« IN THE STARS, OR IN THE GUTTER??? | Main | A DIP IN THE POOL! »

October 31, 2006

Comments

Peter

"my ONLY criticism is that we did not allow our military to overwhelmingly destroy the enemy - but then again, that was because we listened to liberals."

The two main reasons for the military failure in Iraq are firstly the failure of the USA to commit sufficient troops and secondly the disastrous decision to dismember the Iraqi army. Those decisions are the responsibility of the Bush administration and particularly Rumsfeld and Cheney. Nothing to do with listening to liberals. Not that anyone should expect these bozos to admit their complicity, that's definitely not their style.

David Vance

Rubbish. No sooner had the "mighty Fedayareen" fled than liberals were demanding a cessation to all hostilities. We did not crush them so as to curry favour with the MSM, and everybody paid the price.

Peter

Rubbish. Liberals were not in charge of US policy and US forces and battle plans. As Harry Truman used to say "The buck stops here."

daytripper

well said peter. once again cutting through the spin with the actual truth.

got sod all to do with liberals (who had no part in the planning of the war or its aftermath). it has everything to do with the blame game as things slowly go down the plug-hole for the neo-conservative dream.

We do NOT need "a wide-ranging enquiry" into the decision to liberate Iraq and cage Saddam and his terror-supporting regime.

thats the very reason why we need an inquiry. neither of these were given as the original motives for the war. we were lied to, from the word go.

Britain did the RIGHT thing by supporting the US led invasion, and my ONLY criticism is that we did not allow our military to overwhelmingly destroy the enemy - but then again, that was because we listened to liberals.

indeed, actual genocide probably woulve solved the problems in a way virtual genocide could only dream of.

I think we can conclude that they have well and truly lost the plot - and are now arguing for the de facto retention of Saddam and his genocidal regime. Sad, isn't it?

indeed it is sad that its probably better that a new strongman dictatorship is installed in iraq. how did we get to the position where we require dictators to show us how to maintain peace?

thanks tony, thanks george. and thanks david.

Steve

hmmm, seeing as how the whole Iraqi nation is fighting each other, destroying the enemy would have entailed wiping out the whole population. Although thats about 23 million less followers of the R.O.P. - not a bad thing, eh hard man Dave???

David Vance

Steve,

The majority of Iraqis support the liberation, you seem to confuse the Saddamites with all Iraqis. Improve your knowledge and then get back to me.

Steve

David, it's simply BS to attribute all the sectarian violence and shia/sunni insugency to former Saddamites. The entire country is becoming balkanised along ethnic lines. Anyway, as you well know most of the former ba'athist regieme is either dead or 'coalation of the willing' custody!

David Vance

Steve,

Wrong - contrary to what you imply, most of Iraq's provinces are relatively stable. The Sunni Triangle - the home of the Saddamites and their Jihad loving pals from outside of Uraq - is the nexus of the problem. Iranian backed agitation in the south is also unwelcome - one more reason for Iran to get the treatment it so richly deserves as the atomic HEART of the axis of evil.

daytripper

The majority of Iraqis support the liberation

have you proof to back up this claim?

the US forces disbanded the army and proceeded to leave all iraqi arsenals and weapon stores unguarded. these were deliberate moves and are direct causes of the insurgency. i dont see how unemployed heavily armed ex-soldiers can expected to do anything else but resist. the door was left open for them. on purpose as far as im concerned.

David Vance

Tripper,

The DIRECT cause of the terrorism that plagues Iraq is a determination from both Al'Queda, Iran and the Saddamite remnant that democracy will not prevail. It's simple really.

Any thoughts on the decapitation of the young Christian boy by these brave "insurgents" the other day? Or is the resistance to be admired in all it does?

Peter

David

What's going on in Iraq now is mostly a sectarian slaughter between sunni and shia.

daytripper

no proof then. thought not. you should really get back into politics.

The DIRECT cause of the terrorism that plagues Iraq is a determination from both Al'Queda, Iran and the Saddamite remnant that democracy will not prevail. It's simple really.

if all foriegn fighters left iraq today there would be no difference in the level of violence. al'queda are completely peripheral, and have little support even in iraq.

Any thoughts on the decapitation of the young Christian boy by these brave "insurgents" the other day? Or is the resistance to be admired in all it does?

disguisting act of brutality. nothing else to say. but feel free to misrepresent my opinions regardless. afterall its the liberals who allowed this to happen. especially the anti-war ones.

mahons

A deabte is essential to democracy and should not be dismissed regardless of the political agenda of those calling for the inquiry.

It is also clear to all be the unconvincable that the Bush administration failed in its prosecution of the war.

Failed. Failed. Failed.

Having said that, we need a course of action that salvages what we can from the disaster. Damn, I've got to log off for a while. More to follow.

David Vance

The only "failure" lies in the minds of those who opposed the fall of Saddam from the start. We were RIGHT to go in, we were RIGHT to REMOVE his regime of terror, and all that is wrong is we have not killed enough "insurgents", thanks to the baying of the Liberals out there.

Here's the difference between the right and the left. The left see EVERY military engagement as Viet Nam. The right see it as one more battle to be won. Victory is what we should aim for, the annihilation of Al Qu'eda and its emissaries, and the rest is irrelevant. Like others on the right, I'm not that bothered about IF Iraq becomes a democracy or not. This is about winning the war on the Islamofacists and that means killing them and destroying their state sponsors.

Ho ho

Don't see how you can blame 'liberals' for the war. Liberals were pretty much united in opposing it. (Obviously I don't include Tony Blair under that heading).

I remember the SNP getting royally slated for opposing the war on Iraq in 2003. But lo and behold every single thing they said would happen has happened.

Mike's America

"once again cutting through the spin with the actual truth."

Wrote Datreaper, your moonbat in chief. Proving once again that delusions and denial still predominate on the left.

But at least he got over "US is causing terrorism in Iraq" lie.

So maybe there's hope. 20 years from now he might actually agree that a free, stable Iraq is a good thing and it's people are beter off.

Did the D.R. ever acknowledge that the Reagan policy of confronting the Soviet Union was a good thing?

mahons

David: You are confusing (deliberately?) the almost universal sigh of relief that Saddam fell with the opposition to the war as it has been conducted.

The alleged baying of liberals had f all to do with the failures in Iraq. It was the failure of the Bush administrations policies, that has not only resulted in the chaos we have today, but the betrayal of the sacrifices of our troops.

The level of actual Al Qu'eda in Iraq is minimal. The true failure lies in the continued mayhem and the failure of our governments to portray it as anything other than chaotic, and the failure to make necessary adjustments.
The advance of democracy does not rest in the hands of one ideology (right or left). Neither does the fight against terrorism.

Reg

"Like others on the right, I'm not that bothered about IF Iraq becomes a democracy or not."

David,

But wasn't that the only legitimate argument that those on the Right made in favour of the invasion of Iraq. Now you say it doesn't matter. Did it ever matter?

The "War on Terror" argument has been fundamentally destroyed. There was little islamist extremism in Iraq before the fall of Saddam (unlike now).

The Troll

Reg your an idiot.... Oh Iraq wasn't a supporter of terrorism under Saddam, you really shouldn't drink before you post. I guess all those checks he gave to the families of self exploding pally's don't count or the 757 jet that he had just to train hijackers or all the EVIDENCE in the iraqi inteligence files that PROVE not only were they helping Al-Qaeda but any other terrorist group that wanted to give the US or Britain a hard time...

We won't even mention the 1.7 TONS of refined uranium that he had....

Bottom Line Iraq was a terrorist state that was a threat to US and its neighbors, whether you agree with the war or not they no longer are a threat to anyone THATS A FACT.

Besides the best reason for invading Iraq is still the real reason, It is strategicly located in the center of the ME, it provides a deep water port for our navy and is the perfect location for staging troops to invade any other country in the ME and we already were at war with them. It's better to attack the rest of the ME from Iraq rather than Israel...

David Vance

Mahons,

The late unlamenyed Al Qaeda in Iraq chief Abu Musab Zarqawi and military leader Sayf al Adl both pointed to Iraq as an opportunity to spread their movement deeper into the heart of the Arab world. In a December audiotape, Bin Laden himself referred to Iraq as the key battle in a "Third World War." For some reason, Al Que'da see Iraq as CENTRAL, not peripheral, to the mission to return us to the Stone Age.

Some - maybe not all - on the Left are more concerned with blaming Bush than realising that we have an enemy who wants us all to ide, or submit. When the towers fell, it dodn't matter a damn whether one was right, left or whatever, Al Queda want to defeat us and they know that propaganda is a key weapon. They use this with great effect, and our MSM pump it up all the time.

Reg

"Reg your an idiot...."

LOL!! That would have looked better if you could actually spell!! D'oh!

"all the EVIDENCE in the iraqi inteligence files that PROVE not only were they helping Al-Qaeda but any other terrorist group that wanted to give the US or Britain a hard time..."

Yes, ALL THAT EVIDENCE. Care to provide?


"We won't even mention the 1.7 TONS of refined uranium that he had.."

Where was that exactly? Shouldn't you call Hans Blix and tell him about it? He'll feel like such a fool.

The "bottom line" is that Iraq was a repressive dictatorship and, yes, was a threat to both Kuwait and Iran at different times (not to mention its own citizens), but was not an islamic state nor did it support or nurture islamist terrorism.

SBK

DV

Do you believe in democracy? If you do and a resolution for a parliamentary investigation into the Iraq war is passed democratically then you need to accept that. I suspect like most of us you've never been to war, I notice also that people not in the services are also war's strongest cheerleaders. This war was for oil and oil alone. Nothing else JUST oil.

mahons

David: The plain and simple truth is that while the chaos in Iraq may be helpful to the Bin Ladans, it is not caused by them (but rather by the ethnic hatred of the Sunnis and Shia unleashed upon each other in the vacuum created by Bush's policies).

daytripper

the chaos in iraq is of much benefit to the bush administration. the perception completely belies the reality. if global terror "al queda" style was such a major problem i think foriegn fighters would make up more than a paltry few percent of the resistance in iraq. its an illusion, and everyone should question the War on Terrors validity right from the start.

Mike's America

This video began making the rounds yesterday:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/news-from-iraq-you-didnt-see-on.html

It's the GOOD NEWS you didn't hear about in Iraq. Wonder why the lamestream media hasn't covered it?

The comments to this entry are closed.