It isn't lost!

Why don't you just go join the terrorists you inhuman piece of garbage!  You're already in bed with them. The only difference between you and them is they are on the front lines of what you are too much of a coward to join in on.

 

Why don't you just go join the terrorists you inhuman piece of garbage! You're already in bed with them. The only difference between you and them is they are on the front lines of what you are too much of a coward to join in on.

Tell me ParaTed, why? Why is he "in bed with them," give me a good base for that. Why do you bash him for expressing his opinion, why not just say you disagree with him and leave it at that?

I think the war is lost, does that mean I am a terrotist? Does that mean I am evil? Does that mean that I should join them?

No.

My ancestors were hard working americans, several of them served in the military. The marines, army, navy, and air force.

Still, they even expressed sentiment that, apparently, you would deem "enemy like."


What happened to people being able to exress their opinion. Whatever happened to free speech, not just in america and other countries, but on the internet?


Just give him a break.

The death penalty given to Saddam Hussein if carried out will lead to a virtual partioning of Iraq along sectarian lines and the world will have another failed state to provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorism.

I disagree partially.

I believe it will make a martyr of him. There will be groups that will use him as a symbol of how they portray the US's "travesties," and such. I don't know if it will split them anymore, cause i figured them for being as split as they could be.

My suggestion, split iraq between the kurds, shi'ites and sunnis. Be done with it.

I have yet to read one word from Bahu that wasn't praise for the terrorists and insults for the U.S. As goes your benefit of the doubt, so goes your heart.

I have yet to read one word from Bahu that wasn't praise for the terrorists and insults for the U.S.

But does that mean he doesn't have the right? Does that mean you have to be obtuse with him? Why not simply let it go, let him go and don't bother coming back to his blog. You obviously expect the same from him. What's the point in banging your head against a wall?

As goes your benefit of the doubt, so goes your heart

Perhaps, but with a heart, you have some amount of understanding, and compassion. Without such, you'd be nothing more than cold and cruel. Right?

Bahu's heart is with the terrorists. Why do you complain that I simply point out that fact?

Bahu's heart is with the terrorists.

Has he admitted it? If not, then I call BS.

Why do you complain that I simply point out that fact?

Because you just might be wrong. Because, well, I've been accussed of things before, and the individuals were wrong, but by then i couldn't shake it off - I was labelled as something I wasn't. Because I stand up for those who get bashed.

Cause I give a damn.

I've not seen him say "rah rah terrorists," or "You can do it terrorists, blow them up!" Not once, what I see is him giving his opinion - you and others not liking, and jumping on the bash Bahu bandwagon. It's dispicable to be frank.

~L

First, your title may be true, but your article does not follow it.  Second, you again show your bias with your perjoratives that you bandy about without understanding their true meaning, just using them as epithets as most anti-bush people are prone to do.

IN the first criticism, the WAR was not lost.  And indeed so far nothing has been lost.  The War was won.  The peace has yet to be.  ONe can assume a defeatest attitude, and given the rhetoric coming from the left and their toadies in the MSM, one can excuse you for such an attitude, but the truth is the game is still afoot.

Second, while writing a screed against Bush, one is always free to use derogatory nicknames, it lends nothing to the discussion or debate, and basically shuts it down.  For once you have decided to argue emotionally, and not rationaly, you not only lose credibility, but any pretense at a discussion or debate.

The choice is yours to make as this is your blog. 

“The planning for the war was inadequate and the military leadership completely misread the signals from the Arab streets”[/B] This is not correct.

The problem is not with the military leadership but with the civilian leadership (or lack of it). The military planners understood there were two major phases to the Iraq War. First was to defeat Saddam's military and topple his government. The second phase was to maintain stability after the Saddam government was removed so a Iraqi civilian government could govern Iraq without Saddam. [B]The military said, as detailed in the Op Plan 1003, that 500,000 troops would be required to maintain stability in Iraq.

When that plan was explained to Rummy and the Bush the direction was to reduce the force levels. Bush, Cheney and Rummy had no military basis for those force reductions and the end result was that less then 1/3 the troops that the experienced military planners said was REQUIRED were sent. From the first day after Saddam fell the situation started to spiral out of control?

Now Sen. John Mc Cain wants to send more troops to establish security and control. That train has left the station. To end both the sectarian violence and deny the foreign terrorists a place to operate in Iraq would require many more troops then 500,000 and the loss of American and Iraqis would be massive.

Only the people of Iraq can end the violence and then only after a lot more violence. The stated objective of establishing a stable democracy that would spread thorough the Moslem area as Bush stated is LOST! That will not be the result of our invasion of Iraq!

And YES you have a right to the opinion expressed in your Blog!

I think if the assholes can't stop blowing up their own people they deserve whatever fate may bring them.

"So wait, I throw this backpack....big boom....I come back hero, many virgins"

"No, you are big boom"

"OK, so I run in there....big boom....I come back hero, many virgins"

"umm, sure, whatever, go big boom hero, see you when you get back, many virgins"

Family guy, I really couldn't have put it better, damn suicidal fools

Yep, we lost that war. Saddam is still in power and his army chased the US forces right out of the country.

The Col has got is right more often then now in his replies.

"To end both the sectarian violence and deny the foreign terrorists a place to operate in Iraq would require many more troops then 500,000 and the loss of American and Iraqis would be massive."

I agree, at this point it would be much more costly in terms of money and troops on the ground, troops the UN should be providing to this cause if any foreign troops at all be provided to maintaining stability in Iraq. Since we don't have many more then 500,000, but the Iraqi's have many more then 500,000 able bodied men and women it will become their task as it should have long ago.

"In order to put this neoconservative agends into action a justification was created using the Weapons of Mass Destruction as the foil to launch an aggressive international campaign against Iraq."

Inaccurate. Here's why, you can't just pull WMD out of your ass, you have to try to acquire them by acquiring the materials for making them. Even if the intelligence suggesting so was fake, and/or inaccurate, a few decisions on bad intelligence have been made before, the honesty in the statement that you make decisions based on that intelligence is key and correct.

Saddam Hussien and Iraq started this war with the invasion of Kuwait, and after being repulsed, i.e. losing the war, and having his army largely destroyed or captured, he continued to attack aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones north and south in Iraq, he did this all throughout the 90's, meanwhile being non-compliant with resolution after resolution at the UN.

The UN finally rather then enforce, they gave up. Because they chose not to deal with situation we did. Not only is it unacceptable for a country to invade another country over a border dispute, i.e. you don't see the United States, invading Mexico, or acceptable for Iraq to continue to attack American aircraft after the armistice of Gulf War #1, they also started the Iraq-Iran war which lasted almost a decade, as well as used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the north, not foreigners but Saddam's own fellow Iraqi's.

To say that Saddam would not have been capable of using a nuclear weapon on Isreal or handing it off to a terrorist group to be used on the USA or even proceeding with a covert operation themselves against the United States while we were busy with the War on Terror, would be wrong as well. The decision to go to war was correct, a falted one, because it was based on bad intel, but the intel was the best available in the CIA, and other organizations, not just ours but other nations as well, including the UK. Yes it turns out after an occupation of 3 years that there would appear to be no WMD in country, and that it therefore was most likely not there to begin with, it doesn't excuse Iraq from their history of non-compliance UN and with maintaining the safe and peaceful world, existing with your neighbors that the rest of the world is expected to maintain as well.

"military leadership completely misread the signals from the Arab streets."

False. The military won the war, if we've lost anything we've lost the post-war which is more a civillian planning failure then military. The only thing the military could have done differently was more extensive planning into the future, and individual job duty training i.e. prison/guard training, but you can't do that without knowing what they were going to be doing. Better operational readiness in terms of which units are available overall would have helped with the long term nature of this conflict and post-conflict.

"policy of encouraging the Shiaas against the Sunnis"

Nobody has been encouraging violence at all except the war lords and militia leaders, engagement yes, coordination yes, but Shiaas vs Sunnis no, False.

"Sectarian violence has already reached epidemic propotions." Subjective and unprovable. It's bad but by what measure, pre-war Iraq? How do you know it's bad, nobody was on the ground before the war measuring the insurgency growing aganst Saddam. All you see now is insurgency against us and kidnappings and plots executed by irregular troops, basically thugs in gangs, well we see that in the USA too. Thugs in gangs.

"The Iraqi constitution which is said to be based on power sharing between the Kuirds, Shiaas and Sunnis is only helping to perpetuate sectarian divisions. While it may not be fashionable to say so, the fact remains that with all the problems of governance associated with Saddam and the Baathist Party, the fact that it provided a viable ideological carapace for a highly divisive society."

Meaning what exactly?

"The lancet has estimated that nearly 650,00 civilians have died since the Incvasion and a death toll of 200 daily is not shocking any more. The US invasion must be held responsible for this gigantic loss of civilian life."

It's also as fake as the WMD intel, Bush says its inaccurate, Iraqi officials say it's inaccurate, many other sources world-wide do not estimate it to be that high or in the magnitude, of hundreds of thousands of civillians. There is no question that there have been civillian deaths, many more then ever needed to die have, our military is a group of highly-trained soldiers, they are able to kill well but discrminatory, this is the most precisely fought war as well as post-war operation fought from ourside ever.

The terrorists/insurgents can make no claim at that. IED's do not discrminate nor do bullets but bullets can be aimed, and so can bombs but IED's cannot. Bottom line, the American soldier is trainned to harm only those who will harm him with discrmination against harming civillians. We are solely responsible for doing the job of not trying to harm civillians while executing our operations. Our country's medics' in the field, also have treated hundreds of thousands if not millions of wounds and worked hand in hand with doctors in Iraq to keep people alive, people caught in the cross-fire of our own weapons and insurgency vs Iraqi governement forces.

"The death penalty given to Saddam Hussein if carried out will lead to a virtual partioning of Iraq along sectarian lines and the world will have another failed state to provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorism."

In your opinion only. Saddam was found guildty by fair trial and his sentence is death. Score one for justice.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Wednesday, November 15, 2006Bahu's heart is with the terrorists

Wrong. I do not support terrorists at all. In fact the defeat of the Republicans in the November polls show that the majority of the American public yearns for peace.

IN the first criticism, the WAR was not lost. And indeed so far nothing has been lost. The War was won. The peace has yet to be. ONe can assume a defeatest attitude, and given the rhetoric coming from the left and their toadies in the MSM, one can excuse you for such an attitude, but the truth is the game is still afoot

The level of both civilian and American military casualities has reached unsustainable propotions. USA cannot be in the war for long and there is no longer any domestic support for it.
None of the objectives for which USA went to war in the first place were achieved. And dont tell me that removal of Saddam was an objective. It was only an afterthought. AS for the War against Terrorism Iraq has escalated support for Islamic Terrorism all over the world.

The military planners understood there were two major phases to the Iraq War. First was to defeat Saddam's military and topple his government. The second phase was to maintain stability after the Saddam government was removed so a Iraqi civilian government could govern Iraq without Saddam.

You may be right but therer is no point in insulating the military from all the problems in Iraq. It was the same story with Vietnam: THe Army got it right but they had to fight with one arm tied behind their back. It is anly an alibii.

I seriously doubt that the long-term outcome would have been any different with twice the number of troops in Iraq from the gitgo. The only difference would be when & to what extent things would degenerate into sectarian violence, not that they might do so. We now know what we'd didn't know for sure in 2003. We've given the Iraqis a chance to live under a non-totalitarian regime of their own making. They've blown it, not us.