Pajamas Media

67 Comments

1. sara:

I will, politely, disagree with you on your evaluation of 1) how the war is going, 2) what we are doing/how we are doing it, and 3) why any Americans would want to leave.

America’s will can be broken, America is not invincible. Is this the kind of message you want to send to the enemy?

Reconsider your position before it’s too late.

This sounds distinctly as if America has (or should have) a God Complex, which I believe is part of the issue many countries have with America’s position on the war right now. In addition, the idea that we should base our actions purely on what other people think, rather than on what our countrymen think (which is, I believe, the whole point of a democracy) is somewhat askew from the essential goal of spreading democracy, isn’t it? And lastly… your remark comes off sounding mildly threatening. Threatening more terror to get us to respond in a manner convenient to your own seems far more in line with the opposite side of this ‘war’.

Apr 27, 2007 - 11:55 am 2. @thepointyend:

Omar – To answer the question in the title – for political gain. Sure, there are members of the Democratic party who will never support armed action against anyone for any reason. I don’t agree with those types of folks, but at least they are operating based on some sort of skewed set of principals. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Dem party is more interested in ensuring their own get elected in 2008, especially for the top job. And because their political views are shared by the vast majority of the mainstream media, they can pound the American people over the head with rhetoric, rather than facts, to convince them that an undecided contest is in fact lost.

I can only tell you that the vast majority of those of us who have been to Iraq, who have fought along side Iraqis, who have opened schools, who have played with the children, and who have seen your suffering firsthand understand what this means to you, and what it means to our country. We’ll continue to fight for your freedoms, and ours, until they drag us back kicking and screaming.

Apr 27, 2007 - 12:28 pm 3. Alan:

Omar,

I agree with you completely. I’m going to visit my congressman tomorrow in person. He will hear about this. Tomorrow I will be your voice. I’m as tired of these games as you are.

Alan

Apr 27, 2007 - 12:32 pm 4. Marcie McCarty:

We don’t understand them either. They are the party of defeat. They never have any ideas, they just play politics. The defeat-o-crates, own defeat. They like defeat, they just want our troops out because they think all they have to do is talk to terrorists. You know they are such reasonable people. Right! That is why I liked you piece a week ago, about how evil these terrorists are and the fact that the liberal press won’t mention it because that might help President Bush. They are also the party of hate. Hate and defeat. I am scared for you and I am scared that if they win the next election we will be killed like so many of your people.

May God bless us all and protect us all from the demcrate fools.

Apr 27, 2007 - 12:37 pm 5. Perry:

I agree with you Omar. Unfortunately,democrats can trot out all the polls showing Iraqis AND Americans want a withdrawal. Congress finds it hard to justify continued blood and dollars for people that hate us with a passion. And that’s the bottom line.

Apr 27, 2007 - 12:47 pm 6. Adeline:

Very impassioned post. But obviously by calling the bill “wretched”, you do not seem to understand how a democratic system works. The congress of the US is just responding to what the electorate wants. The reality is Americans are war-weary!

Apr 27, 2007 - 12:59 pm 7. John Coolidge:

We are indeed fortunate that George

Bush is in the White House.He is

committed to victory in your homeland.So is Gen Petreaus.

I know that getting governments to

act in a democracy is challenging but anything to help Bush by passing legislation needed in the

unification of your country would

be of great help.

08 will see victory.

John Coolidge

Apr 27, 2007 - 1:05 pm 8. Jacko:

The American people’s will is not broken. The Democrat leadership’s will is not broken. You have to understand that the American people just want to be left alone.To the Republicans the best way to achive this it to spread Democracy and fredom thoughtout the world. To the Democrats the best way to achive this is to form one global socalist world run by the U.N.,and America is the biggest blockage to that world ,,,so a loss for the U.S is a win for the Democrats. The U.S. is the problem to the Democrats

Apr 27, 2007 - 1:55 pm 9. John Swaine:

@ Sarah:

The US God complex? Sara, perhaps that’s how it might be percieved within the US but as a Brit allow me to spell out the facts of Global Security:

The US has such a massive military hegenomy around the world that we in Europe have simply been letting our armed forces wane and shrivel. To put it simply YOU, the US are our Armed Forces.

We’ve lived under the US security blanket since the end of WWII. The US needs to be invincible, it needs to be a gleaming colossus that stands over us all because the alternative is somewhat horrific.

The US is by default the military defender of the free world, we can run around proclaiming your arrogance and your upgunned attitude to your Armed Forces but the bottom line is that we simply couldn’t have such small standing armies without the existence of a massively powerful US military.

Terrorists attacked in 2001 because they were sure they could get away with it and would suffer no sizable retaliation. Because in today’s age a paramilitary force can operate out of a rogue state and commit massive-scale attacks, shielded by 20th century principles of untrammeled sovereignty.

The US, for all its bluster actually took the fight to terrorists. Iraq may have been a detour but now that US forces are actively fighting terrorists there pulling out is no different from accepting defeat at the hand of an enemy.

Military defeat by terrorists is unconscionable if we want to live in a world free from the threat of terrorism.

Falling back doesn’t work against such a foe.

Apr 27, 2007 - 2:57 pm 10. Peter Kay:

Omar,

I have “religiously” followed your blog and this is my first comment ever.

I don’t pretend to hold “The Solution” to the dilemma faced by the Iraqis as our Democratic leaders wave the white flag.

I will ask, however, that perhaps if the Iraqi people themselves wrote letters to our US congressmen and demonstrated in the streets of Iraq to have the Americans STAY AND HELP, there MAY be a chance that the American public would get a sense that we are wanted in Iraq.

Right now the liberal media has trumpeted the case that no one wants us in Iraq, including the Iraqis.

Liberals, as short-sighted as they are, will fight like crazy for any animal on the endangered species list out of their “compassion”.

Iraq’s challenge is to get the liberals to see you like an endangered species. You need to appeal to their liberal side. Show them how women’s rights are so incredibly abused under Islamic extremism. Give them a cause to rally around. Show them how Iraq will be like Darfur and soon you’ll see George Clooney appealing to the President to “stop the slaughter” in Iraq.

You might have a chance.

Apr 27, 2007 - 2:59 pm 11. Brian H:

I think the Dems have fatally tagged themselves. Monty Python had a little song or two about Sir Robin that apply here:
Packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing about
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge

Apr 27, 2007 - 4:22 pm 12. Steve:

1) There is no liberal media. If anything it is skewed to the right.
2) I recall another Iraqi telling us that we would be greeted as liberators. It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now.
3) The administration HAS NOT admitted its mistakes. What this administration does is circle the wagons and maintain their loyalty. It does not take responsibility for its actions.
4) I would be happy to stand up for Iraq if the Iraqis were not so corrupt and untrustworthy. If you want Iraq to be stablized, then Iraqis have to stand up and act like enough is enough. You aren’t doing this, and it is a waste of the US’s resources to be in Iraq.
5) The war is lost. Democrats haven’t made it this way. How could they when the Republicans have been in control for 4 years? The Democrats have had a slight majority for a few months. Yet, the Democrats get the blame. See #3 where I state that Republicans have not taken responsibility for the failures. The mantra is that everything is fine – making progress. If you keep lying to people, do you really think that Americans are so stupid to continue to believe your pronouncements? I guess if you are republican, then are that stupid.

Apr 27, 2007 - 4:39 pm 13. Autie:

Peter Kay is so right, Omar, if you want to turn this American defeatism around. The US media will eat it up, and play it over and over again, because it would make for such easy TV programming. Yes, use your “Arab Street” for the good: protest AQ and what the rejectionist/terrorists are doing to your innocent men, women and children (a demonstration similar to what thousands in Lebanon did to get Syria’s troops to leave). Organize for God’s sake and get your people into the streets and point out what will happen to the 15 million who voted for democracy and peace if the USA leaves too soon: e.g., genocide and a terrorist base for AQ. Such street demonstrations would be 10x more powerful than any truck bomb or IED. It would truly would be the antidote to such terrorist violence. Get it? It’s called democracy in action! The Dems and complacent Americans will only take note if mass protests of that sort are regularly and repeatedly reported in our major media. Get on the ball!! YOU and your buddies have to do this or else your liberation will all go for naught. It’s in your hands now and all that is needed is your application of the same media savy that your enemies have been using these past four years.Go for it and best of luck!

Apr 27, 2007 - 5:10 pm 14. ex USN:

History repeats itself. This is the very same party that pretty much did the exact same thing in the Vietnam War.

Micromanage, micromanage, declare defeat, blame someone else.

The really obscene part about it, is that some of these “people” are the very same politicians, if not the intellectual offspring of them.

No moral integrity, but anything for a vote.

Apr 27, 2007 - 5:42 pm 15. stella steiniger:

Today, I sent letters to my Ohio Congressmen for the sake of our own security and prevention of an unimaginable slaughter and blood shedding of a nation, we need to stay the course. We have to support our Military, their mission, help to show Iraqis we will be their true allies. Our troops believe in their mission of success. I do too. My prayers are with them and the Iraqi Nation.

Apr 27, 2007 - 6:06 pm 16. Tyna:

I am so sorry that your future, and ours, depends on a bunch of ignorant politicians in my country trying to sabotage this war. It scares me to no end what will happen if they get their way.

Apr 27, 2007 - 6:47 pm 17. dave greene:

hey autie, your not understanding that being an activist in iraq is not like being a “feel good because your making a difference” activist in a country like america where the chances are there is no fanatic about to run in to a crowd of people he disagree’s with so he can blow them up, do you think a dude who’s about to blow himself up cares about a million people protesting? do you think he is gonna say to himself “oh well if thats what normal people want mabe i wont blow myself up in a crowd of women and children”? do you think it will make the news inside america? they never coment on anything possitive in iraq.

Apr 27, 2007 - 8:09 pm 18. mbdexp:

@sara:
Please, please tell me that you went to goverment school. If not, shame on you. Who the hell told you that US is a democracy? And, the american people for sure don`t want a defet. If you want to be seen as “nice” by others, its your peobleme, but the majority of american people want don`t agree with you. Just read the military blogs and others sorces (like Omar`s posting) and, maybe, you will learn somthing.

@Steve:
No liberal media? How you justify all the so called news, witch shows only the bad things, but are complectly mute about all the achivments in the last 3 months?
And yes, Bush admited that mistakes were made. You will be better served if you are listening to alternativ media, not just to democrat talking points
You are not standing up for your fellow citizens, against the coruption of the democratic party, and want us to belive that you will stand up for others? Sorry, you are a liar.
And finaly, THE WAR IS NOT LOST. How your preferat lider can proclame something that stupid? A war can`t be lost in the middle of it. Only after one side emerge victor, can be decidet who won or lose, but for sure not in the middle of it, went every day progress is made. Only when the islamo-fascist will knock on your door, than you can admit such stupid think. Until then, some of us, not the elit, will fight, to keep your sorry ass dry

Apr 27, 2007 - 8:47 pm 19. Greg:

Omar,
You say: “I understood that by winning a majority in the legislature the Democrats were supposed to guide America to victory by correcting the mistakes of the past. Obviously I was wrong; they have put all their efforts into making sure the exact opposite outcome happens.” I very much envy the innocence necessary for anyone to have believed that the Democrats would help America win the war. When the President, or any other head of state, signs a treaty, the whole country is thereby committed to its terms. That’s what a head of state is–someone with the authority to commit the country to certain kinds of projects and courses of action. Similarly, when a head of state decides to start a war, the whole country is thereby committed to, and made responsible for, making the war turn out well. The sad fact, as we Americans who truly care about our Iraqi friends have understood for some time, is that the Democrats refuse to accept this responsibility. They think that it is just Bush’s war, or the Republicans’ war. Americans (and citizens of Western nations in general) like to apologize for all kinds of things, but it will be a long time before any Democrats apologize to the people of Iraq for abandoning them. I myself feel like apologizing, as an American, for the shameful behavoir of our legislators. But it is much more important to stop this terrible turn of events before it is too late. It would be a disaster, both for your country and for mine, if America left Iraq now, and we must do whatever we can to stop it. I like Peter Kay’s suggestion of mass Iraqi demonstrations, which the media would have to pay attention to, in support of American troops staying in Iraq. But, of course, Sadr’s people would organize counter-demonstrations demanding that America leave, and the media would give those much more attention. So whatever message good Iraqis like yourself might try to get through the media has to be *loud* and *constant.* It’s no good to just have one demonstration once; at best, that would cause a brief reversal in the general disastrous anti-war trend in American politics. Maybe Iraq could have a national referendum on whether the Iraqi people want American forces to stay? Then there would be polls that had to be reported, and a national campaign with important Iraqi politicians coming out in favor of or against the referendum every other day, so there would be lots of headlines about it for an extended period. That’s the sort of thing that might make a difference. We must all try to do something to stop this.

Apr 27, 2007 - 10:25 pm 20. Mike H.:

Greg, we need to firmly pin the action on the Defeatocrats. It needs to be shown that the Defeatocrats were responsible for the two million dead in Cambodia and one million dead in Vietnam after they cravenly turned on the South Vietnamese. That is the apology that should be proffered, not one from you.

Walter Cronkite’s name should be dragged through the mud of the killing fields, with its victim’s screaming, that the Defeatocrats turned a deaf ear to. The correlation between the present war and the past is the craven manner of the political gain that is supposed to be accrued by the defeat of Iraq. Remember that J f’n Kerry said that only a few hundred people would lose their lives when the North took over Vietnam. Does that sound like the lies that are being offered today?

Apr 28, 2007 - 1:01 am 21. misha:

Omar,

Please, please, please, write and speak out to the U.S. along with any and all of your fellow countrymen who are of the same mind. We Americans need to hear how YOU are experiencing things and how YOU view the war.
I can only cringe as I read the news of what people I did not and would never vote for are saying and trying to do in my country.
It is voices like yours and your fellow countrymen in our papers, on our TVs and visible in public places that will fight and hopefully prevail over the lies that the democrats tell and spread with no compunction.

By the way, I was a mass media major and if my former classmates–many of whom are now in big-name positions– are any indication, there is irrefutably a huge bias in the mainstream U.S. media AND an incredibly calculation-challenged group “telling us the truth” and giving us the figures!

Please keep speaking out–and may your voices be heard.

Apr 28, 2007 - 1:03 am 22. syn:

‘Peace” Democrats (aka Copperheads) have had a history of going to great lengths to support and defend tyranny.

During the Civil War they called Lincoln an incompetant ape, actively encouraged Yankee soldiers to abandon the fight, provided financial backing to the slave owners.

During WW2 they tried to disrupt FDR but because he was a Democrat the party purged out the ‘peace’ Democrats.

The went to Vietnam and brought back made-up stories about razing villages in the manner of Ghengis Kahn, they were the Winter Soldiers who went before congress demanding America cut and run.

They demonstrated for Saddam in Gulf War I demanding America remain at the Kuwait border while allowing Saddam bloodbath against his own Iraqi people to occur.

They are today the Code Pinkers who gave financial support to Al Queda in Fallujah, they are United for Peace and Justice who were the very same ‘peace’ demonstrators in Vietnam, they are the anti-semites who wish to see the destruction Israel, their Progress for America is an unholy alliance with radical Islamic Jihadism determined to bring about the destruction of America, they are Moveon.org financed by George Soros who is determined to disrupt American elections, they are the owners of the NY Times reliving their glory days of LSD induced propagandized activism, they are America’s enemy within.

We now know who they are and we will not let them win.

I was only a teenager during the fall of Saigon but I remember very clearly what happened after those Democrats supported the anti-American ‘peace’ party and I will never forget the evil they brought upon freedom.

We will not abandon you no matter what the ‘peace’ democrats say.

Apr 28, 2007 - 4:52 am 23. GHP:

Perception follows reality. 2006 was a bad year. 2007 is going much better. People haven’t caught up with the progress that’s being made, so they still think we’re losing. We need clear evidence of progress from people like Omar, and then we need to spread the word. People in the US need to be reminded that this is important to the US because it’s important to Al Qaida. They also need to be shown clear and convincing signs of progress. They also need clear and convincing evidence that Iraqis deserve our help. Evidence such as the Sunni tribe going after Al Qaida in Al Anbar. Write your congressman. Support politicians who want to win. I sent a contribution to McCain yesterday, even though I disagree with him on some important points, because he is on the right side in this war and I want him to continue to influence the debate. We need to stay informed and then take action to influence opinion in the US.

Apr 28, 2007 - 6:03 am 24. Rod Ferroggiaro:

This comment is not ment to be direspectful , but this is how I see it. You the people of Iraq have to get on TV get into the news anyway you can and you have to say to the american people that you want peace and freedom. We pro Bush folks are doing what we can you have got to give us a hand its really you the people want to hear say that you want us to win this battle.

Apr 28, 2007 - 6:36 am 25. sbourg:

To Sara’s comments: our Commander-in-Chief Geo Bush, should NOT bend to the will of the 50%-70% of Americans who want us out of Iraq. That is NOT how a democracy works. He is our President. But more pointedly to you comments, a majority of Americans has NO clue of the danger that civilization faces against the jihadists. We MUST help the Iraqis establish their democracy against the murderous forces of the jihadists. You need to do at least SOME studying of our enemy’s goals, so that you can join the 30% or so of us who understand this fully. Until you do, your opinion is not rooted in the reality of what the civilized war faces…-sbourg

Apr 28, 2007 - 7:28 am 26. rixtex:

Americans have only George Bush to blame for the this mess. If he had shown real leadership from the beginning, the Dems would not be able to foist this poison on the world.

Shame on the Dems for their political defeatism. Shame on Bush for screwing it up from the start and giving our enemies the ammunition they need to claim victory.

Apr 28, 2007 - 8:05 am 27. Mark Jaeger:

Dear Adeline,

“The reality is Americans are war-weary.”

War-weary? Really? HOW? Do YOU personally know a member of the Armed Forces who has died or been wounded in Iraq? Has your tax bill gone up because of the war? Have you lost any personal freedoms? Are YOU forced to buy items with “ration coupons?” Have you put in extra hours at your job or in voluntary pursuits to “support the troops?”

I’ve got ten bucks that says that your answers to all the above questions are “No.” Accordingly, please don’t claim for the rest of us that we’re “war-weary.” The plain fact is that our engagement in Iraq has affected most Americans little or not at all. You want “war-weary?” Try the Civil War (600,000+ dead, 1861-1865) or World War II (400,000+ dead, 1941-1945) or even Vietnam (57,000+ dead, 1961-1973).

In my humble, yet always accurate, opinion, you’re the type of person who focuses on the loss of 3,000+ of our young men and women in Iraq, but, when told that 25,000 military-age people die in traffic accidents EVERY YEAR, sniffs, “That’s interesting” and then changes the subject.

Yeah, “history” started the day you were born, didn’t it?

Apr 28, 2007 - 8:21 am 28. Dan:

The number of US troops killed in iraq now exceeds the number of those lost in 9/11… not that 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq except for remembering the day when Bush launched his war and thinking to myself ….”how long before he kills as many US soldiers as Bin Laden killed US citizens. Your right, democrates care more about American people then about iraq’s and given 4 years for iraq to get its act together is enough. Your in a civel war and all you want to do is kill each other. so we, US will pull out and let you kill each other until you grow up and realize how stupid it is.
This war was sold to the US by Republicans and they cant contorl it.
IF you want to see an amazing report on the machiavellian war the Washington Post and George W. sold US. Check out Bill Moyers, Tim Russert and Dan Rathers documentary on PBS or view it on line here.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Apr 28, 2007 - 9:27 am 29. RichC:

Sara,
I don’t understand your reasoning. What Omar wrote is exactly the issue. Let me ask you just one question? Do you beleive in killing terrorists? If you said yes, then what are you doing supporting the liberals who support the killing of innocents. If you said no, there’s no reason for anyone to take what you say seriously. You’re probably too young to remember that terrorists have been killing U.S. citizens since the ’70’s. Oh another thought too…. our armed forces are 100% a voluntary army. VOLUNTARY. I have read that a soldier who doesn’t want to fight can choose not to, and receive something less than an honorable discharge, but definately not a dishonorable discharge. They can choose not to fight. If this is a democracy, how come you’re trying to force your beliefs on them? To those who do choose to defend YOUR freedom, why would you support those who want to kill you and your family, as the terrorists have stated again and again? I don’t understand your reasoning. RichC

Apr 28, 2007 - 9:44 am 30. Herman:

“To the Democrats my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for. They shouldn’t expect us to be grateful for this.” — Omar

Actually, we don’t. You see, Omar, it is a question of priorities that must be resolved. Perhaps you can help in this matter by answering the following question: “Why should Americans, already saddled with a massive federal deficit since Bush took over, spend billions upon billions upon billions of dollars (as well as thousands of lives) providing Iraq with a surrogate police force to keep you Iraqis from killing off each other, when we could instead spend that money on, say, reducing extreme life-killing poverty in subSaharan Africa (and perhaps pay off some of that federal deficit too)? Our federal government is already spending significantly more on you Iraqis than it spends on all of subSaharan Africa put together. In addition, our federal government came out with a report last year indicating that it was the very presence of American troops in the Middle East that is encouraging your countrymen and others in the Middle East to join terrorist groups. So let’s just say that spending money on an American presence in Iraq might not be the best way to go.

The bottom line, Omar: you need some sympathy, but you’re not alone. While the Republicans insist on pouring more and more money down the drain into Bush’s Pet Project, when it comes to reducing misery in the world we Democrats favor a better, more intelligent use of scarce resources.

Apr 28, 2007 - 9:52 am 31. RichC:

Steve, Please read what I said to Sara. The same applies to you. And as someone else said, dude, you gotta read more than the Democratic Times of LA, NY, or any other place they distribute their dogma to unsuspecting unknowledgable people. I know you love your country, but if we loose and until we quit and run, a war is not lost, your children and grandchildren will be in danger. The terrorists have said this right to your face over and over and over and over. Do you actually think they can’t get to you? Well, they’ve been killing your fellow citizens since the 70’s. As I’ve asked before, do you Steve, want to kill terrorists… ? That’s really the only question to answer, and based on what you say, maybe a light will go on in your mind and you’ll realize whom and what you should be supporting. Regard, RichC

Apr 28, 2007 - 10:02 am 32. VA Gamer:

To all of you who believe that because 50+% of the American population currently believes that we should start leaving Iraq, I would like to ask you a question.

How quickly do you think the polls would change if we suffered another major terrorist attack?

Suddenly the numbers would be with George Bush again, and the Democrats would appear like the defeatist losers that they are. Polls change frequently, especially based upon the questions that are asked. For 8 years we had a president that governed by polls (Clinton). He changed on a whim to appeal to whatever audience he faced. It is refreshing to have a president who acts on his principles. It may be frustrating that he cannot articulate his ideas well and that he makes mistakes from time to time, but at least we know where he stands on the issues. I respect that.

Apr 28, 2007 - 10:06 am 33. RichC:

Herman, Scare resources? Have you looked around lately at how our country is growing? We’re growing leaps and bounds. Maybe we should get rid of every government pork project and “entitlement”, how I hate that word? Entitlement.. for whom? Anyway…. Do you want to kill terrorists? Do you? They’ve said it time and time again that they want to kill you. Well, if you said yes, you want to kill terrorists, I suppose you’ve got the perfect liberal plan on how to do it, right? If you say no, you’re then supporting the killing of innocents. If a car bomb went off in Detroit, would you want to do everything in your power to find and stop the killers? Well, isn’t that what we’re doing?

Apr 28, 2007 - 10:21 am 34. Tom Paine:

“Americans do poorly what others cannot do at all.”

So Bush has made mistakes in trying to “drain the swamp” in the Middle East.

None of his critics could have done better; few could have done as well; most would not even have dared to try.

They are at best earthworms — and more often maggots.

Apr 28, 2007 - 10:34 am 35. Egoigwe:

Omar,

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Crawling on all fours and begging America to come fight your war for you. What improvements? Are what you call improvements the ‘Washington’ walls being erected all over Iraq to herd its citizens into sectarian pegs like cattle for slaughter? Or the frenzied theft of its oil and natural resources? The unending queues for gas that mock one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil? Is it the Washington-imposed leadership that wallows in corruption and sleaze or the complete lack of infrastructural rehabilitation that is non-existent outside the Green zone that you speak about?

You portray a very dense ignorance for democratic tenets. What representatives are voted into office to do, in any true democracy, is to abide by the will of its constituents. Iraq is not an American constituency and what its rightful constituency says to its representatives is to get out of Iraq and NOW! How come you are sitting at a table playing Baghdad editor whereas American kids are dying for your so-called ’cause’? Why are you not in fatigues with an AK-47 fighting Iraq’s war? Did you even ever stop to ask yourself what that war is all about and who the enemy really is? How come the damned war?

All you did was to disrespect the good American people and the sacrifices of their youth, their very future, that has been laid waste for the sake of a most senseless war. You spat in the face of the very people you crawl to for help. Shame on you!

Apr 28, 2007 - 10:38 am 36. emjayinc:

Omar, the funding vote was a narrow margin win for Dems. That margin is further discounted because The Prez guaranteed a veto, so it was safe for a number of fence-sitting Dems to vote to protect themselves against their own left wing. I personally don’t see how anyone could urge Iraqi patriots to hit the streets in target-rich demonstrations which would draw homicide bombers like ants at a picnic. But you and your compatriots must come up with an effective way to influence the small number of Dems who make the difference here. And please find a way to more directly influence your own fence-sitters, while you’re at it.
Just ignore the Hermans and the Steves and the Saras, they’re so self-centered that they will accept dhimmitude before its even demanded of them. Herman,you with the wallet-based morality, how will you resolve your priorities when the jihadis present the US,and the UN, too, with a requirement for armed response in sub-Sahara? Have you got the dollar limits figured out yet? Something like this, maybe: If an Iraqi life cost the US “x”, and a US soldier or civilian life cost “y”, and a Coalition life cost “z”, then we should be willing to spend how much(maybe:x+y+z/3?)per African? Is the bottom line cost what determines your moral position? Darfur and Somalia may be good scratch pads for you to work out the math.

Apr 28, 2007 - 11:27 am 37. Demakey:

Pelosi and Reid = two of the 7 Dwarfs, Sleepy and Dopey. Hopefully common sense will rain in their neck of the woods eventually.

Apr 28, 2007 - 2:48 pm 38. Incognito:

Political expediency or stupidity or a combination of both.

And there are just as many of us who believe we should stay the course as those who believe we should cut and run. Those of us who have enough clarity and foresight to see the larger picture.

Apr 28, 2007 - 3:44 pm 39. inktomi:

I really feel for you Omar. I’m in kind of the same boat, as I’m headed for Iraq soon. We’re already a bit short of funds for new equipment, and the prospect of mobilizing without additional federal funding is pretty scary. Then you have the whole issue of being sent to do a dangerous job which Congress is planning for us to fail.

It’s all election politics. ALL of the Democratic candidates are basing their campaigns on failure, so if we succeed they lose. A few years ago they were very supportive in the WoT and Iraq, but their political base complained that their platform wasn’t really any different than the Republicans, and they remained the minority party. So the Democrats started campaigning on surrender to differentiate themselves.

The encouraging thing is that if those of us on the ground are successful, there isn’t much chance of the Copperheads in Congress being reelected. Given that my life is now at stake, I’m pretty intent on victory.

Apr 28, 2007 - 4:31 pm 40. Amy Proctor:

Muqtada al-Sadr wrote a letter to Pres. Bush that states almost word for word the same inflammatory rhetoric that the Dems in the House and Senate have been saying. Very appropriate, since they are both anti-American.

Sadr is advocating the Democratic position on the troop withdrawal. Isn’t that sweet.

Apr 28, 2007 - 5:24 pm 41. Cooper:

Omar,

Yes, the Democrats are wrong, irresponsible and a disgrace. However, they are just putting on a show. They won’t do anything. If the enemy keeps waiting for the Democrats to save them, they are fools. They don’t have the votes to de-fund the war. The US won’t give up in Iraq before the 2008 election and I very much doubt we will after it either.

Apr 28, 2007 - 5:36 pm 42. MNmike:

They are only out for their own selfish interests. I fear if they succeed not only great turmoil in Iraq but a wounding of this country that will surely lead to a “civil war” of sorts. The left is out to destroy this country as it was originally concieved and turn it into a namby-pamby Euro like nanny state. The 2nd amendment has been labeled a built in “reset” button. I believe it will be pushed.

Apr 28, 2007 - 6:44 pm 43. carol:

Love you Omar…. You are right and ignore the facist comments from the uglies in the room. There are those of us fighting here for you guys. Don’t think for a second that we are not getting the word out to the Defeat-o-crats Pelosi and Reid. I for one think they need to resign.

Apr 28, 2007 - 9:23 pm 44. David:

Perhaps a safer alternative to a real-world anti-terror protest that would become a terorism target would be an online one.

Make it simple – something anyone can do, yet still moving. For example, have a few hundred thousand people record a short audio message, and post it online. If you can find more than 10,000 Iraqis that will record their voices asking the US to stay, that would play well in the US media.

Apr 28, 2007 - 9:28 pm 45. George Meegan:

What about creating a 4th State for Iraq? This is my my father (George Meegan)’s proposal, and I feel it is most realistic. Sen. Joe Biden has proposed that there be 3 divided sections in Iraq, for the Sunis, Shias and Kurds. My father proposes that there be one more section; for those many Iraqis who do not find a place in either of the 3, who seek a working democracy, who ask for America’s help. The US forces may guard that democratic state and call it victory (for if it happened, it will be), and help keep the divided states under control.

When Britain created Iraq, it’s differing factions were not taken into consideration. Therefore a unified Iraq is, I feel, a near impossible task to begin with?

For the happiness of the Iraqi people, and a victory for the United States, dividing Iraq into 4 sections is, I feel the most realistic.

I have only here, the core of the idea. Questions of where that 4th state will be, the division of oil, etc., have to be answered, but I wanted to get this main message to you.

I would appreciate any responses sent to ayumimeegan@gmail.com

Apr 28, 2007 - 11:00 pm 46. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

Omar, your comments would be more convincing if you spoke for yourself and not hubristically for the entirety of The Iraqi People. The fact that you blog on a site like pajamasmedia.com, which promotes an anti-critical neocon view of the rightness of American imperialism and spends so much bandwidth on supporting a president and policy that the U.S. populace has largely rejected, also undermine your credibility for many. Do you really believe your rhetoric that, “To the Democrats [and the majority of Americans who support withdrawal sooner rather than later] my life and the lives of twenty-five other million Iraqis are evidently not worth trying for”. If you do believe this, why would you trust them to work on behalf of a state and people whose lives they have no interest in trying to protect? On the other hand, if you don’t really believe this, why would you want more of the same from the hapless hegemon who has made the conflagration in Iraq possible?

Apr 29, 2007 - 12:24 am 47. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

RichC., your mantra about killing terrorists is the height of silliness, not least because the word “terrorist” in American discourse is politically manipulated and meaningless. For many in the world, including me, the U.S. acts as a force exporting terror in many forms around the globe: YOU are the great terrorists. In addition to exporting it directly, your country also contributes immensely to creating the conditions for war and political violence in every corner of the world. Anti-imperialism was the foundational principle of the American state. The fact that most Americans now are stone cold blind to the imperialist crimes of their own country – thinking instead that the U.S. is somehow a global hero – is the highest form of irony. The fact that you think al-Qa’idah represents a greater threat to world peace than your own hyper-militarised state would be risible if it weren’t so very menacing. For truly peace-loving Americans, the majority of the world would prefer that you fight against violence by attacking the U.S. arms industry, the U.S. network of military and naval bases around the world (many in colonies seized and maintained by force), the illegal U.S. monitoring of all global communications, and the U.S. support of anti-democratic regimes on every continent.

Apr 29, 2007 - 1:08 am 48. syn:

Behrend

Thanks for your display of hysterically paranoid rantings so defined by the ‘peace’ people worldwide. Sure… militarized America is so very hegemonic that when we told Germany we were pulling out our bases after some sixty years of providing security and defense for Old Europe, Germany demanded we stay. Poor Old Europe, you’re behaving exactly the same way you did in the 1930’s, in denial of the reality surrounding you.

By the way, the definition of a neo-con is a former leftist mugged by reality. I proudly wear the badge of neo-con.

Apr 29, 2007 - 4:41 am 49. Steve:

So many people have a wrong idea about why we should stay, and fight, or why we should go. First off, I think the question of “are the Iraqi’s worth it or not” is not the reason we should stay or go. I think this question springs out of speculation of the will of the Iraqi people to fight for their own country. Whatever news articles might try to convince anyone of either direction, the facts are that some Iraqi’s are willing to fight, and die if necessary for their freedom. The second reason we should not base staying or leaving on is this thought that it’s the will of the American people to go, and being a Democracy we should go. Well, America is not a pure Democracy. It is more of a Democratic Republic. The American media (irregardless of what they think) is not the third political party in our nation. Although they are convinced that we should not be there, and have convinced any Americans that we should not be there, simply leaving before Iraq is stabilized will absolutely be seen as an American defeat, and we will be seen as a paper tiger, and if there is one thing that we know will make these enemies bold enough to attack us again, it is the perception of a broken and weak willed America.

We know that al Qaeda is in America right now. We know that Hesbolla is in America today. The Jehad against America is real, and as anyone knows, the best defense is a good offense. As an America, I would rather die fighting than die by an explosion in a shopping mall. It is amazing that we have not had attacks here. All of the experts predict that we will have them here. It is clear in nature that all predators attack when they see their pray venerable and weak, and a cut and run tactic is just that. America needs to gut it up, and continue to remain on offense. Iraq and Afghanistan are where our offensive fronts are right now. The enemy wants to fight, so let’s fight them.

Apr 29, 2007 - 6:58 am 50. damian:

Ok, some of this stuff just hurts my brain. To claim that we are war weary is just silliness when the AVERAGE American does not even have to do a damn thing about the war with the exception of hear about an occasional bombing in the country. You don’t have to even sacrifice a Latte in support of the war, and yet you people are exhausted by it. That is pathetic in the most “me” centric way possible, grow a set and realize as adults you have a responsibility to TAKE responsibility for your lives. That does not mean “protecting” volunteers from themselves. US Service members know what we are getting into when we enlist/re-enlist or remain on active duty through Voluntary Indefinite status. All troops can leave the service at the end of their current enlistment if they so choose. I have seen quite a few leave, but I have seen quite a few more remain when given the choice. What does that speak in regards to the character of our armed forces?

The only way we can lose this “war” is to relinquish the field of battle to a morally and physically inferior enemy. Cowardly people that remain outside of the fray should probably remember they are outside of the actual sphere of influence.

As to the idiocy that “we have made mistakes”, when in warfare have there not been mistakes? The battle at little round top in the Civil War was a cacophony of error’s by both sides, the side that had the staying power won out. In WW1, the entire war was a screw up, only through the infusion of American troops was this stalemate ever broken and the “war to end all wars” completed and victory claimed by the allies. WW2 was a massive screw up starting with the attack on Pearl Harbor where intelligence indicating that there was an impending attack was ignored costing us over 2000 lives on that sunday afternoon. The D-Day invasion cost us OVER 9000 dead in the FIRST 24 hours. We would have surrendered if this had gotten out with our media today. The battle of ardenes (AKA Battle of the Bulge) was another major screw up that cost us many precious troops (75,000 give or take with the German’s losing over 80,000). We only won this fight because General Patton force marched his entire division over 100 miles and went straight into battle. His reinforcements broke the enemy’s back and drove them from the field of battle.

Lacking a perspective of history is the most dangerous problem America faces today with regards to educating our future. IF we continue down this road, every little thing will become a tragedy or emergency and no perspective will be maintained. Chicken Little will be the norm.

This enemy is a guerilla force and thus cannot win this fight on the battlefield, they can only win if we participate in our own failure. This organization will be ground into dust if we allow the fight to continue they do not have a insurmountable resource base, but we do have a weak courage base in the US. I wished those of you that had the “courage” to base jump or bungy jump could show some real moral courage and stand behind this war. Your petty political wrangling will induce a much larger tragedy than that going on in Darfur currently if you continue down this foolish road.

http://www3.uakron.edu/worldciv/pascher/che.html

Che said it best (I personally can’t stand this murderer):

“1. Popular forces can win a war against the army.”

“2. It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.”

We do not need anything more than the support of our nation to win this war, however making claims from the bully pulpit of the media that our war is lost only stand to create a condition on the ground that we are going to lose. Fighting a guerilla insurrection is not about body counts it’s about the support of the nation. Iraqi’s are starting to support the Troops on the ground don’t create a situation where they will change their alliances back against the US and back to Al-Q. The blood is on your hands if you continue down this path.

Apr 29, 2007 - 7:57 am 51. pavos:

Omar,
Your perspective on the lessons learned by the individuals who comprise the administrations of the United States and Iraq during the last four years is interesting. It is unfortunate for the people of both countries that their presumptive leaders did not demonstrate a marginal interest in and understanding of history, particularly as far as democracy is concerned. United States Republican and Democratic leaders, representing a simple majority of their constituents, voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq to depose its leader, who was generally believed to possess “WMD” and intended to use said WMD against people other than citizens of his country. A majority of US citizens believed that the Iraqi people would seize the opportunity to govern themselves, and you would, as a whole, embrace democracy. We would, in the form of our military, provide public safety, and in the form of our money, provide public incentive and repairs to/replacement of the infrastructure we had destroyed by our invasion of your country. Events did not unfold the way the American people believed they would. Four years later, the majority of the American people have come to the conclusion that this is not our war. It is the war for the businesses (of a number of countries, not just American, British and Iraqi) who have profited on losses sustained by both Iraqis and Americans.

The American Revolution which resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the eventual formation of the United States of America, lasted less than eight years. It was fought by Europeans on lands they occupied far from their original homes. Both the British and those people who were willing to sacrifice their lives for a new type of government fought each other for years without assistance (except for what they received from the people whose land they had occupied) from other countries. Democracy could not have been imposed on the revolutionaries by an outside agent. It was something they wanted and for which they were willing to work and sacrifice. After nearly four years, the revolutionaries accepted assistance from other countries, which certainly helped them. The situation in Iraq bears little to no resemblance to the formation of a democratic union. All the assistance we can possibly give the Iraqi people will not result in a true democracy. The United States’ democratic foundation has been severely eroded over the past fifty years. How can we help you? We need to work on repairing our own at this point.

I have family members fighting for a chance for the stabilization of your country. It is demoralizing to U.S. soldiers and Marines to see that although their experiences with Iraqi people show them very human people who experience trauma daily, it also shows them people who may be nice to their faces even while they betray them and do not particularly desire the democracy the soldiers picture. Although there is sympathy for people, trust continues to be limited. Your people did not even invite us, so that is understandable. To be quite fair, their experience of betrayal began on U.S. soil, when their “leaders” sent them to battle unprepared to fight a giant that could not be overcome with gunpowder. They have been sent, ill-equipped, and often, self-equipped, to fight someone else’s battles for four years now by a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The Republican senators and representatives who adhere to “their President and party” are neglecting their duties as representatives of their people. The Democrats who are willing to abrogate the responsibilities of their office in order to ensure a Democratic President and congressional majority in 2008 are no better. Their job is still to represent their people and uphold the Constitution, which they are not doing by continuing to fund the occupation of Iraq. Our government is supposed to be of, for and by the people – not vice versa. Let us find other ways to support you in your struggle; the casualties we jointly endure, inflict and ignore are not working.

Apr 29, 2007 - 8:14 am 52. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

@syn
Several earlier posters refered to the so-called liberal bias of U.S. media. The fact that the sort of opinion I expressed earlier about the hyper-militarism of America and its transparently imperial status strikes you as “hysterically paranoid rantings” illustrates just how conservative your media are. Voices left of what is the centre in any other post-industrial nation are systematically silenced by U.S. corporate media, given no space for expression or serious consideration. For Americans reading this note, do you realise that at least 70 percent of your post-1945 taxes have been spent on world domination? Do you know why Hawaii and Alaska were made U.S. states? Why Americans work longer hours with half or less the amount of holiday time than any other Western workforce? Why you have the most inequitable distribution of wealth than any other OECD country? Why less of the nation’s wealth is devoted to matters of social equity, fariness and justice? Why your society is so afflicted by lawyers and lawsuits? Why your working class so completely identifies with the ideology of the wealthy few against their own interests? Why so few of you have even formed, to say nothing of contemplated, these sorts of questions?

Apr 29, 2007 - 2:37 pm 53. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

This thread appears to have petered out. For videos of iraqis talking about life in baghdad under U.S. occupation, have a look at http://www.hometownbaghdad.com/

Apr 30, 2007 - 12:25 am 54. Judith Halston:

All we need to do is point out that Nancy Pelosi visited Syrian President Assad. Then Pelosi comes back to the US with a troop pull out scheme. Sounds to me, that we need to discredit Pelosi for her actions. I say impeach Pelosi and Reid.

Apr 30, 2007 - 9:17 am 55. @thepointyend:

I think Joe Lieberman said it best.

“When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be ‘policing a civil war,’ that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean? To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them–no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes…

“The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory…

“The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct ‘targeted counter-terror operations’ under his plan… By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike–and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

“… the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids–in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us. That strategy failed–and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn’t have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

“For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and–for that matter–a new secretary of defense. And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around–just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq–now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn’t so bad after all.

“What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

“On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons [for the phased withdrawal on 1 Oct 07]. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts ‘pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises.’

“But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

“How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

“Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will ‘reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.’

“…where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away? On the contrary–in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence. “

Apr 30, 2007 - 2:08 pm 56. oscar77:

Mr Behrend,
re: “For Americans reading this note, do you realise that at least 70 percent of your post-1945 taxes have been spent on world domination? Do you know why Hawaii and Alaska were made U.S. states? Why Americans work longer hours with half or less the amount of holiday time than any other Western workforce? Why you have the most inequitable distribution of wealth than any other OECD country? Why less of the nation’s wealth is devoted to matters of social equity, fariness and justice? Why your society is so afflicted by lawyers and lawsuits? Why your working class so completely identifies with the ideology of the wealthy few against their own interests? Why so few of you have even formed, to say nothing of contemplated, these sorts of questions?”

No, 70% of our post-1945 taxes have been spent on our national debt. You are incorrect there. Our military budget has been around 50% of our discretionary spending for years. That is, around 50% of what is spent when the national debt service is paid for. How can that be “70% of our taxes”?? Get your facts straight.

Alaska and Hawaii: the people living there voted to ask. We voted to allow them to be states.

Americans work longer hours: Maybe because we aren’t as lazy as those in some other socialized places. Maybe because we don’t believe that the government exists to give us a guaranteed life, and we choose to take responsibility for ourselves.

Inequitable distribution of wealth: Ever been to Korea? Ever looked at who make up the “wealthy” in the US? (hint: most are “newly” wealthy – here, you have the ability to go from low income to high income, merely because you choose to work hard or smart).

Matters of “social equity, fariness and justice”: Yeah, right. “Social equity” seems to be, to you, a euphemism for “transfer of wealth”.

Too many lawyers and lawsuits: No argument from me. Maybe because we are FREE to do so?

“Working class” identifies with the values of the wealthy: Possibly because here, they know that they CAN BECOME wealthy? And because legalized theft by the government is immoral?

Apr 30, 2007 - 3:27 pm 57. DeniseD:

To the Herman’s, Rich’s, Sara’s (Berends by the way you are NOT American so stop speaking for US-go herd sheep or whatever it is that you do ) of the world — can you really be that stupid ?? How in this age of information is that remotely possible??-Dems always want to support wars we are not in..IE- Forget Iraq lets support Africa !!!! This is a war on TERROR- do you know what that means ? This fight is now being waged in every country on the planet–The dems want to lay down their arms – stick their hands in the air and s-l-o-w-l-y back away… then KABOOM !!!!!!!– then dems want to cry “NOT NICE” . It is enough to make you sick

May 1, 2007 - 9:01 am 58. NS:

For all those Republican apologists out there, keep living in denial and blaming the democrats inspite of being in total control of all branches of Govt since 2006. What a bunch of shameless cowards !!

May be Bush should ask the House and Senate to make a constitutional amendment so that he can run for a 3rd term and a 4thterm and keep this war going.

May be that will give enough time for your fucked up Iraqi parliament to come back from recess. Obviously they have been working real hard to do absolutely nothing.

Iraqi’s should fight for Iraq. Unfortunately there is no spirit in you people. The only people who have any fight in them are the terrorists and their Sunni supporters. And thats a shame. And the US should not be held responsible until all you morons fall in line.

May 1, 2007 - 9:40 pm 59. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

oscar77, let me just respond to one or two of your highly non-reflective “answers”. my point isn’t to debate you or reject your points, but to suggest that there is more to these questions that you have considered in jotting down your quick notes.

(a) I assume that you have a healthy skepticism about “spin” – the self-serving way that government officials articulate and disseminate information/propaganda to us, the people. you may also harbour a deep distrust of the government as a matter of principle. if so, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the government always misrepresents the cost of american militarism in a few basic ways:

1. in arguments of this sort, they include social security in the overall budget, instead of excluding it as a “locked box” trust fund that stands outside the government’s budget (check your next payslip and you’ll see that FICA insurance and income taxes are separate – the government cannot touch SS, it is not part of the government’s operating budget, it is a self-paying public insurance deposit fund);

2. they exclude the cost of servicing the national debt, which is almost entirely the result of US wars and military expenses. you almost recognise this when you say that 70% of post-WW2 taxes have been spent on debt. ignoring the source of the debt reveals that your thinking about this point isn’t comprehensive enough;

3. the ancillary costs of US militarism must also be added to the military-related budget, including the on-going educational and life-long health costs that are given as special perquisites to those who are willing to fight and kill in america’s hegemonic project.

altogether, it is estimated by critics (and not just gore vidal) that in peacetime about two thirds of your income taxes go to the military machine and its debts.

(b) alaska and hawaii were late (white) settlement colonies of the united states; they were seized and colonised for security reasons related to control of the pacific and the expansionist aspirations of japan and russia/soviet union. in this they are analogous to south africa in british history, except that the indigenous populations were more thoroughly disenfranchised and/or exterminated in the cases of hawaii and alaska. the fact that you don’t think about america-the-colonial-empire playing catch-up by overpowering and destroying pre-existing nations and peoples during its last 200 years of imperial expansion once again suggests the propagandising power of the U.S. educational system and media. think “iraq invades and annexes kuwait”; now think “united states invades and annexes northern mexico/hawaii/alaska/cuba/philippines ” (so many, many examples to choose from).

(c) of course i am talking about income redistribution – it’s at the heart of any humanistic approach to the threats against freedom and fairness inherent in unrestricted wealth accumulation.

the other questions – your answers to which all sound as if they were written off the top of your head without any recourse to, or background in, scholarly literature or political-historical analysis – have similarly complex dimensions to them that “talking points” style answers don’t even begin to address.

I would like to ask: are you more interested in understanding historical and social processes that involve the united states, or are you really just wanting to defend america blindly because you love it?

May 1, 2007 - 9:46 pm 60. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

@DeniseD

(1) I do, in fact, hold a U.S. passport in addition to my NZ one. My (Mormon genealogist) family traces its roots in North America back to before the colonial revolution. Like many early settler families, we also (claim) to have a spot of Amerindian blood connecting us to the indigenous population of “America” that was so nearly destroyed by Euro-American disease and genocidal policies. I also have Norwegian, Alsation, Lithuano-Prussian and Bavarian forebears who came to the US in the 1830s and 1840s, plus Irish immigrants from the 1870s. If you require a U.S. pedigree of anyone that you will discuss American history with, then I definitely qualify, however much I wish I didn’t.

(2) I am a teacher, not a cattle or sheep man, living in one of the most urbanised countries in the world. You should have at least a smidgen of knowledge about something before you use it as the basis for a racial/ethnic stereotype and slur.

(3) If you operate on the principle that only the citizens of a country have the right to talk about it, then I would expect you to have nothing to say about Iraq or Palestine or Venezuela… or New Zealand. But I’m sure that’s not how you think. You, as an American, seem to feel you have a right to speak authoritatively about any other people or place, despite the near total lack of relevant knowledge – historical, cultural, linguistic, religious, political….

May 1, 2007 - 10:13 pm 61. Gregg E.:

Omar, one easy way to help is for Iraqis to e-mail letters to the editor to newspapers all over the USA, UK, Canada and other countries. Forget about the really big papers like the New York, Los Angeles or London Times. They’re antisemetic and pro-terrorist to their deepeset core.

This article of yours would be just perfect as a “Reader’s View” submission to a paper like the Idaho Statesman. idahostatesman.com

May 2, 2007 - 1:12 am 62. Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ:

Denise D: This is a war on TERROR- do you know what that means?

Denise, some of the best minds in the world have grappled with this question for years now without coming to a clear and internationally acceptable understanding of what it means. I’d be curious to hear your definition.

While you’re at it, how does this “war” compare to other (metaphorical) wars, like the war on “drugs” and the war on “poverty” — two problems that have produced far more misery and suffering and deaths at home and around the globe than “terror”? Do you think it will be more successful in the end than those other vaunted American political projects? If so, why?

Also, how does the U.S. release of Luis Posada Carriles on bail, despite his being wanted for a crime of “terror” that took 73 lives in an airliner bombing, fit into your understanding of the US GWOT? Would you support a raid and kidnapping by the special forces of another country to whisk him from Texas to a closed detention centre in Cuba for interrogation for five years with no charges being laid, no visits from family or friends, no access to the protections of Cuban law?

May 2, 2007 - 2:46 am 63. cornel:

check out this solution -> http://groups.google.com/group/Phase-7/web/iraq-war-and-illigal-immigration-is-a-win-win-situation-for-us?hl=en

This might be best for everybody involved, since the harm is done and the Iraqi Government is corrupt and incapable to work as is.

May 2, 2007 - 8:09 am 64. cav:

It’s over. The Iraqis had four years with backing of the US to get things done. If they really wanted it, they would have it. If the ‘bad guys’ are just a small fraction, they why haven’t they been rubbed out? When the Colonies revolted against British rule, we needed some help from France, but France didn’t have to come in do all the fighting for us, because we wanted our freedom bad enough to take care of business ourselves.
To the British person who mentioned the size of our military allowing other countries to have smaller standing armies: that is simply going to have to change soon. People are going to have to look out for themselves,and America will have to start keeping a lower profile. You might favor it, but I’m sensing (like a sledgehammer) that the world is pretty much sick of America projecting military might. We’re going broke, heck we are broke. We’re seven trillion dollars in debt, and we’re going down the tubes in a dozen different ways. We’re done.

May 2, 2007 - 6:09 pm 65. ttj:

From reading these posts, it’s clear that opinions remain divided over the best course of action, and will probably remain divided. The U.S. and Iraq need consensus and compromise from both sides of the aisle in congress. The biggest proof of this is that the Democrats failed to gain enough votes to override Bush’s veto on the Iraq funding bill. The Democrat leaders are now all recognizing that they need revise their position. The major parties in the U.S. should stop making Iraq a centerpiece for their presidential campaign efforts. The “war” can end if all interested sides, Democrats, Republicans, and the Iraqi government, cooperate. To Mr. Behrend, thanks for the sermons. We all read your “pedigree” and it doesn’t look any more impressive than anyone else’s who has posted here. Beyond that, it’s clear that Omar represents Iraqi opinions just as much or more than you represent American or “world” opinions.

May 3, 2007 - 6:41 am 66. Mainer:

@Proctor
Can you provide a URL to the source of that quote?

May 3, 2007 - 8:03 am 67. Vladimir:

I would first like to talk about your comparison of the terrorists with the Nazis and the Communists. First let me define all three:
1. Terrorists: Al-quada for example, is a group of Islamic extremists that use the element of terror to receive obidience from their subjects.
2. Nazis: National Socialists, not talking about those motherf***ers with mohawks and sh*t but the crazed people that believe in socialist state consisting only of one race. Practically, their actual goal is to drive all manner of minorities out and live in a country with a pure race. (Same culture, same race, same views, no/less clash between people)
3. Communists: People who wants to live equally. The cliche “all people are equal, but some are more equal than others” that many anti-communists use to mimick Communist leaders, don’t understand or have even been introduced to the fact that most of these dictators are totalitarians not true communism. This is the only reason people view communism as hell without even caring to understand its views of true equality, and eventually through sucess, true freedom.

Secondly, the war does not worth it. The war has killed numerous youth full of vision and dreams. While majority of your people are sitting by there computers or playing soccer, this americans that actually know what true freedom feels like are having their heads blown up by fighting their azz off against the crazed portion of your race. So why don’t the U.S. send you M-1 garandes and m-16s and your people fight your war. About the suicide bombers, fight fire with fire. Liberty and freedom comes at a price. Instead of U.S. paying the price. Why don’t u guys do so. If you guys get suicide bombed, then suicide bomb the Talibans and all the other azzholes. And also this War may be ended temporarily but never forever for those crazy people pops up everywhere like crazy. So if you guys really wanna get ride of those extremists, make a concentration camp (not the Nazi or the Stalin ones ) where they work and eat good meals and get payed fairly.aka make an excluded society of those maddened retards.

Sep 11, 2008 - 9:49 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: