we pulled out of Vietnam and the world didn't crumble.
flaming lib | 12.09.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Tell that to 2 million dead Cambodians. Their world crumbled.

When did liberals get so selfish?
Tracy | Homepage | 12.09.06 - 5:49 pm | #

Sadly, I think the term "killing fields" sails right over lib's head.
Kermit | 12.09.06 - 5:51 pm | #

Tell that to 2 million dead Cambodians. Their world crumbled.

Gee, let me think here...just who killed those 2 million Cambodians anyway?

Here's a hint: It wasn't the Vietnamese.

And which country invaded and liberated the Cambodian people from this tyranny?

Here's a hint: It wasn't the United States.

Maybe you should pick another example.
Smithers | Homepage | 12.09.06 - 8:49 pm | #

Great... you can do a little light blogging while your in-laws are there, but you can't drop over for a drink and conversation.

You suck! It was even warm enough to bike over, damnit.
Badda-Blogger | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 2:25 am | #

Oh Smithers, two million dead Cambodians were murdered by other Cambodians. Communist Cambodians. One million dead Vietnamese were murdered by communist Vietnamese.
When this moral retard "flaminng lib" says " we pulled out of Vietnam and the world didn't crumble." he/she/it means " we pulled out of Vietnam and the MY world didn't crumble." and that's the whole point.
With great power comes great responsibilitiy. Do you want to be responsible for one million dead Iraqis?
Kermit | 12.10.06 - 9:03 am | #

you can do a little light blogging while your in-laws are there, but you can't drop over for a drink and conversation.

Apologies!

Do you want to be responsible for one million dead Iraqis?

We are well on the way already. Does our presence in Iraq make this possibility more or less likely?

Maybe a million would have died in Cambodia and Vietnam anyway.

Maybe a million will die in Iraq regardless of what we do.

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for what may be inevitable?
Smithers | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 10:45 am | #

Again, why so selfish? Are Americans so shallow that we can't sacrifice anything for other people?

Also, Saddam killed more people every day than are currently dying in Iraq. As bac as ti may be, it's still better than it was.
Tracy | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 1:58 pm | #

"Saddam killed more people every day than are currently dying in Iraq."

I don't believe it.
Ed Salden | 12.10.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Ed,
"The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

You could have found that too, if you wanted.
Kermit | 12.10.06 - 4:29 pm | #

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.

So, what are you saying is that, things are getting no better faster.

Great.

Again, why so selfish? Are Americans so shallow that we can't sacrifice anything for other people?

Hey, as soon as I am confident in the security of my own country I will be more than happy to worry about the security of others.
Smithers | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 4:59 pm | #

We win the war on terror in many ways, not just one way. Your way provides only one way. Why should one go your way when it has clearly failed? You have nothing to offer but artifacts, remnants of a failed policy.
Anonymous | 12.10.06 - 5:13 pm | #

Docu-mental, indeed. I can find the quote, Kermit, but not the site.

Do you have a link?
Ed Salden | 12.10.06 - 7:34 pm | #

The security of our country does depend on the secuity of others. 9-11 proved that.
Tracy | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 8:18 pm | #

How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice for what may be inevitable?

I see your point but I would say ask your question to the men and women who are signing up for this war. It is a volunteer military we have, and many have decided the sacrifice is worth it.
Larry | 12.10.06 - 8:38 pm | #

Ed, it's just numbers. That's the game being played here. How many Americans are we willing to sacrifice, etc. etc. Reread the post.
You think we have a choice, and that's a vanity peculiar to the American mindset.
Undeniable truth: "The world is, has been and will always be governed by the agressive use of force."
The only real question is, do you want to govern or be governed?
Kermit | 12.10.06 - 10:18 pm | #

"this war has been going off and on for centuries". Thats the point. It is pure arrogance to think that invading Iraq is ultimately going to change anything there. Its a religous war, pure and simple.
KM | 12.11.06 - 7:45 am | #

So you've come to this ...

The Domino Theory 2006.

"The security of our country does depend on the secuity of others. 9-11 proved that."

What country is it that our security depends on Saudi Arabia - that's where the 9-11 attackers came from.

"The only real question is, do you want to govern or be governed?"

We're pretty safe with our own gov't Kermit. If you asked this question to an Iraqi, their answer would be the same as ours, only they are occupied by a foreign nation right now. Tracy calls us selfish for what, not saving Cambodians, but wants to occupy Iraqi homeland. That's selfish, hypocritical and making our country less secure. A triple loss!
Dennis | 12.11.06 - 10:19 am | #

KM, if you agree that we are at war with Islam, why not open up a battle front that isn't on US soil?

It's even more arrogant to assume that waiting for them to attack us again will keep us safe.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 11:34 am | #

I never said we were at war with Islam. My point was that whatever you want to call what is going on in Iraq, it is caused by religious differences. No amount of time or money we spend there will ever resolve it. The Brits learned that in Northern Ireland.

If the Republican Party had stuck to its core principles and not pandered to the religous right, I seriously doubt we would have invaded Iraq, even with 9/11. Instead of listening to God, GW ought to listen to the American people. They spoke loud and clear in November but his arrogance knows no bounds.
KM | 12.11.06 - 12:06 pm | #

KM, religion had little to do with W's decission. The Public supported toppling Saddam after 911.

Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists, we attempted to improve the lot of the Iraqi people. I think 80 - 90% are glad Saddam is gone and realy want peace, but there are 10% that don't want peace.

Iran and Syria have been funding the Iraqi terrorists and we should have done more to stop them.

I know that many hope that the Republicans go back to the isolationist views of Pat Buchanan, it's just so odd that the left is cheering this development. Good luck getting any support for ending the next Rawanda or Darfur. You might not like the Isolationism that you are cheering for.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Gee, I hope you weren't hurt when your knee slammed into your head.

I won a bet that posting certain comments here would get predictable responses. I lost -- he was right.

Cheers
KM | 12.11.06 - 12:27 pm | #

You tie our foreign policy to your own irrational fears of religion and then call me knee jerk?

Please stock up on aspirin for the smack you'll recieve from reality when Isolationism is shown to be a false hope on the next 911.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 12:39 pm | #

See, that's why I lost the bet. I say the words "religious right", you say "irrational fear of religion".

I say ". . .core principles", you immediately jump to Pat Buchanan.

Man, that must have hurt!
KM | 12.11.06 - 12:51 pm | #

Ok, what does the religious right have to do with our Iraq policy?
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 1:13 pm | #

Tracy wrote: Again, why so selfish? Are Americans so shallow that we can't sacrifice anything for other people?

and then wrote: if you agree that we are at war with Islam, why not open up a battle front that isn't on US soil?

Is it possible to depose a dictator and then try and promote a democracy in a country while at the same time using that country as a battle front?

Short answer: no.

It's no wonder things are such a mess in Iraq. We are attempting two incompatible tasks at the same time, neither of which are working.
Smithers | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 1:14 pm | #

Funny, it worked in Germany, Italy and Japan.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 1:18 pm | #

"Ok, what does the religious right have to do with our Iraq policy?"

Ideally, nothing. But when you have a President who admits he listens to god, and an administration that blatantly courts the religous right on most topics, GW's religoius beliefs played a huge role in his decision to invade Iraq.

There I go with that irrational fear of religion again. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!!
KM | 12.11.06 - 1:26 pm | #

So you suspect anyone that admits to consulting God on major decissions?

I'm afraid you have done more to prove my point than disprove it.

Also, as a side bar, just who should speak for the 70%+ of Americans that attend church regularly? Don't they deserve a voice in our government?

The left has made clear that they have no use for people opposed to abortion (There was no religious right prior to Roe v Wade), so just why shouldn't the right represent their interests?

The "religious right" is a much larger group than the homeless or homosexuals yet no one says that they should have no say in our society.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 1:50 pm | #

"The Public supported toppling Saddam after 911."

You have no proof of this and I say it's not true.

The public certainly did not sign up for a 3+ year occupation, costing $2 billion per week, and killing 3,000 Americans -- no way. The "public" may not have liked Saddam, but it was the decider who chose to declare this pre-emptive war. And, his public approval has sank because of it.
Dennis | 12.11.06 - 2:03 pm | #

Dammit -- there goes another $5. It only took 5 comments from you to play the gay and abortion cards. I was sure I was winning this one.

I think the 70% of church going folks do have a say in government -- its called voting. Other than that, government has no business being in the religion business.

And has for being suspicous of anyone consulting God in making major decisions? Not if the decision is about whether to buy a Chevy or a Cadillac. But GW has been getting some bum advice from the man upstairs, whomever he may be.

Cheers
KM | 12.11.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Why did so many Congress Critters vote for the invasion? They usually don't vote for unpopular things. I also remember high opinion polls leading up to and after the invasion.

Approval sank when the battle was over and the mop-up dragged on.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 2:28 pm | #

"Is it possible to depose a dictator and then try and promote a democracy in a country while at the same time using that country as a battle front?"

"Funny, it worked in Germany, Italy and Japan."

Conversely, we didn't do so after toppling a dictator in Iran (Thanks, Mr. Carter) and just look at the wonderful results. We rufused to topple a dictator while using South Korea as a battle front, and just look at the wonderful results. See a pattern emerging?
Kermit | 12.11.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Now, now, lets be fair. Old Man Bush did not topple Saddam -- and he was in the friggin neighborhood already.
KM | 12.11.06 - 2:56 pm | #

Funny, it worked in Germany, Italy and Japan.

Really? Seems to me that the war was over before we set up governments in those countries.

You may want to call the current situation in Iraq "mopping up" but the generals would probably disagree with you. Beating Saddam was the easy part, the fall of Saddam was the beginning of the battle.
Smithers | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 2:59 pm | #

No, we just crushed the resistance faster. Shall I pull up the New York Times article from 1948 that called the Marshall plan hopeless?
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 3:05 pm | #

What Iraq needs is something like the Marshall Plan, not occupation.
KM | 12.11.06 - 3:11 pm | #

Well, we need to have a stable government in place to implement a Marshall plan.

That has been the goal for quite a while now. The problem is that we have groups opposed to stability. We need to get their attention and get them to stop funding that insurgency.

This is the tricky part.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Germany and Italy already had longstanding democratic traditions by then.

We had 350000 pairs of boots on ground in Japan in 1945, the Japanese people were starving, and there was no civil war going on.

So I don't think it's usefull to compare Iraq and this mess to the Axis after WWII.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 3:38 pm | #

Besides, why do you want to pour further billions into Iraq, a la the Marshall Plan?

Iraq is an oil producing country.

They're rich.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 4:04 pm | #

Agreed that they aren't one to one comparisons, they were only thrown out as a way to show that bomb then rebuild has worked before.

I fear that we have made on of 3 mistakes.

1. We really didn't put in the troops we needed to really crush the opposition. Bush and Rumsfeld can take the blame for trying to run a war on the cheap.

2. We didn't get agressive with the terrorism sponsors outside Iraq. I know that the "Intl. community" would have been pissed, but when US soldiers are dying from Iranian weapons, I could care less what France thinks.

3. Iraq is too divided to be united peacefully. We agreed to keep Iraq intact as a sop to the realists and Iraq's neighbors. We should have immediately split off the Kurds and let them form their own country.

This would have left the Sunni's and Shiites with the middle and the south. These are the problem areas so we could have focused here.

All of the is 20/40 hindsight, so it's not an indictment of Bush & Co. People constantly review the Battle of Gettysburg and point out errors, without degrading the men who fought there. This should be taken the same way.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 4:07 pm | #

Iraq's oil production is down due to terrorism. We also made the political decission not to hand them a bill when we were done.

Many good solution emerge when Iraq gets a satbel government. If that doesn't happen, then almost nothing will work.
Tracy Eberly | Homepage | 12.11.06 - 4:09 pm | #

"Germany and Italy already had longstanding democratic traditions by then."

At the start of WWII Italy was a monarchy. The Weimar Republic lasted from 1919 to 1933. So in your world 14 years is "longstanding"?
Interesting.
Kermit | 12.11.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Kermit, I'm sick of you.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 7:22 pm | #

Germany and Italy both had elected legislatures starting about 1870.

Also, there had been a republic in Rome.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 8:10 pm | #

England is still a monarchy.

They have democratic traditions, too.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 8:12 pm | #

Longstanding ones.
Ed Salden | 12.11.06 - 8:13 pm | #

"Kermit, I'm sick of you."

Oh dear.

"Germany and Italy both had elected legislatures starting about 1870."

Germany had an absolute monarch. Does the name Kaiser Wilhelm Ring a bell? He was the cousin of the Czar and the King of England. Italy was a stooge of the Hapsburg Empire. Come on, Ed, before you get sick of me do a little studying.

"Also, there had been a republic in Rome."

Yes, Ed. It ended in about the year 12 AD, when Octavian became Augustus.

"England is still a monarchy.

They have democratic traditions, too."

How many individuals are elected to the House of Lords, Ed?

Pathetic.
Kermit | 12.12.06 - 6:31 pm | #

Is that all you've got?
Ed Salden | 12.12.06 - 7:09 pm | #

Pathetic.
Ed Salden | 12.12.06 - 7:10 pm | #

To be honest, the democratic tratitions in those countries were not terribly strong.

But they were longstanding.
Ed Salden | 12.12.06 - 7:55 pm | #

Sort of.
Ed Salden | 12.12.06 - 7:56 pm | #

No, Ed, I've got lots more than that, but honestly, you are "sick" of it, aren't you?
Little two-part secret: History isn't about names and date and battles.
I'll tell you the second half later.
Kermit | 12.12.06 - 10:21 pm | #