I know. Its a joke.
Yes, we should just leave. They are killing each other, and they will continue to kill each other whether we stay or go. If we leave, whatever authority that emerges after the present semi-puppet government is slaughtered ( and they will be slaughtered ) will at least have no taint of America undercutting it’s authority. As long as we are there no stable authority can exist, because it will be tainted as a collaborationist government simply because we are there.
They will also have a chance to actually rebuild their country, by getting rid of our neocon written laws and by hiring people who will actually rebuild the country. They will also at least no long be slaughtered by Americans on top of each other.
Unfortunately, yes, but I regard that as inevitable at this point. The time when we could have stopped it, if it even existed, is long past. And even if it wasn’t, I can’t imagine a military under Bush and friends doing anything constructive.
Michelle Malkin? Seriously? Tell me you aren’t really that fucking stupid.
Who can just kill each other?
Are you suggesting that we should be involved in all civil wars or internal conflicts?
Honestly, as a hawkish, interventionist, “we should be the world’s policeman or at least should have until we proved that we’re on the take” Dem, I’d be all for that. But somehow, I doubt you really would. Just like the transitory concern for human rights, the idea that people on the right suddenly care deeply about what happens with civil wars is generally grade A bullshit.
I heard some yammerhead talkshow host screaming tonight that if only the Dems had been onboard with this Administration back when this war started, our troops would be home by now. If I hadn’t been listening to it on the stereo in a friend’s car, I probably would have smashed the radio when I heard that. Shrub’s pretty much had a rubber stamp Congress since 9/11, and the Republicans have been in the majority in Congress since before he took office, so I don’t see how any rational person can blame the Dems for what’s gone wrong. Then again, when have talkshow hosts ever been rational? 
Oh, yes, I am that fucking stupid. I mentioned her name. I said she was in Iraq. She’s a conservative blogger.
How fucking stupid can I get, mentioning her? Do I need a de-lousing? Or maybe an exorcism?
But I’m glad that I apparently have an Apos-enraging talisman. Here, let me see if it works: MICHELLE MALKIN!
Ooh, scary… Michelle Malkin! Did I catch you off-guard with that one?
Tomndebb: I assume that taking your blogging to Iraq, outside the green zone, constitutes putting your money where your mouth is, and anyone willing to do so isn’t a ‘chickenhawk’.
But if you want guys that are actually in the military, just do a search for ‘Milblogger’. You’ll find 1963 of them in the U.S. The majority are supportive of the war.
But I don’t know why I even let myself be sucked into this turd of an ad-hominem argument. It’s just a way for people like RTFirefly to get their mean-spirited little digs in at the opposition while skating around the rule about not being a flaming asshole. It’s really rather pathetic.
My alternative plan is to realize that the Iraq war has, all along, been an ‘own goal’ in the war on terror, rather than something that advanced our cause, and certainly not part of a Battle to Save the West from the Terrorists.
Losing Iraq will have consequences primarily for Iraqis, and just as the consequences of our occupation have been horrible for them, the aftermath of our occupation probably will be too. Since despite our best efforts, things have gotten worse in Iraq each year we’ve been there, exactly what’s the point of staying? As rescuers, we’re the guy who threw a drowning man an anchor.
Sorry, but as best I can tell, not one of these is currently fighting in Iraq to keep us from losing the War on Terror.
I’m not asking anything of Iraqis. If I could figure out how to save them from the hell we’ve created for them, I would. (I think the last faint chance passed last summer, when the Bush Administration nixed Maliki’s negotiations with the Sunni insurgents on account of amnesty and a few other things.)
I’m not sure what you’ve proved so far, so I think the answer is, you need something different from what you’ve got.
Because not every cause is of the same importance.
What the Bush Administration is claiming is that we’ll lose the GWoT if we lose Iraq. That raises the War in Iraq to overriding importance, doesn’t it? As in, drop whatever you’re doing, we need to win this one, or we’ll be fighting them over here.
I don’t make that claim about Africa. They make this claim about Iraq. Anyone in America who believes them and is of enlistment age should kiss the wife and kids goodbye, head down to their Army recruitment office, and go save Western civilization.
It most certainly is, if this war is as important as they claim. You really can’t have it both ways: either the Iraq war is this crucial, in which case those who concur with that view should be flocking to the recruitment offices, or it’s not, in which case it’s time for Fearless Leader to can the absurd hyperbole.
Then take that up with the right-wing noise machine. They’re the ones who invented that argument out of whole cloth.
Tellya what: if you care to come down to D.C. sometime, where we’ve got a host of universities, most of which have Young Republican organizations, we can visit their meetings and ask them the names of their members who have enlisted, and how many members, total, they have.
Or we could just compare the active membership in Young Republican chapters across the country with the recruitment numbers of the U.S. Army and Marines (we have no shortage of sailors and flyboys) and see if we can draw any conclusions.
Are you claiming that what the White House is saying in its ‘fact sheet’, har har, isn’t a gross exaggeration? Or are you saying that if the cause was as critical as they claim it is, then the vast majority of Americans should just go about their daily lives, and do no more about it than support pro-war politicians and bloggers? Or are you claiming that the plural of your anecdotes are data, and that the enlistment offices aren’t having to beat the bushes for substandard and desperate recruits because the Young Republicans and the LGF commenters are signing up in healthy numbers?
Let me perhaps be more precise about the targets of the OP.
-
The Bush Administration, for engaging in absurd hyperbole in what is titled as a “Fact Sheet.”
-
The legions of politically active conservatives who have used their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, etc., to make their weight felt on the pro-war side of the Iraq issue, by blogging and other political activism.
Most of the people in the Army were there before we invaded Iraq. They are doing their jobs. Whether or not they believe in the war, that is not, by and large, why they are there. Some of them may be there because they felt that their posting at RedState or at Little Green Footballs, and their participation in Young Republican activities wasn’t enough - that it was time to fight the War on Terror through something other than a keyboard. But the fact is that there’s not even a push among right-wing bloggers, or among the College Republicans, to encourage their readers or members to enlist.
Finally, the military isn’t all that supportive of the war.
I generally need to be convinced of the underlying premise before I bother with making plans to account for it.
One of the significant falsifications that got us into this mess in the first place was the allegation of links between terrorism relevant to the West and Saddam/Iraq. People with two brain cells to rub together (I’m not looking at you at this point, Carol) figured out long ago this was complete bullshit fed to the masses to cynically manipulate them into a war to be fought for significantly less compelling reasons.
If you actually believe the bullshit Whitehouse line quoted in the OP, and see it as anything other than more yet another cynical attempt to make the continuation of US involvement in the Iraq fiasco imperative by falsely linking it to something important, it’s a case of “fool you once, shame on Bushco, fool you twice and you are a complete and utter doofus.”
They are embedded in Iraq, as in “or are now embedded in Iraq”, which is what Sam said. Your response (and Tom’s) is a non sequitur.
Another irrelevant response. Sam never claimed you were asking anything of Iraqis. What you don’t realize you’re contradicting is Sam’s claim that there are Iraqis who support the American efforts in Iraq. Perhaps if you’d contradict things he has actually written, you wouldn’t look like such a weasel.
What he has proved is that you’re wrong. Your OP implied that if people really thought the conflicts in Iraq were a battle to save civilization, people would actually go there. Sam pointed out that people have indeed gone there.
If you want to introduce that hijack, I wish you’d flesh it out more. Why exactly do you think starvation and genocide in Africa is of any less importance than fighting terrorism? And if you think it’s equally important, then why aren’t you there helping out? Why aren’t you doing what you demand others do?
All that means is that the Bush Administration is wrong, not that the “Young Republicans and right-wing bloggers” are hypocrites. They do not have to walk lockstep with Bush in order to believe that the war is very important, even important in fighting terrorism. They do not even have to interpret Bush’s policy the same way you do.
But you should be making that claim about Africa. The reason you don’t is that it would require, you know, courage — that thing you’re demanding of others. There are many reasons why people could agree with Bush and still not go to Iraq. Your “either you’re fer us or agin us” is eerily like Bush’s own mindset.
Utter bullshit. It is not either/or. What you don’t realize you’re talking about is called “doxasm”. A person can believe that the war in Iraq is a war to save the West while simultaneously believing that: (a) the war is already lost; or (b) the government is incompetent to protect their families while they’d be away, forcing them to choose between short term and long term needs; or (c) there are ways other than physical conflict to fight the war; or (d) a bazillion other reasons not included in your bizarre either/or dichotomy.
And you’re the one who raised the topic of it. So he’s taking it up with you. Just because you feel the heat from the fire you started doesn’t mean you’re not the arsonist.
What a numbskull demand. That’s something you should have done before making your claim. Instead, you selected the easiest possible thing to pit, wrote a nearly empty OP with a ridiculous challenge, and then sat back to soak up the reinforcement that you thought you’d find in a long string of “me too” posts. You knew very well that you would encounter little if any opposition to an OP that takes a stand against Bush. And whatever opposition you found would be shouted down in short order by everything from Apos’s usual thread crashing rhetorical bellowing to Luc’s comic relief cellophane post wrappers.
To conclude what exactly? What drove you to the premise that the only way to respond supportively to Bush’s statement is to join the fucking army? When Clinton espoused his “Wider War” hypothesis for his intervention in Bosnia, did you assume that it meant takeover of the US is imminent, and that the only way you could support him was to get your ass on an aircraft carrier stat?
God, how many strawmen can you concoct in one sitting? He stated his claim plainly. Respond to it or shut the hell up.
I’m going to have to agree with Sam:
This is a stupid argument made by one who used to have my respect. Doesn’t require or deserve the effort of a considered response. He knows better, and that being the case I consider it a fundamentally dishonest stance.
The funny thing about this thread is that if 500,000 Young Republicans somehow read this post and had the scales fall from their eyes in the blinding clarity of RTF’s “logic”, marching en mass to the closest recruiter’s office demanding to be sent to Iraq, RTF would promptly start a thread condemning these young warmongers who think more troops would help, Bush sucks, etc, etc, etc, next verse same as the first.
Fuck me, a conservative pile on.
…but…but…if we leave, how can we pick a fight with Iran and Syria?
What, now? In public?
Said the pot to the kettle, as far as the SDMB is concerned.
I agree with Sam on all counts (wow!) except this one.
He says,
Unfortunately, all the blogs he links to fall into group (3) on his list. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of such right-wingers in group (1), and even a few in group (2). The problem here is that he fails to provide any evidence for their existence, using group (3) to make it appear that he has.
He’s probably right. But his argument loses some luster when he resorts to trickery to make it.
Of course the war on terror can be won if we fail in Iraq. In fact, in the long run, it will probably help.
It’s only a non sequitur if you fail to notice that what Sam said missed my original point: are any of these people fighting to make sure we don’t lose in Iraq to prevent the loss of the War on Terror?
The Westerners he mentions didn’t go there to fight. The Iraqis he mentions didn’t go there, period; that’s where they live.
Besides, AFAIAC, this is about (a) the Bush White House, and (b) Americans who make a lot of noise supporting the war, who claim to buy what Bush is selling, but don’t follow through on the implications.
I fleshed it out further down in the post. And since you’re obviously more passionate about starvation and genocide in Africa than I am, the question redounds on you: why aren’t you there, helping out?
“Interpret”? “Important”? The White House says it’s a fact that **Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. **
Bolding in original.
Little left to ‘interpretation’, is there?
If you believe I should be making that claim about Africa, then obviously you yourself must already believe it.
So get thee to Africa. Or stay here and be a chickenshit wimp.
If they believe (a), (b), or (c), then they’re definitely not buying what Bush is selling, and so my gripe is not with them.
Just because you know funny names for stuff doesn’t mean you actually have an argument. Especially if you don’t argue against my actual position.
The ‘topic’ you’re now talking about was “if you don’t have kids you don’t have a right to an opinion.” If you think I raised that, I can only request that you learn to read.
It’s not a demand; it’s an offer. And assorted other lefty bloggers have confronted College Republicans, wingnut bloggers, and others about who in their membership, on their blogroll, etc., has volunteered for Iraq, and gotten excuses and the runaround. This is old news, dating back to 2004’s Operation Yellow Elephant.
When I post, it’s not because I expect anything; I just say that which I feel like saying that I’m willing to stick around to argue for if challenged.
Maybe that’s your posting style you’re discussing. Not everyone is like you.
I dunno - maybe the claim that losing in Iraq means losing the War on Terror?
I mean, that’s pretty damned big.
Maybe you’d better actually quote Clinton on the implications of the war in Bosnia, rather than just say some bullshit that nobody knows what it means, probably including you.
This is a drive-by post by someone who used to have a lot of people’s respect, and managed to lose it.