However, I do agree with the last paragraph of his essay:

“That government is a product of our “nation-building” under the banner of a “democracy” for which Iraq may not have been ready.”

Iraq is not ready for democracy. Iraq will never be ready for democracy. Iraq has no desire for democracy.

Some peoples, usually because they are blinded by religion, prefer slavery over freedom.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011607.php3

And as for saying “we’re not at war”, that’s even worse. First off, it’s a difference without a distinction. Let’s call it a “holiday”. We’re “at holiday” with Islamofascist killers. Doesn’t really change anything does it? Second off, as for Anyone with an sense has always known that, next time you want to show of your sense of superiority, and claim people with sense MUST agree with you, check your spelling. Maybe you won’t seem so goofy.

It sure must be a cold day in hell as I’m actually backing Reyes on this one.

Squiggy asks “Do you want us to win?”

Win What Squiggy?????????

Win the war? There has been no official war declared by our government.

The whole “War on Terror” is a sham. Anyone with an sense has always known that.

The War on Terror is simply a convenience for the Military Industrial Complex. It allows them, or our government (pretty much one in the same) to invade ANYONE without officially declaring war on ANYONE. The only justification needed for us to send in troops is to say that so-and-so is a threat to the War on Terror. It doesn’t even have to be true. We would not be in Iraq is things were being based on the truth.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011607.php3

We haven’t yet lost anything, but we still could. Do you want us to win?

“Shop and compare before you buy? Briliiant!”

A sober assessment of Iraq sees chaos, sectarian strife, banditry and tribalism.

Only a huge influx of troops, with a shoot to kil mentality, will bring law and order. But then we would have to stay in Iraq forever or install a ruthless dictator.

Iraq is a hopeless cause — period!

I was very against this invasion at the beginning when the majority of our country was for it (note: this is, and never has been a war).

When most of the country turned against it several years later I became more for it as I took the notion that because we had already made the big mistake in the first place, we need to see it through.

Now I’ve done a complete 360 and feel we need to just get our people the hell out of there. Screw the consequences.

The current Iraqi government has certainly proven there blood-thirsty enough to take care of there population in a manner they see fit.

My reason for this 360. With the recent handling of executions and past reports of torture houses by the current Iraqi government it has become abundantly clear they are no better than the regime we ousted.

One ting regarding that poll of best presidents. I am very surprised to see Dwight D. Eisenhower so low on the list.

He was a very smart and a visionary man. He saw and warned us in his last Presidential Address to never allow what he called the “Military Industrial Complex” to get too much power.

Its a shame we didn’t do a very good job at that.

after the short name, put /a between left and right carrots

example is my last link which is messed up.

a href=http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml>”Whoops, I screwed up!”

It should have been entered as

[left carot]a href=”http://entire url”[right carot]short name

replace left carot with

the correct html for posting a link is:

short name

You have to enclose the url in quotation marks.

Cheers

At the end of the war in Europe France was in a similar state as Iraq is now. Lots of reprisals, hundreds of thousands murdered. The murder of collaborators went on for over ten years. The destruction was considerably worse of course. Mainly from allied attacks rather than german occupation. Things were so bad that years later, well after ‘Peace’ was declared, The French Prime Minister asked the British Minister of the day, Anthony Eden, to allow France to merge with Britain, become part of Great Britain. He was turned down, but he persisted and suggested that France be allowed to join the British Commonwealth and have the Queen as the French Head of State. France was in dire straights right into the 60s.

(These facts by the way are generally unknown and only coming to light now, as the 60 year rule on British Cabinet documents allow the release of things that were kept secret).

Wars and their aftermaths are messy. Defeatists will always be around. Some even try to give their whole damn country away! Don’t join them, Paul.

And, General Reyes, how can you say we’ve already lost? Can you prove it? I know you’re trying your best to help us lose (you and the Femocrats, and their bfb’s the MSM), but how can you prove we are losing? My co-worker (who just got back from Faluja), and my son-in-law (who just got back from Baghdad) say otherwise.

“You seem to think that wars can be won with few casualties. In the past few years of this massive endeavour, 3000 troops have given their lives. In the battle of the Somme, 20,000 died in the first DAY. Get some perspective. As far as wars go, the losses have been miniscule.”

************************

Soldiers die, that’s an unescapable consequence of war. I agree that 3,000 soldiers killed, in a war of that magnitude is a very small figure.

I am not against the war because we are suffering causalities; I’m appalled because we are suffering causalities in a war that we can’t win, indeed in a war that we have already lost.

“President George W. Bush may be a fundamentally decent man, but his refusal to accept defeat in Iraq has led him to make fundamentally immoral choices.America has the bravest and most disciplined army in the world , and in a short time we defeated Saddam’s rag tag minions. But winning the war was easy, the impossible part is winning the peace.”

Bush was not elected to head up defeat. It is his job to refuse defeat. Any fool can give up. As the Chief of the Armed Forces it is his job to prosecute the war to the best of his ability, not run away.

You give sychophantic adulation of an army with little understanding of anyone elses armed forces. To describe it as the bravest and most disciplined in the world is simple ignorance and hubris – and entirely unecessary. Praising is not supporting it. Most of the troops over in Iraq are sadly lacking in the sort of training, equipment and strategies needed to clear the situation quickly. They, like the British did in NI, are having to learn as they go.

Winning was not ‘easy’, it was superbly done with a huge and intelligent effort, backed by the most modern weaponry.

Winning the peace is something very few armies in any age has managed well. It is not a function of armed forces to ‘win the peace’, but to win the war.

Nevertheless, the armed forces – all involved in the allied effort – are doing pretty well.

You seem to think that wars can be won with few casualties. In the past few years of this massive endeavour, 3000 troops have given their lives. In the battle of the Somme, 20,000 died in the first DAY. Get some perspective. As far as wars go, the losses have been miniscule.

Look at reports other than what the American public gets. Listen to better soldiers than you are used to. Try Gen Lamb. He is the Brit i/c. His record is impeccable (CO of 22 SAS – undoubtedly the best soldiers in the world).

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DispatchesFromBaghdadASoldiersViewOnIraq.htm

You say, “Enough American soldiers have died in vain”. Well they certainly will have died in vain if your counsel is adopted.

No offense intended.

i.e. [a href=http://reallylongurl.com]short description[/a]

If you replace the square brackets above with angle brackets, you can create URLs which don’t mess up your blog.