Furthermore, they'd just draft the neighbors and fling 'em into fighting the fire without training.

And, of course, pile on accelerators madly.
======================

I'm with you, Mr. Drummond, on this. It is of vital importance to stabilize Iraq before U.S. troops exit in large numbers. Sadly the current security measures are not really working as the number of Iraqi civilian dead increased to 1,861 in March, up by 229 from February, and certainly higher than than the average of 1,500 a month in previous months. But that doesn't mean that the search for a viable security plan should be avoided or to give-up and allow chaos.

Thomas Edison had an interesting viewpoint on this. He had 1,000 failures when he attempted to invent the lightbulb. But he didn't consider these as failures, but as finding 1,000 ways his invention would not work, and still kept that search for the right solution as a main goal. The U.S. military needs to find the right security plan solution that will work for Iraq, because the cost of leaving Iraq in a serious sectarian civil war setting is just too great of a risk, politically or for humanitarian reasons.

Quite interesting, Paul, that your delusions are so well bounded.
=========================================

Uh, I think it would be easy to misinterpret that line, P. I often completely agree with you, as here. But then you'll come out with something completely wack. It's like you are sane, but with festering pockets of confusion. I'll let you know.
=========================

I actually like your firefighter analogy. Let me amplify it a bit.

Imagine you're a team of firefighters and you rush into a burning house only to find out that the owners set the fire themselves and everytime you try to put some of it out they use a blowtorch to get it going again, meanwhile your guys are dying around you from smoke inhalation. At some point, it you cared about your team that is, you might decide that these guys are not worth wasting the lives of your guys if they don't want to save themselves.

Kim, even my background in psychology is not able to make much sense of your arrogant point. But just because Iraqi civilian deaths are currently increasing are no sign to walk away from calming the violence in Iraq, but to finding the right security solution that works. No good policeman would walk away from crime and allow it to flourish.

kim, your MO seems to be squeezing out a snarky comment or insult without ever putting out an opinion or idea of your own. How 'bout it? Anything there?

Frank, I have very little but my own opinions.

Paul, I'm not arrogant; you have delusionary beliefs, often. Not on this topic, apparently.
===============================

But thanks for thinking I'm not opinionated.
=========================

Or not.
====

As usual Frank, we find we can always count on the Liberal to change definitions, ignore context and history, and make excuses, so that abandoning the mission can somehow be painted as morally acceptable.

Your sellout would kill countless innocent Iraqis and Kurds, especially women and children (women for daring to vote, children for the sin of being the wrong family, and as a means for punishing parents who supported democracy). But facing that fact must be beyond your courage.

Kim, what's likely fueling the Democrats call to withdrawal troops from Iraq is the continued violence and high American deaths. But to me, that only means that the right security plan is yet to be found. If there were virtually no American or Iraqi deaths, then the Democrats call for a quick withdrawal would probably greatly calm down.

I have to disagree there, Paul. The Democrats began whining the moment they saw a political gain in doing so. I have not forgotten their lies and slander in 2004.

Well, your argument might be true, if it weren't just the latest excuse to oppose the free world's efforts in Iraq against Islamofascism. Latest, and, of course, longest.

By the way, what's your plan?
===========================

DJ,

Well, we've already killed countless women and children(countless because "we don't do body counts"). That fact seems to be beyond you as well.

Kim,

The wisdon you bring to your one-liners rivals the great thinkers of our time. Please continue to teach this wayward bunch.

Frank:

Well, we've already killed countless women and children(countless because "we don't do body counts").

You say we've killed countless women and children, and defend your point by saying there is no evidence. Well done.

f, try to get over your jealousy long enough to tell us about the body counts from Saddam's mass graves.
===============================

DJ, both parties seem to complicate serious foreign policy matters with political nonsense. The White House hurt the stability situation in Iraq by refusing to change course much earlier on for political reasons for fear of admitting some failure, which also hurt the Republicans in 2006. And the victorious Democrats think that the public wants a quick exit from Iraq despite the costs, which may be a grossly wrong interpretation of the public's will as well. Effective foreign policy cannot be guided by politics like this, but rather what is right for resolving the foreign policy problem at hand.

I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and now Petraeus have adapted marvelously to the evolving conditions of war. We are winning and it has been amazingly cheap.

This is one of your delusions, Paul, that we haven't done a lot of good over there.
==============

Frank's "analogy" would be more accurate if it were an large apartment complex and a handful of the residents were starting the fires aided by many who don't live in the building, but are either coming into the building to start the fires or are supplying those who do with the tools to start them.

Of course, if his analogy were as truthful and accurate as this one, then his conclusion would be as wrong and harmful as the one the leftist are applying to Iraq. But if they mis-define the situation, as Frank and pretty much everyone on the left has, I guess it makes it easier to accept the wrong and harmful conclusions that they've come to even before they attempted to definde the situation.

If that didn't make sense, what I'm trying to say is that they came to the conclusion first and then they needed to fabricate the conditions that led to their false conclusion.

Kim, certainly since the Republican election loss in 2006, and with the new leadership of General Petraeus, who may be the most intellectual American general ever, there has been some important new changes and adapting to the security challenges in Iraq. But despite this, the Iraqi government Interior Ministry finds civilian deaths only increasing to 1,861 in March, up by 229 from February, or up from 1,500 average in previous months. This means to me that Congress should really give General Petraeus a few more months to find the right security solution that actually lowers the violence levels in Iraq and stabilizes the situation without their involvement.

It is a matter of fact that Iraqi civilians deaths are only worsening in Iraq despite the new security crackdown, largely now outside of Baghdad. But that doesn't support a view to give up on efforts to calm down this violence as many Democrats seem to advocate advocate, but to continue to seek security solutions that really work for Iraq.

Are casualties really worsening or are you hanging too much on one month's small percentage increase?
==============================

The democrats should remember they're actions in Vietnam. They have the blood of millions on their hands and it must have dried up. Now they want fresh blood and they could care less who's it is.

Over 4,000 American soldiers died in any 4 year period of the Slick administration and that outnumbers the current deaths during two wars. The deaths that have occured are horrible, but they are less than 10% of what the lefties were screamed would occur before we set foot in Iraq.

The "support the troops" halberd was first wielded as the Iraq adventure began backfiring into the faces of the planners. With gas in their eyes, the knights "discovered" that footmen could take the avant-garde after all. So much for the chivalric code.

Before then, on the heels of success, it was all presidential flightsuits and puff pieces on Rumsfeld as the new Super K.

AND tsk-tskings and warnings from the administration against the left's early use of troops as props and talking points! How the worm has turned!

Boy Scrapiron, you'd think the blood from 40 million unborn babies would be enough to satisfy the lefties...

I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and now Petraeus have adapted marvelously to the evolving conditions of war. We are winning and it has been amazingly cheap.

This is one of your delusions, Paul, that we haven't done a lot of good over there.

WOW. I want to know what the definition of "amazingly cheap" is. Is that cheap in the monitary costs or cheap in loss of life.
Rummy adapted so well he adapted himself out of a job. And do you think that if dubya had the ability to run for potus again that he would have a snowballs chance in hell winning? COME ON!
John Mc Cain called...he wants his rose colored glasses back.
Kim..you're nuts.

In yet another desperate bid to escape exposure of his side's fallacies, bryanD abandons all pretense of logic, misapplying analogies and false symbolism in a vain attempt to steer the debate towards the straw men.

Are you even distantly familiar with casualty figures from Iwo Jima, jeff? Have you even heard of Antietam?

Each death is terrible, but 3K for 5 years is superbly low by any strategic measure. Small wonder the Left wants to bury that fact.

I think it would be remarkably hard to have even a superficial knowledge of history and still be a leftist.

(And yes I know not all those who are calling for retreat are leftists bust most who post on this site are.)

How is this for supporting the troops? McCain makes a stupid statement about how safe it is in Baghdad, so to prove his point he stages a Photo-Op that puts our soldiers in harms ways. What was the outcome? The insurgents killed 14 of the merchants from the open air market.

How is this for support? The US Army just recalled a 55-year old grandpa back to active duty (retired for 14-years).

Or how about sending troops back before the 12-month rest period?

You know the Left is weak, when Barney has to cherry-pick his whines to find something for his side.

Hey Barney? ever wonder why Bush and Condi and even Rummy got crowds of Marines who wanted to see them in person, while Kerry and Hiiiiiiillllary found themselves curiously unpopular with the men who actually did the fighting?

There's a reason. The same reason why Gore tried so hard to throw out the votes of Active-Duty servicemen in 2000.

Again the lefties try to take us off topic. DJ, there is no support for our troops from the left. Most leftists anyway. They loath the troops. Always have and always will. The troops are trained to kill and that goes against the lefties sensitivities. They only like to protect them now because of the political points they can make.After the war is over, watch how much support the troops get from the left. If you take into the totality of the obstacles GW had to face, including the obstructionists left, he grade is pretty good. If you gnit pick, everybody will fail. ww

"Hey Barney? ever wonder why Bush and Condi and even Rummy got crowds of Marines who wanted to see them in person"_dj

I'll handle that one: Because there is a high ratio of bright eyes and bushy tails in the service. Gung Ho. Alive. Physically fit and alert. (Oh, and BORED S***LESS, too.)

So, OF COURSE! Who wouldn't want to meet the Prez? I would, and I can't stand the guy. And I'd say: "Can you get us some beer in here? PLEEEEZE?

No beer for our troops. Think of it!

Written like a man who thinks very little of our troops, bryanD.

Apparently the Marines I know are a bit more substantial than the wanna-be's you hang with.

dj, C 1/7 USMC 0331. 1979-1982.

You?

Irrelevent to the question.

Murtha and McCain and Kerry all served, doesn't mean any of them is the same as Sgt. Roy Gonzalez or Maj. William Chesarek

You have the pissing contest all to yourself.

Funny. "Wanna-be" was YOUR guantlet.

Yeah, and it was identified by your description of combat troops as guys with nothing to do but dream of beer, incapable of finding anything to do in their spare time.

For you to describe Marines that way, you either forgot your unit or you served in a piss-poor tour.

I will say this: I have been shot at, have you?

DJ, did you see the 'enthusiastic' reception for Bush at Fort Irwin? Yea, he was really treated like a rock star.

Also, did you catch this from the 'decider'?

Bush on Iraq: "..you know, it's not a civil war; it is pure evil."

Quick send over the Exorcist!

I will say this: I have been shot at, have you?

Posted by: DJ Drummond

I didn't know that you knew Cheney?

DJ: "For you to describe Marines that way, you either forgot your unit or you served in a piss-poor tour."

Your fanboy idea of soldiering is laughable.

And feel free to tell your "getting shot at" story. I've hunted with a buzz, so it better be good.

Why am I not surprised that you center so much on getting drunk, bryanD?

Shewt, I bet you voted while buzzed, along with who-know-what-else seemed like a good idea to you.

The topic, however, is the Left's dishonesty regarding our Troops. So your bait will be ignored, along with all your other adventures in alcohol, so far as I am concerned.

Your analogy confuses the chief and the indians. If the chief calls for something bad or foolish to be done, we shouldn't "support" the indians doing it.

This is amazing to me.

It used to be the left that said "Give peace a chance".

Now it is the right that says "Give peace a chance".

Well, I wasn't going to rag on Senator Reid's flip-flop on cutting the troops' supplies, but apparently Publicus is bothered enough to remind us.

DJ, I would question anyone stating they served in the uniform. It always seems to be the marines too. Anyway, even in the services, you get the occasional cry baby. ww

BTW - my comment is generic, not specifically about policy. I'd just say that your analogy provides no logical support for the President's policy----or any policy where it's set by somebody high up and other people carry it out.

Really, the argument says that, right or wrong, we should support whatever somebody is doing because...? I'd say we shouldn't support something if we think it's wrong.

Drummand -

Yes! IF you think what Reid is doing is bad, you shouldn't support it because he's an indian (or even if he's a chief). It's the POLICY that needs to be evaluated.

You wouldn't say we should support the troops if they were, say, invading your home town and bombing it--even if they were ordered to do so by the commander in chief...would you?

Of course not. It's the POLICY that needs to be evaluated. Whether or not the troops want to bomb your hometown is irrelevant.

So, FINE. You support the president's war. Good for you! Just ditch the bad analogy.

The war, by the way, was approved by Congress, and the plan - regime change - predates Bush's Administration.

So Publicus, it's not "the President's war".

It's America's War, and you are showing your true colors by arguing a point long decided, in order to hide your desire to undermine our troops.

Drummand --

Well, the Congress doesn't support it now. In any case, you missed my point ---- the analogy is no damn good.

BTW -- IF you understood WHY the analogy is wrong, you'd also understand why not supporting the war isn't identical with "undermining the troops."

In any case, I'm arguing about the analogy right now, not the policy.

"even in the services, you get the occasional cry baby. ww"

I was merely correcting DJ 's odd idea that soldiers and marines (who DO vote mostly Republican btw) are to be taken at face value when showing due respect to their superiors, or when acting the part in front to visiting "silly-vilians". (A secret: marine grunts LOATH civilians. More or less.) (Another less-secret secret: Bitching and moaning is a highly developed artform in the barracks and they practice it daily. Ask any platoon sergeant.)

I mentioned the egregious unwillingness of Bush to allow diversions like beer because drinking PBR to country music while dancing with a trash can is good for morale.
And promoting good morale SUPPORTS THE TROOPS. Get it, DJ?

It's America's War, and you are showing your true colors by arguing a point long decided, in order to hide your desire to undermine our troops.

LOL! I like the way you argue by distorting what I say!

The analogy fits, Publicus. And cutting off what the troops need, because your party wants to play politics, well that's pretty damned cowardly.

I distorted nothing. That is solely a Democrat's tactic in recent times.

BryanD: "Marine grunts LOATH civilians"

Now you are just out & out lying. Happens when you let the alcohol talk, I guess.

Speaking about Marines, how about those cowards from Britain? I mean come on now. They didn't even have the common curtsey of dyeing for their country like the four Brits did today.

I totally agree with John Derb at the NRO on this.

Ok. Lets looks at the analogy:

"Saying you "support the troops", but refuse to let them finish the job of stabilizing Iraq and training the army and police it needs to defend its people, is a lot like saying you support firefighters, but won't let them go near a burning house with children inside."

That equates "supporting the troops" with "supporting firefighters" and the mission in Iraq with rescuing children from a burning building.

What makes this a good (or bad) analogy? To be convincing, one has to go along with the implicit assumptions.

Here, the mission in Iraq MUST be like rescuing children from a burning building, and the troops (and the firefighters) with their missions.

Ok. As you know, many people think the war in Iraq is nothing like rescuing children in a burning building. And most of us understand that their is a difference between a mission to which people are assigned and the mission itself. They are simply NOT the same things.

You'd understand this better if you looked at the completely non-political example I gave earlier----the one about troops being assigned the mission of bombing your home town. Here, you would oppose the mission without intending any disrespect to the troops.

Drummond -- I repeat, the analogy doesn't work...and I showed why. You merely asserted (with NO explanation) that your analogy does work. You are not convincing...

I suggest: support the war, if you want. You have some rational arguments to do so. But the analogy you gave is nonsense. Drop it.

dj: I said "more or less". "Sillyvilians" and it goes downhill from there. You should have joined, DJ. You ass would have been moving too fast to worry about being shy.

I fully support this firefighter. ;)

I fully support this firefighter. ;)

You would, mantis.

/sarc/

...while Kerry and Hiiiiiiillllary found themselves curiously unpopular with the men who actually did the fighting?

Ah, when the truth doesn't help you, trot out the rehashed untruths, eh?

As usual Frank, we find we can always count on the Liberal to change definitions, ignore context and history, and make excuses, so that abandoning the mission can somehow be painted as morally acceptable.

I don't even understand this attack on the comment above. You gave an analogy regarding a burning house. Frank added elements to the analogy. He didn't change any definitions, involve history, or make excuses. Yet that's how you paint it so you can dismiss it with nothing more than vitriolic hand-waving, rather then address its merits.

Personally, I would have said it was more like a burning building, but the building is owned by someone who doesn't like you, the children inside are shooting at the firefighters, the firefighters don't have the proper equipment, and they've been going at it for a week nonstop.

Now, if you disagree, you can either address the points with reasoned argument, or you can make some thin little ad hominem rant about how this proves that the surrender-monkey Liberals obviously want to have bin Laden's baby, send it to terrorism school, and then elect it president.

DJ, you are such a hack. I wouldn't place a bet on the fact that when President Clinton sent our troops to Bosnia to help stop the civil war there, you were telling all your right-wing cronies: "Hey, we need to support our President and the troops, if you don't support the mission our President sent them into, you obviously hate the military" Do you actually think this shit up yourself, or do you just spout everything that pill-popper on the radio says? You know what? Fuck analogies. They just make it easier to distance yourself from the real truth of the situation. Why did we go into Iraq? Because of their vast stockpiles of nuclear warheads? Oh yeah, nevermind. Because Saddam Hussein ordered the WTC attacks? Right. Republicans and Democrats both share a lot of blame for this ridiculous war, but you have to admit the President and his administration as a whole, Rummy, and the top army brass have conducted this war like (uh-oh, here comes an analogy) my 3-year old son changing the oil in my car.

"Saying you "support the troops", but refuse to let them finish the job of stabilizing Iraq and training the army and police it needs to defend its people" -- DJ Drummond

I see. So DJ Drummond would have the U.S. taxpayer continue to spend over time hundreds of billions of dollars on providing Iraq with "police training," and giving the Iraqi people a free surrogate police force (the U.S. military) in order to "stabilize" the country.
Well, a couple of questions for you, DJ:

Given that we've already done what you want for what, over three years now, and that "stabilization" just doesn't seem any closer, how much longer would you require? Six months more? 5 years? Twenty years? What????

Are you incapable of determining anything better to do with hundreds of billions of dollars (and thousands of American-soldier lives) than expending it all on Iraq??? PLEASE THINK before answering. Wouldn't you say that with thousands of children around the world dying each day of preventable causes that there might be something better we could do with the money? Or how about that quarter-of-a-trillion dollar deficit that Bush has left the country with? You realize, of course, that you're paying interest on it, don't you? Or how about New Orleans, or preparing San Francisco for the next big quake (which a 2001 FEMA report said would be disastrous)? I mention just a few alternatives; I'm sure that you can come up with far more.

Yes, jeff, remarkably cheap. What have you or the average American paid?
=========================================

Yes, jeff, remarkably cheap. What have you or the average American paid?

Well, that depends. Where is the half a trillion dollars (so far) going to come from? And the lives lost are, of course, irreplaceable.

So far other than my tax dollars, I lost a cousin in iraq just before thanksgiving 2006. Thats all though.

Bell's toll for all we cousins.

You know, Publicus, that 9/11 put a trillion dollar hit on the economy. Half that's a bargain.
================

all us cousins
========

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html

click on 11/23/2006 He had a wife and 2 young children.

Your hilarious kim....hysterical. Pure class.

We've not yet made any sacrifice like was made in WWII, and Islamofascism is much deadlier and more dangerous than Hitler's Nazism.
=========================================

Once again the left muddies up the water with what amounts to lies. Publicus stated above Congess does not support the war. Fact is, only a slight majority do not support the war. Not enouigh to change the policy of a sitting President who was re-elected by a people who knew when they voted what he stood for. There was no mandate to end the war. The democrats took the majority because of inaction by the Republicans and a well timed scandel concerning a congressman from Florida. The left is always redefining history to suit the needs of the moment.

You cannot separate support for the troops and support for the mission. The fact is, the left has never supported our troops. Unless you mean calling us baby killers when we cam back during Viet Nam. John Kerry supported the troops by cavorting with the North Viet Nameses in Paris. Sipping an aged Bordeau no doubt. When Bush 41 was intending to repulse Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, The left screamed we will loose thousands, that we will get tens of thousands of our soldiers back in body bags. Same shit with Afghanistan and ofcourse G.W. Bush holding Saddam to the ceasefire agreement was all well and good until invasion orders were given. The left hates America. They do not believe in the defense of this country no matter how they say otherwise. What I do not understand is no one is asking them to fight. We have a volunteer army. If it were about the cost in lives. That has to be BS because they abort a thousand times more lives than this war has cost. Under the Clinton Administrattion, we were attacked again and again by al Qaeda. 9/11 was planned during the Clinton Administration. AQ has attacked us in our home exactly once during the Bush Admin. Then they had to move. They have been running ever since.

You don't need the old gray lady to tell for whom the bell tolls. The death toll is actually worse than apparent, because many who would have died in previous wars are being rescued and patched up.

I'm not saying no price has been paid. It has been cheap, so far.
=======================================

Kim
So you want to compare this war to WW2? Give me a FUCKING break! When according to your standards does the price become expensive? You are just another islamophobe that lives in fear of every middle eastern looking person you come across. I feel sorry for you and your kind.

If we are lucky, Bush has broken the back of al Qaeda and Muslim moderates can start speaking for their religion. If we are not, your great grandchildren will be praying toward Mecca or dying so they don't have to do so. Nazism, Communism, these were flawed in the cradle, and could not persist. Islam has already persisted.

jeff, I hope you are right; I'm just pretty sure you are not.
===============================

Ultimately, I don't believe radical Islam can survive the insights of the enlightenment, but how many true believers were there in Nazism and Marxism? Those were a pushover compared to the religion of a billion and a half people.

Peruse a little Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn. You have nothing to lose but your illusory sense of security.
=============================