I feel really angry about 9/11. Since the People's Republic of Nowherestan could possibly use WMDS if they can, I think we should bomb them to lash out. It also helps that they have a lousy army and no air force. We'll show them! What a coincidence that they also have oil! We'll just help ourselves while we're liberating these people. For truly we are a great and good people and our cause is just.

That wasn't my point, butthole. But I am so glad you made yours.

If that wasn't your point, donkey's crevice, then what was this?:

"After the shock, many people wanted revenge. I didn't just want it, I demanded it......And even that really wasn't enough, not for me anyway. I didn't feel justice was served.....

"It was time to strike...."

You prowars need to try harder. You're just drowning in your own incoherence and hypocricy.

dawn, this nincompoop is headed for your blog, partly to boost your numbers so you can be cool and partly because where else would a 'poop go but to what you described as a toilet.

i appreciate your sentiments. my take is that too much expression of grief in the leadership will embolden the enemy--they are using a somalia strategy--and cost more u.s. and iraqi lives in the long run. does that suck? yes, but theres no other way.

in vietnam, we should never forget that those guys fought incredibly bravely and were fighting a brutal stalinist regime (no matter what we think of our involvement, the biggest exodus of south vietnamese occurred after the north took over).

Dawn,

My personal belief is that the tragic deaths of those soldiers that have given their lives will be in vain if the U.S. administration gives up, pulls out too soon, and Iraq falls into chaos, another horrific dictatorship, or Islamic theocracy. I think you'd agree that the soldiers gave up their lives so that Iraq could become a sucessful democracy. I hope and believe that a democratic and successful Iraq will lead directly and indirectly to some positive outcomes: freedom and prosperity in Iraq, the downfall of other repressive regimes in the ME, (hopefully) a breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (hopefully because the Palestinians replace their current, uh, ineffective leadership), and last but certainly not least, a U.S. safer from threats of Islamist terrorism.

I'm certainly not saying anything new here. I'm sure you've heard this all before.

I heard just this morning on the radio that another soldier from near where I live has died. Washington state has several military bases: Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, the ports in Everett and Bremerton, and so on. Our community suffers when soldiers die or are wounded. We hear about it on our local news: the grief of families, the financial hardship. It hurts.

I remember well the Vietnam War. I was a freshman in high school when it ended and the draft was rescinded. I used to have discussions with my friends about what we'd do if the war continued, and we were going to be drafted. I had decided I was going to join the Coast Guard. I remember the nightly news casts. Every night there was a count of U.S. and Vietnamese soldiers killed and wounded. The numbers were far higher than what we see now from Iraq, and so we lost our will to fight. Rightly or wrongly, we decided that we just didn't care enough about South Vietnam to continue. People dishonored soldiers back then - called them "baby killers" and the like. There weren't any parades for soldiers coming home. It was a sad and disgraceful episode in American history, in my opinion.

Let's not repeat that episode by losing our will in the face of adversity, giving up, and pulling our troops out of Iraq before the job there is finished. That's exactly what our enemies want. If that happens, the people of Iraq will never forgive us. The country will likely be worse off than ever, and we in the U.S. will be in more danger from terrorists and rogue dictators than ever. Only if we give up will Iraq be another Vietnam.

Pete, that makes a lot of sense. It's just so hard to hear the rattling off of deaths on the news like it's the stock exchange numbers.

I feel we are doing the right thing, but I feel so horrible about the families left behind and those who have been killed just so I can have my Starbucks coffee each day. I just feel so helpless as a citizen, and I don't want to take their efforts, sacrifices and deaths for granted.

To me, expressing grief is the most automatic response I have.

"Only if we give up will Iraq be another Vietnam."

No, it can also be another Vietnam if we continue doing a half-ass job.

Mike,

As for you sphincter-breath, I would rather hear Brian Flemming talk his mushbrained nonsense, than listen to you regurgitate the same boring, pointless, pot-fueled crap that you manage to barf up in the comments section ANY DAMN DAY.

Thank you very much.

Dawn, your grief is a completely appropriate response. The death of any soldier or civilian is tragic, for all of us, but most especially for the loved ones of those that are lost. Those of us that remain react in lots of different ways. People like Natalie Davis repudiate any form of violence, for any reason, at all times. It's a completely understandable position - not one I agree with, but nevertheless, understandable.

My personal belief is that tragedy and grief don't lessen our duty and obligation to the Iraqis, to the rest of the civilized world, and to ourselves to make sure that the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq is successful.

On the other hand, speaking as an engineer, I think it is always appropriate to be asking if there are ways that we can improve. Are we doing enough for our soldiers' safety? Are we engaging the Iraqi people properly and effectively? Are we doing enough to identify and remove those that are attacking coalition soldiers and civilian aid workers? And so on. If that is what results from the tragedies, and we take appropriate measures to correct problems that are identified, we will be successful.

Ok, JR, you said "it can also be another Vietnam if we continue doing a half-ass job."

Would you care to elucidate?

What would constitute doing a "full-ass" job?

"the same boring, pointless, pot-fueled crap that you manage to barf up in the comments section."

burp.

Exactly!

there was some good news today. I feel the creeping despair, but we cannot give in to it. We cannot leave too soon. And we need more people there, not fewer. We need to patrol the borders better, we need to more efficiently find these fucks and kill them. And we need to do whatever we need to do including vaporing the entire town, to get Saddam. I want to see a red puddle where that inhuman scum once stood.

"And we need to do whatever we need to do including vaporing the entire town...."

That's disgusting

I might add that's it also a call for genocide. So you're position is now so morally compromised as to be untenable. At the least.

"WHAT ARE WE DOING? I want to know that my choice to support my government's actions were not in vain."

Therein lies the problem. The reason behind the our government's actions kept changing before and during the war. I think the line now is that we have to free the Iraqi people, but who knows if that's true.

Vietnam was always about stopping the spread of communism and this reason, wrong or right, was made constant throughout. It was so much easier to pick sides of pro-war or anti-war when there was a clear cut reason given for going to war.

Sometimes I see the news and I just can't believe we even got into this mess. How did 9/11 terrorism committed by Saudis turn into a war against Iraq?

"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord.

Dawn, this is the absolutely WRONG thought: After the shock, many people wanted revenge. I didn't just want it, I demanded it.

This is an understandable human emotion, but not appropriate to indulge. Simply striking out in anger is NOT what we're doing, but EXACTLY how the peace pukes would like to portray our effort.

The point in Iraq and even Afghanistan is not vengeance, but PREVENTION. It's not about us feeling some malicious catharsis, but a coolly calculated plan to prevent future attacks on us. Some might argue against the likely effectiveness of this approach, but that is the strategy.

In short, killing people because you're feeling angry and bloodthirsty would be really, really bad. It may be necessary to got out and kill people sometimes, but it should only ever be done on the basis of careful, calm, rational thought.

That's one reason why it was good that Dubya waited some weeks after 9/11 before striking Afghanistan. It was a measure of impulse control, and it was a sign of strength.

That's also why it is good that the president does not go gushing like a broken hearted mother over every dead soldier. He undoubtedly feels grief over the deaths of the soldiers he commands, but he cannot afford to indulge what would undoubtedly be domestically politically useful displays of public grief. The president should be given good credit for this self-control.

Interesting, Al, my interpretation of of Dubya's hesitation after 11-Sep. was that he's an indecisive moron. Not saying you're wrong, it just goes to show how subjective these interpretations can be. I agree that it's not the president's job to go around emoting over every death, but I share Dawn's view that Bush just isn't all that engaged.

Pete: What Eric said. (Although I think a better demonstration of American values would be to capture Saddam, give him a fair trial, and show the Arab world how "justice" really works.)

It's pretty clear that the invasion was severely undermanned. (Perhaps that was part of a wider strategy, but since I don't see anything being done about North Korea, I'm going to dismiss that excuse.) Of course, there's a danger in sending more troops now in that some Iraqis are already complaining about the occupation. Nonetheless, more peacekeepers are needed; and the sooner we can stabilize the country, the sooner we can leave.

An additional problem is the lack of available troops. As I understand it, we have only one division in reserve right now. Which means we ought to be doing more to recruit. New recruits won't be ready for active duty for several months, but who believes we'll be out of there by next year? And maybe the military ought to lure back those Arabic speaking translators they discharged a couple years ago for being gay - sorry, but a full-ass commitment to a stable Iraq may mean a compromise on conservative social agendas.

Even more important is to get other countries to commit more troops. That means Bush should be flying around the world kissing as much ass as he has to to win back the allies he alienated since 11-Sep-01. If that involves signing a few treaties (international court, global warming, land mines, etc.) then so be it. How committed is he to remaking the Middle East after all?

If the administration really wants this, they ought to be genuinely engaging the press, not copping out and trying to "go over their heads" to the odd small town reporter. If the national press has tough questions, then maybe the administration needs to work that much harder at compelling answers. I haven't heard much more than sound-bites out of the administration, and bites of sound-bites from the president himself. How many interviews and press conferences has Bush given? He really doesn't act like someone who wants to win people to his position. Indeed, he doesn't act like someone who even has a well-reasoned position.

While he's at it, Bush might also want to call up his friend Ken Lay and say, "You're lucky your ass isn't in jail, maybe now's the time for you and your greedy buddies to make a contribution to the war effort." I just get the impression that Bush is more concerned about costing his big business contributors a single penny than about bringing democracy to any part of the world.

One of the measures of an effective leader is the ability to stay focused on the goal and not be swayed by distractions. This is the most important characteristic of a commander inchief in time of war, which we are certainly now in.

Mike, you are correct to call me on my violent hyperbole - wiping out an entire city to get one man is neither moral nor even effective in the long run given the political fallout. I DO want to see much more effectively targeted destruction however: destroying, say, a quadrant of Saddam's infested spawning ground having evacuated civilians might be effective.

A more important measure of an effective leader is the ability to get OTHERS to stay focused on a goal and not be swayed by distractions. The "leader" of a divided nation is no leader at all.

The "leader" of a divided nation is no leader at all.

So then as long as some people insist on opposition and obstruction of our defense, the president is a failed leader, even if he gets his policies carried out and they are successful in preventing attacks on our cities.

Al,

What JR meant to say was that as long as the "leader" has an R by his name then he couldn't possibly be a leader...

"Even more important is to get other countries to commit more troops. That means Bush should be flying around the world kissing as much ass as he has to to win back the allies he alienated since 11-Sep-01. If that involves signing a few treaties (international court, global warming, land mines, etc.) then so be it."

How does signing in ridiculous treaties help our country do anything? How can you possibly have an effective international court when the nations involved can't agree on what is "right and wrong"? (Psst, you can't!) The "global warming" issue isn't even agreed upon in the Science arena, not everyone agrees that it even exists.

"If the administration really wants this, they ought to be genuinely engaging the press, not copping out and trying to "go over their heads" to the odd small town reporter. If the national press has tough questions, then maybe the administration needs to work that much harder at compelling answers."

If the national press would quit "spinning the answers" maybe there would more confidence in their abilities. Any moron can see the partisan questions and the spin to all answers. The "mainstream" press (mainstream because they are the major media outlets) is constantly "parroting the party line" and pretending that Bush said it was going to be easy, that there would never be any loss of life, that it would be over by now.... the sound bites that you hear are just proof that the "mainstream" press aren't always telling you the truth.

"He really doesn't act like someone who wants to win people to his position. Indeed, he doesn't act like someone who even has a well-reasoned position."

More subjective partisan BS.

"I just get the impression that Bush is more concerned about costing his big business contributors a single penny than about bringing democracy to any part of the world."

Proof of partisanship.

No, I think Al's description of Lyndon Johnson illustrates my point perfectly.

JR,

Where does Al make any reference to Johnson? Is it on another post?

I knew Vietnam. Vietnam was a friend of mine. And let me tell you, this is no Vietnam.

This description:

"So then as long as some people insist on opposition and obstruction of our defense (Vietnam War protesters), the president (Johnson) is a failed leader, even if he gets his policies carried out (escalation of the Vietnam War, 'Great Society') and they are successful in preventing attacks on our cities."

Funny, I never saw an (R) next to Johnson's name.

there is ALWAYS some degree of opposition to ANY policy in a democracy, so I would say maintaining a functioning majority and a not-apoplectic minority would be a definition of success.

We have killed and tortured nearly as many Iraqi's as Saddam and his sons ever did , while trying to squeeze a few barrels of oil out of an uncontrollable nation, oil thats costing taxpayers billions but as you know its just for the rich corporate GOP funders, its just our money moving from one stupid place to another, while we work for it or kill for it, whatever. There are many Saddams out there there always will be we just pick the one who 's resources we need the most. The problem here is that many things went wrong americans only want to get in the car and go they really don't give a fuck about Saddam, Bush or the rest of the motherfuckers. That's why we got into the God Damn thing to begin with.