http://www.hackworth.com/

Regardless of the current situation, I have yet to see ANY justification for US presence in Iraq. So all this propaganda and misreporting on the war could all have been avoided, had a certain Mr. Bush kept focus on the affairs of his own country rather than passing judgment on others. That's just my opinion.

The "affairs of his own country" are unfortunately, dramatically, violently the affairs of the world. This is the lesson of September 11.

This letter is an excellent justification for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

I think things are going really well in Vietraq. It is definitely not a quagmire. Oh, sure, there are still a few isolated pockets of resistance. Sure, there will always be die-hard people who hate America. Sure, Rumsfeld couldn't speak in public to the troops when he was there because the brass told him he would be booed on television. But that's nothing like Vietnam, where civilian leaders couldn't speak in public to the troops when they were there because the brass told them they would be booed on television. It's just a coincidence the same thing is happening now in Vietraq. I knew a guy who knows a woman who says everything is great. Another guy set up a blog at the CIA and told everyone he was a backpacker. I'm sure he's telling the truth.

We can't turn back now. Victory in Vietraq is just around the corner.

Wishing it - though perverse - does not make it so, as this letter helps demonstrate.

A more accurate description of the occupation.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI19Ak02.html

Freedom isn't free, you clowns!

Oh, we're going to have freedom, too?

Mike,

I read your Asia Times. Even they temper their anti-American bile by conceding that they are reporting "unsubstantiated" rumors, including one that Saddam is active in the "bowels" of Baghdad (gee, dodging feces, he really has the upper hand).

Unable to find an Iraqi (even anonymous) to support its laughable contention that most Sunnis are on the verge of joining a guerilla resistance, the AT just asserts it. Impressive. Despite its agenda, the AT can report nothing more than "cool detachment" regarding Saddam (of course, "cool detachment" toward politics is no longer a capital offense).

You should read John Burns of the New York Times (a left-leaning paper) for an interesting story on Iraq.

But as for your cynical sniping about freedom, yes, we are going to have freedom, too.

Iraqis are now free from mass graves for children, free from torture chambers, free from chemical attacks by the government, free from political rape and child mutilation, and free to hope that the future is much brighter than it would have been under Saddam's genocidal regime.

Leftist, left-leaning, liberal, moderate, and conservative sources have all agreed on the savagery and sadism of Saddam, but people like you seem ready to dismiss it--now. Hatred for W. has blinded you, I suspect.

No, the Iraq situation is not perfect, but how can you sit there and carp like that? We WILL build a liberal democracy in Iraq, and that is indisputably better than a genocidal dictator.

Go read about the reconstruction of post-Nazi Germany. These things take longer than 5 months. Should we have stopped WW2 when we reached the German border? Should we have run away in 1945 or 1946?

People liberated from tyranny through policies of W. in response to 9/11/01 attack on U.S.--40+ million.

People liberated by sniveling advocates of "social justice" and "fighting oppression" who have opposed this actual overthrow of a dictatorship--0.

As for the joker who coined the term Vietraq, I know you must be patting yourself on the back for coining your very own term, but if you put Iraq on a Vietemplate (ooh, 2 can play at that game), it is now November of 1965, the NVA has been defeated, a few random VC units are running around, we control Saigon, Hanoi, and almost all of the country, much or most of our militayr will be home by 1967 or 1968, and we'll suffer fewer than 1,000 KIA.

Are you comfortably Vietnumb yet?

The New York Times is a left leaning paper? Man, you are smoking it. Only people who read the Weekly Standard and watch Fox News buy that line.

We'll build a liberal democracy in Vietraq (hit a nerve there, didn't I?) the day after we finish building it in Vietnam. As the French say (I'm translating here): We told you so, you suckers.

"The New York Times is a left leaning paper? Man, you are smoking it. Only people who read the Weekly Standard and watch Fox News buy that line."

Smoking the NY Times? Is that legal?

Typical. You lose on the merits so you resort to ad hominem attacks and a conspicuous avoidance of the thrust of my argument. By the way, I'm sorry that the term "leaning" is evidently above your ken.

"We'll build a liberal democracy in Vietraq (hit a nerve there, didn't I?)"

To the extent that I am sensitive to substantively and aesthetically moronic wordplay, I suppose.

"the day after we finish building it in Vietnam."

With all the hardships endured by the South Vietnamese, the greatest exodus occurred in the years AFTER we left.

"As the French say (I'm translating here): We told you so, you suckers."

France's insistence on keeping its colonies after WW2 triggered the series of events that ended with our 1973 and 1975 withdrawals from Vietnam.

As World War 2 demonstrated, French inability to accomplish a military objective was not predictive of American or Soviet (or even British) ability to accomplish the same objective. That is not to endorse our intervention in Vietnam.

If you won't or can't address the thrust of this AND my last post, perhaps continuation of this discussion would be mutually inadvisable.

As this debate has been raging for decades now (it seems) I thank you Chris for taking up the cudgel. At times my energy wanes.

Sometimes people would rather say "I told you so" than take a clear-eyed look at the facts. As you said, things are not perfect - who thought they would be? But they are moving along - as Iraqi blogger Salam Pax's interview on Fresh Air reaffirmed yet again for me.

There is much to be done, but it is being done, and the country, the region, the U.S. and the world will be much the better for it. That's kind of the point.

What I find amusing is the almost complete inability of prowars, the greatest gloaters on Earth, to admit they've made grievous errors of judgement. Before the war, they browbeat anyone who said Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They ridiculed anyone who said the war would be ruinously expensive to the U.S. economy. They screamed at anyone who said Iraqis would not greet us as liberators.

Now that they've been proven wrong on all three counts, they announce that we must not focus on the past but instead take "a clear eyed look at the facts." As if they've ever met any! Hilarious! You can't make this up!

Mike, you have completely changed the subject and in so doing have tried to win this debate by mischaracterizing a different set of issues. To that, I say: pshaw!

We were discussing the current situation in Iraq. Can you say, current?

You have quite erratically shifted to a discussion of an earlier situation. Can you say, earlier?

The pre-war topic is a perfectly good topic but not the one presently under consideration.

Have you done this intentionally because you have hopelessly lost the argument or have you done this inadvertently because you are unable to argue coherently?

You have continued to avoid the thrusts of my earlier posts.

Eric, precisely what does Iraq have to do with September 11th?

I'll take the liberty of stepping in for Eric on this fine September morn...

Christian,

First of all, you are also changing the subject. This thread was about the current situation in Iraq.

Anyway, Eric mentioned 9/11 as something that reminded the U.S. not to neglect its security obligations--he did not assert a direct link with Saddam or even that 9/11 was the justification. It was a mere part of the jusitifcation within the larger context.

Saddam's failure to abide by the 1991 ceasefire, in and of itself, was justification for the war.

9/11 emphasized the danger posed by Islamo-Fascism. Saddam has used WMDs on his own people, has a record of launching aggressive wars, and is an anti-American genocidal sadist.

He is sympathetic to Al-Qaeda types even if no direct link exists (this is a debatable point, 9/11 notwithstanding). He also failed to abide by the 91 truce thoroughly enough to support the inference that he has and/or was building more WMDs.

That leaves aside the humanitarian total good that comes from deposing Saddam. Aren't condescending critics of the U.S. supposed to favor humanitarianism?

Anyway, when you throw in an Islamofascist attack on the U.S. which shows that they are likely to use WMDs if they ever get them, American failure to act would have been criminally irresponsible. Would you prefer that we wait until they whack L.A.? Okay, you might not care about that, what about Koln or Berlin or Antwerp?

Churchill recognized something that we need to remember: when dealing with fascist scum like al-Qaeda or the WW2 Germans, the best policy is to hit them early and often. Best for us and them (as footage of Germany in 1945 could attest, fascism hurts its own people just as much in the end).

Only by confronting and killing the fascists can we win. Bringing light to a deeply corrupt terror state was a bonus.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust europe or anyone else with so important a job as fighting the islamofascist threat.

That about sums it up, thanks Chris! It is the same war even if there is no direct connection between Iraq and 9-11. Excellent point about action vs. inaction: you are active or you are passive, there is no in between, and we have seen what happens with inaction. We must take the fight to them.

I think this sums it up a lot better:

http://www.pjstar.com/news/opedcolumns/b0gtbbgr059.html

Perhaps you missed the part of the link that said "opedcolumns"?

Thank you for clearing that up Chris. I understand that you feel very passionate about it. I didn't intend to change subject but just wanted to make sure that 9/11 wasn't being used as an "excuse" for US presence in Iraq.
I can only agree that Saddam is good for nothing but sweeping floors with, but I have never agreed in fighting war with war - if that makes sense. I suppose I mean that there are other and equally effective methods of dealing with these situations. President Bush's methods for dealing with the situation brings a stupid scene from Crocodile Dundee to my mind..."That's not a knife, THIS is a knife". The biggest problem with this seems to be the next time that a such situation arises. The crook who previously thought a small blade was sufficient, learns from his mistakes and buys a gun. In the glorious light of hindsight, I'm sure many people, including me, have brilliant ideas about how this conflict could have been solved through political pressure, diplomatic channels...whatever, I just hope that something positive other that getting rid of Saddam, comes of this war.
On a side note, you don't have to trust Europe to fight with or for you. Most countries in Europe have expressed that they don't think that there is any islamofascist threat. After all, repeated US requests for European support have all been denied.
Indeed excellent point about action vs. inaction. Why then, is it that 10 years of civil war in Burundi, total collapse of Somali infrastructure, and serious civil war in Sierra Leone have all been overlooked, despite these being the result of leaders who have similar records to Saddam and the number of victims is in excess of 2 million!?! Places packed with mass graves for children (dug by children), torture chambers, political rape and child mutilation. The US are active, but it's my impression that it's selective action based on national interests as opposed to international interests. Many fires are burning across the world. I just think that flames which are higher and warmer than Iraq, are being ignored.

Mike, you STILL haven't addressed the thrusts of my earlier posts, because you can't.

Advertising your inability to defend your positions, you again rely on a link completely free of any comment or analysis.

I read your link--it proves nothing. In the event, I have read dozens of soldiers' accounts and they run at least 4-to-1 in favor of our involvement.

Given your glee at the slightest difficulty in Iraq, you would have really enjoyed WW2 and Korea, when we measured deaths in thousands not hundreds and the time in years not months.

Regardless, your continuing failure to focus on the discussion at hand and your resort to individual anecdotes to bolster your unrequited blunderlust reek of despair.

Christian,

I can see your points. I agree that the situations to which you allude, in Sierra Leone, etc. are abominations. Jesse Jackson's assistance to Foday Sankoh was an outrage.

One reason that we moved forward on Iraq is that its past record of using WMDs and attacking other countries, when added to its barbarity, affinity for the Islamo-Fascists, and our relationship to Iraq from the first war, made it a greater danger. I concede that the U.S. is acting first in its own interests, but believe that the rest of the west will benefit in the long term.

Let's hope that civic society spreads and the savagery stops.

Nothing against Croc Dundee, but I subscribe to the Sean Connery line "if he sends one fo yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

I think history shows that the best way to stop fascist-ideologues is to defeat them if at all possible. Let's say we had broken up the coalition and finished Saddam in 91 (I very reluctantly supported Bush I's decision, though now I wonder). Would the Iraqi people have been better off? More violence would have quickly led to more peace.

Anyway, I think we can respectfully differ, so I retroactively soften some of that rhetoric. Cheers.

"Anyway, I think we can respectfully differ". Certainly. I haven't discussed my views on this matter before, so a healthy airing of opinion with a mature conclusion has really made my day.

This is a discussion, never was an argument, so I find it difficult to understand Mike's hostility. Tell us what you think, Mike. Not what you have read.

Cheers.