Some of this may sound familiar. By Bob Bernick Jr. for the Deseret Morning News, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:
The Bush administration has made a number of fine decisions in international politics — including overthrowing Saddam Hussein — but the president's Iraq foreign policy and war tactics have also suffered from many mistakes, according to Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton...."It is what has happened in the last four years that's made our involvement in Iraq unpopular" throughout the world, said Bolton, "not the original overthrow of Saddam Hussein."
"If we had said shortly after that statue (of Saddam) came down in Baghdad, 'Here are the keys to the Green Zone, Iraqis — you have our best wishes and whatever support we can give as we are packing up and leaving, or at least moving out of Baghdad,' then I think public opinion in our country might be different.
"Having overthrown Saddam, we had an obligation — it was a short-term obligation — to provide security until some kind of government of Iraqis could have gotten back up, for us to hold the reins for a short time for them to start forming a government," he said.
But the notion that America had to occupy Iraq or guarantee the country's security for a protracted time, or indeed indefinitely: "I just think that's a mistake."
The U.S. properly acted to protect itself from the external threat of Hussein, Saddam, Bolton said.
However, it is the Iraqis' responsibility to decide for themselves what kind of government they will have, even to the extent of whether Iraq should be broken up into two or more countries, he said.
"We didn't have any responsibility to provide tutorage for them," said Bolton, adding that he didn't have a lot to do with Iraq policy because former Secretary of State Colin Powell "excluded me from it, probably the best favor he ever did for me."
The more Bolton speaks, the more I like him...
If we'd done what needed to be done in that region years ago, our troops would be home by now and the Islamic nuclear threat would be greatly diminished. As it stands now, we're going to be dealing with Iran late if ever, and then we'll turn around and find the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan finally fallen into the hands of Islamic jihadists anyway.
This is truly a situation where delay spells disaster.
President Bolton.
That's gotta nice ring to it.
John Bolton said
Glad to hear that Bolton came out of it looking good. But I think the nation's interest would have been served by having that viewpoint (that we should not be long-term caretakers of the Iraqi people) expressed. No-one else is expressing it, so he would have been the one. I bet some of the U.S. casualties' families wish that had happened too. But if Bolton is happy, hey, that's great.
Gdub and cronies told us were not going into Iraq to effect "regime change." We were, according to Gdub, only going into Iraq to find and destroy WMD.
Well, we didn't find any WMD. So we should have apologized to Saddam and left.
An even better idea would be to have not invaded Iraq in the first place because Saddam could have used whatever weaponry he had to help defeat the Rafadite-dogs of Shiism headquartered in Iran.
Now Iran is our problem and a much bigger problem because we've destroyed the enemy of our enemy.
Thank You!
Bolton welcome to the winning side! Get out now and let Iran and Saudi Arabia choke on it.
Get the popcorn out and enjoy the Sunni-Shia wack-a-thon. Of coruse we will have to bomb the Iranian nuclear and military industry and give some weapons and cash to the Kurds to make it all fair.
Five years late, and after public support for the war has already evaporated, and both parties' support for the war has already vanished, and it's politically acceptable to state such an opinion now, and it's just a self-serving CYA hindsight-is-20/20 statement at this point, but better late than never.
Ynkedoodl2:
An even better idea would be to have not invaded Iraq in the first place because Saddam could have used whatever weaponry he had to help defeat the Rafadite-dogs of Shiism headquartered in Iran.
Now Iran is our problem and a much bigger problem because we've destroyed the enemy of our enemy.
Exactly. One of the last things Saddam cursed before dying was the Persians.
The containment policy of Iraq (since 1991) was working great, we should have left Iraq for Saddam to manage. Yes he was a thug, a brutal dictator but there was little evidence after the 1st Gulf War that he was a threat to Western security.
We would have got a lot of mileage out of leaving Iraq intact:
- Saddam would have confronted Iran and Iran's influence on the Iraqi Shia's. And I reckon he would make a better job - he had no scruples.
- less hatred of the West
- less division within the West (France & Germany)
- no onus on us to agree to take refugees
The benefits would have been immense.
But given the mess that has happened, how do we recover? Right now, I agree with Hugh: Get out of Iraq now and leave it to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim countries to counter Iranian influence. If there is War: Superb. Muslim killing Muslim is music to my ears.
The only thing we have to worry about and discourage is the Gulf region acquiring WMD.
Better they fight wars with conventional weapons.
Ynkedoodl2 wrote:
"Well, we didn't find any WMD. So we should have apologized to Saddam and left."
Hindsight is always 20/20. The removal of Hussein's regime was a good thing, and entered into based upon information, although in retrospect shoddy at best, that supported that action at the time. The removal of Hussein will ultimately pay bigger dividends as the ensuing carnage between Sunni and Shia commences after the US presence is removed.
The minute Saddamn was pulled from that hole in the ground, the mission was accomplished and the war should have ended. The folly of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's, exporting western democracy and attempted nation building was just that...folly.
bush deserves the blame for that then and now, since the folly continues. I concur however, that Bolton's criticism would have best been served previously, when he still retained his position as ambassador.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. What does Mr. Bolton suggest as a possible solution to the current dilemma in Iraq, or does he not have a solution. If he had any real balls, he would still suggest we leave immediately, unconcerned about the fate of the Iraqi's and the country in general.
Maybe Bolton will suggest that right after we do pull out.
special_guest
No doubt true but it will be funny to see how all the "Stay in Iraq" people deal with this. Most of them think Bolton is a god.
To the extent that our troops are shooting at Muslims, Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq. Sometimes I waiver in my support, but since Muslims only respect full metal jackets, give it to 'em.
To add a whole barrel of reason to this in explaining what went on in Iraq from actual Department of Defense findings and what Mr. Bolton is telling people is this:
Actual evidence which President Bush covered up for the reason of not having Watergate type destruction of French and European governments, the entire United Nations falling apart and the need to expand the war into Syria and Iran was Iraq convoyed out all of it's WMD biological weapons to Syria and Lebanon, the Russians dumped 2 shiploads of chemical weapons into the Indian Ocean and Russian FSB took out Saddam's one lone nuclear warhead he built.
The Army took out 1.77 tons of weapons grade uranium after liberation which was refined in France out of Niger. (This is what Joe Wilson was covering up for the Clintons.)
In understanding these telling points, it has been unfair to attack President Bush has he has kept nations sovereign in a pact which has now England going Conservative, Germany is Conservative and France has just gone Conservative and has not started a new Cold War with Russia which Putin wants as well as al Qaeda.
Point 2 is Mr. Bolton telling the world which has been published fact in that Vice President Cheney, the "neocons" of Wolfowitz, Sec. Rumsfeld and others wanted no part of occupying Iraq. IT WAS POWELL who if you bother to research his background is a Rockefeller globalist CFR flunky. Powell convinced the "humanitarian" angle which was only cover for 2 things:
1. The globalists wanted to involve America to "punish" Bush for taking Saddam out of their money oil laundering sphere and once destroying Bush as has been done.......
2. Have everyone bite on the propaganda to get out of Iraq thinking it will cause upheaval, but all it will do is install another Saddam so these cartel criminals will be able to steal all of Iraq's wealth again just like they do all over the world.
Mr. Bolton is hinting at people to actually look at this and understand what actually happened in pointing to the problem being Rockefeller policy as always is the problem as they glean billions.
The MSM tries to link Cheney to Haliburton, but if you bother to research what Haliburton is, HALIBURTON IS A ROCKEFELLER CREATION to plunder nations and fleece the US taxpayer.
President Bush being a Christian can always be counted upon to do the humanitarian thing in loving thy Muslim to teaching him instead of what the military desired in just killing them to teach them which is effective.
Getting out of Iraq now is playing right into the banking cartel, Russia and al Qaeda's Islamocommunists who will all plunder the nation.
You will notice Bolton stipulated in getting out of Baghdad at the beginning. This is code for securing the oil and Kurdish areas for US security and bargaining chips.
Iraq can still be contained in a simple and effective method, but since everyone has abandoned Iraqi children who will be beat to death and Iraqi women who will be raped now as all want to focus on Iran.
I for one though do not want a blow up Iran policy and have had veep discussions on it which the White House is implementing in part. Iran can be degraded in various operations to cripple it.
The reason not to blow up Iran is because Russia wants it, al Qaeda wants it and Iran wants it.
Iran already is in dire straights in fuel costs and no bread for the poor with uprisings in the south. Trim it's roots and the plant will die dropping it's fruit of Amadinejad early to rot with the nuclear reactors on ground.
Bolton though was driven out of government by the same get out of Iraq crowd led by the Rockefeller propaganda machine.
They'd frown on it in Pakistan, but I think I'd like to give Bolton a big ol' hug right about now.
"it will be funny to see how all the "Stay in Iraq" people deal with this. Most of them think Bolton is a god."
-- from a posting above
Even in those quarters, the ones that have for so long kept up their sinking spirits by whipping up their own outrage over this or that "surrendercrat" instead of actually looking steadily and whole at the full folly of Iraq, and thinking about the "mission" defined, more or less, as being that of bringing "freedom" or "democracy" (those purple thumbs, that vote on the Constitution) to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East so that Iraq, newly Shi'a-ruled Iraq, might somehow become a "Light Unto the [Sunni-ruled-and-Sunni-populated Arab] Nations.
They don't quite at this point know what to do, so they keep focussing on the latest idiocy (and there are many) from this or that Democrat, and keep applauding, without understanding, the "world's greatest authority on Islam" (as Norman Podhoretz in "Commentary" formulaically calls him -- but on what authority does Podhoretz do so?), Bernard Lewis, and Victor Davis Hanson as he continues to be unable to see things as his colleague Bruce Thornton so clearly does, and still cannot make the break, and of course Krauthammer the enthusiast, and all the others who have not been able to simply announce, or even to hint (for being a pundit means you never say you were wrong -- it cuts down on the adoring base, who need that air of authority, and it cuts down on those all-important lecture fees and positions at think-tanks "to write that book"), to write some version of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa that goes like this: "I was wrong about Iraq. I didn't know enough about Islam. I didn't know a thing about Iraq. I was as foolish, in my own way, as the Administration itself. And I kept being so annoyed by the wrong kind of opponents of the war, and their obvious appeasements, that I stubbornly refused to accept reality."
Wolfowitz and Feith, long out of office, won't do it. Cheney and Bush and Rice and Hadley -- don't be silly. The kagans and kristols -- they're in it up to their necks, and if the policy goes down, so do their careers and those lecture fees and who knows -- perhaps Murdoch will put My Weekly Standard under new management (how about John Bolton as the new editor, with a new staff?).
A lot of people have their own careers riding on this. What is the continued squandering of men, money, materiel, and damage to morale, both civilian and military, and the inability to come to grips with the kind of thiings that need to be done to halt the advance of Islam through its most important instruments of Jihad, the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and Demographic Conquest, what does all that mean compared to damage to one's own comfortable living and career?
Well, we didn't find any WMD. So we should have apologized to Saddam and left."
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
.....That is an incorrect statement.you can view a copy of some declassified government documents on a link found on the Neal Boortz website, go to the June 22,2006 archive.
"Now a new report from the Pentagon sheds some light on just how many WMDs have been found, and it's a lot. We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff.
So why isn't this major breaking news?
Because the WMDs are said to be manufactured before 1991....not in recent years. Therefore, the mainstream media and the Democrats don't count those. For some reason, they want WMDs made in recent years. Evidently the left likes their mustard gas just a little fresher. But that's not the point. This stuff can kill ... but to the left it's harmless.
All that matters is Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he got rid of all his WMDs. He clearly did not. Also, what do you suppose would have happened had Hussein sold some of these WMD's to Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't have been pretty. But this story will be ignored...and the leftist propaganda machine that says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat will roll on. "
Alright, let's stop with the "shoulda, woulda, coulda."
I remember thinking in 2003: "If I were George Bush, I would err on the side of caution re: Saddam. Why? Simply because I did not have a large mandate from the voters, having won the closest Presidential election in history."
But hey that's me, and I'm a conservative by nature.
I also remember thinking: "If George Bush initiates war in Iraq, he WILL get re-elected. So I see his selfish logic. Oh, well, let's just hope he's right about Iraq."
Turns out he was a complete self-serving ass-clown and he's got the country's hide in a pickle jar.
What to do now?
Obviously the thing to do is what Hugh Fitzgeralds advocates repeatedly: cut and run. But tragically we can't. We screwed Iraq. Now we're married.
Mazal Tov!
posted by exsgtbrown:
The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff.
==========================
Yup, but not as nasty as the highly enriched Plutonium they're cooking up in Iran.
If I were Iran's neighbor, or had to ride her on the Shia, I'd be a son-of-a-bitch too.
Telling Saddam he shouldn't have nasty weapons is like telling me I shouldn't own a 9mm.
bush al-saud & Iraq????
What about the other country he's destroying??? MINE!!!
Everyone's a critic. I'm all for leaving now that Saddam is dead and a new government is in place (The day after Saddam's capture would have been my time to go - Paul Bremer should have brought the army home with him.) but I question whether we could have done it as soon as the statue came down.
Was it possible to leave with Saddam and his sons on the loose? Would the people of Iraq have done anything knowing that Saddam was still out there? Isn't that along the lines of what we did in the non-Sunni areas of Iraq in 1991? Didn't George H.W. Bush encourage revolt and then leave and watch the Baathists take their revenge?
Isn't Bolton's prescription pretty much what we did in Afghanistan in 1989? Didn't we say mission accomplished, the Soviets are out, Afghanistan is free and it's time to go home? We knew we were not welcome there and we wouldn't impose ourselves and it was up to the Afghans to rule their own country?
Then civil war broke out, the Taliban took over and al Qaeda moved in and suddenly we were to blame for LEAVING. We heard that it was wrong to not help the Afghans rebuild their society. So of course we were partly responsible for 9/11 because we created the conditions that let al Qaeda operate from a safe haven.
Now we're told it's wrong to stay in Iraq, that we should leave it alone.
WHICH IS IT?
This is the perfect explanation for butting out and refusing to send our military ANYWHERE without being attacked directly and only then going in with intent to kill - no half-measures. Let the people of the world call us lazy or selfish. Why should any American care what the world thinks of us? They don't care what we think about them, so why isn't turnabout fair play? No matter what we do, most people will never be satisfied.
Sadaams non existant nerve and chemical weapons killed thousands of Kurds (photos of the bloated bodies are accessible on the web) and his non existant nerve and chemical weapons killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians....
The comparison of nerve and chemical weapons to a wimpy 9mm is invalid....
Bolton and Thompson on the campaign ticket together.
Pres and Vice Pres, mix them up however you want.
Sarg:
You say "comparison of nerve and chemical weapons to a wimpy 9mm is invalid...."
Why sir?
Who the hell were we to tell Saddam Hussein what he needed to defend himself from his enemies. Maybe Saddam should have asked the UN to arbitrate his thousand-year-old dispute with the Shia?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
We now see Saddam's enemies up close and what are we going to do? Sit down and reason with them? Make them an offer they can't refuse? Impose sanctions? Ask the UN security council to do deliberate?
Or do we bomb the crap out of them with Inter-continental-ballistic-missiles?
“No matter what we do, most people will never be satisfied.” By PTK – ain’t that the truth!
Bolton hit the proverbial nail on the head. It’s too bad the president didn’t have Bolton as a top advisor from the beginning.
Many might disagree with me, but any leader is, only, as good as the advisors and other folks around him. Of course, as the Commander-in-Chief, he makes the final decision. Although, obviously, not privy to Bush’s inner-sanctum, I believe Bush either didn’t listen or perhaps opted to listen and depend on his wise men, too readily.
It's about time someone has come out and said EXACTLY what I have been thinking for the past 4 years; and i'm certain many others too. I coudln't agree more with John Bolton here. Why does America have to play Supercop to the world, risky casualties while bankrupting itself for the sake of unappreciative peoples and regimes?? I think lost in all this how serious the negative fiscal picture America is painting for itself with runaway spending - in large part due to the war. Hopefully John Boilton can incresingly instrumental in forming a new foreign policy going forward.
PMK,
I've felt that exact, same, "damned-if-you-do-or-don't" frustration for a while. It was made more so when it seemed some were quicker to blame the US for leaving Afghanistan than blame the USSR for invading in the first place (an invasion probably made all the easier when the US no longer had a friend in Iran around that time). Ironically, I see more of comparison to what's happening in Iraq now with USSR/Afg. than with US/Vietnam.
I'm all for Bolton's bold remarks. And I would've liked the US to add a parting cautionary piece of advice as they hand the keys of the Green Zone to the Iraqis --- that should any Saddam-like tyrant surface again amidst their attempt to rebuild, they could count on the US to come-a-knockin' once more. I think Qaddafi got that message loud and clear.
An even better idea would be to have not invaded Iraq in the first place because Saddam could have used whatever weaponry he had to help defeat the Rafadite-dogs of Shiism headquartered in Iran.
Ynkedoodl2
Thats a great point and exactly i always viewed the situation. Why defeat the archfoe of the REAL threat and menace going forward. We inadvertantly through lack of thourough planned advanced radical Islam 20 years.
That seems all good to say now buTT,, back then how can you know? Then again I and we are not expected to know what they do. I for sure thought they would go in with many many troops! One big swipe while the Iraqis do what they have to, to get secure. Problem was, it seems to me- do any of the dhimmicrats or republicans know about the religion of islam? Bolton please make a statement about who made mistakes now? Is Iran almost ready for the you know ING?
How can we be sure the WMDS sitting here in the U.S. from Libia are from there? Have you found the money yet? How does he get paid if the UN is crooked? Who are we suppose to trust?
Hugh right again. I seen how Bolton made it collapse inward, ON US! This feeding down the throats of the dhimmicraps!
What is unfornunate a week before we went in Iraq, I seen on History Channel all the "WMDS U.S. gave sodom!" Yah, doodl2 what did sodom do wrong but rape a few woman? Oh yes women ain't sht! my female idioticy got to me! We are watching different tv's!
@MZ
Yah, doodl2 what did sodom do wrong but rape a few woman?
MZ,
would you like me to provide you with a list of countries that turn a blind eye to violence against females and other defenseless sectors of their populations? The list is long.
Perhaps, one by one, the US could invade those countries too and establish models of democratic rule such as we've done so successfully in Iraq.
Heck let's be the cop of the world (Middle East)
and the banker of the world (China)
and the employer of the world (South America)
Come and take it all. Our heart is open wide!
Amazing. It seems so obvious that this is the truth.
Dubya's War on Terror,cont.:
"In April, when President Bush hosted then-Crown Prince, now King Abdullah, in Crawford, Texas, the two leaders set out bold plans to reinvigorate the strong friendship between the two nations. Key among these goals was to increase the number of young Saudis who enjoyed the opportunity to study in the United States. The strong demand for visas to study in the United States is clear evidence of the success of this cooperative effort. Through December first of this year, the Embassy processed almost 7000 student visas. This is compared to 647 student visas issued in all of 2004."
Keep up the good work, George!
If he had any real balls, he would still suggest we leave immediately, unconcerned about the fate of the Iraqi's and the country in general.
Maybe Bolton will suggest that right after we do pull out.
Posted by: awake
That's right.. why on Earth should we care about the Iraqis at this point?
What's an Iraqi anyway, I ask.
We never knew how good we had it with Saddam in office.. keeping the Iranians in check..
And his own countrymen too..
What we should have done was dumped 100k troops into Afghanistan, chased the taliban into pakistan and then followed them east (using slash and burn scorched earth warfare) until we met up with the Indian army on the other side. That would have kept Iraq and Iran in line while we stomped out the Taliban. Pakistan would now be a state within India and Afghanistan would be the empty shithole God intended.
As it is, I'm with Hugh, leave now, let the sunni/shia struggle follow and pick up whats left when the smoke clears. It would mean $5 per gallon gas for a while, but in the end, we will all be better off.
A little OT, but I couldn't resist.
Asked whether he still supports his attorney general, Bush replied: "Yes, I've got confidence in Paul Wolfowitz doing the job."
I can only wonder how this war will be looked upon many years later.
I remember when Ronald Reagan was president, not one nice thing was really ever said about him on the nightly news, yet somehow today the same media and most Democrats claims he did everything right, perhaps in 2024 some Democrats will be running for office claiming they will bring back the good old days of GWB 43!
I heard once...that the arabs have a saying
Me against my brother
Me and my brother against another
Hey, all you people who ignore the ongoing fight against American sovereignty, it’s a takeover, how stupid do we have to be to be the dumbest in the world. Is that what we aspire to, being the biggest idiots on the planet? What do you think this recent immigration bill proposes? Nothing less than islamist control of the guvment. That’s right, its not only hardworking Mexicans who want to come here and change your world, islamists/communists well all of the ist’s see that we are in a spot, and they are exploiting that spot we are in to the fullest. Allah u Akbar or Via con Dios, whatever floats your boat.
..from Debka
"Geneva police suspect arson in fire that destroyed large synagogue in city
May 24, 2007, 11:04 AM (GMT+02:00)
No one was hurt. The synagogue was built 35 years ago in the Malagnou suburb as a communal center. "
"GENEVA: Fire severely damaged Geneva's largest synagogue Thursday, but police backtracked from an early assertion that arson appeared the most likely cause and said they are now also investigating a possible electrical fault.
Nobody was injured in the fire, which Jewish organizations said could be Switzerland's most serious anti-Semitic incident in recent years. The blaze struck on the holiday of Shavuot, the traditional date when Jews believe Moses was given the Torah on Mount Sinai."
story from Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/24/europe/EU-GEN-Switzerland-Synagogue-Fire.php
“Me and my brother against another”
Look, you want to find out who in the world protects their brothers, you don’t need to look further than America. If you hurt one of my brothers or sisters I’m coming down on your ass like a ton of bricks and if you get me, there are numerous others who will take up my cause. And I will not make judgments on your religion your background, the color of your skin or your sexual orientation, so who is the number one threat they face? US that’s who. We may be compassionate but I will assure you compassion has its limits and I have exceeded mine.
What do you think will happen when 100 million, Mexican immigrunts, who are mostly Catholic, settle in Dearborne Mich?
Bolton was right, thats probably why Powell excluded him. The Bushmen dont want 'facts' screwing up thier plots...
tgusa
.....fully 20% of Americas population is either Immigrant or has at least one parent that is an immigrant....sadly most of these people look forward to the day when there is no USA....
Tucker Carlson interviews ibrahim Hooptalker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3gFvR_9uek
To hell with bush, that’s right I voted for him so I can say that w/o reservation, but what choice did I have, NONE. Dammit, I want a reasonable choice not some regurgitated bonehead. I voted for bush or so I thought, really I cast my vote for Mexican sponges. Do I have an excuse, hell no, I wish I did though.
Sarge, you know that will never happen as long as we hang together. I’m not anti immigrant Im pro legal immigrant something we have not seen in quite some time. Do we want more Cho’s in America? I say no.
I say Hell no
I'm curious as to how much of "lame cherry"'s comment above, describing Colin Powell as a "Rockefeller globalist CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] flunky", as well as the rest of lame's self-described "whole barrel of reason" comment above, is agreeable to other readers here? I find it idiotic.
In the past I have seen other reader-commenters praise (almost often quite undeservedly, in my opinion) "lame cherry" comments.
Does his/her/its thinking reflect the thinking of many other readers here?
Lame,
Lemme see. Ya got Rockefeller, and the CFR in there. Check. But you forgot Rotary International and of course the Jooz (or at least the Ashkenaz). Plus you forgot to include the Pope as part of the conspiracy. You may be off your game. Suck it up and make it happen, eh?
Sometimes, sometimes not, its hard to figure out this lame cherry, I sometimes think it is gwb ‘s username. Over all cherry gets hammerered more than not so I would say, no to your question. Look, all types respond here, even the islamists themselves, we are (JW) after all their greatest enemy.
In light of several comments above, I suppose now would be a good time to remind commenters that Jihad Watch is concerned with the threat of jihad and dhimmitude. Not conspiracy theories, nor axes-to-grind which may peripherally involve jihad but seek to derail the subject to something else-- what Hugh has termed "hobbyhorses."
Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor
All I know is that its becoming more clear America needs to change their foreign policy drastically. Buying influence IS NOT WORKING and is, in fact, exaserbating the situation. The government needs to focus their efforts on SECURING THE BORDER with the trillions spent on failed foreign policy. Foreign policy must focus much more on securing the homeland.
WW1 and WW2 went exactly as planned!, I sure cant figure out why this one wont?
And no one even talks about the looming fiscal crisis in which the huge debt is responsible for devaluing the currency.
Marisol, you used to be so understanding, don’t tell me the hobbyhorse rhetoric has intimidated you. Why do you think many of us avoid Hughs posts? The world is bigger than Iraq, the jihad is bigger and sometimes encompases hobbiehorses. If we are to come here and post should we be like the pols, should we think first, and then moderate our comments to fit a particular frame? Don’t get me wrong, Im just askin, do we take our marching orders from Robert or Hugh or anyone for that matter? Freemen know, yes freemen know how to forge forward in freedom, no matter how many hobbiehorses we have to break in the process. Follow the freemen, the ones who were there from the beginning, the ones who know how to get it done, you cant go wrong that way.
"should any Saddam-like tyrant surface again amidst their attempt to rebuild, they could count on the US to come-a-knockin' once more."
yadayada,
I would say the opposite. Once we leave we are NEVER coming back unless it is to destroy you. If you people find yourselves under a dictator you will have to free yourselves. In a word: revolution.
This should be a warning: take care of your own neighborhood. We're done cleaning up your mess.
Remember: Germans suffered because of Hitler, Japanese because of Tojo. Neither dictator could wage war without the help of his people. Iraqis will not be saved from the consequences of the next Saddam unless they save themselves. Their fate is in their own hands.
Tgusa--
I'm not aware that my position has changed much on the matter, one way or the other. If anything, I think I've been pretty mellow about it lately.
Of course, no subject is an island, and there are factors in nearby matters that can shed light on the central topic. But my main concern above is, as I said, alternate agendas that would derail the discussion from the task at hand, and/or lower the tone by going too far afield into conspiracy theories.
I agree maam, respectively. My problem is… what is jihad and what is not? I am of the mind that jihad is all around us, has been for some time. So in order to sort it out we must untangle the strings that make it possible, strings that have been laid while we were not paying attention. BTW, You’re the greatest so don’t ever stop doing that thing that you do so very well.
Tgusa -- many thanks.
MarisolJW is simply suggesting we focus on the topic at hand and not degenerate into attacks on other posters who don't agree with us. It's not censorship, it's courtesy in debating.
I find Bolton too weak (couldn't even hold onto a relatively meaningless U.N. position) and am not impressed that he is now spouting the usual too little too late quarterbacking of a play that has already gone down.
We're in the fray. Whatever the reasons.
We have to destroy as much of the Jihad that has been attracted to our ineffectual (and uninformed-about-Islam) thrashing-about in Iraq.
And leave once as many of them have been killed off as we can manage during our "strategic withdrawal".
The more jihadists who are annihilated in Iraq, the fewer we'll have to wipe out elsewhere.
They aren't going away. Except by our guns.
It ultimately doesn't matter what land we send them to Allah from.
For all of its failings, at least this war in Iraq permits us to shoot jihadis.
Let's at least do it effectively until we move the Coalition Forces to the oilfields and Kurdistan, as we continue to plan how to blow away Iran's nuclear program.
In general, Bolton is right...no wonder his detractors hated im so much & did everything to keep him from any office.
What to do now?
Obviously the thing to do is what Hugh Fitzgeralds advocates repeatedly: cut and run. But tragically we can't. We screwed Iraq. Now we're married.
Mazal Tov!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2
how long did the US fight Japan, and how long did they stay in Japan.. oh yeah theyare still there, like they are still in Germany and S.Korea.
Bolton is a great man, was too much for those elites in the State Dept. and UN! Colin Powell should of never been allowed in gov't. when they were wooing him, the Republicans, Powell did not come out right away, did not know wheter he was a Dem or Republican. Powell is a globalist and has no depth of knowledge in dealing with today's terrorists, he is a liberal in a conservative clothing.
Ynkedoodl2,
I understand your point. However, in the past, "lame cherry" has written conspiracy theory garbage as well as simply factually-inaccurate material (e.g. asserting that "Afghan" is an ethnicity) but has entirely ignored my polite requests for clarification.
"lame cherry" is not interested in "debate", merely in pontificating with often false pseudo-information.
Nevertheless, I see that he/she/it is generally viewed positively (although not universally), by the readers here. That surprises, and alienates, me.
That is that, then. Good luck.
del, l find that lamecherry's posts are for the most part very informative, although l am not inclined to believe in his conspiracy theories concerning the destroying of oil by the Russians and Chinese ect.
yankeedoddle2, Are you talking to me? Then say so, and by the way if I am having a debate with the lovely Marisol, I will thank you to stay out of it. I have read your posts, no comments needed. There are many fools posting here and I don’t intend to become part of them. I have never commented on your rude postings, mostly directed at posters who have been here for awhile, you are a divider, admit it, you are only here to complain about bushitlerchimpyburton. Get another line, that ones getting old. Sorry all, I try not to be abusive but it never works out the way I want it to.
Dam look at the fur fly with the commments...
It is Iraq in microcosm. All the various factions wacking each other around all for a rock from space or in this case over a former U.S. rep to the UN.
Shame... :)
Maybe the JW team can send poor Marisol in to sort em out. Come on try to win these hearts and minds! :)
Oh btw it appears Turkey is about to get into the mess with the Kurds and invade Northern Iraq. It looks like my idea of arming the Kurds may not come true...oh well...you win some and lose some.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/24/turkey.terror/
Its going to be a hot one tonight (or real soon)!
Please y'all, all this infighting distracts from the real enemy. I think we are all on the same side with the exception of a few trolls. I don't agree with all of Lame Cherry's obversations, but I always read them and find them very thought provoking. I also do not agree with Hugh's assessement that we should leave Iraq, but I know his heart is right and I read his comments too. There are a few other select posters that I never miss either. Thank God for scrolling! I don't have the physical time to read all the inane comments that appear here, so I try and read ones from the people who have posted the most intelligent ideas. At the same time I rarely comment because I would just be repeating what everyone else is saying. Once in a while though, I can't resist inserting something and I am sure people pass over my comments just as fast as I scroll down and ignore their's. Some people's comments never vary; they just rephrase their ideas. It is redundant to try and read all of them. But I have to admit that even the trolls are interesting from time to time, so let's enjoy our free speech while we still have it.
Thank god for scrolling,
You got that right, I have been visiting these pages for ages it seems. I read all, yes all posters comments, ok sometimes the trolls I do scroll past, I admit it. That (reading and comprehension) is always the best thing to do when debating on a particular thread. I see more posters here horning in on a topic they know nothing about as well as not reading the comments of that particular thread. I never comment on the moronic non reading boneheads but I think I am doing a disservice to my fellow countrymen by letting it go. Well I tried my best to be moderate and it didn’t work out so back to the original tgusa for me. Kindness has got me nothing, silence has brought me misery, stupidity is driving me over the edge. I’m not picking on you yankeedoodle2, I’m not singling you out, you are not the first one I have said that to, so don’t take it personally.
Not all conpiracy theories are theories, some of them are actualities.
Powell either was, or is, a member of the CFR.
The conspirasys we must be concerned with here are those including Islam/jihad, and it's war on the west(world). I know of the globalist take over artists, but we can deal with that after we deal with Islam and its representatives. By then we will be wound up enough to take on all commers...
Ynkedoodl2; I have never seen a more abused use of women than that of islam! Since this is a time of war for muslims they all can use the excuse taqiyya and kitman. They do anyways never met one that tells the truth!
tgusa:
Of all the comments posted on this site over the past 6 months, I must say that I agree with virtually everything of yours that I have read. I am a lawyer with an argumentative personality, so the possbility of finding so few points to argue about is unusual for me.
"I see that he/she/it is generally viewed positively (although not universally), by the readers here. That surprises, and alienates, me.
That is that, then. Good luck."
-- from a posting above
Turn again, Dick Whittington. Not everyone disagrees with your assessment, especially with your noting that conspiracy theorizing.
For example, I don't.
"Don’t get me wrong, Im just askin, do we take our marching orders from Robert or Hugh or anyone for that matter?"
-- from another poster's posting
You don't have to take marching orders from anyone. Similarly, those who run this site are perfectly free to delete postings that are too distracting in form (graphically upsetting, orthographically and grammatically embarrassing) and content (likely to scare the women and horses, likely to offend and indeed offensive), or merely because they blend seeming sense with an underlying semi-demented obsession or worldview on the part of a particular poster (and which not all other posters recognize quickly enough). After a certain point, the endurable becomes unendurable, and repeatedly deleted postings can lead to the catch-as-catch-can monitors choosing an easier route: banning the poster.
If in the opinion of the judges -- Simon, Randy, and unforgettable Paula Abdul -- a posting or postings, or a poster, get in the way of this site's purpose, relentlessly pursued, then they will be deleted unapologetically. Cheerfully.
Private, you see, property.
Could Mr. Bolton be applying a lesson from history with the Hashshashin factor? Mr. Spencer's argument that Europe was spared Islamization by Hashshashin could be the practical application or Mr. Bolton's statements.