Bring It On!

What IF we win in Iraq?

January 26th, 2007 | by steve |

Winning at this point is open to interpretation. I understand that. Any type of objective could happen and someone could sit back and say, “winner”!!

But take a step further down the rabbit hole… What if Bush’s surge plan, actually… Works?

A huge “IF” since nothing has worked so far, the whole Bush lied thing… the 9/11 false connection… A lot to over come..

But what if he actually pulls this off by say, August. Troops start coming home. Things shape up. Iraqis take control and become the true free nation (selling us oil). The whole thing. And it is because of the surge.

Well, really… this very well is a fantasy world idea but I thought of this today while laying on the couch with a massive migraine.

If Bush actually wins and wins in a fashion that ends with an immediate withdrawl of troops by the end of 2007, the Democrats are severely fucked, politically speaking. Sure they’ll still have their heroes and mainstays like Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton but the mere thought of what I have proposed could end the majority faster than they got it on election day 2006. They are all against it, (except maybe Lieberman). Americans like winners. They like the winning team. I seriously believe in this country that when we go to the ballot box, it is not about the issues or candidates, it’s about the popularity of the issue or person in the media, tv or newspaper. That’s what actually scares me as a Republican when I see someone like Clinton on the ticket. The lady is popular!! But so was Bush…. a very along time ago. Yet he won the first election (maybe) and the second one was a much larger victory (for Diebold shareholders) but now, he is the scum of the earth.

The sad thing to all this. I wanna believe that our President no matter who it is, got to become President because the somewhat knew what they were doing. (except maybe Ford, RIP)

Back to me popularity theory though, I voted for Bill Clinton because I wanted to have the popular guy win. The one who I wanted to vote for did not sway me enough to not make the unpopular, and perhaps right choice for my personal political agenda. We may have swayed so for to the left this last election though, that if this war thing works out for Bush, the country could implode politically because this one time we actually voted the popular way, and it failed.

After reading my rambling nonsensical post here, what do you diehard Democrats think? Any fear at all if Bush actually wins this one, with the surge? I think we all agree that we want a positive outcome in Iraq no matter what it is. And we do not wish harm to anybody. But what if…. Bush wins?

  1. 37 Responses to “What IF we win in Iraq?”

  2. By Jersey McJones on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    Wins?  Hmmm…  Well… er, uh…  Hmph.

    Nope.  I have no idea what that actuially means.

    Just kidding.  Look, if by some amazing chance Iraq suddenly became a relatively peaceful stable secular liberal democracy after this, then Bush should get the friggin’ Nobel Prize.  Oh, and if you think that’s going to happen, then I’m up for wagers (and I’m usually not a gambling man).



  3. By tos on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    I was just having a conversation about this today with someone. Our collective thought was to let’s at least wait and see instead of micro managing the whole thing and trying to critique everything which if anything will delay any positive outcome. It’s almost like someone stuck on a mountain and needs 100 feet of rope to climb down but the rescuers are only giving them 20 yards. I think it’s damned if you do,damned if you don’t.

  4. By REB 84 on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    This is all pure fantasy.  Look at the Bush resume.  The dude has screwed up every place he has been.  You don’t win by firing everyone who disagrees with you and demanding institutional group-think.

    Of course it would be a great day for America if this Iraq fiasco turns into a secular, Democratic friend of freedom and free enterprise.  Still, that would mean that the end justifies the means. 

    Don’t forget how we got into this mess in the first place.  What was the justification for this pre-emptive, elective war?  Was it weapons of mass destruction?  Was it links to bin Laden?  Was it seaking yellow cake uranium?  Was it because Saddam was an evil guy?  Was it because “he tried to kill my daddy”?  Was it for oil? 

    When will Bush come clean with the American people and admit he got us into this war because of some hair-brained theory cooked up by the Project for the New American Century?  When will this war be counted against our budget?  When will he admit his little “mission accomplished” dance was all in the name of self-gratification?  When will we hold these people accountable for the injustice they have perpetrated on the American people?

  5. By steve on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply


    Obviously…yeah…  But think a little deeper.  What do your prospects look like?  

    If you wanna lay down odds, I might take that bet.  It’s like the Super Bowl.  Indy is favored by 7 and the over under is 49 points.  So is it a stupid bet to say, Bears win and the score is less than 49.  I will be in Vegas Super Bowl weekend.  I just might make that bet and I think that parlay is worth 50 bucks.  They are playing on grass…  not in a dome and Brian Urlacher is on the field, and Indy has no defense so Rex Grossman is game on.

    So if you look at the war in Iraq.  25,000 more troops might do the trick and we are the United States and we have the most dedicated and best trained people and the best weapon systems to fight a war sans body armor!!  Why can’t we win?  I may have fallen into the crowd that does not support this President at this time, but I have an open mind.  A win is realistic, much like my Super Bowl bet.

    You have an open mind and respect for military.  Do you believe in the possibility?

  6. By steve on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    REB 84, 

    All due respect, I was clear on the fantasy of this idea.  It is madness to think this thing is over before January 20th, 2009.  However, is it possible and what happens to your psyche if it were to happen…  and Bush rockets to a 50% or above approval rating?

    Injustice goes away when you are winning…  The talk, the speculation everything…  Ask any President who had won a war or serious social problem.

    See my comment above. 

  7. By Tom Baker on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    Hey if there was a plan to actually win it, 3 years ago, I’d be all for it. Honest. If I thought the situation on the ground was such that 20,000 or 200,000 troops could qwell it, I’d begrudgingly say we owe it to the Iraqi people. Accept, the situation isn’t such that the # of troops will help protect the Iraqi people, because it’s the Iraqi people spoiling fo rthis fight. We’ve given ample opportunity for the country to move towards stability and even the elected government is more interested in petty politics and carving out a power base than trying to lead the country. It’s civil war now, and they want the fight. Enough of them anyhow. Sure it’s not everyone, but not everyone wanted to join the COnfederate or Union Army either, but in the end that didn’t stop the bullets from flying. 

  8. By Jersey McJones on Jan 25, 2007 | Reply

    Steve, there are two ways of gambling, hedging and win/lose.  Your post was (seemed like) win/lose.  I’ll hedge with you, brother, and hope for the best.  But if you talk in win/lose terms, fuggetaboutit.



  9. By REB 84 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Steve, it is possible cows will fly, but I won’t put any money on it.  OhioDem1 predicted last April “By incompetence, failure to guard weapons caches, whose locations were know to Iraqi factions.  The Iraqi Army was dissolved, all 400,000 members, and the soldiers were permitted to keep their weapons.  The weapons were primarily Soviet AK-47’s which is superior grade of military carbine with full automatic firing capability. … The Iraqi civil war which has been going on since 2004 is heating up …”  from HOW TO SELL A WAR - by: OhioDem1

    Still In Iraq

  10. By REB 84 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    BTW - My psyche and my heart will still ache for the 3,069 dead American service people, the uncounted tens of thousands wounded, the thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, and the hundreds of thousands of homeless Iraqis.  

    Yes, victors often get to re-write history.  It is the job of truth seeking citizens to speak up for those whose voices are not heard. 

  11. By James Brown on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    We have already won in Iraq. Twice. What are we doing there now?? Just what needs to be “won” now? The hearts and minds of the Iraqis?? These appear to be mostly simple folk and most of their opinion seems to be decided by a few leaders. Who decides when we have “won” anything? What will we have won when that finally becomes apparent? I guess I don`t get it quite the same as the powers that be, but it seems that if we left right now and let these folks get on with their lives then we could declare ourselves “the winners” and no one could tell the difference, except those that make lots of money on munitions, etc. The powers that be seem to be included in that last. Just how much money is “enough”?? 

  12. By tos on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    The biggest mistake we made was not realizing the fact that the Middle East is made up of people that have no regard for killing. We took over Germany and Japan. Did the Germans or the Japanese start killing each other?

    I guess if we “won” and left do we really want Iran to take over that country?

  13. By landcomm1 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    For starters, I do not consider myself a diehard Democrat, although I can say with conviction I will never again be a Repug.  As a progressive, socially liberal Democrat, I am all for winning and always have been.  What we have exposed the people of Iraq and our own troops to is inexcusable.  The mismanaged effort for three-plus years should result in Bush being impeached for war crimes and even if we do win, this war will create textbooks on how not to wage war against anyone to include but not limited to cockroaches.

    As to what will happen if we win?  I think it depends on the definition of winning and that’s not my way of weaseling out of an answer!  We have heard various reasons for the war, we have heard success proclaimed but at its base, will we ever know why we truly went to Iraq?  Perhaps, once the international oil companies take over; perhaps after we have neatly arranged for favorable trade for goods and services Iraq has to offer in the future.  I have my doubts but still, stand by the troops and hope we can achieve something better than what Bush has orchestrated to date.

    I do not want to forecast continued gloom and doom however, as I posted yesterday and in recent days, I think the cockroach metaphore may be what we end up with: surge now, scare bugs away, go away, bugs come back.  We have succeeded in stirring up a nest of bad people, dreadful emotion, religious fervor and anti-freedom-based effort not seen since the crusades.  Bully for us!

    Our political system is no better than anyone elses, yet we scream of the need to spread our version of freedom!  Corruption, mismanagement, illegal campaign contributions, jury-rigged or otherwise hacked voting machines, ballot tampering, criminal activity… We cannot continue to carry a torch to other lands, which is fueled by the stupidity of our own mistakes or until we fix what is broken at home.

    Let’s see what happens.  Do we have a choice?  It hardly seems we do.  If we win, it will not change the fact that the brightest minds said this was a mistake and that we have lost over 3,000 lives full of hope and promise.  And if we (continue to) lose, we will be known as war criminals long after each of us is dust.


  14. By manapp99 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Steve said:”if Bush actually wins and wins in a fashion that ends with an immediate withdrawl of troops by the end of 2007, the Democrats are severely fucked, politically speaking.”

    This is the point I made in a previous point only to get the “sleazy con” remarks JMJ is famous for.

    The point here is that “politically” so many have tied themselves to the argument that we cannot win in Iraq that if it does turn around they will have no credibility in the 08 elections. They have gone with popular opinion at the time but if this turns around you will see flipping and flopping like never before. It is not an indictment on anything execpt politicians willing to use anything for an issue. Like Steve intimated if we win in Iraq, Hillary, Biden, Levin, Pelosi, Boxer etc etc…all lose in Washington.

  15. By Paul Watson on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply


    That might be what you intended, but what you actually said was:

    “The left’s worst nightmare is that the surge might actually work.”

    which 1) makes no distincyion between politicians and public and 2) says that they are hoping to lose rather than expecting to/being politically advantageous to lose. Both are rather more inflammatory than what you meant to say.

    Hopefully you see why you got a rather more hostile reaction than steve did.

  16. By landcomm1 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Anyone who wishes for continued losses or even worries themselves about political outcomes, should really, truely sit quietly for a bit and contemplate the meaning of all the lives we have thus-far thrown to slaughter for some quasi-rational motive, which is as fleeting as Bush’s popularity.

    Death anytime before the body give up or whatever God you pray to calls you is dumb.  War is dumb.  I joined the military to defend my country, get an education and see the world.  I did not spend twenty years in the Navy to go to war, subject myself to dumb decisions by idiots and place myself in harm’s way.  Anyone who joins the military today is a fool for one reason or another or as likely as anything, cannot afford higher education (or even vocational training) or get a job that pays worth a crap.  Our military is part of the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offensive Action, Led by Bafoons.  These same bafoons have not given our troops the tools, or numbers to win for almost four years.  How can such a small number of “Surge Forces” be expected to do more than calm one city now?

    I hope for peace.  Praying to the same God George W. Bush claims to, seems a bit irrational at the moment, so I’ll continue to live with hope instead.  If we win in Iraq, our politicians will transform themselves like our own Senator Norm Coleman, whose viewpoints are harder to nail down than the aforementioned cockroach!

    What a long, strange trip it’s been.  Carpe Diem!


  17. By manapp99 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Fair enough Paul. Hope my last post cleared up my meaning. However, those on the left that have tied their reputations to a failure in Iraq goes beyond the politicians. There are many that do not want any success accredited to this administration. Media figures, celebrities, ex-presidents and vice presidents etc. Kind of like Al Gore needing a bad hurricane season to help his credibility.


  18. By steve on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    “Anyone who wishes for continued losses or even worries themselves about political outcomes, should really, truely sit quietly for a bit and contemplate the meaning of all the lives we have thus-far thrown to slaughter for some quasi-rational motive, which is as fleeting as Bush’s popularity.”

    No one is saying we want people to die and no one is saying that I am not saddened by the fact 3000 people have given their lives to this war.  War is hell… it is that simple.

     My post though isn’t about tragedy and suffering.  It’s about the chance (in hell I might add) that we pull this thing out and win.  Right now, the thought isn’t even crossing the majority’s minds.  What if we are blind sided by a victory?  It could split us more politically than we are now. 

    What then gets accomplished?  What then happens to America?  Look past emotion.

    Or… the flipside, what if we lose and lose bad?  What happens to America?  This isn’t opportunity for anybody.

    We have a pretty lame duck President right now.  Unfortunately that is all we really have.  That and the chance to win and lose.  Think about it?

  19. By steve on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    ” Kind of like Al Gore needing a bad hurricane season to help his credibility.”

    How true is that?  Any environmental disaster whether it be a hurricane or freak blizzard and  he wins.  How do you get that kind of power?

  20. By landcomm1 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Perhaps we drifted with the Al Gore bit!

    Politically, I for one hope the Democrats will be happy on the outside and hide whatever else they might be thinking.  Chins up, eyes forward, smiles planted, as Nancy might say!  I have never once wanted Bush to fail.  He has pulled off six years of herculean blunder on his own, or if we’re spreading blame, with the help of extremist factions of the Republican Party.

    Whether we win in Iraq or not, it doesn’t as if the war is going to change the political atmosphere in Congress.  With a few notable exceptions, it looks as if obstructive behavior, delay tactics, vetos and signing statements may be the hallmark of these next two years.  What the people may want, is not likely to happen anytime too soon.  On a bright note, BushCo will be under much closer watch than during these last six years.  That cannot hurt anyone, either here in America or even on distant planets!


  21. By manapp99 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    I am happy to have GWB under closer watch, that way we can hopefully put an end to all this BS talk of “rubber stamping by a Republican congress” and “most secretive administration ever”. Obstructive behavior and delay tactics have been the hallmark of the Democrat minority for 12 years. Time to put them on the defense. IMHO the one that drifted IS AL Gore

  22. By Jersey McJones on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Thank you Paul and Manapp for clearing that up.  No one is hoping for a bad outcome in Iraq, the trouble is - the bad outcome has already happened.

    This “surge” won’t even put the number of US troops above it’s highest levels since “mission accomplished.”  It’s not a “surge” (or even an “escalation” as some on the left and some Dems refer to it) so much as just a ’slight bump in numbers for 2007.’  The “surge” is just a poor, rather self-defeating, rhetorical device.  The real change in policy is the idea of “holding” more territory, but with these extra numbers, we won’t be “holding” much.  The insurgents can just lay low in areas that are “held” or move to another area that isn’t “held,” as 21,000 troops can’t hold very much territory.

    So, there are two fair complaints being made, and not just from the Dems and the Left, but from many on the Right and the GOP as well:  1)  The rhetoric of “surge” prepares the enemy to move or hide and sets the administration up for failure once again and 2)  the “holding” concept is coming too little too late.  On top of all that, the troops are now tired and overextended.  “Surging” and “holding” should have been done in the very beginning, as opposed to 4 years into the war.  We’ve been “rope-a-doped,” to use the old Ali boxing term, in the sense that we’ve kept punching and punching, and now we’re too tired to come out, in the late rounds of the match, to “surge” and “hold.”  Because of that, the fear is that not only will the “surge” fail, but it will cost us more lives and limbs than it would have 4 years ago.

    All said, it’s too late now, and the president is going through with this.  It will not “succeed.”  Nothing this president has ever done in his entire life has succeeded, at least for anyone else but himself - and this time, it won’t even succeed for him.


  23. By steve on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    I guess Bush has graduated from “the decider” to the “decision maker” regarding Iraq.

    What I can’t stand right now is a Democrat who gets on TV and says, if I knew what I know now I wouldn’t have voted for the war.

    …that is like the teenager that took the family car out with out his parents knowing day after day, until finally he gets into a wreck.  That is exactly what the teenager would say to the parents, “If I knew what I know now…”

  24. By ken grandlund on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    I can count myself among those who feel that winning isn’t even something that can happen at this point. Any kind of ‘win’ disappeared long ago. The best that can be hoped for now is to staunch the bleeding and limit the damage.

    Several analogies here are apt. The cockroach theory, i.e. we kill, they scatter, we drop back, they return, seems to very accurately describe the situation, as do the references by Tom B that these folks are now fighting each other moreso than fighting us. We make convenient targets and good practice material, but the majority of the ied’s in Baghdad seem to be targeting civilians, either for sectarian reasons or for ‘collaberation’ with the US.

    tos tries to bring in the WWII axis powers of Germany and Japan to show how those countries were more easily pacifiable. The difference to me though is not that those in the ME are fond of killing, but rather that those countries were very homogenous in their ethnicity and belief systems. Not so with the artificial construct that was Iraq. (and for the record, Germany did have an insurgency for a while, but one not supported by the general public, and certainly not one targeting segments of the public.)

    The majority of strife in Iraq is not now because of us, so much as our entry opened the genie’s bottle and all hell broke loose between religious factions who had alternatively dominated each other over the years. Now they have an opportunity to go at it again, and they seem to be taking advantage of the discord to do so.

    From an American political perspective, there can be no winners. Bush and the republican plan have already proven hopeless, they have already ‘lost.’ Even if the ’surge’ produces results that allow us to depart Iraq quickly, upon our departure the sectarian violence will resume (the cockroach theory) and the resulting battles will be correctly ascribed as a result of faulty and haphazard American interdiction and the Bush plan is a loser in totality. But democrats won’t be the winners either, for they abetted this war in the early years, and even a precipitous draw down and rapid departure will lead to resumed sectarian violence and civil war. They will get their fair share of the blame for the aftermath too. The parties can continue to hammer away at each other all they want, but there are no ‘winners’ here. If anything, both parties have been badly damaged by their reactions to 9-11, terrorism, and the Bush doctrine of war in the ME.

    Surge or no surge, this is a fruitless mission, which is why I do not support any surge (other than one of average Americans calling for an end to our participation in this Iraq quagmire and the end of this administration). I seriously hope that the fewest amount of people possible are wounded and/or killed, and that America can get out as soon as possible and return to being the ideal America it should be.

  25. By REB 84 on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Will anyone be held accountable?

  26. By Jimmy on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    I feel that the “surge” is a feeble attempt to stave off the inevitable. A band aid on ‘just a flesh wound” in the Monty Python sense.

    I was against this war in Iraq from the beginning. It makes me very angry to hear the whole “If we knew then what we know now” and “we had no way of knowing” nonsense. There were plenty of people that had advised against it or had advised a more practical way to do things at least with the military. Why didn’t anybody seriously listen?

    The generals had said that 750,000 troops would be needed to SECURE the country. What happened? Who decided to go in light? Rummy? That douchebag Wolfowitz? The generals get paid to plan these things. It is what they do. Why did no one listen?

    Every one of those politicians (and I mean all of them) ought to be removed from their comfy offices in DC and placed in the “Green Zone” in Iraq. Then they can either figure it out or get their asses handed to them.

    A rose-petaled cakewalk indeed. The morals and noble priorities of this once great nation have been superseded by arrogance and hubris. I find this unacceptable.

    Of course I would like nothing better than to see victory in Iraq, leading to a secure, stable democracy in the Middle East. I just do not think that possible without a much larger commitment by the United States. And by that I mean a full national mobilisation of this country, including the draft. But, being that such a move would basically be political suicide for either party of total asshats, we will never see that happen.

    So, enjoy the cakewalk. Just watch out for those IEDs and remember who brought you here.

  27. By steve on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    “Of course I would like nothing better than to see victory in Iraq, leading to a secure, stable democracy in the Middle East. I just do not think that possible without a much larger commitment by the United States. And by that I mean a full national mobilisation of this country, including the draft. But, being that such a move would basically be political suicide for either party of total asshats, we will never see that happen.”

    Jimmy, that sort of says it all right there.   

  28. By Lazy Iguana on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    IF your hypothetical situation turns out to be correct, then it is all good. The troops come home and Iraq is stabilized. The middle east does not erupt in a giant war, and Iran is told to sit down and shut the hell up. 

    And I think he will try to claim this. But in all reality we will not know if the US “won” or “lost” for many more years. Long after Bush’s 2nd term is up. Long after whoever wins in 08 is also out of office. What we would need TODAY is a time machine, so we could skip the next 20 years and look in on Iraq then.

    Right now the signs are not so good. It seems that a large portion of the new government over there is Shi’a. Of course, they are the majority of the population. But do they really want to work with the Sunnis and Kurds? How many of them are loyal to the radical militia guy? At the Hussein hanging, the audio smuggled out was not exactly “you have been sentenced to hang by a court of the Iraqi people” it was chanting of the name of a man wanted dead by the US military! Happy supportive chanting, as opposed to angry hate chanting.

    And our buddy the Prime Minister seems to not be doing anything about it. Who is he really loyal to?

    None of these things are known. As Rumsfeld would say, these are all “unknown unknowns”.

    So in 20 years we will know if the war was a good idea or a bad idea. If things get better then it would be a good idea. If things are the same as they were, or worse, then it was a bad idea. But will we know by next year? Hell no. That is short term stuff


  29. By Dr. Forbush on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    If we win in Iraq that means the mission is accomplished. No matter when or why the victory is declared matters, because the excercise has been a farse on the American people. So, when victory IS declared it will be over. If Bush “decides” that we won, then millions of Americans will believe him, no matter what the real status on the ground is. And, no matter when he declares victory there will be millions of Americans who don’t believe him no matter what the reality is in Iraq.

    So, it isn’t IF we win, it is WHEN we win.

    BTW, why should anyone believe that a surge of 21.5k troops will make any difference? We have already tried it before and it has failed before. We have had 160k troops in Iraq before, there isn’t anything different about this new and improved effort. It wasn’t like the last effort was  half-assed, and this time we are going to give 110%. If anything, there are more insurgents and the Iraqis have more hatred toward us. That should mean that we need more troops to fight them this time. Why shouldn’t we up the effort to 200k or 300k or what Gen. Shinseki called for in the beginning 350k?

    When we win we will look back on this and ask ourselves, What the Hell just happened, and no one will know the answer….

  30. By SteveIL on Jan 26, 2007 | Reply

    Sorry for going off-topic, but I couldn’t let this go.

    landcomm1 said:

    Our political system is no better than anyone elses, yet we scream of the need to spread our version of freedom!  Corruption, mismanagement, illegal campaign contributions, jury-rigged or otherwise hacked voting machines, ballot tampering, criminal activity…

    These statements highlight major differences between those of us who call ourselves conservatives, and those of you who call yourself liberals (or progressives).  I can’t believe someone would say our system is no better than anyone elses, as if the system is at fault.  First off, while I would say that it is far from perfect (after all, humans created it), it is the best political system to have ever come out in the history of the world (sorry Paul Watson).  All of those things mentioned were done by people, not the system.  You could try to say the “system” created these people or made them corrupt, but that wouldn’t be true either.  Lack of character and the corruption of power and money is what caused this, not the system.  Our system, our Constitution, was written by geniuses, brilliant men.  They made it stringent enough to say what is what and what isn’t, and flexible enough to be changed when warranted.  It is the failure of those individuals that don’t follow the system who are at fault, not the system itself.

    It’s like some other things.  Priests in the Roman Catholic Church molested children, so you blame the Church.  But it isn’t in Church doctrine to molest children, nor to cover up the crimes.  That is done by people.  Imams in Islam tell their followers to blow themselves up to become martyrs and destroy the infidel.  Again, it isn’t Islam telling them to do this; it is a person, someone perverting Islam and telling their people to commit murder in order to go to heaven.

    Or, a person uses a gun to murder some other person.  The gun is blamed.  A person gets a heart condition because of too much food with trans-fat in it.  The trans-fat is blamed.  Politicians and officials do what landcomm1 highlighted.  The system is blamed.

    I, as do many (if not most) conservatives blame the person, not the system.  The only time a system is blamed is when the political system is based on corruption, or based on tyranny.  Even then the person is blamed.

    Understanding that our system isn’t perfect, and in some cases has been destructively unfair, I dare someone to name me a political system that has ever been developed that is any more fairer legally, grants any more rights, allows a person to improve their status without being hamstrung by an archaic notion of “class”, is flexible enough to change when necessary, or gives a nation the capability to defend itself and its allies whenever and whereever it needed to do so.

    Sorry for the long rant and for being off-topic.  Have a nice weekend.

  31. By Chris on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    New York City has a population of approximately 8,000,000. They had 590 murders in 2006. There are 38,000 police officers.

    Baghdad population is 7,400,000. There were 14460 murders in 2006. There are presently 13,500 troops in Baghdad. If they get the 30,000, then there will be 43,500 troops. In other words there will only be 5,500 more troops in Baghdad then there are cops in NY.


    It must be a lack of imagination on my part, because I can not even imagine winning with the present leadership. 

  32. By steve on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    No offense Chris… But… try an analogy that isn’t proposed in various forms on this blog weekly or, actually, comes out Wolf Blitzer’s mouth on Sunday morning.

    The vast majority of NYC’s population does not have AK 47’s.  Baghdad’s does, to begin with.

    But I have better question, did you just call our soldiers murderers?

  33. By ken grandlund on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    Don’t be dense Steve…we all are aware that the majority of the killing in Iraq today are sectarian militias killing each other. In only the most egregious cases are war time deaths considered or classified as murders, and if they are, there is usually overwhelming evidence that they were not deaths caused by ‘normal’ warfare. Chris was not calling the troops murderers from my point of view.


    On the other hand, you do make a good point about the AK’s.

  34. By Chris Radulich on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    No, this has nothing to do with our troops and your comment about AK47 proves my point. If it takes 38,000 to maintain a peaceful city, do you really think 43,500 troops can subdue Baghdad?

  35. By steve on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    Yeah…  the NYPD does not have Bradley’s, Blackhawks and the ability to call in air strikes.

    What do the Iraqi’s have? 

  36. By Chris Radulich on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    True and if we flattenned Baghdad it might make a difference. Do you really think that is what they are going to do?

  37. By steve on Jan 27, 2007 | Reply

    they won’t flatten Baghdad.  They will however probably be more forceful.  Insurgents are in for a world of hurt… win or lose.  I’d rather not see us lose but… that was the motivation for me writing this post…  To answer the what if’s around this scenario.

    We’ve got the upper hand technologically.  We just gotta use it.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Jun 25, 2007: adhd adult

Post a Comment