by Dr. Larry Semark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 2:49:43 PM

  (0+)

"Though we continue to sacrifice dearly, the peace of mind that we have been able to thwart any terrorist effort within the United States since 9/11 is proof that something is working."

Sir, there have been no attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 only because the Bush crime family hasn't felt the need for another one. The "War on Terror" is a load of crap.

Just trying to bring intellectual stimulation to YOUR mind.

by Catlover (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 85 comments) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 2:57:29 PM

  (0+)

tippyk9 & catlover

RIGHT ON TARGET! GOOD, INTELLIGENT AND RESTRAINED RESPONSES!!! THE GENTLEMAN IS OBVIOUSLY MISSING THE ENVIRONMENT OF THIS SITE BY LIGHT YEARS. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE. I AM NOT SHOUTING I HAVE A STUCK CAPS KEY.

Whew! I finally got it unstuck, wish we could get our troops unstuck as easily.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 3:25:03 PM

  (0+)

It is quite obvious that many of you are upset more with the Bush Administration, which I grant is valid. However, you also seem less concerned with actually progressing in Iraq. Although It sounds as if you may be realizing that we have more then a "quagmire" in our midst, I emplore you to take a stand on the issue rather then cast blame like most of our elected officials. As a Nation we must not repeatedly continue to let the blame game (aka politics as usual) to distract our focus from the vital perdicament that we are in today. I can honestly say that the political rhetoric that has been shuffled endlessly as some form of "I told you so" from the democrats and "fear mongering" from Republicans must cease with them. I do not intend to extend their idiocracy to Volconvo for some type of debate. I would much rather see a progressive effort to re-arrange our priorities as well as our strategic efforts in Iraq to make the best of the situation that we are now facing. We need answers here, answers that have yet to be put forth in a constructive manner so that we can truly weigh out our options..

by Bryan Daugherty (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 3:42:11 PM

  (0+)

The Middle East has been at war for a thousand years.  The only thing that kept Iraq in one piece has always been an iron fist.  When we removed that iron fist, the tensions that were below the surface have come out.

NOTHING we are doing there is going to help.

International leaders know that the United States only acts in its own interests and that will never change.  Our leaving Iraq will not suprise anybody with a greater than 8th grade education, nor alter their foreign policy.

Terrorists will always be there, and nothing we do in Iraq will change that.  We can best fight the forces of terror by modeling moral behaviour and doing what we can to equalize the economic and political inequities across the planet, which will marginalize those who would use terror to accomplish their goals.

Will there be bloodshed when we leave?  You bet.  Will it be as bad as the Killing Fields?  I doubt it.  Will Iran take over?  Perhaps.  You know, that's not our problem, it's the Saudi's and the Kuwaiti's and the rest of the Middle East's, and we'll have to live with THEIR solutions, not make them live with OURS.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 16, 2007 at 6:22:27 PM

  (0+)

Bryan,

Let's talk sense. No ideology.

- There's no 9/11 attacks because of tight security measures domestically, and cooperation from many other countries. This is independent of Iraq.

- al Qaeda is being squeezed hard in Europe, Asia by police/intelligence actions. In Afgh is it being hit hard by NATO forces and by Pak forces at the border. This has nothing to do with Iraq.

- Now get this: Iraq is about invading a country without declaring war or being attacked, turn it into a full-blown failed state (that's why Bush is not bothered by the huge Iraqi deaths), for the purpose of installing a large US permanent military force to control that region. It's about being the power broker. It's about letting US oil companies develop the massive undeveloped fields for that trillion dollar profit down the road. It's about denying that oil to third parties and thus leveraging US power. It's about being able to hit Iran a lot easier, and hitting Islamic fundamentalism and extremists. In short, it is 19th century military imperialism, colonialism, holy war and wealth grab all rolled into one big enterprise. It's has nothing to do with terror on home soil. It is based on the central neocon agenda - American Roman Empire foreign policy of hegemony by military force, in the name of foreign terror. But it is *American terror applied on foreign soil*.

It is important to understand that Bush HAS NOT RECEIVED THE MANDATE NOR THE APPROVAL of Congress and the American people to implement his Iraqi war of imperialism. He has only received approval for fighting al Qaeda, which is done by security/intelligence measures after the removal of the Taliban. Iraq is purely a neocon agenda, a private agenda of the Republican party, serving its own political interests and that of the special interest groups funding the party. IT DOES NOT SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE, WHO HAS NOT AUTHORIZED IT.

So how come Bush dare to invade a country and start a war of imperialism, without approval of Congress & the people, hiding his true neocon agenda, and playing games with the people even now? No other US president has dared to do such a rackless thing. In any other democratic country, such a person will be impeached and booted out of office. Or the outcry will force resignation in a Parlimentary system. I know of only two cases in the 20th century where exactly the same thing was done - invasion without being attacked to initiate a war of imperialism, without the approval of the people: Nazi Germany in 1939 and Imperial Japan attack of China in 1934 and 1941 attack of USA.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:23:21 AM

  (0+)

My oh my,

It is truly scary, all these dire prophecies of the future, almost as scary as all those dire prophecies of the Red Menace if we pulled out of Vietnam. But have you calibrated your crystal ball lately? I think it is a little too melodramatic, don't you?

It always amazes me how poor little, eternally vulnerable America is on the verge of being overrun by endless barbaric hordes if we don't go tear up half the planet to protect ourselves.  Basically all this crap is psychotic projection. What we project the Moslems are going to do to us is really our repressed dark side, which we have unleashed on them. We are invading, raping, pillaging, conquering the Moslem world as I write, with no end in sight, and more victims in our gun sights. The greatest threat to humanity is the American Empire, the modern equivalent of the Aztec Empire, requiring endless human sacrifice to the gods of capital and profits. We continue to slaughter people by the thousands or millions in our Imperialist wars every decade or two, always with the rationalization that we are defending oursleves from some vague and phantom threat (when we are not pulling false flag operations to manufacture a threat) that can only be gleaned from a crystal ball.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:56:58 AM

  (0+)

...looking like a Johnny come lately in writing a reply here, I had to write a bit of a how-to for someone who is trying to compile an updated Linux kernel to get his net card working. In the spirit of Linux, I thought it was more important to help a budding geek get his computer working than to come here and tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree by putting something like this here.

The fight in Iraq is already lost. It was lost on day one of shock and awe. There is no point in continuing the fight. There was no point in starting it in the first place, but that's a reality that can't be undone at the moment.

The point remains that it is pointless to stay in Iraq. While it is sure to cause all kinds of trouble, America pulling out of Iraq will force them to start governing themselves. It's time for those Iraqis that whined about Saddam to put their money where their mouths are. It's pretty obvious, at least from the news tonight that Maliki is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is on this point.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 1:34:06 AM

  (0+)

the continuation of aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity will be at all helpful to anyone. The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do whatsoever with freedom. There have been plenty of constructive answers -- for years -- from the progressives, but they have been met with smears and lies - like the ones stated above. The article is pure rubbish, and deserves no more of a response.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 2:00:49 AM

  (0+)

doesn't make a bit of difference in one respect: No matter which we choose, this war is going to bring changes in America the like of which have not been seen, certainly since the Civil War and perhaps since the Revolution. Americans on both sides of the argument (I include myself here) are not even remotely prepared for what's whistling down upon them.

Long term, I'm hoping for more civil liberties and greater freedom. Sadly, there are some who hope for an autocratic state. But the reality is that none of us will get what we now think we want and everyone will be surprised (pleasantly or else) by the outcome.

Thus my vision here is not apocalyptic but is rather a mean-eyed consideration of what America's failure (you can't call it anything else) in Iraq will entail. Somebody will take the heat. Somebody will suffer for it. And somebody will go laughing all the way to the nearest Swiss bank.

by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 9:17:40 AM

  (0+)

Nearly everyone is focusing on the wrong issues with regard to the Iraq war. The right wingers support the surge, which we knew from the start was doomed to failure. But it was set up so that the Iraq government could be blamed. On the other side are the Democrats, and some Republicans, who want the troops brought home. Neither of these approaches is correct.  Instead, we need to implement the recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group to implement a new diplomatic offensive in Iraq, that engages all of the countries in the region, INCLUDING IRAN AND SYRIA, to begin dialogue and discussion to resolve the problems of that area. There is no other solution. Bush’s surge won’t work. The weak government in Iraq cannot meet Bush’s requirements to avoid a pull-out of our troops, and alone they cannot stop the sectarian violence and lawlessness, and I assume Bush knows this. But we can’t just pull our troops out, as some want us to do, and we cannot continue with a fruitless “Surge.” We allowed Bush to create this mess, so we are obligated to try to find an honorable and reasonable way out. It is a regional problem, so involve the region in solving it. This is the only way the problems in Iraq might be solved, and could prevent a conflagration in the region if we fail in Iraq. Contact former senator Alan Simpson in Cody, Wyoming, who was a member of the Study Group, to find out why he thinks this is the approach that should be taken. Bush and Cheney don’t understand that we should talk to Iran, our enemy, or feel it would be a display of weakness. Instead, they want to isolate and control Iran, not understanding that these people have pride. Honor is a big part of their culture. Bush and Cheney also fail to take into account that it was the U.S. that orchestrated the overthrow of their elected leader, Mossadeqh, in 1953, and then propped up the Shah until his overthrow by the present government. Why shouldn’t they hate us? Simpson is absolutely right. We should talk to them.  

Vice (in the sense of wicked or evil) President Cheney, Senator Lieberman, and too much of our media, would like to paint Iran as the enemy we might have to attack one of these days. This would be a disaster, bankrupting our country and increasing hatred of the U.S. throughout the world even more, if this is possible. Too many people in this country, Bush and Cheney included, do not understand that the problems of terrorism primarily grew out of our unquestioning support of Israel against the Palestinians. Helping to find a solution to this problem that would be fair to both sides, as most moderate Israelis would like, would do more to stop terrorism than anything else we might do.

The two biggest problems our next president will face are: How can we clean up the mess in Iraq, and How can we improve our image in the world, which has been so badly tarnished by the Bush regime? Solve these and we can begin to deal with the domestic problems.

Albert R. Wight

by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:04:57 AM

  (0+)

Of course we can just pull our troops out. 

A regional problem? Yes -- but it's not OUR region, and everything we do there makes things worse. The Israeli problem drives much of the troubles in the the region, but we have made that worse by supporting their atrocities and aggression. We supported the tyranny of the royals in Saudi, and the Iran-Iraq war. The tyranny in Iran is a direct result of US interference. The US is like a bull in a china shop, and every move made just destroys more. A very arrogant bull, at that, to think we have the right to boss other nations around, or even advise them, considering the US is the primary casue of the current problems.

Further, solving the problems in the Middle East is far from the minds of the US government -- and that's not just the Bushies, but the entire US government over many years: what the US want is to take over the world -- and the world is resisting.

You say we can't just pull troops out, as if it were a given -- but it's not a given: it's an expression of the root of the problem and the arrogant US attitude which must be abandoned. The world does not belong to the US; we are not the 'deciders'. We are not even competent participators -- just a bull in a china shop. We can't even manage out own nation justly and competently, and yet we have the gall to try to tell other countries and peoples how to live and manage their affairs?

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:29:47 PM

  (0+)

It   is  even  worse  than  I  have  imagined,  what  are  your  plans  ?????

or  maybe ,  you  also  in  the  oil   business.   Just  guess  with  all  the  oil floating  around   your  country . lol,  maybe  one  day  you  will  be  on  the  other  side  of the barricade.  ahahha  the  Russians  are  coming......   Or  maybe  you  simply  not  from  this  planet.

by Jessiana (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:20:49 AM

  (0+)

Where have you been the last two years? It has been proven time and time again that Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with Al queda or the terrorist attacks on the U.S. so why does an invasion and horrific murderous occupation need to be continued? In fact such occupation is making things much worse for the U.S. Do you really believe Middle East countries want U.S. overlordship in their area of the world? Quit smoking whatever it is you're smoking!

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:01:17 PM

  (0+)