Search This Blog

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Iraq: Dialogue reveals inconquerable biased ignorance

It is time for a rant, a rant against nay-saying ignorant liberals who make sure that facts don't stand in the way of their assertions.

"The Point of my first comment was that to make the backhanded case, as Radar has attempted again and again, to say that if you don't support the administration's policies, you don't support the troops is total, dangerous and obvious B.S."

B.S? I'll tell you what the B.S. is here. This last post was composed largely of a first-hand account of a soldier just returned from Iraq and also the testimonies of other soldiers from overseas. It is the troops who are saying that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. It is the troops who are saying that they are distressed when people blast the administration policies and it is the troops who say that the media coverage is incredibly biased and are missing the real story. When you read my story and say something like that, you are saying it to Rob, to Cecil, to Tom, to Chuck, to Greg, to young men that I know well who have been overseas and know the real story. You are telling the troops that they are full of B.S.

"Is it best to simply bury our heads in the sand while civilian idiots continue to ignore reality, and keep the boys and girls in a meat grinder?

We owe them MORE than that. I think so. Do you?

As a soldier once said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”"


You liberal idiots have strained my patience to the breaking point. I make a plea to put politics aside and pull together and I get responses like this. You people have your heads up the seventh planet from the Sun! If excrement is all you know, that is all you have to dish out. There are hundreds of blogs authored by soldiers who are either in the Sandbox, or were there, or are related to someone there and so on. They are telling us like it is and you refuse to listen. You don't have enough respect for the actual troops to hear them or believe them or give them the slightest credit. Every one of them volunteered to serve and how many of them wish to die? Few, probably none of them joined to die. But they joined knowing it could happen. Most of you whiners have never strapped on a helmet and a gun and a few of you were probably too cowardly to consider serving. Shame on you for having the temerity to argue with those who risk their lives to save your lazy butt!

"In my opinion, it's a little disingenuous of Radar to ask us to come together and support a policy that has clearly failed.

I've often been intrigued by the claim that calling the President an idiot demoralizes the troops. How does keeping them in a horrible situation not sap their morale?"


I knew, when I was in the service, that the time might come that I might face death. I decided my love of my country was more important than other factors and I served. I am one of millions of men and women who have made the same choice. These troops are proud of the fact that they do the job and that they serve their country. They expect to live but accept the threat of death because liberty isn't free, it comes with a price and the price isn't cheap. They may be called upon to strap on that helmet and grab that rifle and face an enemy that wishes to kill them. It is a bit harder to do when you read of some fruitbat that is saying that what you are doing is useless or wrong and that your Commander-In-Chief is an idiot. You want your countrymen back home living in comfort to at least appreciate what you are doing and the sacrifices you are making.

Combat is always a horrible situation. You don't think Iwo Jima was a horrible situation? The Battle of the Bulge? D-Day? Corregidor? Should we have avoided the wars of the past? If so, we would all be speaking German or Russian or what have you right now. We wouldn't have the freedom to post blogs or comment on them.


Liberal Lie: We cannot win in Iraq.
-Let's get down to it. Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror. Many liberals literally want to just cut and run and say all sorts of unsupportable and stupid things about what is happening there. They tell lies and I'll tell truth. Al-Queda in Iraq, for instance. The terrorists are there in full force and are dying there instead of living to come here and kill us. Why? Because we won in Afghanistan and we won in Iraq. Yes, we won in Iraq. The war is over there in terms of deposing Hussein. Now it is a war against terrorism and totalitarianism. It isn't so much about Iraq as it is about a concept, the concept of freedom versus totalitarianism. It is also about Islamofascism against Western Civilizaton. If we leave Iraq, it will be terrible for Iraq but the forces aligned against us will just attack us elsewhere. They won't go away. They'll see it as a huge victory over the USA and will look for an opportunity to take us on again.


Liberal Lie: The Iraqis want us out!
- That statement is along the lines of, "You're going to die!" Okay, someday but not now. The same is true of Iraqis. Other than some of the old Saddam gang and some extreme Islamics who want Sharia Law to prevail, the people of Iraq are glad we came, are grateful to us, and will be glad when they can protect themselves so we can leave. We are providing opportunities to women and children and the common people that they didn't have under Saddam and wouldn't have under a Bani Sadr type of government. Terrorists have poured across the borders from Syria and Iran, trying to stop the process. There is also sectarian struggling and violence to be dealt with. The post-war Iraq is a mess. We represent the hope of resolution of that mess.

Every single soldier I have talked to who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan always tells me that the people are grateful. They say the people come and thank them, even now long after Saddam or the Taliban have been deposed. Every single one without fail! How in the world do you explain that?

Liberal Lie: The Iraq War is a recruiting tool for terrorism: Oh, so that Marine Embassy being blown up, that was an accident? The USS Cole, that was a strange quirk? The first attempt on the World Trade Center? How about 9/11? There was no military action in Iraq when terrorists came to our country and wrought great destruction. No, terrorists hated us already and they hate us now. Iraq has proven to be a place where the fight has been brought to them and they are dying faster than we are.


Liberal Lie: We should have tried to get Osama instead:
So why did Clinton let him go? We keep trying every day to get the guy, who is being protected by Pakistani officials and border warloards and, by the way, spends a life on the run, hiding, no longer bigger than life. I suspect his life is a miserable one and it will be miserable until the day he is caught or is dead. But his organization has been decimated and is largely reduced to IED attacks in Baghdad these days.

Here is the TRUTH: If liberals take over in Congress it will be harder for the US to do the job in Iraq and help the people win there like they are winning in Afghanistan. If a liberal wins the Presidency in 2008, then the terrorists will be dancing and shooting off their rifles into the air in celebration. They need us to run away scared like we did in Somalia in 1993. They need us to hide within our borders and let them go about their business of trying to take over the world. They can sneak in and blow a few thousand of us up now and again and we'll go running to the United Nations about it. Ya-freaking-hoo!

I'll never again try to appeal to the liberal sector to do the patriotic thing, the right thing. They cannot understand or conceive of it! Anything that is in some way going to be favorable to George W Bush must be attacked no matter what, resisted at every hand, whether it is what is best for the country or not. You guys want us to be isolationists, you see the United Nations as a good thing, you see war as always bad and that is why, were you in charge, 9/11 would have been just the first in a series of attacks on us here on our shores. Osama was enboldened when Clinton cut and ran from Somalia and decided that we were weak and afraid of a fight. The enemy watches and waits, hopefully, for the Murthas and Kerrys to carry the day and for us to turn tail and flee from the struggle.

You guys are wrong, out of ignorance perhaps, but you are wrong. Go ahead and read some military blogs. Find out what the troops actually think. Then, if you still want to diss the President and the war effort and so on, go right ahead, but keep the military out of it. They don't agree with you and they are sick of hearing it from you. Be brave enough to find out what they say and then just maybe you will be brave enough to admit the error of your ways.

5 comments:

highboy said...

Good rant, Radar. Apparently I'm not the only one with a "snark".

"When you read my story and say something like that, you are saying it to Rob, to Cecil, to Tom, to Chuck, to Greg, to young men that I know well who have been overseas and know the real story. You are telling the troops that they are full of B.S."

Yep. These stories are all over the internet, especially the blogosphere, save for the liberal blogs. Amy has archives FULL of stories like this, her husband's being one of them. But what do they know right?

"You liberal idiots have strained my patience to the breaking point. I make a plea to put politics aside and pull together and I get responses like this."

Supposedly this isn't refering to guys like us who support the war, just the leaders who put our troops there. Leaders like Bush who have ensured that we have not been attacked since 9/11. So much for the theory that the U.S. is less safe.

If liberals take back the House in November, its not such a bad thing. We legislate better from the minority. Bush will actually veto the liberal garbage that he actually signed off on with a Republican congress. Republicans won't play politics, they'll vote on their principles, which is what they should have been doing while in power.

"The enemy watches and waits, hopefully, for the Murthas and Kerrys to carry the day and for us to turn tail and flee from the struggle."

What cracks me up is that Murtha the "patriot", Murtha the "war hero" makes blatant false accusations toward the troops he supposedly wants to protect, calling them bloodthirsty killers, and ignores most military opinion concerning Iraq from our troops that are actually there. Yet he has the balls to spew garbage at Rove, and accuse him of making his decisions "while sitting on his fat ass in an air conditioned office". Priceless. Especially since Murtha, who has an equally fat ass, sits in his air conditioned office much like Rove.

I knew your appeal to troop support was going no where Radar. I'm sorry. But liberals can't even agree with you on that much without taking their pot-shots at the opposing side, as we read in the comments section for the post below.

xiangtao said...

My local newspaper just ran a story this weekend about a group of soldiers fresh back from Iraq who are campaining to get the US out. Obviously not all of the soldiers think that we are doing the right thing there.

highboy said...

"Obviously not all of the soldiers think that we are doing the right thing there."

Obviously the overwhelming majority do. With all due respect, I'm not going argue against the majority of soldiers that do support the war because some blogger told me about an article in his local newspaper.

radar said...

No, not all troops believe we should stay, just the vast majority. If you do the research as I suggested you will see this is true.

creeper said...

"No, not all troops believe we should stay, just the vast majority."

How many?

Like most partisan rants, this thing's riddled with fallacies and elementary logical mistakes.

"Liberal Lie: We cannot win in Iraq. -Let's get down to it. Iraq is the front line in the War on Terror."

If by "Terror" you mean Islamic fundamentalism, then the invasion of Iraq has led to a strengthening, not a weakening, of Islamic fundamentalist entities in the region, not least Iran, which has grown in influence.

"Many liberals literally want to just cut and run and say all sorts of unsupportable and stupid things about what is happening there. They tell lies and I'll tell truth. Al-Queda in Iraq, for instance. The terrorists are there in full force and are dying there instead of living to come here and kill us."

From the looks of it, Al Qaeda is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. The 9/11 attackers, for example, were not flown in from Afghanistan, but were living in the West for years. If you wanted to train an assassin or saboteur to commit a large-scale attack in the West, would you pick him off the street in a place like Iraq?

The "terrorists" that the soldiers are fighting in Iraq are not the same kind as the ones behind 9/11.

"Why? Because we won in Afghanistan and we won in Iraq."

The Taliban is gaining influence again in Afghanistan, and if we "won" in Iraq, why can't we even reduce troop levels over there?

"Yes, we won in Iraq. The war is over there in terms of deposing Hussein."

You're conflating two different things here, so you can label both a victory. We won against Saddam Hussein. That's old news. Then came the post-war, which was botched badly, as most people realize by now. I don't think you can say that that has been "won". At best it's an ongoing conflict.

"Now it is a war against terrorism and totalitarianism. It isn't so much about Iraq as it is about a concept, the concept of freedom versus totalitarianism. It is also about Islamofascism against Western Civilizaton. If we leave Iraq, it will be terrible for Iraq but the forces aligned against us will just attack us elsewhere. They won't go away. They'll see it as a huge victory over the USA and will look for an opportunity to take us on again."

Correct. Leaving Iraq will have negative consequences. So does staying. And we will continue to be attacked anyway. It's a choice between two evils. Personally I don't think the US can afford to leave, as it needs to avoid Iran gaining more control over the oil region.

"Liberal Lie: The Iraqis want us out! - That statement is along the lines of, "You're going to die!" Okay, someday but not now. The same is true of Iraqis."

No, it's not. I've got a pretty good idea how you're going to react to that - one of two options.

"We are providing opportunities to women and children and the common people that they didn't have under Saddam and wouldn't have under a Bani Sadr type of government. Terrorists have poured across the borders from Syria and Iran, trying to stop the process. There is also sectarian struggling and violence to be dealt with. The post-war Iraq is a mess. We represent the hope of resolution of that mess."

Quite a mix of good and bad. Down the line I'm sure Iraqis will be grateful to the US for having liberated them from Saddam's tyranny, but right now they also see some of the negative effects of their presence and want them to leave sooner rather than later.

"Every single soldier I have talked to who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan always tells me that the people are grateful. They say the people come and thank them, even now long after Saddam or the Taliban have been deposed. Every single one without fail! How in the world do you explain that?"

That there are people who are grateful, as is to be expected. Do ALL the people in a village line up and thank them? No. There is a range of opinion, from these people who thank the soldiers, all the way to those who try to kill those same soldiers. It's not a simple binary "they love us/they hate us" thing.

"Liberal Lie: The Iraq War is a recruiting tool for terrorism: Oh, so that Marine Embassy being blown up, that was an accident? The USS Cole, that was a strange quirk? The first attempt on the World Trade Center? How about 9/11? There was no military action in Iraq when terrorists came to our country and wrought great destruction. No, terrorists hated us already and they hate us now. Iraq has proven to be a place where the fight has been brought to them and they are dying faster than we are."

That whole "answer" was a total non sequitur and doesn't address the question in the slightest. (It even contains an implied strawman argument, which I'll gladly spell out for you: you're pretending that someone else is arguing that before Iraq, there was no terrorism, which is the strawman your answers are railing against.)

Want to try again? What makes you think the military occupation of a Muslim country by Western powers does not breed significant resentment among Muslims? And that that resentment can not be used for recruiting purposes?

"Liberal Lie: We should have tried to get Osama instead: So why did Clinton let him go?"

A complete evasion. What do Clinton's mistakes have to do with the question of what should be done after 9/11?

"We keep trying every day to get the guy, who is being protected by Pakistani officials and border warloards and, by the way, spends a life on the run, hiding, no longer bigger than life. I suspect his life is a miserable one and it will be miserable until the day he is caught or is dead. But his organization has been decimated and is largely reduced to IED attacks in Baghdad these days."

Al Qaeda's a pretty malleable organization, and is splintering/has splintered into smaller groups.

"Here is the TRUTH: If liberals take over in Congress it will be harder for the US to do the job in Iraq and help the people win there like they are winning in Afghanistan."

We've had a Republican president and Republican Congress throughout this whole thing, and they haven't done such a hot job of it. They have no one else to blame.

"They need us to run away scared like we did in Somalia in 1993."

Having all those soldiers pinned down in Iraq is pretty useful to them too. Anyone remember those predictions about how th US'd draw down the troops in Iraq within a year, 18 months? Those were Republicans planning that withdrawal.

Now that they're stuck there thanks to a bungled post-war occupation courtesy of the Republican administration, people like Radar try to play it off as bravery (or have been fooled into thinking of it as such).