This story is interesting to me.
If the army is a failure in Iraq as some contest. If Bush makes mistake after mistake, too many are dying....how do we meet retention goals?
Might it be all the good that we do in that part of the world that the liberal media and DNC don't want to talk about?
Think about it...American media and an American political party focusing on only the weaknesses of what they call "the greatest country in the world"
Well, if it is, why don't you EVER say anything nice or positive about what we are doing. The people who are actually doing the work understand their importance, too bad more don't know about it.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Army Meets Its Retention Goal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I don't know what will upset the Democrats more -- good news, or loyalty, or patriotism, or the fact that troops believe in the mission -- all things that rock the depressing, Gloom and Doom worlds of liberals.
That's great news!
Here's more news. Today, George W. Bush said:
"If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable — and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies — Saddam's former henchmen, armed groups with ties to Iran, and al Qaeda terrorists from all over the world who would suddenly have a base of operations far more valuable than Afghanistan under the Taliban."
To which Matthew Yglesias responded:
"...The idea here is that absent the US military, we would be handing Iraq over to some nefarious -- and, admittedly, it would be quite nefarious -- coalition of Baathists, Iranians, and al-Qaedists, presumably joined by Dr. Evil and the Cobra Commander. Back in the real world, though, these groups are fighting each other [emphasis added]. What's more, the "armed groups with ties to Iran" include the political parties that comprise the Iraqi government. So what is it our troops are accomplishing amidst this frothy mix of bad actors?"
I have no idea who Matthew Yglesias is...maybe a former or even current general...
if that is true, you would be using page 54 of the liberal playbook finding ONE example of something that is supposed to refute a thousand other examples...
most people understand that if we leave Iraq it will go in the toilet...too bad Matthew Yglesias doesn't, don't know him, don't care...
and your quote skirts the issue again cause you are wrong, which is usually...
There is nothing in Yglesia's words that any bright person would consider as a refutation. And it is by no means a "page 54 of the playbood" horseshit single example.
This demonstrates once again that you either do not read what we say or you do not have the capacity to comprehend the English language.
It is simply pointing out that what Bush seems to consider a group of natural allies, is actually several groups who hate each other more than they hate the US.
Furthermore he notes that Bush's evil "armed groups with ties to Iran" are the VERY people that we are supporting as the "democratically elected" government in Bagdhad.
How stupid is that?
Note what was also said, Jim:
We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies —
Excuse GWB? It's not ours to hand over? Is that not proof of what the real agenda is here? GWB wants Iraq. At the very least, thinks it's his already --
Another of my favorites is Publius who writes "Legal Fiction"
"Anyway, the problem with this passage is that it treats all Muslims with guns as one undifferentiated threat — united in hatred of our freedom. But they’re not undifferentiated at all — Palestinian terrorism couldn’t be more different that [sic] al Qaeda-style terrorism. Similarly, Shia-Sunni (or Shia-Shia) warfare is a different animal from Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. Again, if he really believes these groups are all “pursuing the same objective,” we’re all in big trouble. And if he doesn’t really think that, then he’s misleading the public."
Read more.
Tactics aside, the goals are still pretty much the same for all those terrorist orgs. They would all prefer Israel not exist and seek to make that happen. They all have Islamic world domination as part of their overall agenda, though a specific group may be focussed on a more short term goal to the seeming exclusion of the bigger picture. They also are not fond of Western notions of the world and except where they can indulge themselves, prefer to eliminate that as well.
As to Iraq, the sectarian violence is seen by the left as a sign of civil war, yet it is basically militas messing with each other and not a concerted effort to depose the freely elected government, though some of that may exist. Thus, it is not a civil war in the classic sense. But their own PM shares the same concerns regarding an early departure of coalition forces. So Bush's perspective isn't unique to himself. Nor is it off base. Our presence is a major factor in preventing a return to the same type of oppression suffered by the Iraqi people during Hussein's reign of terror. The notion that Iran is keen on our departure is also not off base. An unprotected Iraq in disarray would be like red meat to a wolf.
dedanna,
I believe Bush wants Iraq to govern by itself to promote democracy in the middle east...don't know if it will work...but right now and in the past the middle east was a cesspool of hate and backward thinking that might end the entire world
Then he needs to bow out and let it.
One can not logically say "we want this country to govern itself" and take it over, reap havoc, and otherwise run that country for them. If they are to run it, then they are to run it.
If we want them to do it, then let them. Expect them to. We can sanction, use other means if they hurt us in the process.
Here's another nice story, from here today:
Al-Dabbagh said the facility had become synonymous with abuse.
"This detention facility has witnessed serious violations and serious crimes during the rule of Saddam Hussein," he said. --->>"It has also witnessed human rights violations by members of the U.S. forces, who were tried. ---->>The media practiced its full role in disclosing these violations."
At least this dude is making some sense.
Marshall said: "Tactics aside, the goals are still pretty much the same for all those terrorist orgs."
You are obviously an expert on the Middle East and the many factions living and fighting there. So you are telling me that the goal of Hamas is "Islamic world domination"? So you are telling me that Sunnis and Shiites are working together to achieve "Islamic world domination"? So you are telling me that the Iraqi government which has strong ties to Iran and which the US government supports is working towards "Islamic world domination"?
Interesting. I'm sure it all makes sense to you because you are well read on the subject. Could you link us to your sources on this or a bibliography that we could use to enlighten ourselves?
Re: Goals:
The President admits that 9/11 & Iraq have nothing to do with each other
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
Q What did Iraq have to do with that?
THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Q The attack on the World Trade Center?
THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. -- Press Conference, 8/21/06
Faux news video here
Found WMDs: No.
Stopped Al Qaeda (Osama Bin Laden): No. (How many times is he going to die before he's dead?)
Evidence to support a link between Al Qaeda & Iraq: No.
How many more things can there be a "no" to in completing the "goals" of all this bullshit, before something is done to stop the insanity and killing, that we now have confirmed is for nothing?
How many times must the answer be "no" before the people see that "no" in this case means FAILED???
What does it take to show a bunch of idiots on a conservative blog that you are losing rapidly, by your own president's actions?
How can you not see that you are not supporting the will of the U.S. or its people? All you have to do is look at GWB's job approval ratings, and you can see how much you've lost.
Not all of these people are stupid, y'know. Nor are they liberal. You claim that conservatives took the overwhelming majority, and spoke both in 2000 & 2004, so these people must mostly be conservatives by your own thinking.
Even Faux news says he sux, according to their poll.
Geez, wake up!!!
Jim,
No. I'm saying that they have similar ideas about what the future should look like and each feels they are the ones to lead the way. Left alone, they would certainly fight amongst themselves until one faction is the most dominant, and from there, spread their "message" throughout the world. So if you were to list each militant group, that is, Hezballah, Hams, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Muslim Brotherhood, and on and on, you'd be hard pressed to determine which does NOT want to eradicate the Jews and force conversion across the globe.
As to sources, there are a few contributors to americanthinker.com. Just hit their archives (past articles) and you will find in depth examinations of Islam and it's influence on these militant scumbags. Another is "Unveiling Islam" by Ergun Kaner, who was raised a Muslim and now is Christian. Another is Walid Shoebat, himself a former terrorist. These are just a few of the sources from which I've drawn my opinions and positions on the threat. Keep in mind, that none of these assumes that every Muslim has the same grand designs. Some are just people wanting what most people want.
dedanna,
Finding WMDs was a hope, but not a reason for going to Iraq. Hussein did not adequately comply with UN resolutions requiring him to account for all his weapons or to prove they've been destroyed. That failure was one on the list of reasons we went. It was the left that expected us to find WMDs. Doing so would've gone a long way toward shutting them up, but as I said, it wasn't a goal.
Stopping AlQueda: That we've put a major dent in their operations is well supported. That they refuse to surrender is no surprise. That they may fight to the last man is the distinction between them and former enemies in past wars. That they have the upper hand is a myth supported by the MSM's intention to report only negative news about the fight.
Evidence of a link between AlQueda and Iraq: Ongoing, with much shown to be the case already. However, such a link is unnecessary to establish since there was a list of reasons to go to Iraq. The link (discussed at length at other blogs such as Captain's Quarters) is just another point on the list.
As this enemy is unique in it's tactics and level of dedication, by what measure can you determine defeat or victory? To what other struggle in history can you compare this one? Which former enemy was willing and eager to die and saw it as a major tactic? Not the Japanese. Their kamakazis were a last ditch effort. You cannot lose while the game is afoot. You can only fail when you quit. Each war had it's dark days, times when it seemed all was lost. And they were lost but for the determination of good men. So what will it take to show a bunch of losers and quitters that being so never got anyone anywhere or anything?
One more thing for Jim, concerning whether or not all the Islamic groups have the same goals.
Listen to al Qaeda’s Aymin al-Zawahiri: “The Jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even within the Crusaders’ own homes.”
HE seems to think it's all the same. Shouldn't we take him at his word?
Marshall--
I'm completely refreshed by reading your posts. They're a real pleasure, giving the willful ignorance that is often passed off as knowledge these days.
As for taking people at their word, Democrats will never do so, because that will ruin their vision of Cosmic Justice.
So when Islamic-inspired fascists say something evil, it "really" must mean something good, since they are noble brown victims suffering from Western hegemony and imperialism.
And when Bush says something heroic and idealistic, he "really" must mean something sinister, since it is assumed he is an agent for American corporate interests that want to oppress people for monetary gain.
Willful ignorance, doublethink, anything you want to call it-- we haven't seen this in the west since the 1930s, when people thought we could have diplomacy with Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler. Instead of trying to stop another Vietnam, goofy moonbats were trying to stop another Verdun.
History repeats itself again.
marshall art said...
Evidence of a link between AlQueda and Iraq: Ongoing, with much shown to be the case already.
Nope, the president himself said they have nothing to do with each other. So that solves that one.
Thanks Jason.
Dedanna,
He said that, I believe, in reference to the the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. Just thought I'd clarify.
Doesn't matter. He was asked a direct question, what the 9/11 attacks, war in Afghanistan, and Iraq have to do with each other.
GWB immediately responded "Nothing".
That's it right there. It's over. Nothing more need be said. Nothing need be clarified. He clarified it.
And, there is an investigation now started about this, that there is evidence that GWB & cronies lead the people here to believe that they did have something to do with each other. Heard it in the news this morning.
He fucked up. Why can't you just admit it that GWB is human enough to fuck up?
Post a Comment