The Taliban behead again.....

[janeeyre]

The are at it again. Let's listen for the world's reaction.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/08/afghan.translator.ap/index.html

I heard two people behind us in a movie theater saying that they thought Bush was to be commended for standing up for what he believed in because no other politican would have the guts to go into Iraq or Afghanistan. Yikes --- and they are voters.

 

[martyb]

And I'm very happy to be in the same category of voters as those you overheard. I'm also a military reservist and a former active duty military member.

 

[samclem]

I see that in this case, as in Iraq, the Italians paid a ransom (or induced others to pay a ransom) to get one of their people freed. And, since that time, the radicals have kidnapped many more people in attempt to extract a ransom. If their government is going to pay for the release of their people, I wish the Italians would be made to wear some kind of special hats or blinking lights when they are in Iraq or Afghanistan so the extremists would know exactly which people to kidnap. If the Italians blend in with everyone else they only endanger other Westerners by increasing the odds that some unfortuneate American will be mistaken for an Italian and abducted.

 

[Mwsinron]

The are at it again. Let's listen for the world's reaction.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/08/afghan.translator.ap/index.html

I heard two people behind us in a movie theater saying that they thought Bush was to be commended for standing up for what he believed in because no other politican would have the guts to go into Iraq or Afghanistan. Yikes --- and they are voters.

Thats true at least he did have the guts to take care of things. Most politicians would have buried their head and hide.

 

[youbet]

No video?

 

[bosco]

Thats true at least he did have the guts to take care of things. Most politicians would have buried their head and hide.

exactly which things has he taken care of? Bin Laden is still on the loose, and Bush's actions in Iraq are precisely what Bin Laden was hoping for (major terrorism recruitment thanks to unjustifiable invasion of Islamic land).

Nothing has been taken care of yet, that I can see.

 

[USK Coastie]

The people of Afganistan and Iraq are free to disent with the government in power. Referance the demonstrations in Iraq yesterday. We are there to give people that oppertunity its called FREEDOM. Approximately 3500 of our brave citizens have made the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict in 4 years. In contrast 5000Marines died in 37 days taking Iwo Jima in WWII.

We need to put this in perspective and stop wimping out.

 

[bosco]

The people of Afganistan and Iraq are free to disent with the government in power. Referance the demonstrations in Iraq yesterday. We are there to give people that oppertunity its called FREEDOM. Approximately 3500 of our brave citizens have made the ultimate sacrifice in this conflict in 4 years. In contrast 5000Marines died in 37 days taking Iwo Jima in WWII.

interesting definition of freedom. Freedom to sit in their house without power, not go outside due to fear of violence.

Roger on the 'disent' with the government in power--if you call car bombs dissent.

contrasting Iwo Jimo with Iraq is quite the stretch....

 

[samclem]

interesting definition of freedom. Freedom to sit in their house without power, not go outside due to fear of violence.

Roger on the 'disent' with the government in power--if you call car bombs dissent.

contrasting Iwo Jimo with Iraq is quite the stretch....

Oh, come on. You cannot be arguing that the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have less freedom today to peacefully dissent from their government's line than was the case under the Taliban and Saddam. You are overreaching and it weakens your case.

The camparisons to our losses in WW-II make me uncomfortable. Each life is precious, and to say that a particular objective will cost te lives of XX young Americans is troubling to any of us with a conscience. And yet, that is what we must do, and getting emotional about it will not help. So, we spent the lives of over 6800 Americans to gain ownership of a crappy tiny volcanic island in the Pacific--because t was believed to have big strategic importance to the United States (but it was just one part of a bigger campaign). In the big, heartless strategic scale--what is a stable Iraq worth? Don't rush yor answer--think of the impact of a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran and controlling the oil wealth of Iraq. Or a radical Sunni theocracy.

 

[bosco]

Oh, come on. You cannot be arguing that the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have less freedom today to peacefully dissent from their government's line than was the case under the Taliban and Saddam. You are overreaching and it weakens your case.

The camparisons to our losses in WW-II make me uncomfortable. Each life is precious, and to say that a particular objective will cost te lives of XX young Americans is troubling to any of us with a conscience. And yet, that is what we must do, and getting emotional about it will not help. So, we spent the lives of over 6800 Americans to gain ownership of a crappy tiny volcanic island in the Pacific--because t was believed to have big strategic importance to the United States (but it was just one part of a bigger campaign). In the big, heartless strategic scale--what is a stable Iraq worth? Don't rush yor answer--think of the impact of a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran and controlling the oil wealth of Iraq. Or a radical Sunni theocracy.

a stable Iraq? You're joking, right? It WAS stable, before Bush. Stability was never the goal, any more than WMDs was. Hitler rose to power promising stability (does that qualify as Godwin's law?)

According to the Red Cross's report today (oh yes, I'm sure someone will call them socialist or biased or whatever, otherwise why wouldn't they be the red, white, and blue cross?), 106,000 have been displaced in Iraq since February (that's 1 1/2 months). You can't go out of your house without risk of your life. Power is still not restored in many locations. Foreign troops are marching through their streets (that's right--US troops are actually foreigners when they occupy other countries). You call this freedom? Would you consider this a free country if, say, French troops were marching through your streets?

Don't you find it ironic that the bill of rights has been dismantled in the US (except for the 4th amendment--what do guns have to do with terrorism?--let's focus on getting rid of freedoms of speech, habeus corpus etc as part of the anti-terror effort), people are being tortured with the knowledge, consent, and help of the US government, yet there is still all this talk about "giving freedom" to another country? Can't you recognize ideological manipulation when you see it. Read Hans Morgenthau's "Politics Among Nations." Do you honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq had ANYTHING to do with freedom? The present administration obviously has contempt for freedom at home--why would anyone think it respects it abroad?

 

[youbet]

Has anyone found the video? I've checked orgish dot com and all the usual spots, but nothing.

 

[samclem]

a stable Iraq? You're joking, right? It WAS stable, before Bush. Stability was never the goal, any more than WMDs was. Hitler rose to power promising stability (does that qualify as Godwin's law?)

Of course post-war stabilty was a goal, though there is NO doubt that the planning and preparation to assure it happened was inadequate (significant understatement there).

According to the Red Cross's report today (oh yes, I'm sure someone will call them socialist or biased or whatever, otherwise why wouldn't they be the red, white, and blue cross?), 106,000 have been displaced in Iraq since February (that's 1 1/2 months). You can't go out of your house without risk of your life.

Sounds like Detroit. Regarding internal displacement: One of the main reasons we are staying is to reduce the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad. There's little doubt that part of the plan is working. So, if the number of displaced persons gets you upset, I'll log you in te "yes" column for more troops. Maybe adsd in a Canadian or two, thanks. And yes, I will cite the International Red Cross as a based source.

Foreign troops are marching through their streets (that's right--US troops are actually foreigners when they occupy other countries). You call this freedom? Would you consider this a free country if, say, French troops were marching through your streets?

There's a difference between individual freedom and national sovereignty. You are addressing national sovereignty. The Iraqis had an election--one that was largely free of US influence. The elected government has asked the coalition (including the US) to stay. There'll be another election, the Iraqis can vote for different folks next time if they want the coalition gone. People peacefully marching in the streets does not mean they hold a majority opinion the majority opinion (though it could be). Also, the fact that they weren't gunned down is strong testimony that individual rights are stronger today than under Saddam (in case anyone would doubt that).

 

[bosco]

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I think your flippant comment about Detroit shows a lack of understanding about how bad things are in Iraq at best, and a lack of compassion at worst. How many car bombs went off in Detroit last weekend? How many people killed? Displaced? Ok, you were joking I guess , so so maybe some slack is called for

I honestly don't know where I am at regarding troop "surge." Part of me believes in "you broke it, you fix it." But I have recently concluded it is unfixable. The genie of sectarian violence is out of the bottle. Despite the supposed intelligence of Condy and Bush's other henchmen, this fairly predictable result was not forseen by them. I think, far from being "liberators", the US has blundered into an awesome set of responsibilities that probably will not, and cannot, ever be fulfilled.

I honestly don't know what GWB was thinking. It clearly wasn't about freedom or WMD. The US had an adequate oil supply. The best explanation I've heard (from the think-tank that John Mauldin quotes frequently) is that it was a resource denial war--waged in order to prevent China from having access to the oil in years to come. Unfortunately, the whole mess has immeasurably enhanced the power of Iran.

Freedom as a concept is fairly meaningless if you are huddled in your house, without power, can't find work, and in a state of fear most of the time. Elections do not equal freedom. Patriotic rhetoric only gets you so far. In this case, it doesn't even begin to close the distance, IMO.

 

[playaman]

My barber is a Chaldean Christian from Iraq.

His take of what's happening in his homeland: "It was terrible under Saddam. It's worse under the U.S."