Withdrawal means defeat for U.S., Iraqis

Jon Rhodes, Lakewood

Published February 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

February 7, 2008

1 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jimminy writes:

It's been said "If we don't fight them there,we'll fight them here"....Suppose there's a withdrawal like the Left wants,and a few more incidents over there-or here.Won't be good for Muslims in the USA.If we're going to bug out(anybody remember THAT phrase?),it might make sense to refurbish those WW2 internment camps.Just in case.
February 7, 2008

1:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

The America Haters are investing in making sure that a Republican President is embarassed and defeated, regardless of the cost to America itself. Their politics far outweigh the damage to our future. They only want to win the wars they start (Bosnia, etc), instead of the wars that further our interests (oil at a reasonable price). Get your heads out of the sand. When China controls all the oil, who do you think we will be slaves to?
February 7, 2008

4:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

mrfxx writes:

I will believe that the warmongers truly believe that the US should should "stay the course" (McCain has been quoted as saying "even if it takes 100 years" - and that the US may well be involved in other wars) when
1) they insist the US reinstate the draft, this time including daughters as well as sons, so that the military is not sending injured soldiers back to the front who are not "combat ready" (and who often are sent stateside within a month or 2 because they are unable to physically perform) - and limit what constitutes a valid exemption (NOT college or simply being a parent).
2) they insist on paying for the war NOW - which would entail both rolling back the tax cuts & increasing taxes to cover the cost instead of borrowing money (predominately from China) to pay mercenaries, who typically earn at least TRIPLE what a member of the military makes. If I recall correctly, the cost of the war in Iraq alone is almost equal to the rest of the budget - which doesn't seem to cover things like border security & financing ICE to the point that the flood of illegal immigrants can be stopped - and busting "illegal employers" is commonplace - not to mention covering US infrastructure which is crumbling.
3) they insist that members of the military are paid enough that their families do not end up on public assistance such as food stamps.
4) they insist that ALL VA hospitals be able to handle the load of both the current members of the military as well as military retirees.
5) they help oust any member of Congress who whines about "military entitlements" such as retirement pay - and fight for the military members who have been permanently injured to get to keep enlistment/reenlistment bonuses which are currently being "reclaimed" by the military when an injury forces the military member to "retire". Or perhaps these people believe that it is a soldier's duty to die for this country rather than live for it.

As far as Clyde's insistence that the US should be involved in "wars that further our interests (oil at a reasonable price)" - perhaps he is unaware that those resource DO NOT BELONG TO THE US, but to the coutry where they are - and those countries have learned quite well from US business that "greed is good". Is he suggesting that the US should be able to steal whatever it needs from other countries whenever it chooses? Precisely how does that differ from a thief stealing from him? Does this also mean he would defend another country attacking the US for its resources?
February 7, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

For the right claiming to be so religious, they sure don't understand religion very well. It is always easier and cheaper to convert people to your way of thinking than to control them and fight them. After all, Mexico has not belonged to Spain for a very long time, but it will always "belong" to the Catholic church. Defending from home soil and reaching out to educate those that haven't been perverted to the terrorist ideology would have "won" this war much faster and cheaper than sending over troops. If anything, all we have accomplished is to ensure that generation after generation in the middle east won't forget the imperialistic and condescending attitude the US has towards their people. What if Georgie Porgy decided that Colorado was too much of a risk to becoming a democrat state, and ecoterrorists were associated with the democratic party, so to prevent ecoterrorism, he instated a police state in Colorado. Of course we don't all believe that way, but treating us all that way would definitely make us more likely to lash out. Treating all badly out of the fear of the few is a sign of disrespect. And thinking that the middle east is crawling with suicide bombers ready to board a plane for the US is just plain stupid.
February 7, 2008

7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Haven't we already won the war? Saddam is gone and we defeated his army. Now it is nation building time and maybe the rest of the world should step up and share the expense.
February 7, 2008

7:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

Spencer we can't be nation building Bush said 8 years ago that he would not do that and everyone knows he don't lie.
February 7, 2008

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

clyde,

I'm sorry buddy, but no power on this planet can keep this particular president from embarrassing HIMSELF. Remember : Saddaam has links to the 9/11 terrorists? Remember weapons of mass destruction? Remember "mission accomplished"? Remember " you're either with us or against us"? His words, not mine!

Then there is the SMALL matter of his links to everything oil. Bush is so drenched in the profits of oil and taking care of his friends in the extraction industries that he can't deny his contributions to the problems associated with the oil economy. Has it ever occurred to you that the higher the price of oil, the more money these people make? EXXON-MOBIL made record profits last year with the record prices we were paying at the pump. Our president saw to it that they won't have to pay any windfall profit taxes.It must be nice to have friends in high places! You and I don't have such buddies. The difference is that I realize it and you apparently don't.

clyde, you should know that as a life-long independent, I have voted for independent candidates and candidates in both major parties. I am so angry with the Republican party for developing Bush as a candidate and masterminding his rise to power at the expense of all but a small percentage of our population, that I probably won't vote Republican again in my lifetime!

One last thing clyde, just because people don't agree with you doesn't make a person an "America hater".As I have said in previous forums: there are patriots on both sides of the political divide, and both sides of this political issue. So please can the over the top rhetoric. The only way we will solve any of our many problems is to state our views passionately but without insult. Nothing shuts off communication faster than a few slurs tossed both directions.
February 7, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

It is becoming increasinlgy obvious that the tide has turned and we are winning in Iraq. Concurrently those you who advised withdrawal are becomng increasingly desperate. Bush will be gone in a year and we will have a new President. At some point you will have to put your Country interests ahead of your own personal and partisan investment. The War on terror is not won and we need to unified as a people to fight it.

If you want to get out of the hole - the first thing you have to do is stop digging.
February 7, 2008

8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

We're winning the war in Iraq? Exactly what is the stated goal associated with winning? If it's getting Osama Bin Laden, shouldn't we be in Afghanistan? If it's getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I believe this was done several years ago. If it's getting Iraq to believe in and implement a system featuring a "democratic" process, then I don't see it ever happening.

Please tell me why we're spending a few hundred billion dollars every year on nation-building? Shouldn't we be rebuilding our own nation's infrastructure, instead of continually funneling huge amounts of money into an area that clearly doesn't want us there?

How long do you propose we stay in Iraq? One more year? Five? Ten? A hundred years? How much money do you propose we continue to spend? At what point do we simply need to get the heck out of there, stop the fiscal bloodletting, and acknowledge that we don't need to be involved in a civil conflict such as what Iraq is now dealing with?

I propose we get out of there, use half the funds to apply directly towards reducing our deficit/overall debt, and use the other half of the funds to rebuild our national infrastructure.

Think about it, we can reduce the deficit, hopefully start to reduce our debt, and rebuild crumbling infrastructure, all without raising taxes a cent!
February 7, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

jconder45 writes:

The war supporters never define "victory"; they just use the word for its emotional content. The truth is, further progress in Iraq will have to be mainly political, not military.
February 7, 2008

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romulus writes:

There's such a thing as cutting your losses. Even Ronald Reagan understood that when he withdrew our forces from Lebanon after the marine barracks were bombed. Was that such a terrible "defeat" for the U.S.? It certainly was "cut and run." Yet Reagan remains an icon for conservatives.
February 7, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ed writes:

Iraq is not a war. It's an occupation. It became an occupation when Bush declared that "all combat operations have ended." Are you calling Bush a liar? You can't win an occupation. It's not about the GWOT, or freedom, or democracy, or liberating Iraq. It's about oil Even the Republicans have admitted that. Withdrawal is not surrender. Withdrawal is stopping the hemorrage of US treasure and lives. Withdrawal is stopping the anchor that is dragging our economy into the abyss. Withdrawal is allowing the Iraqis to take charge of their own lives and their own country. Withdrawal is necessary to finding a diplomatic solution. Withdrawal is making room for Iraq's neighbors to begin to help out, which they will not do as long as we are there. Withdrawal is the first step to regaining respect in the eyes of the international community. And withdrawal is also the first step toward stopping global terrorism.
All you war mongers just want to see other people's kids get killed so you can have cheap oil You don't love America and you don't respect our military, otherwise you wouldn't waste it so frivously.
February 7, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

ltbusby writes:

1. The war in Iraq was over within weeks of starting. We are now in the phase of occupation. During occupation one can either continue to occupy it, subjecting the people their to your rule (like China in Mongolia) or slowly convert it to an independent state (Like US did with Japan).

2. How long will we need to stay in Iraq? Well, how long did it take for the US military to leave Germany? Trick question, we are still there. We will probably have a presence in Iraq for decades.

3. Of course the war is about oil. Oil is what runs the world economy. Before any lefties get into a snit, come up with as readily available, efficient, and inexpensive replacement for it we will readily adopt and change. Until then, oil is what puts food on your table, builds and heats your home, and clothes on your back.

4. Exxon makes a lot of money because they are big company. Really, really big. There profit margins, however, are razor thin much less in many cases than Walmart. They make up for it in volume. They provide a product that people need and want. Why should they be punished for making a profit? If you don't want to give them money don't buy anything thing made from or transported using petroleum products. Or, you can join in the fun and buy Exxon stock on the OPEN market and share in their profit. Refinery margin on a $3 gallon of gas ranges from 25-30 cents (about 8-10%). State and federal taxes are about 60 cents (20%).

5. Iraq was one front on the broader war on terror. Bin Laden has essentially been castrated. This war is not over though, but we are in a better position.

6. It has been known since the Spartan and Roman legion times that a professional army, although more expensive, is much more effective. All a draft does is provide cannon fodder. These guys are professionally trained and many make a career (20+ years) doing what they do. This isn't a flash in the pan for them to gain glory, but what they signed up to do. No different then someone who signs up to be a police officer or fireman. If we run short on those, do we just pull young people off the street and put them in a uniform to fight a fire? No, because that would be a great way to get them killed. John Elway does not "own" his son and cannot force him to do anything. If Jack wanted to join the military instead of going to college, I suspect John would have supported him in that decision as well.
February 7, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

ltbusby,

I disagree on 3.

We obviously need to do what it takes to keep the oil flowing but, if we had not been attacked on 9/11, I think SH would still be running Iraq and providing balance against Iran. We seemed to view him as someone we could do business with even though if we had to slap him around once in a while when he got ambitious.

I think he thought that too and that, after 9/11, was his downfall.
February 7, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Right on Romulus,
Herr reagan was the original " Cut and Runner"
And we foolish Americans are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industries who are raking in record profits. As a taxpayer, I say they should PAY US BACK! For the weapons, supplies and manpower expended to help the Bush / Cheyne cartel steal Iraqi oil...And now that same gang has it's sights set on Iran, and using the same lies to CONvince Americans they're protecting us.
Unfortunately even they can't begin to pay back the dead troops or their families for dying for Exxon/Mobile's profit margin.
That's the biggest tragedy of all....they died for a series of fear-fueled lies.
Bush/Cheyney should be ashamed, but it's obvious the have no shame. Or family members in harms way....say what you will, but they're not stupid. Just greedy and heartless.
February 7, 2008

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Itbusy: "Of course the war is about oil. Oil is what runs the world economy. Before any lefties get into a snit, come up with as readily available, efficient, and inexpensive replacement for it we will readily adopt and change. Until then, oil is what puts food on your table, builds and heats your home, and clothes on your back."

That's a very nice dispassionate analysis. Now try telling that to a six year old Iraqi child who just had her arms and legs blown off. If you ever want to replace your cynical disconnection with an actual soul, I suggest keeping in mind the human tragedies this stupid war is interminably racking up.

And perhaps an alternative to oil would be WIDELY USED (they're already available) by now if this country hadn't been legislated by oil company whores for the last eight years.
February 7, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Yankee,
You say Saddam may be dead, but OSAMA IS STILL ALIVE AND FREE...much more than can be said for the brave yet naive troops who died for the lying Bush league.
February 7, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

I see one of our wingnut contributors bring up troops in Germany. How is it that none of the wingnuts can seem to remember that Germany was a defeated treaty ally of a nation that actually attacked us, and declared war on us as part of that treaty and that the presence of our troops there after the war was as part of an obligation that we created for our own defense NATO, just as our presence in the Balkans was as part of our obligation to that organization we created.
I personally do not believe that the war on Iraq was particularly about oil. Oil as a commodity is dirty , relatively difficult to produce, store, and transport. Rather the war on Iraq was about the thick scum of cash that floats atop all times of upset and conflict and particularly atop somebody else oil reserves.Look at who has made the money out of this crime. It's the Military-industrial complex the last decent Republican president(Eisenhower) warned of. From the suppliers of arms to the suppliers of mercenaries it's been the merchants of death who've profited and I do not see this country as safer from because of our actions there.Perhaps when we end our occupation of Iraq we can dedicate some of the billions flowing down that rat hole to aggressively developing the intelligence capabilities necessary to actually protect this nation from those who'd employ the tactic of terrorism.
February 7, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

popo,

I'm pretty sure Saddam did not survive the hanging. You know that OBL is alive? That's interesting. How do you know that exactly.
February 7, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

mytwosense

War is not the travesty of the worse type. There are worse things. That's the only justification for going to war.

I am quite certain that you know that it is not our forces wreaking death and destruction on the innocents. I'm sure you know that our forces do everything possible, to the point of risking their own lives, to protect the innocent. I am also sure that you know that our enemy, Islamfascist terrorists, do everything possible to savage the innocents to the fullest extent within their means.

I am sure you must know all that. What I don't understand is why you won't acknowledge that truth? Is it possible that you think that if we leave Iraq, peace will reign and the innocents will be safer?
February 7, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Gosh, for awhile there we had some good exchanges going using facts and reason (Itbusby, hakj, Yankee). But low and behold, then came the usual insults, name calling and false, stale talking points from popo, davidx and mts.

Can't you people discuss anything with civility?
February 7, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I suspect the insurgents are just waiting us out. Or maybe they have killed enough of their tribal enemies, for now.
February 7, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

"Some of these folks have "progressed" from demands for immediate withdrawal to strategic withdrawal, but the end result is the same: defeat for the United States."

Well, Jon, since the vast majority of "insurgents" (or whatever the description of the week is for Bush & co) are Iraqis I guess they can probably wait us out, well, FOREVER.

So is your plan for the US military to be in Iraq in perpetuity? I hope you & Clyde & your other brainwashed buddies volunteer for the war effort since you want our troops to be there permanently.

And clyde: "The America Haters are investing in making sure that a Republican President is embarassed and defeated." FYI - this guy is too stupid to be embarrassed - and HE's the one whose been embarrassing our country around the world for the past 7 years.

And then Yankee trots out the old Cheney mantra: "It is becoming increasingly obvious that the tide has turned and we are winning in Iraq... The War on terror is not won and we need to unified as a people to fight it."

Tell me again Yankee - what does Iraq have to do with the "War on Terror?" And why is Osama still strolling around western Pakistan making propaganda films for Al Jazeera? Isn't he the one who attacked us 7 years ago? SEVEN YEARS AGO! Funny - seven years of ineptitude - just about coincides with the Bush presidency.
February 7, 2008

12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sean writes:

Clyde oh Clyde, the Republicans are doing a fantastic job of embarrassing and defeating the Republican Party all by themselves. All that the Democrats are doing is just sitting back and watching the train wreck that is the G.O.P.
Remember when it was said that the war in Iraq would pay for itself and last no longer than six months, oh and WMDs were all over the place? See, that is why people are so disillusioned, because none of the justifications of this war turned out to be true. Now American forces are serving as a buffer between anti-American Sunnis and anti-American Shias. I say get American forces out and let those two anti-American groups kill each other unimpeded.
February 7, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
According to this article, about nine out of ten suicide attacks are from foreign fighters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
Doesn't really say anything about how that number compares to the total number of enemy, but interesting nonetheless.
February 7, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

mytwosense said:
"That's a very nice dispassionate analysis. Now try telling that to a six year old Iraqi child who just had her arms and legs blown off. If you ever want to replace your cynical disconnection with an actual soul, I suggest keeping in mind the human tragedies this stupid war is interminably racking up."

I see mytwosense is still waging her war against logic, reason and rationality with thoughtless histrionic emoting.

"And perhaps an alternative to oil would be WIDELY USED (they're already available) by now if this country hadn't been legislated by oil company whores for the last eight years." -- MTS

Is that so? I suppose we were all riding bikes to work and powering our homes with windmills just nine years ago.

But, mytwosense, let's not deceive our fellow readers with your false compassion for the victims of the so called war for oil. Because, if that were your true outrage, you'd be in favor of drilling for oil in our own backyard to spare the innocent children from our lust for foreign oil.

And how about other sources of energy such as nuclear and coal power? I bet you oppose using more of those sources of energy as well. So, be honest: being "green" is more important to you than those Iraqi children.

By the way, what happened to this website? I can't even use blockquotes anymore. And there's no longer a message count on the topics of discussion. RMN ruined a good thing. They took out all the fun stuff but left us with Old Grouch.
February 7, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

fcatalina writes:

"Waging war is not done ... with specific goals." This quote from the letter sums up the current Republican mindset about waging war. Shoot first, ask questions later. This war was started without specific goals and the letter writer would like us to continue without specific goals. Notice the letter writer's goal, "victory," is completely non-specific. Does he expect some day where those who employ the tactic of terrorism will band together and surrender? Would that be victory?

If you believe in war without goals, like the letter writer, vote Republican in November.
February 7, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

drew,

I will tell you again but I'm not going to go on walking you through this is you're going to go on ignoring the truth.

The War on Terror involves more than Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack. There have been attacks in London, Madrid, Rome, New Dehli, Malaysia, Nigeria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and Israel by different groups of Islamofascists. There is an internal war going on between Sunni and Shia that spills over to include the rest of the world. When these two groups are not killing each other there is one thing they agree on - The US is the Great Satan. Members of each group are determined to kill as many Americans as possible.

I understand you willingly believe everything you read on Al Jazeera but, as a matter of fact, we don't know that OBL is strolling around freely in western Pakistan. In fact, he might be dead. It doesn't matter especially in the larger picture. If you think the death of this single man will be the end of the War on Terror then you are delusional.

We are currently fighting on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is imperative that we win both. Winning means fostering a more liberal, tolerant, pluralistic society that will reject the terrorism of the Isalmofascist who would otherwise live in their midst. Losing means that even more lives will be lost in this war.

I know that your leaders in the Democratic Party do not like to talk about these things, but it's past time you put your partisan interests aside and caught on to the reality of 9/11.
February 7, 2008

1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2

Long time no see. Welcome back!
February 7, 2008

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2,

I forgot I have a new handle. It's Batman.
February 7, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

"The War on Terror involves more than Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack."

Yankee - actually what I asked you was what the war in Iraq has to do with the "War on terror?" But, again, nice tap-dance Fred Astaire. I tend to keep up with the news on worldwide terror attacks, thanks.

FYI Al Qaeda in Iraq is a home grown terror organization that is there BECAUSE WE ARE. And the foreign fighters that slip into Iraq (small percentage that they are) are there BECAUSE WE ARE.

And Osama being dead or not "doesn't matter in the larger picture?" You sound like your buddy Bush talking about a man who killed 3,000 Americans & who is still at large - because of Bush's ineptitude. Meanwhile we are stuck in a civil war-with casualties mounting monthly. But you're not there so of course this doesn't bother you or your armchair -warrior buddies who cheerlead this fiasco while young Americans die.
February 7, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

And incidentally, Yankee, please stop bandying about the term "Islamofascist." It's the most inane meaningless term that you ever parroted from the Cheney talking points. For pity sake, if you don't know, please look up the definition of what fascism is - Mussolini would be spinning in his grave.
February 7, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
Regarding what Iraq has to do with the war on terrorism:
In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate former President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.
Iraq is known to have sheltered the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO). MKO is responsible for the deaths of several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians
Iraq is known to have sheltered the Palestine Liberation Front, which is responsible for aerial attacks against Israel. The head, Abu Abbas, carried out the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro and murdered American citizen Leon Klinghoffer
Iraq is known to have sheltered the Abu Nidal Organization which has carried out attacks in twenty countries.
In April of 2002, Saddam increased the reward offered to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000
February 7, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

YankMe writes:

Rhodes:

"Withdrawal by the US means defeat for the Iraqis who are struggling to make their country into a form of democracy."

Which ones are those exactly?

Eli:

What do those have to do with the Global War on Terrorism? i.e. How does (did) any of that threaten the US?

If you think they justify the invasion, makbe they do for Israel to do it. Should US military might be fighting Israel's battles?
February 7, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Ah, Yankee. Good to know you're still around.
February 7, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

drew,

I see. So Al Qaeda are actually freedom fighters planting bombs in the marketplace and slaughtering their neighbors to force the occupiers to leave.

You are a Democrat base platitude walking.
February 7, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

YankMe,
You’re asking what those terrorist organizations have to do with the Global War on Terrorism? Seriously? You want me to tell you what terrorist organizations have to do with the Global War on Terrorism?
“How does (did) any of that threaten the U.S.?”
You can’t possibly be serious with this one. You must not have actually read my last post. Unless you consider assassination attempts on our President to be acceptable, as well as the murder of American citizens.
February 7, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

YankMe writes:

Drew said AQ in Iraq are freedom fighters? When?
February 7, 2008

1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Eli,

Many of the countries in north Africa have sheltered terrorist elements like the PLO, PFLP and others (Tunisia, Sudan , Libya). And Iran has directly funded & armed Hezbollah in Lebanon, which attacks Israel. Iran also sponsors terror around the world. As does Syria. And our "ally" Saudi Arabia sponsors "madrassa" all through the middle east, Pakistan & elsewhere where young people are brainwashed into Islamic extremism.

Yet I don't remember us undertaking a full scale invasion of any of those countries. Strange.

And I don't remember Bush mentioning any of your reasons when he decided to invade Iraq - I do remember that he said something about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, though.
February 7, 2008

1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

YankMe writes:

Eli:

What does "Global" mean?
February 7, 2008

1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
You were the one asking what Iraq has to do with the War on Terror, I merely provided an answer. Support for terrorist organizations from other countries does not refute any of the facts listed above.
As for Bush mentioning those reasons, you may want to read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. You can find it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releas...
February 7, 2008

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

What is your point, YankMe?
February 7, 2008

1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

YankMe writes:

Saddam was supposed to be a threat to the US.

If Bill Clinton were assasinated by another country today, would you justify invading and occupying that country?

Does what you listed justify the invasion of Iraq? Did it justify Iraq being labelled a global terrorist threat? Should the US be doing Israel's dirty work?
February 7, 2008

1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Yankee,

To paraphrase Yank Me - when did I say AQ in Iraq are "Freedom fighters?" While the Bush crowd love mentioning Al Qaeda in Iraq every day (to conflate Al Qaeda with the civil war that's raging) AQ in Iraq make up an estimated 2-5% of the "insurgents" - ie the Sunni & Shia participants in Iraq's civil war - you know, the one our young men & women are dying in?

And I'd be pleased to cite references for the AQ in Iraq numbers.
February 7, 2008

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Sorry Eli, your "reasons" are really feeble. When I first read them I thought you were being sarcastic.
February 7, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Iraq not only attempted to assasinate our President, they also attacked our forces on thousands of occasions. You may also want to check out the link from my 1:47 post.
Regarding your hypothetical Clinton scenario, be more specific. If the assasination were sponsored or sanctioned by the government of that country, it would certainly be an act of war.
As for Israel, it is significant because Israel is a U.S. ally. If that were the only justification for the invasion then you may have a point, but it's one reason in a quite large list.
February 7, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
Is calling those acts of aggression "feeble" the best rebuttal you can offer?
February 7, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

In reference to Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc; drew said:
"Yet I don't remember us undertaking a full scale invasion of any of those countries. Strange."

Therefore what? We should invade all of those countries at the same time in order to be ideologically consistent?

Obviously, we had to pick a couple of countries to invade. Iraq was one of them. Iraq also has the strategic advantage of allowing us to surround Iran with US forces. Furthermore, because of Saddam's past transgressions including the invasion of Kuwait and using WMD on his own people, Iraq was the easiest to attack, politically speaking.

Now, that Iraq is being secured, we shall move on to Iran.
February 7, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Yankee, my point isn't who is doing most of the killing, but that innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. But if you must know, yes, I do believe our troops are sickened and dismayed when civilians are accidentally killed, while suicide bombing terrorists are intentionally trying to kill anyone in their path. I will not go as far as saying our record in Iraq is spotless, though. It isn't.

And if this war is really about oil, then you can be sure it won't be the last. We'll have war after war after war in the fight to secure the last remaining resources we depend on for our energy.

So isn't there a better way - one that America, the country that put a man on the moon, can lead? I seriously believe a transition to solar and wind power would put a stop to war, because they are limitless resources available to just about every country. There would be nothing to fight over.

We're already seeing major construction companies build solar-powered energy plants, this isn't just a matter of "Back to the land" type of people living off the grid. It CAN be done on a massive scale, and I believe we would have been so much closer by now if more of our military dollars were used towards technology research, training, and tax credits to companies pioneering this technology, companies that, by the way, I believe will include our current oil companies as they have the manpower and on many levels, the knowledge.

This would also result in massive amounts of manufacturing jobs in this country again, to build the needed parts. Not to mention a range of other jobs.

So John II, I hope the above answers your post, too. I believe in cultivating limitless resources, rather than limited ones, because as long as we focus on the latter, we're going to be at war with some country or another. Not to mention the ecological fallout, which apparently doesn't concern you, but whatever, you're a minority opinion on that matter.
February 7, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Eli,

Iraq supported the PLF (together with all the countries in the region). The PLF killed an American on a cruise ship in the 1970s. Ergo we should invade Iraq & destabilize the middle East in 2001 ... let's see..yup, that would officially be classified "feeble."
February 7, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Mytwosense,
Does that mean 9/11 would not have happened if there was solar and wind power in Afghanistan?
February 7, 2008

2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
You would have a point if that were the only act of agression against the United States.
February 7, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

John II

What you conveniently left out was that I was responding to Eli's feeble list of "reasons" for invading Iraq. My point was that there was no legiimate reason to invade Iraq - and if we had to invade a country other than Afghanistan, there were more deserving transgressors.

"Obviously, we had to pick a couple of countries to invade" Really, well please inform us why we "obviously" had to do this. Don't you think Afghanistan was the sole "obvious" target - especially since it was & still is harboring the person who attacked us in 2001?

And I hope you sign up for the military for when we "move on to Iran." Or are you just another brave conservative armchair green beret?
February 7, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

Well Eli, that's one of your points in a sparse list - so I imagine it's quite important.
February 7, 2008

2:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
Again, YOU are the one who asked what Iraq has to do with the War on Terrorism. As shown above, they have supported various terrorist organizations. Other justifications for the invasion can be found in the link in my 1:47 post. Cherry picking one or two items out of the host of aggressive acts commited by Iraq does not change the undeniable fact that Iraq has a history of aggression towards the United States. You would have a point if there were one or two minor incidents. The truth is that there is much more than that.
February 7, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Eli: "Mytwosense,
Does that mean 9/11 would not have happened if there was solar and wind power in Afghanistan?"

Well, I can tell you this much: the Taliban wouldn't have been in power, that's for sure. They were certainly no proponents of solar and wind power; in fact, at one point they were sending their people over here to negotiate for a gas pipeline.

Which means there would have been one less country that harbors terrorists. Connect the dots.
February 7, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

mytwosense,

Are you claiming that solar and wind power offers the equivalent power as oil, coal and nuclear power? Do you have any idea how much of an inefficient use of land that scale of solar and wind power would be?

You say you "believe in cultivating limitless resources, rather than limited ones, because as long as we focus on the latter, we're going to be at war with some country or another."

Well, of course, a limitless resource would be fantastic. But, once we leave Utopia and return to the real world, we find that, unfortunately, everything here has a limit and a cost.

Because of the amount of land required to power an entire nation of 300 million people with solar and wind power, those resources are certainly not limitless.
February 7, 2008

2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Thanks for the amusing lyric, Charles B. It's good to be back (although I really miss blockquotes). As for this comment:
"Still defending the strategy of "cutting out large swaths of the Middle East and taking their resources" I see. You're consistent in your bloodlust if nothing else."

Less people would die if the United States owned Middle East oil rather than the current brutal regimes. Do you disagree with that statement?
February 7, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Charles,
Had the war gone smoothly, and ended say a year or so after the invasion began, what would your position be?
February 7, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John II: "Do you have any idea how much of an inefficient use of land that scale of solar and wind power would be?"

Do you? Tell us! I had no idea you were interested in solar and wind power.

So...are we going to cut out one huge swatch of land in the middle of the country to serve 300 million, or will land be alloted per city or county or even by neighborhood? Will Americans be inventive enough to produce ever smaller and efficient solar panels and ways to harness wind power, or are we too stupid?

Looking forward to your in-depth, knowledgeable analysis.
February 7, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Charles,
The purpose is to make a distinction between arguments about the war not being justified and arguments about the war not being worth the cost. They're two completely separate issues.
From your last post, I gather that your opposition to the war is due to the cost more than the reasoning. Is that right?
February 7, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Charles B.,

Why don't you agree that less people would die if the US owned Middle East oil? Do you think the Middle East oil is in better hands with the current regimes rather than our own country? I'm curious about your reasoning for that.

"You want to steal what doesn't belong to you. I like you better when you're honest about it."

I don't think of it as stealing. Which country does the oil belong to: The country that randomly settled upon the oil-rich land and used it to become the scourge of the world or the one that protects the world from communism and tryanny?
February 7, 2008

3:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

mytwosense,

I do have an interest in solar and wind power. I'm actually looking into building a windmill in my backyard.

Research land usage and power ratios. You'll find that these technologies are great on a small scale. But, we are no where near the capability to power an entire nation.

"Will Americans be inventive enough to produce ever smaller and efficient solar panels and ways to harness wind power, or are we too stupid?"

That's a false dilemma. Of course we will continue to improve solar and wind technologies. And I do not think we are too stupid. But, we are not there yet in terms of efficiency. Nor will we be there anytime soon. And if we do arrive at that point, I can assure you that it will not be limitless; otherwise it would be a unprecedented violation of the laws of nature; everything has a cost.

If you want to look at an area where Americans already invented an efficient power source, look into nuclear energy. It would provide much more power, require less land, and reduce dependence on foreign oil. If solar and wind technologies eventually catch up to your Utopian vision, I will be the first to call for the destruction of all nuclear reactors.
February 7, 2008

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

ruckus writes:

John_II is bringing goose-stepping to a whole other level. I suggest taking deeper breaths because the lack of oxygen to the brain is becoming apparent. Tell ya what, I'll protect you from all the evil in this world for almost all your assets that you randomly settled upon or you can reason with the double barrel, either way its not stealing.
February 7, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

ruckus,

There's a glaring defect in your argument: I do not kill, torture, rape, or rob anyone. If I did, I would fully expect to be taken from my home and thrown into prison or be put to death.
February 7, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John II - I never said we were there yet, my whole point is that we could get there faster if we spent more on R&D, incentives to companies, etc. Particularly in terms of reallocating our Iraq war funding.

I do believe we're much closer than you feel we are, though. Also, you're thinking solely in terms of land, yet the latest technologies focus on solar power built into actual materials. Think nanotechnology, and also start thinking about investing in some of these companies...if you aren't already, that is.
February 7, 2008

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

As for nuclear energy, again we're looking at another limited resource to power it: uranium. More wars. Whereas with solar and wind power, every country could use what they already have.
February 7, 2008

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

mts,

Oh, I see where you're going with this. But, as I'm sure you know, I believe the free market will do a much better job at R&D than the federal government. I'm not even sure our Constitution allows for such R&D.

As for tax incentives, I believe there already are tax breaks for these technologies.

But, in the meantime, we have other options in regards to energy that could reduce wars over oil. Why not utilize what we know now instead of waiting on an uncertain solution? It seems you are making perfect the enemy of good.

If you oppose nuclear power and Mr. Bush opposes (or supposedly opposes) development of solar/wind power, aren't you both complicit in the deaths from oil-related incidents (terrorism, brutal tyrants, wars, etc)?
February 7, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

mts,

You are correct about uranium. It follows the laws of nature: it is limited.

I can assure you, you will find limitations from solar and wind power. For example, what materials are used to make solar panels? Plastic? Metal? Silicon? The sun may seem limitless but our means of collecting it's power are not.
February 7, 2008

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

drew,

fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Some commentators including Paul Berman and Christopher Hitchens, believe there are similarities between historical fascism and Islamofascism:

rage against historical humiliation;
inspiration from what is believed to be an earlier golden age (one or more of the first few Caliphates in the case of Islamism);
a desire to restore the perceived glory of this age -- or "a fanatical determination to get on top of history after being underfoot for so many generations" -- with an all-encompassing (totalitarian) social, political, economic system;
belief that malicious, predatory alien forces (Jews in the case of Nazi Fascists or Islamofascists) are conspiring against and within the nation/community, and that violence is necessary to defeat and expel these forces;
exaltation of death and destruction along with a contempt for "art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence", and strong commitment to sexual repression and subordination of women.
offensive military, (or armed) campaign to reestablish the power and rightful international domination of the nation/community

Islamofascist is both apt and useful. I'm not as concerned as you are about long-dead dictators spinning in their grave. But that's not the really problem is it?

You're just working hard to keep the truth obscured.
February 7, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John, you're just proposing more of the same. That's ok, though. History is full of naysayers like yourself, while it's the visionaries who swat the naysayers out of the way and go on to actually make history.

Seriously...what exactly are you afraid of, that you are so hellbent on disproving new technology can actually work, and instead advocating we keep invading countries for their oil?
February 7, 2008

5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

good, Yankee - your definition leaves out the corporate aspect of fascism, though - "private economic enterprise under centralized government control."(Webster's) With religion sidelined, incidentally.

So you're equating a system of nationalism, racism, corporatism & authoritarianism with - a quasi-feudal system that eschews personal wealth & wants to unite everyone-regardless of race or nationality - under one religious creed - with stringent religious control. Wow, sounds like quite a match.

But you still haven't answered my question on what Iraq has to do with the "war on terror." And Eli's insipid "reasons" don't count.
February 7, 2008

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
If harboring known terrorist organizations doesn't count, what does?
February 7, 2008

6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

John II: "I can assure you, you will find limitations from solar and wind power. For example, what materials are used to make solar panels? Plastic? Metal? Silicon? The sun may seem limitless but our means of collecting it's power are not."

You neglect to mention, or maybe it just didn't occur to you, that these materials are also recyclable. Which would spin off even more industry and economic opportunity.
February 7, 2008

6:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

mytwosense,

It's not about the oil. If it wasn't for 9/11 Saddam would likely still be running Iraq and selling oil to Russia and France. We would still be buying oil from Saudi Arabia. If not, conttactsmay have changed and we would by buying oil elsewhwere. Saddma was nev er a threat to disrupt the oil flow - in fact, his presence ensured the free flow of oil being interrupted by Iran.

It's about terrorism.

drew
The Eschews personal wealth. And since their motives are selflessly religious and pure, they can't be fascists. You do believe everything you hear from Al Jazeera. Yes drew,even though you imagine they are driven by pure, religious aims - they are fascists in every working sense of the word. If you lived under the Mullah rule in Iran the point would be more clear to you.

Eli' reasons are not lame he is absolutely right. Our enemies are, as stated by President Bush, terrorists and the governments that support them First we took out the Taliban if Afghanistan and SH was next on the list.

I know you have the abililty to delude yourself that Iraq was a terrorist-free, WMD-free nation just minding its own business when suddenly we invaded. That is fantasy.

You could easily learn the truth. All you to do is Google the remarks of world leaders prior to Bush including President Clinton. Here's a taste of what President Clinton said:

Wichita, November 17, 1997 Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."

There are hundreds of similar remark from every Democrat leader form Peolsi to Gore. But you won't. You don't want to know the truth. It disrupts your prejudices.
February 7, 2008

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

MTS said:
"You neglect to mention, or maybe it just didn't occur to you, that these materials are also recyclable. Which would spin off even more industry and economic opportunity."

100% recyclable? You mean we never have to make more? That sounds wonderful! You sound like these prophetic leaders:

* In 1977 Dennis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, predicted that by the year 2000 40 percent of global energy would be from renewable sources.

* In 1978 Ralph Nader said all power would be solar in 30 years. In 1997 he repeated that claim.

* In 1996 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) predicted solar energy would be the primary source of energy in the twenty-first century.

Here's an interesting website I just came across: <a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?...

It talks about a book called "The Solar Fraud". Looks interesting.
February 7, 2008

8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

John_II writes:

Is anyone else baffled by the RMN.com redesign? I stopped coming here several months ago when they grouped all the letters to the editor on one page. I'm glad they changed that back. But, why no message count on the letters so we can see which letters are generating the most buzz? And why can't we format our writing?

And what's with the Your Space section? That could have been a great addition but RMN ruined it by making it a section for photos and baby pictures. Baby pictures?

That section should be a personal blog section with links, stories and comment history. Perhaps, a member favorites section to see where others are posting. There's so much possibility here but RMN seems to be run by old men who are out of touch with the possibilities of an internet based newspaper.
February 7, 2008

8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Lets hope this report is accurate, and along with high-profile al-Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libi, American traitor Adam Gadahn is pushing up daisies-
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_d...

John II-

Welcome back.
February 7, 2008

8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2,

The currrent group of scare mongers have learned to push out the projection of disaster for 50 years or more toavoid the problem.

I remember when Kennedy said that in 1996. He hadn't actually been awake when the sun was out since 1988. He was standing on the porch in a bathrobe with a glass of something in his hand. He had his hand shielding his eyes, squinting and said, "Man, that's bright. I'll bet that baby could power the world."

Natural enough mistake under the circs.
February 7, 2008

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

J2,

You see that Charles B is still the primo nitwit. You probably missed when he told me society should allow a father to marry his daughter? Of course he followed that up by telling me incest should be illegal. He's something of an original in his way.

Better stop - I've been advised not to feed the trolls.
February 7, 2008

8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

GetReal,

I am, as of this afternoon, a McCain Republican. We are electing a Commander in Chief so the options ... well there are no options.
February 7, 2008

9:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Charles B, (tugs his diaper tighter, asks for permission to speak, than in a high pitched voice with a strong Boston accent said) – “But materials to manufacture and blood to maneuver the machines of war are endless I suppose..” – well, it appears that way, throughout the history of mankind nations appeared to recover from wars just fine, recycling both materials and blood. Some 2000 years ago the world’s population was about 200 million, today it’s about 6.5 billion. Doesn’t look like shortage in that respect.
February 8, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnHKennedy writes:

The Iraq War was based on the Cheney-Bush WMD lies. The sooner we come to our senses and bring the troops home the better off the people of Iraq will be. Call your Congressman and the House Judiciary Committee and tell them to begin Impeachment Hearings in the US House Judiciary Committee. A list of contact information for your congressman (local/TollFree) is here:
http://ImpeachCO.com/html/us-official...
You may email the entire membership of the Judiciary Committee with just one email message at this LINK http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx
For ways you can help Hold Cheney-Bush Accountable see website:

John H Kennedy, Denver,CO Organizer
IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com

..
February 8, 2008

7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

America defeated. Terrorists victorious. Iraq in chaos. The middle east in turmoil. American political leaders disgraced. America humiliated. American allies deserted. Islamofascists energized.

Keep the dream alive John H.
February 8, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

"Yes drew,even though you imagine they are driven by pure, religious aims - they are fascists in every working sense of the word."

It's OK Yankee - you still don't understand what fascism is - but it's OK. And if you think that Eli's lame "reasons" for going to war - including the death of Mr Klinghoffer by a PALESTINIAN terrorist group in the 1970s - are valid, then you must really be more desperate than I ever imagined.
February 8, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Eli writes:

Drew,
You sure love cherry-picking, don't you?
That particular terrorist organization was known to be in Iraq. Being a Palestinian organization is not relevant.
The Achille Lauro incident was one of many, yet it's the only one you seem to want to focus on. Also, it was not in the 70's.
February 8, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

drew,

Just a tip - Be calm, try not to use OK more than once in the same sentence.
February 8, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

drew writes:

OK, Yankee, but I like using OK, OK?

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Withdrawal means defeat for U.S., Iraqis

Jon Rhodes, Lakewood

Published February 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs