It wasn't reported by CNN or the NYT so it can't be true in the minds of the loons.

Good job and thanks.

Hello. drmiller, I deeply resent your characterization of the left. There are an awful lots of warriors, real warriors, who fought hard and bled deeply on behalf of the United States and who now feel strongly this war is wrong. To characterize them as cowards is insulting. To suggest that the government 'turn the boys lose' is as a murderous a thought as My Lai, I remember what that 'might be.' Shadowwarrior's reporting reminds me of the sort of bullshit claptrap I saw in the 60s in Nam from pencilhead REMFs

I call those on the left cowards for a reason. If you can't figure it out for yourself then nothing I can say will help you understand.

Shadowwarrior's reporting reminds me of the sort of bullshit claptrap I saw in the 60s in Nam from pencilhead REMFs.

And by the way this isn't bullsh*t claptrap. This is "PURE FACT"! And what you just stated is also part of the reason I classify most of the left as cowards.

And just so you know...both Shadowwarrior and myself have spent our time in service. As a matter of fact I do believe he's "still" in service.

And I think you'll find that there aren't as many as you might think there is.

But I don't expect the people who are against this war to see these things, they don't want to admit that there may be positive things about it. Yes we have dead soldiers, thats what happens in war. Its sad but true. Its also known that when you sign up, you accept that responsibility. I was not drafted, I volunteered, and loved every minute of it. I continue to serve here at home in law enforcement, the first line of defense in the US. I do it willingly and without reservation. I also understand that when (and I know its when not if) the terrorist attack us here, I will gladley head into the fray, because I will be defending my family (and yours) and would gladly die if needed, as long as I take some of the terrorist with me. I know many of my fellow officers feel the same way I do. I have even been looking at maybe changing to work with DHS, just to do a little more to that end.

Just wish I was physically able to join you. Can still shoot on target (double tap, center mass at 30 yards w/ 45ACP), however the legs don't work so good anymore

ShadowWar, drmiller,

The fact is this is a civil war between religious factions. Which is "the enemy"? Who is the "terrorist"? Terrorist to whom? The language you used is inflammatory and makes far too simple a very complex situation. Then, conservatives never liked complexity, like Fox News, they want everything simple, cut and dried, black and white. Good luck in today's world.

Moreover, I do not consider killing people progress. You boys might, but I don't. Just more killing, just more pissing one side off and increasing the rage against our troops on the one hand and our country on the other.

As far as claptrap goes, ShadowWar's report was nothing but body count hype.

Are either of you old enough to have read the reports from the military in Vietnam? From the glory hole generals and the reporters there at the time, you'd think we were on the very verge of victory for every one of those ten miserable fucking years. Our Best and Brightest then morons and had no clue just what we were up against: a thousand year old culture really pissed off at our being there. My sense is its the same in Iraq just now.

I say its people who think the way to resolve a conflict is by killing everything in sight who are the cowards. And none too bright at that.

The fact is this is a civil war between religious factions. Which is "the enemy"? Who is the "terrorist"? Terrorist to whom?

I know this was not directed at me but I felt the need to add my two cents worth.

It is not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination; it is a war on terror. Before you roll your eyes and scoff read and think honestly.

The war in Iraq is over it was over less than 6 weeks after it started. When President Bush changed our policy to deal with the war on terror it scared a lot of bad people. When he followed through on that new policy the bad people went to panic stations. Seeing the fast reply in Afghanistan quickly followed by Iraq the only solution for the bad guys is to keep the turmoil going in Iraq. Why else would Iran pour money and manpower into Iraq to keep the war going while at the same time supporting funding, training, and arming the terrorist in Lebanon and Israel? If this were a civil war in Iraq it would have broken out of the narrow area it is in and cover two thirds of the country. Instead the movement is centered in Bagdad and one third of the nation. The area of fighting is shrinking not growing. Some of the people captured are Iranian soldiers, their orders were found, the men still carried their pay books and ID. This is why I believe it is part of the war on terror and not a civil war.

Are either of you old enough to have read the reports from the military in Vietnam? From the glory hole generals and the reporters there at the time, you'd think we were on the very verge of victory for every one of those ten miserable fucking years. Our Best and Brightest then morons and had no clue just what we were up against: a thousand year old culture really pissed off at our being there. My sense is its the same in Iraq just now.

I don't know about them but I was. I don't know about you but do you understand why we lost the war in Vietnam? Each time the North was ready to kick it in they would see the news of all those protesters and hoped if they stuck it out a little longer America would get fed up and go away. If you don't believe me check it out with the Vietnamese government as they openly state this as the reason the war was won. Does this sound like what is happenin now in Iraq? Think about it. The war in Vietnam lasted four years longer because the protesters gave hope to our enemy. All those people that died the last four years were killed because of domestic politics. A war where we won every major battle we lost the war. I see it happening again. People are going to die for no reason because the people who want the killing to stop won't let it happen. After we pulled our troops out of Vietnam millions of people were murdered by the Vietnamese government even more were killed in Camobdia. So pulling our troops out did not stop the killing unless you only care about American deaths.

I say its people who think the way to resolve a conflict is by killing everything in sight who are the cowards. And none too bright at that.

Good, this sounds sane to me. So tell me how you are going to stop people that believe that only by our deaths will they be happy? Only by the destructioon of our government and the conversion of the world to Islam as the only resonable justification to stop the war on us. How do you negotiate with people whos minimum acceptable reason to stop killing is running out of people that disagree with them? Wait, in Afghanistan they won against the Soviets had a country to live the way they wanted and found enemies within to kill. We don't see this in America so I have to think that it was not started here. We were attacked for over a decade and we are just starting to fight back and we are playing catch up.

Give it some thought I would really like to see what you think.

Hello drmiller, All,

I am 60 and fought with the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam in 1966. I was shot in the head and sprayed with grenade shrapnel, as well. I was a career soldier on my second enlistment. I am a liberal and on the left. I do not consider myself a coward.

There was no time we were on the winning edge in Vietnam. That conflict was another civil war, and our presence there, like the French before us, just harden their backs.


Paladin77, I can understand where you are coming from, but I've got to tell you, there was never a time when the North was ready to cave, ever. In 1987, I returned to Vietnam and sat down with my former enemies. They are a proud and strong people who, like the lowest of ants, could move mountains on their bare feet. When I was in combat with them, I saw them do things that blew me away. Tenacious devils, they were.

Its way too simplistic to think that military might will bend or crush an enemy truly commited to his cause. And even if we killed every one who opposes us, we give others that much more a reason to want to kill us. This is why we are independent ourselves, contrary to that smirky stupid comment by ShadowWar.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy?

Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others.

The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist. In order to do this, we must look closely at the situation that cooks up terrorism, the communities and cultures that give rise to such things. We cannot do this if we are so quick to label people as terrorists and go try to kill them. Dehumanizing people in this way, just as we did in Vietnam, is not a solution, its an expedient that enables us to short circuiit our brains and our morality.

Be well.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for your answer.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Sodaiho: I am not so sure of this line. I see no evidence that our attacking has done anything but bolster their resolve to do us more harm. In fact, my understanding is that it has inflamed most of the Islamic world. I am also unclear what "win" means in the context of the Middle East. Since you lived in the area, you must have an appreciation of the clash between cultures. Moreover, the "nutjobs" you refer to are loose cannons, not nations, and will not defeated by conventional armies. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. Sodaiho: bin Laden is one of those loose cannons. Clearly, trying to figure out an appproach to win him over would be a pointless challenge. But we can work to undermine him by addressing the needs of the people who would support him, give him refuge, and so on. [quote]The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Sodaiho: Syria, Iran, and probably the Saudis give similar aid and refuge. Iran is building its nuclear program; we don't want to talk to Syria, and our president is in bed with the Saudi princes. What's wrong with this picture? You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sodaiho: This policy change made as much sense as Zero Tolerance in schools. Its plain stupid. First it labels as "terrorist" (an amorphic term to begin with, define it please) anyone we want to make an enemy. Second, the policy is literaly unenforcable as it would require us to be at war with nearly the entire world. I don't see us going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Venezuela, or Cuba and each of these countries have either harbored "terrorists," threatened us, bought our debt, or in some other way been an 'enemy' cold or hot over the last few decades. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? Sodaiho: I think before we commited ourselves to an interminable conflict with poorly defined perameters, no exit strategy, and an incredibly high and decades long cost, we might have looked for a few alternatives. Instead, we were hot to trot and had the draft dodging likes of Cheney and that McNamara clone to lead te way. Again, the enemy was not Hussein. Your line is an after the fact rationialization of our taking the moral low road and doing a first strike. Going after bin Laden, absolutely. He was the attacker. [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for...


Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. In fact, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

Be well.

Paladin77, how do you make friends with an enemy? [/quote] Each enemy is different, for this enemy it is proving that we are stronger and will crush them if they don't back off. It sounds backwards but any sign of retreat is seen as weakness. This is evidenced by how Mr. Clinton handled the first attacks when he was in office. It was seen as weakness and invited more attacks which were not answered either. It was not that the President was weak it was just answered in a way that in thier eyes was weak. They were surprised when we attacked Afghanistan. They never thought that we would go into Iraq. With our history of getting into a fight only to pull back when we are hurt meant that all they have to do is wait us out. We will leave on our own and they will have won and once seen as a winner we will no longer have to deal with the a hundred thousand nutjobs out there we will have to deal with millions of nutjobs. I used to live in the area and the mindset is be on the winning side or die. If you are seen backing the losers you will be killed which is why loyalty is nothing more that something you buy. Sodaiho: I am not so sure of this line. I see no evidence that our attacking has done anything but bolster their resolve to do us more harm. In fact, my understanding is that it has inflamed most of the Islamic world. I am also unclear what "win" means in the context of the Middle East. Since you lived in the area, you must have an appreciation of the clash between cultures. Moreover, the "nutjobs" you refer to are loose cannons, not nations, and will not defeated by conventional armies. Smart people can find a way. Even starter people don't create them in the first place. That said, we must stop giving reason for others to hate. Hopeful people with full stomachs are not as likely to want to tear up their country, nor are they quite so willing to attack others. According to bin Laden the thing that caused us to be their enemy was coming to the aid of Kuwait. Putting our troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. That was his public justification for attacking us on 9/11 what no one cares to notice is the attack in 96 on the WTC. What did we do to become their enemy that time? We had no troops in that part of the world. We support Israel. If supporting a friend is reason enough to be attacked then I guess there is no reasioning with them since we have a lot of friends around the world and sooner or later we will be pissing them off by supporting another friend. We supported Afghanistan in the war we started with the Soviet Union. They might be mad at us for that. Sodaiho: bin Laden is one of those loose cannons. Clearly, trying to figure out an appproach to win him over would be a pointless challenge. But we can work to undermine him by addressing the needs of the people who would support him, give him refuge, and so on. [quote]The Iraq war is not a war on terror, Hussein was a midget, an awful midget, but no credible threat to the United States. The people who attacked us were Saudi, based in Afghanistan with no real, tangible links to Iraq. Want to win a war on terror? In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. Sodaiho: Syria, Iran, and probably the Saudis give similar aid and refuge. Iran is building its nuclear program; we don't want to talk to Syria, and our president is in bed with the Saudi princes. What's wrong with this picture? You see after 9/11 the U.S. policy changed; anyone who supports, harbors, funds, feeds the terrorist would be treated as if that nation was a terrorist state. He supported, funded, and gave safe haven to AQ terrorists. That was enough to go in there. The fact that when it became public knowledge that one was in hospital recuperating from wounds suffered in Afghanistan he had the man taken out and shot on the street to prove he was not supporting terrorist shows that he knew what would happen if he was seen to support AQ. The fact that he hired people to start a training camp for AQ to replace the ones lost in Afghanistan is further proof he was a threat. The fact that he stated publicly that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that wanted to attack Israel and the U.S. made him a mighty midget. Sodaiho: This policy change made as much sense as Zero Tolerance in schools. Its plain stupid. First it labels as "terrorist" (an amorphic term to begin with, define it please) anyone we want to make an enemy. Second, the policy is literaly unenforcable as it would require us to be at war with nearly the entire world. I don't see us going after Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Venezuela, or Cuba and each of these countries have either harbored "terrorists," threatened us, bought our debt, or in some other way been an 'enemy' cold or hot over the last few decades. Sure it was mostly bluster but we did not know that until we went in there. Should wwe have waited until he provided WMD to AQ before we stomped him into the ground? Who in America are you willing to have killed so we would have better justification for an attack on an enemy? Sodaiho: I think before we commited ourselves to an interminable conflict with poorly defined perameters, no exit strategy, and an incredibly high and decades long cost, we might have looked for a few alternatives. Instead, we were hot to trot and had the draft dodging likes of Cheney and that McNamara clone to lead te way. Again, the enemy was not Hussein. Your line is an after the fact rationialization of our taking the moral low road and doing a first strike. Going after bin Laden, absolutely. He was the attacker. [quote]Want to win a war on terror? Stop doing things that create reasons for terrorists to exist.

Please tell me what we did to get these people to kill almost 4000 people in a five year span before we started to fight back? I will wait for...


Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys.

We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead. What really makes them hate us so? Hate does not develop in a vacuum. Calling them terrorists does not help. Understanding our enemies, listenin to them, offering them something that is the offering of a friend, these are ways of overcoming hostility. Yet, instead, our choice of weapons confirms their view of us.

Be well.

Sodaiho: I think some Muslims believe we are the devil incarnate, here to destroy their hearts and souls. We represent everything they fear: modern life, progress, liberal social values. I believe they see us as insatiable consumers of their resources, as fat, immoral, greedy, bullys. [/quote] So what you are saying is you don't know the reason why? [quote]We could fight back, as you say, but in a much smarter way and with a lot less violence. Using violence just adds violence and deepens an enemy's resolve to continue to hate you. We could be listening to the people who want us dead.

How do you propose to fight them smarter?

Ok I will ask agian since Sodaiho seems to be on vacation.

What did we as a nation do to cause AQ to attack us for 8 years before we fought back seriously?

How do we fight smarter?

Those are the two questions I have asked liberals for years and never got a serious answer. Anyone care to give it a try?