Friday, December 22, 2006

A Personal Exploration of Service with Views on Iraq

Well, this is going to be a lengthy section, hopefully with some cumulative value. At the conclusion I will discuss perceptions and military service in a personal way. Including some colorful history of my youth, for better or worse. Take it with a grain of salt, as my teen years were not full of exemplary character development. It begins with number one piece of mail from my esteemed sparring partner.
The Prez wants guys to volunteer for the Army!! Says he needs 20,000, or maybe 25,000, or was it 35,000..... well, some folks are saying 70,000 more troops to get 'Victory' in Iraq. I'll help get the USS Missouri ready for the surrender ceremony and YOU can rush right down and join the Marines! Hell, I mean, they're taking guys clear up to age 42.... I mean, gee, don't you want to fight for your country??? Red-blooded, patriotic, god-fearing guys ready to DIE for America? or or maybe just a disabling wound arm or leg....though head wounds seem more popular these days.... Maybe those who vote for war should have to go and fight it?

My response was mild as it is the Christmas Season of love and happiness.
I would love to serve in some capacity, yet they don't want oceanographers right now.... If Al Qaida gets a few submarines, maybe the navy's blue water budget will increase... However, I think we have a all volunteer force right now, and recruiting seems to be going well. I notice that our armed forces are better educated than the average American, and come from households of higher than average income.

Heritage Foundation Report on the Military

Gee, what happened there? I thought only idiots and the poor joined up, according to you leftists.

Who are you so desperate to surrender too? Idiotic. Did you know that we were taking the heaviest casualties in WW2 at the end? Your peacenik philosophy wouldn't have even gotten us to '44, let alone success. I bet the press of today transplanted to that generation would have sluffed off Pearl Harbor by '44 and ran around calling for peace "...'cause we will never take the Japanese mainland and too many people have died." In fact, they probably would have figured out that we really already lost the war completely by the Battle of Midway. As it stands in this day and age, they have confused dissent with disloyalty, leading to a Anti-American mindset. Stupid and self destructive.

As to serving, it would be great. I know doctors who have gone in, and gotten pretty good deals, loans payed off, competing pay grades. But I would literally have to declare bankruptcy if I joined the Marines! It would be fun to be a analyst as well, but I haven't any of the languages or politics in my CV. So that leaves DOD stuff, which may happen anyhow, but it isn't exactly combat. Later on, if given the opportunity, I could teach at Monterrey (NPGS), that would be interesting. But again, they aren't very interested in blue water science right now. The real threat is all in coastal stuff. Now, if the Chinese keep growing, maybe they could field some boomers, then the money will come back. Anyhow, if we were in dire straights I wouldn't have any problem hitching up, but I don't think the situation is as reported by your ilk. And to continually harp on those who "voted for the war", is just a sign of your sides failure to provide any solutions at all. Total ignorance. Total politics. Total BS.

Ok, so maybe it was slightly provocative, but you must admit, very low on the 'inflamimeter' (a device yet to be invented). Reading my response again now, I do sense a bit of duckedness in the explanation of why I am not running down to the recruiter, but they have other standards besides those stated. Things like age and fitness... Anyhow, here is the next bit in the saga:
A most amazing response!
I can see the lads at Lexington and Concord: 'Well, offer me a good deal. The GI bill, pay off my loans, give me a commission" How about, I'm here to defend Liberty and Freedom! You want a reward to defend your country?! You sound like a corporation that wants war time profits! If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT! Become a rifleman in a USMC platoon. Get out on the front line and take the risks along with the rest of the guys. If, on the other hand, all this is baloney; the cause just doesn't mean that much; you're willing to let 'someone else' do the fighting, bleeding and dieing, well, that's a different story ain't it. Thomas Paine was right, The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this time of crisis shirk from the service of his county....

Ah, the accusation of surrender. Thought we had settled that yesterday with the Edward R. Murrow quote. You people always equate dissent with disloyalty and disagreement with surrender. It ain't so. I argue that the dissenters, as we were in Vietnam, the truer patriots because we are trying to save our country from making a huge mistake. We were LIED to about Iraq. No WMD's, no threats, no connection to September 11, and no terrorists (until WE bought them there). But George and Dick keep trying to make the link that isn't there. So, why ARE we in Iraq? The answer to that has changed several times over the past four years. George just keeps making things up as he goes along, lie after lie after lie. You people will have to face the facts at some point; 80% of the rest of us already have. There is NO reason to be in Iraq. George and his cronies lied to us and created a monstrous mess, and every day and everything he does just makes it worse. This is not a glorious cause leading us to victory over those who have attacked us. It is a lie. From beginning to end, a lie. Saddam had no WMD's, was not a threat, had no nuclear weapons program, was not making chemicals or biological weapons, did not sponsor 9/11, did not train terrorists etc etc etc. We still don't REALLY KNOW why George lead us into this war, but we do know that it has nothing to do with 'terrorism'. The war on terror, such as that is, is being lost in Afghanistan and across the world because the US is not meaningfully engaged in it.

And, you don't have to worry about how I'm reporting the war. Read the Commission report, authored by Republicans. Read the briefings from the Pentagon, authored by the generals that are there! Take a look at the actual events that are taking place in Iraq; what's the trend in civilian deaths? What's the trend in US military dead and wounded? What's the trend in security and public safety? What are the Iraq people themselves doing? (Those who can are fleeing) I don't see ANY signs of improvement in the country. The Army and Police are militias of the various sides, the politicians are corrupt and the money we send is wasted.

Now, about solutions. First, of course, it's up to those who are actually pursuing the war to come up with alternatives to a failed policy. As George keeps saying, he's 'the decider', or, more to the point, the commander-in-chief. Second, those people WERE warned that their policy would not work. And it didn't. Third, as the reception of the Study Group shows, George WILL NOT listen to any alternative policy. All he can comprehend is Stay the Course, and Victory. That just digs us in deeper. And he keeps offering up the 'lie of the week'. Fourth, alternative polices have been offered. Listen to Biden, Powell, the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, the Commission and on and on.

I'm afraid that the end, which will come before summer is out, is most likely to be a Stalingrad on the Tigris. We'll put in tens of thousands of troops into the urban area, who will stumble all over each other and accomplish nothing except providing more targets, because there is NO PLAN. Then the tipping point will be reached when the Iraqi government collapses into a failed state. Our supply lines are cut. The airport is under constant rocket and mortar attack. And provisions begin to run low. Tens of thousands of Iraqis begin to overrun the Green Zone. In such close quarters air power is useless. An American Stalingrad. Panic ensues. Defeat looms.

Well, that was fascinating. The "American Stalingrad"? What a amazing world peaceniks live in. So deep in the fertile imagination, so shallow in reality. I digress for a moment, so back to the beginning. First we must squash this idiotic notion about personally fighting a war you support. What ignorant emotional swamp gas. I will quote again, "If you REALLY believe in the war against Iraq, then join up and FIGHT!" Huh? This is a nation we are discussing, not a feudal state. I can fully support the war, fully support the politicians who will decide on fighting a enemy that threatens some of the foundations of our Republic. I have the freedom in this country to pursue virtually any law abiding lifestyle I want, thanks to many amazing giants of men who went before, some sacrificing everything so that I have that opportunity. If the country were to engage in a critical fight where the number of men in the military was a question, I would gladly join if I could be of use. If they instituted a draft, and I were eligible, I would again join before being drafted, even if the fight was not one that I personally felt worthy.

This attitude is something I arrived at in my twenties. If in my teens I would have had the same attitude, I would have certainly joined the military. But, during some of my formative years, I had a far different view of the military. In my household was very strong 60's antiwar sentiment, and some disdainful attitudes towards the commander and chief Ronald Regan. In turn, I was impressed with a similar disdain, yet unestablished by my own critical thinking. This brings me to a seminal moment which some may find entertaining.

Though my attitude toward the military at the time was quite cynical due to parental influence, it was also one of fascination with military history from the same influence. This is not unexpected for many liberals, who seem to disconnect the present history from glorification of the past. Clearly a function of Vietnam's influence, whether justified or not. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind was a growing concern that the past and present were not dissimilar, yet my maturity in placing the present in context was minimal. I was a self centered, emotionally and intellectually isolated individual. Yet there was within that a spark of interest in military service, a spark dimmed by the lack of compulsion or personal conviction.

At that time it was compulsory in my high school to participate in the ASVAB, which I did. My scores were not unexpectedly off the chart, except in one category. I scored a 86 on the clerical section of the exam. Unaware at the time that my ADHD probably hindered my performance in that section. In fact, I didn't even know there was a clerical component, and found it frustratingly amusing. Needless to say, recruiters were quite interested in discussing my future (albeit not as a desk clerk...). I accepted a invitation from the naval recruiters on a whim and went to visit. I remember my heart at the time was bitter. I had much hidden resentment and spite, which was looking for a outlet.

At this meeting I quickly narrowed down the possibilities to one thing I actually had desired in dreams of the future. Aviation had been in my families history from WWII, and I figured that would be exciting to explore. But, I have very poor eyesight... Its completely corrected by contacts or glasses, yet far outside a acceptable range for military aviation. No pilot for me, no copilot, no hands on the controls... No excitement for my teen self. So I got what I wanted, self pity and broken dreams. Then the unconscious plan floated to the surface, the plan of ensuring failure to insulate myself from not living up to or even attempting to meet high expectations (a common theme in my early days). I steered the question rapidly towards the 80's recruiting guidelines on prior drug use. Of course I had already done my homework, so you could say it was 'lock and load' time.

A prospect during this period could easily and knowingly 'lie' on the record when signing up. It was a unwritten guideline for recruiters to explain to their young eager plebes that 'no' could mean 'I don't recall at this time', or some such thing. They wanted real honesty in the verbal interview so as to gage a bit of your character, but for the record it needed to be clean. Tough sell in the town I grew up in as drug and alcohol abuse was pretty rampant. Yet for me it was more than special. I had a few questions for them about the policy. The result was quite interesting. If you had 'inhaled', maybe a few times, they were still very interested in pursuing you, yet pulled a bit of the stern 'your lucky for this opportunity' shtick. But when it came to other drug usage, the unwritten guideline obviously became null, because when I informed them about the level of my explorations with D-lysergic acid diethylamide (multiple trials over a period of years), they immediately lost the spark in their eyes. At the time I counted it a great coup d'etat, but in retrospect, it was another great opportunity that I had not the guts or discipline to recognize.

If I had enlisted, I would have still been in at the start of the Gulf War. A couple of decades can sure put things in strange light. This brings us back to the topic of the current conflict. What is a reasonable estimate of how long we will be fighting Islamofascists? Twenty years? Forty? What constitutes this crisis today? Is the military in a recruitment crisis? No. Are we currently engaged in heavy combat? No. Should patriotically minded men in the desirable age group 18-25 consider military service? Certainly, I would in such circumstance. Single and 18 would be a no brainer. Married and 25, you could both consider it a noble sacrifice. Easy to make that choice. Yet either one can be just as patriotic in pursuing other interests. There is no crunch for volunteers at this time.

Ignorant critics disdain those who do not agree with their political position, and impugn the personal choices of political opponents. This is just a lack of civility and character. The same people will give any pass to members of their own persuasion without flinching, clearly exposing the guttural partisan nature of the attacks. For instance in the above letter concerning personal service for a cause individually supported, there is a doubling back to denigrate the cause itself, as if anyone who supports the war actions of their government should make all effort to do so personaly in a military manner, and if the individual is not willing to do so, the cause is clearly not worth it. What elite tripe. It's the lowest form of persuasion, and supremely ineffective.

Far more odious is the use of a great Patriot like Paine to impugn the motives of those who do support Americas military, both its members and its mission. How short sighted to not make the real comparison between the contexts of the American Revolution and the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq. I can quote Paine a bit as well, just a few lines from his exhortation to support the Revolutionary Army, "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered..." Contemplate with that in mind, whether this brilliant man would be in support of our effort in Iraq at this time. Do we need more convincing? Ok, how about "Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Are you kidding me? Looks like he was a God fearing Christian man as well. Clearly a Bush supporter!

This pretty well negates the simian argument against being in Iraq. If freedom is of the most noble efforts, who needs WMD? I jest in part, but scoff at the fever swamp who can not see the any threat that does not serve their political purpose. Furthermore, I reject the insolent leftist poll quoters who will not ask the simple question, "Do you want Iraq to be a free, successful democracy?" In similar fashion, the reporting falls in step. No objective analysis paints a rosy picture, yet that same picture is very far from defeat. Certainly things could become much worse, yet even in that we would be ahead in the strategic picture. No where near the defeatist collapse eagerly hoped for by peacenik leftists.

That collapse is the solution for the left. The illicit thrill hoped for, like a necrophiliac visiting the morgue, the left excites at the prospect of defeat for Bush. "Cut and run, screw the Iraqis, bless the little pointy heads of the Islamofascist supporters of the Democratic party." What a mantra. No matter what the outcome, history will not be kind to the nutters. American Stalingrad indeed. More vile NAZI metaphor from the party of peace. What will it take for the scales to fall?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Liberal Sentimentality Twists in the Wind

I blasted off a little tidbit concerning the concept and actions surrounding 'negotiations' with Syria:

Oh boy! Real progress being made for sure by your traitorous buffoon Nelson. Backstabbing Democrats, sucking our country into the pit of despair. Anyhow, even the state run Syrian media don't like him. What an idiot.

Syria Responds to Senator

I love this quote though:
It said it was strange that some U.S. senators who visited Syria were very "gentle, diplomatic and attentive" while in Syria but immediately after they leave Damascus "they turn upside down and start making up stories and tales that exist only in their fertile imagination."

Well, Hells Bells, what did they expect? It is a Liberal Democrat, betraying his own country, not some honorable spokesperson. I mean, par for the course right? Standard Dem operating procedure... Love that fertile imagination!

What did I receive for my efforts? A emotional appeal, a patriotic piece of prose, at first. Well its interesting at the end, and the appeal to convince based on sentimentality was crafted nicely. However, it seems the tables are upturned, you be the judge:

Yesterday I took a tour of the nation's Capitol, the Old Supreme Court Chamber, where Dred Scott was argued, the Old House Chamber, where Webster uttered 'Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!', where John Quincy Adams, the only President who entered the House AFTER being President, so outraged the slave south by presenting, time and time again, petitions for the abolition of slavery that he was ejected (and then re-elected by Mass.), where Lincoln sat and learned the ropes of representative government. The into the Senate Chamber. Who can count the glorious and wonderful events of that chamber? And the Rotunda, where Presidents have laid In State since Jefferson.

This is a Republic, by God it is! As close to a Democracy as the will and minds and laws of Man can make

And I expect that, as my great-grandfather John Slocum did at Gettysburg, I, and my children, and my grand-children and every generation to come will fight to the death to defend it. All of it. And all of us. Every word of the Constitution is a hard fought bargain struck between ourselves and those who have gone before. In elections, in the courts, on the battlefield and around every dining room table in America.

The quote below, from Edward R. Murrow, was directed at Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, member of earlier group of those who have, from time to time, put self-aggrandizement and party above the interests of the Nation. It applies, even more forcefully, to the Bush Administration of today, which willfully and spitefully refuses to change direction despite all evidence, the opinions of the vast majority of the American public, their own Generals in the field, and increasingly, their own party. They are so desperate to hang onto the trappings of power that they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers, our treasure, our national prestige and our essential Constitutional protections.

Edward R. Murrow said: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular..."

You ought to remember that YOU are descended from a member of the most distinguished group of men in the history of the world; the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What I remember is that these men fought a revolution against the strongest military of the day based on their conviction of freedom. They won. In the face of complete defeat, with great loss, they stayed the course. My first beef with your analogy is the lack of honesty concerning the actual state of Middle East conflict. "Despite all evidence" and "vast majority" are completely wrong. You would wish that this were the case, and your friends in the liberal establishment media will try their best to make it so, but objectivity is not one of your tools. Oh, before that, if anyone has put self-aggrandizement and party above our Nation its your simian Liberal Democratic Leadership.

Nice tape released today from Al Zawaheri, claiming that Democrats should be meeting with him to organize Americas withdraw. Ah, another sign of how your party is really perceived in the world, traitors! If your perception of the terrorist pigs was correct, wouldn't they be supporting any republican? I mean, if American troops in Iraq are really creating more terrorist, doesn't that help their cause? But no, they want us out. Why? Could you figure this one out?

As for Ed and the quote, what is the unpopular cause? Is not freedom in Iraq become the unpopular cause? Has not the mainstream liberal media been living in fear for the last six years? Fear and hate have driven liberals to actually confuse dissent and disloyalty. They have become disloyal, and end up walking in fear of their fellow countrymen. Fear has driven reason out of the liberal mind, emotion rules the direction of liberal thought.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

From Johnson to Iraq, the Real Commentary!

Best wishes and speedy recovery to Sen. Johnson. Now to the frivolous banter! The folowing piece of mail was entitled "neat", oh boy!
Well, looks like both Bush and McCain have fallen into the trap. Apparently Bush is going to take McCain's suggestion and send an additional 35,000 troops to Iraq. They can do this for a few months by overlapping the tours of duty; starting the incoming troops a few months before the outgoing troops leave.

In other words, the idiots have decided to take sides in a civil war! The 'terrorists' in Iraq must be popping champagne corks over this one! It's like General Terry sending more help to Custer......all it does is give the enemy more targets to kill.

On another subject.... If the Senator from S.D. dies or can't serve, the Gov. of S.D., a Republican, appoints someone to the office until the next general election in 2008. Question: Will the Governor do the honorable thing and name someone of the same political party, a Democrat, or will he do the crass political thing, and name a Republican? Wanna make a guess?!

My irreverent reply with the chop comments
Honor? Please, liberals don't know the meaning of the word. He will do the honorable thing all right and appoint himself. But don't expect it to happen.
NL: This is a most interesting reaction on your part. It certainly makes working together in Congress a bit difficult don't you think? But, the position of Rove and Nordquist for the past 12 years has been that they don't need the D's, we got the votes. They thought that they were headed for a permanent R majority; that the neocon victory was forever. But, as the R's are about to find out, no victory is forever. Majorities change to minorities. And, believe it or not, in domestic, as in internation politics, you do have to work with and talk to your political opponents. The real world does have a way of intruding. If positions were reversed I would expect a D Gov to say, well, u won the seat, your entitled to have an R fill it for the next two years to a general election, and name an R to the seat. That's the way honorable men and women work. Alas, we seem to be past that, and politics is not the business of governing but the business of simply winning.

I have a question though. What becomes of the vote for leader? No way Johnson gives up his seat willingly, yet if he is incapacitated, no vote. So, the majority has not enough votes.....
NL: Well, as the SD state web site notes, this has happened before in SD. Karl Mundt (I have a picture from about 1962 of my mother and I in Mundt's office in DC with his arms around both of us. Look him up and see what his politics were.....) lingered for a long long time and the Gov didn't appoint anybody. The seat was not empty, legally. So, nobody could vote in his name even though the D's would technically still hold the majority, as there would be 50 D's and 49 R's, this being a rare case where loosing a seat, so to speak, does not automatically mean the gain of a seat for the opposition. The purpose would be to keep that majority and hence the chairmenships etc.

Love your boy Harry, "He really looks good..." Yeah, I just had brain surgery, doctors questionable if I will even live, but I look "marvelous"... Love it! Your boys a complete piece of work... Reminds me of when what's her name (congresses woman something or other) out here went in to the hospital. The hardcore dems claimed the family's privacy, and we never knew about her condition until she died two months later. Of course that was well past the time anyone could mount a campaign... Imagine those Honorable Dems doing such a thing! How about your Honorable Harry!
NL: Don't recall who your talking about. Somebody in Oregon? Anyway, there is no way to declare the seat vacant short of death or resignation.

I notice something though. One lib has done the honorable thing. Yes, uber lib judge actually upholds congress and the Pres! Bye bye Hamdan! Hahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahhhaaa! I even give it to you at your favorite source:

Rare Carlos link to the Old Grey Hag

At least one lib has some honor...
NL: Judge Robertson is an interesting case. He resigned from the FISCourt without comment. He applied the statute and that was that. The next step, of course, is to appeal not the statute but the constitutional issue of hab. corp. to the Supreme Court and get a ruling there. Personally, I would argue that anybody who comes under the control of the US government also picks up the protections relating to due process, Hab Corp, speedy trial, right to confront witnesses and presentation of evidence, etc etc. The Constitution should cover and protect anybody who comes within its grasp. If you come under the penalties you should also come under the protections. Bush wants to avoid the usual criminal courts only because he knows he could not win a conviction there, in part based on the use of torture and in part because he knows that none of the cases would stand up to evidencery standards.

As for your celebration crap. You live in a vacuum. When did the terrorist actually celebrate recently? Yes, when Dems regained control. Why? Because they figured that meant they were winning and we would leave. You're in outer space. There is the real world, and then there is the nutters imaginary world. Even the liberal nutter MSM drive by press commented on the cheering by Americas enemy at the election result. They don't cheer when we send more troops... Wanna guess why?
NL: Can't say as I recall any 'celebrations'. Exactly what are you referring to? I would think they are celebrating now because the US is going to continue, at least for two more years, the same policies that will continue to drain the national treasure, get Americans killed, turn people the world over against the US, and produce the chaos that the insurgents and terrorists thrive in. If the Bushites and McCain actually do sent another 35,000 troops without a substantive change in how those troops are used, then the situation will only get worse. If the troops are used to provide security while construction takes place, if they are used to secure areas on a long term basis rather than search and clear and then leave, if they are embedded and work with carefully vetted units of the police and army who are loyal to a unified Iraq government, then they might accomplish something. But. I don't see any evidence that that is the plan, or could even be done at this point. I suspect we are far beyond that point. That should have been the immediate plan after defeating Saddam's army, and at some point the situation deteriorates beyond repair. It doesn't sound to me like there is anything to the Bushite plan other than more troops, without the necessary political settlement that has to occur. That being the case, the strategy (or non-strategy) will fail in a very few months, Iraq will collapse, the Saudis will come in from the west and the Iranians from the east and the Americans will try and retreat out in haste, disorder, dishonor and disaster just as they did in Vietnam, and will blame the Iraqis for their failure, just as they blamed the Vietnamese. Sic transit gloria.

End of Transmission

My comments on the discussion are brief. First, conservatives have never held a majority in the Senate. In fact you could argue we held the house for a few years, and two terms of the presidency ('80 and '84). So a definite majority is still out there for us. Bush and the current crop of Republicans had some success, and finally gained control, but they aren't very conservative. At least the president is movable on a few of the most important issues. But, unfettered spending, ridiculous border enforcement, refusal to stand up and lead against liberal inanity.... these transgressions are difficult to stomache.

Second, the constitution should cover any person who is a citizen of this country first and foremost. Then alien residents, tourist, on down to diplomats (scum of the earth). Illegal immigrants have broken our laws, and should be covered as well, i.e. deported. Then those of other status would fall under the many treaties we are signatories of, under Constitutional authority. Hence we can Constitutionally execute irregular enemy combatants at will in a time of war. To determine wether a individual falls into that category, we have nicely provided for them a fair and judicious method via military tribunals. Case closed except for whining liberal idiots who hate Bush first and foremost, and then the military, so the issue is ripe for much gnashing and grinding of teeth.

Finally, anyone who missed how pleased Ahmadinejad was at the election results is a buffoon. Congratulations flowed in from many a corner in the world of Islamofascism, and to ignore it leaves ones head deep in the sand. In fact you could say the Democratic party was definitely the representatives of choice for Islamofascists. Then to assume that what the terrorists thugs want is more of our best and brightest speaks to a arrogance coupled with blindness concerning the nature of the battle we face. However, a scenario of true civil war is always a possibility. Every country has civil unrest looming in the background, even first world monocultures like Japan. When you consider the socioeconomic forces in modern Iraq, the possibility of a religious war is always near. It was less than two decades previous that the same area saw much conflict. The goal of each player is to gain as large a supporting population base as possible, and then in the case of the Islamic nutters, expand as necessary until all are subdued. The Kurds aren't giving anything up, and we are currently building a very nice facility in the Kurdish 'state' that I am sure will be welcome to the US for many moons. The Sunni triangle is a loss, but the expectations before the war probably weren't to high. Sadly, after making a stand in Fallujah and other areas, we turned it back over to weak Iraq control.

It can be expected that the population in those areas resent American security. They suffered the least under Saddam, and lost the most when he fell. The crux of this current situation revolves around how much control of Iraqi Shiites can Iran get before the Iraq police forces become stable. That could take a decade. Yet to allow the region to dissolve into more conflict would be detrimental to US security. We are fighting a war initiated by Islamofascist nutters, and though the battlefield has changed, the commonality in purpose of the enemy has not. Saddam wanted to expand his control in a Stalinist fashion, yet irritated to many neighbors. Think of his playbook though, lob missiles into Israel continuously while looting a fat prize Kuwait. What were the missiles for? Arab political cover. Anyone who lobs missiles into Israel is a true Arab hero. What does Iran do in the modern day? Hezbollah as a proxy lobs missiles into Israel. Iran is a valiant warrior of the people. Al the while infiltrating Iraq and attempting a nuclear arsenal.

We will be seeing a greater conflict soon, whether we want it or not. And we can fuddle duddy around with inane attempts at pathetic diplomacy, or prepare for serious conflict. Talking all day long will postpone, no will give those who are relatively weak time to strengthen themselves. Has Hezbollah disarmed yet? Or perhaps have they resupplied themselves? Will Iran attain a nuclear device? Or is it when? A key in both of these questions is Iraq. If Iraq is a complete mess, there will be even greater pressure. If Iraq strengthens itself, the chance of Iran and Syria further supporting terrorist activities diminishes.

All of these points seem clear and self evident to me, yet why such ignorance on the part of socialist liberals in America? To let emotion control your behavior is a sure sign of eventual defeat. And the leftists are filled with rage, hate, and anger in this country. What will satisfy them? What will appease them? Or do they need to be marginalized and eliminated... Americas greatest threat right now seems to be from within, a potent cancer of the heart. Liberal socialism, the permanently disaffected. May we be given a great light to shine upon them.

More Traitors in the Senate?

Ah, can you believe the wonder of liberal nutters? Have a taste...
The Senate may actually be trying to conduct foreign policy! Why, why, the nerve of those people, taking their constitutional duties seriously! I mean, how dare then go around a President and Secretary of State that only know obstruction and war rather than negotiation and peace. Next thing you know one of them will want to go to North Korea. Which ain't such a bad idea.....

Uh, you mean undermine our foreign policy. Put your glasses on. So now its a 'constitutional duty' to negotiate with terrorist supporting nations? Oh, and it works so well too. I'm sure Assad will be all accommodating. I'm sure he will stop aiding Hezbollah right away. And the border with Iraq, yep, patroled night and day. Hey, lets throw Lebanon under the bus.... Typical of lib idiots. Sacrifice anything so long as it is a path to more power. Unless you are really delusional and think that you can make nice with a society who's major congregating factor is Israeli and Western hate. Along with a bunch of other fears and hates. Makes me laugh that you nutters fall for the diplomacy line every time. "Oh yes, we would love to help you in Iraq..." Regan was the last president to successfully negotiate with the Iranians, but the nutters shot that down. Not that I would be in favor of that strategy, but it is funny that lib idiots didn't want to negotiate if it meant success for Regan. Oh, and didn't another traitorous scum lib Dem senator thwart US foreign policy then to? A little trip to support the commie bastard Ortega? Yes a long and sordid history of hindering America from within... Oh, don't forget the other traitors who colluded with the North Vietnamese.

Fight internal oppression by socialist Liberals!!!!!!!