Defending Honor, Courage, and Chivalry in the Modern World

January 6, 2007

Justifying Iraq

Filed under: Bush, Iraq, Politics, War, War on Terror — knighthospitaller @ 8:10 pm

 For all of those people who feel that America’s presents in Iraq is unjustified, look at it from a tactical prospective. It is easy to look at things from a single prospective, but to understand the whole picture you have to view the issue from all sides.

   In this new age of warfare, the enemy has adapted to survive, to become a more efficient killing machine. They blend with innocents and hide amongst our own populations. They are patient, and are capable of waiting many years to plot a massive and lethal attack. They have learned that Americans and Europeans do not share their devotion to victory, nor do they share their endurance.

    Iraq, from a tactical prospective, was a noble goal. To eliminate a dictator, seize potential weapons that threaten national security, and create a supportive and peaceful front in the region. Of course, we all know things took an unexpected turn. When things go wrong everyone who supported the war suddenly became staunch protesters. Using excuses like, “Bush lied.” (Lie; To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else). The intelligence was not correct, but according to the intelligence the weapons were being developed. The United States saw the threat and believed that action needed to be taken. Keep in mind that this was after the attacks on September the 11th 2001. The US was attempting to adapt to this new theater of warfare.

     Are we losing the conflict in Iraq? No. Are we wining it? No. It’s a stalemate, just like Vietnam. And just like in that war, this one will be decided by public opinion. We can win, but it requires the adaptation, the endurance, and the determination that the terrorist have.

     If the United States and the coalition troops leave Iraq now, and hope that all the bad guys will just go away, nothing good will come of it. It will send a message to the world, that the US can not follow through, and that it does not posses the ability to defend itself. If we leave Iraq, Islamic extremists i.e. the bad guys, will not simply throw down their arms and walk away satisfied. Once they taste a victory as great as the defeat of the US in a key battle, they will seek another engagement, and a battle on US soil would not be advantageous.

Advertisements

25 Comments »

  1. Well summed up, you’re preaching to the choir my friend…

    Comment by Sky-Ryder — January 6, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

  2. We live in a world of war. In human history there has never been peace on any scale. The conflicts we face with must represent something. Or all is lost in vain attempt. One must believe in Life and Peace. If we were to have war, then we must be united in the fight. If there is no unity then there is no hope. I agree with your views. I am not pro war. I believe what we are doing is for the better good. I believe if we would have nothing then there would have been a greater catastrophe than September 11th. But I get repulsed by this countries way of standing ground. “United We Stand”? Yes, maybe for a week. We preach and contradict our actions. If we are the United States Of America, then let us be united and strong. That is what we stand for. And one day the people of this land will realize…when it is too late…what we fight for
    Nice Article.

    Comment by enreal — January 6, 2007 @ 8:49 pm

  3. How about this angle. We can’t forget, Afghanistan is (or was) Afghanistan, and Iraq is Iraq. There were terrorist extremists in Afghanistan that needed to pay for what they did to the U.S. in Tanzania, New York, D.C. etc. But there were no terrorists in Iraq and Hussein had no intentions of helping any terrorist organiaztions harm American interests before the U.S. invaded that sovreign country. The war in Iraq was of our making.

    Only the idea of a just war is acceptable. Who can unequivocally say this “war” agianst the extremists, the Iraqi civilians and the Middle East in general is just? It is only a facade for America’s hegemony. The sooner we as Americans understand this concept the better off we, as a planet, will be.

    Comment by 1loneranger — January 16, 2007 @ 11:41 am

  4. This is one of the most semantically challenged, orthographically weak, and syllogistically questionable loads of codswallop I have had the severe displeasure of stumbling across in almost 15 years of perusing such efforts on the net. Needless to say, the most important numbers – that would be the number of dead, displaced, homeless, orphaned, and so forth have no place in the this pathetically reasoned piece.

    Let me give you a hint – The US is not the only place that has had a terrorist problem. Canada, Indonesia, and even Britain have had terrorist attacks. What separates the men from the boys is recognising that others might have some good advice to offer rather than dictating how America will do it – no if’s and’s or but’s. The trouble is that the sorry asses of some damn fine folk are being blown to chunks because of the rampant incompetence at the top.

    Comment by Davewhogave — January 20, 2007 @ 12:57 pm

  5. I think you have made some very valid points. In retrospect, I think we could have had a better plan at the beginning like bombing Iraq back to the stone age. I think this would have saved American lives and sent a definite message to all other enemies not to mess with us or die like pigs.
    I’m sick and tired of these tyrants and playing cat and mouse games across the globe. Just settle it once and for all, so we can get back to living a peaceful life.

    Comment by madmouser — January 20, 2007 @ 1:18 pm

  6. Good points you have made. I’ve written quite a bit about the same issues in my blog. One thing I like to point out to people is that we didn’t need any new justification for the war in Iraq after 9/11, and that is where the Bush administration messed up.

    The simple fact Iraq failed to comply with the weapons inspection regime was more than enough to justify going back in. Hostilities were ceased for one reason only during the Gulf War—it was predicated on the Iraqi government’s agreement to comply with the terms set forth.

    Iraq did have chemical precursors for chemical warfare. They did have rockets that exceeded the maximum allowable ranger under U.N. dictates. They failed to comply with the inspection regime. They did harbor terrorists (recall Abu Nidal in Baghdad).

    And just for the record, I think we’re making good progress though it isn’t always obvious to the public who don’t understand strategic thinking and the nuances of power. I came across a good article by an Israeli Major General that I referenced in a post of my own about Hamas, Hezbollah, and the broader threat of a nuclear Middle East. It’s not just Iran seeking nukes now. The entire region is headed that way.

    http://errantmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/hamas-and-hezbollah-on-defensive-a-nuclear-middle-east/

    Great post. Great site. I look forward to reading more from you.

    Comment by Sean Wilson — January 20, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

  7. Oops…

    “They did have rockets that exceeded the maximum allowable ranger under U.N. dictates.”

    Should read…

    “They did have rockets that exceeded the maximum allowable range under U.N. dictates.”

    Comment by Sean Wilson — January 20, 2007 @ 11:22 pm

  8. I’m not so sure we can “win” in this environment. I’m sure given enough brute strength in manpower, we can bring order to Baghdad, at least. I’m pretty sure the Iraqi government, aware of the ensuing bloodbath upon US withdrawal, are taking self policing seriously now. We’ll see.

    But, I’m not holding my breath awaiting civility to spring from an ideology and culture that considers medieval methods of settling disputes and treatment of women, the theocratic method of government and an unwillingness to abandon mutually held ideas about spreading Islam and world subjugation the appropriate path of endeavor.

    This, sadly, seems to be an open ended struggle for world domination with forces that believe martyrdom for themselves and their children noble and who offer no quarter to those who disgree.

    How do you use a gun to move fundamentalist religious zealots from their perceived moral highground?

    Maybe I’m wrong.

    For the sake of our children and soldiers, I hope I am.

    Comment by icanplainlysee — January 24, 2007 @ 1:17 pm

  9. Justifying Iraq(Nice try but YOU Failed at it)

    For all of those people who feel that America’s presents in Iraq is unjustified, look at it from a tactical prospective.

    Ok tactically we gave Iraq away right after the invasion when the US military left the entire country unsecured and open to the invasion of foreign fighters at the same time we left the Iraqi arms and ammo depots unguarded so the insurgency was guaranteed large amounts of weapons ammo and explosives were easy for them to steal for future operations against American and coalition troops

    It is easy to look at things from a single prospective,

    Like YOU do?

    but to understand the whole picture you have to view the issue from all sides.

    From the side of Gen Zinni, Gen Shinseki both who argued against the poorly planned invasion and the incompetently lead pentagon which was creating the Fiasco we have on our hands today?

    Then there is most of the rest of this planet which had realizes bush ET Al were determined to attack NO matter what and they decided that the invasion was NOT legal hense they opted out of such an act of illegal aggressive war.

    Yes there are many sides which we could look at it from, people like Scott Ritter who knew that BUSH ET Al were NOT telling the truth because he had been inside Iraq and knew what had been destroyed and what would have been necessary to replace those destroyed weapons which Saddam NEVER got his hands on, thus your still cherry picking what you want to think or write about.

    In this new age of warfare, the enemy has adapted to survive, to become a more efficient killing machine.

    No the enemy needs to find a way to survive long enough to wear our illegal presence in their country down and the citizens in THIS country accept that the war should never have been started in the first place and we bring our troops home and GIVE Iraq back to the Iraqis.

    They blend with innocents and hide amongst our own populations.

    Thank you for the definition of any insurgent style of war fare, like the Vietnamese fought, anti Nazi forces all over Europe fought especially Tito in Yugoslavia and the french did in France. The Afghan freedom fighters fought the same style of warfare against the Soviet union in the 1980’s and most of the anti European Empire freedom movements all over this planet also used as their vehicle of liberation.

    They are patient, and are capable of waiting many years to plot a massive and lethal attack.

    Inside Iraq the attacks are DAILY, sorry son your attempting to conflate what the Iraqis are doing inside Iraq against an occupation force with what al qaeda does, which is intellectually DISHONEST son.

    They have learned that Americans and Europeans do not share their devotion to victory, nor do they share their endurance.

    The Iraqis are fighting for control of their country NOT trying to illegally force some other country to accept their version of what a European or America should look like, thus they have so much more invested in the outcome, they would be more determined to fight hard for their freedom which the Bush ET Al is trying to force on them.

    Iraq, from a tactical prospective, was a noble goal

    NO IT WAS NOT, that is pure reichwing BUNK.

    To eliminate a dictator,

    Not allowed by any legal authority, it violates both US and UN laws and the Geneva convention to ILLEGALLY attack a country just to replace it’s ruler especially when there is NO immanent threat to the invading country from the country being Invaded.

    seize potential weapons that threaten national security

    Sorry but the word potential destroys your poorly thought out argument here, since the justification for attacking another country is a real EXISTING threat not just some fancy of some reichwing morons delusional thinking.

    and create a supportive and peaceful front in the region

    Bhahahwhahwhahwha, your getting into Rush limpballs comedy time here.

    Attacking a country and trying to force changes at the barrel of a gun is going to make people peaceful, hell that is the stupidest thing in this whole delusionary idiotic rant you posted
    .
    Of course, we all know things took an unexpected turn.

    Not if your actually proficient in the history of warfare or the results of forced military aggression to change the internal politics of a semi modern state. If either of these had been considered then morons like Cheney would never have tried to sell the moronic idea that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and just accept what ever the neo-con cabal was trying to force on them. They would have planned on things going wrong like it has happened in every military intervention since the dawn of time, and especially would have planned on having enough security to guarantee the borders and weapons and ammunition of the Iraqi military were secure to set the tempo of the reconstruction of both the country and a governing body to set up and rule it to allow the Us and coalition forces to leave.

    When things go wrong everyone who supported the war suddenly became staunch protesters.

    Probably since re-pubies are such gutless wonders that way. However a hell of a lot of US were against this insane illegal invasion from the start. Probably some people just realized that Bush had deceived them and they could no longer accept what he said or the true motives for why he attack since almost every excuse collapsed when they were investigated and the motive kept being a moving target as each was shot down by reality and revelation.

    Using excuses like, “Bush lied.” (Lie; To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else).

    Bush knowingly lied after the beginning of the war since the truth was already being exposed. BTW Bush did LIE when he said the decision to invade was not made even though he had told Tony Blair it was, and the British were reporting the INTELL was being fixed around a POLICY which meant a decision top follow that policy had already been made and orders to carriy it out were being issued.

    The intelligence was not correct,

    Thank you Richard Cheney for fiughting the intell agancies from the TRUE intell they had but Cheney did not l;ike.

    Thank you Donald Rumsfeld for setting up a competing Intell agency INSIDE DOD to cherry pick the intell to get what Cheney wanted.

    Thank you Douglas Feith(the stupidest person in the world according to Gen Tommy Franks CINC centcom who ran the DOD intell operation which accepted the word of curveball AFTER the germans reported he could NOT be trusted.

    . but according to the intelligence the weapons were being developed.

    Because that was what Cheney Bush ET AL wanted the intell to say and they got forged documents and put up foreign convicted criminals and disreputable foreign agents as their proof, but withheld the insecurity of the intell according to the CIA.

    The United States saw the threat and believed that action needed to be taken.

    Omnly those who wanted this illegal invasion and war for the control of Iraq saw that Billions of people did NOT.

    Keep in mind that this was after the attacks on September the 11th 2001

    Slick attempt tpo slide 9-1 into a war it had NOTHING to do with. Nice try son..

    The US was attempting to adapt to this new theater of warfare.

    Pure unadulterated BULLSH*T, we were in this theater of warfare since the early 19870’s with our playing BOTH sides in the Iran-Iraq war, then desert Storm followed by the No Fly zones in both northern Iraq and southern Iraq, we had been there since Reagan ET AL pulled the Iran-contra affair, right up to this very second.

    Are we losing the conflict in Iraq? No.

    Tactically we win almost every firefight, strategically we probably have already LOST, just like Strategically we lost Vietnam even as tactically we were recapturing Hue and the US embassy from the Viet cong attackers of the TET offensive, sorry to POP your delusional bubble, but wars can be tactically won while they are strategically lost.

    Are we wining it? No

    Especially the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people which if a foreign occupation force loses then it is just a matter of time until they are forced OUT either by a growing internal insurgency or the lack of military losses to continue for a ever shrinking prospect of any good for the adventure for the occupation military and society which bears the brunt of sending personnel and equipment to be destroyed in a losing war..

    It’s a stalemate, just like Vietnam.

    Close son but NO cigar. It’s a losing stalemate as our military forces are ever attacked and killed equipment is used up and wears out or is destroyed at the same time a insurgency and civil war grows which is making any type of “victory”impossible At the same time enormous amounts of capital is being syphoned off the society back home further reducing that societies ability to improve the life and future of it’s citizens and lowering the standard of living of both the attacked country(IRAQ) and the attacking society(USA) just like the afghan rebels force both Russia and the Soviet backed Government in Kabul to go through

    .And just like in that war, this one will be decided by public opinion.

    Not entirely true son. Germany at the end of WW2 was defeated no matter what the public opinion was, and at the same time no amount of US public opinion will produce a victory inside Iraq as long as the people of Iraq refuse to allow it. We are actually hostage to what the Iraqi people are willing to ebndure much more than our own public opinion. If they are wuilling to endure what ever is necessary to f9orce the US troops out of their country, we will NEVER win with out genocidal style attacks on a very large portion of its population.

    We can win, but it requires the adaptation, the endurance, and the determination that the terrorist have.

    No son actually it requires the Iraqi people to GIVE up and accept our control over their country which it seems they refuse to do Damn man I though you knew something about insurgent style combat and what it took to win one..

    If the United States and the coalition troops leave Iraq now, and hope that all the bad guys will just go away, nothing good will come of it It will send a message to the world, that the US can not follow through, and that it does not posses the ability to defend itself.

    Attacking Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with defending the US, that is just another re-pugnat neo-con LIE, which people like you love to peddle, but has NO relation to reality at all.

    If we leave Iraq, Islamic extremists i.e. the bad guys, will not simply throw down their arms and walk away satisfiedOnce they taste a victory as great as the defeat of the US in a key battle, they will seek another engagement, and a battle on US soil would not be advantageous.

    You mean like Osama Bin Laden did after he helped defeat the USSR in Afghanistan and decided to try to trap the US in another protracted losing war of attrition with no true strategy or possible military victory with conventional forces since the US is fighting a insurgency which is made up of indigenous people who are fighting an occupation force inside their country. Bin Laden thought he would repeat his victory inside Afghanistan with another war inside Afghanistan. However he could have never dreamed Bush would use half baked truths and spin to give Bin Laden the war in Afghanistan with not enough forces to defeat the Taliban at the same time Bush ET Al would aid Bin laden’s efforts by atritting most of the military inside another war in Iraq which was fought so badly. This would lead to a situation that in 2007 was even worse than it was in 2003 after Bush declared major combat operations were OVER. In 2007 inside both countries major combat operations to attempt to secure the battlefield and control, important objectives were being planned and executed once again. Hense the real statement should have been, “Major combat operations were being suspended until the insurgents could stand up then they would continue for as long as Bush decided to.

    Later FOOLE

    Comment by clif — March 5, 2007 @ 8:56 pm

  10. BTW numbnuts nice to see you have NO rhetorical comeback to the shredding your juvenile post got.

    Comment by clif — March 7, 2007 @ 12:25 am

  11. “Germany at the end of WW2 was defeated no matter what the public opinion was…”

    Do you know what the public opinion was?

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 11:54 am

  12. “Iraqi people to GIVE up and accept our control over their country”

    My poor, misguided, friend… If the US just wanted complete control of the country, if we were as barbaric as you say. We would go house to house and round up the enemy. Then shoot them, execution style in the streets.

    If you would have paid attention to what I was saying in the article, instead of disecting it, looking for sentences you could twist to support your crazy beliefs, you would have learned that, we are at a disadvantage, because we don’t do the things listed above. My point is If America was the country you paint it to be, we would have conquered Iraq, not occupied it.

    You want to pack up and run away, you coward. Whether or not the conflict is justified in your mind, we are there now. We have a responsiblity to get that country back on its feet. Like I said on the other post, I don’t expect you to understand…

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 12:03 pm

  13. “…no amount of US public opinion will produce a victory inside Iraq…”

    Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.
    -Abraham Lincoln

    I guess, President Lincoln and I, don’t know what we are talking about…

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

  14. If you don’t know where to find my rebuttal, just go to, http://whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/45-million-children-undernourished-in-iraq/

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 1:12 pm

  15. Hi Knight,

    Funny how most of what you say seems blindingly obvious and crystal clear to me, yet you’ve managed to find someone who uses some kind of false analogy, high school debating technique, or just plain fiction to dispute your point of view.

    When your a slave to preconception, no reasoning is required to reach your position.

    Bush is Hitler. Halliburton. Cheney is the anti-christ. Blood for oil. And, Noam Chomsky is divine. This pretty much rules out ever seeing the forest for the trees with these people.

    I quit arguing with the bigoted, hateful full bore socialist thought police types. They’ll die hating America.

    Life’s too short.

    Hank

    Comment by icanplainlysee — March 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

  16. Damn son tell me your NOT another anal retentive troll who used to go under the moniker of “Freedom Fan”, he was as big a blow hard with no real understanding that ballots when the people you VOTE for run off to foreign country for their safety does NOT a democracy make. especially when the Bushco criminal empire is silently working ti UNDERMINE the selection of Maliki as Prime minister, and wanna replace him with Allawi who used to be a CIA asset, which means we are right back into the Dulles brothers CIA coup mode to get the government we want in a Muslim country circa 1953 which STARTED the mess we have in Iran RIGHT NOW.

    Damn your one DUMB son of a bitch.

    Anal retentive wanna be knight boy said;

    I “replay” nothing. I just study my history, so that I may learn from it. You should try it sometime.

    Too bad your such a POOR student son, the guiding historical perspective for Iraq is three wars of the second half of the twentieth century.

    1. Afghanistan, circa 1980-1988 because it was another example of a modern western industrialized military power invading a Muslim nation in a blatant attempt to create a government more acceptable to their political-economic agenda. It showed for all to see, that if the indigenous Muslim population was ready to suffer large amounts of casualities and were willing to suffer great hardships the western Industrialized military could NOT “win”, and the situation was not even an effective stalemate because the Soviets had NO real control except for that part of the country they were able to occupy at a great costs to them, and the insurgency could COUNT on the local population which is the true public support you need for winning such a conflict, BTW numbnuts, Gen Petreas agrees with this assessment because that is the underlying strategy of the surge he wants to fight inside Iraq, but with far too few troops according to Gen Petreas own written strategy guidelines, and far not enough time before the elections will color both republican and the general populations to go along with the boneheaded move to surge with too few troops with less than proper equipment and less training or recuperation for the troops than is necessary.

    So in effect Gen Petreas is saying YOU are FULL of SHIT SON.

    2. Yugoslavia which is the classic example, of a created country based idea of a European knows best for everyone with out any indigenous input by the people themselves. After the strong man TITO was removed from control over the populace it could NOT survive. Very similar to What happened to the country of Iraq after the US toppled the latest strong man in power WITH no plan for replacement of the control he had over the populace, it was a recipe for anarchic disaster, especially since the majority of Iraq’s people had been subjugated by the Sunni minority ever since Great Britain created Iraq after the loss of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 and the British tried and FAILED to conquer Iraq for their empire, another historical perspective Bush ET Al(and YOU) ignores.

    3. Of course since the US military is involved the shade3s of Vietnam will hang over the next time it attempts to use military force to do what military force failed to do inside Vietnam. In the same way the early attempts of the Dulles brothers failed to stand up the Diem Government because it did not have the true support of almost 90% of the population, and Kennedy had to send the South Vietnamese military advisors to try to build it’s military up so it could defeat the growing Viet cong Insurgency, which failed and then Lyndon Johnson decided to use US military assets directly to defeat that insurgency … and failed because it was too deeply intrenched in the indigenous population itself for any direct military action to remove it with out destroying the infrastructure of the civilian population itself, thus the mantra from Vietnam, “we had to destroy the village to save it”

    Sorry at that point the attitudes of the Home population for more senseless losses of personnel and waste of tax payers finds to fight a increasingly destabilized situation is simply irrelevant
    Abraham Lincoln who was fighting a completely different style of warfare in completely different circumstances aside (Your idiotic assertion that he was commenting on Iraq is ludicrous on it’s face, but comically shows how desperate you reichwingers are to JUSTIFY the illegal war Bush has wrought.)

    The US civil war is not operative as a historical perspective in this situation since the reasons and spark for it were almost entirely a political economic clashes of the older slave plantation system clashing with the northern Industrial expansion, which used paid workers and which could NOT compete against any states which allowed slavery and the associated advantage of those who could use slaves against those who could not.(a 19th century version of what is happening to the US worker since his wages placed him or her at a distinct disadvantage to third world wage earners who work for what would be describes as slave wages here)

    Also the spark of the civil war inside the US was not an invasion and occupation of the country by a foreign power which the citizens were fighting against as the civil war grew, sort of that all things are involved which you spoke about remember?

    Your only arguments seem to be ‘ad hominem’ and thus, ineffective.

    No son that is JUST your slimly attempt to dodge the arguments with OUT actually engaging them on the merits which is really an admission that YOU have NADA to come back with son, which was part of MY original assertion …. nice to see your real ability is so shallow.

    I don’t expect you to comprehend the other elements at work in this world. It is like a chess board, and the pieces are all set in motion.

    Yes it is son, the Iraqi governments of Maliki trying to stabilize both the internal situation for the advantage of the Shiites which they really are, at the same time they are trying tio get the US to do a large part of the Anti Sunni dirty work of pacifying Baghdad for them in the direction they request the US take in the surge,

    at the very same time Allawi and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad are traveling in the Kurdish territory to sign them up to the “silent coup” the US is running AGAINST Maliki, since he is closely allied with al Hakim the MOST pro-Iranian Shiite leader inside Iraq today.

    This all the while the US is sending money to groups in Lebanon to support anti-Hezbollah elements who (as Sunni’s) are allied with the Sunni insurgency inside Iraq, while Hezbollah is allied with Iran and the Maliki government inside Iraq (BTW when Maliki was hiding out inside Syria from Saddam he was present when Hezbollah was formed) which means he is probably still in contact with some of them.

    (I guess you reichwingers have that ADHD problem keeping all the disparate groups separate in your mind since you wanna lump them all into the same war on terra, which might explain why they are SO BAD at it.)

    BTW I have NOT included the war inside and around Afghanistan, but it does bear a direct connection to what is happening, since Osama is a Wahabbist Sunni Muslim and is both connected with the Sunni insurgency inside Iraq, and the Taliban, which is being DIRECTLY supported by the Pakistani ISI (who are supposed to be allies of the US, but the Pakistanis are trying to defuse their connections to 9-11 with out suffering the wrath of Bush-Cheney, at the same time the rebuild the Taliban in order to dominate Afghanistan’s political situation again, like they did after the collapse of the Government post Soviet Withdrawal…

    This does NOT include the deeping involvement of the Saudis with the Sunni insurgents or their demands to Bush and Cheney who they summoned to Riyadh to voice their displeasure. at the same time we still are willing to support the Saudi anti democratic government and the repression of their population, which well is far less than anything Saddam is certainly Guilty of, is still a dictatorial aristocracy which forbids any type of freedoms for it’s population at all.(I know after being there Both before the desert Storm attack to liberate Kuwait from Saddam, and after the war when we recovered and deployed back to the US).

    It seems to me, that you are a few moves short of check-mate, son…

    Hardly since you have actually DEBATED nothing just spun, denied and ignored with NOTHING to counter the actual points I made before,

    enjoy this one anal retentive knight wanna be……

    Comment by clif — March 7, 2007 @ 8:41 pm

  17. “Dulles brothers failed to stand up the Diem Government because it did not have the true support of almost 90% of the population…”

    Thank you for proving my point son, about public opinion.

    I love this post, son, it has established to all the readers who come here, that you son, have not one ounce of credibility. Feel free to stop by any time son, and rant aimlessly…

    -Knight

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 9:24 pm

  18. Thanks for stopping by Hank! Good to hear from you again. Don’t you just love this guys logic.

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

  19. P.S. I’m not your son…

    If I was, I would probably fill my boots with lead and jump into the Ptolemaic river…

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 7, 2007 @ 9:32 pm

  20. Well son MY quote about NOT having 90% of the population of the country your TRYING to control behind you HAS nothing to do with whether you have poll number inside the US behind you unless the war is being fought inside the territorial boundries of the US, like the civil war was, hence the public opinion of the US citizenry has very little ability to win the war in Iraq as long as the public opinion of the Iraqi people are against what we are doing there, nice to see you still can’t argue your way outa a wet paper bag son.

    Comment by clif — March 7, 2007 @ 10:00 pm

  21. P.S. I’m not your son…

    If I was, I would probably fill my boots with lead and jump into the Ptolemaic river…

    No boy cause MY boots would be up your pathetic shallow thinkin’ ass,

    Your whining … which is funny cause your my Beeitch son,

    You still have NOT countered the argument’s I have made and backed up with historical proofs.

    Seems your still living up to the moniker of the anal retentive wanna be knight… son.

    Comment by clif — March 7, 2007 @ 10:06 pm

  22. It seems that no matter what I say to you, so spew your liberal jargon. I had hoped you had some reasoning abilities, but it seems you have fallen short of my expectations.

    So I’ll just say that I hope someday you will wake up from your pitiful delusions and be able to contribute to society as opposed to dragging it down the tube.

    I will let you live out your life hating the very country you “served”. And you can go to your grave with your hatred and contradiction as your companions.
    It has been made painfully clear that you are unable to engage in civil debate. Therefore I have determined that you are not even worth taking the time to enlighten in these matters. No sense in making a counter point when it is instantly dismissed as false.

    It does sadden me to see a person fall so far and not even realize it, to staunchly “support” their government while they simultaneously wish it to fail in every aspect. I will however, pray to the Lord that one day you will actually seek to be enlightened, instead of spiting on any source of information that is not aligned with your preconceived beliefs.

    God bless you sir, and God bless the United States of America

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 8, 2007 @ 3:54 pm

  23. Before I excommunicate you I have one quote that you should keep in mind,

    “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
    -Plato (429-347 BC)

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 8, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

  24. On March 8, 2007 at 4:07 pm knighthospitaller Said:

    …………………….fools, because they have to say something.”
    -Plato (429-347 BC)

    example #1;

    Justifying Iraq
    Just another WordPress.com weblog

    Comment by Clif — March 11, 2007 @ 6:55 pm

  25. “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!”
    -Winston Churchill

    “Sure I am of this, that you have only to endure to conquer. You have only to persevere to save yourselves.”
    -Winston Churchill

    “To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.”
    -Winston Churchill
    “Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.”
    -Winston Churchill

    I’ve got more, enjoy.

    Comment by knighthospitaller — March 12, 2007 @ 2:27 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: