In a Word, Yes.
The next time you hear John Murtha speaking of withdrawal, the next time your hear Al Gore accusing anyone of playing on our fears, the next time you listen to Cindy Sheehan saying this country is not worth fighting for, remember this:
So far, 2,298 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives in 1,079 days to liberate 25 million Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's Baathists murdered 10,725 men women and children in just one building in Suleimaniya. Is this war on terror worth it? Only if you have a conscience.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM
Comments
1
Well said.
Posted by: High Desert Wanderer at March 03, 2006 12:23 PM (nA9AR)
2
The WSJ has interesting editorial about how we are being "protected" from details about Saddams regime. Their conclusion that post-war intelligence is as bad/worse than pre-war intelligence.
IT SEEMS; AP and MSM Press corp are happier re-cycling FOIA feeds than actually going out seeking answers to questions. In the past seeking news was caller reporting. Re-writing was for those who lacked the street skills.
IT SEEMS; AP and MSM Press corp are happier re-cycling FOIA feeds than actually going out seeking answers to questions. In the past seeking news was caller reporting. Re-writing was for those who lacked the street skills.
Posted by: Andy at March 03, 2006 02:55 PM (N0P14)
3
I hate that wording. Those Americans never "sacrificed" their lives. Their lives were taken from them. Not one of them died willingly, they died by the acts of murderers.
Posted by: Mike Rentner at March 03, 2006 03:49 PM (rr4ZT)
4
Terrific! Michael Totten did what the MSM has yet to do. Following the Iraq story closely, I had no idea their was a memorial museum set up in Kurdistan.
Posted by: Jim Hoft at March 03, 2006 04:10 PM (o2uob)
5
Don't be silly, Gatewaypundit. Everyone knows reporting how bad Saddam was is jingoistic warmongering, not responsible journalism like the 10,000 stories on Abu Ghraib (all of which naturally omit any mention of the thousands murdered there under Saddam).
Posted by: TallDave at March 03, 2006 04:39 PM (M0J/c)
6
"Those American never "Sacrificed" their lives."
If you truly believe that, then you have no idea what being a soldier is all about. Every day in uniform whether in a combat zone or a stateside garrison is sacrificial. The average stateside duty day is 12 or more hours long and usually runs six days a week. In "field training exercises" those 12 hour days will run for 30 or more days consecutively. Of course in a combat theater the 12 hour days usually become 14 or more hours and there are no "weekends". Now, if that is not sacrificial duty, then I don't know what is... And sometimes freedom demands the blood of patriots; patriots who have volunteered a sacrificail life in service to their nation.
If you truly believe that, then you have no idea what being a soldier is all about. Every day in uniform whether in a combat zone or a stateside garrison is sacrificial. The average stateside duty day is 12 or more hours long and usually runs six days a week. In "field training exercises" those 12 hour days will run for 30 or more days consecutively. Of course in a combat theater the 12 hour days usually become 14 or more hours and there are no "weekends". Now, if that is not sacrificial duty, then I don't know what is... And sometimes freedom demands the blood of patriots; patriots who have volunteered a sacrificail life in service to their nation.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 03, 2006 06:41 PM (owAN1)
7
I think every soldier's service is a sacrifice for his or her nation, in time lost with family and civilian privileges lost. But at the same time, there's no doubt those who have made the ultimate sacrifice have had their lives taken from them by murderers.
Posted by: edh at March 03, 2006 08:18 PM (Rkugq)
8
Unless you are willing to place our soldiers in the category of murderer every time they kill an enemy, then do not view our troops deaths as murder. To do so places their death in a useless category. One who is murdered dies to no useful purpose. Freeing millions of people is indeed a useful and noble purpose. No, our soldiers were not murdered. They died a soldiers death nobly serving their country and others desiring freedom. "No greater love hath any man than to give his life for another."
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 03, 2006 08:48 PM (owAN1)
9
I'm with Old Soldier. If you don't think our fighting men and women (and those who support them!) gave their lives, then nobody ever gave their lives for anything.
To put these people, who have already sacrificed so much before their deaths, in the same category as victims of random violence dishonors their memory and cheapens the cause of freedom.
Sorry, but soldiers don't need you to infantilize them.
To put these people, who have already sacrificed so much before their deaths, in the same category as victims of random violence dishonors their memory and cheapens the cause of freedom.
Sorry, but soldiers don't need you to infantilize them.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at March 03, 2006 11:35 PM (I+ywx)
10
My conscience is consumed with thoughts for the soliders and families that had died and been injured fighting for the freedom of the cowardly Iraqis.Those spineless people had 30+ years to deal with Saddam and the Bathists and did damn little but lay down and die.
Posted by: Little Debbie at March 04, 2006 08:37 AM (r99FU)
11
Little Debbie,
I assume you feel the same way about those murdered by the Nazis?
I assume you feel the same way about those murdered by the Nazis?
Posted by: Pope at March 04, 2006 01:09 PM (mXCvM)
12
You support this war? To liberate Iraq? That makes you a liberal by any definition.
You'll rationalize your way out of it -- you fuzzy-headed liberals-in-denial always do. "Persistent vegetative state" indeed.
Bush as Savior of the World is a failure for one simple reason. Democracies don't create liberal societies. Liberal socities create democracies.
You'll rationalize your way out of it -- you fuzzy-headed liberals-in-denial always do. "Persistent vegetative state" indeed.
Bush as Savior of the World is a failure for one simple reason. Democracies don't create liberal societies. Liberal socities create democracies.
Posted by: bathesheba at March 04, 2006 01:09 PM (Gm6NW)
13
"Liberal societies create democracies."
And in our case, after a couple hundred years, do their best to morph it into socialism.
And in our case, after a couple hundred years, do their best to morph it into socialism.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 04, 2006 06:03 PM (owAN1)
14
This is what confuses me about Republicans. How does one show such liberal compassion to people in other countries and so little to people in this one? If an American is poor or complains about anything they should get off their ass and fix it, but if an Iraqi or Irani suffers we should invade and set things right.
On a side note, the idea of freeing a people from their oppressive ruler seems like a fairly liberal idea but if one were to dress it up as preempting that same leader from attacking us or supplying other bad guys with the tools to the same, it becomes a republican wet dream. Very curious.
On a side note, the idea of freeing a people from their oppressive ruler seems like a fairly liberal idea but if one were to dress it up as preempting that same leader from attacking us or supplying other bad guys with the tools to the same, it becomes a republican wet dream. Very curious.
Posted by: curious at March 04, 2006 08:41 PM (stZIm)
15
Well, curious, the first problem is the multiple meanings of "liberal." It's used as a handy catch-all for members of one group whose centtral belief is to fix most problems through governmental intervention, and some of those goals are not what is known as "classically liberal", which is generally seen as a philosophy that espouses freedom and permissiveness.
The second is that you may not understand the mindset of Republicans as well as you think you do. Many Republicans believe that giving someone a handout is actually harmful in the long term, because it keeps people from developing their initiative. It's harder than you think to, as one sage put it, teach a man to fish rather than just give him a fish and be done with it. This is in no way contrary to the idea of helping overthrow a totalitarian state, where the people cannot organize to overthrow because of the agitators being taken away, tortured, and killed... or even just innocent people being taken away as an "object lesson."
The goal for Iraq was to do the thing they couldn't do internally— run the totalitarian state out— and then let the internal operations take over. The re-formed Iraqi Army is doing regular patrols now, and the Iraqi police force is growing daily despite (or even because of) officers being specifically targeted. It's more ambitious than the Marshall Plan was, and yes, we're still early enough it could fall to pieces. But if it works, which people from Iraq think it well might, then that's a good plan.
The second is that you may not understand the mindset of Republicans as well as you think you do. Many Republicans believe that giving someone a handout is actually harmful in the long term, because it keeps people from developing their initiative. It's harder than you think to, as one sage put it, teach a man to fish rather than just give him a fish and be done with it. This is in no way contrary to the idea of helping overthrow a totalitarian state, where the people cannot organize to overthrow because of the agitators being taken away, tortured, and killed... or even just innocent people being taken away as an "object lesson."
The goal for Iraq was to do the thing they couldn't do internally— run the totalitarian state out— and then let the internal operations take over. The re-formed Iraqi Army is doing regular patrols now, and the Iraqi police force is growing daily despite (or even because of) officers being specifically targeted. It's more ambitious than the Marshall Plan was, and yes, we're still early enough it could fall to pieces. But if it works, which people from Iraq think it well might, then that's a good plan.
Posted by: B. Durbin at March 04, 2006 09:37 PM (tie24)
16
Curious, how can you possibly associated people in the freest country in the world with the people under repressive despotic regimes such as Iraq and Iran? Even the poorest person in the US has the opportunity to better him/herself; not so the people of a leader who would gladly attack them with chemical artillery strikes. Too, my tax dollars are being spent showing the Iraqi how to be free, not lining their pockets for doing nothing. I have no problem helping those who desire a better country or personal life. I have a big problem funding people to do nothing toward bettering themselves.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 04, 2006 09:38 PM (owAN1)
17
Durbin, good point. I should clarify my use of liberal. In the first instance, I used it to mean generous, but in the second, obviously to allude to it being an idea a Democrat would dream up. It didn't seem to make sense to me to say that invading a country to free it and make it a democratic state is a conservative wet dream so I had to go with the Republican title.
I do understand the Republican mindset as you framed it and would agree that ideally it would be better to teach the man to fish, unfortunately politcs always screws things up. Remember Midnight Basketball? Turns out it was and is a good idea.
Old Soldier, two things: How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.
I do understand the Republican mindset as you framed it and would agree that ideally it would be better to teach the man to fish, unfortunately politcs always screws things up. Remember Midnight Basketball? Turns out it was and is a good idea.
Old Soldier, two things: How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.
Posted by: curious at March 04, 2006 11:51 PM (stZIm)
18
Shorter Yank:
Saddam is a murderous tyrant, therefore, everything done in Iraq is justified - dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed families, all of it.
And yet even Shorter Yank:
The means justify the ends, therefore, you have no conscience if you don't agree.
C'mon y'all. Does it hurt so much to think that that's the best you can do?
Saddam is a murderous tyrant, therefore, everything done in Iraq is justified - dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed families, all of it.
And yet even Shorter Yank:
The means justify the ends, therefore, you have no conscience if you don't agree.
C'mon y'all. Does it hurt so much to think that that's the best you can do?
Posted by: Uh, nope at March 05, 2006 02:43 AM (Yd8oO)
19
”How do you tell the difference and of the money we have spent in Iraq, none of it was used to teach the Iraqi "how to be free". He already knew how to be free.”
Curious, how do you tell the difference between what? That phrase didn’t seem to relate to my comment.
As for “teaching” the Iraqi peoples to be free… first we had to depose the totalitarian despot, then we had to institute some stability and stand up a provisional government, then transition that government over into a freely elected body of governors who wrote a constitution, the constitution was approved via referendum voting and another free election place permanent representatives into central and regional governments. Is that not spending money to “teach” the Iraqis how to be free under a democratic government?
I guess your last question could actually be the key to your first question; and it will depend upon your definition of “free”. If you base your definition upon the freedoms you experience within the United States, the personal freedoms and liberties, then, “No,” the Iraqi peoples did not know how to be free. If you mean; for the most part they were allowed to live at the whim of their totalitarian dictator, then, “Yes,” they were free. Not everyone instinctively “knows” how to be free or even what the word means to others. Kids that grew up in the 1950’s under the Communist rule of the USSR did not have the same definition of “free” as did the children of the same time period in the USA. You are, however, right to want all peoples to understand freedom based upon your experiences.
Curious, how do you tell the difference between what? That phrase didn’t seem to relate to my comment.
As for “teaching” the Iraqi peoples to be free… first we had to depose the totalitarian despot, then we had to institute some stability and stand up a provisional government, then transition that government over into a freely elected body of governors who wrote a constitution, the constitution was approved via referendum voting and another free election place permanent representatives into central and regional governments. Is that not spending money to “teach” the Iraqis how to be free under a democratic government?
I guess your last question could actually be the key to your first question; and it will depend upon your definition of “free”. If you base your definition upon the freedoms you experience within the United States, the personal freedoms and liberties, then, “No,” the Iraqi peoples did not know how to be free. If you mean; for the most part they were allowed to live at the whim of their totalitarian dictator, then, “Yes,” they were free. Not everyone instinctively “knows” how to be free or even what the word means to others. Kids that grew up in the 1950’s under the Communist rule of the USSR did not have the same definition of “free” as did the children of the same time period in the USA. You are, however, right to want all peoples to understand freedom based upon your experiences.
Posted by: Old Soldier at March 05, 2006 08:54 AM (owAN1)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0077 seconds, 27 records returned.
Page size 16 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.