IRAQ WAR IS JUST, RIGHT & ALMOST OVER.
I have reccomended articles by Victor David Hanson in the past, because his clarity and logic is impossible to refute. Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institue and a brilliant historian. But his latest article, which is available through National Review online and other sources is perhaps the most succinct argument ever made in support of the war in Iraq. The link above will take you directly to the full article. Below are some of the key paragraphs that are worthy of turning off your television and reading out loud to your children.
In is opening statements, Hanson points out that the mainstream media supports a one sided view of Iraq when they keep repeating falses stories and politically motivated points of view.
Almost everything that is now written about Iraq rings not quite right: It was a “blunder”; there should have been far more troops there; the country must be trisected; we must abide by a timetable and leave regardless of events on the ground; Iraq will soon devolve into either an Islamic republic or another dictatorship; the U.S. military is enervated and nearly ruined; and so on.
In fact, precisely because we have killed thousands of terrorists, trained an army, and ensured a political process, it is possible to do what was intended from the very beginning: lessen the footprint of American troops in the heart of the ancient caliphate.
It is almost laughable to hear the war protestors arguments against Bush and the war in Iraq. Hanson, nails them at every turn.
We took no oil — the price in fact skyrocketed after we invaded Iraq. We did not do Israel’s bidding; in fact, it left Gaza after we went into Iraq and elections followed on the West Bank. We did not want perpetual hegemony — in fact, we got out of Saudi Arabia, used the minimum amount of troops possible, and will leave Iraq anytime its consensual government so decrees. And we did not expropriate Arab resources, but, in fact, poured billions of dollars into Iraq to jumpstart its new consensual government in the greatest foreign aid infusion of the age.
THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD READ OUT LOUD TO YOUR KIDS
In short, every day the American people should have been reminded of, and congratulated on, their country’s singular idealism, its tireless effort to reject the cynical realism of the past, and its near lone effort to make terrible sacrifices to offer the dispossessed Shia and Kurds something better than the exploitation and near genocide of the past — and how all that alone will enhance the long-term security of the United States.
Critics of the war mock the efforts of the Iraqi people to establish Democracy and they belittle the accomplishments of the United States and it’s fighting men and women since the war began. Look at Hanson’s list of positive developments that have occured, because of the war in Iraq.
First, the Iraqi military is improving — not eroding or deserting…In truth, the Iraqi military is proving good enough to hold ground and soon to take it alongside our own troops.
The Sunnis — no oil, a minority population, increasing disgust with Zarqawi, a shameful past under Saddam — will participate in the December elections in large numbers.
Zarqawi and the radical Islamicists are slowly being squeezed as only a war at their doorstep could accomplish. Critics of Iraq should ask if we were not fighting Zarqawi in Iraq, where exactly would we be fighting Islamic fascists — or would the war against terror be declared over, won, lost, dormant, or ongoing, with the U.S. simply playing defense?
al Qaeda’s Sunni support is being coopted by democracy. Jordan, the terrorists’ old ace in the hole…has essentially turned on Zarqawi and with him al Qaeda. Syria is under virtual siege and its border sanctuary now a killing zone. Bin Laden can offer very little solace from his cave. And somehow Islamists have alienated the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, Japan, and increasingly Middle East democracies like those in Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iraq, and reform movements in Lebanon and Jordan.
Our armed forces have already accomplished what the British and the Soviets could never do in Afghanistan; what the Russians failed to accomplish in Chechnya; and what we came so close to finishing in Vietnam. They won’t falter now when they are so close to winning an almost impossibly difficult war, one that will be recognized by friends and enemies as beyond the capability of any other military in the world.
MORE REQUIRED READING OUT LOUD TO YOUR KIDS
Kurds and Shiites support us for obvious reasons — no other government on the planet would risk its sons and daughters to give them the right of one man/one vote. They may talk the necessary talk about infidels, but they know we will leave anytime they so vote. After the December election, expect them — and perhaps the Sunnis as well — quietly to ask us to stay to see things through.
Hanson’s article is worth the full read so link to it here or visit www.nationalreview.com.
As I have stated before, the war in Iraq was a bold and brilliant move on the part of George Bush and his administration. It took the war on terror, a real war, and gave it a front. That was the one thing the terrorists didn’t want, it is their weakness. In spite of what the media tells you, the terrorists are fighting the war on our terms now. On the ground, in Iraq. Yes it is tough, bloody and deadly. Yes, it should be finished, won and our troops brought home as soon as possible. Everybody wants that, but what Bush has finally summoned the courage to say is that it’ can’t happen when we want it to happen. It will happen when it happens.
Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest leaders of our country because he had the courage to risk all for what is just, right and almost over.
Buck Evinger
nutslikebush Says: December 4th, 2005 at 12:13 am
So, Buck, how does your notion that the Iraqis want us to stay square with the result of their meeting in Cairo in which all of Iraqs leadership resolved to demand a time table for the departure of the US from their country? Additionally, the fact that we are not getting oil from Iraq is seen by Bush insiders as the ultimate failure of their endeavor. They wanted a platform for secure oil supplies but the war went so wrong that they didn’t get it. And they made the middle east much more unstable and jeopardize Saudi Arabia’s security with the attendant possible loss of access for the West to that source of oil. There is simply no way to spin the war to make it seem like a success because all (as in 100% of them) of the facts go against that view.
nutslikebush Says: December 4th, 2005 at 4:42 am
The US military disagrees with your assessment too. Military officials say that there are over 100 independent insurgent groups and that the vast majority are Iraqis. Foreign fighters make up a tiny percentage of the insurgency and the version of the so-called “al qaeda” that is operating in Iraq has little to do with the one associated with Bin Laden. True enough, the Iraq war has spawned a tremendous amount of new terrorist activity which would not have emerged were it not for Bush’s blunder. Bush will be remembered for perpetuating terrorism and perhaps as the greatest recruiting tool for Islamic extremist causes that the world has ever known.
nutslikebush Says: December 4th, 2005 at 4:59 am
How can you even bring yourself to suggest that the Bush administration cares at all about the Shia and Kurds. Only a know-nothing could say such a thing. Are you paying absolutely no attention to what is going on in Iraq?
Murtha reported that the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq has increased from a hundred and fifty a week to more than seven hundred a week in the past year. Doesn’t exactly sound like things are drawing down over there, does it? Also, according to Murtha, military commanders want to bolt asap since all we are doing is providing easy target (and kills) for people who hate us. One of my former students has just finished a tour in Baghdad and on her first day there her first patient was a young marine who had just had his arms and legs blown off. She saved him from bleeding out, but his limbs are all gone. we have about 15,000 youngsters who have received major life-changing wounds in Iraq. She said that mortars explode inside of the hospital compound every single day and that Iraq is an absolute “hell hole.” On the Iraqi side, how can we use the Saddam was a brutal dictator speech when in point of fact, we have killed innocent Iraqis at a higher rate than he was doing it. And that is the truth if you care to actually learn some real facts about the situation.
nutslikebush Says: December 4th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Buck, do you want me to explain to you why Iraq’s Shia and Kurds neither admire or trust the US? They dislike us more than the Sunnis do. After you read Cole’s piece that I referred you to earlier, for more remedial reading try this - economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5266624.
righty Says: December 4th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Nuts, AGAIN, your providing FALSE Information. It gets old. The only thing you have done useful is describe WAR. It is a War and that is what happens. The Bottom Line is that when you watch the WHOLE story you can see the INCREDIBLE progress being made in just a couple years. It is Unprecedented.
THIS STATEMENT –> ” How can you even bring yourself to suggest that the Bush administration cares at all about the Shia and Kurds. Only a know-nothing could say ” IS ASSANINE!! You should be embarrassed.
Here is the problem with this debate… You and the PATHETIC leadership of the Democratic Party are just drooling at the thought of us losing this WAR. Your party is so caught up in politics and making sure Bush doesnt look good when this is over, your willing to do EVERYTHING to make sure we lose this war. Its pathetic, it treasonist and most of all, our president wont let it happen.
Bush is a man of his word, he is saying the EXACT SAME THINGS he was saying back on 9/11, 9/12, 9/13.
Move to another before you root against this one cause the military and the majority of this country cant stand it anymore.
Take Princes Pelozzi, Bartender Kennedy and “doesnt know his butt from a hole in the ground” Reid with you.
Emory Says: December 5th, 2005 at 5:41 am
The media does seem to frame the discussion and everyone follows along. When was the last time anyone ever debated how we can best win the war?
nutslikebush Says: December 5th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Righty,
The thought of losing the war in Iraq actually horrifies me. I certainly don’t think that Bush and his crew know how to win anything except political campaigns within the US. They don’t anything else well though. As for the democrats, who gives a shit about them? I am just upset by the imperialistic one-party rules all mentality of the conservatives. The conservative winner-takes-all approach is tearing our country (and the world) apart. I love our country and the world and hate to see it being abused by corrupt power-hungry people so badly. You are sort of right about Bush being “a man of his word.” He is inflexible and hard-headed - doesn’t adapt to feedback given by reality very well (a characteristic of many people with histories of alcoholism and cocaine abuse). But he does flip-flop - he didn’t want elections in Iraq, remember, until Sistani forced them. I think Sistani will force the US out of Iraq in the rather near future too.
nutslikebush Says: December 5th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Here’s an example of how the Shia feel about the US. They pelted Allawi (Bush’s appointee to be PM of Iraq under the Coalitional Authority) with shoes yesterday. That’s the ultimate insult in Iraqi culture. The insult is aimed at Bush, who supports Allawi, (and the US in general) as much as at Allawi himself.
Angry Shi’ites pelt Iraq ex-PM Allawi - police
04 Dec 2005 12:28:42 GMT
Source: Reuters
NAJAF, Iraq, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Iraqi police said an angry crowd forced former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to cut short a visit to Iraq’s holiest Shi’ite Muslim shrine during an election campaign trip to the city of Najaf on Sunday.
Aides to the secular Shi’ite politician, who is mounting a strong challenge to the ruling Shi’ite Islamist parties ahead of next week’s parliamentary vote, were not available for comment.
A police captain, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a large crowd of worshippers at the Imam Ali mosque hurled sandals and shoes at Allawi — a grave insult in Iraqi culture.
Lug Says: December 5th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Hey Nutz!!!!
Listen to Lieberman and Zell Miller!
They can save your pathetic party!!!!
nutslikebush Says: December 6th, 2005 at 4:17 am
What party Lug? I am bigger than any party, I am an American! Screw the parties, come work for the people!
nutslikebush Says: December 6th, 2005 at 4:57 am
A potent refutation of the pro-war position can be found here
tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=41214
if you dare to read it and expose yourself to better ideas.
righty Says: December 6th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Typical. Wonder why Liberals and Democrats never want you to call them that. They always want you to call them a “Moderate” or “Independent”.
Typical. Do as I say, not as I do.
Bottom line Nuts, you are not only on the left but on the VERY far left. Also know as a Bush Hater.
As far as you and your party wanting to win the war. That is a complete joke. You and your party and drooling at us losing IRAQ. It is evident in almost all political conversation coming from your party’s leaders and from you (on this site).
Finally our president is standing up and calling out the LIES that have been distributed by the Demmies for 2 years now. Isnt it great to see his poll number come back :). The Demmies have wasted another couple years without looking within and asking themselves what is wrong with their party, their platform, etc. If the Demmie want to find out what the American People are NOT BEHIND THEM AND THEIR CAUSES, they need to look within and quit blamming everyone else.
Good Luck in 06
It will be another good year for the Republican Party of Patriots.
nutslikebush Says: December 7th, 2005 at 2:53 am
Righty,
You have convinced me of one thing - people with double-digit IQs don’t get it. You have nothing of value to offer in a debate or conversation.
nutslikebush Says: December 7th, 2005 at 3:35 am
A question for all - if a person genuinely thinks through contemporary issues facing our nation, eschews all ideology as poison to the mind, and concludes that the rulers of our country are making grave errors, should that person just keep their mouth shut? Or would that person have a moral responsibility to oppose policies that she thinks are damaging our country and are immoral? I personally think that my conscience would torment me if I give up on my country. In truth, I don’t give a rat’s ass about any politician or political party whatsoever (that’s the absolute truth). Never have and probably never will. Moreover, I have generally come to distrust people who entangle themselves with politicians or political movements. I would criticize any ruler who was making mistakes that so strongly are in conflict with my judgements. Our country is more important than republicans vs democrats, conservatives vs liberals. All of that stuff really amounts to nothing more than primitive tribal instincts to form clans and the contemporary political situation in our country is draining the soul out of our country. Both political parties are based on philosophical positions that are just embarassingly shallow and naive in terms both of their models of human nature and their economic theories. We need to leave the stone-age mentality behind and evaluate critically every important decision that our leaders make. And we need to recognize that the last thing that we need are cheering sections for politicians. In fact the political cheerleaders are worthless to our country. Or worse, they add noise but not information.
Joy Says: December 8th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Nuts,
I’m interested to know your view on what we should do regarding our involvement in Iraq now.
Emory Says: December 9th, 2005 at 2:50 am
2 people genuinely think through contemporary issues facing our nation. One concludes that the rulers of our country are making grave errors. The other concludes that they are human and have probably made some errors, but overall the rulers’ policies will save lives and help end pain and suffering in the world. One is wrong. Both speak out. The question is, what administration are talking about?
nutslikebush Says: December 9th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Emory. I suppose the best answer is always to rid ourselves of our theories of how things are and try to look at all of the physical evidence anew. We all suffer from what psychologists call the “confirmation bias.” That is, we notice and remember best the facts that are consistent with our theories and ignore and forget rapidly the facts that contradict our theories. So the best way to decide whether we are fooling ourselves or not is to consciously make an effort to do just the opposite of our natural inclination, and look for evidence that refutes our theory. So let’s make a deal that will broaden both of our understandings - let’s try to falsify our own theories about the Iraq war. I will search for evidence that is consistent with the theory that this war has made the world safer, more stable, and enhanced the human condition. Meanwhile you search for evidence that is consistent with the view that it has made our world less safe, more unstable, and has degraded the human condition. Perhaps we will both be surprised if we start by reassessing our basic assumptions too. What are we assuming, anyway?
nutslikebush Says: December 9th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Joy,
If I were Bush, I’d start by standing before the american people and saying, “damn folks, to be honest, this thing just isn’t going the way we imagined it. I am going to start consulting with planners and advisors who are not afraid to point out when I am wrong and to give me the guidance and advice that I need to help get us out of this hole we have dug. You know there is an old saying, when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you need to do is stop digging.”
Then I would reach out to the Arab world and ask them to help us stablize Iraq, promise them that we will not make permanent military bases on any of the 14 “permanent military bases” that we have invested billions of dollars to build in Iraq over the last 2 years. Much of the insurgency is directed at the Arab anger over all of those military bases we are building - they think it is a sign that we intend to occupy an Arab state and the Arab people don’t accept military occupation under any circumstances. When we leave, the motivation for the insurgency will die down. But the civil war in Iraq is getting hotter. The press hasn’t mentioned it, but the Shia are doing some pretty horrible things to the Sunnis and there are horrible problems in Kurdistan that are getting NO attention in the press. I guess the question is, can we get other Arab states to help control the civil war in Iraq? Since the war is ruining the entire region Iraq’s neighbors have a lot a stake in the outcome. The best ideas that I have seen have come from http://www.juancole.com. He actually seems to understand what’s going on and has much more access to information than the media does (the media is too embedded to see what’s really going on). Cole’s sources are purer.
Emory Says: December 10th, 2005 at 4:42 am
nutslikebush, I think that’s a great idea. I think we could both search for and find evidence to support either theory. It’s too early, at least for me, to make a conclusion on whether going to war against Saddam made the world better or worse off in the same way we can look back and make conclusions about previous wars like the American Civil war or World War II. I hope I live long enough to make that conclusion though.
Joy Says: December 10th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
RE:18
Radical muslims of every type are doing terrible things to those who aren’t of their sect, let alone of their religion, and have been for as long as there has been islam. These intolerant acts of terrorism didn’t originate after the war in Iraq, and they won’t, sadly, end with it - regardless of any deals we make with Arabs. If America were wiped off the face of the earth, those with the ‘insurgents’ mindset would still terrorize, torture, maim, and murder others who are looked at as ‘infidels’…which, as we mentioned, is anyone other than their group. How is that type of mindset going to run a country? How can any rational and workable deal be made with those who hold this warped view? When speaking of reaching out to Arab nations, we need to keep in mind the reality that this mindset is the bottom line problem. Show ‘favortism’ to one group (by vague definition) and other groups kick in their terror modes. We’re not talking about clear-minded rational people here…but fanatics and radicals with warped views of reality that are not reliable. (I do NOT speak of all Arabs or muslims, I speak of the radicals and extremists). If we take every base off of their soil and remove every service person, then what? The terrorists say
“Oh, thank-you!” and stay home in peace?
No, they carry on their acts against anyone and everyone that they consider ‘infidels’. They don’t give a rip about pretty PC phrases or ‘civil rights’.
Therefore, any ’solution’in which this mindset itself is not addressed and dealt with effectively, is only so much smoke and mirrors. Agreements are only as dependable as the people who make them.
nutslikebush Says: December 12th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Joy,
You are right. No doubt, religious fundamentalism is at the root of many of our human-generated problems. Right now there are probably millions of young islamic kids who are on the fence about whether they want to join a radical jihadist movement or not. I often wonder if there anything that we (the US) can do to help move them toward peace rather than violence. We need to understand the psychology underlying their decisions. Is it just wacky religiosity at play. Are they brain washed from childhood to believe magical irrational things. Or can reason have any influence on them? Some of these people are very smart. I ask myself, how can someone who is smart enough to build a nuclear bomb partition their mind in such a way that it can also contain crazy religious superstitions? That is the strangest thing in the world to me - the denial of the real and how people embrace fantasy. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
nutslikebush Says: December 12th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Perhaps the answer for Iraq is to encourage Iraq to split into 3 self-governed countries; kurdistan, shiastan, and sunniville. The Kurds want independence already (recall that 98% voted for it in the first election in Iraq). I don’t see that the shia and sunnis will share control Iraq with each other anytime soon. They were arbitrarily stuck together by Great Britan after WWI anyway. Obviously the british drew a map that didn’t work out and maybe these different ethnic groups should have the right to self-determination rather than being forced to battle for control of one country.
nutslikebush Says: December 13th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Emory,
last week you asked about whether anyone was discussing a strategy for winning in Iraq. Here is a thought-provoking article on that topic. enjoy.
tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051219&s=kaplan121905
nutslikebush Says: December 14th, 2005 at 3:40 am
Anyone disturbed by the fact that the new Iraqi government that we aided is engaging in torture, corruption, fraud etc. in pretty much the exact same manner as Saddam was. Have we replaced Saddam with 1000 Saddams?
chitoryu12 Says: December 19th, 2005 at 12:31 am
I’ve always wondered why so many liberals go onto this board to whine about our points. Is it because nobody else will listen, and they’re forcing us to pay attention to them?
Chris Says: December 19th, 2005 at 1:20 am
I love how liberals have this lust for pulling out of Iraq. What do you think will happen if we do? Do you think that everything will peacefully resume and that all of the terrorists will go back to their homes and form a drum circle? No! The terrorists will liquidate everyone and anyone who assisted the U.S., deposed Saddam, and otherwise furthered freedom. They will not rest until they have set up a stronger Terrorist infrastructure and can use it as a platform for Jihad on the west. Liberals seem to fear another Vietnam in Iraq and yet, they are the biggest contributors to such an end.
Joy Says: December 20th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Just to clarify what is probably obvious, I did not say that religious fundamentalism was the problem in Iraq or the middle east. On the contrary, it is violent intolerance of those who don’t hold the same view…very much like LIBERALS who are intolerant of Christians; very much like evolutionists who are intolerant of those who question it; very much like anti-God activists who are intolerant of the majority of Americans who do believe in God.
This type of intolerance always seeks to destroy every vestige of the views and peoples who disagree with it.
Religious fundamentalism is NOT the problem, INTOLERANCE of it is.
rangerbros Says: December 21st, 2005 at 8:28 pm
I’m new. Wow I wish I had known about this site before. Laugh at liberals, jokes about liberals. I must be in heaven.
Jack Antilla Says: December 21st, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Joy, to add to your examples above, Just like Christians are intollereant of other religions, just like Creationsists are intolerent of Evolutionists, just like conservitiveism is naturaly intolerant of liberalism.
I think it’s safe to say the intolerance works both ways, and I’d appreciate it if you realized that instead of using one sided examples.
I find Bias extreamly annoying in arguments.
From the sound of your post you almost sound left wing, very interesting. To expand on your point, It works both ways, both sides in the middle east hate eachother with a passion, it’s not just the Palistinians and the Arabs who are intolerant of Jews causeing the problems, It’s also the Jews being intolerant of the muslims.
there is also an economic factor in it as there almost alwayse is in war, and no I’m not talking about oil.
don’t simplify the conflicts of the mid east to a single cause. It’s much more complicated then religion or intolerance.
Jack Antilla Says: December 21st, 2005 at 11:45 pm
And to you Chris.
Pulling out of Iraq is indeed a mistake as that will destabalize the reigon further.
However going into Iraq was indeed a mistake. Iraq should have been the last step in the war on terror not the first.
We should have had the body of osama on display around the world first, then focused on Kim jong IL and Iran, then gone into Saudi Arabia depite our allience as the Saudis seem intend on halfassing their effort to get terrorists out of the country. Then go into Iraq as a last testamant.
Now, as to your crude remarks to what would happen if we left Iraq now, you seem to be under the impression that the people we are fighting are actuall terrorists capable of organizing attacks outside of Iraq.
Hardly the case, what we are fighting overthere is several hundred groups of Insergents (not terrorists, there is a difference between the 2) And very unorganized insergents at that.
if we were to leave now, the new Iraqi “Government” which is a very illagitamant governemnt at that, would destabalize and crumble and the country would turn to Anarchy. pure and simple, Then without a proper government, it would be a good place for outlaws and terror orginizations to rebirth themselves, however mass executions are unlikely, and in fighting amongst different warlords and factions would last for years. Unlikely that any group would have time to think of attacking us.
nutslikebush Says: December 23rd, 2005 at 3:22 am
So, now that the election is over and we see that primitive religious fundamentalists with strong ties to Iran and no interest whatsoever in a western style democracy dominated the election how do you feel about things in Iraq? If you really understand what’s going on, you won’t feel good at all.
Emory Says: December 23rd, 2005 at 4:50 am
I think it’s always a victory whenever people are liberated from the slavery and tyranny of a dictatorship and rise up to control their destinies through through democracy.
nutslikebush Says: December 23rd, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Unfortunately, if you look at what’s happening the Iraqis went from one type of tyranny to another. It’s hard to say which is worse but religious tyranny historically has been about as bad as it gets.
Jack Antilla Says: December 23rd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Yes Emory accept theese people didn’t rise up on their own. In fact they’ve done little or nothing to help themselves.
nutslikebush Says: December 24th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
joy,
Can you name a single example of evolutionary biologists being intolerant of any challenge to the facts or theoretical constructs underlying contemporary evolutionary biology? I can’t think of any myself. If you think that ID represents such an example, I disagree. ID and creationism don’t pose any challenges to neo-darwinian concepts or the facts that suppot it. They rehash obsolete ideas that were dealt fatal blows decades ago. Only those who don’t know much about evolutionary biology think that ID is relevant to the debate. In my view ID fails both on factual and theoretical grounds. From a theoretical perspective if one posits that complex life forms could not have arisen gradually via natural selection because only a designer can produce complex organisms, one is left with the problem of who designed the designer. Surely the designer would have to be at least as complex as we are and thus must have been designed by another more complex being too - ad infinitum.
you may enjoy reading some of the debates on ID and evolution at the following wonderful site to which I direct creationists for some remedial homework.
talkorigins.org
browse the archives to read answsers to all of the stock (invalid) criticisms that creationists lodge against evolutionary biology.
Emory Says: December 24th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
It’s funny. When I hear an intelligent design scientist explain the theory and then listen to a dissenter explain the theory; it’s always 2 completely different definitions.
nutslikebush Says: December 25th, 2005 at 1:35 am
Notice, Emory, that there haven’t been ANY publications of anything related to Intelligent Design in the scientific literature - only in the Christian Press. Then they expect to leap frog over so much good science to make their way into text books. I think they should have to earn it like the rest of us do.
Emory Says: December 25th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Interesting piece that talks about ID articles published in peer reviewed science journals:
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm
nutslikebush Says: December 25th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Emory,
i disagree with almost everything stated on the site you suggested. First, science IS indeed done by committee. Science is a completely public community activity. The role of the scientific community in evaluating and testing new ideas is as important as the ideas themselves are. That’s what makes science different from ideology, religion, and opinion.
Second, scientists generally are very open to new and unusual theories (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr’s quantum theory, modern partical physics, electrodynamics, natural selection, stem cell biology - all of these ideas were extremely radical and were embraced by scientists because they actually explained nature without appeal to the supernatural. ). Scientists want to UNDERSTAND nature and typically don’t have ideological agendas - just a deep desire for understanding. The problem that most scientists have with ID is that it violates a fundamental principle of science - it appeals to the supernatural. That places it outside of the domain of science and in the world of metaphysics. To be a scientific theory (and the term theory is the highest level label within science) ID needs to make predictions that are testable and that would permit the theory to be falsified. The other annoying thing about the IDers is that they seem to think that criticism of natural selection amounts to a defense of their theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. If NS is wrong that in no way strengthens the case for ID. So they shouldn’t spend their time criticizing NS, they should be testing ID instead. I assure you that the scientific community would quickly embrace ID if the proponents came up with a scientific version of the theory and engaged in an honest test of the theory. As someone who has published iconoclastic scientific theories successfully I know that it can be a struggle. But it is worth working within the scientific community because if we try to work against the scientific community, who will be for us? The non-scientific community is not much help because they don’t follow principles that effectively advance our understanding of the natural world. In fact, non-scientific approaches to the natural world are generally disasterous setbacks that amount to hearsay, opinion, and wierd superstitions.
Emory Says: December 25th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
I disagree with most everything you stated above, especially that science is done by committee and the implication that religion is not open to new ideas. Science and Christianity actually share the goals of pursuing the truth. I don’t see them as ultimately being in conflict.
nutslikebush Says: December 26th, 2005 at 1:57 am
The scientific process is very much a committee acitivity. Most discoveries in the lab and in the field are made by teams of scientists working together (E.g., Newton - “If I have seen farther it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”). All publishing acitivities are the work of many people from the authors of the articles to the peer-reviewers, the editors of the journals, and the audience all contribute to every new discovery As for truth, in science we assume that all of ideas are ultimately wrong but if we do our job right we will be more subtly wrong - that’s what we call progress. Nothing in science is divinely revealed but owes to the scientific method, which limited though it may be, can be tested by everyone. Religion is a matter of faith. In that respect, ID strikes me as an assault on faith as much as an insult to science.
nutslikebush Says: December 26th, 2005 at 2:06 am
Merry Christmas. Peace and good will.
Joy Says: December 28th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Jack,
In every denomination, in every belief there is intolerance. The good side of that is when it is intolerance of wrong. The bad side of that is when it is intolerance of others simply because they are different.
I didn’t address the thought fully in my initial comment to ‘lefty’.
I am quite aware of intolerance in every area and walk of life.
While I was referring to those who practice intolerance, I didn’t make it clear that I was referring to those in each group who are intolerant of the opposing view and want to obliterate it, not every member of the groups mentioned.
Most groups have intolerant individuals or subgroups in them.
Some groups are completely based on intolerance…like Nazis, Skinheads, and their ilk; and, of course, terrorists. They practice the violent intolerance I referred to earlier.
Jack Antilla Says: December 29th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Joy, define “wrong”
Many religions have used that word to commit horendus crimes agianst another.
For example the idea that homosexuality is “wrong” has led to many misinterpretations of the bible that have persecuted those people threw the ages.
“wrong” is a point of view just as is “good” and “Evil”
but in anycase I do get your point, thankyou for expanding that for me.
Lug Says: January 4th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Liberal moonbats hasten their own demise!!!!! Incredible!!!
>
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
BY MARK STEYN
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
“Patriotism is stupid!”……Cindy Sheehan
Joy Says: January 4th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Jack,
You’re welcome.
Well now; define ‘wrong’ eh?
Here are some -
“contrary to principles of justice or law”
“any damage resulting from a violation of a legal right”
“not functioning properly”
“not correct”
“not appropriate for a purpose or occasion”
“not in conformity with fact or truth”
“contrary to conscience or morality or law”
“based on or acting or judging in error”
“not in accord with established use or procedure”
“in an incorrect manner”
etc…
Wrong actions are wrong actions are wrong actions - whether on the part of a homosexual, heterosexual, hypocrite or you or me. I believe that homosexuality is wrong under many of the above definitions. I also believe heterosexual sex outside of marriage is wrong, gossip is wrong, stealing is wrong. It’s also clearly wrong to persecute others, though ‘persecution’ is another term up for grabs these days. When I do something wrong, it’s not persecution to respectfully confront me with that fact. However, if I were called names, beaten and/or singled out for public harassment and embarassment because of the wrong I did, that would be persecution. It doesn’t make what I did right, it makes those doing the persecuting wrong as well, whatever their belief or lack thereof.
And…
I believe that good and evil are not for us to decide, but to discern. There is good and there is evil, that’s as plain as the noses on our faces. Real terrorism is evil. Seriel killing is evil.
Unselfishness is good. Kindness is good. Compassion is good.
Some good is disguised…like necessary pain to let us know something is wrong as well as pain in the healing process. The struggle a butterfly must go through to get out of it’s cocoon strengthens its wings…not exactly pleasant, but still good.
Good and evil are real - we don’t decide them, we discern them.
It can be reeeeal tricky sometimes to discern correctly, but true good and evil don’t change and don’t go away.
Personally, I like knowing there are absolutes. I’m strong-willed enough to need them. If there weren’t, I would’ve attempted (and probably succeeded in) murder at least once. I’m a fairly humane person due to being trained in absolutes.
nutslikebush Says: January 5th, 2006 at 3:20 am
Patriotism actually is stupid. Nazism was based on it. All fascism and totalitarian movements in modern times have been based on it. It is used by the current administration to mask an attempt to destroy the constitution of the US. The consitution is important, but patriotism isn’t. I am sure that our founding fathers strongly agreed with that sentiment. It also is wiser to feel a bond to all of humanity, regardless of the accident involved in being born in a particular geographical location at a particular random time in history.
The article Lug refered to makes one salient point - when religious zealots (regardless of their species - christian, muslim, jew, hindu) start defending their “traditions and culture” reasonable people need to run for cover. Hating, killing, torturing for Jesus seems to be the mantra in the US. The violent islamists are identical in spirit to the Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh (same wolf, different disguise) types. I know them all too well and have been far too close to them in my life.
Jack Antilla Says: January 6th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Ah yes Joy, the basic human though of right ond wrong. Allow me to get philisophical for a moment
There is no such thing as right or wrong.
Good or Evil, etc…
There are only opinnions.
For example, you mentioned Morality? how is to say what that is? or society as well as societies around the world have a basic concept of what they view as moral, but then agian so did Hitler, and Stallin. In Hitlers case and the case of the Nazi Party, they truly believed extermintating the Jews was a moral obligation for the good of the country, in their opinnion it was “right” or “good” we view it as “wrong” and “evil”
as you said you were trained in absolutes, to be more specific you were trained in a certian View of those absolutes. You were told Killining people is bad and evil, you were told Homosexuality was “wrong” you were brought up in a society that has its defigned morals, and you were indoctrinated with those morals.
I’m assuming that your christian, correct me if I’m wrong.
But lets focus for a moment on the oppisit belief of Satanism.
To theese people morals include 3 things “me, myself, and I” they have littel regard for others, only themselves, they see that as the right thing to do. so therefore right and wrong are objective.
however i get the point you made that most people want to see in absolutes as to defign “morals” when in reality neither truly exist, only in our minds.
now if you were to say Satanism is Darker than Christianity, then you’d be making a correct statment, Christianity focuses on purity, where satanism focuses on hate and anger. light and dark are the true absolutes here, not good and evil.
nutslikebush Says: January 6th, 2006 at 2:14 am
Joy,
I suppose, using your logic, that Jack and I could claim to be non-violent and humane due to being trained in ethical relativism.
stayhuman Says: January 6th, 2006 at 6:28 am
Seems like your country is so divided at the moment…..is there anyone on the horizon that can be a unifying leader???
Jack Antilla Says: January 7th, 2006 at 1:12 am
No lefty, The Nazi party was founded on NATIONALISM not Patriotism.
Patriotism is loving your counrty, nationalism is Loving your country to the point you become blind to any possible flaw, and you look on others as inferrior and places to be conquerd, see my previos post “Nationalism and Patriotism” for more info
Jack Antilla Says: January 7th, 2006 at 1:18 am
Actually Lefty, using Joys Logic, people like me are pure evil.
There is no difference between what I do and what a serial killer does accapt for the fact the what I do is leagle in the name of my country.
think about it, my job is to kill people I am a soldier, i don’t just kill one person, I kill many people, so many I rarely get to remember their faces, accept the blood, that stays with you.
and it’s not like i don’t have a choice I CHOSE to kill people as my job, therefore I am the same as any serial killer and using your logic of Absolutes, I am Evil.
Now, look at it my way, there is not good and evil, only light and dark, where I kill out of patriotism, a serial killer kills out of hate. both can be good or evil looking on your point of view, but hate is a darker emotion than patriotism
stayhuman Says: January 7th, 2006 at 6:51 am
You’re going off topic……this war is NOT “almost over”.
Just today Lt. Gen. John R. Vines suggests the iraqis you are training could turn into militias for hire!
stayhuman Says: January 7th, 2006 at 9:32 am
….and i’ve just read where general sanchez thinks iraq is on the verge of civil war!
how did george get it so wrong….AAAAHHHH
sedurie Says: January 7th, 2006 at 11:30 am
almost over?
You must either be blind deaf or just dumb. Sorry but have you read the news even the last two days?
How many died? Good Grief don’t you even have a clue to what is going on?
I really wonder sometimes about people.
Think about it because it will go down in history but not how we would want history to be written
Sedurie
Suzanne
stayhuman Says: January 7th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I actually think the US has lost this war……..it has turned to S#*T.
To win this war bush needs to do 3 things. Defeat the insurgency, install a stable government, and maintain public support.
Do any get a tick?
nutslikebush Says: January 12th, 2006 at 3:43 am
Interesting article in the US Army’s magazine ‘Military Review” by a British officer. Explains clearly some of the motivations of the insurgency in Iraq.
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec05/index.asp
It’s an eye-opener. Bush should read it.
“If I were treated like this, I’d be a terrorist!” —U.S. Army Colonel: Baghdad, September 2004
Celumnaz Says: January 13th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
This site is Great! Liberal backasswardness on display!
Real examples of “don’t be that guy” in action.
The funniest is “thinking” (haha) these are valid points! Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!
nutslikebush Says: January 14th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Although conservobots seem to have a natural aversion to rational thinking and intelligent people, you should still know that one of the world’s most accomplished economists estimates that your war in Iraq will cost your children between 1 and 2 trillion dollars (Trillion, as in 1000 x million; as in - we don’t have a trillion dollars to spend on a war; as in “sorry kids, but you and your kids are broke”; as in one way to let the terrorists “win” is to screw up our long-term economic health.) Think about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html
nutslikebush Says: January 15th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
oops. meant trillion = 1000 X billion. typing too fast.
nutslikebush Says: January 15th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Can we win the so-called war on terror as long as we are sending hundreds of billions of our dollars to the middle east to buy oil from them? The money we send supports the terrorist movement that we are fighting. So we are funding both sides of the war. I personally think that Bush’s rationale for the war in Iraq was to establish a big US military footprint in the middle east (e.g., permanent military bases and a government that we could control). The long-term goal was to secure oil resources. The instability of the middle east could result in nearly instant loss of oil supply. For instance, if Iran continues along its path - going nuclear with Russia, China, and India as allies, oil prices in the US could increase 10-fold nearly overnight. I think that that is the sort of economic terrorism that Bush really fears, not the nickle and dime junk that al qaeda is capable of. He has not articulated this to the american people because he doesn’t think that you can understand it. He thinks that the average american can only understand issues if they get them in pictures. 9/11 gave him pictures to work with even though the logic for his war, as he presented it to you, actually made no sense. I believe that a different logic is operating in the background. In the end, it all comes down to dependence on the middle east for oil, the blood of our economy.
nutslikebush Says: January 16th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Islamists gain ground from American push for Mideast democracy
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Call it a case of why you should be careful what you wish for.
President Bush’s efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East have strengthened Islamists across the region, posing fresh challenges for the United States, according to U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and democracy experts.
Islamist parties trounced secular opponents in recent elections in Iraq and Egypt.
read more here http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002742696_mideastdem16.html
Chris Says: February 23rd, 2006 at 6:24 am
As a country we have lost such sight of what a war is. It takes time, it takes patience, it takes money. As much as the Libs don’t want to admit it, it takes cooperation and it is an art. As far as the Libs are concerned, their constant bitching is the only thing turning this into a quagmire. We’re there, and we need to finish it. If we leave, more people die. And in regards to the earlier discussion of good and evil, there are such things as absolute truths. remember this and remember it well: ABSOLUTE Truth refers to the state of being of things as purely good and bad, black and white, Light and dark. I’m tired of the libs playing dumb, as much as they don’t want to admit it, they know that their conciences are screaming at them. You know damn well that abortion is wrong. Killing a terrorist, who a couple hours from now will walk into a market and blow 12 people to hell is not murder, but is an upholding of other lives. It is ridding the world of one more evil, ignorant, jihadist pig who will take other lives if he gets the chance. Exterminating an innocent life is quite different. Come with me for a minute and glance at these numbers: 2500 U.S soldiers who died protecting freedom for folks half way around the world who they dont even know. that is bravery. That is honor. That is upholding the American dream. Compare 2500 lives to the 50 million extinguished every year with abortion. That’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think????
Oh, and Jack, if you really were a soldier, and, from the way you sound, I don’t quite know if you were one, you know that we have a purely volunteer military. you didn’t have to kill terrorists, it was your choice.
gandalfthegrey Says: March 11th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
The fact of the matter is Bush’s agenda is controled by the special interest groups of his party backers, who determined his forein policy. His near sighted motives for taking out Saddam have and will prove to be the number one factor in the futures global instability and terror based reality which will only gain momentum as the US distances itself from allies and weakens its economy.
gandalfthegrey Says: March 11th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
and to the guy who compared the death toll in Iraq to number of abortion performed every year, There is a tremendous difference between Individuals making a decision with their own body, which is their right! and some egocentric leader disposing of young men to further his policitical and financial motives of a few very high politically connected groups. Not to mention the effect of having 50 million more children in the united states being born into broken families and weak financial situation, Upon which most would become recipients of welfare at some time further burdening this already endebted nation.
nutslikebush Says: March 13th, 2006 at 3:21 am
Excellent show on This American Life this week. Would you be surprised to find out that only 5 percent of the detainees at Gitmo were captured on the battlefield? Almost all were turned in for large bounties paid to pakistani warlords and mulahs. There is good reason to believe that very few have anything whatsoever to do with terrorism. Yet they are tortured (e.g., shocked, stripped, urinated on, threatened with rape, and denied any chance to prove that they are wrongfully detained.) I wouldn’t wish such a fate even on Rush Limbaugh, although he deserves it for the misinformation that he has injected into the culture of the angry, gullible, little people who occupy the intellectually-disadvantaged end of the Bell curve.
http://www.thislife.org/
nutslikebush Says: April 1st, 2006 at 3:02 am
If you are interested in what a real conservative thinks about this issue, read this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=anN._IfoJo1M&refer=us
emjones Says: May 15th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I am new to this website but I am not new to the political scene. I am currently a student at a liberal arts college and needless to say I am in the minority. I am a conservative and I am tired of the president being bashed all the time. I remember whenever there was a sense of patriotism in this country but now it is all about politics and pushing agendas. I will say that President Bush has made some mistakes but he has also done some good but we overlook that fact and get back into our liberal agendas. I am not saying that Bush is perfect but the bottom line is where do you stand. This is more important than being a democrat or a republican but that long forgotten idea known as being an American. I remember a day in July of 1776 that people put aside their differences and fought for freedom from their tyrannical oppressors. Remember the lives thaT were lost? I am a conservative but I am more than that I am an American and I will always stand for the truths of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where do you stand?
Paul Says: May 16th, 2006 at 5:38 am
Nutso, you are basically saying that everyone who doesn’t think like you are little people and come from the bottom end of the bell curve.
Can we say hubris?
(That’s overweening pride for all you poor conservatives on the bottom of the bell curve).
nutslikebush Says: May 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Hi Paul,
No, I wouldn’t say that everyone who doesn’t think like me dwells on the unfortunate end of the IQ Bell curve, just the ones who don’t think effectively. Many of my favorite people in my personal life and people from history don’t (or didn’t) have the same views as me. But to be on my favorites list, one has to bring something to the table intellectually. As for hubris, that would be your man “W”. The greeks could not have dreamed up a clearer example of hubris than our current president.
Paul Says: May 25th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Nutso, It is possible to be conservative and disapprove of the actions taken by Bush. He certainately is not “my man W” and I agree with you that he is guilty of extreme hubris.
Personally, I have come to feel a certain degree of distaste for the invasion of Iraq. I am pretty confident that at one time there was WMD in the country (hello, Saddam gassed the Kurds), but I feel that Bush and his NeoCons rushed to war without some hard evidence.
Invading a country is a horrible breach of the social contract and should only be undertaken when UNDENIABLE proof of the necessity is available (like Afganistan). But no, the NeoCons rushed to war and now we have awakened Nemesis, whose duty it is to humble Hubris.
So don’t assume to lecture me about “my man W”. I have come to dislike his administration of fear. Unfortunately the anti-religious hysteria of the far left has destroyed the Democrat pary, so the only option for me an my family, who at one time was all Democrat, is the Republican Party.
Quite frankly Nutso, I read your posts and wonder if you realize that you sound like a hypocrite. Out of one side of your mouth, you dislike it if people are intolerant of your views and yet out of the other side of your mouth (or post if you will) you have a tendency to be intolerant of any viewpoint different than your own. You even resort to name calling (conservobots…really).
nutslikebush Says: May 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Paul,
You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have never used the term “conservobots.” Please show me a single example of intolerance in any of my posts.
Paul Says: May 28th, 2006 at 4:19 am
Nutso, see post 59 of this same thread. You are Nutslikebush aren’t you? Even the title of your sign in name says it all.
Look, I am not trying to paint you into a corner, I am just trying to get you to see that you must come to terms with the fact that people are allowed to have a different view point than you and not be stupid, ignorant or foolish brainwashed sheep.
There are many ideas and beliefs that you have espoused, either signed in as Lefty, Julian or Nutslikebush that indicate to me that you are pretty left of center (although you suffer the same bit of hubris as all lefties and actually believe you are centrist). I find some of your views to be unbelievable but I acknowledge the logic and intelligence you used to reach these views. I also acknowledge the well-meaning intentions involved in your views.
There are too many trolls on the internet and too many attention deficit afflicted people who are impressed with a two sentence sound bite. I left this site last year because the name calling and insults were flying due to the whole supreme court justice bruhaha. I was especially irritated by the one hit wonders who were continuously trolling the site with wierd names and would never come back and sit down and discuss and debate.
I have returned simply because there are things that are bothering me and I would like to DISCUSS and DEBATE with you, Jack, Joy and hey even “Flowers”. But let us leave the name calling and extremist jingoism, like flinging Nazism all over the walls, for other people with less intelligence.
kolran Says: May 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I beleive the topic of this blog was lost on post 5 with a lot of name calling (although it wasn’t completely lost until post 9). Isn’t righty doing the very things he is accusing his opponnent of? It is amazing that nutslikebush responded. Another hilarious thing is nutslikebush nailed it on the head in post 13 and then continued the conversation in post 14. These guys must realy like to argue.
kolran Says: May 29th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
In comment to Paul on post 73;
He was a drunk, a homosexual, a …
So basically, no one act like Joseph McCarthy (In case someone wants to point out that he was a republican, and that makes us all stupid, I will point out that he was originally a democrat and once a democrat always a democrat.) Let’s all use McCarthy’s tactics as a guide of what not to do!
kolran Says: May 29th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Oh Paul, one more thing. You claim he is nutslikebush and righty, right. What about post five? Is he actually talking to himself! Weird.
Paul Says: May 30th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Hi Kolran
Jump in, fling it around, move on, just like everyone else.
Bye Kolran
kolran Says: May 30th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
It is amazing how succusfull McCarthy’s tactics were, though. Take something everyone is afraid of and stand up against it. You gain power. When someone steps in your way you accuse them of that thing and they lose all their supporters. Now no one stands up against you.
kolran Says: May 31st, 2006 at 10:35 pm
To Paul in response to post 77,
Doesn’t “everyone else” include yourself?
nutslikebush Says: June 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 am
Paul,
I am Lefty and Nutslikebush. So your theory is partially vindicated. Kolran impresses me though. So I will consider this case of mistaken identity a complement.
Jack Antilla Says: June 3rd, 2006 at 3:42 am
NutslikeBush is LEFTY Kolran, not righty.
kolran Says: June 3rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Okay, then Paul was right and nutslikebush is all those different names.
British_Nationalist Says: December 1st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
A year, billions of dollars, a couple of North Korean Nuclear bombs, a war in Lebanon, a lost election, a rise in extremism, a virtual state of civil war in Iraq and thousands of coalition and civilian casualties later, do you still believe what you said in this article, Buck?
Patton Says: December 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 am
…billions of dollars, a couple of North Korean Nuclear bombs, wars, a lost election, a rise in extremism
Sounds like the Clinton administration to me.
British_Nationalist Says: December 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 am
Considering all this happened in this last year, I somehow find that . . . unlikely.
Floyd Abrams Says: December 2nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm
This “article” is just an example of what can happen to your mind if you never take off your ideological blinders - you become blind to reality.
Floyd Abrams Says: December 7th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Still think the war in Iraq is almost over? Unfortunately, you have been wrong on every single call since I have been visiting this site for the past two years. It is an astonishing record and it proves beyond any doubt that you have a severely flawed understanding of the world that we live in. You can’t consistently produce such wrong predictions unless your theory is wrong. And the folly is all self-documented and on display on your own web site. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so f-ing pathetic.
nutslikebush Says: February 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I guess it depends on what you mean by “almost.” I guess Hanson doesn’t appear to be too bright anymore.
Kolran Fett Says: February 15th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Floyd Abrams makes me laugh, visiting this site for the past two years? Yeah, if he was nutslikebush.
nutslikebush Says: September 15th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Buck,
Many of the myths that you say that liberal made up can be found right here. remember when you said that the war was almost over back in 2005?
nutslikebush Says: September 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
When you read Hanson now he sounds deluded doesn’t he?
nutslikebush Says: October 20th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Buck,
I just have to remind you that in December of 2005 you promised that the Iraq war was “almost over” (see above). But you were not alone. Here are some quotes from 2003 from the administration.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be “weeks rather than months. That same day on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said, “I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle,” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.” Asked if Americans are prepared for a “long, costly and bloody battle,” Cheney replied: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.” Cheney had been spoking that way for months at that point.
In September 2002, he said that “you always plan for the worst,” but he also said, “I don’t think it would be that tough a fight; that is, I don’t think there’s any question that we would prevail.” In a speech in August, he said that “the streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.”
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said during the first weeks of the war that Cheney’s “weeks rather than months” would prove correct. Facing repeated questions at his daily briefing, he declined to second the view of Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the Army’s senior ground commander in Iraq, who said that the war may be longer than many strategists had originally anticipated. At that point they imagined that it may take up to a year to get things totally under control in Iraq. Currently Iraq has no functioning government. That is the central problem. The fighting is actually trivial compared to that fact.
nutslikebush Says: October 20th, 2007 at 2:57 am
I must point out that the Sunni insurgents are the Iraqi army and Republican guard that Cheney thought would just give up. We are still fighting Saddam’s army in Iraq five years after Cheney made his prediction.
sandra hensler Says: February 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
when do u think the war in iraq will ever stop and send all the us army troops back to michigan
buck Says: February 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Sandra,
I think the war against terror will continue for a long time. It sounds like you’ve got someone you love in Iraq. I hope whoever it is, that they are home soon.
In spite of what you may read or hear, they are there for a just cause and they are performing remarkably.
Be proud and be strong and you soldier will be home soon.
ccbhomes Says: February 9th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Amen Buck….well said!
The Men and Women of today’s army are role models of decency, commitment and bravery.
Again, we get to do all this bickering and ranting because them, and others before them defended the ideals of individual liberty and freedom throughout the world.