Friday, October 01, 2004

Open Letter to Iran (Moo-lahs), North Korea, Syria and Various Other Terrorists:

I just wanted to write and put your mind to rest about the performance that you witnessed last night… Now, I realize that you may be getting nervous as you saw a ‘non-wilting’ John Kerry at the debate…but you’ll be put at ease if you read between the lines a bit…

Last night you heard that John Kerry thinks that Saddam should have been granted more time by further UN sanctions and resolutions. This means that obviously you would be bestowed the same courtesy –giving you countless years (18, 19, 20 resolutions?) to develop and mass market your weapons. You may have to subject your own citizens to sanctions, BUT if you can get the UN to start you an Oil for Food program –your regime will fair just fine.

You must have taken comfort when you heard that John Kerry will never strike preemptively (you won’t have to worry about re-living Saddam’s nightmare)… as Kerry made clear that it would take a “Global Test” and world approval to surmount a strike against you. With the aforementioned Oil for Food program –you can assure that he will never be able to get that approval (at least while Jacques Chirak is in power)…though I can not promise that you will not be discussed at VARIOUS SUMMITS.
(If this falls through -you'll still be OK...remember the 1991 Gulf War? Well, Kerry voted AGAINST that even though Saddam had invaded Kuwait and there was indeed a 'Grand Coalition'!)

Considering none of you are currently harboring Osama Bin Laden, you can freely go about your scheming and plotting should Kerry win the Presidency. I am sure that you heard last night that the senator believes that Osama Bin Laden is the single prong of the War on Terror. He will be too occupied looking for a figurehead to snoop around in your uranium…after all –you didn’t topple the World Trade Towers. We can take this a bit further and assume since Kerry called the past a ‘mythical war against Communism’ that his tunnel-vision on Bin Laden may indicate that he feels the same about the War on Terror. (And don’t for get about the North Vietnamese…Kerry has no qualms about meeting and negotiating with terrorists).

If Senator Kerry does happen to Flip-Flop (or Waffle) on the preemptive strike thing (which I am sure you realize is entirely possible given he contradicted himself NINE times in the approximately 40 minutes he spoke last night)…don’t fret! He has used a vote for supplies for our troops to make a political statement –just as he used the troops themselves for that purpose in 1971. Furthermore he has said that he wants to wage ‘peaceful wars’ and create ‘weapons that don’t kill’. Even if your arsenal grows –don’t worry…go deep into caves and you will be fine. Oh, you didn’t hear? He will stop production on the bunker busters…not to mention that he voted for a nuclear freeze during the Cold War.

I realize his ‘tough talk’ last night might have made you a bit uncomfortable in your tablecloth. I know that he exclaimed to the troops that ‘help was on the way’ and that he ‘will win’, but don’t worry. If you know how politics work in the USA, you realize that over 50% of Kerry’s base is anti-war and wants the troops pulled out of Iraq ASAP –and he can’t win without the base and they will expect things in return for a November victory. Though this new and more resolute Kerry evoked the memory of Ronald Reagan –what you may not know is that in 1988 John Kerry said that, “An end was coming to the moral darkness that was the Reagan Presidency”. Take comfort in the fact that a Kerry Presidency will NOT resemble a Reagan, Kennedy or Bush Presidency…But that of Jimmy Carter. (I am sure that he can already envision the Nobel Peace Prize hanging in a 24 ct. frame in one of his five mansions).

So, you can put your Kerry/Edwards signs back in the sand. Don’t let the debate dishearten you…the new and steadfast Kerry is nothing but facade and spin. Even the punditocracy, that declared the Kerry win, agree that his 20 year voting record doesn’t reflect a glimmer of what he hopes to project now…

Go home and get a good nights sleep…you have weapons to proliferate in the morning…


Frater Bovious said...

Very - liberal - of you to offer aid and comfort to the enemy! What were you drinking on vacation? ;>

It is interesting, isn't it, that France, for example, if they could vote, would vote for Kerry, at the rate of nearly 90%. That should be all anyone really needs to know in order to make their decision.

I did run across an interesting analogy: Why, after Pearl Harbor, did we opt to go to war against Germany? Germany did not attack us. By the Kerry standard, they would not have been on the table as an approved site for a grand diversion.

Good Lord. fb

this we'll defend said...

Flip-flopping, but he had it right the first time: Dick Cheney on the FIRST pres. Bush and the decision to NOT occupy Iraq: from the Soref Symposium
April 29, 1991, found at

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

I think that there are some key points that need to be made as we think about the future in the Middle East. Clearly, the situation from the standpoint of our allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, is that they have been saved and Kuwait has been liberated, not just by U.S. forces but by coalition forces as well. And an international coalition that involved the governments that represent a majority of the Arab world, fighting alongside U.S. forces, was a very significant development.

Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated. This is a very significant development.


But then, Cheney was always a lefty weak liberal WMD facilitator.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

ALa71, you hit it out of the park with this one! I am not worthy!!! And the most you're getting as return fire from the leftists here is spam from Dick Cheney from 12 years or so ago. Yes, both left and right wings have switched sides on the wisdom of taking out Saddam. That would be because his danger quotient has increased, which apparently endears him to liberals while normal people become more prone to want to stop him while the stopping's good. I believe Kerry's brown-shirted True Believers would characterize that as "necessary nuance of position based on a new set of facts".

Kat said...

Ala...I'm not worthy.

As Ciggy said, you hammered this one out of the ball park. I started a post on the same subject, but see that you are way ahead of the game.

Frankly, I can't believe anyone would buy that crap he was spewing last night.

And, TWD, I have a question to you: What do you interpret the meaning of "global test" since you seem convinced that he will not withhold force or action by waiting for the UN or other "allies" to consent to said action?

Frankly, "global test" does not pass the "smell test". For once, he said what we know. He's a pacifist globalist that wants the world to "love us" more than he wants to protect us.

And the nuclear material to "test" Iran with? Is that not the most insane idea anybody ever came up with? I saw a post today and really thought it said all: A person you suspect is a murderer/armed robber goes into the local gun shop and asks for a gun. do you give it to him and then tell him he has to come in for a "powder" test to make sure he didn't use it while explaining the dangers of owning and using a hand gun (ie, possible death of another and his incarceration)? Does that make you safe? How about we add on to that he must bring the bullet casings back when he is done "at the range"?

Do you give a murderer a gun?

why in the name of all that is holy would we give nuclear material to a repressive regime with desires to become THE big dog in the region and threaten the other nations? One that already kills it's people at alarming rates? Oh, wait. We shouldn't care about that. It's over there after all.

Believe me, I understand what Kerry is hoping to accomplish, but it is the worst sort of fairytale wishful thinking on this planet.

And hey, let's go hurry up and get the nuclear material out of Russia and Kazahkstan, etc but let's give it to Iran.

Is that not the epitome "flip and flop"?

And, only the ignorant would believe his BS about the North Koreans JUST NOW developing a nuclear weapon on Bush's watch. How did they get these weapons built within 8 months or less if they weren't working on it the whole damn time those cameras and "inspections" were going on? Who gave them the materials in the first place?

There is no "play nice" strategy that is going to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only way to do it is to deny these people the materials to do so. Period. And stupid countries like France and Russia are hoping to spread their influence by giving in. No, they don't support nuclear proliferation, but they sure as hell will give them the materials. We can trust these guys right? They wouldn't do anything against us, the great Satan.

There is only one word for people that believe in that and it is MORON.

free0352 said...

North Korea did build their bomb on Bush's watch. The problem is even if Jesus Christ was presedent he could'nt have stoped them. War with North Korea is unwinable as it would require war with Chinam who came in on the side of NK in the Korean conflict and damn near won. They forced the cease fire still in place today, the Korean war is not offically over. China is in a mutual defense treaty with NK. Bush is 100% corret to utilize good relations with China to put pressure on NK, its the ONLY way. China does NOT want nuclear proliferation or war of any kind in it's corner of the world and will reign in NK once it is conviced we will not seek military action. Kerry's idea of abandoning the six nation aprouch is suicide in this situation. North Korea could give a hoot what we have to say to them. They care what China thinks because without them, NK is a two week military campain to victory for us. We have good economic ties to China and they will not sacrifice this unless we become agressive in the region, their aid is critical. By invading NC China will attack with a force so numerous no one could win an ofensive war with them without nuclear arms, which they also possess and could use against the continental US. China would like to see a more progressive government in NK like the one it has developed. Given time NK will become a regim like China's, which is exceptable as China has no realistic intentions of military conquest and is making great strides to modernize and soften its hard line government. It seeks economic dominance which is perfectly ligitimate, North Korea stands in the way of that and coming to thier aid againgst us is a bad idea. As long as we hold our fire a thing Chinese mediation will bring an end to this crisis.

this we'll defend said...

man, when you guys are wrong you are so wrong.

How could anyone buy Bush's rose-colored crap?

I think you will believe whatever you are told. Because you want to.

And Free, - NK a 2-week walkover? Do you EVER learn? Or have we already won in Iraq and are ready to take on North Korea, one of the toughest armies in the world, one that we already fought once and was pretty damn good that time, that has spent fifty years preparing to fight us, in mountainous terrain that negates the advantages of air power and long-distance weaponry, where tanks become roadbound but 100,000 well-trained North Korean special forces would hit our rear areas and supply lines in the first week, a nation that has more artillery than any nation on the planet, that has huge mountain redoubts and guns planted in mountain bunkers that are impervious to anything but nuclear blasts, and with most of South Korea's population in artillery range - and it has nuclear weapons. Yeah, 2-week walkover allright. Yeah, the only thing propping up North Korea is China. Are you mad?

If China decided to invade North Korea on our side it would be still be hell on earth for us. Seoul would be leveled, and up to one MILLION koreans would die.

would we win? Yes. Would it be a 2-week walkover? If we go to war with North Korea we would have a full national mobilization, ALL reserves and national guard activated, and we would have to put all our resources into it.

The only good thing is that South Korea has a huge military and would occupy North Korea so we could get the hell out.

But of course since we are committed in Iraq already, this is all moot.

And yet again, despite Kerry saying clearly and concisely that he wants to win in Iraq, Ala71 (and other right-wing ideologues) are campaigning against Howard Dean ("50% of democrats are antiwar" - if so, why isn't Dean our candidate? oh those pesky facts).

Fact is, your candidate is incompetent. Not just because he debated poorly, but because he is not up to the job.

Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Oh, the terrorists are to blame. Fine. Are we better off now than we were on 9/12/2001. NO. And the president is to blame.

free0352 said...


We destroied Sadam's orginized militay, twice, in about 2-3 weeks, once in only 100 hours of ground combat. Now beating the insurgency... differant fight all together. Its not even technically the same war. Its always more difficult for conventional forces to fight unconventional ones. You know the whole deal behind that and why so I woun't get too far into it.

I agree whooping NK would be impossible with current military operations as extended as they are, I'm responding to the suggestion I've heard by many democrats asking why not North Korea instead of Iraq. More on that why later.

to respond to your suggestion it would take more than two weeks.

With all or most of our forces brought to bear, two weeks is as good a guess as any, especially if we initiated contact. Unforseeable disasters aside. In your day maybe air power was negated by mountains, I'm not sure, but you oftern forget I was in Afganistan as well, right before I was in Iraq. I was in the MEU remember, and we got around like MEUs tend to do. I know you saw this on TV. The Hinducush are MUCH larger than the mountains or NK, and the AF, Navy, and Marine planes kicked total ass. even better than in Iraq i'd say. Wouln't matter a bit for them. And we have plenty of aircraft stationed outside of Norh Korean artillary range. Second, while NK sure has quantitiy, they don't have much quality. Remember we've been training to fight THEM for 30 years as well. They're troops are hard, but lack the combat controll capability to fight us in manuvre warfare effectively. Do you know what an "uda-loop" is? If you do let me tell you, we'd be all up in it. They have a superior numerical edge in aromor, but 10 T-62s are no match for two Abrams, this has been shown time and again by history. We all saw that in the Gulf War. They have a massive advantage in artillary, but it is inacurate and vulnerable to anti-battery radar missles fired from aircraft and launchers beyond thier range. Seol would indeed be leveled. Like I said, I'm not advocating invasion. Once counter battery artillery for our own systems was safe to operate under the blanket of our aircraft, that NK advantage would be a smoking hole. An attack of thiers would be difficult to stop by the Warior division on thier own, but a massive preplaned attack of our own Gulf War style would overwhelm the desision making capabilites of NK's army. We would shatter thier C&C capability. We would have the initiative, the firepower (Though less units, ours are worth much more) and the intelligence. No matter how dedicated (And NK's troops would be much more so than Iraqis, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a nasty fight, with more casualties than both Iraq wars put together.)they wouldn't be able to resist in an organized manner. They'd disintegrate or fold into an uncoordinated defense we could wipe out from the air. And even if we lost 2000 men, remember that 2000 ain't "That" bad compaired to the first time we fought NK. And like you said, SC would handle the ocupation and re-unification. Our military is set up to kill NK and the defunkt Soviet Union, NOT an Iraqi insurgency. Holding Iraq now is in many ways more difficult than a conventional war with NK... hoping like hell China stayed out of the conflict.

Now with China in the mix, 100 to 1 tanks and 1000 to one infantry and god knows what else turns the tide of our technology. We could never win an agressive war with China, just too many of them. We'd run out of JDAMs and Maverics and smart bombs before we killed all thier tanks and facilites. Do we even have enough 5.56mm to kill all thier infantry? A stand still or "quagmire," would mean we were doing well. That war would go nuclear, it wold have to. NK has three bombs. While SK and possibly Japan would surely not fair well, we would anialate NK in a nuclear exchange. Our counter missile batteries would reduce much of NK's ability to deliver the munitions to our allies, and they can't hit the U.S.

Nuclear war with China....oh thats tuf to say. Ecological disaster of biblical perportions is not an unrealistic assesment. That's prescisely why we must avoid THAT conflict. NK knows our delema with China, and so they give us the finger and build the bombs anyway. They know China will not tolerate NK being overrun. Look what they did to the Marines at Chosin in the Korean war. They will never let us fight a full on war with any semblance of a chance of crossing the DMZ first.

China is also in a prosses of economic reform. They have no capability of launching an offensive war outside of thier own state, except maybe Tiwan, and definately NK. Thier military is defensive in nature. And it works for them, they have enough land anyway, and no nation in the region except SK is any kind of threat. Why would they need offensive capability? They are not particularly interested in invading forign nations when in a decade or two they can just buy them. Historically China isn't very aggresive. China IS on the brink of an epic economic milestone, and they sure don't want to screw that up. When 3 billion of them hit an assembly line, nuclear conflict will be the least of our problems, but there is nothing legally wrong with that. War with us would interfear in trade and economic growth. NK getting stupid with nukes and threating the south would too. China understands this (We are one of their largest partners in trade after all). As NK's sole ally worth a damn, and being the only nation who can influence them in ANY way, they are the logical solution to our problem. Kim sung il or kim il sung or whatever (Can't remember) is a nutwad but he'd no islamic fundamentalist, hes not THAT crazy. He doesn't give a shit what the U.N., Bush, Kerry, God himself, whoever... has to say to him. He doesn't allow very much trade with the west in his country anyway, so sanctions mean dick. Iran and Russia will still sell him oil, the only thing they'd care about loosing. A naval enbargo might work, and we could DO that, but it would be time consuming and costly in any time Iraq not withstanding. Its not like he's shown a good track record of caring about what hapens to his own people economically. He recives some aid, but the majority of this is from China! He could give a shit about the West. See how China is the key here? Kerry can go ask please, please, please all damn day, and so can Bush for that matter. It woun't mean anything to NK. My point is... only China can aid us in settleing things peacefully, and we've already determined that war under current cercumstances is at best a stailmate because of Iraq, and nasty without Iraq also. Kerry said in the debate he wants to hold a one on one summit, because he thinks the can talk NK out of all this. How the hell is he going to do that? What strength would he bargan from? I know this will bring many "i told you so's" from you TWD as I'm guessing you feel nuclear proliferation in NK was more important than going to war in Iraq. My feelings are (here's where I come back to it) our war is with elements in the middle east who support terrorism and violate signed surrender agreements, not a nation we have a mere cease fire with. Iraq was the more immediate threat due to Sadams recless past use of WMD and our lack of knowledge if he had any, and his stated threats to use the stuff. NK will not attack the West or south, because China would come in on our side to save all the money they wold loose fighting the entire world (the U.N would sure as hell step in then if NK were to invade the south.)

So... TWD, I ask you, what would your candidate do differnatly? How could he shmooze NK into abandoning nuclear weapons without the help of the six nations in the region, especially China? What master bargaining chip would he play? Sanctions? While China condemed our action in Iraq, they still love Bush for his support of Chinese free trade. Its made them billions. They don't want to risk a simple tariff, let alone a war. They have OUR back diplomatically because it PAYS to. And they have a shitload of pull with NK. I'm not saying Kerry couldn't get Chinese support, but if he thinks he's talking NK out of the nukes in a Kerry on NK summit, he's fooling himself. NK has already told the U.N. to get bent, so now what the hell does Kerry do? Have a summit of six nations, just like George W. Bush....Or fails miserably. What my perdiction for him to do is, IF he's ellected.

redleg said...


your candidate Kerry did look good out there the other night

But his arguments were

My favorite.... "Treblinka" Square in Moscow, where exactly is that? Cambodia?

The Cease Fire Agreement of 1952... check your history senator... 1953 was the cease fire.

While Kerry wants a coalition approach in Iraq he is perfectly happy to scrap that approach in Korea and give up China as the one good ally with pull we have over NK. Ludricrous. Free has pointed that out very well. NK's military is a shell of starving and oil straved forces. Without China providing support, NK has no offensive capability. US invading would be criminally stupid. Your boy has lost touch with reality. I remember what democrats do with foreign policy. I was in Korea in 1994 when Clinton gave them just about everything they wanted if they would only hush up and get back to diddling his interns. Don't blame nukes in Korea on President Bush alone. But diplomacy needs to tried, and tried hard first.

While he stated that he wouldn't give any other nation a veto over the use of US power (exactly what he says Bush did) he says later on in the debate he wants to use a make sure we are in the right. WTF?

Kerry also could not articulate his plan for Iraq. Other than a summit his plan is exactly the same as Bush. I almost died when he mentioned a summit- what does he think the administration is already doing? His only option here is to portray Iraq as a gigantic mistake (that he voted for and refused to fund). He comes across as negative and Bush as positive. Bush also whipped his ass in saying when conditions would be set for US to leave Iraq. Kerry can only give a timeline that the AQ and insurgents can mark on their little calendarsa and wait for us to withdraw in defeat.

I kept waiting for Kerry to either disintigrate (which he almost did on the very first question, notice how hard it is to get a concrete answer out of him)or knock it out of the park. He didn't do either, and gave himself some new validation to the DNC and his base for a little while longer. Kerry needed to hit a home run on the debate and did not do it. Bush should have hit him harder on his waffling and trying to have it both ways, or his miserable senate record, but he kept a steady performance. Kerry is a polished debater and looked good on stage, but the thing drew down to a tie to me. Kerry had polish and style (the manicure really helped him use his hands effectively) but Bush had him down on substance.

We will see what the next debate brings. Maybe Kerry can bring a plan this time.

ALa said...

1) Dean is not your candidate because, besides being anti-war, liberals have no stones/backbone... Was Kerry your first choice? ...actaully he probably was -but he was the first choice of not ONE other Dem I know...he wasn't any of the stars first choice - Everyone fell into 'group think' with the 'electabilty' thing. If the primaries were all held on the same day -Dean WOULD be your candidiate. I REALLY don't understand why you keep talking about what Kerry says -campaigning, conventions, debates. Have you ever heard of unfufilled campaign promises? Bush is campaigning on what he has already done and Kerry is campaigning on TALK ...NONE of which his record supports. (why do you suppose that is?)
2) I am better off than I was four years ago --except for the fact that I am four years older...which Bush has no control over.

91ghost said...

Ala71: This is a little bit off topic but I wanted tot mention to you that I just read an article about how Bin Laden's deputy is urging "the youth" to assault American targets. The tape was aired on Al-Jazeera. I really, earnestly want to know this: why are Al-Jazeera facilities still standing???

ALa said...

Ghost --Hey! I've missed your always succinct and poignant input! Al Jazzera is still functioning because the rest of the world (except maybe Russia now) and many in America do not understand that the War on Terror is real...and that they don't 'hate us because we are free' or for our foreign policy...they hate us because we breath and still have heads connected to our bodies. What makes me sick is that Canada allowed Al Jazzera to broadcast in their country, but won't let Fox... Al Jazerra should be considered as aiding and harboring terrorists...

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD, I generally agree with you as to how unutterably destructive a war with North Korea would be, which is why I think it's patently moronic for Kerry to be talking about leading us down that path (via bilateral negotiations which would be dead negotiations walking). The only hope to avoid the intense fiery hell you and I could both describe in soul-wrenching detail, is in fact to make the case to China that this is not in their interest.

The reason North Korea is rattling every semblance of a sabre they can find right now (boldling saying "we have nukes, so whatcha gonna DO about it, punk?") is because economically they are in such dire straights that they have starvation and cannibalism in epidemic proportions. The main form of "support" China provides to them is in capturing and repatriating escaped North Koreans found in Chinese border towns.

While most of Chinese foreign policy is not aggressive on a worldwide scale, there is an imperialist urge in local and regional matters, and that should not be discounted. Tibet wasn't exactly a non-aggressive action by China; nor were they particularly reluctant to seize control of Hong Kong; nor are they doing any less than daily threatening invasion of Taiwan. The pattern here is one of slow, piecemeal encroachment of their power into all of their neighboring regions. With that in mind, I think it's most likely that China is betting that after North Korea completely starves itself out into an empty shell, the few remaining live North Koreans will absolutely BEG China to take them over and annex their territory to save them from Kim Jong Il. With that agenda in mind, the question becomes, is it in the best LONG-term interest of the United States to let that happen? Or would a unified Korea with a strong nationalist spirit, more resistant to Chinese assimilation, be better? How would it affect Japan, and would the effect on Japan in turn be a good thing or a bad thing? Would that divert Chinese attention to Taiwan, and perhaps Singapore?

This is a programming puzzle with 10,000 variables to it, and each change to one variable has a potential impact on four or five function calls. My best guess at a solution is that while we step, in the short term, to the Chinese dance moves regarding North Korea, we should also have a plan in place for very sneakily reforming North Korea's regime, getting it to where it wouldn't be quite so oppressive so that a unification plan with the South would not be a de facto enslavement of the South. Part of this tack could be an offer of, not so much food for nuclear disarmament, but food for political reform. Sell it to Kim that he can become an even bigger "hero" to his people by claiming that he twisted America's arm into saving them from starvation, yadda yadda, and he's now building on his greatness by opening up to reforms that could pave the way for unification. And then a unified (and nuclear) Korea, with nationalist spirit takes a look at China and says, "no, we will not be your next Tibet!" It would be strategic balance without war, the best way to play those cards, I think. And with strategic balance in place, we can work on the greater long-term goals of political reform in both places, such that labor conditions improve there, which is needed to balance out the global labor market and reduce downward pressure on wages.

TWD, I hear Kerry *SAYING* he wants to win in Iraq, but I also hear him saying the war is a mistake, a blunder, a grand diversion, and even an ILLEGAL war. He's sabotaging his own conditions for victory by sapping his own side's will to fight. Wanting to win, in his case, doesn't necessarily mean that he will. And while you downplay the Howard Dean factor and that element of the Democrat constituency, I think your party was one scream away from nominating Dean, and Kerry will have hell to pay if he simply ignores the "peace at all costs" faction.

Look at the angry protesters out on the street. Are they chanting "win the war but win it the right way?" Hell no they're not. They're saying "get us the hell OUT of there!" And they'll be protesting Kerry just like they are Bush today, if he fails to deliver the goods they demand. Peace at all costs is sacred to those people--Kerry is not.

When it comes to purely debates and public speaking, I would say Bush is not quite competent to the level one would expect of a President. But if you consider the overall mechanism of a Bush presidenCY with what a Kerry presidenCY would entail, in terms of the agenda and what policy would roll out, it's quite likely that Kerry-led Americans in 2006 will be wishing for a return of the day when the worst thing the president did was trip over a few words.

ALa said...

Can I get an AMEN!.....

Cig...I like you more and more with every post, but I don't want to step on Vader's toes...LOL...

this we'll defend said...


Great comments as usual.

Free and Redleg, I'll simply say that fighting in Afghanistan is night and day different from Korea. NK has trained to negate all of our advantages - for instance they would NOT even try to engage in manuever warfare against us. And your example of the Chosin resevoir is telling - the Chinese didn't have tanks, or heavy artillery, and we had total control of the air and we had heavy armor. And if it wasn't for the great determination and training of the USMC and the sheer heroism of thousands of Marines none of the US forces would have made it out alive. Conditions today are the same. Yes we (the ROK and us) would win against the NKPA, but it would definitely take more than 2 weeks, and we would lose 2,000 in the first week - probably much more. That would be WWII style intense infantry combat, and M1 tanks don't climb mountains.

ALa71, keep insisting that the dems are all peaceniks and campaigning against Dean. That helps my candidate because the undecided can see it is a lie. Me and Gen. Zinni and Gen. Shalikashvili and Gen. Clark will be busy being the peacenik hippies I guess. You know how infantrymen love to sing "Kumbaya." And of course I have no backbone - and no stones. Cuz this war thing is all about balls, not brains, right?

In Ala71's world there are always only two options - you are either strong (Bush) or smart (Kerry) and they are opposite. Which is why Bush lost the debate - because Kerry showed he was smart AND strong, and Bush is only "tough" on TV anyway. Ordering other men into battle doesn't make you tough. And ignoring the pleas of your professional military officers who have seen blood and gore and know what it takes to win isn't brave or tough - it is criminally stupid. If Bush really wanted to support the troops he would have listened to the troops - he and Rummy ignored the Army's dire predictions and insisted the Iraqis would love us, would throw flowers, and we would find those WMDs - which, Free, weren't enough to justify an invasion on national security grounds because having a weapon and being able to deploy it are two different things - chem weapons are useless even in the hands of terrorists, bio weapons are even more useless (all the Anthrax talk and the attacks with that white powder resulted in FOUR deaths), and he had NO nuclear capability and we knew he wasn't close to getting one. And then Free claims Iraq "supported terrorism." I call bullshit. So did the 9/11 commission. Again, for the millionth time - Saddam was hated by Al Queda. Saddam does not equal terrorism.

For all the talk of how Kerry's plan to deal with NK is flawed - China WANTS us to talk with NK. Actually, ALL of the other five parties in the six-party talks want us to. And in the 6-party talks we can't get anywhere because the Bush administration is at war with itself. Yes Clinton made a deal with NK. It averted WAR, which he was willing to wage if NK did not sign up. Bush implies that Clinton's deal was a useless treaty and NK simply lied and continued on. But that isn't true. For all Bush's talk of "discovering" NK was "cheating" as if Clinton's deal was abused by NK, NK was OPEN about it when they broke it (they trumpeted the fact), they kicked out inspectors, they disconnected the tv cameras that were trained on their nuclear materials, and they began processing the fuel rods that they had halted processing in 1994. When we accused them of breaking the treaty they responded "YES. We did. And F-U." And Bush was president and did NOTHING. The deal in 1994 worked to avert war. Did it last forever? No. But instead of working to avert war this time Bush simply allowed them to continue their nuke program - but we invaded IRAQ over chem weapons - which didn't even exist. Yeah, Bush is brave alright. He's FOOLHARDY.

As for what Kerry would do differently - look it up. Does it sound like Bush's plan? Now that Bush has flipflopped it does a little - but Bush is the guy that led us into this unnecessary mess, that has harmed our national security - and that says he has never made a mistake. I would much prefer the guy who actually understands what is wrong.

Sure, say that Kerry only won on "style" (the term used by the slime machine is "slick debator") - but he won on substance. Bush had NOTHING to say because he has NO PLAN for success. He fucked up by invading, by ignoring the military experts, by failing to plan for post-war occupation (because we would have flower-strewn streets) and by refusing to act as the insurgency grew. Hell, how can you people have such a short memory? Army officers were publicly chastised for daring to call the insurgency a guerilla war just six months ago! Rumsfeld at first claimed all the attacks were by "foreign terrorists" and then he "flip-flopped" and said they were all "Baathist dead-headers." Yet we are getting shot at in Sunni AND Shiite areas. Bush and his team simply are NOT up to the task. Kerry is.

So the right claims that Kerry really wants us to lose, ALa71 claims there is a secret plan to simply pull out - the reality is Bush wants to win but is LOSING because he is incompetent. Kerry wants to win and damn giving him a chance is better than going with the known loser that has been wrong on every major issue to come our way in the last four years - from not focusing on terror prior to 9/11 to letting Osama escape to invading Iraq to non-existent WMDs to today. He has been consistent alright, steadfast - steadfastly WRONG.

As far as the simplistic "global test" - what is wrong with that test? Oh, let's twist it into giving other nations a "veto" on our actions, even nasty nations like "France."

So Bush is openly lying about Kerry's "global test" - Kerry said the test is one "where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." So we have a standard where a President must ensure that AMERICANS understand that the pre-emptive war AND it is justified only of a president can defend the legitimacy of the action to the world. If a president can't stand up and say "we did this for legitimate reasons and here they are" then we shouldn't do it - why? because we are giving other nations a veto? No, dumbass. Because it is NOT LEGITIMATE. This war is an example. Bush tried to defend it beforehand but the world and many, many Americans didn't agree with his reasons (and neither did the U.S. MILITARY) and yet Bush invaded anway. And oooops - turns out the world was right. NO WMDs, no terrorist connections, total chaos, a growing insurgency - and Bush is campaigning on his judgment and criticizing Kerry's idea that before we wage pre-emptive war the test should be a more difficult one than Bush used. And you agree. Well, I don't. And that isn't because I want to give "a nation like France" a "veto" - it is because it HARMS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT WEAKENS US. IT MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THAT WE WILL FAIL, AND LESS LIKELY THAT WE WILL SUCCEED. IT IS BECAUSE I PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST, ABOVE EVERYTHING. It is because Bush's policy harms America, and Kerry's would protect us from disastrous mistakes like invading Iraq.

So now we are to the zinger you guys throw out: Kerry is saying the war is a mistake, a blunder, a grand diversion, and even an ILLEGAL war. He's sabotaging his own conditions for victory by sapping his own side's will to fight.

Except Kerry is saying the INVASION was a mistake, the decision to go to war was a mistake, the way we waged and have been waging the war is a mistake. "sabotaging his own side's will to fight"? this isn't about WILLPOWER - we have suffered enormous casualties in the past when a cause is just, and the South suffered incredible casualties in the Civil War for an unjust cause. This is about WINNING. We should NOT have invaded - and refusing to admit that is the biggest reason Bush can't win in Iraq. He won't accept reality. And admitting we shouldn't have invaded isn't the same thing as saying "so we should lose now." Here is a suggestion: Admit what we have done wrong, and make it right. How do we make it right? It is not "stay the course" and more of the same proven failed policies. It is also NOT admitting defeat. It is doing what it takes to win. Losing is what sabotages our will to fight, not valid criticism of the bad decisions and numerous mistakes Bush has made.

I guess when we invaded North Africa and got our ass kicked at Kasserine Pass the Army officer (Eisehower) who fired the general in charge and replaced him with Patton was wanting us to lose, huh? I guess when during the battle of the bulge Patton reversed direction and moved to Bastogne instead of continuing his advance that he was "retreating?" See, Bush would have kept the same officer in charge of North Africa even though he was incompetent. Bush would have ordered Patton to continue on. Because he "stays the course." I guess when the German Army was forbidden to change their strategy, to consolidate their lines, I guess when Hitler ordered Gen. Von Paulus and his Sixth Army to continue attacking Stalingrad until the entire army was captured that it was an example of brave, steadfast, stay the course thinking. That wuss Eisenhower. That liberal wimp FDR. All those flip-floppers ever did was change their minds when conditions changed. Oh, and won the war too.

Invading was a mistake. Kerry says so, Bush does not.

Pulling out in defeat would be a mistake. Both candidates agree.

Continuing on with our current strategy (or lack thereof) is not working. Kerry says so, Bush does not.

So Bush simply lies and claims Kerry wants us to lose. Given that Bush is wrong about EVERYTHING I am more than willing to give Kerry at try, and will ignore the "socialist, commie, traitor, didn't earn his purple hearts, wants to surrender to France, hates God and mom and apple pie and America" talk for what it is - desperate bullshit by a losing candidate.

free0352 said...

I posted this on cb's sight, I'm reposting it here because I like to toot my own horn. Its off topic about Korea, sorry.


Thanks dude, I always read sources, especially against those I debate. Post till you fingers bleed. You are ok for and Anarchist, or maybe just the radical fringe of the Libertarian party. And all great and true Americans come from Staten Island. Its the shadow of the Concorde and Jersey, makes one almost deific. :)

Second, anybody who has seen as much violence as I have doesn't -like- it. I was at war for almost two years strait, twice what most Vietnam vets had to deal with, and it's hard for any jarhead to admit, but it's hard to get through something like that. And I get to look forward to more. cb does a good job of conveying how frustrating and miseable and hard combat is. It very well may be harder to sit here at home while there is fighting going on. What I saw in Afganistan and what I suspect is growing in Iraq is a kind of fanatisism you just can't apreciate until you see it. Not just seeing what they are capable of, like Sep 11th, but just chatting one of these monsters up I begain to realise they left the human race behind a long time ago and they are not coming back. I get angry when it is suggested we somehow created these people or contributed to that. It's blatantly stupid to think you can reason with them. They just hate us so much, as much as you love your kids JOS, thats how much they hate the whole western world. Blindly and without reason, because to them the instructions from god are simple, wage jihad or face hell and judgment. Its not our invasion of Iraq, our support of Israel, our interest in oil. They don't like those things, and its one more reason to target us, but does Spain do those things? The Philipnes? Saudi Arabia, Yemen? Little children, inocent men and women? No JOS...they attack beaue they know what we forget, we are at war. They attack us because we are powefull and not Muslem. We are the other side of thier jihad. Terrorism is just a tactic, used by Muslem extreamists. They have time on thier side, because they can afford to wait, while we can not wait for the next sep 11th. George Bush throws around the word evil a lot because he is a christian. I'm more of an agnostic. I don't know who god is, but I know evil is for real, and we are at war with it. I don't want to wait on evil, I don't want to know if the evil is aligned with other evil, I don't care who or where evil hides. Sadam was plain evil, anybody could see that, and thats enough for me. Lets fight them there, on thier turf, becasue as a Marine I know a good offense is the best defense. You say we can't be the world's police force. I used to say that too, now I know we HAVE to be. I may hate violence, but I'm damn good at it. People like you look at the World Trade Center and say, "Thank god I wasn't in those buildings." Free0352 says "If only I were in those buildings! I could have helped to save more lives, I could have made a differance. If only I had been in one of those planes, I could have at least stoped the attack on one of the towers of the WTC" What you hear in my voice is not a love for violence. I'm so sick of it I can't wait for it to end so I can come home. Thats the challange cb faces. He'll be standing in San Fran and he still woun't be home. He will never be the same. For the rest of his life he'll hear machineguns and artillary in the back of his mind. He'll remember his friends and wonder where they are today. He'll see the ones maimed and killed every night before he gets to go to sleep. I hate the enemy for my deployments, the fighting, the misery. I blame them for stoploss. No JOS, I probably hate war even more than you do. What you hear in my voice is rage man. Sep 11th, the USS Cole, The baraks in Saudi and Beruit, the embasseys, lockerby scotland, countless more. When does it end? All these attacks weren't conncected, but it was those same extreamists, same common enemy. Anybody who let out a cheer on Sep 11th is my enemy. Every time I hear of a beheading, of a car bomb, and IED explosion, it reafirms my need to go over there. I need to fight these people because I understand most people can't do it. I can, and I will, its more than my job, its who I am, I'm a warrior and I make a differance for a living. I'm mad as hell JOS, and sadly peace is not coming for the United States. We tried for 20 years to have peace. Its war on Radical Islam JOS. Half the middle east. And if we're smart we woun't stop with Iraq.

Some of the kindest and most generous human beings I have ever met were Muslem. The lady in Djibouti Africa who's village I stayed in who had less than a mud hut and insisted she feed me her own food out of grattitude comes to mind. The Iraqis who cried and kissed our feet and were all "Mr..Mr..thank you, you are from god"

But then there are those who see us as satan. If there is a god, he created me and the rest of us in the military to fight these people. So let us fight.

free0352 said...

TWD, you said

For all the talk of how Kerry's plan to deal with NK is flawed - China WANTS us to talk with NK. Actually, ALL of the other five parties in the six-party talks want us to. And in the 6-party talks we can't get anywhere because the Bush administration is at war with itself. Yes Clinton made a deal with NK. It averted WAR, which he was willing to wage if NK did not sign up. Bush implies that Clinton's deal was a useless treaty and NK simply lied and continued on. But that isn't true. For all Bush's talk of "discovering" NK was "cheating" as if Clinton's deal was abused by NK, NK was OPEN about it when they broke it (they trumpeted the fact), they kicked out inspectors, they disconnected the tv cameras that were trained on their nuclear materials, and they began processing the fuel rods that they had halted processing in 1994. When we accused them of breaking the treaty they responded "YES. We did. And F-U." And Bush was president and did NOTHING. The deal in 1994 worked to avert war. Did it last forever? No. But instead of working to avert war this time Bush simply allowed them to continue their nuke program - but we invaded IRAQ over chem weapons - which didn't even exist. Yeah, Bush is brave alright. He's FOOLHARDY.

You didn't answer my questin TWD. I have no dout China wants us to work things out with NK, I've said that. They want us to so bad dumbo the elephant could be presedent and they'd work with him. My questin is how will bi-lateral talks help the situation? What master barganing chip does Kerry have up his sleave? How will Kerry force a settlement with NK when NK doesn't care what the US has to say? He'll use China and the six nations unlike he said, wount he TWD? If not.. what is his other option, I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT! Sounds to me he's saying whatever it takes to get ellected. Selling a pipe dream. If not TWD, what is his plan other than the 6 nations? How will Kerry convince NK when he has zero strength to bargain form in bi-lateral talks? Is he honestly saying because he's not George Bush the Koreans will be more apt to capitulate to his demands? Tell me, answer the question!

redleg said...


You think very carefully about your remarks and that is obvious but you ignore the most inconvienient of facts. Simply saying the 9/11 commission report prooves there was no AQ in Iraq is wrong and typical spin. Check out the report, I beg you, before you embarass yourself further. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks but AQ was taking shelter in Iraq for a long time. Read the report you quoted. You will find it enlightening. Have a scotch before you do. Let me know if you can't find it, I highlighted it in my copy but am far to lazy to go find it now.

I understand a war in NK would not be a cake-walk. I have not said it will be. But remember the Army that waged competant modern war against the UN Forces in Korea was the Chinese Army. The NKs were well and truly whipped after the breakout from the Pusan perimeter when US forces could acquit themselves competantly again. I would not wish the 1950 hollow Army on any nation anywhere. Without Chinese assistance, the NKs will wage nothing but annoyance. Remember to register their disapproval of NK policy, they have accidnetally shut down railroads and oil transfers for a short time before. This is a message that the NKs read very clearly. That is why it is essential to have those other nations in the talks, as well as being a vital part in keeping the CF agreement of 1953 viable. I served 3 tours in Korea and I most emphatically do not wish to fight there. I am fairly certain that the NKs will fall apart in about 10-20 years without harming anybody except the SK economy and I am more than happy to contain them diplomatically until then. To upset the applecart by ditching the 6 nations talks is FOOLHARDY, and if you weren't in full time candidate salvation mode you would understand that. The fact that Kerry is willy to forego those talks shows what a weak grasp he has on the realities of the world.

Iran is also nervous because we are on two sides of them now, and believe that sabre-rattling will get us to back off. With Kerry they will be correct. With Bush they will be wrong. Let's cross that bridge after we have stabilized Iraq and made a few more inroads towards democracy in Afghanistan.

Kerry and you must be getting the same talking points. I did like his quip that we outsourced at Tora Bora. You should listen to Free and CSM on that score though.

Conservatives don't just throw that zinger out there about him being consistently nagative about our operations, those are Kerry's words, with him trying to please both sides of his base yet again. If you want 4 years of that, go ahead and vote your concience, but I don't believe America can stand 4 more years of Clinton-lite. I cannot believe Kerry considers American soldiers in OEF and OIF as anything but the political pawns they were to him after he returned from Vietnam. What's next, will he go to Pakistan and meet with UBL to broker a seperate peace as he did in Paris in 1970? And then be used as a political tool for his own benefit as he was by the VVAW during his Senate testimony? Your guy doesn't have the best track record of backing up the troops. And has also been consistently on the wrong side of history on every major Senate vote. What is his global test that Gulf I obviously didn't meet? (Since he didn't vote for that one)

Kerry did sytlistically very well during the debate. He salvaged himself as a viable candidate for the DNC. But he didn't hit a home run. He has not shown hiself to be smarter, merely smoother at a debate. When asked to vote for the two men, most of the independants are going to choose the one whose message they can understand. I still can't figure out Kerry's because he buries everything in nuance. He has consistently failed to differentiate his plan for Iraq from Bush's except "We can do better". How, genius? That is what most people, what I, wanted to hear and he didn't deliver. The President spoke the truth as he knew it and did not hammer home some of Kerry's many contradictions but he made no major mistakes. I wish he had, but he did not. Kerry needed a big win, Bush did not. I haven't seen smart from Kerry yet.

this we'll defend said...

TWD, to answer your question - how do you think the deal in 1994 was worked out? I didn't expect it to succeed. I was in a limited dispersal area with live ammo waiting for the start of the war while most Americans didn't even know what was going on. The deal in 1994 was worked out because NK had no need to posture and bluster for propaganda purposes in front of other nations. The talks were between two enemies who laid their cards on the table. The north said "we have no nuclear program." The US said 'here are photos of your program. Stop it or we WILL invade. If you stop we will instead help you with your power generation programs." The North said "we will not stop." So the US began moving forces into the region and the 2ID went on full alert (which was a 15-second blurb on the nightly news and most people back home focused on the really important issue - the OJ trial). But we were dead serious. We were going to war if they didn't stop. a deal was struck and it lasted up until Bush took office.

NK is our enemy, but they DO care what we say just as we care what they say. And six-party talks are useless because everything is a propaganda exercise and the other four parties - well, three parties - care only about their interests, not ours or Koreas. South Korea obviously cares, but North Korea thinks it can manipulate them even more because Seoul would be destroyed - and it is true.

So bi-partisan talks AND six-party talks should be held. Hold the six-party talks for the bluster and propaganda and so that NK can see that they are alone, even their Chinese "allies" want them to stop. And hold the direct talks b/w NK and the US so that they can work out a deal or so that we can at least know we tried our best before going to war - and if NK won't stop we should go to war. We will have passed that "global test" that Bush thinks is not needed at all. And war will be the last resort.

So Kerry has nothing up his sleeve, no trick, no silver bullet. But he is willing to try, and Bush isn't even willing to do that.

As for your reply to JOS, it doesn't provide any answer to the question DID INVADING IRAQ HELP OR HURT our national security. The answer is, sadly, that it hurt us. It made us more vulnerable, not less.

Pulling out in defeat would hurt us even more. And Kerry is right to say so even if the Bushies think that is flip-flopping. It isn't. It is truth.

Kat said...

"As for your reply to JOS, it doesn't provide any answer to the question DID INVADING IRAQ HELP OR HURT our national security. The answer is, sadly, that it hurt us. It made us more vulnerable, not less."

Two things that you have not made sufficiently clear yet, and I feel that you are making it up as you go. Explain exactly how the war in Iraq has made us less safe?

Explain how giving Iran nuclear materials is a good idea?

I completely disagree with you on "misled" or "lies", so we won't go there. I also disagree that it was "wrong". I also disagree that it was not a front on the war on terror. We've been over that.

But, with your claim that we are less safe due to this war, please explain that. exactly what part of killing a couple thousand terrorist wannabe's in Iraq make us more unsafe?

Seriously, I want to know. I have so many people on the democrat side telling me that the republicans are "fearmongering" and then these folks come up with the same comment that you just did, TWD. To me, that is fear mongering.

So explain this concept to me so I can understand why the democrats claim the republicans are doing it and then turn around and do it themselves.

Jericho Brown said...


Killing a couple thousand terrorist wannabes makes us more unsafe because, just as with the mythological hydra, you take one out, three more pop up in its place. A terrorist isn't someone pursuing terrorism as an occupation. One must be indoctrinated into it, sold on the concept that they are sacrificing themselves for the greater good. Therefore, invading Iraq has made far more terrorists than we could ever hope to illiminate.

free0352 said...


Bush IS trying to work things out with NK, hence the 6 party talks! Calling a coalition of like
minded nations and intelligent diplomacy a bluster and propaganda campaign is hypocritical. In
your book, Bush can’t win. He does not use enough diplomacy for your taste in Iraq, and his
attempts to do so in NK are worthless. We’ve had 10 years of diplomacy with Iraq and 50 with
NK, and when we use it you criticize it. You just don’t like Bush is what I think. Kerry’s policy
in Iraq is exactly the same as Bush’s, hence Kerry’s votes, and his policy in NK will be exactly the
same. Kerry didn’t want to be the Candidate to oppose the war because he was afraid WMD
would be found and he’d look like a jack ass. Once we had a good idea it wasn’t there he
changes his tune and votes against the 87 billion just like he always votes against any military
spending initiative. His votes arn't smart, they are only political tools to advance his career. Kerry is the same fucking dude on his Iraq stance when all his bullshit is peeled back. I don’t care what he “says” because he’ll “say” whatever is politically expedient at that particular time. I don’t trust him to tell me what sort of car he owns, let alone his foreign policy. I look at how he votes and what he does, his actions speak louder.

He voted for the war, mistake or not. Mistake, only time will tell by his own admission were his words. He didn't care one way or another, he votes to please a constituancy. People pro war, Kerry votes with them. Get out of Iraq, kerry votes with them. That’s why I hated Clinton and why I hate him.

Weather you like the war in Iraq or not, we’re in it now. Our military is overextended. How the shit will John Kerry threaten NK like Clinton did in 1994? Spitballs again!? Kerry better count his blessings all those military acquisitions he voted against made it through. China, the only prayer, that’s how Kerry has to do it. Remember, when Clinton gave NK all that money for energy, which propped them up long enough to develop their nukes. They only expelled the cameras and the inspectors in the final stages of their program. You can’ build a nuke program in
one year. They built the reactors and the bombs with our own money. Clinton was dooped.

We are in a war, our security is in danger, hence invading Iraq. Simple as that. Afghanistan, then
Iraq, then Iran, then maybe Syria, and on and on and on till there is nowhere to hide in the middle
east. Just a shit load of U.S. allies and democratic states. That country was an ally of terrorist
Muslim extremists, of many kinds and ilks. Saddam’s stated goal over and over was to establish a
Middle Eastern Pan Arab state under Muslim law. He would expel western influence and destroy
Israel. He destabilized the region with his threats. More over he surrendered to us in the Gulf
War and did not honor his agreement. He promoted terrorism to include trying to have our
president assassinated. How was he a threat? Oh I don’t know, sending one advisor from his
chem program for a visit with Zarquai is a good beginning. Did you just want to contain Sadamm
forever TWD, and wait for him to definitely acquire WMD, and use it again before taking action.
Is it okay to invade Iraq only after he acted on his stated threat to make America bathe in it’s own
blood? Gee, if that’s your party’s policy, I’ll vote Republican. I think it was a good thing Bush
got to Iraq before he could make that shit, and give it away to who knows? -Pre- emptive strike

Our war is not just with Iraq. It is with many nations who harbor terror. Iraq is just the deadliest
battle field. It is also very strategic. We’re fighting in Djibouti, Kenya, Eritrea, Somalia,
Ethiopia, and the Philippines besides Afghanistan and Iraq. This war is global, Iraq is one damn
step. One step is not going to encompass the scope of this conflict. We still have Syria and Iran
to go if we are going to truly rob Wahabiest terrorists of countries to take sanctuary in.

It will be us fighting in Iran, hopefully before they get a bomb. God forbid the U.N. pass a
resolution and France and Germany and Russia and the rest of the European and African Unions
get off their asses and take Iran out. They’ll pass resolution after resolution and in the end the
U.S. will have to shoulder the load, like every other god damn time. Iran is a fundamentalist
government, they’re nuts. They want to nuke Tel Aviv, provoke a war with the west. We’ve got
em on two sides. It’s a matter of time. Iran can not be permitted to build a bomb. Iran can not
be permitted to exist in its present state. In my book Iran has already attacked the U.S. and our
new ally Iraq on multiple occasions and we need to invade them ASAP.

North Korea like Red Leg said, will fuck itself with communism. People like Alvaro with a mean
streak run NK. NK will not use the things other than to defend it’s boarders. Or they will face
every nation on earth. So I say if we can talk them out of it great, but let em build away
otherwise. Just poor all that money down the drain with the rest of everything they have. And
they’ll go the way of the dinosaur just like the former Soviet Union. If we hold on to peace long
enough, NK will solve itself or modernize. Or their people will all starve and freeze first. Then
the wonderful worthless U.N. can do what its good at, and move in to help begin and interim
government of NK’s choosing. All without firing a shot. The only mistake in that is if we don’t
diligently aide them in securing their nuclear material after their collapse.

Anyway, mark my words, china is the key to NK.

free0352 said...

So what Jerhico Brown is saying is we shouldn't fight terrorism because when we attack the countries that help them which is the only way to slow them down and best tactic we have, we only make more terrorists. The way to succeed is to only attack terrorists inside countries who let us do that, and absorb all other attacks as they come while best trying to intercept them here in the US.

I'll pass, the extreamists will get the point when they die.

ALa said...

Yes, that is what jericho is saying...just like the Democrats have always opted for appeasement throughout history -they continue in that dangerous tradition today. If it were up to the Dems there would be no Jews, blacks would still be slaves -and there would probably be no the Cold War would've escalated into nuclear war (with John Kerry's nuclear freeze). In the debate John Kerry said that Bush invading Iraq after 9/11 would have been like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor ---how about invading Germany after Pearl Harbor. There are such things as 'multi-pronged' wars.
Anyway, I thought this summed it up nicely --and it was taken from a total partisan democrats website....
"Politically, this is one of the worst things about Democrats -- and it has many sources. As a group they seem to have a great tendency toward becoming disheartened..."

Jericho Brown said...

No, free and ALa, I'm not saying appeasement is the key,nor do I think it is. My point is that when you little kids seeing their entire families killed, you are making a terrorist by default. That's all I'm saying. It's for this very reason that, contrary to the latest round of propaganda in the wake of Bush's sound defeat in the debate, that Repubs are saying that Bin Laden is praying for a Kerry victory. In the New York Observer today there was a Gallup poll showing that support for U.S. foreign policy among our allies has fallen 20% since 2002, and the U.S.'s standing in Muslim countries has fallen to an ALL-TIME low--yet bin Laden's approval numbers are higher than ever there and still RISING. SO Bush has improved bin Laden's standing in the Muslim world and damaged America's standing across the globe. Why would Bin Laden want to change that?

It's not about appeasement, it's about picking the right battles.

Jericho Brown said...

Oh, and I take serious exception to your statement, ALa, that if it were up to Dems there would be no Jews or blacks. FDR WAS a Dem and headed up the American fight against Nazism. And the Republican party as it was in Lincoln's time is what the Democratic party is today, which is why during the Reconstruction blacks considered themselves Republican and now, due in large part to efforts by JFK and LBJ, they consider themselves Democrats by a large majority.

ALa said...

Jericho: I didn't mean the true (and almost extinct) Democrats (like FDR, Kennedy, Leiberman, Miller, Bahy)...I meant the new anti-war majority that has taken hold of the reigns....
What do you think it means to each Iraqi child that is handed a pair of shoes, a soccer ball, a backpack full of schools supplies, candy or a doll by American soldiers. What do you think 'Saddam TV' said about Americans -that we were the friends or the don't think UN sanctions and the suffering it caused the Iraqi people while Saddam biult palaces caused them to hate us and terrorists to be cultivated? Now they see what America really is...look on: or
and look at the kids faces --and tell me it was the wrong war at the wrong time and still profess to be a liberal and care about human rights!

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

ALa, since both you and Vadergrrrl are taken, I'm going to have to make due with the woman I'm trying to pursue in real life. That reminds me, note to self, send her flowers again, LOL.

TWD, excellent point that M1 tanks don't climb mountains. And I will also remind you of what the terrain is like in Afghanistan. The Russian doctrine in Afghanistan was exactly what Kerry complained we didn't do there--flood the place out with infantry and armor. Well guess how well that worked? T-80s can't climb mountains, either. But the air power we have there is, by contrast, working relatively well.

I understand your boast of having General Zinni and Shalikashvili and Clark and yourself on the hawk faction of the Democratic party. It's excellent. But I think within that party, you're still outnumbered, and if the hawk talk gets too hawkish, you'll lose members who'll bolt for Nader. Or Kerry will lose the 2008 primary to whoever leads the dove faction most eloquently (either Dean or Hillary).

The way things are setting up right now, two possible scenarios are nearly equally likely, in a Kerry presidency:

1. After failing to get major ground support from France and Germany, Kerry pushes for a draft and floods Iraq with draftee troops and ironically prosecutes the exact same Vietnam-style war he protested AGAINST in 1971. He will have met the real Nixon, and it will be the man he sees in the mirror.

2. After failing to get major ground support from France and Germany, Kerry cuts and runs. He'll blame Bush, and that will be that.

The media will welcome either path because it won't be "more of the same". Bush's "more of the same" has netted the capture of Saddam, the killing of both of Saddam's sons, the backing down of Moqtada al Sadr, the killing of Musab al Zarqawi's #2 man and the spiritual leader of the insurgency; and most recently a firefight that cost one American life and 100 of the rebel lives, a trend which is obviously not tenable for the insurgency. But then the leftist media is always eager to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when it comes to wars led by people they don't like. Bin Laden is the only terrorist that matters, in the leftist handbook. Kill all others, but if you don't have bin Laden's head on a pike, well, you just haven't done squat have you?

Yes, you and the generals and the war hero personality of Kerry's multiple personality body, are all admirable fighters against the terrorist cause, and I would place my hope in you guys to get things done if Kerry prevails on November 2nd. I would hope that a President Kerry would listen to you and completely ignore the millions of people out on American streets demanding peace at any price; but who knows, maybe he will after all. Do you guys have compromising photos of him by any chance, in order to keep him "Manchurianized" on the hawkish path?

I would admit that Bush did lose the debate, but I would only say he did so by a nose. Consistency matters, and Bush succeeded in pointing out Kerry's lapses therein. You can't build a coalition to follow you in fighting for what you very eagerly call "a mistake". Just can't do it.

Yes, invading Iraq was a mistake, but I call that an honest mistake, very akin to if a suspect pulls a gun and a police officer shoots him, and the gun turns out to be fake. What's the cop supposed to do now, run away and pretend the incident never happened? No, now there's follow-through that still has to be done. Sometimes Kerry is lucid enough to get that, and sometimes not. Again, I'll cross my fingers and hope the lucid hemisphere of his brain holds sway if he's elected.

When it comes to "planning to win the peace", FDR never did in WWII. Does that make WWII a giant blunder, and make him a "fuckup"? The Marshall Plan didn't come until the Truman administration. Tick tock, tick tock, I'd like an answer to that one, please.

If Saddam was hated by al Qaeda, what was Musab al Zarqawi doing there, pre-invasion? For the twentieth time, you've failed to answer that one as well.

You say "Saddam does not equal terrorism," well, try, if you will, to parse this quote by Saddam, in light of 9/11:

"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"

More of these gems available here. He may not have planned and executed 9/11, but he was indeed a threat.

"I would much prefer the guy who actually understands what is wrong."

It's easy to bitch about car bombs and beheadings. But to only come up with 'a summit' as the only solution to them, is ludicrous, and an insult to the intelligence of Americans to say that that amounts to a viable alternative plan.

"As far as the simplistic 'global test' - what is wrong with that test? Oh, let's twist it into giving other nations a 'veto' on our actions, even nasty nations like 'France.'"

How do you differentiate a "test" from a "veto"? Make it a non-binding test and proceed no matter what France and Germany have to say? I'm curious to see how the nuance can bend the meaning of this to go both ways--make it something that can change our policy and yet cannot change our policy, at the same time. Seems to be the Schroedinger's Cat of foreign policy.

"If a president can't stand up and say 'we did this for legitimate reasons and here they are' then we shouldn't do it - why? because we are giving other nations a veto? No, dumbass. Because it is NOT LEGITIMATE."

Foam's dribbling out of your mouth now. You are once again saying that foreign powers both should and should not be controlling our foreign policy, at the same time. Defining "legitimate" as something that would pass muster in France and Germany is a de facto veto for them, no matter how you keep trying to spin it, slice it, tap dance it, and microwave the logic of it.

Now, if you define "legitimate" as something that truly would defend America, then I think from what was known at that time, the action WAS legitimate. An honest mistake, but from the paradigm of the intelligence reports, still legitimate.

Kerry is saying the war is a mistake, a blunder, a grand diversion, and even an ILLEGAL war. He's sabotaging his own conditions for victory by sapping his own side's will to fight. He absolutely is. And you are too.

"this isn't about WILLPOWER"

War is always, 100%, without exception, about will power.

"I guess when we invaded North Africa and got our ass kicked at Kasserine Pass the Army officer (Eisehower) who fired the general in charge and replaced him with Patton was wanting us to lose, huh?"

Actually in your analogy, you would want FDR himself replaced for the Kasserine Pass. Any fuckup is always a presidential fuckup, so keep replacing presidents any time the war doesn't go perfectly. Intelligence failures regarding Iraqi WMD, that was today's Kasserine Pass.

"Continuing on with our current strategy (or lack thereof) is not working. Kerry says so, Bush does not."

And a SUMMIT fixes all that?

Jericho Brown, glad to see you are fervently against killing terrorists. TWD claims you have no voice in the Democratic party or the Kerry campaign. He says it's as if you don't exist. The real Democrats are all "hawks" like him. You and the millions like you, you just don't count, at all.

this we'll defend said...

Once again the right-wingers here just ignore reality.

Kat asks me to prove that invading Iraq has made us less safe. Aside from over 1,000 American coffins, tens of thousands more wounded, $200 billion that could have been spent on homeland security, troops pulled from the hunt for AQ, loss of allies, loss of international cooperation, and the full committment of our military, well, gee, I don't know. Perhaps the SUPERCHARGING of terrorist recruiting, the loss of any support we had (and we did have some) in the Islamic world. But hey, we have Saddam! Gee, that's great. Because if we didn't have him he would... do the same things he has done for ten years - pretty much NOTHING. And Kat and I have been over this ground before, which shows that you just can't teach some people, they will believe what they want despite the facts. Flat-earthers, all of you.

Giving Iran nuclear materials? Did I get that right? GIVING them nuclear materials? Perhaps you should re-read the debate transcript. But it isn't like an informed opinion is important or anything. It is only the future of our republic that is at stake, our very survival. You can't be bothered to get the facts straight. It is more fun to poke fun at France. France, who warned us of Vietnam, but what do they know? France, who already fought an islamist insurgency in Algeria - read the Savage War of Peace. But you won't. Why learn anything from others when we can make the same mistakes ourselves, right?

Yeah, Iraq was a center of terrorism, which pretty much explains the complete absense of Iraqi terrorists prior to our invasion. Which pretty much explains how women in Iraq were scientists and business owners and whatever - because they were so fundamentalist. Which explains why Christians were free to practice their religion, and why there were liquor stores in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. Because of sharia law, right? Saddam was evil, an enemy of ours, but he was NOT an Islamic Fundamentalist and he was NOT supporting fundamentalist terrorist groups - he was their ENEMY.

Free says "We’ve had 10 years of diplomacy with Iraq and 50 with NK." Yes. And we went to WAR with Iraq (a FAILURE of diplomacy - or really, no effort to even use it despite 10 years of successful containment) and NK went Nuclear on Bush's watch. People criticize Clinton's deal, but NK went nuclear on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. But hey, you are the party of "personal responsibility" and all that. I suggest before you claim Clinton was "dooped" (sp) that you do a little more internet research. Check out Foreign Affairs or something, anything besides Fox news or Free Republic or World Net Daily for your information.

Free also repeats the lies about Kerry's inconsistency. Here is the truth:
or read his speech before he cast the vote to authorize force at

Then there is the "Kerry always voted against the military and isn't strong on defense" lie. Here is the truth (again):

Free says (he actually fucking admits it) that the right-wing thought is this:

"We are in a war, our security is in danger, hence invading Iraq. Simple as that. Afghanistan, then
Iraq, then Iran, then maybe Syria, and on and on and on till there is nowhere to hide in the middle
east. Just a shit load of U.S. allies and democratic states."

That is pretty simple all right. So if voters out there think that is the way we should go, by all means vote Bush. Because that is what you would get - a war of the United States against the world.

Free says:

Did you just want to contain Sadamm
forever TWD, and wait for him to definitely acquire WMD, and use it again before taking action.
Is it okay to invade Iraq only after he acted on his stated threat to make America bathe in it’s own

Free, the answer is if we can contain him successfully then hell YES. Which is what we did during the Cold War against the USSR - THANK GOD Bush wasn't president then. We would all be dead - but hey, we'd be free, right Free?

And as I said in an essay BEFORE we invaded, it isn't a question of sitting idly by and getting hit first. Of COURSE we should hit them before they hit us. As Kerry said in the debate. The question is WHAT criteria do you use before waging pre-emptive warfare? You say "well, whatever we feel like." I say no. That it threatens our security more to wage unnecessary wars. Now that we have invaded, who was right? And WMDs? Unless it was nuclear WHO CARES? Uninformed civilians are terrified of mustard gas and anthrax. As for me, a trained military man, WWI technology isn't all that frightening - especially since everybody that has ever tried to use it has found it ineffective compared to normal High Explosive - including terrorists. That is Fear-mongering.

Nuclear? That is a different issue - and yet we now have a nuclear-armed NK and Iran is on its way to nukes, and our military is fully committed. Boy, we sure are better off now that we have Saddam, huh? Bullshit.

Free says "Our war is not just with Iraq. It is with many nations who harbor terror." Proof yet again that he REFUSES to read the Army War college study I have posted 100 times that points out how wrong that reasoning is: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism found at

Or read my post from August 1st at

And Ala71 again says "just like the Democrats have always opted for appeasement throughout history."

Black/white thinking. If you don't think invasion is the right answer then you must be an appeaser - Lord knows there are only two options, right? An incredibly complicated world, yet only two options available. Who is living in the real world, me or her?

She then says that invasion was justified because Iraqi children are better off (the SADDAM WAS A BAD MAN argument). I guess she doesn't care about America, she only cares about Iraqis.

Interesting side note: the "we invaded to save the Iraqi people" fallacy is usually spouted by the same people who aren't bothered by Abu Ghraib and who think we should machine gun crowds of Iraqi protestors - because we love Iraqis, you know.

If the war was to liberate the Iraqi people then why wasn't that the case BEFORE we went to war? Because it wasn't and never was.

Now an update: remember when Ala71 declared victory? Ooops, polls have changed. Say it with me: President Kerry. President KERRY. PRESIDENT KERRY. Yeah baby. :) :) :)

Jericho Brown said...

ALa: Obviously it's a good thing that any children can find happiness in post-Saddam Iraq. But I think that it's far more likely that the children are worse-off than ever. The acts of violence (many perpetrated against them) are increasing by the day. In many ways (and I know I'm gonna catch shit for saying this but hear me out) they are probably worse off now without the stability (however psychopathic that stability) provided by Saddam's dictatorial regime. No chance for advancement, granted, but at least not the constant threat of terrorism. Take that to town, I know you guys will, but ther acts of violence have been worse there since the US invasion than they have been in decades (not counting genocide against the Kurds, which, incidentally,is when we should have been invading them in the first place). This is why so many Iraqi "civilians" are crying for the US to leave, some even for the return of Saddam. How do you think it was possible for him to gain power over there in the first place (aside from the US backing)? People were sick of the civil war that raged constantly between the different ethnic groups. Saddam, with his secular Baathist regime, offered an end to that. It could be argued for millenia whether it was better before or after Saddam, but there's a reason bin Laden hated Saddam and it's because he didn't play by the fundamentalist/radical Muslim rules. But there's no doubt he was a horrible, horrible man. But was taking him out worth the price of having to stabilize one of the most unstable regions on earth? With no help? If the answer is yes, then why aren't we invading EVERY nation with a fascist dictatorial regime? And there are plenty of them. Why aren't we in Darfur right now, stopping what even Bush has called a genocide, where women are being raped, and everyone else being brutally killed or exiled? Why aren't you guys calling for that? The UN sanctions were tirelessly opposed by left-wing liberals in this country for years because of the suffering it brought the people of Iraq. Where were you then? There are millions of people mistreated every day by brutal regimes in the world and as sad as the reality is, we can't police all of them and at the same time keep ourselves safe and secure (and comfortable). That's reality. And so, when weighing the pros and cons of invading Iraq, the reality has to be acknowledged that while Al Queda plots all over the rest of the world, we are distracted with babysitting Iraq. You guys want Bush because you think he's making you safer but we on the other side want him out for just that reason. That he's made us more UNSAFE. With global terrorism a reality we must pick and choose our battles. The president chose to set his sights on a "sure thing" that turned out to be a smokescreen and completely baseless. No weapons of mass distruction. NO SADDAM/AL Queda connection. You guys were duped. Half the country was duped. But it's never too late to pick up the pieces and try to fix it before it actually IS too late and we've turned a region with millions of FERVENT anti-Americans into terrorists by dictating to the rest of the world that we'll attack anyone we want anytime we want on the flimsiest of evidence.

Smoker: Both your Kerry presidency contingencies rely on him not being able to secure support from people who refused to support someone who didn't want to listen to what they had to say in the first place. Does this mean that if Kerry does get support from these countries that you'll support him? Somehow I doubt it. I know you'll need to hear Limbaugh latest problem with the bleeding-heart liberals to fully come up with a new reason he'd be worse than Bush, but I'll wait until the first week of a Kerry presidency to hear you out on that.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD, which alternative reality of yours are we right-wingers ignoring? The one where foreign nations should control our foreign policy, or the one where they should not? The one where Saddam was a threat as admitted by John Kerry, or the one where he was not? The one where the war should have been voted for or the one where it should have been voted against? The one where will power matters, or the one where we don't need it? The one where only hawkish Democrats matter, or the one I see every day when idiot liberals run their gab about peace at any price?

If you live in contradictory sets of realities, a logical person will always be ignoring at least ONE of them (the one that doesn't adhere to logic).

"loss of allies,"

If so-called "allies" are not willing to at least acknowledge the necessity of us acting in our own defense, then they were not "allies" to begin with, at least the day before they revealed such disdain for us.

"loss of international cooperation,"

Like.... Rwanda?

"the SUPERCHARGING of terrorist recruiting,"

Yeah, they just loved us to death before the Iraq war. 9/11 was a fluke. Other than bin Laden, you couldn't hear a single bad word about us on al Jazeera.

"the loss of any support we had (and we did have some) in the Islamic world."

Well, except for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the provisional Afghan government, and the provisional Iraqi government. Except for them. I suppose "the entire Islamic world" constitutes the Palestinians, Iran, and Syria. Point taken.

"But hey, we have Saddam!"

That's chopped liver, I guess. And Uday and Qusay. And dozens of top AQ luminaries from the Afghan war; and thousands of higher-up terrorist who were previously fighting Jihad in Iraq and are now looking around in hell and wondering where their 72 virgins ran off to.

"Because if we didn't have him he would... do the same things he has done for ten years - pretty much NOTHING."

Well, except for shoot at us, fund terrorism, scoff at the weapons inspections process, provide training camps to al Qaeda, rape, torture, and murder, but that's not anything to be concerned with. He was really a GREAT guy once you got to know him.

I'm reminded of the Dennis Hopper quote from Apocalypse Now: "You're looking at the skulls. I see. Well, yeah, sometimes he does go too far, but when he does, he's the first to admit it!"

"you just can't teach some people, they will believe what they want despite the facts."

Sometimes, indeed not.

"Flat-earthers, all of you."

Straw man there, or merely ridiculous hyperbole in order to weaken your argument further?

"France, who already fought an islamist insurgency in Algeria"

The Legion tried to anyway, but DeGaulle came along and tried to do the Kerry thing, tried to play both sides of it, lip-service to the French side and lip-service to the FLN side. The rest, as they say, is l'histoire. Et oui, je sui francophone, et pas mal appris de ce sujet.

"Why learn anything from others when we can make the same mistakes ourselves, right?"

So let's see what your syllogism is so far:

France lost wars in countries x and y.
Therefore, all wars in countries x and y are unwinnable.

This, in spite of a somewhat contrary example where Russia failed in Afghanistan and we didn't? Is that your final answer to Regis, or would you like another lifeline?

"the complete absense of Iraqi terrorists prior to our invasion."

Seeing as Zarqawi is Jordanian, you might be onto something here. Perhaps a deeper study can be made of who all was training at Ansar Al Islam. If none were Iraqi, you will finally have made a valid point. But then, leaping from there to a claim of no terrorists at all, well that's just at two with reality.

"Saddam was evil, an enemy of ours, but he was NOT an Islamic Fundamentalist and he was NOT supporting fundamentalist terrorist groups - he was their ENEMY."

Okay, so here's your other syllogism: anyone who is not an Islamic fundamentalist can't possibly carry out terrorism or support it in any way. So... therefore, Timothy McVeigh does not exist. Nor did the IRA. Nor did the Israelis prior to when they decided to play nice with the world in about 1955 or so.

Do you by any chance have a firm belief that if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and is therefore a witch?

Quoting Free:
"We are in a war, our security is in danger, hence invading Iraq. Simple as that. Afghanistan, then
Iraq, then Iran, then maybe Syria, and on and on and on till there is nowhere to hide in the middle
east. Just a shit load of U.S. allies and democratic states."

My my. I can see why you (TWD) absolutely detest that vision of the world. It's horrible. Democratic Arab states? Egad, what's next, free market economics in China? ANATHEMA!

"a war of the United States against the world."

Well, except for Lybia, the Muslim countries I mentioned above, and obviously Europe wouldn't attack us, and China, and Russia, and any of the rest of Asia... so sure, to you, the entire world once again consists of Iran and Syria. Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky there?

"You say 'well, whatever we feel like.' I say no."

Straw man against the Bush administration there. Bush's criteriae was remarkably the same as Kerry's back in the day when he was in "voting for it" mode.

"As for me, a trained military man, WWI technology isn't all that frightening"

You apparently didn't fight in WWI. If I swing a broadsword at you, will you similarly not at least duck?

"The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not
necessarily refl ect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."

So. One author. Impressive.

"If the war was to liberate the Iraqi people then why wasn't that the case BEFORE we went to war? Because it wasn't and never was."

Not officially. It was a sidebar reason given by unofficial civilian hawks and bloggers as a sort of "pretextual assurance" in that, even if it proves he doesn't have the WMDs, we will at least be liberating Iraqis from rape, torture, and murder. That dimension of the support has been consistent, and those pretextual chips have fully been cashed, obviously. And who knows? Maybe the WMDs will turn up in Syria and the original premise of the intelligence reports you call "a lie" will have been vindicated. That could be one hum dinger of an October Surprise. But, I'll bet you feel lucky. ;)

"Say it with me: President Kerry. President KERRY. PRESIDENT KERRY. Yeah baby. :) :) :)"

To quote a line by the Viking named Bolivai in the movie, the 13th Warrior, when one of his guys was in a duel and it was looking like he was going to lose, and the Arab was saying 'he could DIE!', I retort: "It... is... possible."

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Jericho: "Does this mean that if Kerry does get support from these countries [France and Germany] that you'll support him?"

Support meaning sending the troops Kerry promises he can get them to send? Y'know, if he could make pigs fly by wiggling his pencil and fly around on a broom, I'd think that's a neat trick too. But no, France and Germany are on record for stating that not man one will be setting foot in Iraq wearing their uniforms. Perhaps a few mercenaries from those countries might start seeing the dollar signs, and sign up for the contractor tours, but that would be it.

"I'll wait until the first week of a Kerry presidency to hear you out on that."

I think you'll be waiting much longer than that if you adhere to a pie-in-the-sky notion that France and Germany will fight our war for us in Iraq, because of some magic spell Kerry will cast on them.

Kat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ahipdude said...

I thought all you guys were up on current events. You keep referencing "the war" and Iraq. Bush claimed victory ages ago. There is no war with Iraq. I am not sure what you call what is happening now, but surely it is not a war. It must be a skirmish, or something.

Why has no one reviewed Bush's performance at the great debate? After about a half hour, he looked like a deer in the headlights. He ran out of material and kept repeating himself. He was redundant. He kept saying the same things over and over.

Bushies are claiming he was tired because he was consoling people hit by the hurricane all day. I said it before, and I expected this to show in a debate: Bush is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with, and in the debate, the Emperor had no clothes. Maybe he will fare better during the economic debate. Somehow, I don't see it happening.

tescosuicide said...

Wow dude.... I'm sure those soldiers would love to read that they are killing and dying for a ‘skirmish’... that they can't call themselves veterans of a WAR - way to degrade. I agree with you a bit, Kerry looked great - I had no idea what he was talking about - but he looked good... I don't think he knew what he was talking about as he constantly contradicted himself. Well, they say it's all how you look right? Who cares what you actually say.

Tammi said...

AL: GREAT LETTER, Great POST. I cannot begin to express myself politically as well as you're other posters, I know what I know, I believe as I believe. Oh, I read and expand my thoughts but it doesn't change my core belief. I have NOT seen true leadership in Kerry. Not One Time has he said or done anything that even began to inspire me or cause me to want to follow him, belive in him. Bush may not be perfect, but he doesn't claim to be, and that I can respect. He made his decisions based on what he believed to be the best course of action, and I support him 100% on that. I'm not an Lemming by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just not good at writing out my points in this venue.

What's my point? Simple - I appreciate your open letter and thank you for putting it out there.

Jericho Brown said...

Tammi: Great post. "I know what I know, I believe what I believe." You just summed up pretty much the whole right wing. No matter the evidence they are presented with, it all goes back to blindly, stubbornly sticking to the original talking points.

You say "Bush may not be perfect, but he doesn't claim to be, and that I can respect. He made his decisions based on what he believed to be the best course of action, and I support him 100% on that." Uhh, actually, by never admitting that his administration has made mistakes or was wrong about ANYTHING, that kinda implies that they do think they're perfect. Duh.

tescosuicide said...

I'm really confused here..... If you actually saw the debate and read this post, I can't see how you still defend Kerry. I wish you people would just admit that he sucks and you just don't want Bush..... you know, take the same irresponsible position of the Anyone But Bush crowd. At least they know they got the wrong candidate.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Hey Hip Dude, do you know what a "MISSION" is? When a MISSION is accomplished, does that mean the war is over?

You want a master debater as a president, fine, but some of us want someone who can wage war, which you can't do when you're for it and against it at the same time. You also can't do it when you don't know what a "MISSION" is.

Jericho, I think we will see in future years just how much the lemming group-think infects the left far more than it does the right, and how weak that makes their cause. But I'm glad for your hubris.

Tammi said...

Jerico: I guess I should have been a little clearer, or maybe you just didn't see where I wrote. But that's ok - let me see if I can explain things in a more simplistic manner. - I HAVE YET TO HEAR OR SEE ANYTHING from Kerry that changes my mind. He doesn't cut it. Not at all.

His plan for Iraq? We're already training Iraqi's to take on their own security. And last I checked, there is an international coalition in place, and the burden - both in lives and in money is being shared. Are we taking the brunt of it? Yes, yes we are.

As for "stubbornly sticking to the original talking points".....if we were presented with something logical, clear and HONEST, then maybe there would be something to argue about here. But you see, that's the issue for me - Kerry isn't logical. Not in my mind. And I'm not a dumb girl - despite the tone that your remarks infer. I think very well for myself, and actually vote my heart/mind, not a certain party. BUT Kerry doesn't offer me anything to hold on to, anything to trust, anything to believe in. I don't trust him.

He's been in the spotlight for me, since the Winter Soldier episode. I REMEMBER what happened. I REMEMBER what he said. I DON'T LIKE HIM. He could tell me that he has a plan to rid us of unemployment and solve the issues of the day - and I still wouldn't vote for him. Because I wouldn't believe him. He's betrayed his country once, why in hell would I vote someone like that into the most powerful position in the world? I wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.

And before you say it, my voting for GWB is not one of those "anybody but Kerry" votes. I voted for him 2000. I voted for him because he is a business man, and at that time I wanted someone who thought along the same lines I do about business, and how the government should be run. Then came 9/11. And yes, I supported him to the hilt in what he did. I believe we should be in Iraq. I believed it when he made the decision, not because of what he said on TV or the radio, but because I have a brain of my very own, and felt that it was a good decision. You see a common thread here? I think. Yeah - imagine that! AND I read, I read newspapers, and essays, and even watch the news and C-Span. And that all helps me to form my opinions. Amazing how free thought works.

I'm not nearly the writers that AL and Kat are, but find they often express my thoughts and feelings. I just wanted to let her know I appreciated what she wrote. Not draft an essay. And I probably still stumbled through my words in this little comment - but wanted to make sure you knew, your message was heard - and I really don't give a rats a$$ what you think. Nothing new from that corner. Still haven't changed my mind.

Desultory Girl said...

Ala, excellent post. I just got schooled on crap pertaining to NK and China from Free, Cig Man, and even TWD, so I'm quite pleased. The info's so good to know, yet frightening because I just entertained the thought that Kerry could actually have to address that...scary.

redleg said...


I've been thinking about his all day since perusing this at 0430 this morning and I have come to the conclusion that tactically you are on the ball if completely ill reading the Afghan and Iraq battlefields but are either completely disregarding the operational picture in Iraq and Afghanistan and hoplessly naive about the larger strategic picture vis a vis US Foreign Policy. Your stance and your candiates on NK show that theory. If you truly believe that Kerry can do better, you're going to have to show me how. His little 4 point plan ain't cutting it for me nor for most of US public. A summit does not a plan make.

Iran's rebuff of his little fuel rod plan shows his other plan to be false. And his refusal to even conceptualize the 6 party talks is even more arrogant and wrong-headed, but at least he is consistent on that score. He said much the same thing in August 2003, and it was dumb then. Strategically he has no idea of what he is doing and history will once again proove him wrong. With luck the US won't have to pay for it because he'll be writing a book about his abortive campaign and how he failed the DNC.

What I find most objectionable is his continued decrying of the war effort, our soldiers, our allies and the very real benefits we have brought to both Iraq and Afghanistan. That undermines our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan that he occasionally says we cannot retreat from. How will we do this if he gets elected?
Bottom line is that we won't. We will run so far and so fast from Iraq the terrorists will wonder where to hit us next. Retreat and appeasement will work their usual course, of course. I would think that we should be embracing the cause of freeing Iraq rather than discouraging all hopes, but that seems to be what Kerry is doing. It ain't the first time, nor the second that he has countered US interests and forces in the field. Very little of what the SBVT has put out has been proved false while Kerry has backtracked many times. Nothing about their claims on the 1971 testimony and his meetings with NViet Communists has been disputed either. Remember that when you smear them please.

I am on orders to go to OEF and I damn sure hope it won't be under a Commander in Chief who changes his mind every time the polls waver. I know Bush is in it for the long haul and so do the terrorists/fundamentalists. If that means we are at war with a culture that hates our guts so be it. Let us fight them now while we can, not fight them in nuanced way later. I had 8 years of that under Clinton and I don't wish to repeat history. War is messy and everyone gets dirty. Smart guys lose too. Intelligence ain't perfect. The win usually goes to the side that makes the least mistakes. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu remarked on this as well.

Please bone up on your operational art and strategic theory. You would do us all a favor by doing this instead of defending Kerry's plans which will change the next time a stiff breeze comes up. Your democratic dogma is starting to come out and more than just a little. I continue to expect better from you.

Very tired now,

thanks to Ala for an enlightening post and plug, as always


redleg said...

And from Mancius:

"I dislike death...
But there are things I dislike more than death.
Therefore there are occasions when I will not avoid danger."

this we'll defend said...

Redleg, with respect, you and I (and the Army War College, which agrees with me) can just agree to disagree.

Here are some links which may show how I arrived at my "wrong" conclusions (if you want, perhaps, to "bone up" on your operational art and strategic theory":

As for North Korea - the situation is of course more complicated than presented by either candidate in the debate. I support Kerry for many reasons, but I am not sure that bilateral talks are the way to go. However, being WILLING to engage in them, and not letting blind allegiance to ideology, which is all I have seen from this administration, is definitely not a recipe for success.

Good luck and take care on your deployment.