Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq now is like handing Germany back to Nazis
Reuters via Haaretz ^ | 19/03/2006

Posted on 03/19/2006 4:33:38 AM PST by Hannah Senesh

Leaving Iraq now would be like handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," he wrote in an essay in The Washington Post.

Rumsfeld said "the terrorists" were trying to fuel sectarian tensions to spark a civil war, but they must be "watching with fear" the progress in the country over the past three years.

In London, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday that Iraq is in a civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

Rumsfeld's view was that the Iraqi insurgency was failing. "The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case," he wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at haaretzdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 3rdanniversary; cutandrun; iraq; rumsfeld

1 posted on 03/19/2006 4:33:43 AM PST by Hannah Senesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh
Hmm. This sounds like it might be an unfortunate comparison. To apply responsibility to us for a centuries old blood, soaked legacy, and compare it to the permanent termination of a regime that had existed for no more than 30 years?

I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate.
2 posted on 03/19/2006 4:38:27 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starbase

The Baathists drew much of their ideology, organization, and methods of "governance" from the Nazis. Given the nature of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.


3 posted on 03/19/2006 4:42:49 AM PST by Terpfen (72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh
"Rumsfeld: Leaving Iraq now is like handing Germany back to Nazis"

No, it would be more like handing Germany over to the Russians. Saddam and his thugs are gone, but the neighbors make for an equally inhumane alternative.
4 posted on 03/19/2006 4:44:13 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh

This is not going to happen.


5 posted on 03/19/2006 4:44:30 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I agree.


6 posted on 03/19/2006 4:44:30 AM PST by Hannah Senesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: starbase
"I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate."

I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

Some of course believe that is not our responsibility, but they may prefer to live under the threat of such violence or be a part of it.
7 posted on 03/19/2006 4:45:25 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh

Don't give the DNC any ideas.


8 posted on 03/19/2006 4:46:08 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Given the nature of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.

But what about the length of time that murderous tendencies have been the preferred strategy in Islam and between Islamic groups (Shiite vs Sunni), as opposed to the anomaly such systematic, genocidal murder was among Europeans?

Don't you think engaging in that activity for centuries shows it is a permanent part of the culture, which would require many decades of occupation to eradicate? They've been at this for 1400 years.
9 posted on 03/19/2006 4:48:06 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
"it would be more like handing Germany over to the Russians."

You mean like FDR did at Yalta?

Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at Yalta in 1945.

There was agreement that the priority was the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After the war, the country would be split into four occupied zones, with a quadripartite occupation of Berlin as well. Stalin agreed to let France get the fourth occupation zone in Germany and Austria, carved out from the British and American zones. France would also be granted a seat in the Allied Control Council.

Poland which the Nazis invaded and which started the war was handed over by FDR to Stalin:The status of Poland was discussed but was complicated by the fact that Poland by this time was under the control of the Red Army. It was agreed to reorganize the Provisionary Polish Government that had been set up by the Red Army through the inclusion of other groups as the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity to be followed by democratic elections. (This effectively excluded the exile Polish government that had formed in London).

 

 

10 posted on 03/19/2006 4:54:58 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer

We cannot win a PC war, and you cannot win a war where your enemies are allowed safe harbour. But, more to the point, we cannot fight a faceless enemy; it is hard to prove intent until after the man has acted.


11 posted on 03/19/2006 4:55:46 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer
I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

Frankly, that's why a lot of people are pulling for us to lose. Not that they like the dangerous regimes, per se, but that they see us as the biggest threat to world peace.

Of course, they define 'world peace' as far as 'what I see America doing on the news'. The world is stacked to the roof with conflict, suffering, and violence, but so long as we're not involved in trying to stop it, liberals really don't care.

12 posted on 03/19/2006 4:57:30 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh

I can see Iran jumping into the fray and taking over if we were to pull out now. Iran's government is the new "Nazi" equivalent. So, Rumsfeld's analogy is correct.


13 posted on 03/19/2006 4:57:36 AM PST by marvlus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh
no problems here. the objections to the "Nazi Germany" remark must be based on some historical distinction that dogs like me aren't aware of.

I'm glad as all get-out that he wrote that. wonder how much it cost to get it printed in the WP.

14 posted on 03/19/2006 5:04:32 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (...a capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer
You mean like FDR did at Yalta?

Yup, it would be the same mistake all over again.

Our best move would be to immediately destroy Iran's oil port infrastructure. Thereby cutting its government off from both negotiable currency and political leverage. After that the world would be on our backs to get it done, and kill them all; so long as we restore its crack oil supply immediately.
15 posted on 03/19/2006 5:05:11 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh

Perhaps if Colin Powell had managed to actually visit Turkey at least once in 2003 while demanding to launch ground troops from their territory, we could have had a much easier time, both with additional troops to capture domestic rebels, and to defend the region where much of the foreign "insurgents" were able to enter. In 1990, James Baker visited Turkey 3 times and Bush called the P.M. several times as well, to insure their cooperation through mutual respect. My Turkish friend showed me cartoons in their papers of Turkey as a lapdog for Bush that appeared before the invasion. Powell's failure to visit Turkey was a cause of great anger. The fact that we were offering them $30 billion meant nothing to them. They were furious at the lack of respect. He said Turks would rather lose the $30b rather than be treated like sh*t. Powell was an incompetant SoS, and our job in Iraq was made unneccessarily difficult because of the Turkish fiasco.


16 posted on 03/19/2006 5:06:42 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starbase

What government, civilization, or other form of controlling authority has not resorted to violence at some point in its existence? Murder and explosions are not Muslim-exclusive.

Leaving Iraq now would be to return it to the Baath Party. The Baath Party are essentially Arab Nazis. Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.


17 posted on 03/19/2006 5:06:46 AM PST by Terpfen (72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
What government, civilization, or other form of controlling authority has not resorted to violence at some point in its existence? Murder and explosions are not Muslim-exclusive.

You understate the argument. Islam's sole purpose is conquest of the world through violence, and they have ruled that area for 14 centuries, making them synonymous with the culture there. Like an onion, there's nothing but more onion under each peel. I might go so far as to claim that not only are the Baath party the equivalent of Nazis, but Muslims are the equivalent of Nazis.

But I am interested in your opinion, what will happen if we wait long enough? And I'm not arguing that we should leave now, only that I don't think the culture will change no matter how long we stay there, unlike the 30 year regime in Germany which had a chance of being reversed through an adequate duration of occupation.
18 posted on 03/19/2006 5:14:17 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

He doesn't know civil war.


19 posted on 03/19/2006 5:14:23 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer
I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

We did win in Iraq, within a few days. But a lack of will to be sufficiently brutal has kept us there much longer than needed. And of course we are just a pathetic at securing the Iraqi borders as we are our own. So the Saudis and Chechens have streamed in through Syria, and IED parts have streamed in through Iran. All in all, stupidity from the top, unworthy of our fine fighting men.

20 posted on 03/19/2006 5:14:51 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: starbase

A better comparison would be our failure to stop the Kremlin in the 20's.

This led to WWII and Korea and VietNam - We could have crushed the Russians in the 20's with few losses but we didn't and it cost us millions in lives and billions in dollars and lost opportunities.


21 posted on 03/19/2006 5:17:41 AM PST by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer

Great Post


22 posted on 03/19/2006 5:18:20 AM PST by spanalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: starbase

I'm not understating the argument at all. Iraq is not a historically unique situation, the Baathists are not a historically unique political party. We're not discussing the nature of Islam, we're discussing a comparison made by the Secretary of Defense--one that is correct.

As far as waiting goes, I wouldn't classify what we're doing as waiting. We are training the Iraqi army, rooting out terrorists and their caches, and changing the geopolitical climate of the middle east. All of that requires a substantial amount of effort, not waiting.


23 posted on 03/19/2006 5:18:39 AM PST by Terpfen (72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
We cannot win a PC war, and you cannot win a war where your enemies are allowed safe harbour. But, more to the point, we cannot fight a faceless enemy; it is hard to prove intent until after the man has acted.

I have to respectfully disagree to a point... we are installing democratic institutions and frameworks in both Afghanistan and Iraq; these actions don't make the headline news, but it gives those peoples the chance to live in free societies instead of fear societies and eventually let them be in control of their own destiny.

Which is almost 180 degrees different than the mistake that "we" made in the Palestinian elections: the people had no semblance of any freedom with the PA controlling every facet of their existence, so of course the vote for Hamas was anything but free. It was a vote based on fear, and their fear was that they wanted anything but what their choice was before, Fatah.

24 posted on 03/19/2006 5:18:53 AM PST by American in Singapore (Liberals: Their ignorance and stupidity is becoming dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marvlus

Rumsfeld was DEAD-ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LLS


25 posted on 03/19/2006 5:20:58 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television."

Tell this punk-assed b!tch that a Civil War is more like 500,000 dead, 50,000 dead per major battle, and a generation disappears due to genocide! What a pant-load this puke is.

I'll go one better... if you are against the War in Iraq, you are a Traitor to every American that served, serves, died, or was wounded... and you are a Traitor to this Nation! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH ENEMIES LIKE THAT... other than to KILL them all!

LLS
26 posted on 03/19/2006 5:28:20 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer
I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq

The simple fact is we can win in Iraq. The way we win in Iraq is to win in Iran and win in Syria.

27 posted on 03/19/2006 5:30:32 AM PST by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Ah now I understand:

We're not discussing the nature of Islam

In my opinion, the nature of Islam is the root issue in all of this, and not just its nature, but the length of time it has been the sole cultural force in that area, but that's just my opinion and maybe it's not correct.

As far as waiting goes, I wouldn't classify what we're doing as waiting. We are training the Iraqi army, rooting out terrorists and their caches, and changing the geopolitical climate of the middle east. All of that requires a substantial amount of effort, not waiting.

Yes, that's a fair distinction. "Waiting" is not the right word, we're doing many things. But whether anything we do will "change the geopolitical climate of the middle east" is the big question. History implies the negative. But I do hope you are correct.

I personally don't think we can teach this old dog new tricks.
28 posted on 03/19/2006 5:32:58 AM PST by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
The simple fact is we can win in Iraq.

We are winning in Iraq.

The media just won't tell you the truth.

29 posted on 03/19/2006 5:36:45 AM PST by Allegra (Please pray for peace in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

Who peed in AllAwi's Wheaties this morning? And I usually respect what he has to say. He tendS to be very reasonable.

Here goes again:

THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ.

30 posted on 03/19/2006 5:40:02 AM PST by Allegra (Please pray for peace in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
We are winning in Iraq.

Of course we are winning but it isn't a win until the game ends which I suspect will be much sooner than any of the media pundits realizes.

31 posted on 03/19/2006 5:41:53 AM PST by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: montag813
But a lack of will to be sufficiently brutal has kept us there much longer than needed. ... All in all, stupidity from the top, unworthy of our fine fighting men.

You are exactly right. By trying to fight the 'kindler and gentler' war, we allowed the problems to spiral out of control, and the problem has now dragged on for years because of it. Iraq should have been a closed deal by 2004, but we allowed bureaucrats, lawyers, and the media to turn a first rate victory into a third rate stalemate.

32 posted on 03/19/2006 5:46:45 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
Of course we are winning but it isn't a win until the game ends which I suspect will be much sooner than any of the media pundits realizes.

Late last year, I predicted that 2006 would be the year it becomes very difficult for the media to conceal the progress that is happening in Iraq.

I stand by that prediction.

33 posted on 03/19/2006 5:51:34 AM PST by Allegra (Please pray for peace in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: American in Singapore

Democratic institutions are things that evolve over time. it is neither a piece of paper, nor a ballot box; but, a sense of respect for politicians who have developed a track record over time. The only thing that we have installed is some of the paraphenelia for democracy; real democracy is still many decades away, and can only build from the grass roots if we administer the affairs of the state to allow enough stability for it to take hold.


34 posted on 03/19/2006 5:52:29 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Late last year, I predicted that 2006 would be the year it becomes very difficult for the media to conceal the progress that is happening in Iraq.

I felt that way in early 2004, but as time and events wore on, I realized that we were mismanaging the whole deal badly, and that we were in for a long, ugly ride. I'm afraid that 2006 is far too optimistic an assesment. There will be bad news coming out of Iraq for the next few years, and what good news there is will be easily overlooked by the media.

35 posted on 03/19/2006 5:59:01 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
The only thing that we have installed is some of the paraphenelia for democracy;

We haven't even really done that. What Iraq needed was a strong, Gen MacArthur-like figure to step in and force a new constitution down on them. Iraqi society needed to be reorganized in the same way that Japanese society was, and allowed to evolve from training-wheels democracy to the real thing.

Instead, we've left them to what could be a decades long effort at a point in history where we don't really have that kind of time. And they're trying to do it in a neighborhood that has a lot to gain by making them fail or corrupting the process.

36 posted on 03/19/2006 6:06:19 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

That pretty much sums it up for me.


37 posted on 03/19/2006 6:19:23 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hannah Senesh; All

.


NEVER FORGET



After we were fooled,

...thru Anti-Freedom voices we heard on our TV's,

...into leaving the then Free people of South Vietnam behind to their fate at the hands of heavily Soviet-backed godless Communist bullies from the North came...


Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts




Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-1st Major Battles in the fight for Freedom of the Vietnam War 1965-66

(Pictures of another color)
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm


NEVER FORGET

.


38 posted on 03/19/2006 6:25:04 AM PST by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
I felt that way in early 2004, but as time and events wore on...

I first arrived in January '04 and didn't feel very optimistic then. And it got even bleaker (I'm sure you remember April '04) before it started getting better.

Having been here over two years now, I've seen great strides, mostly in the last year. I've seen them, but I don't ever hear the news talking about that.

I really feel that things are progressing well and in the right direction. There are setbacks like the shrine bombing and there will be setbacks to come. But I really see this whole situation getting better all the time.

We can agree to disagree. And thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service.

39 posted on 03/19/2006 6:27:01 AM PST by Allegra (Please pray for peace in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
Having been here over two years now, I've seen great strides, mostly in the last year. I've seen them, but I don't ever hear the news talking about that.

I have no doubt whatsoever that we're eventually going to win. The good news does add up, regardless of whether or not the media reports it. The bad guys are beat, and don't have even the slightest chance of victory. They just won't stay down, and the power of their desperate attacks they make during their long, agonizing death is magnified and amplified by the press coverage.

I used to get so angry at the media that I wouldn't even watch the news, even Fox. Now, that I've been back in the leisurely comfort of my armchair for a while, and have cooled off, I find that my perspective has changed and matured some.

I expect the media to lie and distort, but we really should have been ready for that. I know that we're going to win in Iraq, as I'm sure you do, but we should have done it sooner, because we have more work ahead of us. We lose our global standing the longer we're mired in Iraq, and we need that standing for the work that still remains to be done.

Anyway, stay safe, and have fun working on your tan. Next time I'm in Baghdad, dinner's on me. ;-)

40 posted on 03/19/2006 6:44:08 AM PST by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

"We cannot win a PC war", AMEN brother! LBJ tried that in Vietnam and men died for no good reason.


41 posted on 03/19/2006 7:31:50 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

I believe we are on the same page.

Did Shock and Awe work in Iraq? You bet you’re a— it did.

We may have a civil war in Iraq, as we did in the US, but we also have elections not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, and Bush has virtually banished the hold that Damascus had on Lebanon. 

While the same liberal green earth protectors will allow the scorched earth tactics of Saddam Hussein to go unpunished, while they lobby congress for a woman’s right to choose, they decry the actions of this administration that have resulted in freeing millions of women in the Arab world of a more brutal repression of their wills.

The same weak-kneed naysayers who were telling us that by interfering in Arab countries we would ignite a firestorm of hatred and terror have conveniently ignored the fact that as a result of the policies of this Republican Whitehouse, Libya has surrendered WMD’s, tens of thousands of Chritians, Druze, and Muslims, as well as Sunnis and Shi’a formed an unprecedented coalition and marched in the streets of Lebanon which ended the reign of Hariri’s Syrian-backed replacement caved into the demands of the coalition reformers.

Tell them we have heard their counsel and warnings and we chose to follow our President and his administration. We chose a leader with vision and strength who has proven that his policies are working. We reject their pessimism and deploy their politics of anti-warism to gain power. Their policies have emboldened our enemies, have put Americans in harms way and they risk our national security. Tell them that we abhor the ugly insinuation that our finest and bravest men and women are worse then terrorists.

Tell them we do not believe their propaganda about how the president lied and how his policies are failing. Tell them to join us or we will stand against them in the next election.

42 posted on 03/19/2006 8:04:15 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: starbase

the question that should be asked by those advocating a loss in Iraq, because that is what a withdrawl would be, is what then?

Does anyone think we could lose in Iraq and not lose in Afghanistan?


43 posted on 03/19/2006 8:08:09 AM PST by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: starbase
"In London, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday that Iraq is in a civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East."
Iyad Allawi, former Ba'athist and deposed Iraqi leader, has been saying this since last summer. Duh.
44 posted on 03/19/2006 8:20:07 AM PST by Nevermore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: montag813
We are on the same page. Indeed the national press has inoculated our military with a tranquilizer. It is no coincidence that the liberals have chosen to castigate our military leaders for the misdeeds of a few overly exuberant soldiers at Abu Gharib. The lesson the American public has yet to learn from Vietnam is that our enemy is the national press. We lost in Vietnam because of a president LBJ who being a typical liberal did not understand the distinction between Democracy and Totalitarianism, and because the national press wanted an end to American "occupation" of South Vietnam, the American public gave up the fight.  Nothing has changed. Until the alternate media gains enough power and influence over Americans through the dissemination of information without a liberal bias, Americans will continue to be convinced that our Military is feckless and useless against terrorism.  God Bless America, Fox News and the Internet.
45 posted on 03/19/2006 8:22:14 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bkepley
If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is

I agree that "God knows", and we do, but obviously Iyad doesn't.
Any bunch of nuts with half a brain between them could make sure that 50-60 Americans per day died. If they found just one Saudi sugar-daddy to support it, and no strategic goal other than striking terror, I'm sure they could continue it indefinitely and avoid being caught - perhaps until & unless martial law took over. That doesn't create an American "civil war"; that's terrorism.

46 posted on 03/19/2006 8:36:00 AM PST by Nevermore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: American in Singapore
we are installing democratic institutions and frameworks in both Afghanistan and Iraq; these actions don't make the headline news, but it gives those peoples the chance to live in free societies instead of fear societies and eventually let them be in control of their own destiny.

I could not agree more with this statement. I thought a little history from what I consider to be a liberal website would highlight the fact that liberty always comes at a price. Someone said "freedom is not free".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

"Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organized armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution. In the United States, and in American-dominated sources, the term 'the civil war' almost always means the American Civil War, with other civil wars noted or inferred from context." The term English Civil War (or Wars) refers to the series of armed conflicts and political machinations which took place between English Parliamentarians and Royalists from 1642 until 1651. The first (1642–1645) and the second (1648–1649) civil wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–1651) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The third war ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on September 3, 1651.

So what's new about the terror in Iraq? Nothing, it is the natural consequence of change.


47 posted on 03/19/2006 8:37:20 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hflynn
The simple fact is we can win in Iraq. The way we win in Iraq is to win in Iran and win in Syria.

Certainly all countries who support terrorism must be neutralized. We must also embolden the populations of these oppressive governments by a show of strength that exceeds the threats of their governments. But we will need the Ted Kennedy's of our government to join us in the fight instead of standing in our way. Pray for Teddy, perhaps only God can change his attitude at this point.

 

48 posted on 03/19/2006 8:43:08 AM PST by street_lawyer (Conservative Defender of the Faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer
But we will need the Ted Kennedy's of our government to join us in the fight instead of standing in our way. Pray for Teddy, perhaps only God can change his attitude at this point.

LOL! As Manuel Rodriquez would say, We don't need no stinking Ted Kennedy! Pray for Ted? Let Green Peace save the whales.

49 posted on 03/19/2006 9:48:54 AM PST by hflynn ( Soros wouldn't make any sense even if he spelled his name backwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: street_lawyer

The first step, in winning this war, is to get rid of the press; including prosecuting anyone who publishes anything other then the official line for treason. Just do that; take away the sounding board for those who have committed themselves to terror, and it will end quickly.


50 posted on 03/19/2006 9:57:40 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson