Sooner or Later …
… you have to decide which side you’re on. This isn’t a Republican, Democrat thing. Not even an American, non-American thing, or a Christian-Jewish-Hindu-Buddhist-Muslim thing. Pretty much a Life-Death, Human-Inhuman thing.
Joe Lieberman, “One Choice in Iraq.”
But you can go this way, if you like. David Broder, “The Democrats’ Gonzales.”
Speaking of Reid, guess who’s more popular than him. And guess which House Speaker’s numbers are plummeting to positively Bushian levels. According to Democratic poll-governance rules, it’s starting to look like harakiri time!
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:58 pm on Thursday, April 26, 2007
27 Responses to “Sooner or Later …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I think everybody who posts comments here has made it pretty clear which side they’re on.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Actually, it’s a competence-incompetence thing.
If Bush and Cheney really thought their war was so important, they’d resign.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
And if it really was “pretty much a life-death, human-inhuman thing,” then they’d all be calling for at least what Petraeus says is the minimum needed to do the job - 120,000 more troops.
As it is, all we have is a fake job.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Bingo. Both the resident trolls declare their side.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
OldManTyme,
Way to deal with thei issue! Nice job. Sounds like you support the fake job.
April 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I read Lieberman’s speech and he made it plain that the Reid bill is not only incompetent, it is incomprehensible. But then again, Reid knows it is doomed so what difference does it make if it is gibberish?
April 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
corndog,
Neither you nor alphie get it do you? You and alphie come down on the other side. Alphie was laughed off the Protein Wisdom site for making his risible claims that he was the reasonable voice. We can save some time here by discarding the notion that you really are on the right side if only things were being done right. I’ve read enough of both your comments here to find any such claim equally risible.
We can also save some time here by discarding any notion you have about the force equation in Iraq not being sufficient. You’ll discount any expected contribution from the Iraqis themselves and insist that it’s only the US forces that should be considered. That shows a lamentable, but quite likely purposeful distortion of reality or conversely, just pure ignorance of what you’re talking about.
You can come up with all sorts of reasons why your position is the right one. But it still boils down to whether you come down on one side or the other on supporting defeat regardless of any personal consideration or politics. That’s Mr Crittenden’s point and that is the issue.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Well, OMT, my position has been the same and unwavering since 2002 - the invasion of Iraq was illegal, unnecessary and dangerous to our security. But if we were going to invade, we needed to do it with all the force and expense necessary to achieve peace for the victims we created.. Jules himself has heard me say that back then and since. I believe that, at this late point, though, a great deal more than the military force of 240,000 troops would be necessary.
If this is wrong, then you should tell me where it is wrong, rather than taking the more corwardly tack of putting arguments in my mouth and then walking away with a smirk..
April 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
OMT,
I got the boot from PW for pointing out Jeff made a straw man argument.
That seems to be all he can come up with lately.
As for a simplistic black-white way of looking at the world, that only appeals to simplistic people.
Turns out that’s about 30% of Americans.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
If this is wrong, then you should tell me where it is wrong, rather than taking the more corwardly tack of putting arguments in my mouth and then walking away with a smirk…..
Is that what I did?
Here’s your arguments:
The invasion was illegal - not by US law, and that’s the law that counts.
The invasion was unnecessary - not by the specific US policy outlined back in the fall of 2001 on the conduct of the war on terror. You may not agree, but that is the policy.
The invasion is dangerous to our security - quite the contrary if one has the wherewithal to grasp the fact that fighting a war in forward deployment is preferable to fighting it on your own soil.
However, I’m not going to go any further into why your full of it concerning the above three points. Your military force structure fantasies are not the theme of the post. Nor are is your regurgitating old tired and foolish talking points. (Get new talking points for Christ sake. There’s plenty of them out there.)
The post is about how politics or other considerations not congruent with the best interests of the country as a whole bring people down on the other side in this war. And I maintain that you have demonstrated that in comment after comment since I’ve been reading this site. How or why you to rationalize your choice in coming down on the other side isn’t the point.
Actually, I walked away shaking my head, just like I always do after reading anti-American drivel. And so do again, since the choices you and your cohort alphie have made and continue to make DOES leave you on the wrong side and you have only my despite because of it.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
The only model we have for what will happen from a preciptous pullout from Iraq is the Iran-Iraq war.
1+ million dead was the final tally. The Islamic Extremists were busy in Afghanistan at the time kicking the crap out of the Soviets…that conflict ended with 1+ million dead as well.
The Soviets lost 40+ thousand of their best troops in Afghanistan…surrender Iraq and let Osama consolidate his forces in Afghanistan…what a great plan….
Then the US will have its “second Vietnam”
April 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I got the boot from PW for pointing out Jeff made a straw man argument….
No, you didn’t. You were a laughing stock over there whose every comment was being ridiculed and eventually Jeff got tired of YOUR strawmen.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hehe, OMT.
Your side is losing the debate. The nonsensical way you debate is one of the reasons you are losing. You need to start making sense if you’re going to have a chance.
Take the idea that it’s better to fight the bad guys in Iraq than here.
Better for whom?
Certainly not for the citizens of Iraq.
I think they’d prefer it if we took our war elsewhere, don’t you?
April 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
OldManTyme
You can’t change the mind of a collaborator. Don’t even make the effort. Let them find out the hard way, when the head that hits the floor, is theirs.
But then, with these two and their ilk, no loss without the head, in fact that’s a gain.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Better for whom? For us, obviously, but then that doesn’t matter, does it?
Certainly not for the citizens of Iraq. This is the reality, not some wishful pie-in-the-sky, gee I wish it wasn’t this way. It’s their country, and their freedom at stake. They accept this and fight for it, or they let totalitarian lowlife fanatics take over and stomp their faces into the dirt. Some of us care whether that happens. Obviously you don’t.
I think they’d prefer it if we took our war elsewhere, don’t you? And this is the comment that proves which side you’re on. It will be fought here, if people like you get their way. Is this really what you want? Every single comment you’ve made here says so.
So my original comment stands. We’ve all made our positions clear. Some of us stand for freedom. Some of us don’t. And we know who you are.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Reb,
Given how porous our borders are, there’s nothing stopping the bad guys coming here if they want to.now , is there?
So the pro war crowd is trying to appease the bad guys by offering up our troops as sacrificial goats in the hopes that will satisfy them.
Not a very noble strategy.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“The nonsensical way you debate is one of the reasons you are losing”
Coming from you this statement is beyond parody. Your side really doesn’t have any reality based underpinning does it? Doesn’t really matter I suppose. As was pointed out above, you can’t change the mind of a collaborator. If those who see things clearly hold firm enough, you’ll get away with nothing more than being despised. If not, well, you chose your side and on your head be the consequences.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Nicely said, OldManTyme and Rebecca. I suspect corndog holds his position more to naivety and ignorance….but holds it he does. Firmly.
THE ALPHTARD, though, stands where THE ALPHTARD wants to stand, by choice. Equally firmly.
Long ago, I decided on this side. America’s side. It’s not “My country, right or wrong”, but “America ain’t perfect, but she’s 10,000% better than any other choice we have.” Here, we have a choice; that’s what makes America so great. But the price of that choice is the willingness to defend this great nation. That’s a price that I accept gladly.
corndog, THE ALPHTARD, and all their ideological brethern, though…..their choice means rolling over and playing dead. If they want to submit, that’s up to them. I will not.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Fellers,
The only side that is losing seems to me to be the credinility side of the MSM.
Having said that, we either fight this war to a succesful conclusion, or we might as well turn off the light of western civilization and go back to the age of Vikings, Franks and Moors. Except that with the likely acendance of Iran to nuclear armaments, we can kiss any sort of humanity goodbye. Welcome to Hell on Earth, better known as Sharia.
respects,
April 26th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Maybe I’m changing my mind, maybe the only way to win this war is to lose it. Let Alphie have his way. Let the terrorist b***ards start blowing up schools, malls, pizza parlors, hell, whole cities in this country. Let’s find out if we will rise to the occasion or disappear. Let’s find out if we still have a country. Let’s get the damn thing over with. Death by a thousand cuts is worse than a sword on the back of the neck. I never much cared for suspense.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
OMT,
We’re in a sad state then, aren’t we?
The racist, bloodthirsty crusading godbags vs. the dirty hippie terror-loving collaborators.
Such is democracy.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Alphie
If you aren’t being paid, you should be.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Luther, THE ALPHTARD does it FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!
Get with it, would ya? ;-P
April 27th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Luther, THE ALPHTARD does it FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!
The Alphtard does it because someone filled him with nonsense talking points.
By my count..(I was there) Carter killed upwards of 2 million people……but ya know…he was for “Peace in our time”
April 27th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Harry Reid through history
See the proud tradition of Harry Reid through the prism of American conflicts: Valley Forge, Tippecanoe, etc.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:31 am
I think alphie and corndog know that we pull out of Iraq, things there will get worse. They just do not care. They say we can take our war elsewhere, well the thing they are overlooking is that most of the people being targetted right now are not our troops, the victims by and large are Iraqi civilians and they will go right on being targets.
alphie does not care. corndog does not care.
April 27th, 2007 at 6:40 am
alphie and corndog used to be on the side of the Butcher of Baghdad. In fact to this day alphie says we should have a referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us there. He has no respect for the Maliki government or the elections that helped create it but somehow someway he thinks another election and a referendum will do the trick. My guess is if it turns out different than he wants, he will just blow it off the same way he did the other elections.
He had no problem however, with Saddam a man who got 100% of the vote terrorizing the population. Now that their hero and role model Saddam is gone and dead cornhole and alphie hitch their cart to AlQaida’s donkey. But what will happen if we do as alphie says we should and run away? According to Michael O’Hanlen of the liberal Brookings Institute the following will occur:
I] think [the consequences] would probably be…the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, there’d be a risk of regional war. I don’t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80’s and 90’s. I think that’s the most likely outcome. You know, I’m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.