Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Doing What They Do Best

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Sam — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:18:55 -0000

An excellent review of the issue; this makes so much sense. Why would we have gone through all this work to turn Iraq into a better nation if, afterwards, we do not take advantage of an ally in the Middle East? There's no point in leaving now; we don't want to leave things unfinished because that's just not the right thing to do.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

unclesmrgol — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:19:06 -0000

Oh dear, did I get that wrong! Based on his legislative record, I thought he was a Representative.

My little Obama is all grown up -- he's a junior Senator, for crying out loud! OK, I take it back -- he could indeed obstruct any treaty.

I can see his epitaph now -- The Great Obstructer.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

showbiz — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:59:29 -0000

To the laupbots, if you claim that the US policy in the ME over the past sixty years is the only or preponderating cause for militant islamists and terrorism, then please explain what US foreign policy caused the 18th Century islamo-terrorists otherwise known as the Barbary Pirates. Was it support of Israel in the 1790s that led the the 'rightful indignation' of muslims? Was it the US 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia, or Persia (Irag/Iran) or Afghanistan, that led many muslims to 'lash out' at that superpower of the 18th Century, the United States?
The unhinged leftists in the democrat party, who represent probably fifty percent or more of their base wanted to withdraw at all costs, however, once victory seems to be within reach, their leaders instead of congratulating Bush on the change in strategy and success still live in the past (which most dems seem to do, always longing to go back to the 1960s like one endless LSD flashback) instead of the present. Indeed, the dems are pretty ironic, because they falsely claim that the Bush Administration ignores the facts on the ground in the name of ideology, whereas it is the dem party which has been driven by its tin foil ideology since the infamous Rockefeller Memo of 2003. (Indeed, it has now been disclosed in the newly released documents from the Clinton Library, that this same Rockefeller enlisted the Clinton Administration in 92-93 to aggregate an enemies list of those opposed to what even the Clinton Administation called internally, the most unprecedented takeover of private industry in US History, and to smear these critics and to plant stories against HillaryCare in friendly media).
I say a prayer of thanks to the Bush Administration for their staunch support of our troops and our allies and the dems threaten all our alliances with their cut and run strategies.
What foreign countries would ever trust the US again, in the next forty years, to come to their aid, if the demoncrats succeed in their obscene cut and run surrender strategy? It would be Vietnam Syndrome to the nth power.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

red — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:52:26 -0000

Very poorly written. Your inability to think clearly obviously leads you to your political positions.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

DC_Gamer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:31:21 -0000

Sashal, calling the other commentator a "non-liberal fascist" is not exactly answering politely, is it? At least by using the term "non-liberal fascist," you appear to recognize the existence of liberal fascists. In fact, the term "fascist" should more correctly be used to describe those on your side of the political fence (i.e. the NAZIs of Germany, aka the National Socialists, were, after all, socialists).

To address your questions...what have we accomplished in Iraq? What have we gained for the billions spent and thousands of lives lost? I am certain that if you put your thinking cap on you could answer those questions yourself. You, however, appear more interested in defaming the current occupant of the White House instead of addressing U.S. foreign policy. You, or at least most others of your ilk would rather see the U.S. fail in Iraq so that the President Bush does not appear successful.

For those of us who truly love this country, such views are repugnant. Though I was hardly a fan of Clinton, I could certainly discuss in a rational manner his foreign policy successes and failures. Why can you not discuss Bush's foreign policy in a rational manner?

Re: Doing What They Do Best

$2792 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:09:45 -0000

What do you mean Obama isn't a Senator? If Bush made a treaty, the Dems would probably defeat it if they wanted too since it would require a 2/3rds vote to pass. Whatever understanding is reached would not be presented to the Senate as a treaty unless about 20 Democrats are on board. Presumably Hillary and Obama would both vote no.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Bennett — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:35:03 -0000

I'm just amused that they spent $12 Million and got nothing for it. Nothing. And because they failed so spectacularly after spending all that money, they've decided to charge in a different direction. A new mission that will also fail.

I don't know a great deal about this subject but I don't think status of forces and related agreements need congressional approval and it's unlikely this crowd could muster enough votes to get some anti-whatever Bush wants to do through Congress anyway (this Congress? please. It's an election year). So they'll spend more millions. And fail.

Okey dokey then.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

MataHarley — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:30:37 -0000

So sorry I forgot to "un" bold, group.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

MataHarley — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:37:57 -0000

It's obvious that you and I shall disagree, Tim Pundit. Truth is, you have no more moral claim to being "correct" in your analyses that I have in mine. We will never know with certainty what could have happened had we done something different.

No one emphatically knows whether Saddam would have provided bioweaponry, or assisted the global Islamic jihad movement in getting nuke technology and weaponry on the black market ,had he not been removed. But he had the power, money and motivation to do so. His penchant for acquiring proscribed weaponry after 1998 is documented on the UNMOVIC site. His willingness to deal on the black market for his contraban was documented by the Oil for Food corruption scandal.

The point that most "anti-free-Iraq" types miss is that the problem is "state-less". Leaving one country will do nothing to appease the global Islamic jihad movement. They came because the evil infidel Satan (that would be Clinton at that time) was occupying Arab lands (Saudi), and because of our sanctions on Iraq ... just two of the many named reasons for jihad in the World Islamic Front statement of 1998.

Odd, don't you think, that they took pains to include Saddam as a reason for their jihad? Read more on historic regime documents found (i.e. Both in One Trench) and you will discover there was a convenient tit for tat between Saddam and militant Islam.. just as there is in every Muslim country in existence. No surprise. Nothing unusual.

Redeployment will not appease militant Islam. Nothing short of wiping out every western presence ... from western embassies to MickeyD's... from lands they claim for Islam will please them. Then how long do you think it will take for them to want to convert the rest? We will have demonstrated our willingness - nay, weakness - by fleeing. This enemy scoffs at weakness... and takes advantage.

Thus if you wish to base your analyses of foreign policy on the opinions of the so-called "majority" (more like a 52-48 split really) of Americans... the same who are led to the trough by the clueless-to-strategy-and-history media... then I for one am glad you have no power over our national security.

Sad reality - until you've done it "your" way, you will never realize how totally wrong, you are, IMHO. There may be a Dem CIC come 2009. All DNC wannabees said they will deny Iraq's request for further assistance because they want to appease those like yourself.

What happens in Iraq after we leave can then be on your shoulders. Our current way, we've been there because the Iraqis wanted a chance to make it work, not abandonment. If not measuring up to your standards of success (which should be more aptly applied to our own Congress and our own violent society), we have at least done our best to help Iraq achieve freedom of choice under their own terms.

With your choice, will they experience not only heinous genocide, but find their new found freedoms replaced with Islamic law? Only time will tell. But your learning curve risks the lives and futures of the Iraqis. And perhaps ourselves as well.

So if I were you, TP, I'd remember your vehemence here when a reality arrives that doesn't fit into your neatly packaged sound byte education.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

TerryGain — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:17:29 -0000

Great post Ed . I couldn't agree more . The last thing progressives want is progress in Iraq. Their worst fear is peace. They are beneath contempt.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

sashal — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:09:58 -0000

Sure, I am serious.
Thank you, at least, at the ATTEMPT to answer politely.
Not the thing we can claim about the other answer I received below from non-liberal fascist

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Boerwar — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:55:49 -0000

I would have to agree with Andrew X. For the organized anti-war types this isn't about the Iraq War or George Bush. Their goal is to prevent any war from appearing to have been a successful venture. The worst thing they can imagine is that future generations use the lessons learned from a successful Iraq War as supporting material to justify another pre-emptive action. They are the same types that have tried for years to rewrite the history of WWII because it was just so darn black and white.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Colonel_prop — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:25:43 -0000

Ahhhh - the lefty trolls are out in force today. Must have had a jolt of electricity from their silly hybrid cars that won't ever pay off the investment.

I believe Dante reserved a special place in hell for those who betray their benefactors. Since the left, and the other allies of AQ in the USA (the media and the democratic party) have decided to commit at least sedition and possibly treason against this country (still safe after 6+ years from someone determined to obliterate us - AQ has publicly said so) there has to have been a giant movement in hell to prepare for the influx of those who deserve the lowest reaches of horror.

Have fun - you'll need a sense of humor when you chat with lucifer.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

onlineanalyst — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:09:35 -0000

There are loads of unsubstantiated, verifiable with facts, statements underpinning your opinion:
To wit: "Iraq at this point is hideously unstable.." For example?

"there has been no actual political progress" None? For example? What would you define as "political progress"?

"the de-Ba'athification legislation conservatives were crowing about was actually opposed by the people it was supposedly intended to help" Evidence? Says who?

""bottom-up reconciliation" is inherently a failure of political progress, since it consists of us funding and training armies against the Iraqi "government" Huh? The tribes are uniting against the goverment? Evidence? A peculiar judgment call (opinion) since the tribal reconciliations have led to joint efforts to rid the villages and provinces of subversives intent on destabilizing the communities.

"Since America's presence in Iraq is a source of the instability " Who is making that claim? Why has the Iraqi government continued to seek our assistance then? Why are our troops actually living among Iraqis in their communities and forming alliances with these populations as part of the successful counterinsurgency tactic then?

"Bush is trying to lock in failure " Evidence? Lock? Is this a strategy to assure that President Bush will be president for life? Where are you getting your information that the efforts are a downward spiral of "failure"? What merit would there be to perpetuate failure?

What intruigues me is what is your definition of "Anerican defeat".

What I find pathetic is that you offer impassioned rhetoric without substance.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Del_Dolemonte — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:09:27 -0000

Here's a fun exercise-ask a Leftist to explain to you how they can "support the troops" but not "support the mission".

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Jamie — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:56:57 -0000

Tim, it sounds to me as if you're worrying about a war that ended a long time ago, or perhaps a bad song that ended a long time ago. (Sing it with me: "N-n-n-n-nineteen. Nineteen.") US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan tend to be a good bit older (average around 30 I believe), and none were drafted, so it's hard to argue that they're there because they were (a) enslaved by The Man or (b) too youthfully stupid to know better.

But more to the point: tell me in what way we "failed," unless we actually close the book here, at this moment. We unseated a brutal dictator whose policies and actions cost thousands of his own citizens' lives every year for two decades. We did this with minimal loss of life, both on our side and on our enemies'. We effected and continue to effect the most humane warfighting and "occupation" the world has ever seen, with a concern for civilian lives unmatched in history. We supported the founding and ratification of the most (classically) liberal government and constitution in the Middle East - a government that is still divided but is also still slogging away, not giving up and returning to basic tribalism, in spite of its leaders' having become targets for assassination by reactionary thugs. We have trained and are training a cadre of security and military forces who can do what our military can do - fight effectively and strictly according to orders, including orders to cease and desist.

Most importantly, only by staying in Iraq, and only through the determination of Bush and those who agree with him to keep on staying in Iraq until the job is all the way done, have we begun to repair our paper-tiger, weak-horse reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere. (Does nobody but me remember Qaddafy?) Why are you so anxious to throw that away? Or do you think it's unimportant? So that, instead of "our 19 and 20 year olds" in the military's being potential temporary targets for those reactionary thugs, it can be our 19- and 20-year-olds, or 50- and 51- year-olds, or 5- and 6-year-olds who can be their targets for the forseeable future, in schools (remember Beslan?), on cruise ships (remember the Achille Lauro?), and in office buildings (for God's sake, remember 9/11?)?

No (she says disgustedly), I'm not saying Iraq was "behind" 9/11. But that "weak horse" reputation of ours certainly got a lot of Americans killed over the years, didn't it?

Re: Doing What They Do Best

onlineanalyst — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:45:26 -0000

The opponents of a long-term security agreement do, however, need to offer evidence for their objections and their analyses. They appear to refute facts and prognosticate a future based on their own anti-engagement premise and stance in the first place.. What don't they understand about the words "security agreement"?

Re: Doing What They Do Best

DC_Gamer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:43:13 -0000

Sashal, you cannot be serious. Do you honestly want to know the answer to that question? We will be successful in Iraq if we can create a relatively stable, relatively representative government in the cesspool that is the Middle East. Compared to its neighbors, that is not saying much. Since petrodollars wedded to a radical Islamic agenda have become a worldwide threat, we can no longer ignore the troubles of the Middle East. The old modus vivendi of working with stable-but-repressive governments is outdated. We cannot turn back the clock and wistfully wish that Muslim terrorists will stay in their part of the world. If we can help disaffected Muslims blow off steam in a relatively representative government instead of blowing off body parts in terrorist activity, then we will have succeeded.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

sashal — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:15:47 -0000

what a magic, the strongest army in the world can limit the resistence?
Can anybody praising surge define exactly what they mean by "winning." Does "win" mean we have a pro-U.S. government successfully running Baghdad without American military assistance? Or does "winning" mean the U.S. stays in Iraq until 2018 or 2025 or 2085 or longer? Or does "winning" mean the Iraqis accomplish some form of lasting "reconciliation" among the various political, tribal, religious, ethnic, and class factions? Or does "winning" simply mean that more Iraqis die in the fighting than Americans? What exactly has the United State accomplished in Iraq? In other words, I wonder what Captain think the U.S. has gotten for all of those taxpayer billions and American lives thrown at that country.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Steve Z — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:02:09 -0000

If the anti-war left wants to pull troops away from where they are no longer needed, why don't they start with Bosnia and Kosovo, where they were sent ten years ago by a former President who is the husband of a current Democrat candidate? Somehow, we haven't heard many stories of violence by Serb or Bosnian militants in the media lately. Maybe those troops aren't needed there any more. There's no oil in Bosnia, so you can't even blame it on Halliburton!

Beyond maintaining a peaceful and stable Iraq, there is another good reason for working out a long-term mutual defense treaty with Iraq--AhmaNutJob immediately to the east. If the Iranian nuclear program (the real one, not the one described by the dreamers who wrote the NIE) gets too far along, an American military presence on Iran's western (Iraq) and eastern (Afghanistan) borders could be a reasonable long-term deterrent. (Containment, anyone?) If an Iranian nuclear weapon had to be "taken out" by force, it's a lot easier to launch the attacks from Iraq than from Okinawa, besides, our planes would burn less fuel and create less global warming.

http://www.nysun.com/articl...

On another national security issue, there have been reports that Senator Barack Obama's brother is in Kenya, allied with opposition leader Raila Odinga, who wants to establish Sharia law in Kenya, and claims to be Obama's cousin. Do we really want a President who says he wants to invade Pakistan in order to kill Bin Laden, while his family is fighting for radical Islamists in Kenya? If Obama wins the Dem nomination, this information needs to be made public, so voters know what Obama means by searching for his father... Sounds rather dangerous for America!

Re: Doing What They Do Best

Bonnie_ — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:41:45 -0000

They can't really revolt. They don't believe in guns and their feet hurt too much from those hemp sandals.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

megapotamus — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:38:30 -0000

The good news here is undebatable. The most important front in the GWOT, the one here at home against the traitors/retards of the modern American Left is won. It was won sometime before the first Dem debate as it was then that the capitulation was admitted by all 3 of the Dem frontrunners when they conceded that they could not promise a troop pullout, full or otherwise WITHIN THEIR FIRST TERM! That is the sound of Hil and Barry and the Silky Pony even signing on for FIVE more years of war. Cowardly excuses for real Americans, treasonous nitwits; Progressives, Democrats, Liberals, Nazis... whatever you are calling yourselves this week, you have lost yet again. You should be ashamed of yourselves for your years long slandering of far, far better men on whom you rely for your security and prosperity. Yes, that most asuredly includes George Bush. But hey, it's never too late for a REAL revolution, right? Try that!

Re: Doing What They Do Best

DC_Gamer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:05:07 -0000

DBCO, you are demonstrating a decidedly negative, pessimistic attitude and a profound ignorance of history. What do you think would have happened had the United States withdrew all of its troops from Germany and Japan in 1945? What if we had not sent millions upon millions of our hard-earned dollars to Europe in aid (i.e. the Marshall Plan)? Do you think Europe would be half as stable and productive as it is today? Don't you realize that it was our troops that caused and then kept peace and stability in Europe immediately after the war?

How about Korea? Do you think South Korea would be as stable, peaceful and prosperous today if we had withdrawn our troops immediately after the end of hostilities in 1953? Why do you think we still have soldiers there?

Our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines still cause some instability in Korea, Okinawa, and other places where they are stationed. Does that mean we should immediately pull them out? What do you think would happen if we did?

I find it difficult to believe that you honestly believe Iraq would be a better place if we withdraw all of our forces. I also find it incredulous that you have such sympathy for the difficulties our forces face in Iraq when others in your camp express no such concern for our troops in other duty stations around the world. Rather, I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the only reason that you want our troops to redeploy home is that you cannot stand the idea of Bush being successful in Iraq.

Re: Doing What They Do Best

DC_Gamer — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:02:28 -0000

Re: Doing What They Do Best

unclesmrgol — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:52:49 -0000

They actually attempted redeployment to Iwo Jima, but the Japanese were even better prepared than they were the last time. Given that they came ashore without any offensive armament, Iwo remains safely in Japanese hands.