Sunday, January 21, 2007

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Right around the same time that GW was telling us about the New Way Forward in Iraq, American warplanes were doing the nasty in Somalia. We murdered about seventy nomadic herdsmen who had no connection to any terrorist network.

Maybe it was their livestock.

Not to worry. Twenty American soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday.

He did say forward, didn't he?

46 comments:

Julian Stolz said...

Bernie,

I love ya man but every time you and the other libs say things like that you give a terrorist hope.

NO END BUT VICTORY!

Anonymous said...

according to the AP, 25 Americans were killed yesterday, but whose counting?-Chris Casey

Julian Stolz said...

The liberal media, that's who!

fred said...

What the hell is victory at this point?

Anonymous said...

It seems to be 10 permanent bases in iraq,contracts for us oil companies, more or less a us vassal state in iraq

Anonymous said...

I agree with julian stoltz.

And terrorists do love liberals.


They make their mission so much easier to accomplish.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Julian, Come on, man. This is the way forward? Taking out 70 nomads who don't have anything to do with any terrorist network? Seeing a large number of Americans, 20 or 25, killed in one day? Following a plan that was not proposed by the ISG, but by a partisan Sufi prime minister who needs support himself from al-Sadr? When I point this out, I'm giving a terrorist hope? I think al Sadr is a murderer and a terrorist? And we're supporting him, bippy? And there's another one named bin Laden, in Pakistan. Remember him? I wonder if GW does.

Anonymous said...

In Bushspeak, Backwards is forwards. Julian, I think you are a smart guy, but you don't understand. Bernie and I have both served in the military. we know a SNAFU when we see one. Ask yourself if you are ready to die in Iraq, are you willing to go there? What price are you willing to pay for victory? It's always easy to justify a loss of life when it's not yours'

Anonymous said...

gotta laugh at these supposed conservatives like stoltz who love to go all red white & blue on us when in fact they've never even served in the u.s. military.

Brian said...

Well, statistically, 110 Americans died in an automobile accident yesterday and another 110 did today and another 110 will tomorrow. 82 were murdered yesterday and another 82 today and another 82 will be tomorrow. So, since troops can only be killed in Iraq if they are there, we should follow the logic of no troops present == no troops killed and ban driving so that that 110 figure gets knocked down to zero and we should ban murder so that, oh wait, NM.

This is the pitfall of the microwave society. "we are going to win" == if we don't win in 36 hours, all is lost and everything is a failure.

Surely we all remember Vietnam: 59,000 KIA over 12 years == 100 per week; and that's American, totals overall are estimated at 2,000,000. Lives lost-wise, the GWOT is still a far cry compared to other engagements we've been involved in in the past 232 years. Besides, remember the fall of '02 how the cable news channels, all of them, had military analysts on who predicted 3-5k coalition casualties in the street fighting of Baghdad alone?

As for Bin Laden, what do you expect? Was he going to prance around the mountains of Afghanistan bragging about what he did? No. He went into hiding in August, 2001 fearing for his life and he hasn't been seen since, except by the operatives of Al-Jazeera.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Brian, Sorry, buddy, but that's an illogical argument. There are 300,000,000 Americans vs. 120,000 soldiers in Iraq. As far as bin Laden, what do I expect? Gee, I experct us to be going after him and he's not in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mr. Stolz should signup for military duty and put his money where his mouth is. It's always the "liberal media" at fault, never the fact that Mr. Bush lied about why we were STARTING a war, proclaimed victory three years ago, and has overseen the devolution of civility in Bagdad and other parts of Iraq.

This doesn't even consider the pillaging of the Government coffers to pay Haliburton and other contractors, the long-term costs of taking care of injured Vets, or teh fact that there is no clear definition of "Winning."

If the press were so anti-war, why would they call the helicpoter that "crashed" a crash and not report the fact that, once again, another aircraft was shot down? Video has surfaced on the internet that shows what really happened, not on CNN or the pages of The New York Times.

Maybe Mr. Stolz should start watching real news instead of Faux News.

Brian said...

Brian, Sorry, buddy, but that's an illogical argument.

no x == no one killed by x

The logic is correct. The probability is what's different.

no troops in Iraq == no troops killed in Iraq

no driving == no one killed in auto accidents

no trans fat == no one killed by effects of trans fat

no pit bills == no one killed by pit bulls

no smallpox == no one killed by smallbox

I don't have a solution but I do believe we can learn from our mistakes. The GWOT will not end if we choose to stop fighting. Congress passing a resolution saying they don't like it isn't going to make things better either.

Anonymous said...

yo snyder...go back to evaluating hot dog joints & quit trying to pretend you're some sorta death stats guru.

Bernie O'Hare said...

No Brian, your argument was that a combat soldier had a greater chance of being struck by a car than being killed in Iraq. And it's fallacious because we have 300,000,000 Americans vs. 120,000 troops in Iraq. If we had 300,000,000 troops in Iraq, and only 100 or so were dying in combat each day, then you could make that statistical argument about driving being more dangerous.

I don't want to get caught up in an argument like this. I understand the point you're trying to make. My problem is not one of wanting everything to happen NOW. And guess what? I believe a troop increase is absolutely necessary, but not the one proposed by Bush. I preferred the plan proposed by ISG, which would use the increase to close up the porous borders while simultaneously using diplomacy. I have no confidence in Bush's ability to act as commander in chief. He's just proved himeslf again in Somalia. And he's using the plan proposed by the Shia.

I don't think this should be approached as a liberal v. conservative point of view, as suggested by one commenter. Many conseratives are opposed to the Bush (Maliki) plan. I oppose it because (1) I have no confidence in Bush, and (2) I don't trust Maliki, who is too close to al Sadr.

Julian Stolz said...

The REAL way to win in Iraq is to send in about 100,000 more troops and grind the incoming Iranians and Syrians down. We need to change the rules of engagement. If it moves and looks threatening, shoot to kill. We take no chances and we stop fighting a PC war.

Julian Stolz said...

Anon 10:56,

If I go into the military then who's going to stand up here at home and defend the actions of our troops from the demoralizing attacks from people like you? We have an all volunteer Military for a reason. Not everyone's cut out for it. I'll deal with being called a chickenhawk and a stupid conservative. Our boys over there are better men then you or I and I'll be the first to say it. This is a mission we can't afford to lose. We leave, Iraq is the new Afghanistan and Iran gets it's first victory over the US since Carter. What is victory? Killing every last terrorist and insurgent and then coming home.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Julian, This latest argument that we are fighting a PC war, is another crock. We've murdered about 100,000 Iraqi civilians so far in this PC war. The problem we have is we are occupiers facing an insurgency that is hard to pin down. Now if you want to change the rules of engagement to suggest that we go in and murder the good with the bad, then we are the same as the enemy we are trytinmg to destroy, asren't we? And please don't give me that "war is hell" remark falsely attributed to Sherman. In his march to Georgia, Sherman hung every union soldier who harmed civilians.

Julian Stolz said...

To paraphrase one of the last remaining great Democrats: Nothing makes this grand son of a Marine madder than to hear American Soldiers called occupiers not liberators!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Julian, Imagine how mad he should be to find that some American leader was using its soldiers in precisely that fashion, as occupiers. Sadly, that's what we are. And some among us want them to be worse. They want them to be savages who aren't bothered by the number of children they murder to get at one terrorist.

I appreciate your honest disagreement as well as the contributions made by Brian. We're all on the same side and all want what is best. I don't like seeing either of you attacked personally for your views, although I think it was mostly humor.

But I hope we can come together on this soon. Bush seems hopelessly out of touch with reality. A bo=partiosan group came up with a plan containing 79 specific recommendations, and most of them have been ignored. And this is after the American people sent Bush a message that they'rre unhappy.

Anonymous said...

Here is your problem with your comparison with us death stats, and troops in Iraq.One the avg America is not walking around with a Kevlar vest on. They are not riding around in more or less an armored Vehicle most of the time. If the avg American had the level of protect the troops did there would probably be zero deaths a day.

Second to as to your comparison with Vietnam in the first 4 years of Vietnam we didn't reach the 3k death mark of us troops. We are now at a level almost twice that of the first 4 years of Vietnam second we are at a number 3x higher in Wounded in action in the first 4 years of Vietnam. Until the 5th year we were losing 8 soldiers a week in Vietnam. IN the first 4 years of this mess in Iraq we have lost on an avg of 15 soldiers a week.

Finally we likely would have had 3 to 5 k deaths had the Iraq military not gone underground. The Bush adm and the proponents of this war were expecting a capture the flag war. I.e. you catch Saddam and the war would be over. This was suppose to be a cake walk and regardless of what Mc cain says now in prior to this war he did say this would be an easy war they have him on tape saying it, as well as most of the people who were in the Bush adm at the time. Secondly we haven't actually done any real street fighting in Baghdad yet.

Anonymous said...

julian sounds like a pretty gay name for a guy, dude.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 12:45, Although your shot has nothing to do with anything, I will say this - Julian is a lot better than Bernard. Trust me on that one.

Anonymous said...

where's your sense of humor, bernard?

Bernie O'Hare said...

You had to call me Bernard, didn't you? Now I'm going to go cry in my little pillow.

LSTresidentPIA said...

The problems in Iraq are just the beginning. There's this guy named Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected President in Venezulea but who has decided that he should be the next Castro,

Then there is the Pres of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who is busy developing nuclear weapons.

These two men have become buds, united in their efforts to rid the world of the infidels, the US.

Do we even know who we are fighting anymore? I saw a report that said many Arabs can pass themselves off as Latino and are sucessfully entering this country. It has been suggested that one of those coutries helping in this effort is Venezuela.

Anonymous said...

As a guy who was once called "Chrissy the sissy" I can relate to being called stupid names. Note, I was only called that once. I slugged the offender, and took my whipping at the hands of Sister Mary Terrifying like a man.
The overall point is we are throwing our most precious resource, our young men and women, away in Iraq. And for what?!
Oil fields that will run out in 50 years?
We are going to lose Afghanistan in the near future, the Taliban is opening its' own schools, after blowing up the ones Halliburton was thinking about building. Of course H-burton still got paid.
This isn't about what's right, or what is honorable, that's just a guise that was used to justify it. This is all about profit, period. And I find it repulsive that American blood isn't being spilled for freedom, but Dick Cheney's bank balance.

FtHillDem said...

Conservatives have been among the strongest antiwar advocates. Republican Chuck Hagel is the most antiwar Senator in Congress. Visit the website antiwar.com, run largely by conservatives. Read American Conservative magazine.

Iraq is bad enough. I am concerned that Bush will multiply the disaster by an order of magnitude by attacking Iran.

A conservative Congressman, Walter Jones, Republican from North Carolina, has introduced a resolution forbidding the President to attack Iran without Congressional approval. It is House Resolution 14, and so far there are 12 bipartisan co-sponsors.

I would think it a good idea to write Rep. Dent and ask him to support the resolution. I would think a note to Nancy Pelosi's offic would also be a good idea, to help give the Democrats a little antiwar backbone.

An article from the American Conervative magasine concerning this issue can be found here:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_12_18/article.html

Anonymous said...

there was no anon 10:56, julian. guess the fact that you're blind & gay helped keep you out of the military.

Bernie O'Hare said...

FtHillDem, Thanks for the link. Yes, I don't see this in ideological terms. We need to get away from this liberals v. conservatives argument as well as the claim that only those who were in the military are qualified to speak.

American deaths now exceed 3,000. Non-mortal casualties (wounded and ill) are at 47,657!! As many as 60,000 Iraqi civilians may be dead.

After four years, there's no light at the end of the tunnel. It's actually getting worse. And frankly, I think Bush just wants to delay things so he isn't tagged with being the guy who withdrew.

I'd have no problem w/ a temporary troop increase under certain circumstances. I'm not an immediate withdrawal advocate. But the Bush plan is guaranteed to fail.

Julian Stolz said...

Anon 1:45

Ahem that would be 10:56 PM as in yesterday.

Speaking of calling the kettle black, posting anonymously while attacking someone using their real name is incredibly cowardly.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 1:45, We've got a real problem in this country with an "us" v. "they" attitude. I'd rather engage Julian than alienate him. I'm no comment cop so you can ignore me if you wish but I'd prefer to argue with facts.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Julian,

I allow people to post anonymously, as a blogger or with their name. My rules, bippy. I like free flow exchanges, and it is inevitable that someone will use anonymoity to make remarks he or she would not otherwise make. It happens and it's no big deal in my view. We all know the least effective form of argument is personal attack. Anon was just trying to be funny.

Anonymous said...

cowardly, says the gay chickenhawk? And ahem...there was no anon 10:56 pm as in yesterday.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 2:18, The repeated use of "gay" as an epithet is not liberal thinking. You're trying to make an idiot out of Julian, but are instead making yourself look pretty bad. You're no longer funny.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Julian, but I don't berate him for not serving in the military, and I too have a problem with Anons who launch personal attacks. I put forth my firsthand experience as an enlisted man to qualify my perspective on the war. A lot of valid points made here, but lets not get personal! and I sign my name-CHris Casey

FtHillDem said...

"And frankly, I think Bush just wants to delay things so he isn't tagged with being the guy who withdrew."

This is a possibility. But I also think that he is intoxicated with the power of commanding the most powerful armed forces that ever existed on Earth. He has two more years to use them.

The Iraq "surge" may be just a way to divert attention for more aggressive plans. Why are so many aircraft carriers headed to station off Iran? Why does he refuse to negotiate with Iran?

Somalia shows once again that Bush will strike with no warning. Iran is different. They have ways of striking back. But will that make a difference to Bush? If he enjoys being a "War President", he will REALLY be one then.

I will be listening most attentively to the Democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union. It will be given by Jim Webb, newly elected Senator from Virginia. If there is any Democratic Senator who can warn Bush about further aggresion in the Middle East, I would think it would be this former Reagan supporter and official.

Anyway, so I hope.

Anonymous said...

okay okay chrissy the sissy bernadette & juliana...i'll stop already. jeez you guys are no fun.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Frankly, Irtan does not trouble me. Notwitstanding its bellicose statements, it is a rational government. It's simply taking advantage of a situation we made possible, thanks to our invasions.

The country that truly troubles me is North Korea. We recently withdrew troops from S Korea and moved them to Iraq. But N Korea is both unstable and nuclear. Despite its deteriorating economy and food shortages, it has done nothing to improve conditions. What happens if there's a coup and rebels seize WMDs? What happens if the North sudedenly invades S Korea, and even emmploys tactical nukes?

We're simply not ready.

FtHillDem said...

Iran doesn't trouble me either, but that's not the issue. It does seem to bother Bush a great deal, probably for a number of reasons.

What Bush might think he needs to do about Iran is what troubles me.

Anonymous said...

A war is like a marriage. Until you are in it you really have no idea how it will end up, but you go into it with a positive attitude and you want it to work. One usually has to work real hard to make it successful. AND sometimes we change our "plan" to make it work. It all depends on how committed we are to the institution. When it works we think we made the right choice and we were so smart, but when it fails we say "I should have known that it would never work", and we put the blame where ever we can.

All in all we go into it because we think it is good for us.

Anonymous said...

Anon, I personally enjoy being slammed! LOLOLOL!-
Chrissy the sissy!

Julian Stolz said...

wow I do stand corrected on the time thing. I was looking at Brian's post and Anon's at the same time. My bad, happens.

Bernie,

I have no problem with anonymous posters nor am I offended.

xxoo,

Julian

;)

Anonymous said...

Not all Republicans are conservatives, and not all dems are liberal. Personally I would rather be a Dem consrevative than a Rep liberal. I'm sick of the political BS. And sick of PC.

Did you hear that in California they want to pass a law that bans spanking? Does that make your haed want to explode or what?

I'm not going to read this blog for awhile. Too many nut cases.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 4:50, I've never heard war compared to a marriage before, but I have heard marriage compared to war. In any event, time for a divorce.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Anon 5:26,

Like I said before, I'm no comment cop. But I don't like it when someone personally attacks another, anonymous or not. It detracts from the discussion. Julian is not offended, but I am. It's a stupid way to argue. And if you think it is mere political correctness to take offense when someone is repeatedly attacked as being gay, then you're full of shit. You weren't just insulting Julian but were implying it's OK to laugh at peoples' sexual choices. I will occasionally make remarks about being in love with this guy or that, but never make fun of someone's sexual orientation. What you did disparaged people in the gay community. I could give a rat's ass about being politically correct. But I don't like to see any group targeted for derision, excepting pols. Save your slings and arrows for them. You'll need them, too.