolden the insurgency?<br><br>No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam—revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by U.S. soldiers either in combat or during raids.<br><br>But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a U.S. withdrawal?<br><br>The foreign jihadi element—commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from U.S. propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.) It is true that the Sunni resistance welcomed the foreign fighters (and to some extent still do), because they were far more willing to die than indigenous Iraqis were. But what Zarqawi wants fundamentally conflicts with what Iraqi Sunnis want: Zarqawi seeks re-establishment of the Muslim caliphate and a Manichean confrontation with infidels around the world, to last until Judgment Day; the mainstream Iraqi resistance just wants the Americans out. If U.S. forces were to leave, the foreigners in Zarqawi's movement would find little support—and perhaps significant animosity—among Iraqi Sunnis, who want wealth and power, not jihad until death. They have already lost much of their support: many Iraqis have begun turning on them. In the heavily Shia Sadr City foreign jihadis had burning tires placed around their necks. The foreigners have not managed to establish themselves decisively in any large cities. Even at the height of their power in Fallujah they could control only one neighborhood, the Julan, and they were hated by the city's resistance council. Today foreign fighters hide in small villages and are used opportunistically by the nationalist resistance.<br><br>When the Americans depart and Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle—but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.<br> <br>What about the Kurds? Won't they secede if the United States leaves?<br><br>Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan—but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.<br><br>Would Turkey invade in response to a Kurdish secession?<br><br>For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq's Kurds—who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq's Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey's, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.<br><br>Would Iran effectively take over Iraq?<br><br>No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist—even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam—but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran.<br><br>What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?<br><br>Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani—supposedly a moderate—wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as U.S. soldiers are present. Does Iraqi history offer any lessons?<br><br>The British occupation of Iraq, in the first half of the twentieth century, may be instructive. The British faced several uprisings and coups. The Iraqi government, then as now, was unable to suppress the rebels on its own and relied on the occupying military. In 1958, when the government the British helped install finally fell, those who had collaborated with them could find no popular support; some, including the former prime minister Nuri Said, were murdered and mutilated. Said had once been a respected figure, but he became tainted by his collaboration with the British. That year, when revolutionary officers overthrew the government, Said disguised himself as a woman and tried to escape. He was discovered, shot in the head, and buried. The next day a mob dug up his corpse and dragged it through the street—an act that would be repeated so often in Iraq that it earned its own word: sahil. With the British-sponsored government gone, both Sunni and Shiite Arabs embraced the Iraqi identity. The Kurds still resent the British perfidy that made them part of Iraq.<br><br>What can the United States do to repair Iraq?<br><br>There is no panacea. Iraq is a destroyed and fissiparous country. Iranians and Saudis I've spoken to worry that it might be impossible to keep Iraq from disintegrating. But they agree that the best hope of avoiding this scenario is if the United States leaves; perhaps then Iraqi nationalism will keep at least the Arabs united. The sooner America withdraws and allows Iraqis to assume control of their own country, the better the chances that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari won't face sahil. It may be decades before Iraq recovers from the current maelstrom. By then its borders may be different, its vaunted secularism a distant relic. But a continued U.S. occupation can only get in the way.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Trog

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/17/05 09:25 PM

How about Murtha vs. Dick ("#1 chickenhawk") Cheney:<br><blockquote>Seldom overtly political, Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments this week that Democrats were spouting "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges" about the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the war.<br><br>"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.</blockquote><br>Snap!!<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite president - 11/17/05 10:11 PM

Later in the day, Scottie makes a comment comparing Murtha to Michael Moore. So the cable news programs quote Scottie, then quote Michael Moore's response. Thanks Scottie, a lot more people won't think Moore is the boogeyman you've made him out to be. I'm sure he loves the fact that the administration points the spotlight on him <br><br><br>"Statement by Michael Moore on the Bush Administration's Statement<br><br>STATEMENT BY MICHAEL MOORE<br><br>Unfortunately, the President doesn't understand that it is mainstream middle America who has turned against him and his immoral war and that it is I and the Democrats who represent the mainstream. It is Mr. Bush who is the extremist.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 04:05 AM

He's done this before. Over a year ago he was saying the same thing. To me it is purely political. The Democrats smell blood in the water and will do whatever they need to do to further their political agenda. They could care less about our troops in Iraq. They are using them as a lever for political gain. While they offer absolutely no solutions, they cannot stand being out of power.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 04:57 AM

It's Washington DC. So what ain't political? Who doesn't have an agenda?<br>But if the troops have to be used for anything, better a lever than canon fodder, dontcha think?<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 05:07 AM

"While they offer absolutely no solutions"??? What are you talking about? Your link explains exactly what Murtha's plan was and now is. Unlike Bush he changes plans with the conditions.<br><br>In Spring 2004 he advocated increasing troop strength. He believed the current conditions would create a quagmire. He has been proven right. Now he says we have to get out. That is not a flip flop. It is the only plan that will work. We have to stop being a target and the insurgency will dry up.<br><br>The only solution Bush/Cheney has is to continue this vicious mistake. Dig in their heels and never admit anything wrong. <br><br>Since when do the Democrats have the corner on the "want to stay in power" market? Cheney yesterday looked like a junk yard dog snarling at his critics in Congress while he slandered them.<br><br>Irony flows freely as Colonel Murtha is slandered by five deferment Cheney. As ironical as silver star Kerry being fastboated.<br><br>And the shame of the republicans is complete as they slash student food and loans for poor kids while they clear the table to slash even more taxes for the rich next week. Republicans who have kids who make less than 100K a year are starting to wake up. They are seeing Bush/Cheney for what they really are. Delusional for one. Because no one around them will tell them the truth. That America has turned against them. Finally.<br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: DLC

It was different then.. - 11/18/05 05:24 AM

I found this about Murtha in 2004:<br><br>"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said <br><br>""We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out. <br><br>So it is somewhat different now ... in 2004 he favored increasing the effort... now he's for pulling out. <br><br>I think he gave it a reasonable chance. Things have steadily gotten worse and Bush ahs done NOTHING to counter that... still no plan, no new changes, just same old shiitt. <br><br>I think he has more credability then Bush or Cheney !!<br><br>David (OFI)<br><br><br>P.S. OOPS I didn't read Shooshies before I posted... well Shoosh- I agree 100% !!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by DLC on 11/18/05 08:25 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 05:29 AM

No. We have to complete the mission. If we leave now then the insurgents have won. Iraq will sink into deep division and any hope of democracy in the middle east, besides Israel, will be dashed.<br><br>Tax cuts do work. tax revenue's to the treasury are up 37% since the first round of Bush tax cuts. They not only need to be extended to 2010, they need to be made permanent. As far as budget cuts, what they really mean is no increase in spending year to year. Not actually cutting anything. <br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 05:33 AM

I don't see them as cannon fodder. They are there to promote and secure a free and democratic middle east. If we leave without accomplishing this then we have done nothing. Terrorism will continue unabated. <br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 05:45 AM

<br>Good! FINALLY A debate with some teeth in it<br>instead of pure BS mindless straw-dogging. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 06:22 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> No. We have to complete the mission. If we leave now then the insurgents have won. Iraq will sink into deep division and any hope of democracy in the middle east, besides Israel, will be dashed.<p><hr></blockquote><p> You know, I think you are a conservative and I am a liberal. (That's all the anme calling I am going to do )<br><br>Do you think the pull-out of Vietnam was a mistake? Because, believe it or not (I believe Murtha, he was being shot at in Vietnam), that is where we are at. We cannot complete this mission as we could not complete the Vietnam mission. As the Russians could not complete their mission in Afghanistan. <br><br>Rule number one of warfare: If you invade you better do it quick and win the hearts and minds of the invaded. If they see you as an invading and occupying army you are screwed with a capital S. Now is the time for contrition and humility by the White House. Not bullheaded delusional blinkered plank walking that we are doing now.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 06:32 AM

I don't think the facts support your case. We've debated this as a group several times, but it bears repeating. There is nothing that suggests democracy, or whatever government the Iraqi people ultimately choose (seeing as though it's their business any way) cannot happen in Iraq without America. There is also ample proof including statements made by all parties in Iraq along with statistical data from past occupations in Islamic countries that supports a withdrawal for American troops.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
Posted by: Gigi

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 07:11 AM

I am not seeing much secure and free in Iraq. There might be some good things going on but when everyone is afraid, including journalists, to venture outside the green zone, no one will ever know, including other Iraq citizens. There was a big article on that on the Fox News web site. (I haven't figured out how to post a link yet, sorry) That is a big part of the problem. As long as we are there, weare the common enemy. We squandered our chance at making a difference by standing around and watching the country be looted and destroyed. What shopkeeper feels good about American soldiers when his store and merchandise was destroyed? We couldn't bother to even keep hospitals safe. Weapons depot? They weren't secured either. But the Oil Ministry was guarded. If I was going to look for WMD, I would start with Saddam's palaces and government offices, but we let those places get trashed too. The kicker was Tommy Franks walking in with his big cigar and sitting on Saddam's throne. Conquerors do stuff like that, not liberators. Eisenhower would not have been caught dead pulling that kind of stunt. We are nothing but bad news to the Iraq people. We say we will stay the course but are, now, unable or unwilling to commit the resources to to the job, we can't even secure a road. Congressman Murtha is a decorated veteran, if you really support our soldiers, then do not belittle a someone who served. I believe he gave much thought before he made this speech. His frustration with the administration is evident. He stood with the President as long as he could. He does know what body bags look like and has probably had to zip up a lot. If the Islamic terrorist have a favorite congressman, it is not this man. Tom DeLay is more their style.<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 07:13 AM

IMHO comparing Vietnam to Iraq is what the MSM wants to do. And what they want the masses to believe. This comparison is invalid on so many levels. They are in fact two mutually exclusive circumstances. <br><br><br>Suffice it to say that I am willing to agree to disagree. <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 07:56 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> We have to complete the mission. If we leave now then the insurgents have won. Iraq will sink into deep division and any hope of democracy in the middle east, besides Israel, will be dashed.<p><hr></blockquote><p>who cares if the insurgents win if their only goal is to get us out? seriously. the insurgency to rid iraq of americans will win and cease to exist all at once. that sounds like a win for us and iraq as well. <br><br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: TheGreatDivide

Islamic terrorists' favorite past-time? - 11/18/05 08:32 AM

Terror is suffering.<br>We're suffering.<br><br>Blood remains where corruption temporarily gets away with crime.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 10:32 AM

Please explain why Vietnam and Iraq are so different? Of course they are different in many ways, as are any two places or wars. But there are fundamental similarities IMHO.<br><br>And why is sectarian hatred and violence that has been going on for centuries going to end if we stay there 4 more years as opposed to one? The only difference is the insurgents will lose a common enemy. I am not saying I support an immediate pullout but the fantasy world you live in is a different story.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 01:41 PM

Do you really think that is their only goal? The insurgents are not all jihadists hell bent on the US presence in the middle east. Don't forget that most of the command and control is coming from baathists from sadam's day's. I would imagine that these folks are a little upset that there are elections going on and they have no chance of having a real voice in any new Iraqi government. Us leaving would leave them to their old devices. <br><br>Edit. I've got to start using safari for the spell check alone. <br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mojo_jojo on 11/18/05 04:42 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 01:52 PM

Hmm..some differences between Iraq and Vietnam.<br> <br>There is no Soviet Union or China funding the insurgents. Granted there is no lack of available weaponry, but there exists no concerted support from outside.<br>The insurgents are not fighting for their countries freedom. They are a small group of former Saddam loyalists that don't want to lose all the perks they had when they were in power. They oppose free elections and want to regain miniority control of the country.<br>The violence in Iraq is concentrated in three provinces. The other 15 provinces are doing very well. Especially Kurdistan to the north.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 02:16 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Diverse groups have been drawn into the ranks of Iraq's insurgency, with little in common beyond a commitment to attack US forces or their perceived allies.<p><hr></blockquote><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Iraq has also seen an influx of foreign "jihadi" fighters, most of whom have joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency.<br><br>Their number is small - estimated at no more than 3,000 - but their profile is high.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 02:24 PM

Yes, those are differences. But the essential problems that matter are the same. The insurgents certainly see themselves as freedom fighters even if you don't. The vast majority of the country wants us out, and and we don't know who our friends are. We went in their with grand ideas and are getting our butts kicked but managing to get killed and kill men, women, and children with great regularity. And the war is less and less popular every day. And we don't/can't get out without our tail between our legs. These are the similarities that matter. The differences are for someone writing a book report.<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/18/05 05:09 PM

No. Mo's right about the differences between 'Nam and Iraq. We didn't invade Vietnam overnight. The ramp up from "police action" to war took a few years to accomplish. Vietnam proved to be unwinnable, and it took several more years for that fact to become unavoidable. IMHO, it's too early to tell if Iraq is winnable or not. The bigger question is, do we even want to win it?<br><br>I lost quite a few friends in 'Nam, including my best friend with whom I'd grown up. And I came within an eyelash of going over myself. The one glaring difference, fortunately, is that our guys in Iraq aren't being villified the way those who served in SE Asia were.<br><br>
Posted by: Gigi

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 05:58 AM

The administration isn't villifying the soldiers because they need them to fight. Also, President Bush is their boss, that is certainly an inhibitor. The administraion has certainly haven't had any qualms about any who had served or were in a position to speak that questioned their tactics. This business of running down decorated veterans shows how little respect President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and all their group of shrill voices really do have for soldiers. The title of this thread says it all. Because this Congressman who has much experience with war, had the nerve to stand up and say his opinion he is immediately branded as a traitor. No allowing for the fact he stood for the war, no allowing for the fact he bucked his own party for a long time and supported this conflict, no recognition of the fact he knows more how to win this conflict than Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney combined but they don't want to listen. If we really want freedom of speech for the Iraq citizens, we might start demonstrating what freedom of speech is. <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 06:08 AM

The Vietnam era Admins didn't villify the troops either. It was the anti-war movement that did that. They were the scapegoats for the White House. <br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 06:31 AM

Yeah sadly many anti-war demonstrators did diss the troops and that was very WRONG ! Intelligent people learn from their mistakes and this time it's the leaders who get FULL blame and not the GI just taking orders.<br><br>Sorry about your friends in Nam - I lost about 10 freinds too !!<br>Pisses me off cause we now know the whole reason for the war was based on a LIE (Johnson's lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident). I know we've been lied to again. this is deja' vu, Steve. Will we make the same mistakes again as a nation?<br><br>I hope to God, Not !!<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 07:56 AM

I lost many of the boys that I was growing up with since Kindergarten.<br>We all got to High School and then they were gone forever, :(<br><br>I didn't start meeting Nam Vets until it was over.<br>They came home to the GI Bill that sat young men-turned snipers<br>next to me in ArtSchool and College.<br><br>During that time, I'd grown up on the LowerEastSide, protesting the War<br>but I NEVER 'Dissed' the Troops! Never did & Never will!<br><br>They were duped into thinking that they were joining to protect <br>those that they left behind. (US)<br>Sound Familiar? They were propagandized to keep them functioning<br>but after a while, no amount of lying could sustain what was<br>happening to them. <br><br>A friend said: "You have NO Idea what it's like, unless you've<br>found yourself waking out of a daze, ...carrying a plastic bag<br>....while searching for the rest of your best friend's head."<br><br>I was keenly aware that they were the kids I grew up with.<br>...and that they were more the victims of that terrible time<br>...and are the victims still (...just look at the VA Care) <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Gigi

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 07:59 AM

The anti-war movement was certainly bad about the troops. The soldiers took the blame for the leaders. This administration talks about respecting the troops but has no problem villifying any soldier that even asks a resonable question. Remember Rumsfield smart-ass remark to the soldier that asked about the armour? Since that time our fearless leaders have been careful to only have scripted encounters. I don't like all the talk about "supporting the troops" and then walking all over them when they ask a question. Treat the ones who express an opinion that is different than yours with the same respect you treat the one who agrees with you. <br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 08:47 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but has no problem villifying any soldier that even asks a resonable question.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not limited only to military personel. This applies to anyone pushing back.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Islamic terrorists' favorite congressman - 11/19/05 09:09 AM

Bullying, period.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.