righturnonred

Your contention is premature at best. This is irrelevent. Korea and Vietnam are among examples in which wars occured without formal declaration. Regardless of whether a formal declaration is issued, the rules of war (according to western doctrine) remain the same. The option of surrender was made available to the Saddam regime at all points before, during, and after the commencement and ceasing of major combat operations. This is not a case of the US refusing to accept a surrender. The former Iraqi leadership is no where to be found. Instead, some former leadership have chosen to wage an insurgency that violates all of the tenents of the Geneva Convention, an agreement to which the West has adhered to so firmly. You will not fool anyone with your false logic here. The "war on terror" is a broad global campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat through a variety of means including financially, culturally, and militarily. Iraq is but one battle in the war on terror. The objective here from the beginning has been regime change. The Iraqi military defends (willingly or unwillingly) a terrorist regime, therefore the Iraqi military is effectively a terrorist army. While it may be debatable whether Saddam cooperated with Al Qaeda, there is no doubt that this regime has been a long time state sponsor of terror. Whether or not the US will find actual WMD is still to be determined and will likely not be determined until the country is secured. What is fairly certain is that enough evidence of WMD programs will be uncovered in order to justify the war in the face of critics. Ofcourse, any right thinking America relizes that the war is justified regardless of whether any evidence of WMD is found at all. You'd have to ask Saddam that question but I imagine if he thought he could have pulled it off undetected, he wouldn't have hesitated to do so. Even so, the most advanced satelite imaging technology still cannot penetrate 60 feet of solid rock. I counter that the liberals have been absolutely unforthcoming in their "evidence"

Report: Iranians Hinding bin Laden You can take this "unimpeachable source" with a grain of salt if you want but if this lead is true, the US is in the perfect position in Iraq to ferret out these assholes.

Fair enough. I can assure you, the US would prefer to hand this thing off as soon as possible, however to do so before the new government can stand on its own would almost certainly mean the return of the previous regime. The delays we are witnessing are due to the endless bickering among members of the Iraqi Governing Council. That is why Bush has instructed Bremmer to take a more active role is churning out a constitution and a bill of rights. The Philippines were ceded by Spain to the US in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. They attained independence in 1946 after Japanese occupation in World War II. The 21-year rule of Ferdinand Marcos ended in 1986, when a widespread popular rebellion forced him into exile. In 1992, the US closed its last military bases on the islands. The Philippines has had two electoral presidential transitions since the removal of Marcos. Where is the rule by proxy here? This statement is completely false. Do you seriously contend that one can equate the morality of the US government with governments such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Saudia Arabia, Palistine, China, etc. These governments are despotic. I also think its a stretch of the imagination to compare US morality to even France, Germany or many other European nations. I know that it is the scope of American power and our willingness to apply it that erks you. But that's the way it and that's the way it's going to be. If you don't like it, you can run for office on a platform of isolationism and unilateral disarmament but I don't think that approach will resonate with voters. Your hatred and contempt for America is evidenced in your own words. The fact that you describe America as a greedy, corrupt, ignorant, hateful nation says as much. Conservatives, the true patriots and protectors of this nation regard your description of America as the antithesis of reality. We are not perfect as a nation, there are some ugly blemishes upon the history this country, but we remain above contempt on behalf of the countless despotic regimes around the world not to mention the collection of one party "republics" through out Europe.

Its the media who is responsible for the sensationalism, not the government. Yes, the Pentagon shared the story with the media because it was a positive development, but the media blew it out of proportion, labeling her a hero and what not. I think its understandable that the millitary would jump on the opportunity to say," hey, look what we did here. This shows how much each human life means to us." I don't think that intent is dishonorable.

On the contrary, while the justifications for imperialistic ventures in the past have often been cloaked in lofty rhetoric, historical occurences of imperialism have always been transparent and self-evident. No matter how strong your inclination, the fact ramains that you are hard pressed to offer any evidence that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has occured for any reason other than those stated by our leaders. That may be the way you view it but the driving force here is clearly the fight against terrorism and the desire to protect our sacred values. Provide a present example of America's rule by proxy. Alliances with other soverign nations are not evidence of imperialism. Indeed, how did he propose accomplishing that small miracle? Such support of rebel factions following the Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait was not possible due to the limited scope of the UN mandate. US military commanders, on the other hand, recognized a golden opportunity to follow Saddam back to Baghdad and end the threat once an for all. Lets be accurate here about who was responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Economic sanctions were tailored to restrict military and duel use technologies and materials. Provision were made to provide food and medicines to the Iraqi population. Saddam, and to some extent UN bureaucrats, abused the Oil for Food program in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the Iraqi people. Your historical record is revisionist and tainted by an inaccurate definition of imperialism. The United States is simply trying to play the same game as everyone else. Where's the evidence of that? If history shows anything, its that economic and political pressure placed upon the leadership of nations has been, at best, ineffective at enacting democratic reforms in other countries. The point here is that the people must taste democracy and freedom in order for us to achieve our objectives in the region. I find it far more unbelievable your conspriacy theory that the war on terror is nothing more than a clandestine land, oil, and money grab. While I would not neccessarily condsider you ignorant in a general sense, your learned hatred for America is certainly blinding your judgement.

Tone it down pal. I still disagree with you. Catholicism, or other sects of Christianity do not mandate the forfeiture of ones own autonomy to God, in fact, one of the central notions of Christianity is that all people, good or evil, possess free will. I don't think you know what your talking about. Tell me, what do you mean when you say Christians are taught to "give up control of our lives to Jesus."? Does this mean that Jesus makes decisions for you? Does this mean that Jesus controls you like a marionette? If you've read the book, you should be able to explain it to me.

Liberals loooove to protest. Not exactly, but thats pretty close. What I suggest is that Iraq is neither a failure nor a success at this point and it is premature to make a determination either way. As for this adminstration, I don't think they have done a bad job with the occupation. It is a situation of trial and error, as there is really no historical precident to be guided by. In answer to your question, no, I don't think the situation is bound to "go down the drain", however it may get worst before it gets better. Now, with all sincerity, I would like you to tell me why you feel that reconstruction is ultimately doomed to failure?

It's good to hear from you Craig. In a nutshell, your post sums up the objectives of the war on terror. This war is not just about Iraq. It's not just about WMD, or freedom for the Iraqi people. It's about changing the face of the middle east which includes but is not limited to promoting democracy, freedom, and liberty and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not the only ones involved in terror here. There is a dangerous culture within Islam that breeds terror. That culture exists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and a slew of other Middle Eastern nations. Obviously it is not feasable to attack and occupy every nation which breeds and finances terror. The objective is to influence their culture by injecting, into the region, some superior western values such as freedom, democracy, respect for women, and civilized jurisprudence. Every human being, by their very nature, has a natural yurning for such things. The object is not to replace Islam with Christianity but rather to help bring Islam into the 21st century. For example, one of the most important aspects of any culture is the role which women play in society. Women are, universaly, a very moderating force in society. However, in most Islamic cultures, women have no freedom of expression, no influence within the familiy, and are essentially enslaved in bondage. This has a very negative effect on men in these societies. We're not suggesting that the West force Brittany Spears down there throats as an example of appropriate roles for women in society. On the contrary, she's a horrible influence on even our culture. My point here is that there are some serious deficiencies with Islamic cultures and the situation will not improve without a swift kick in the ass. Usually is it pointless to make this case because the conclusions are instantly rejected by those on the left and replace by your favorite conspiracy theory. Christianity teaches nothing of the sort. Once again, you have effectively demonstrated the transparency of your ignorance.

Plenty, but there's really no point in trying to explain it to you. I believe that you are whether you consider yourself as such or not. I can though, certainly understand why you would consider the label undesirable. To use a familiar phrase, "if it looks like a duck and walks like duck..." Actually, I myself am not all that religious, meaning I don't go to church, I don't read the bible regularly, and I don't pray often. However, I acknowledge that my parents raised me in accordance with Judeo-Christian values which has had a profound inpact on the way I live my life. While I personally don't see a need to have a "relationship with God" I can certainly understand the strength that it may give others. As most religous people will tell you, it's not the superstisious drivel that is important, to Chirstians anyway. Rather it is the values and teachings esposed in the name of such a religion. In essence, you are correct when you say that religion is all about control. It's about self control. Please don't think that because "you'll not be fooled" by religious dogma, that you possess some form of enlightenment not found among the religious.

On the contrary, true evil is a very real force in this world. Satan, obviously a mythological figure, is a representation of true evil. The fact that liberals can't seam to grasp the nature of absolute evil is exactly the problem here. You cannot equivocate radical islamic fundamentalism and you cannot negotiate with it either. The sooner you realize this, the better off we are. What are you suggesting with you're comments here, that the perpetrators of 9-11 were not clearly consumed by evil? So you're saying this is a holy war...perhaps a jihad? It's a war against Jihad. Don't try to twist my words. I don't find it funny. I find it depressing. These values, or rather lack there of, is the force directly responsible for this destruction of this country's moral fiber. The only thing that communists like you have in common with islamic radicals is hatred for America. It is an ironic fact however that if these forces of evil, with which you align yourself, were to succeed, it would be secular, atheists like you who would be the first to die. There seem to be a lot of serious problem that you regard as funny. First off, Boykin is not an ultra right-wing Christian. By that definition, anyone who professes a belief in Jesus and possess a strong desire to protect the traditions of his religion is an "ultra-rightwing conservative" Talk about a perjorative. According to your view, any who reads bible is a right wing nut. You need to gain some perspective. Your comment shows how out of touch you are and your inability to grasp the true nature of islamic fundamentalism. While I deny the accuracy of iraqbodycount.com's casualty figures, I do not deny that civilian casualties have occured and continue to occur to a lesser extent. Some civilian casualties are unavoidble in any armed conflict, but this fact does not destroy the justification for war in general. The DoD won't do it because they can't. Despite claims made by iraqbodycount.com, it is impossible to varify the authenticity of civilian casualty reports. How in the hell would iraqbodycount.com have the ability and resources to go into Iraq and validate every report of a civilian casuality. They have absolutely no ability to establish reality from propaganda. I always take my Zoloft on time.

So is the right to bear arms. Obviously, all legal rights are invented. However, Derek is refering to the claim that the "right to choose" is an inalienable human right, which should be protected by law. He asserts that this claim is bogus. I agree.

I have not digressed from the topic at hand. I have tried legitimately to defend against your criticism of my explanation of the historical origins of "Vietnam Syndome". I have also appropriately challenged your ignorance regarding combat losses in Vietnam. It appears to be you rather, who are avoiding the subtantive issues here and instead are focusing on such irrelevent minutia as whether or not Vietnam resembles Iraq closely enough to be valid for the purposes of my argument. Yes, but why is this relavent to "Vietnam Syndrome"? Maybe the problem here is your understanding of the term "Vietnam Syndrome": This is defined a dangerous reluctance on the part of American leaders, since the Vietnam war, to commit US ground forces to a potentially harzardous situation for fear of political fall out in the even of a relatively small number of American deaths. It does not matter how logistically similar a given conflict is to Vietnam. The only factor that matters is the potential for losses. I think you've failed to make one.

You're right. Although there are similarities, in most every conventional sense, the conflict in Iraq shares little in common with the war in Vietnam. However, I made the comparison to illustrate the origins of "Vietnam Syndrome" which has applied to all American military conflicts since. In this respect, the comparison is very much valid. Vietnam represented the birth of wide scale guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, booby traps, and civilian dressed combatants were the prime tactics used by the Vietcong to wage an unconventional war against a superior force. Divisional engagements during the war were rare. In fact, the Iraqi occupation bares a greater resemblence to Vietnam than it does the 1991 gulf war in which divisional engagements such as the battles of 73 Easting and Madina Ridge were center pieces of that war. It's clear you have little knowledge of the history of warfare in Vietnam. While the US didn't technicaly lose the Vietnam war, we did tuck our tails an run. Why? One Word: Politics. Major combat operations are over. The war is far from. To say the insurgency "shouldn't be a problem" doesn't make sense. Unlike with Japan and Germany following WWII, the Baath regime never formally surendured at the cease of major combat operations. Instead, like cowards, they chose to blend back into society and continue to wage their war from under the skirts of women, which consequently, was Saddam's intent from the beginning should his government fall. While the intensity of the anticipated insurgency was unpredictable before the war, there was no doubt that such an insurgency would exist in some form. What historical precident or bank of knowledge are you drawing from that allows you to make the unequivocal determination that the war is unwinnable? Only someone so eager to see us fail would jump to such a conclusion. No, I don't

Your out of your mind, Farrius. I could not have been more clear in what I've said. I've been tactfully attempting to move the topic of discussion back to something of relavence. Instead, you insist on indulging your obsession with Nuclear's comment and argueing with others about it as if anyone disagrees with you that the comment was irresponsible. So, for the last time, can we please move on? I'll ask again, what should the administration have done to improve the situation. I ask not with the expectation that you can provide a superior plan, but rather because you, lacking any knowledge or expertise as to what it takes to effectively administer an occupation, are not in an appropriate position to make a judgement about the relative effectiveness of the occupation. Granted, the occupation is obviously not going as smoothly as we would like, but what basis of comparison are you using to determine that the occupation is "failing". I believe that you, along with many Americans, suffer from Vietnam Syndrome, an irresistible propensity to demand immediate results in a military operation accompanied by a complete lack of resolve to accept any US casualities at all. Do you realize that at the height of the Vietnam War, the US was losing 500 soldiers per week? No I wouldn't. If I was an Iraqi who had felt the heavy weight of Saddam's boot on my neck for so many years, I would be clamoring to help the liberating force. Unless ofcourse, I got the impression from foreign media that the resolve of the liberating force could be shaken. In that case, I might be reluctant to assist the occupiers out of fear of retaliation on the part of the old regime if they ever managed to regain power.

You're missing the point. Personal accountability is the issue here, not criminality. Obviously, the act of criminalizing sex is ridiculas. That fact is that the social infrastructures in place that dictate acceptable sexual behavior have deteriorated over the course of decades. This unadultered progression of liberal values has resulted in the problems we see today, specifically, high rates of unwanted pregnancies, and the subsequent spike is the number of abortions. While many women consider the right of abortion to be represenative of their social liberation, it is in fact this very policy that ultimately does far more damage to women in society.

Well, what would you suggest as more appropriate logic in foreign policy: "The friend of your enemy is your freind" or maybe "The enemy of your friend is your friend" or why not just let all hell break loose and say "The enemy of your enemy is your enemy". Now there's real logic for ya. You know what would be really lovely: "The friend of your friend is your friend". God, I'd love to live in that world. Get real will ya? We don't live in some wonderful utopian vacuum. I couldn't agree with you more, but lets stop for a moment to consider what would happen if we decided to alienate these "allies" tommarro. The cooperation of these nations in particular is essential to the success of the war on terror. The solution is different for every nation as there is no cookie cutter approach that applies to all. More must be done to convince these nations to take more than token baby steps towards establishing freer societies.

Where did I ever argue with you about, or endorse Nuclear's comments? You were simply unclear about whether your comments were related to Nuclear's statement, or in context to the war on terror in general. This was my first and only response related to Nuclear's comments: In your next post you said this, in which is was unclear of the context in which you made the statement. I asked you to clarify the context of your statement: To which you replied: To which I responded: In other words, his comment was obviously stupid and not represenative of conservatives in large. That is why I am confused at this statement: How in the hell, may I ask, are you able to extract from this exchange, my support for Nuclear's comments? This ought to be good. What proof? Just because some desperate insurgents are having moderate success at mucking up our efforts there is not evidence the that global strategy for the war on terror is a failure. I believe you are projecting a manufactured reality, similar in fashion to the way you have attempted to associated Nuclear's comments with every other conservative in this tread.

So what is your point here, that liberals are responsible for the growing threat of Islamo-facism? Is it your point that Islamic opposition to Sex in the City provides acceptable justification to commit unprovoked mass murder? You wont mind if I demand to see a source for this "news story" Note: Palestinian website propaganda = crap

It is common knowledge that throughout history, the US has allied itself with some deplorable regimes. However, it must be acknowledged that support for these regimes occured in the name of global strategy aimed at combating a greater evil. For example, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan was intended to oppose the Soviet occupation of that country during the Cold War. Ironically, Russia was an important US ally during World War II. Although in retrospect, US support for some of these regimes has resulted in less than desirable outcomes, its intentions have always been to promote liberty in the face of greater evils. The argument that US support for these regimes has not remained constant amid changing circumstances is irrelevant. Just because you cannot see the obvious logic behind support for these regimes at a given time does not mean such support was unjustified. The DoD memo to the Senate intellgence committee says nothing about the transfer of WMD to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, so I fail to see your point. The memo concerns cooperation in the form of training, funding, and supplies such as obtaining passports, etc. Read signifcant portions of the actual 20-point memo contained within this article. Weekly Standard: Intel Report Links Saddam, Usama

I don't think so cknykid, If this report turns out to be the bombshell it looks like, Nuclear is exactly right. So let me get this straight, liberals consider this leaked CIA report about deteriorating security to be legitimate CIA: More Iraqis Support Resistance But... You consider this DOD memo to the intelligence committee siting links between Saddam and bin Laden to be just one more fraudulent attempt by this administration to justify the invasion. Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Usama I sense a high level of hypocracy.

The is the most bazzar post i've seen, ever. What the hell are you talking about? Who the crap is Mammon, and where do you get the lame idea that "American culture is destroying our values"? You make know sense and frankly you sound like an idiot. Values and norms are the building blocks of culture, a culture being altered by the left in some perverted attempt at social engineering. Graduate from high school and then we'll have a discussion.

Republicans launched a 40 hour, round-the-clock debate Wednesday night to counter Democratic filibusters on the nominations of Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. In addition, Democrats have blocked six Bush nominees, including Mississippi judge Charles Pickering, Alabama Attorney General William Pryor and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada, who withdrew his nomination after losing nine filibuster votes. All nominees were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and had enough bipartisan support to get the simple majority in a full-Senate vote needed to be confirmed. Democrats have resorted to unprecedented tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees by using filibusters to prevent an up or down vote in the Senate. Ordinarily, a nominee needs 50 or 51 votes to be confirmed. However, the Democrats, by engaging in filibusters, are forcing a 60 vote super-majority requirement for confirmation. A tactic never before used to block a Presidents judicial nominees. This Dems are clearly being dangerously childish and it's got to stop.

This means you're speaking hypothetically, in which case you have no argument from me. Although there are unavoidable civilian casualties in any war, The United States has taken unprecidented steps to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage in this humane war. You'll get no argument from anyone regarding Nuclear's statement. That topic is dead. First off, you have a right to say anything you want, even to the detriment of yourself. I merely asked you a question. However, my point here is that if you believe the current strategy is so terrible, it's reasonable to assume you have something at least marginally better to offer. Unfortunatly for you, Democrats is Congress are faced with the same problem. They critsize the administration's policies on every issue (for obvious political reasons), but are unable to present coherent solutions of their own. Their "solutions" are limited to: send more troops, fire Rumsfeld, hand over power to Iraqis, get international support, etc. These generalities do not amount to solutions. Democrats are clutching at straws here with the knowledge that if they don't do something now, they'll be having unpleasent flashbacks of McGovern come November. My comments regarding self defense are in the context of the actual war on terror, not Nuclear's proposition of grand slaughter. It is no longer clear if the comments you are making are in context to Nuclear's absurd statement. If they are, then I suggest you are carrying this to far. I want nothing to do with Nuclear's statement so lets move on.

Boykin came under criticism when reports surfaced of his comments during several speeches at evangelical Christian churches. Boykin said the enemy in the war on terrorism was Satan, that God had put Bush in the White House and called one Muslim Somali warlord an idol-worshipper. -The enemy in the war on terrorism is Satan. -From his perspective, God put Bush in the White House. What the hell is wrong with that? -Adid is an evil man and an idol-worshipper. These people have hijacked Islam. They worship a false, twisted version of religious orthodoxy. Boykin's comments were not directed at conventional followers of Islam. If you consider these statements crazed, then you haven't been listening to the secular, atheist, anti-America, anti-religion, treasonous fanatics on the left. Holy sh*t, I can't believe this. The radical left has completely tried to destroy this man, and for what? Refusing to conform to the Orwellian political correctness of the left? Your comparison to General Abizaid is ridiculas. New Flash: People Die In War. I have about as much faith in casualty assessments from iraqbodycount.com as I do from MoveOn.org or some other radical organization of America hating traitors. These people don't give a crap about civilians in Iraq, they only care about waging their culture war in the United States in an effort to undermine family, religion, marraige, and every other sacred institution in this country. Sooner or later, conservatives in this country are going to stand up to the communist trash trying to rip this nation apart, and you can be guaranteed that heads are gonna roll.

Glad I could help. Are you speaking hypothetically, or do you consider this war of liberation to be an egregious misuse of power on behalf of the coalition? Under the Farrius Administration, what whould your policy to combat terror look like? I'd be suprised if you were able to offer a truly thoughtful solution. I reserve the right to defend myself against anyone who poses a threat to myself or my family.