Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ralph Peters in the NY Post: American left and media sympathizers responsible for US combat losses

We'll soon reach a total of 2,000 dead American troops in Iraq. You won't miss the day it happens. The media will pound it into you.  But no one will tell you what that number really means - and what it doesn't.

Unable to convince the Bush administration or our troops to cut and run, the American left is waging its campaign of support for Islamist terror through our all-too-cooperative media. And you're the duck in the anti-war movement's shooting gallery.  Breathless anchors and voice-of-God columnists will suggest that 2,000 dead is an exorbitant price to pay in wartime, that reaching such a threshold means we've failed and that it's time to "support our troops and bring them home."

All lies. Certainly, the life of every American service member matters to us. But the left's attempt to exploit dead soldiers and Marines for partisan purposes is worse than grave-robbing: Ghouls only take gold rings and decaying flesh; the left wants to rob our war dead of their sacrifices and their achievements, their honor and their pride.  As a former soldier whose friends still serve under our flag, I'm especially disgusted by the pretense on the part of those who never served and who wouldn't dream of letting their own children serve that they speak for the men and women in uniform.

Apparently, Ralph Peters disagrees with much of the left, and believes that freeing 25 million people and allowing them the opportunity of self-determination is one of the most noble things for which one can fight.

Then Peters ends the oped with a bang:

If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves. Their irresponsible demands for troop withdrawals provide powerful encouragement to Muslim fanatics to keep on killing as many American service members as possible. On the worst days the terrorists suffer in Iraq, our "anti-war" fellow citizens keep the cause of Islamist fascism alive. Their support is worth far more to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi than any amount of Saudi money.

Just like the Al Qaeda letters said! They have to continue to use the liberal MSM to their advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unbeleivable how the warmongers can spin just about anything to justify their incompetence. Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I am compelled to say, yet again, Bush did not go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. That line was just a convenient ass covering manouvre that came later, when his original pretext for invasion was blown.

And if anyone is exploiting the dead, it is the war supporters themselves, using the pointless deaths of America's youth as a rallying cry to send even more to their deaths. My nephew in Florida turned 18 in January, and he has been getting constant calls from recruiters (they get the contact info from the schools), wrapping the war up in the flag, spouting patriotic tripe. My sister in law's response to each call has been, "when George Bush's daughters join the army, my son will too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melanie:

Unbeleivable how the warmongers...

Warmongers? Enforcing a broken ceasefire and 16 broken Chapter VII (binding) UN reolutions is now defined as "warmongering"? :o

...can spin just about anything to justify their incompetence.

To the far left, this is incompetence: In a mere two-and-a-half years, Iraq has went from being run by a sadistic massmurdering, American-hating dictator, to a free society voting in elections and writing constitutions--constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, speech and press. All while the dictator sits in jail and is now on trial and will be executed by the Iraqis.

Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I am compelled to say, yet again, Bush did not go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people.

What did you think the end result would be?

That line was just a convenient ass covering manouvre that came later, when his original pretext for invasion was blown.

12 of the 23 clauses in the Joint Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq (passed by Congress) talk about the broken ceasefire and broken UN resolutions. Therefore, their original pretext for the invasion still remains valid.

And if anyone is exploiting the dead, it is the war supporters themselves,

I haven't seen any war supporters protesting in front of military hospitals with fake coffins draped in the American flag and taunting injured soldiers entering or exiting the military hospital. Disgusting! :angry:

using the pointless deaths of America's youth as a rallying cry to send even more to their deaths. My nephew in Florida turned 18 in January,

So he is an adult.

and he has been getting constant calls from recruiters (they get the contact info from the schools), wrapping the war up in the flag, spouting patriotic tripe.

Oh please. :rolleyes:

My sister in law's response to each call has been, "when George Bush's daughters join the army, my son will too."

That's a lame argument. Hell, 80% of the military is Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbeleivable how the warmongers can spin just about anything to justify their incompetence.

While the quote was hyperbole, it was also, to an extent, true. The insurgents/terrorists KNOW very well they can't defeat the US militarily. That is not their aim. What they hope is that by causing enough mayhem and killing enough Americans they will cause the American people to lose faith in their chances of winning, become discouraged by their losses, and compel their government to pull back. So it is true that the insurgents glory in every American press report which criticises the war effort and which speaks in pessimistic tones about what is happening.

Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I am compelled to say, yet again, Bush did not go into Iraq to free the Iraqi people. That line was just a convenient ass covering manouvre that came later, when his original pretext for invasion was blown.

Okay, then give me a good reason why he and Blair DID invade Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, then give me a good reason why he and Blair DID invade Iraq.

Big corporations (the ones that funded both Bush and Kerry's campaigns) are being repaid with lucrative rebuilding contracts. Neither they, nor Bush, really care that the American people are engaged in one of the largest corporate welfare schemes in the history of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Montgomery Burns,

Warmongers? Enforcing a broken ceasefire and 16 broken Chapter VII (binding) UN reolutions is now defined as "warmongering"?
There was no 'broken ceasefire', at least not one that wasn't mutual. 16 broken resolutions? The inspectors were on their way to dispelling these myths until the invasion came. There was only one, vaguely worded resolution to come out of Gulf I that had any relevance, and even then the world and the UN did not think it held any legal water (and neither did G.H.W. Bush, or Rumsfeld, Powell or Cheney).
12 of the 23 clauses in the Joint Authorization To Use Force Against Iraq (passed by Congress) talk about the broken ceasefire and broken UN resolutions.
They could have passed two hundred 'acts of congress' and invasions of countries is still against international law.

Argus,

While the quote was hyperbole, it was also, to an extent, true. The insurgents/terrorists KNOW very well they can't defeat the US militarily. That is not their aim. What they hope is that by causing enough mayhem and killing enough Americans they will cause the American people to lose faith in their chances of winning, become discouraged by their losses, and compel their government to pull back.
Excellent post, that is indeed the only strategy one can play from an 'overwhelmed position' (apart from capitulation).

The US has 'cranked up the heat' in the ME, but the risk is boiling over the pot. Can they make a 'democray soup' in the ME,, or will it boil over and burn everything to shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Montgomery Burns,

Speaking of 'exploiting the dead, I thought I already covered this subject...

Psychological warfare is one of the worst parts of war, and indeed, the darkest part of the human soul. However, it exists, and is sometimes useful, but not usually. The latest from Afghanistan suggests that the US troops might have gone 'too far'.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188024

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188022

QUOTE

"They used that as a psychological warfare, I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west," Dupont told SBS. "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them ... that's the only way they can find them."

Is there such a thing anymore as 'the moral high road'? Or has morality gone out the window, and the US can be just as bad as anyone else, with final victory the only thing that matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, then give me a good reason why he and Blair DID invade Iraq.

Big corporations (the ones that funded both Bush and Kerry's campaigns) are being repaid with lucrative rebuilding contracts. Neither they, nor Bush, really care that the American people are engaged in one of the largest corporate welfare schemes in the history of the planet.

Oh come on. Are you really going to suggest Tony Blair's Labour party made war on a third world country in order to profit big corporations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

Oh come on. Are you really going to suggest Tony Blair's Labour party made war on a third world country in order to profit big corporations?
The problem with suggestions like this is that the words 'conspiracy theory' squash any impartial investigation. Further, the words 'military industrial complex' imply the same thing, but if one looks at who is connected to whom, there is only two choices, conspiracy or coincidence.

Let's look at Halliburton, for example. Pure coincidence that they got the rebuilding (and supply) contracts for both the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq? By coincidence, I mean that a former director of the company was also the NSC advisor, and is now the vice-president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,
Oh come on. Are you really going to suggest Tony Blair's Labour party made war on a third world country in order to profit big corporations?
The problem with suggestions like this is that the words 'conspiracy theory' squash any impartial investigation. Further, the words 'military industrial complex' imply the same thing, but if one looks at who is connected to whom, there is only two choices, conspiracy or coincidence.

Let's look at Halliburton, for example. Pure coincidence that they got the rebuilding (and supply) contracts for both the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq? By coincidence, I mean that a former director of the company was also the NSC advisor, and is now the vice-president.

Blair just bought Bush's jargon that's all.

Though he probably is more at fault then Bush if for the soul reason that he had the most power to stop him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Montgomery Burns,

To the far left, this is incompetence: In a mere two-and-a-half years, Iraq has went from being run by a sadistic massmurdering, American-hating dictator, to a free society voting in elections and writing constitutions--constitutions that guarantee freedom of religion, speech and press. All while the dictator sits in jail and is now on trial and will be executed by the Iraqis.

If another dictator comes in, but rather than being American-hating turns out to support America's interests in the Middle East, do you really think Bush would care if there were ever a vote in Iraq again?

What did you think the end result would be?

A mess, just as it is turning out to be.

That's a lame argument. Hell, 80% of the military is Republicans.

As it should be, since they are the ones supporting the war. But, how many politicians' kids are overseas? If Bush is so big on the noble sacrifice of the nation's youth, why aren't his own kids enlisting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,
Oh come on. Are you really going to suggest Tony Blair's Labour party made war on a third world country in order to profit big corporations?
The problem with suggestions like this is that the words 'conspiracy theory' squash any impartial investigation. Further, the words 'military industrial complex' imply the same thing, but if one looks at who is connected to whom, there is only two choices, conspiracy or coincidence.

Let's look at Halliburton, for example. Pure coincidence that they got the rebuilding (and supply) contracts for both the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq? By coincidence, I mean that a former director of the company was also the NSC advisor, and is now the vice-president.

I don't see either conspiracy or coincidence. I see them rewarding a company they are connected to in the same way our own Liberal party often rewards companies they are connected to - and which donate to them. But there is nothing in evidence to say Bush invaded Iraq to benefit Haliburton. Do you think he arranged for Hurricaine Katrina to flood New Orleans so that could benefit Haliburton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Melanie,

If Bush is so big on the noble sacrifice of the nation's youth, why aren't his own kids enlisting?
What a 'psy-op' that would be! Those kids would be the biggest score out there for the 'terrorists'. Then, they could be 'drawn out' into a fight, instead of desecrating bodies to do it. I'm not sure the Bush kids would like being the central figures in "Operation Live Bait", though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think he arranged for Hurricaine Katrina to flood New Orleans so that could benefit Haliburton?

Wow thats weak Argus... even by your standards.

No, actually, it's entirely logical. If you'd ever had any familiarity with logic you'd understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thelionusfleabag:

There was no 'broken ceasefire', at least not one that wasn't mutual. 16 broken resolutions? The inspectors were on their way to dispelling these myths until the invasion came. There was only one, vaguely worded resolution to come out of Gulf I that had any relevance, and even then the world and the UN did not think it held any legal water (and neither did G.H.W. Bush, or Rumsfeld, Powell or Cheney).

That's not true. There was a ceasefire and Saddam's Iraq agreed to it. And why the casual dismissal of the 16 broken resolutions?

They could have passed two hundred 'acts of congress' and invasions of countries is still against international law.

What are you saying? Is it against international law to enforce international law? Or is there some World Body that control US policy by overruling elected US representatives in the Senate and the House of Representatives, i.e., Congress?

Melanie:

As it should be, since they are the ones supporting the war. But, how many politicians' kids are overseas? If Bush is so big on the noble sacrifice of the nation's youth, why aren't his own kids enlisting?

I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Montgomery Burns,

Speaking of 'exploiting the dead, I thought I already covered this subject...

Psychological warfare is one of the worst parts of war, and indeed, the darkest part of the human soul. However, it exists, and is sometimes useful, but not usually. The latest from Afghanistan suggests that the US troops might have gone 'too far'.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188024

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/WorldNF....rticleID=188022

QUOTE

"They used that as a psychological warfare, I guess you'd call it. They used the fact that the Taliban were burned facing west," Dupont told SBS. "They deliberately wanted to incite that much anger from the Taliban so the Taliban could attack them ... that's the only way they can find them."

Is there such a thing anymore as 'the moral high road'? Or has morality gone out the window, and the US can be just as bad as anyone else, with final victory the only thing that matters?

Your links didn't work, but I think I know what incident you are talking about. Get back to me when US soldiers start beheading and Associated Press: Halliburton Contractor Burned Alive by Terrorists..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Montgomery Burns,

And why the casual dismissal of the 16 broken resolutions?
Most of the resolutions pertaining to Iraq date from the first Gulf War, circa1990, and had the weapons inspectors been allowed to complete their work, most would have been found 'in compliance'. The UK, especially, wanted firmer grounds to legitimize the use of force against Iraq. Even so, their prima facie case was Iraq possessing illegal weapons, the bulk of the outstanding resolutions, were not found before (or even after) the invasion. Nowhere in the UN resolutions was there anything regarding 'regime change', nor granting unilateral power to any nation to interpret and execute any UN Resolution.

Besides, 16 is a paltry number.

The media is so pro-american and right wing, it often doesn't even report resolutions passed against the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument.  :ph34r:

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of the chickenhawk VS the liberal chickensh*ts argument.   :ph34r:

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there.

"Technically" their lives aren't more important than the average American BUT regardless of "that" there is no way they could be allowed to fight in Iraq because, whether you like it or not, they would be the target...

Can you imagine kidnappers capturing them and saying..."troops out or your daughters lives???" Bush would never allow for his family to be put in such a position and I don't blame him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...