Generation Chickenhawk

Keep killin' when killin' the first few mill or so don't work. Jesus wept. I can't believe such words are still being said about Vietnam - the rightie kids - some excuse - those who lived through it?

Jesus wept.

0 Replies

Sorry, ebrown, I just can't get to where you're coming from, let alone head for where you're going. You're perfectly entitled to have and espouse any point of view you find reasonable, and you certainly are right to detest war. As am I. This is a free, democratic society, after all, and kept so by those willing to commit their all to maintaining it.

Implying I've said something I have not said, while entertaining you and convenient to your point of view does nothing to advance your cause, but serves rather to further expose its central bankruptcy.

As to the "Cost" of this war, US and Coalition casualties to date in Afghanistan and Iraq combined don't equal two months of Vietnam's average toll, just about equal 8 hours of the carnage of the first day's US casualties in Normandy, and come to about a tenth of the Union casualties in the Civil War battle of The Wilderness. The Left is bent on portraying this war as something it isn't - whether from ignorance or from malice is immaterial; The Left just doesn't get it. Two despotic regimes have been toppled, liberating 50 Million people, allowing them to set their own path in the world. The cost in lives, our military and involved-nation civilian alike, since the invasion of Afghanistan nearly 4 years ago, is unparallelled in its lightness for any similar undertaking. This in no way diminishes the tragedy and waste of any death due to war, but as wars go, this one has been incredibly circumspect in that regard.

Much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. As Churchill is said to have said, this isn't the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. We have the initiative, and we have taken the fight to the enemy. This war stretches ahead of us for a good while yet, and either we win it, decisively and conclusively - which we can - or it goes on without end. Those are the options.

I choose not to lose, and fervently hope America holds up her end of the bargain.

0 Replies

<shiver>

Lightness.

Big bombing feet at cradle of civilization.

I speak of course emotionally.

At the same time I do this, I understand Timber's point of view, and don't say that sarcastically. Mine often coalesces with Ebrown's well written posts.

0 Replies

Attempting to apply a Vietnam analogy from the right-wing point of view to Iraq is horribly flawed in another respect. The left in America did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, when we were clearly going after those responsible for the September 11th attack. It is this irresponsible and disasterous war in Iraq the left opposes, and justifiably. It is nothing short of the perpetration of the classic big lie to deny that we are in Iraq because that was a part of the Shrub's agenda before September 11th took place.

To then claim that the left give aid and comfort to the enemy by exercising the democratic right to speak out against the government's madness is the lowest of the low in partisan rhetoric.

0 Replies

The Left has a perfect right to say what they wish. Such is the keystone of our system. That in no way alters the fact their actions in this particular regard play to the benefit of the enemy.

A stable, democratic Iraq is key to the stability, prosperity, and liberty of the region, key to the success of the War on Terror, and key to the defeat of Islamofacism. Iran understands this, and is desperate to avoid it.

0 Replies

Timberlandko,

It is the Right that is portraying this war as something it is not. Factually you seem awfully confused on your own position. First it was a war to destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then it was a war to response to 9/11. Then it is "liberation of 50 million people".

None of these make any sense when looked at from the facts.

I don't need think to talk about WMDs (or do you still believe in them). It is also very clear to anyone with a brain that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq (although someone should let Bush know this).

What do you mean by liberation?

Some of these 50 million people you are liberating are shooting down helicopters and planting IED's. The word "liberation" implies that the people who we are "liberating" actually want what we have to offer. The evidence is against this.

Do you think the Iraqi's are fighting for your idea of "democracy"? Look at the facts. The Shia clearly like the power we have given them and, for now, we have their support... not because they love democracy, but because we have given them the government. It is Sistani, an Iranian trained cleric, who holds the cards, and Jaafari is not America's choice. He has advocated imposing Sharia law in the new Iraq. The Sunni widely rejected the elections and the support the insugency clearly has should tell you something.

Your beautiful words explaining how 2 or 3 US casualties a day should be acceptable to the American public fail to mention the thousands of Iraqis who in addition to being "liberated" are being killed, both by other Iraqis and by American troops.

My position (I don't speak for the Left) is this.

1) The war is costing the United States. To me, the 2 or 3 American casualties each day are important. The Iraqi lives are also tragic.

2) The US is not able to fix the problems in Iraq for several reason.

The current situation is clearly a mess. The clean struggle for "democracy" that you want to paint is at best myth, and at worst thin propaganda.

There is a civil struggle which may be well on the way to all out civil war. The Shia, even those who don't care about democracy, support us because we are helping them gain power against the Sunni, The Sunni are going to oppose this.

The United States is seen as the enemy by a significant proportion of Iraqis. Now the US is giving power to one group over another. The fact that this is in the name of Democracy does not make it any easier.

0 Replies

bm
(reading with interest.)

0 Replies

WMD were but a component of the causus beli. In the end, the 2003 attack on Iraq resulted from Saddam's persistent violation of the Safwan Accords and continued defiance of international demands to comply with the Safwan Accords. One person, and one person alone, had the power to prevent the attack, and that person was Saddam Hussein. All that has followed is directly attributable to Saddam's miscalculations, intransigence and arogance.

Quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

The Iraqis and the Afghanis may democratically choose any form of representative government they wish, whatever form that might be. They've been given the gift of liberty - the seeds of self-determination. We owe them the effort required to see to it that tree takes root and bears fruit.

The insurgency to which you so ominously refer has nowhere near the popular support you seem to assume it has, and in fact those actively, militantly opposing the Iraqi Government and the US forces include a large component of non-Iraqis - drawn to the conflict. Increasingly, valuable, actionable counter-insurgency intelligence is coming from the Iraqi populace itself, and despite assassinations, bombings, and threats, the ranks of the Iraqi security apparatus - military and police - continue to swell, all volunteer, all Iraqi. The evidence is the average Iraqi overwhelmingly wants self determination, and has no use for the insurgency.

The current situation certainly is complex and fraught with difficulties and dangers. The myth is that it is unsolvable. It can be resolved to the benefit of the Iraqi people, but can be resolved only through effort, sacrifice, and dedication. In the end, it must be solved by the Iraqi people; it is only they who can do it, but they need our help and support as they gather the strength, training, experience, and resources to accomplish the task. The Iraqis are doing their part, resolutely, bravely, and in the face of extreme peril. They do not shrink from the task, and they are depending on America to do no less.

I am not one to shrink from a necessary task merely because it is upleasant or difficult. The way to success is to press forward, build on accomplishments, seek out, recognize, and remedy shortcomings, to keep one's eye on the goal and work to achieve it. I won't give up to the Islamofacists and their defeatist, negativist enablers, American or otherwise, even though some gave up to the enemy long ago.

There is work which must be done, and while some shirk and complain, others willingly bend their backs to the task. I know which team I'm on.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is work which must be done, and while some shirk and complain, others willingly bend their backs to the task. I know which team I'm on.

Well I agree with you here. I am not shirking or complaining. I willingly bend my back to the task and I will not stop until the US war effort is ended.

We have been through this before.

0 Replies

Yes, ebrown, we've been through this before, you and I - many times, and we've been at it for years. I'm not going to change your mind, nor you mine. Its good to be able to disagree agreeably. Thats no doubt what keeps drawing us back to the disagreement.

0 Replies

The stab in the back - worked once - some might consider it a little....er...shopworn - tawdry, disgusting - but hey, an oldie but a goodie.

0 Replies

Generation Chickenhawk

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know