Why we must win in Iraq......

[dec5]

God bless her and her family.....this is something you won't hear much in the main stream media...

Folks like this lady is what our soldiers are fighting for.

THE EXECUTION OF ATWAR BAHJAT


Bahjat advocated the unity of Iraq and saw her golden locket as a symbol of her belief. She put it with her customary on-air eloquence on the last day of her life: “Whether you are a Sunni, a Shi’ite or a Kurd, there is no difference between Iraqis united in fear for this nation.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168496,00.html

[moskva]

there's a perfectly good way for u to do just that. go to the nearest army recruitment office, and sign up. nothing could be simpler. ;-)))

[moxie]

God bless her and her family.....this is something you won't hear much in the main stream media...

Folks like this lady is what our soldiers are fighting for.

THE EXECUTION OF ATWAR BAHJAT




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168496,00.html

Well, since you found the story in the very mainstream Sunday Times of London, I don't get your statement that you wouldn't hear it much in the mainstream media ...

[dec5]

there's a perfectly good way for u to do just that. go to the nearest army recruitment office, and sign up. nothing could be simpler. ;-)))

If we lose this war....we both won't have go to Iraq....the terrorist will come to the west and we both can fight them here...;)



Well, since you found the story in the very mainstream Sunday Times of London, I don't get your statement that you wouldn't hear it much in the mainstream media ...

The Sunday Times of London is not really what I
call the main stream media in the US, I haven't seen
this woman's name mentioned anywhere on the big
3 networks.. Kinda sad...oh well....

[moxie]

The Sunday Times of London is not really what I
call the main stream media in the US, I haven't seen
this woman's name mentioned anywhere on the big
3 networks.. Kinda sad...oh well....

Well, I guess unless something is mentioned by the "big 3 networks" in the U.S., it just doesn't count as being mentioned ... never mind that "mainstream media" also refers to CNN, Fox, major newspapers, magazines, radio and the internet -- not just in the U.S. but worldwide.

I just Googled this woman's name & got nearly 50 recent hits, including the Boston Globe and ABC Online. She has received a number of posthumous awards from U.S. journalism organizations; some of the stories were about that.

Remember, her execution took place more than a month ago and she was not a well-known name in the Western world. Many journalists are killed each year doing their jobs around the world; unfortunately, we don't hear about most of them because their names wouldn't mean anything to U.S. audiences.

[4dogknight]

I guess I don't understand the theme of this thread.
We should win Iraq because:

1. Win because - An Iraqi TV correspondent was murdered by one of the two warring Islamic religious factions. Is it a good idea for the US to get involved in religious factions?

2. Win how? Militarily, economically, strategically or any way we can and look good doing it (or look like we know what we are doing).

3. Win what? Love of an invaded and conquered nation, good will of the region, self satisfaction, American construction contracts, oil, win a couple of congressional seats, deplete the American coffers or just because we are Americans.

4dogknight

[dec5]

I guess I don't understand the theme of this thread.
We should win Iraq because:

1. Win because - An Iraqi TV correspondent was murdered by one of the two warring Islamic religious factions. Is it a good idea for the US to get involved in religious factions?



4dogknight


Our main goal now is to help the Iraqi military and government to be strong enough to fight Al queda and the Syrian and Iranian infiltrators...so far the Iraqi are getting stronger and the number of terrorist actions to incite a full blown civil war has failed so far. The Shie's,Sunnis and Kurds have held together..which is what the reporter died for. This is how I see her fit into the overall reason why we should prevail IMO.



Our troops continue to build effective Iraqi units. What we need only is time......not more troops. GW today has put a hold on any more rotations of troops....this means more US service people will come home.





2. Win how? Militarily, economically, strategically or any way we can and look good doing it (or look like we know what we are doing).

Leaving a effective Iraqi fighting force and stable government. So far the
Iraqi government has met every deadline. Another point is that Al queda is
now concentrating all it's strength in Iraq against US forces...which means
less resource to attack the US.


U.S. Sees Drop in Terrorist Threats
Al Qaeda Focusing Attacks in Iraq and Europe, Officials Say

By Dana Priest and Spencer Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 1, 2005; Page A01

Reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States are at their lowest level since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to U.S. intelligence officials and federal and state law enforcement authorities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043000704.html






3. Win what? Love of an invaded and conquered nation, good will of the region, self satisfaction, American construction contracts, oil, win a couple of congressional seats, deplete the American coffers or just because we are Americans.

4dogknight

The Iraqi people and their future is linked with us....we lose there...the winners of the war will come here....and finish what they
started....they won't stop in Iraq....there will be no peace until the US and Israel are destroyed.

These pictures from the US army are the reason why we will win.

http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=10203
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=10143
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=10200
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=9938

http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=9827

And these folks....which Al queda would love to kill with no second thought.....are why our soldiers are so dedicated in their duties.


http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=7407


Sorry for not being more clear of the theme of the thread.....

[manskater]

Somehow I don't see how we win a war which this president lied and manipulated info to start. Our troops should come home now to prevent any more loss of American lives.

[Krista]

I have a feeling that if our troops come home, then the war would just be brought over here instead. And until they get the border situation under control I'm torn as to whether thats the best thing to do or not.

[Lisa Seye]

Krista, I agree with you. While none of us may agree on whether or not it was a mistake to go, in my opinion now that we are there, we cannot leave just yet (and we may never be able to leave). Also, we most definitely need to get the borders under control. It is simply too easy to come into the U.S.. There was a local story about the police aresting a man for new crimes who had already been arrested once and deported. So, how did he get back in? I say tighten the borders and become more strict in who is allowed into the country. My husband agrees that the laws are too lax and the border controls are shoddy and he is an immigrant, now a citizen. They also need better documentation systems. My husband's brother entered the country and had a one day lay over before his flight from New York to Canada. He took his flight out, but someone neglected to record it or check the records. Nine months later, INS (as it was then) showed up at my mom's house with the FBI and state police wanting to know where he was. Well he flew out to Canada the day after he entered the U.S. and went on to college in Canada. Did they even bother checking that out? Sure it is great they were checking it out as they should, but how about checking the departing flight records or checking with the school he was enrolled in? With shoddy work like this I really fear for the country. Millions stream into the U.S. daily and we have no way of stemming the flow even after five years. I don't want our troops (including some of my loved ones) over there getting killed any more than the next person, but do we want that kind of existence here on our own soil? Do we want our children growing up with bus bombs, buildings exploding, living in fear daily? Not me. So I cannot see any answer in this. This is why I fear we may never fully pull out of there.

[Louise1991]

I don't want our troops (including some of my loved ones) over there getting killed any more than the next person, but do we want that kind of existence here on our own soil? Do we want our children growing up with bus bombs, buildings exploding, living in fear daily? Not me. So I cannot see any answer in this. This is why I fear we may never fully pull out of there.i don't want our troops getting killed over there and i don't want that kind of existence on our soil either. but i don't buy we were justified in instigating this kind of existence on somebody else's soil or that lack of military action on our part against Iraq would have resulted in this kind of existence to occur on our soil. it's a mess now that's for sure and i agree we just can't leave without stabliizing the place. hopefully, somehow we will be able to leave Iraq as a place where bus bombs and exploding buildings stop and the people are no longer living in fear.

[Lisa Seye]

I agree Louise. I hope we will somehow be able to pull out also. I am not too optimistic about it, though. I think this might continue until the day that time ends for all of us on Earth.

[Yenezie]

According to David McGarry:

"Last weekend, I had the pleasure of spending my time scuba diving with a couple of Americans who were having a break from duties in Iraq. Both were ex-military and now working as civilian.

Their comments on Iraq were vastly different than how the mainstream media portray the progress in Iraq. In summary, they both said morale amongst troops and civilian contractors is high, and everyone believes if the Iraqis can overcome their mutual distrust of the other cultural groups in the country, things will improve dramatically for them.

Apparently, about 85 truck drivers have died since 2003. As thousands of people have had that job over the past three years, it means 99.something drivers have survived. Those may be dreadful odds for an office worker in London or New York, but my truck driver diving buddy didn't seem fazed by the odds.

Most of the people who work on civilian contracts in Iraq are making good money, but hardly the kind of sums you would need to entice people to a real warzone. Standard pay for non-specialized jobs is about $20 per hour, with 12 hour-shifts 7days a week. In other words, they can make $6,500-7,000 per month, which is what you could expect for many expat positions around the world. For someone without a college education, this is attractive money, but not the kind of figures that would tempt someone into a hellhole.

I got the impression most people who really know what's going on are quite supportive of the US-led coalition and President Bush, and deeply sceptical of the Democrats' divisive politics. They are well aware that Bush and his team have made mistakes, but believe they are doing their best at a job that hasn't been attempted before.

I was friends with three western hostages in Iraq who were murdered, so I am well aware of what can go wrong if people make mistakes over there. There is a relatively small group of hard core terrorists who are hell bent on preventing peace and democracy from taking root in Iraq because it is against their vital interests. These murderers are aided and abetted by neighbouring Iran and Syria whose governments also have a vested interest in preventing Iraq from achieiving peace and prosperity.

Overcoming these enemies of freedom takes time and costs lives. Compared to the carnage of similar clashes between the forces of freedom and tyranny, this is an extremely low-intensity conflict which will gradually peter out once those Iraqis who truly want peace are able to find enough common ground with similar minded people from other groups within their country."

[4dogknight]

Yenezie, who is David McGarry and what is the source of the quote?

A link is always helpful to support the veracity of any quote.

4dogknight

[Yenezie]

4dogknight, okey dokey. Hope I get this right, http://www.marksteyn.com/ and go to mailbox where people write in fawning over Mr. Steyn's acerbic writing style. Actually it is not all fawning, most write in from all over the world contributing personal stories that affirm Steyn's perception of the going-ons in the mad mad world.

[Yenezie]

By Naseer Flayih Hasan in 2005: (google him)

"Before the last war, we Iraqis spent decades cut off from the outside world. Not only did the Baathist regime prevent us from traveling during the Iran-Iraq conflict and the period of the sanctions, but they punished anyone possessing satellite television. And of course, internet access was strictly limited. Because of our isolation, most of us had little idea or sense about life beyond our borders.

We did believe, however, that democracy and human rights were important factors in Western civilization. So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America’s build-up to the invasion of our country. We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades. We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq, they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.

My first clue that this would not happen was a few weeks after Baghdad fell. I had befriended a French reporter who had begun to realize that the situation in Iraq was not how the international media or the so-called “peace camp” described it. I noticed, however, that whenever he tried to voice his doubts to colleagues, they argued that he was wrong. Soon afterwards, I met a Dutch woman on Mutinabi Street, where booksellers lay out their wares on Friday morning. I asked her how long she’d been in Iraq and, through a translator, she answered, “Three months.”

“So you were here during the war?”

“Yes!” she said. “To see the crimes of the Americans!”

I was stunned. After a moment, I replied, “What about the crimes of the regime? It killed millions of Iraqis. Do you know that if the regime was still in power, the conversation we’re having now would result in our torture or death?”

Her face turned red and she angrily responded, “Soon will come the day that the Americans will do worse.” She then went on to accuse me of not knowing what the true facts were in Iraq—and that she could see the situation better than me!

She was not the only “humanitarian” who expressed such outrageous opinions. One afternoon, I was speaking to some members of the American anti-war group “Voices in the Wilderness.” One of the group’s members declared that the Iraqi Governing Council (then in power at the time) were “traitors.” I was shocked. Most of the Council were people whom we Iraqis knew had suffered and sacrificed in a long struggle against the regime. Some represented opposition parties who had lost ten of thousand of members in that struggle. Others came from families who had lost up to 30 loved ones to the Baathists.

After those, and many other, experiences, we finally comprehended how little we had in common with these “peace activists” who constantly decried American crimes, and hated to listen to us talk about the terrible long nightmare that ended with the collapse of the regime. We came to understand how these “humanitarians” experienced a sort of pleasure when terrorists or former remnants of the regime created destruction in Iraq—just so they could feel that they were right, and the Americans wrong!

Worse, we realized it was hopeless to make them grasp our feelings. We believed—and still believe--that America’s removal of the regime opened a new way for democracy. At the same time, we have no illusions that the U.S. came to Iraq on a white horse to save our people. We understand this war is all about national interests, and that America’s interests are mainly about defeating terrorism. At this moment, though, U.S. interests are doing more to bring about democracy and freedom in Iraq than, say, the policies of France and Russia—countries which also care little for the Iraqi people and, worse, did their best to save Saddam from destruction until the last moment.

It’s worth noting, as well, that the general attitude of peace activists I met was tension and anger. They were impossible to reason with. This was because, on one hand, the sometimes considerable risks they took to oppose the war made them unable to accept the fact that their cause was not as noble as they believed. Then, too, their dogmatic anti-American attitudes naturally drew them to guides, translators, drivers and Iraqi acquaintances who were themselves supporters of the regime. These Iraqis, in turn, affected the peace activists until they came to share almost the same judgments and opinions as the terrorists and defenders of Saddam.

This was very disappointing for someone like me, who thought for decades that the Left was generally the progressive power in the world. You can imagine how aghast I was when my French reporter friend told me that the Communist Party in his country actually considers the “insurgents” to be the equivalent of the French Gaullists! Or how troubling it is to hear Jacques Chirac take satisfaction from the violence wreaked by the terrorists—those bloody monsters that we Iraqis know so well—because they justify France’s original opposition to the war.

And so I have become disillusioned, at least with the Leftists I met in Iraq. So noble in their rhetoric, they looked to the stars, yet ignored what was happening around them, caring only about what was inside their minds. So glorious in their ideals, their thoughts were inflexible and their deeds unnecessary, even harmful. In the end, they proved to me how dogma and fanaticism had transform peace activists into—lifeless peace “statues.” "

[shellyfan]

We have made it very easy for Al-Queda to kill Americans -- we sent them over to Iraq with big targets on them. We can certainly find a better use for our military than that!
We have made such a mess in Iraq there is no good solution. The least bad solution is to allow Iraq to partition itself like Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia -- there will be problems but that is going to be the end result regardless whether we stay one year or ten years.
It is not America's business to protect Turkey from its decades of discrimination against the Kurds. Let there be a Kurdistan and let Turkey deal with it. Let the Sunnis have the center and the Shiites the south. Perhaps a Shiite-land might even be a bridge to Iran -- we can't control Iran -- we have to co-exist with it so there has to be dialogue. The more the US threatens and postures the more strength the Islamic fundamentalists have in a united Iran against the USA bully.
The key understanding for us leaving Iraq is these factions cannot permit an Al-Queda sanctuary there. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds should be warned if Al-Queda finds a sanctuary we're back to destroy Al-Queda but only Al-Queda. Let these groups govern themselves however they want to. We cannot dictate religion, culture or government philosophy. They first need stability and then evolve their own systems.
If they want to be one country they can do it. I really don't think there is such a country as Iraq. Iraq was invented by the UK early last century and they appointed a king and drew artificial boundaries. It is not our job to force these folks to stay married --- it is their's.
There is no such thing as victory here. Best we can do is eliminate the US military as a rallying point for hatred against the US and try to help stop the killing.

[Louise1991]

about 85 truck drivers have died since 2003. I always wonder about those who have died, not just the 85, but the thousands of Iraqi's, if they would agree that Dubya and Company are so wonderful. We will never know.....my take is that we take the loss of the lives pretty lightly. Only 85 truck drives died. Wow. How wonderful....not...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

[Yenezie]

Saddam Hussein, by conservative estimates, killed 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran).

Only 60,000 Iraqies died under Saddam every year. Wow. How wonderful....not...

So what if Saddam is still in power, would Iran be making such a fuss? Scenerio, lets go back to the year 2000, pre-election. Bush & Gore are neck and neck. Saddam has the France, Russia, Germany & the UN in his pocket book. Not coincidentally, France, Germany, and Russia were talking at the UN about lifting sanctions on Iraq. Only the US was holding out. If Gore had won the 2000 election, would he have opted for the new, looser, "smart sanctions"? Most likely he would have and that would have allowed Saddam to rev up his WMD program into active mode. (Feeling safer yet?)

Now consider the fact Saddam had been cozying up to al Qaeda for the past several years. Perhaps what we would now be seeing is a confrontation between the Iraqi based Sunni facing off against the Iranian based Shias? Or perhaps Saddam might have been murdered in a coup and we would be seeing an alliance of radical Islamist states fully armed with WMD, sitting on 2/3rds of the Gulf Oil deposits and threatening the remaining Gulf states. (Feeling safer now?)

Meanwhile the US forces in Saudi Arabia would be hunkered down, while the Saudi regime tottered under attacks from al-Qaeda. Furthermore, Libya would still be working on their WMD's and Syria would still be occupying Lebanon. (How safe are we now?)

This is all speculation, but the scenarios are based upon fact. It's worth considering, despite the problems the Operation Iraqi Freedom have openned up, the same regional forces were all present before OIF, and would certainly be causing even greater mischief today if Bush had not acted against Iraq.

[shellyfan]

Meanwhile the US forces in Saudi Arabia would be hunkered down, while the Saudi regime tottered under attacks from al-Qaeda. Furthermore, Libya would still be working on their WMD's and Syria would still be occupying Lebanon. (How safe are we now?)

This is all speculation, but the scenarios are based upon fact. It's worth considering, despite the problems the Operation Iraqi Freedom have openned up, the same regional forces were all present before OIF, and would certainly be causing even greater mischief today if Bush had not acted against Iraq.
Other speculation if we had not invaded Iraq:

We'd have several hundred billion dollars more in the US treasury. We'd have National Guard and Reservists available to help in Homeland defense.

Bin-laden would be captured or dead, Al-Qaeda - an arch enemy of Saddam - would not be in Iraq and perhaps wiped out in Afghanistan.

Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan might well have been prevented with sufficient attention to finishing that war before starting a new more complicated effort in iraq.

The international support for an American led war against al-Qaeda which was so strong after 9/11 might still be there.

Al-Qaeda and other extremists couldn't use our invasion of Iraq as a recruiting tool to stop the 21st century Christian-Crusade to destroy Islam.

A very real price of this war is real hatred of American arrogance and military power almost everywhere in the world.

Iran and North Korea know the only way to prevent a US attack is to get plenty of nuclear weapons before the USA military escapes from it's quagmire in Iraq.

*******
I know the Neo-cons and Bush claim Libya as a success of its use of the military in Iraq rather than traditional diplomacy but diplomacy was well on its way to changing Libya and its wanting to renew ties to the USA and Europe was in the works long before Iraq.

[Yenezie]

We'd have several hundred billion dollars more in the US treasury. We'd have National Guard and Reservists available to help in Homeland defense.

True, no arguement from me.

Bin-laden would be captured or dead,

Why, and by whom? Kind of why we went into Afghan was because they weren't giving him up. Or are you saying our own special forces would have captured him?

Al-Qaeda - an arch enemy of Saddam - would not be in Iraq and perhaps wiped out in Afghanistan.

I never heard of Al-Qaeda being a nemesis of Saddam, if anything they were nice and cozy. Going by your speculation, Al-Qaeda would have been wiped out in Afghanistan by....the Americans? Isn't that circular? Al-Qaeda does not have a singular base. If they get run out by the Americans in Afghanistan then what is to stop them from going to Iraq, or Iran, or Syria, or Europe for that matter.

Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan might well have been prevented with sufficient attention to finishing that war before starting a new more complicated effort in iraq.

So Afghanistan isn't complicated? Tell that to the former Soviet Union.

The international support for an American led war against al-Qaeda which was so strong after 9/11 might still be there.

Got news for you, America is the (current) sole superpower and no matter what we do or don't do there will always be anti-Americanism, has been since before the French Revolution. This isn't an effing popularity contest, leave high school to Hollywood. Europe has been making alliances with unstable middle east countries since the early days of post-WWII, they don't have objectivity nor the distance.

Al-Qaeda and other extremists couldn't use our invasion of Iraq as a recruiting tool to stop the 21st century Christian-Crusade to destroy Islam.

Since when does radical Islam ever need an excuse? It's been there before the United States even existed. Just look at Hamas/Palistinians, they never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity.

A very real price of this war is real hatred of American arrogance and military power almost everywhere in the world.

Look at my previous answer. The so-called hatred is usually jealousy and a way to deflect one's own failed government. Just look at Arabia, using the Palestinians issue to deflect attention away from their own corrupt government and appauling living condition, not to mention rampant human rights abuse (guards are stationed inside hospitals to prevent men from molesting/raping female patients)

[Yenezie]

The Brookings Institution released its latest Iraq Index this week. While I would encourage anybody to read it, it is rather long so here are some of the jist: http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

1. Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

2. Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.
Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.

3. On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

4. The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

5. The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

6. Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.

7. As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq. Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

8. As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction. Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

[shellyfan]

I never heard of Al-Qaeda being a nemesis of Saddam, if anything they were nice and cozy. Saddam was a secular dictator. Saddam had nothing in common with religious fundamentalists, he supressed the Shiites brutally in Iraq. Bin Ladin was always anti Saddam for his war against Iran and giving western troops an excuse to come to Saudi Arabia. Of course Bin Ladin was anti all the secular governments including his homeland Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and even Syria.

Since when does radical Islam ever need an excuse? It's been there before the United States even existed. Just look at Hamas/Palistinians, they never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity.I don't understand. Hamas does not attack the US. It's target is Israel. That is bad but they feel they have a legitimate complaint against Israel and have no army to promote their cause in a "moral" way. Yes they defeat themselves everytime they kill civilians but they are at least bright enough not to take on the USA.
It is much easier for Al-Qaeda to point to a US invasion and attract recruits. The US found it much easier to recruit soldiers after we were attacked on 9/11. Its called nationalism.

So Afghanistan isn't complicated? Tell that to the former Soviet Union. I said Iraq is more complicated not that Afganistan doesn't have its own complications. Iraq has Sunnis remnants of the former Iraqui government fighting against Shiites militias both of whom sometimes fight Coalition forces. Iraq also has foreign fighters (mostly al queda or similar groups) killing everybody but mostly wanting to target westerners. Combine those with a sometimes brave, sometimes untrustworthy "Nat'L" army and police force trying to stop all from killing everybody.

Why, and by whom? Kind of why we went into Afghan was because they weren't giving him up. Or are you saying our own special forces would have captured him?The Taliban allied themselves with Bin-Ladin. Bin ladin was a clear for sure iminent threat. We had to go after him. We have less than a third as many troops in AFganistan as we have in Iraq. Had we not been destracted by a war of choice in Iraq, since we are speculating, I find it a very reasonable assumption we would have captured or killed Bin ladin and the Taliban boss Omar who is also still free.

Got news for you, America is the (current) sole superpower and no matter what we do or don't do there will always be anti-Americanism, has been since before the French Revolution. This isn't an effing popularity contest, leave high school to Hollywood. Europe has been making alliances with unstable middle east countries since the early days of post-WWII, they don't have objectivity nor the distance.
Talk to any Europeans lately? They are clueless as to why America is following Bush on his well-intentioned road to hell. They dispise this government because of the insensitive and arrogant way it uses it power. They loved the way the US and NATO used power judiciously and with minimal outside imposition of solution to resolve or at least bring peace after the civil wars during the dissolution of Yugoslavia and breakup of Greater Serbia. It takes patience, patience, diplomacy, diplomacy not arrogant wild eyed cowboys blowing up everything in sight.

The so-called hatred is usually jealousy and a way to deflect one's own failed government. Only a partial answer. It is a fear of modernity common among all fundamentalists of whatever religion. The USA is certainly the most visible presence of modernity and the successes of our economic and military systems highlight the failures of theirs. To humiliate an Arab army even of a hated dictator is met with mixed emotions. We are notoriously unreceptive and insensitive to any notion that our ways are not the best ways and we often assume all should see that our economic and military power is a reflection of God's favor and our exceptional virtue. People all over the world hate that "might makes right" attitude we promote everywhere.
********

[Yenezie]

I don't understand. Hamas does not attack the US. It's target is Israel.

Are you kidding? Did you miss their daily American flag burning holidays? Or the sight of the Palestinians dancing on the street on 9/11? The Palestinians/Hamas are the puppets of the Saudi countries: kill a Jew and get $25,000, but do you actually believe the many Arab countries really care about the “Jewish question”? The Arab countries are funding the terrorist actions against Israel as a round about way to sticking it into the United States. The Arab countries are perfecting willing to fund suicide bombers, but when the Hamas government need millions if not billions of dollars to run the government and the “country”, suddenly they are very stingy with the money.

Oh, and Hamas demands Spain ends its occupation of Spain

http://www.spainherald.com/2414.html

Its called nationalism.

Is nationalism a terrible thing? Yes, it is easlier to use 'nationalism' to recruit people, but again, fanatical Islamics never need much excuse to go on a rampage. Just look at the Danish cartoons. If the population is going to riot and try to kill the 12 artists over couple of drawings, then very little is going to set them off. I for one am through with being tolerant of the intolerable.

Talk to any Europeans lately?

Yes, several in the U.K, Germany, and Norway. Met some of them in college, kept touch via emails and they added their friends to the listserve. They also point me to some popular European pro-American blogs, which I had to spend time translating.

They are clueless as to why America is following Bush

The ones I talk to are furious that their own citizens seem very clueless that their countries (the western European civilization in general) are declining due to several factors: 20% unemployement rate, stagnant economy due to unstainable model, generous social welfare system has unintentionally fed the unassimilated Muslim population, lack of passion or national identity.

They loved the way the US and NATO used power judiciously and with minimal outside imposition of solution to resolve or at least bring peace after the civil wars during the dissolution of Yugoslavia and breakup of Greater Serbia.

They? As in those in the neighboring European countries and U.N have permitted the war in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo that killed 250,000 people? Yup, it takes patience, patience, and diplomacy to kill a quarter million lives. Not to mention that the genius of the U.N get genocide rage on in Rwanda and Dafur.

The Turkish journalist Gündüz Aktan provided a typical Turkish assessment of the U.S. role in the Balkan wars, in the midst of the Afghan bombing: "The United States, after it could not convince our European friends, stopped the Serbian aggressions with a military intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina … the forces of the United States constituted 90 percent of the NATO forces which brought Yugoslavia to heel, after it (repressed) the Kosovar Albanians and (sought to expel them); and it is observed that the United States also played an important role in the recognition of extensive rights for the Albanians in Macedonia."

But anyway, we are talking about Iraq...

[Yenezie]

After September 11, there were 7 sovereign countries in the Middle East that posed a real danger to the policies and security of the United States - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

1. Afghanistan’s Taliban was actively harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. Without their support, the mass murder on September 11 would have been difficult to pull off.

2. Iran was the chief sponsor of Hezbollah, which had killed more Americans than any other Islamist terror organization and was rumored to be at work on obtaining nuclear weapons.

3. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s agents were involved in the first World Trade Center bombing. They were also meeting with al Qaeda operatives throughout the 1990s and offering sanctuary both to al Qaeda offshoots in Kurdistan and, later, to veterans from Afghanistan.

4. Libya was a de facto belligerent of the United States, provoking past U.S. air strikes on Tripolis. Among other things, it was involved in the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing and had a clandestine WMD program.

5. Pakistan had violated both U.N. and U.S. non-proliferation protocols. Its intelligence services were infiltrated by radical Islamists who were responsible for killing American diplomatic personnel and supplying the Taliban with support, as well as directly aiding al Qaeda operatives along the border.

6. Saudi Arabia, whose comprised the majority of the killers on 9/11, was stealthily giving blackmail money to Islamic terrorists to deflect their anti-Royal Family anger toward the United States.

7. Syria had long swallowed most of Lebanon, and was a haven for anti-Western terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah.

Now, 5 years later how has the United States fared in neutralizing these 7 threats?

1. The Taliban is gone. In its place is the unthinkable—a parliamentary democracy that welcomes an open economy and foreign investment.

2. Iran is closer to the bomb than ever, but there is at least worldwide scrutiny of its machinations, in a manner lacking in the past. Tehran is in a death struggle with the new Iraqi government, trying to undermine the democracy by transplanting its radical Shiite ganglia before a constitutional, diverse Iraqi culture energizes its own restive population that supposedly tires of the theocracy.

3. Iraq - see above's Brookings Institution report.

4. Libya’s Khadafy gave up his WMD arsenal and the the United States is slowly exploring reestablishing diplomatic relations. Libya is suddenly open to cell phones, the Internet, satellite television, and is no longer a global financial conduit for international terrorism.

5. Pakistan is slowly weeding out al Qaeda sympathizers from its government, which on rare occasions attacks terrorists residing in its borderlands. Al Qaeda seems to hate the present Pakistani government as much as it does the United States.

6. Saudi Arabia has gained enormous leverage as oil skyrocketed from $30 to over $70 a barrel. Yet under American pressure it has cracked down on al Qaeda terrorists and has cleaned up (somewhat) its overseas financial offices, perhaps evidenced by a wave of reactive terrorist attacks against the Riyadh government.

7. Syria is out of Lebanon by popular pressure. It still supports terrorists against Israel (and now Iraq too) but judging from its rhetoric it must be feeling squeezed by a democratic Turkey, Iraq, and Israel on its borders, and a new tough stance from the United States.

5 years since 9/11, there has been no subsequent attack on the United States, more people are educated about radical Islamic fascism which was mostly lacking prior to September 11. No oil was stolen; no hegemony was established; and democrats, not dictators, were promoted. We were appealing directly to the people of the Middle East, not negotiating with Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein about their futures. No other oil-importing country in the world would have tried to pressure the Saudis to reform at a time of global petroleum shortages - not France, not China, not India.

By the standard of Grenada, Panama, and the Balkans, our losses were costly. But the Middle East is a struggle of a different sort; defeat means more attacks on the United States homeland, while victory in changing the landscape of the region presages an end to the nexus of Islamic terror.

[donnylutz]

War's can't be won.

[mr pru]

We'll never "win" there in the conventional sense as in World War II.

[Yenezie]

Speaking of World War II....

One of my email-pals writes me all the time when he is flying on KLM, the Dutch airline, on his way to India or South Africa on work travel (he looooves Michelle Kwan :D). He likes to talk it up with the flight attendants and their husbands (who go standby to South Africa for holidays). I’m not sure if this has anything to do with their profession or that most of their husbands served in the armed forces and are strongly pro-American, but attendants are scared to death of what is happening to their country that seems bent on kowtowing to a bunch of thugs that want to establish Sharia law and a separation of "their" idea of Islam from European norms. Many have started to formulate a "plan B," which is to escape to Australia or United States or Canada or India or China (yes, China) once they are convinced that their children cannot thrive in their own country. Should that time come they hope to follow the same paths of the Jews whom most had already left.

When I said all this reminds me of the 1930s, he asked, “1935 or 1939?” I honestly didn’t know. I still can’t believe that western Europe is really going down the handbasket according to my friends and acquaintances over there, but then again I’m not over there.

[forestgreen92]

GW today has put a hold on any more rotations of troops....this means more US service people will come home.


Yeah, more US service people coming home? When do you think they will be home? There's no timeline. There's nothing. A war so much like Vietnam now that it is ridiculous.

A woman that I worked with lost her son to a roadside bomb on Thursday in Iraq. Maybe that's how we'll get more of our troops home. I don't have an easy answer. Her son went to school with my sons. I never liked this war from the beginning and I like it even less now. Supporting our troops, doing the things that will make their lives easier over there, is all I can do. Supporting this war is something I will NOT do. And I am certainly able to separate the two.