"Victory belongs to the most persevering." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
The scene is an underground room buried somewhere deep within the mountains of Afghanistan.The room is nearly bare except for two metal folding chairs located directly in front of a long folding table littered with newspapers, both American and Middle Eastern. On the wall, directly behind the table, is a bank of television monitors tuned to various news programs originating from stations all around the world. Al-Jezeera, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and even FOX news, etc.
Achmed sits at the table, poring over news reports from The United States.
Abdul enters, stage right.
Abdul: Praise Allah, and Mohammad his holy Prophet! What news, Achmed, my friend?
Achmed: All praise and glory to our great and wonderful Allah! Abdul, I have very good news! Allah has blessed us for all our hard work in our holy jihad against the infidels!
Abdul: Allah be praised! What good news, if you please?
Achmed: The wonderful and merciful Allah has granted us, by His grace, an extended vacation! We can take the next 18 months off, to recuperate and regroup.
Abdul: Praise indeed to our Holy God, Allah, who has honored us with this wonderful sabbatical! Which of our relentless attacks against the infidel has earned us this highest of honors?
Achmed: All praise to Allah, for His mercy and Judgment! Allah is great and knows all, for he has provided us an ally in American government, who has at last rewarded us for our effort and announced America's surrender!
Abdul: Praise Allah! What ally is this, my friend and battle mate?
Achmed: All honor and praise to the great Allah! Our new American ally is none other than the new American President, Barack Hussein Obama! He has announced he will remove the infidel armies from Iraq! And, praise be to Allah, he has told even us when they will leave!
Abdul: Allah has answered our prayers! Praise be forever to Allah and death to His enemies! When will the infidels leave, my friend?
Achmed: Allah shall be praised indeed, Abdul, The American President has announced that he will withdraw the troops by August of next year!
Abdul: Allah has surely provided us a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but why, after all this time, do we have to wait so long to take our much deserved vacation?
Achmed: Praise Allah! That's the best part, my friend! We no longer have to wait to take vacation! Now that we know the definite date of our victory, we can relax now, take our vacation now, and wait until then. Then, we can renew our efforts unimpeded by the infidels.
Abdul: Allah is great! I get it now, my friend! All we need to do now is lay back and wait until the Americans think we have stopped fighting, and then, when they finally pull out, we can renew the fight with renewed vigor! We will destroy Israel and all the infidels! Praise Allah! We have won!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
31 comments:
While I found this post to be hilarious (especially because of the Achmed jokes I've seen/heard on the internet) for the comedic purposes, I do not agree with you on the substance. It is quite obviouis that this war in Iraq was completely unjustified (no WMD) and cost this great country WAY TOO MUCH money. So much for the "Pre-Emptive Strike" BS (thank GOD)! Pulling our troops out of Iraq is something that was way overdue. Listen, my parents are immigrants of Iraq, and let me tell you what they and the rest of the Iraqi population know to be absolute truth - Saddam, although a ruthless and evil dictator, was effective at keeping the Iraqi Shiite terrorists at bay. Since his removal, chaos has taken hold of Iraq and it will never be safe again. I am saddened at this, since I will never get to visit my Grandparent's graves nor see my Parent's homeland. Not to mention the fact that Christian minorities have been driven from that region due to all this chaos. A few years ago, Christians in Iraq numbered right around 1 million people. Now, we are down to 150K and still decreasing. I hear of family members who are presented with notes that read, "leave your home or die" or "convert to Islam or die." And these are not idle threats - they act on them. This war was the biggest mistake our country made, right up there along with Vietnam.
I don't find this scenario far-fetched at all, Mark.
Sorry for taking so long to get here but I've been without a pc for nearly a month.
I know that, gayle, and I've (we've) missed you. Welcome back!
Carolin, thanks for the input.
Let me get this straight. You think Saddam was a good guy and the US is evil, right?
Do you think it's the evil US military or the Islamic terrorists that is threatening the Christians in Iraq? Do you think that once the military leaves Iraq, the Islamist terrorists won't make good on those threats?
Do you think it's possible that the only reason they are only threatening and not killing the Christians is because of America's presence in Iraq?
Do you really think Iraq will become peaceful once the only stabilizing influence left in the Middle East is removed?
Islamic terrorists will only increase the violence against the infidels once we leave Iraq. If you think it's bad there now, baby, you aint seen nothing yet.
Carolin, if we had pulled the troops out earlier, all of the chaos you describe would have increased tenfold. What we have done in Iraq over the last couple of years is nothing short of remarkable. Even President Obama is now acknowledging this.
By the way, Gayle, I promised you I'd write another Abdul and Achmed post. Glad you got here just in time to see it.
Mark, you're very welcome for the input, but I have no idea where you got "Saddam was a good guy and US is evil" out of my comment. I love this country, THE U.S., more than anything and would never dishonor it by describing it as "evil."
What I was trying to explain was that these evil Islamic terrorists that you are referring to were AFRAID of Saddam and no matter if you'd like to admit it or not, he was EFFECTIVE at squashing them. What's happening now would NEVER have happened if Saddam was in power, trust me.
Iraqi Christians are between a rock and hard place. They help the U.S. Government by becoming translators and provide any information that could help the U.S. soldiers, and they are persecuted for it. The Islamist terrorists would target these Christians whether the U.S. is present or not, I would never argue with that, but my point is that Christians were NOT a target when Saddam was in power. In fact, his prime minister and cook (in case someone tried to poison him) were CHRISTIAN. This speaks volumes that Saddam, a muslim himself, didn't truly trust people of his own religion, HA, imagine that!
These Islamist ARE making good on those threats - last week I attended a funeral of one of my mother-in-law's dear neighbors in Iraq who was BEHEADED, along with his two aunts because they are CHRISTIAN. The U.S. military presence is not helping the Christian minority population from dwindling because they cannot - the terrorists outnumber them!
The sad truth of the matter is that I don't believe Iraq will ever be peaceful again. It's been ruined and it will stay that way for a very, very long time.
Iraq wasn't peaceful before. Not in any real sense.
I know Iraq was not peaceful - ever since the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's (which we supported), Iraq has been in a constant state of war. But that state of war during those times is better than what's happening now! At least people could somewhat lead a normal life in Iraq back in the 80's and 90's! Now, that's impossible and ESPECIALLY impossible for Iraqi Christians!
http://www.chaldean.org/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/447/Default.aspx
Carolin, I appreciate your perspective, coming as it does from personal experience, and while I would never discount personal experience as some do, I would suggest Christians are being persecuted there not because they help America, but simply because they are Christians.
While I can't be sure, I'd bet if we weren't there the persecution of Christians would be much, much worse than it is presently.
We will know for sure, as the post suggests, once we withdraw our troops. Then, true chaos will reign.
I just shudder when people say the war in Iraq is completely unjustified. It shows the decline of moral courage in our country. Suppose you were the chief of police in a small town. You get a call that a certain address is a crack house. You send in a tactical team, they break down the door and find there is no crack house. No drugs. What they find is a kiddy porn operation and they rescue three kidnapped children. Using liberal "logic," the tactical team would back out of the house, apologizing profusely, and send someone to repair the door. Under American logic, the police would arrest everyone in sight, confiscate everything and rescue the children. We didn't find WMDs in Iraq, and no wonder, since we let the UN futz around for over a year looking for them. What we did find was prisons full of children, torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves. Oops, but the Iraq war is COMPLETELY unjustified!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
The graphic is a perfect depiction of what's going on in the Islamic world. The ummah, particularly the terrorist elements, are celebrating what they see as fulfillment of the will of Allah as the West bows and scrapes to them.
And their women were doing that Arabic ululating too. They can't wait for more of their children to become martyrs for Allah.
In the First Gulf War, we went in and left quickly. This time, before the war got cranked up, various "experts" of various ilk were saying, "The reason 'moderate Islam' didn't take hold is that the United States didn't support the people enough with our presence to establish order." This time, we have stayed, and still that's not enough. As Rev. Gregori said, the United States, rightly or wrongly has been placed in a position where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The recent issue of Newsweek illustrates just how ludicrous the West's position has become -- learn to live with radical Islam? Fareed Zakaria, the author or the article, appears to be one of the experts whom BHO pays attention to. BHO was reading Zakaria's book, anyway. I suspect that Zakaria has had quite an influence on BHO; if so, that influence is going to set us up for more disasters like 9/11. History shows us that Islam is expansionist in nature.
We're getting tired of people named "Hussein" screwing countries up...
I love the graphic you created, Mark. That's cool! I had no idea you could draw. I also enjoyed reading the responses to Caroline's comments. The last one above mine, the Lone Ranger's, is excellent. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would think living under a dictator is better than having one's freedom. Saddam Hussein committed horrendous atrocities. How can anyone forget those mass graves? He gassed many Iraqis, including women and children, and it is true that he had plenty of time to hide - or remove altogether - any WMD's. He didn't get them all out though. Remember those canisters that were found? Somehow the news media shoved all that under the rug. Check out the following article from Iraq Watch which includes this passage and many others that most people never even heard about.
"By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. Notwithstanding these extraordinary achievements, there remained important uncertainties regarding Iraq's holdings of chemical weapons, their precursors, and munitions."
Since you have comment moderation enabled, Mark, I can't tell if the link to the article works or not, so here is the url:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html
Lone Ranger: "What we did find was prisons full of children, torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves."
But, but, according to Carolin, that really doesn't count. The WMDs were removed before we got a chance to find them and since we didn't find them, any other good thing we might have accomplished with the war just doesn't count.
Why can't we conservatives just accept that and let it go?
Because those people have wished to destroy the infidels in America long, long before we entered Iraq.
And they still do...and given our announcement of a withdrawal date, probably will.
Mark, the point I'm trying to make is that Christians were NOT persecuted before the war; Saddam was many things, but he did not care to persecute Christians for their religion and our Churches flourished. Now our churches are being bombed and the priests and deacons are being targeted, which was never the case before. Lone Ranger, while I appreciate your sarcasm, please take a moment to examine what you are saying. There are MILLIONS of places around the world that are guilty of crimes FAR WORSE than Saddam, and we chose war with Iraq. Now, while there were bad things happening in Iraq, SO WHAT?! What good did it to us, the U.S., to go to war with Iraq?! Especially now in RETROSPECT when everyone knows what a BAD decision it was?! So YES, the war in Iraq was completely UNJUSTIFIED.
Great cartoon Mark. Your characters are classic.
Obama and his leaftist buddies will not accept that when you signal and end it only encourages the enemy to sit back and wait for that end.
Anyone with any sense understands this. But then again we are talking about Obama who makes no sense at all.
"Sarcasm?" "So what?" I don't care HOW many people are being brutalized around the world. The only way to fight evil is to confront it and destroy it -- one bad guy at a time. Liberals love to call themselves progressives. But, they would be perfectly content to remain mired in the 20th century, ignoring the evil around them. If a single brutal despot survives the 21st century, it will be a mark of shame for the entire human race. And it will be the fault of liberals.
There's a character trait that's decided by fate
Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.
Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.
But how can they know lest they've been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts who'll stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nation's call.
The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won't defend,
So their own unearned freedom won't perish, won't end.
To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.
Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
Wonderful artwork, Mark.
Original drawings should be a regular part of your posts.
Obama's talk is very deceptive. He announces that American troops will be out of Iraq by 2010, but he plans to have as many as 50,000 troops remain in Iraq after the withdrawal.
In addition, Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. I don't know why the Leftists, the anti-military factions, and the anti-war types are OK with that. And now, they're silent about civilian deaths.
I guess they're on board because Obama is the commander-in-chief and he can do no wrong in their eyes.
Thanks, Mary, but it took me hours to get it just that good. I'm afraid I'm not much of an artist.
Of course, if I had had a pencil to draw the rough draft and erase when it didn't look right, it would have been easier, but I couldn't find a pencil anywhere.
And yes, it's true he isn't really withdrawing all the troops. But if he can convince the Liberals, the terrorists, who get their info from sources like the New York Slimes, will only get the Slimes side of the story, which as you know, would never contradict their hero, Obama.
Father Gregori, Is the Dabbke a Jewish dance? If it is, I'd have to say no.
It is quite obviouis that this war in Iraq was completely unjustified (no WMD)
The burden of proof was on Saddam. A good portion of the Bush Administration's case for war was based upon the UN's own documents (re: Hans Blix Unresolved Disarmament issues). The fact that STOCKPILES were not found does not disprove the case for war which had a lot to do with PREVENTION, before Saddam became a wmd threat. And how Iraq relates to the War on Terror is his numerous ties and sponsorship of Islamic terrorism and the fear that Saddam- who made no secrets about his love for wmd and who intentionally misled the world into wondering about his wmd status- might use terrorists as proxies to deliver wmd attacks against a common enemy (the U.S.).
and cost this great country WAY TOO MUCH money.
Consider it an investment whose dividends won't be known for years to come.
What would the price of keeping Saddam and his murderous sons in power have been to the world?
So much for the "Pre-Emptive Strike" BS (thank GOD)! Pulling our troops out of Iraq is something that was way overdue.
No; pulling our troops out now makes much more sense; pulling our troops out in 03-08, not so good for Iraq.
Even going by your premise that the Iraq Invasion was a mistake, do you not think that a premature withdrawal would have plunged the country into worse chaos and suffering?
Now, while there were bad things happening in Iraq, SO WHAT?! What good did it to us, the U.S., to go to war with Iraq?!
Why Iraq?:
* Saddam violated the Gulf War Cease Fire protocols continuously for 12 years. That is 12 YEARS of diplomacy, sanctions, limited bombings, threats of more land actions, more failed diplomacy, more threats, and more of Saddam thumbing his nose at the world while he illegally rearmed. A “Cease Fire” is not a peace treaty. Legally, the US could have responded at any time.
* Saddam, and many others, violated the “oil for food program” to the tune of billions of dollars/euros. This included untouchable high level members of the UN.
* Saddam, very publicly, financed terrorists in Palestine and had contacts with Al Qaeda. These include meetings with known operatives in the Czech Republic (confirmed by Czech internal security forces), the Salmon Pak (South of Baghdad) and the Ansar al-Islam (northern Iraq area) terrorist training camps (One of them held a painting of the WTC burning while Saddam smoked a cigar).
* Provided medical aid and training for Al Qaeda as they fled the Afghan area. A case in point is the confession by Al Qaeda terrorists captured in Jordan (2004) when they attempted to conduct a WMD attack (Sarin/VX gas and other chemicals:20 tons total, w/explosives: see links) in Amman, Jordan. These terrorists told the story of how they escaped Afghanistan, fled to Iraq, followed the convoys hauling goods out of Iraq before the Coalition invasion (remember those? The media doesn’t and they reported them), and ended up in the Becca Valley with the WMDs and Iraqi forces, working for a man named Zarqari. Name ring a bell? The Iraqis were STILL dealing with Taliban thugs in Baghdad when I was deployed there in early 2007.
* Openly defied UN resolutions, many with use of force clauses.
* Even during their final inspection in 2003, the UN teams were still finding MORE chemical weapons systems that Iraq “forgot” to document. Also included in the same report was two Iraqi surface to surface missile systems which greatly exceeded the range limitation stipulated by the cease fire (UN report titled: s-2003-232 :Twelfth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999))
* Continued attacks on Coalition aircraft patrolling the Iraqi agreed upon No-Fly Zones. Attacking US aircraft is an act of war.
* Sorties by MIG-25RB Aircraft into the southern No-Fly Zone (how he got those and maintained them with “sanctions” in place is a really good question). Entering the No-Fly Zone is an act of war.
* Attempted to assassinate a former US President.
* Provided aid and comfort to terrorists retreating from Afghanistan.
* Aided in the first attack on the World Trade Center through proxy and direct supply of Sarin components. This too is an act of war.
* Saddam had intimate knowledge of 9-11-01. His state-run media printed warnings that the US would be hit in the “arm that was hurting”, a reference to New York City. He also put his entire armed forces (refitted with NEW tanks) on alert days prior to 9-11.
* Saddam had WMDs. Every nation consulted (France, UK, Russia) and the UN all agreed he had them. Democrats on the Intelligence Committee sated he had them throughout the 1990s. Saddam boasted of fooling the inspectors in the 90s. We attacked him several times with aircraft and missiles in the 90s. Clinton even ordered the commencement of “Operation Desert Fox” to punish Iraq for non-compliance with inspectors. No one complained then.
* WMDs have been found all over Iraq. Usually in smaller amounts, but this is to be expected with the amount of warning Saddam had of the invasion.
Re: Duelfer Report
Re: Pentagon-funded Iraqi Perspectives Project based upon translations of captured Saddam documents
Read anything written by "Sam Pender" (Scott Malensek).
Especially now in RETROSPECT when everyone knows what a BAD decision it was?! So YES, the war in Iraq was completely UNJUSTIFIED.
The war was completely justified. Diplomacy had been tried for over 10 years. Completely legal under UN 678 and 687.
Saddam, although a ruthless and evil dictator, was effective at keeping the Iraqi Shiite terrorists at bay.
So, were your parents Sunni? Ask a shiite, and he might offer a different perspective regarding "Shiite terrorists" and living conditions under Saddam.
What I was trying to explain was that these evil Islamic terrorists that you are referring to were AFRAID of Saddam and no matter if you'd like to admit it or not, he was EFFECTIVE at squashing them.
Certainly he kept order and the rule of law within his country (through an iron hand); but we didn't justify invasion based on humanitarian reasons (although it was cited as a side issue to bolster the case for war) but to enforce the original cease-fire agreements of the first Gulf War and to remove a wmd terror-threat from the chess board.
Those "evil Islamic terorrists" you refer to did have a collaborative relationship with Saddam. It's a CIA myth that a secular Saddam did not work with religious fanatics for achieving common short-term aims.
My parents are NOT Sunni or Shiite; they are Iraqi CATHOLICS, get it right please. All the reasons you cited below do not convince me or anybody else for that matter, that going to war with Iraq was a good thing for the U.S. We can go to war with many other countries who are far greater threats to us (i.e., Iran #1, Russia or North Korea) AND who have reasons way better than the ones you state! But we chose Iraq...hmmm...I wonder why?
"might use terrorists as proxies to deliver wmd attacks against a common enemy"
Everyone who truly knows Iraqi politics and history knows that Saddam LOVED power. He, although evil, wouldn't do something like that to jeapordize his power. And don't you think "might" is quite WEAK a reason to wage invasion on a country?! My God, has war become so casual to people that "might" is enough to base such a decision on?! I, as an American citizen, demand more of my government leaders before sending my kids off to fight a war, one would think!!!!
"to remove a wmd terror-threat from the chess board."
Again, it is quite obvious no wmd were found and it's quite interesting to me that some people conveniently forget this pretty important fact. And love how you threw in the words "chess board" in - is war a game to you? I'm sorry, I'm not liberal or conservative (I prefer not to be labeled), but what I am is CHRISTIAN first and I do not believe something such as WAR should be taken lightly. Going into a country and bombing it and, as a result, killing innocent civilians in the crossfires, should be examined more carefully in the future. That is the bottom line. People who continue to defend this war remind me of the people who still feel Vietnam was justified - simply, clueless.
All the reasons you cited below do not convince me or anybody else for that matter, that going to war with Iraq was a good thing for the U.S.
How can you know this? All you see are the short-term pains and not the long term gains. Who knows yet how this will turn out historically in the long run? Again, what would the price be if Saddam was allowed to continue the status quo of being in power? Enriching his coffers through Food for Oil scam while his people suffered? Working with corrupt officials within the UN to lift sanctions? After which, according to the Iraq Survey Group, Saddam retained the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons rapidly (within a month or two). There's a reason why he continually deceived UN inspection teams and came to believe that he could defy the UN and the U.S. without ever suffering repercussions.
We can go to war with many other countries who are far greater threats to us (i.e., Iran #1, Russia or North Korea) AND who have reasons way better than the ones you state!
BS. None of those countries were in violations of UN obligations to honor a cease-fire agreement. Iran and NK were among the "axis of evil" cited; Russia at the time was not. In the case of NK, it validates the argument that we must act before the threat becomes imminent; not after the country already has nuclear weapons. Really, this was a continuation of the first Gulf War. Saddam never believed that he wasn't at war with the U.S during the space between the first Gulf War and OIF.
But we chose Iraq...hmmm...I wonder why?
What? To steal Iraqi oil? Halliburton? Puh-lease....
"might use terrorists as proxies to deliver wmd attacks against a common enemy"
Everyone who truly knows Iraqi politics and history knows that Saddam LOVED power. He, although evil, wouldn't do something like that to jeapordize his power. And don't you think "might" is quite WEAK a reason to wage invasion on a country?! My God, has war become so casual to people that "might" is enough to base such a decision on?!
Deliberation on war with Saddam was a serious one. Rumsfeld actually presented a comprehensive list- moreso than one given by the State Dept or CIA- on what could go wrong, including that we might not find any wmd [stockpiles]:
* The United States might fail to win support from the United Nations and from important other countries, which could make it harder to get international cooperation on Iraq and other issues in the future. We might fail here by not properly answering the question: If the United States preempts in one country, will it do so in other countries, too?
* The war could trigger problems throughout the region: It could widen into an Arab-Israeli war; Syria and Iran could help our enemies in Iraq; Turkey could intervene on its own; friendly governments in the region could become destabilized.
* The United States could become so absorbed in its Iraq effort that we pay inadequate attention to other serious problems—including other proliferation and terrorism problems. Other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere might try to exploit our preoccupation to do things harmful to us and our friends.
* The war could cause more harm and entail greater costs than expected, including possibly a disruption in oil supplies to world markets.
* Post-Saddam stabilization and reconstruction efforts by the United States could take not two to four years, but eight to ten years, absorbing U.S. leadership, military, and financial resources.
* Terrorist networks could improve their recruiting and fund-raising as a result of our being depicted as anti-Muslim.
* Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia. . . .
* “US could fail to find WMD on the ground in Iraq and be unpersuasive to the world.”
* “World reaction against preemption or ‘anticipatory self-defense’ could inhibit US ability to engage [in cooperation with other countries] in the future.”
* “US could fail to manage post-Saddam Hussein Iraq successfully, with the result that it could fracture into two or three pieces, to the detriment of the Middle East . . . .”
In the end, the Administration determined that post-9/11, the dangers of leaving Saddam in power were greater than the risks of removing him.
I, as an American citizen, demand more of my government leaders before sending my kids off to fight a war, one would think!!!!
We have an all-volunteer military and don't need mommy and daddy's approval to enlist. Wars need to be fought and won. What's at issue here should be whether or not Iraq was a necessary war. Pointing out body counts and flag-draped coffins only highlights the sacrifices and sobriety of ANY war.
"to remove a wmd terror-threat from the chess board."
Again, it is quite obvious no wmd were found and it's quite interesting to me that some people conveniently forget this pretty important fact.
The absence of wmd [stockpiles] is not "evidence" that the war was unjustified. If a crime suspect has his hand in his jacket pocket and ignores repeated warnings by the police to put his hands in the air, are they unjustified in shooting him when he makes like he has a gun? Again, the burden of proof was on Saddam. It wasn't the job of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC to be weapons hunters.
The case for war, unfortunately, became centered around wmd by the public rhetoric; but the actual case put forth to the UN and for the war resolution from Congress was so much more than about actual possession of wmd, but had a lot to do with the dangers of Saddam acquiring wmd and his history in regards to that, and in his history as a state-sponsor of terrorism.
And love how you threw in the words "chess board" in - is war a game to you?
Would it have been more palatable to you if I used a football analogy? Geez.
I take war very seriously, darlin'. Anyone who knows me could tell you.
Here's a Memorial Day video I made for you to enjoy.
I take service and sacrifice very seriously.
Tried enlisting in the NG at the beginning of '07 as there was so much negativity on the war; got rejected on a medical reason. Tried the Marines that summer and they flatout refused on account of my age. A couple of weeks ago, I thought I'd give it one more go-around, before I get too old, and signed papers for the Army to find out why my medical waiver never arrived for the NG.
I'm sorry, I'm not liberal or conservative (I prefer not to be labeled), but what I am is CHRISTIAN first and I do not believe something such as WAR should be taken lightly.
George W. Bush is Christian. Do you think he took this lightly? I think you can say that based upon what he knew or thought he knew, it wasn't the right decision in hindsight; but from what I've read, other than the criticism by the BDSers, it wasn't a decision that was easy to make.
Leaders sometimes make hard and bold decisions. It's easy for critics to tug at emotions and cynically flaunt body counts as evidence that a war was a wrong one to fight or that the decision was made lightly or that our leaders don't care about the sacrifices of military families and the fallen.
Going into a country and bombing it and, as a result, killing innocent civilians in the crossfires, should be examined more carefully in the future.
What's amazing is how so few civilian casualties occurred during major combat operations if you compare it to previous wars of equal size and expectations.
What has been a tragedy is post-war operations and the failure to secure and protect the Iraqi civilians from sectarian violence, an insurgency, and foreign fighters intentionally targeting civilians to sow chaos and discord, and to foment the "civil war".
That is the bottom line. People who continue to defend this war remind me of the people who still feel Vietnam was justified - simply, clueless.
Vietnam was justified.
I'm sure Carolin's heart is in the right place, she is just woefully, painfully ignorant of history.
The ghosts of those millions executed by the communists in southeast asia after our armed forces left in the 70's could educate her. Rise up and speak!! Talk about clueless.
That whole list of items you cited as deliberations CAME TRUE and you mean to tell me that now, in retrospect, that it was all worth it? It is true, it'll be years before we truly know what will be borne out of this war, but trust me - it won't be anything good. I know our leaders like to believe perhaps they can indeed create a democracy like ours in an Arab country, but only Americans would actually believe this. Anybody who has actually lived with Arabs knows it's quite a fruitless effort! I probably inherited that cynicism from my daddy.
And Trader dude, you may be old and I may be only 26 years old, but I am not clueless; funny how people respond to others who have a perspective they are not familiar with.
I have to agree with Carolin, at least when she says, "I know our leaders like to believe perhaps they can indeed create a democracy like ours in an Arab country, but only Americans would actually believe this. Anybody who has actually lived with Arabs knows it's quite a fruitless effort!"
The cultural differences are too great. But, this is the reason I am surprised that Carolin would support Obama, a man who appears to believe exactly that.
He wants to sit down and negotiate with Achmedinajhad (sp?)without pre-conditions. What an idiot! Does he not realize that pre-conditions would protect him?
"I know our leaders like to believe perhaps they can indeed create a democracy like ours in an Arab country, but only Americans would actually believe this. Anybody who has actually lived with Arabs knows it's quite a fruitless effort!"
I find this to be a very interesting statement. Carolin, and I ask this sincerely, what is it about Arab people that makes it impossible for them to have self determination? Is there a government system other than a Saddam Hussein style dictatorship that you believe would work?
That whole list of items you cited as deliberations CAME TRUE and you mean to tell me that now, in retrospect, that it was all worth it?
No one knows yet if it was worth it or not; we also can't turn back the clock and see where it would lead the world had Saddam and his murderous sons been kept in power. Throughout the 90's, Saddam was a constant menace with Democrats at the time reminding us of it. And rightly so.
I provided Rumsfeld's "Parade of Horribles" list for you, as a response to your charge that
My God, has war become so casual to people that "might" is enough to base such a decision on?!
The Administration weighed the consequences, made serious deliberation, and decided that the cost of leaving Saddam in power was too great a threat to the world's security.
It is true, it'll be years before we truly know what will be borne out of this war, but trust me - it won't be anything good.
Why should I "trust you" on that? And isn't the beginning of that sentence paradoxical to the second half of it?
I know our leaders like to believe perhaps they can indeed create a democracy like ours in an Arab country, but only Americans would actually believe this. Anybody who has actually lived with Arabs knows it's quite a fruitless effort! I probably inherited that cynicism from my daddy.
Cynicism can be healthy. I think we're all a little cynical to one degree or another on whether it will work out or not.
If it were all about democratization, we never would have entered into war. It was about enforcing a 12-year violation of cease-fire agreements and keeping us safe by removing the threat of a state-sponsor of exported terrorism who made no secrets about his love of wmd acquisition.
But this also provides an opportunity on the side- and perhaps the most important legacy of the Bush decision- to plant the seeds of democracy in a region of the world that has never known it. And it's rather condescending soft bigotry of low expectations to just throw up your hands and say democracy is not worth trying because Arabs are incapable of it. If the process doesn't begin today, then when? (Critics were saying at the time that Japan would never be a successful democracy, where they've had no history of it). Thousands of Iraqis have already died in defiance of baathists, insurgents, and al-Qaeda in Iraq to make this work. Many there are trying and dying to make this work, to support the budding democratic government. What's appalling is the unrealistic expectations that this will happen overnight, let alone within one generation. Give it decades to develop, in the presence of a secure environment and absence of an insurgency. Hell, we're still working on getting it right in our own country!
Sorry it took me so long to respond, but haven't had any spare time lately! This is in response to Cameron's question:
"Carolin, and I ask this sincerely, what is it about Arab people that makes it impossible for them to have self determination? Is there a government system other than a Saddam Hussein style dictatorship that you believe would work?"
Honesty, Cameron, the fact that most of the middle east is muslim is what makes me think it's impossible for them to have self determination or anything besides a dictatorship. Muslims are not like us - they like to say their religion is all about "freedom" but that's all a lie. They want to rule with their religion, which is the direct opposite of freedom! So until the entire Middle East becomes Christian, I do not believe a single country there can actually be democratic.
Carolin, true. If there is any democracy to be found in sharia law, I expect that's the only form of democracy with which Muslims would accept.
Post a Comment