Redstate

History seems to show that sooner or later it will happen.

And why should we be so afraid of them having subpoena power, you're not suggesting we have something to hide, are you?

Personally, I prefer check and balances I'm very disappointed in Congress inability to perform it's oversight role. I guess I'm just not buying into this "unitary" executive thing.

...and I'm stating outright that the Democrats as currently configured cannot be trusted with any sort of meaningful oversight over the war. As it stands, they have guaranteed that if they should take power they will interfere with the operation of this war, and for naked partisan political gain. This will degrade the prosecution of the GWOT, putting people who live and work in primary targets at higher risk. My wife works smack dab in the middle of a primary target.

So you'll understand if some of us here don't give much of a s**t about some utopia of divided government. And the word 'utopia' was picked deliberately.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

So you'll understand if some of us here don't give much of a s**t about some utopia of divided government

You'll have to pardon me if I interpret your statement as a disdaining the Constitution, perhaps I am misunderstanding what you say. I realize that the GWOT has placed all of us on the front lines, with your wife being closer than most, but a divided government based on checks and balances is the framework we have. Given to us by our most enlightened founding fathers. It has seen us through a Civil War, the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin and a whole lot more. And I certainly don't see why some crazed towelhead hiding out in a cave on the other side of the world is any real threat to it. Statements like yours, however, give me pause for concern.

As a fiscal conservative, I have to say that I'm massively disappointed with the current one party rule, as the deficits balloon out of sight and we are somehow suppose to believe that more tax cuts will solve the problem. This logic escape me and recent history certainly doesn't support this theory.

I'm also very disappointed with the results in Iraq and Congress' absolute refusal to hold meaning investigations on the subject. Clearly the war and preceeding occupation have not gone off as initially planned. Not even close. And I'm disheartened at the report that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone that mentioned the need for a post-war plan. In 20/20 hindsight it is clear that those that wanted a post war plan were right and Rumsfeld was wrong.

I point out that the original cost of the Iraq war was projected to be 1.5 billion dollars (to be paid with oil revenue, I believe) and we have now sunk some 317 billion dollars into this mess and the current projections say it could go as high as one trillion dollars. I don't know about you, but if my budget was off by some 66,667% I my boss would fire me outright. I don't know about you, but I consider one trillion dollars to be a lot of money, even by DC standards. And it is being spent with little oversight and few results. So why haven't our Republican Congress stepped up and done their Constitutional duty?

Starting with (as a "fiscal conservative") knowing the difference between "Spending" and "defcits"

If you argue that Spending (how much Congress decides to pay for the various projects and programs in the budget) is ballooning out of control, you'll not get much debate. Just about all of us agree and are very inhappy with it.

Arguing that the Deficit (the negative difference between revenue and spending) is ballooning out of control, and you'll have a whole different can of worms. If you'll care to look (and no, I have not the link, I'll leave that to someone with a better grasp of the Internet to provide), you will find that the Deficit has actually been Decreasing and is at its lowest point thus far since Bush took the WH and (I think) lower than it ever was under Clinton (but don't take my word on it).

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Clinton, with the help of a Republican House, ran a surplus his last three years. A surplus is were more money came in than goes out, in case you are wondering.

Here's a nice graph.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

As you can see, the situation since 2000 has become dire. Things did improve a little in 2005, but I wouldn't call it a trend just yet. And "improve" is a relative term in this context. The deficit is completely out of control.

Please, tell me you have a REAL source for data. PLEASE!

You will never, ever use one again here. Have I made myself perfectly, abundantly clear, bmbike?

Signify your understanding with a response that says "Yes, Moe. I will never, ever use a ethnic slur on this website again." - and nothing else. Or you can go elsewhere: your choice.

Moe

PS: I do not disdain the Constitution, and the only way that it could have been read that way is if you are actually the Constitution and this is merely your secret identity. In that case, good job with the crafted persona.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I somehow can't find the ethnic slur to which to refer in his post. I would hope you removed it, but if not, i would appreciate what currently in his post was an ethnic slur. I didn't read anything that I don't see myself using at another time and would rather not get banned for it, if you know what I mean...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Moe is referring to the term "t*w*lh**d", which I did use and for which I now realize was inappropriate for this forum.

I apologize for my mistake.

Trying to moderate a comments section of this size can be complicated; pardon the heavy-handedness, but it's unfortunately proven to have been all too necessary in the past. Appreciate your prompt apology.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

First of all, I'm d***ed sick and tired of hearing people complain about no 'post-war plan'. Was the Civil War a failure because it took 100 years afterwards to finally integrate the South and guarantee the right to vote to all there? Was World War II a failure because it ended with a divided Europe for the next 44 years?

During either of those wars, did anyone ever talk about the 'post-war plan'?

Second, your total ignorance of the US budget is appalling. The deficit has been declining ever since the 2003 tax cuts went into effect, and lest you complain about the debt still rising, the ratio of debt to GDP has topped out at 64.7 percent-- lower than its peak in 1996 under Bill Clinton, and lower than 34 other countries. Go read the Wikipedia article about the US public debt and be enlightened.

Third, I don't know where you got the idea that the Iraq war was going to be $1.5 billion and that's it. Since you've already proven your ignorance about the budget, I can only assume that you pulled that bit of nonsense from the same vat of ignorance.

Lots of intelligent folks post intelligent stuff here at Redstate. You're not one of them. Read and Learn.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

...we can all take a breath here and moderate the tones, methinks. I know, I know, I'm just a big softy.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

but please, don't reference Wikipedia as an authoritative source for anything. It is too easy for wrong or irrelevant information to get posted there. Link to think tank studies, government statistics, newspapers, or other sources who have better control over their contributors and their accuracy.

Part of how I know it has hugely irrelevant data is that my real name has somehow found its way into the Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and really, I'm not that important, and despite my pride in the event and the accuracy of the quote, I'm not that important in the grand scheme of things.

FDR starting planning for a post war Germany in 1942, tho' he should have listened more closely to Churchill's concerns about Stalin. Not that FDR could have done all that much, as the Red Army did "liberate" Eastern Europe and then didn't want to leave. Still, things turned out ok.

And which 34 countries are worse then us, Malta? Russia? Zimbabwe? I mean 35th worst out of 200 some odd countries doesn't sound all that great, certainly nothing to be proud of, that's for sure.

As for the deficit, true, Bush and Congress managed to make 2005 less horrific that 2004. Will 2006 continue the trend of less horrific deficits? Will just have to wait and see.

Here's the raw numbers, in case you are interested.

1990 -221
1991 -269
1992 -290
1993 -255
1994 -203
1995 -164
1996 -107
1997 -21
1998 69
1999 125
2000 236
2001 128
2002 -157
2003 -377
2004 -412
2005 -318

And the 1.5 billion. I misremembered that. The cost estimates were in the 10's of billions of range with the assurance that Iraq's oil would cover most of the costs. Anyway, one trillion is still a lot more money than was estimated and money that could have been better spent on other GWOT issues.

Anyway, here's some pre-war quotes on the cost estimates of the war.

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

Nobody much cares about the raw numbers, they are not very meaningful. Its the ratio of the deficit to GDP which matters. Any particular reason you are ignoring that in favor of the raw numbers?

About once a month someone posts a statement that is just down right hilarious in its ignorance and/or stupidity. Doesn't even need a comment. Anyone reading it who has:

A. Been on this planet more than a week.

B. Cracked a history book or was awake at least 10% of the time in class.

C. Read and speaks English at the fourth grade level or above.

D. Realized at some point that college professors, in the majority, are deranged.

just starts laughing. Kinda like watching the clueless fools on Jaywalking.

Here is the September winner.

"FDR starting planning for a post war Germany in 1942, tho' he should have listened more closely to Churchill's concerns about Stalin. Not that FDR could have done all that much, as the Red Army did "liberate" Eastern Europe and then didn't want to leave. Still, things turned out ok."

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Anyway, I stand by my assertions. which ones are you having problems with?

A. FDR did start planning for a post-war Germany in 1942 (or really, if you want to get technical, Sumner Welles over in the State Department started working on the problem in 1941, but he wasn't necessarily concerned with what post-war Germany would look like)

B. Churchill did warn FDR about Stalin

C. The Red Army did recapture Eastern Europe from the Nazis

D. The Red Army didn't return to the USSR until about 1989 or so

E. Europe managed to get through the Cold War without it becoming a Hot War and Europe is doing just fine these days. I was last there in 2001 and everyone seemed happy enough

I'm guessing you might be having problems with the fact that FDR starting the post war planning before the war even started. Maybe you should crack open a history book every once in a while.

Everybody play nice.

That being said, go tell the Poles how great the second half of the 20th was for them. Not to mention the Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Russians, the various -istanians and everybody who's ever lived in the Balkans. There's a reason why there's a statue to Ronald Reagan in Poland these days.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

that Eastern Europe got screwed (can I say screwed?) at Yalta.

They did. I'm not sure what you point is though. It wasn't like FDR could have out planned Stalin. Stalin was going to push the Red Army into Eastern Europe and make it part of his sphere of influence. And outside of going to war, which would have been very bloodly, there really wasn't much that could be done about it.

However, FDR did start planning for the post war even before the war began. A lesson that Rumsfeld apparently forgot to learn.

Shouldn't you wait another forty years before you pronounce on whether Iraq has turned out well, as you did with Europe?

your right, I should wait. And there is still hope that Iraq will manage to figure how to govern itself. But I'm betting we're in for a civil war and then three separate countries that hate each other. That should be fun.

And I'll always wonder if Rumsfeld had done a better job planning, if all the extra bloodshed and grief could have been avoided.

The bloodshed in Iraq has been pretty minimal so far. Bear in mind that Europe was peaceful after the war because we bombed it to rubble during the war, killing about a million civilians and millions of soldiers. Iraq may turn into a bloodbath on that scale yet, but we're not there yet.

...on that rather breezy 'things turned out OK' statement. Because they didn't turn out OK. We wrote off half a continent because we were tired and wanted to go home, and we let that state of affairs continue for two generations until some people came along and fixed things. And if they hadn't, that half-continent would still be slowly rotting in the dark.

And this is why we tend to ignore people like yourself when all y'all start complaining about how bad a job our side is doing: it's because we generally have to explain extremely simple things like this all the time, and it grates. In short, we don't have much reason to recognize your side's collective ability to even comprehend the problem, let alone offer a solution.

Since you asked.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

"Everything turned out OK" for 10s of million people killed and enslaved after WWll, you are the one who is doing the insulting.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

A more relevant, but still simple, number is the growth rate in the annual deficit.

The US began running structural deficits (a good rule of thumb: growth rates over 5% in times of peace). The W years (in a time of war) don't look too bad by this standard: better than early Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, dear old Jimmy and Ford.

Data Source: US Treasury
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

(Sorry about the format - am not experienced with tables and html)

Year Change

2005 7.5%
2004 8.8%
2003 8.9%
2002 7.2%
2001 2.3%
2000 0.3%
1999 2.4%
1998 2.1%
1997 3.6%
1996 5.0%
1995 6.0%
1994 6.4%
1993 8.5%
1992 10.9%
1991 13.4%
1990 13.2%
1989 9.8%
1988 10.7%
1987 10.6%
1986 9.2%
1985 17.0%
1984 17.9%
1983 17.8%
1982 16.4%
1981 10.6%
1980 10.1%
1979 7.1%
1978 9.8%
1977 10.0%
1976 13.3%
1975 17.0%
1974 4.8%
1973 4.6%
1972 5.9%
1971 9.0%
1970 5.7%
1969 2.8%
1968 3.9%
1967 4.7%
1966 2.6%
1965 0.9%
1964 2.8%
1963 1.9%
1962 2.5%
1961 2.1%
1960 -0.2%

Personally, I believe our country will be much safer if the left, as currently constructed, is relegated to permanent minority status. Their current world-view and moral relativism puts us at considerable risk and endangers our national sovereignty.

Query? If one wished to insure the defeat of our country and was actively seeking to undermine our war effort, how would those actions differ from what we see coming from the left today?

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Query? If one wished to insure the defeat of our country and was actively seeking to undermine our war effort, how would those actions differ from what we see coming from the left today?

Again, I fail to see how a bunch of stateless, cave dwelling thugs can really threaten our form of government. Can they do damage and kill some of us? Absolutely, they have already proved that, which is why we need to confront them.

But I think it is hyperbole to state that they can undermine us. No, the only people that can undermine us and our Constitution, are ourselves.

Our systems was built on the concept of check and balances for good reasons and I fail to see why a small number of criminals, half a world away should change that.

to one you like, you have to answer the one that was posted to play here. So here it is again:

"How would those actions be any different than what we see coming from the left today?"

You may be entirely correct that the only people who can defeat us are our own citizens, but that still begs the question. Maybe the citizens who will undermine us and cause the collapse are those on the left. Every time we do something effective against the terrorists, they seem to come up with some "constitutional" reason we can no longer pursue an effective policy. Currently it requires a leftist judge using his authoritarian power to implent such decisions, but if they had subpenoa power, I don't believe the leaks, obstructionism, and general blame-America-firstism wouldn't stop.

that should have be "implement" and "would not stop".

Sorry for not proofing better.

I'm not sure what "effective" policies you are talking about.

Torture may or may not work, but it carries a high price in the world of public opinion and is a great recruiting tool for Al Queda. Assuming we do get some reliable info from torture (an assumption I dispute), the fact that we are torturers and thugs dries up other sources of information, resulting in a net loss.

Wiretapping domestic to domestic phone calls can be easily done under the FISA laws and courts.

Suspension of habeas corpus and ignoring due process does little to further the GWOT and violates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence (that part about certain unalienable Rights springs to mind.)

How can they be inalienable if we can just wave them away because we are frighten.

Thing is, while the Al Queda can damage us, they can't defeat us. They don't have tanks, or ships, or warplanes. Any standing army they raise will be utterly obliterated in seconds, if not faster. And they will never, ever be able to march down Pennsylvania Ave and raise a Crescent flag over the Capitol building.

But what they can do is turn us into them by getting us to ignore our founding principles and our good guy meme. Constitution is just a piece of paper with a bunch of fancy words and ideas on it. It is how interrupt and follow words and ideas that is the primary separator between us and them. Which is why every time we ignore a little part of the Constitution we become a little more like them and a little less like us.

And the only real winning strategy for the GWOT is to turn them in to people like us. That's not going to be easy, and it is going to take a long time. And it means we need to set an example for them to follow and not just talk the talk, but walk the walk. So we really need to stop behaving like thugs and start acting like civilized humans beings.

So there, does that answer your question?

I will start with your first point, I guess...
"...the fact that we are torturers and thugs..."
Ok, for starters, that's my wife you're talking abot as one of the torturers. I expect a retraction.
Beyond that, Are you an interrogator for either the military or the CIA? If not, then what are you basing your definition of "Torture" on? What Time magazine has published? What McCain has called torture? McCain, of all people SHOULD know what torture is, but sensory deprivation (for the civilians who can afford it, it's supposed to be better than a massage), threatening to flush the Koran down the toilet (even if that was actually done) and playing loud music have never been considered torture. The police do all of the above regularly. Why do you want War Criminals to have more rights than US citizens?

FISA, look through this website, this has been debated and you are wrong.

Ignoring due proccess for whom? Suspending Habeas Corpus for whom? Last I heard, it was the terrorists which we wanted to try under those stipulations. These are War Criminals by definintion. Furthermore, they are not US Citizens And they never signed the Geneva Convention. They Have No Rights. And if you Want to apply the Geneva Convention to them, then why not try them under Sha'ri'a Law? We start doing that, and carrying out the penalties spelled out in Their Own Laws, I guarantee terrorism will dry up.

If we do everything that the Dems and McCain want us to do, there will be no deterrent to terroristic activities and/or war crimes anywhere in the world. Yes, you're right, they can't defeat us, no matter how many planes they fly into our buildings. But, personally, I believe in preventing as many of those planes as possible.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

>>History seems to show that sooner or later it will happen.

Another party, almost certainly the Democrats, will come to power or to share power at some time. Possibly, in the case of sharing power, in a few months.

But that does not make it a good thing. History suggest there will be an earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane in New Orleans. But I don't want either of these things to happen. Ever.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

First of all above all else your responses reveal a significant naiveté and ignorance of both government and history. Frankly, I would class you as a troll since the dialogue on this site is generally intellectual and factual. Your posture appears to be fallacious, misleading, characterized by a revealing emotional irrationality and ignorance.

That said lets dispense with a few facts. During the early part of the Twentieth century, people thought Hitler was a failed wallpaper hanger. However, his real threat was a parochial ideology. That ignominious ideology took advantage of emotions and prejudices which arguably grew to the greatest threat during that century. There were numerous opportunities to stop him, but none were taken until it was too late.

Islamic fascism is much the same. The threat is its principals and those who promote it. Accordingly, a multi faceted approach must be taken. First, the price for proliferating or leading Islamic Fascism must be so clear; it becomes unthinkable to become a partaker. The second is to establish a choice for those wishing to fight this scourge. That choice is democracy and freedom. The former point leads to destroying anyone within the leadership or chain of command. This action has and continues to be successfully employed. The latter point insures that a choice exists not only for those citizens directly in Iraq, but also for the entire region to see the fruits of representative government.

Why should this all be relevant to us? Because unquestionably it keeps us safe. The realization came with a monumental event such as 9-11. We can not survive by disengaging from world events, hoping to be left alone. It is freedom the Islamic ideologues hate and our country is democracies bastion. If left unchecked it will make us all less safe by allowing forces to align, unmolested against Western freedoms.

This is what Democrats do not want to understand. Their interests are neither Constitutional nor authoritative in any sense. They are parochial political tactics designed to obfuscate and unseat otherwise sagacious actions and policies. Their appeal is emotional and they care not for fact, but for advantageous personal motives. That is not in the interest of American citizens and it will not keep us safe. A majority of the populace knows this already and many more realize each day. It is a primary reason Democrats will remain permanently in the minority, since it is a risk we can not take.

Class over and that’s much more than you deserve.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

...of the big picture rationale for confronting Islamic Fascism with more than a box of band-aids and a fruit basket (otherwise known as "tough and smart").

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

absentee

I guess I'm just not buying into this "unitary" executive thing.

So what are you saying, that you think we ought to have several co-presidents? Not very Constitutional, to say nothing about its practicality.

Whores work very hard for their money.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Perhaps you could enlighten us based on your extensive combat experience in Iraq?

chickenhawking is not allowed.

Just sayin'.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

...so I was a little busy this evening. Bye-bye, militarist: find somewhere else to engage in your jackboot fantasies.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I do not agree with you on Generals not working hard...

...After all, have YOU ever tried to keep your lips attached to as many backsides as they have to in order to reach and keep their ranks?

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

n/t

I'm ideologically conservative but to hear you guys on redstate go on makes me weep.

Tell me, sir: how many Iraqi lives would you trade for one US soldier, sailor, or Marine? And how many soldier, sailor, or Marines for one US civilian?

And how many US civilians would you trade to defeat an imperialist tyrant with the means to conquer the world and suborn what liberty there is in it?

There are many imperialist tyrants.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Tell me, sir: how many Iraqi lives would you trade for one US soldier, sailor, or Marine? And how many soldier, sailor, or Marines for one US civilian?

Interesting question, I'm curious to see your answers.

And how many US civilians would you trade to defeat an imperialist tyrant with the means to conquer the world and suborn what liberty there is in it?

That's easy, since I'd rather die that submit to an imperialist tyrant, n - 1.

...but you have a directive to fulfill regarding your use of offensive language. Your continued posting privileges depend on it, so I suggest that you get cracking. Now.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

He assented fully here.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

And I'm sorry I didn't read the FAQ completely before I jumped in a posted. My bad.

I point out that we are at war with them and the use of ethnic slurs directed against one's enemies goes way back in time. But if the rules are no ethnic slurs against anyone (my how PC) even those that are trying to kill us and destroy our way of life, I can deal with that. I mean I wouldn't want to offend OBL and his comrades.

(although answering is not my gig, asking is my gig :-)

I'd trade all of the citizens of an enemy nation (every last man, woman, and child) for the life of one US soldier, sailor, or Marine. Yes, I know many of them would be innocents. It doesn't matter.

In principle I'd trade the life of every US soldier, sailor, or Marine for one US civilian, sorry excuse for citizens that most of us are. In practice, I would probably not want to leave rest of the nation undefended for just one civilian, particularly one whose choice it was to be in harm's way. But that's a question of strategy, not worth.

And I would not let the loss of US civilians deter me from defeating a tyrant, although the word "sacrifice" gives me pause. There are things more valuable than life, such as liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to preserve those things for the nation I would tolerate the loss of as many as required. It's a cold thought, but say you wouldn't do likewise and you doom the many for the sake of the few.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

So when are you enlisting in the Army? There is a $40,000 bonus!!!

is a no-no on this site.

And for the record, I've already served.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

I am the local Army Recruiter. I may not like the job, but that doesn't mean that I am not proud to do it. So Don't try to take it.

disclaimer: if you are in Iraq or on your way there, you may trade jobs with me at any time.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

For starters, I must thank you for the "youngster." Made my morning.

But unfortunatly I have to take issue with the substance of your comment. This statement is of particular concern:

The country could have been pacified, put to work rebuilding itself etc. and everything would be hunky dory.

Admit it.

You can use the imperitive all you like, but unless you actually muster some evidence I will admit no such thing. I think that one lesson we have learned from this conflict is that sustained effort against this enemy is going to be difficult. I continue to wonder if those extra troops in which you have such utter and unquestioning faith would really have been the panacea you believe. It's awfully easy for you to now announce that had your plan only been followed everything would be "hunky dory." But I worry that there would be no constitution and no unity government--there would be an artificially sustained "authority" and a looming potential for a power vacuum when those troops were eventually withdrawn.

And as for your clever deneument:

"it has taken longer than WWII to arrive at this juncture."

Let's see if I can help you out here. Yes, we have been in Iraq longer than we engaged in major combat operations in WWII. Toss in Korea, there too while you're at it. But sadly the premise is fatally flawed. You see, what is happening in Iraq now is not major combat operations. As in WWII (or again Korea), the actual fighting was followed by a long period of pacification and reconstruction--and here's the thing: our troops are still there. Still in Germany. Still in Japan. Still in Korea. Adjusting troops levels in all three locations remains an ongoing issue. So unless you want to tell me that we've been in Iraq for fifty years, I'm just not buying what you're selling here.

And as to the "conservatism" of the Iraq mission, we have debated that (civily and intelligently) at length on this site. Ever heard of Paul Cella? No? Seems to me you might have a little homework to do.

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

2003-2006, three years, broken down as 21 days fighting and three years of occupation.

1939 - 1948, nine years, broken down as six years of fighting and three years of occupation, and that is just the war in Europe.

Granted, it would have been nice if the occupation stage in Iraq could have been shorter. If the army had fought back as the German army did, or the country had been firebombed and nuked as Japan was, the police operation would have been easier, but the rebuilding probably harder.

Now, having helped you with your math, you might like to learn a bit more about Iraq, too.

For example, you might like find out the answers to some of the following questions:

1. When did violence against Coaltion forces peak?
2. When did violence against Iraqi security forces start to decline?
3. What was the growth rate in Iraq last year?
4. What percentage of Iraqis believe that the Coalition was right to overthrow Saddam?

Hint, you won't much clue as to the answers to these questions from the MSM, but the answers, as gathered by a respected liberal think tank, are out there on the web.

If you were under the impression that current terrorist activity against the Iraqi and Coalition forces is growing; that Iraq is in an economic mess; that Iraqis yearn for the good old days; or any of the other myths then I suggest you take the answers to questions 1-4 above and rethink your position.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

but I seem to recall my teacher telling me about some hotspots in Dresden, Kobe, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were pacified almost overnight. I wish more people were like you and understood that with the right application of military resources we could pacify Baghdad, Fallujah, and even Tehran in just a matter of days.

Remind me again how many had to die before our people and politicians built the resolve to finish the job, it was 50 or 60 million right? Well I am sure if these people have their way with their politics of power we can get to the good old days and unleash another "greatest generation' on the civilian populations of the world.

Maybe if we replace the current administration we can pull back and wait until things get bad enough so that we can do this thing right!
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

that there are some 1.2 billion Muslims in the world? I don't care at all for their retarded beliefs or their f-ed up culture, but if you start wholesale "pacifying" cities in Iraq, a large percantage of those 1.2 billion people are going to join Al Queda - or at least support it. It will only make the problem worse.

to another post but thanks for chiming in anyway Nostradamus.
_______________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

I fully expect that within the next 10 years some muslim is going to light up an American city with a small nuke, marked "Allah Acme Mfg., Iran", and kill 100,000+ people. This will cause the American leadership to either turn Iran into a glassy wasteland or be faced with the prospect of the people electing a leader based upon that very promise.

This urban renewal project will continue throughout the muslim world until the muslim population is down into the mid 8 zeros.

We will split the newly available oil reserves with China during probate.

On the home front, Manzanar will be re-opened to keep the population from killing every one who looks more Islamic than Baptist.

And, when this happens, just like WWII, it will be because the liberal, left, squishy appeasers held just enough political power to preclude an earlier, but less destructive, response to the threat that is so clearly presented.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

considering that FDR and Lincoln were more Democrat than Republican.

I don't care at all for their retarded beliefs or their f-ed up culture

I normally don't care, but he wouldn't have been able to say that in reference to, say, Catholics, would he?

Of course, I've seen enough anti-Mormon stuff on here lately to also give me pause.

just one voice like yours, even sighing in semi despair, is enough to demonstrate that there is a conscience here at RedState that is alive and well. Maybe a little suppressed at the moment, but not gone.

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

Particularly if your sticking around here means sneering at the state of my conscience, which is alive, awake and active.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Are you back?

If we started "pacifying" cities like we did in WW2, then yes, in the short term, recruiting for the Islamists would skyrocket. As we continued to pound the living daylights out of them 1 of 2 things would occur:
They would come to understand the cost of being/supporting terrorists and refuse to be recruited,
Or they would run out of potential recruits.
Either way works fine for me.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Now that's an ignorant statement. We resumed the ground war in Iraq in 2003. In this universe it's now 2006. For the US, major operations of WWII stretched from 1941 to 1945. But that's not even a legitimate comparison.

If you wanted a legitimate comparison, you'd include the period from Pearl Harbor to the pacification of resistance in Germany and the completion of reconstruction - maybe even the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It amazes me that people like you expect us to defeat the fourth largest army in the world and rebuild a nation, and then get antsy if we're not done in 3 years. Go back to your sitcoms and microwave mac & cheese. In the real world things take longer.

There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill

The poster claims to be British. Germany had been at war for more than two years before the US got involved, and Japan had been at war for most of the 1930s.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

In my opinion, there are none. But then part of my conception of conservatism is is that it is an anti-ideology. I see conservatism as a system of observation of history, science, and human nature being combined with a forward looking questioning curiosity to improve ourselves on all levels. As such, it doesn't have tenets as such. It has principles that are constantly compared against its projective hypotheses, and corrected or discarded when found to be in error.

P.S.

I take it from your sig that you mean to imply a British heritage, yet you claim the Iraq war has gone on for longer than WWII. While I can see Americans easily making this mistake (assuming it started in 1942) I find it odd that a Brit would make it since for most Europeans it started in 1933. As for being a conservative, I think many historians of that stripe would say WWII was a direct result of WWI and the policies vis-a-vie Germany that Europe enacted at its closure, which would imply an even longer timeline for the war.

to see your willingness to spend 100 BILLION DOLLARS each year fighting the GWOT.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

We should have a meeting to figure that out;)

for picking up my slack with your comment #35.

It was spot on!

I posted my comment above before heading out to the jobsite this morning, and I missed quite a long thread proving my original point.

You asked:

"Will they ever realize that Mr. Rumsfeld is part of the reason we are safe?"

I believe those seeking to end their minority status realize all-too-well the effectiveness of Sec Def Rumsfeld. They wish to separate Sec Def Rumsfeld from from President Bush for purely political advantage, IMHO.

To the left, this would be "an obvious admission that invading Iraq was a profound mistake," and they would use that mea culpa as fodder to call for President Bush's immediate impeachment.

"Misunderestimated," again!

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

We should never hesitate to spend all that is needed and deploy as many GIs as possible to win this war.

I have profound faith that Donald Rumsfeld will send our brave troops to Iraq in however many Tours are needed with as many Stop-Loss Orders as provided.

We must win the GWOT whatever the cost!!!

This:

We must win the GWOT whatever the cost!!!

is your most sensible comment yet.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

...trips over an occasional nut.

"Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous." - Hitchens to Maher

the factual nature of that statement was unintentional, and I couldn't resist highlighting it.

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan