Hitchens: Does the left really want the U.S. to lose?

I wonder how many people read the whole article and how many just assumed they knew what it was about based on the title...

 

Guys, I've found a (photoshopped) cartoon which summarizes basso's war-related threads, I hope you like it

 

Yes. I guess you missed Saddam when he posted here a lot.

 

Outrage and refutation

 

wasn't that 10 years ago?

and did your Rummy, Cheney, & Bush do anything about it?

 

I like to take a bath in the blood of dead sloldiers every morning. Then I have a few puppies for a small breakfast. Yummy.

 

If you're talking about Gulf War I (10 years ago) then Bush, Sr. did do something about Saddam's killing.

If you're talking about the 300,000 to 1 million estimated Iraqis that Saddam had murdered during his reign its sad to say that no one did anything about them (except, maybe, the Kurds). Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything with regards to Saddam. Nor did the French or Germans or anyone else for that matter.

I know the US helped Saddam fight the Iranians as they were considered a bigger threat to the U.S. and the French were huge oil customers and military suppliers to Saddam (even after GWI the French were trying to buy oil from him). Of course, we (and everyone else) were wrong to deal with Saddam.

But just because we (nor anyone else) did anything about it before, does that mean its still wrong to make up for lost time?

For example, does that mean that because we were slow to deal with the Sudan we shouldn't deal with them at all?

 

Yes you did.

If making outrageous statement that someone is a terrorist supporter/sympathizer - a crime under the Patriot Act - without any shred of substantive proof is an acceptable norm in a moderated forum like this, then I think I can be far more "liberal" than I have been.

 

How long before the liberals start joining Al Qaeda sleeper cells?



HOW LONG...

 

What are we winning? We haven't been told what the formula for success is. All Bush has said is a stable democratic IRaq. We don't have that yet. There are little to no areas of the country which are stable. There is less electrical power to Iraqis now than there was when we invaded. We still don't have control of the the 10 mile strip to the airport.

On the other hand, we are winning battles. Groups of insurgents are being taken out. There was a relatively successful election there. There are many troops who are doing reconstruction work, building schools etc. There are areas where troops are working together with locals to improve the situation.

There is no doubt that we are doing good. I haven't seen much evidence that we are actually winning, but it would help if the terms of winning and objectives were spelled out by our leadership.

 

so whats is YOUR war of aggression about?

Saddam's sins 10 years ago?

WMD?

911?

 

I'm married with small children, sleep isn't an option.

 

If Neo-Cons could go back in time....

"The Left never mentions all of the positive things going on in Dien Bien Phu. They must hate France"

"Why is everybody so negative about the Battle of Hastings? Things are going fiiiine. If you ask me, they must want the Normans to win."

"How about talking about what is going right with the Inquisition for once?"

"You call this a 'Great Depression?'"

"The earth *is* flat, asswipe."

"We have the perfect opportunity for victory at Stalingrad if it weren't for all of the bad publicity."

"'Black Death' according to whom?"

"Hey, the Hindenburgh was *designed* to do that...only an anarchist would try to turn that into some kind of big deal."


"It's clear that some Egyptians *want* this plague of locusts to descend upon the land or they wouldn't bother the Pharoah with their little complaints."

 

Newsflash:

We won the war, it is now a security force that is needed.

The Iraqis are going to have to stablize their own country as we pull out....

But at least they will have the freedom to do it on their own.

Now whether or not they work together...is a WHOLE nuther story.

 

Define, "they?" The Sunnis, Turks, Shi`ites? Former Ba'th Party? Good thing we killed all those evil rag-heads that might screw things up.

 

what world are you living in...pick a side and stick to it.

 

Man, this is such an odd mindset. "Winning the war" means winning the peace. You can't seperate the two, *especially when we started the war in the first place!* If the war was fought on the basis that it would help win the larger struggle against Islamic facism and extremism then winning the political war would always be a more vital goal over the long haul. You can't wash your hands of the Iraquis and say "oh, well, at least you are free now." Because the peace was so horribly managed, Iraq has more terrorists, more violence and is causing much, much more direct harm to the US and US interests than before the war. Too many people in Iraq interepret this "freedom" as being free from security, electricity and order.
And you know who the real winner of this war is? Iran. Iran now is a de facto ally with Iraq and is actively pursuing a nuclear policy. The war in Iraq also strengthed the arch-convervative Islamic forces in Iran when it was trending towards a more moderate goverment. These are uncontravertable facts that no amount of Pollyanna-style spin can avoid.