There are Public Relations companies who are paid to mold public opinion.One of their methods is to plant newspaper articles supporting the
position their client want.Could this be a plant?
Spoken like a true radical conservative, "I want war but I want you to fight
it for me!".I love how these people are so eager to spend our
money and send our sons and daughters to war.
Did ISIS/ISIL attack America?Then the answer is an unequivocal --
I will agree with the writer on two conidtions!) He and his kids
enlist in the Army2( We reinstate the draft.Otherwise
leave me and my kids out of this,
@GaryO,Re: "Let’s get down to the elimination of the
primary cause, shall we? GW Bush and his “Conservative”
entourage"....If you really can't see that Terrorists and
radical Islam are the cause (not George Bush)... then you really ARE up to your
gills in the partisan coolaid.===============Bush
didn't cause everything.There were terrorists and al qaeda
sleeper cells in the United States before he even took office. I suspect there
were terrorists in Iraq then as well (in fact these same people that now make up
ISIS/ISIL, call it whatever you want today, it's the same thing (terrorism
and radical Islam run amok).George Bush didn't create them.
That's just bogus partisan posturing on your part.===================If George Bush started it all... who attacked
our embassies in Africa, who attacked the WTC when Clinton was President, who
attacked the USS Coles, who attacked Americans and infidels in the bars and
resorts in the Middle East, Germany, and around the world BEFORE Bush took
office???This ridiculous and over-simplified claim that "just
never voting Republican again would solve the problem"... totally ruins your
This is todays quiz1) Would ISIS be able to attack and occupy Iraq
if Saddam was still in charge of Iraq?2) Was Saddam an secular
leader or an Islamic leader?3) Is it true that just prior to the
invasion did Saddam send emissaries saying " He would do what ever we
wanted as long as we allowed him to stay in power" but we choose to ignore
it.4) What were the effects in Libya of the United States
supporting the rebels who overthrew Omar Quadafi? What type of government do
they now have?5) What are the effects of our government supporting
rebels in Syria? If they win what type government will Syria have?6) By our unqualified support of Israel and their actions does it alienate
most of the middle east?7) Can we really afford to be the
world's policeman in the middle east?
I can't help but think if Whitt would be will to put his money where his
mouth is...Enlisting himself, Going himself, NOT raising
taxes, and then NOT paying those who did for it FOR them!That's my beef with Republicans -- 110%.
2 bits -" . . . Ebola had been around Africa for years before we
started calling it Ebola . . ."Great Metaphor!We
should start calling the Republican Party . . . E B O L A.The
simple-minded, kleptocratic society resulting from Republican leadership
ultimately does no one any good.
"No it's time to embrace a non-interventionalist policy."Agreed. Unless there is a threat to US national security, we cannot afford to
get involved in an all out war. I knew we would agree on something
someday. Today is that day. Good post
No it's time to embrace a non-interventionalist policy. These Republican
and Democrat warhawks are ruining the country. No wonder we are so hated. We are
the evil occupiers in the middle east. If troops were fighting for my freedoms,
they would be attacking DC.
@GaryO,This, "Our unprovoked attack on Iraq could not end the
threat because It CREATED THE THREAT", MSNBC stuff... Is just political
rhetoric and a selective revision of actual history..Obviously the
people infected with the terrorist rhetoric we now call ISIL existed in Iraq AND
Syria, Yemen, and other places BEFORE the Iraq war. Heck... they existed in
the USA and Europe YEARS BEFORE 9/11! Why not Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc?
"ISIL" may not have used the same NAME back then... but the
same actors were doing the same things... yes, even before we attacked Iraq.The virus was already there... we just didn't have the name for it
yet.Maybe we gave it the conditions that caused it to grow... but
pretending it didn't even exist... is revisionist history. Obviously
terrorism was already there, just didn't have the names they have now.But ISIS, alQaeda in Iraq, the terrorists in Syria, the terrorists in
Afghanistan... they were already there... we just didn't have the names for
them yet (like Ebola had been around Africa for years before we started calling
Hey FT1/SS - “the politicians have never let the troops win.”I don’t think it’s a matter of letting the troops win.
It’s a matter of putting troops in a winnable conflict. to start with.We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. GW created ISIL by
killing Sadaam, and now we have to clean up another GW-caused mess.Hey 2 bits - “ . . . a lot of innocent Iraqis and Syrian's are
going to die while we work on a solution.”Yeah, it’s a
mess, and people will die because of it, not doubt about. And maybe there is
not a lot we can do about it right now. But we can certainly AVOID repeating a
disaster like this in the future.Let’s get down to the
elimination of the primary cause, shall we? GW Bush and his
“Conservative” entourage are the CAUSE for the current mess in the
middle east. And although we cannot go back in time and un-elect GW Bush, we
can do something to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future:NEVER vote Republican.
No! Unless their's going to be a Whitt Flora Division going in with friends
of Whitt. Even if we did go in, the politicians have never let the troops win.
If the Iraqis can't end the threat alone, and US airstrikes can't, and
US and coalition boots on the ground can't... maybe we need another
approach.Maybe we treat it like a Ebola or any other virus. You
can never totally eliminate it. you have to learn to live with it, and contain
it to where it is (and not let it spread) while you work on solutions that
weaken it or strengthen your defenses against it.So we work on
isolating it (currently it is spreading in Iraq and Syria) we need to stop the
spread first. Then treat the people infected, and try to find a cure that will
make it less fatal.The sad part is... this approach means a lot of
innocent Iraqis and Syrian's are going to die while we work on a solution.
Some people can't tolerate that... and that would be the reason they want
to intervene with boots on the ground.The other sad fact is... There
are already sleeper cells in Europe and the US. It's just dormant
there... waiting for the right conditions.But just playing politics
with it solves nothing...
Hey 2 bits – “ If the world's most powerful military fighting
along side the Iraqis and a coalition of nations for 10 years failed to end the
threat... how are air strikes alone going to do it now? How is Iraq on their own
going to do it now? How is sending the same boots back in that weren't able
to do it in 10 years... going to do it NOW?”You’ve got
it all wrong.Our unprovoked attack on Iraq could not end the threat
because . . . It CREATED THE THREAT.Prior to our interference in
Iraq, Sadaam Hussein controlled a SECULAR government. And he CRUSHED Muslim
Extremists like ISIL.When we deposed and killed Sadaam, WE allowed
the spread of Islamic Extremism in Iraq.We can thank GW Bush and his
supporters for ISIL. Now, when we strike against ISIL, we strike against the
LEGACY of GW Bush . . . And I am all for it.But let’s limit it
to air strikes and precision special forces operations, OK?
Good post 2 bits. It is never as easy as some want to make it.And,
lets say for the sake of discussion that troops ARE able to end the ISIS
threat.Then what happens? Isn't it just a matter of time until
someone else rises up?The world has lots of bad things going on.
Most of them are not a threat to the US.So, we must ask ourselves,
Is it worth a tax increase or ballooning deficits to intervene in these
issues?Until those calling for war detail out what it will cost the
average American (you know... those people who have absolutely no stake in the
game today) they should be ignored.John McCain and Lindsey Graham
have never seen a conflict that he didn't want to see an American Military
response.And when we do, there are usually unintended consequences
years down the road.As 2-bits points out. The answers are never as
easy as our politicians make it sound.
I don't want US boots on the ground in Iraq. I really REALLY don't.
But at the same time... we need to face reality (and not just play
politics).Yesterday on Meet the Press the moderator asked the panel
the question, "Do we need boots on the ground to end the ISIS
threat"?The Politicians said, "No... Air strikes are
enough". Or, "No... Iraqis can stand up and handle it". One said
"Yes... it will require US military boots on the ground to end the
threat".I was thinking... If the world's most powerful
military fighting along side the Iraqis and a coalition of nations for 10 years
failed to end the threat... how are air strikes alone going to do it now? How
is Iraq on their own going to do it now? How is sending the same boots back in
that weren't able to do it in 10 years... going to do it NOW?I
found myself scratching my head and wondering what planet THEY have been living
on for the past 10 years (maybe Washington).Out of words... possible
Personal responsibility is a great thing. Unless of course, we get to flex our
military muscle around the world and show off our shiny war machine.Then, adding to the deficit is OK.
Gee, Where are all the comments supporting this article.As I
remember the Deseret News editorial pages was quite "Gung Ho" in their
support of the invasion of Iraq, Perhaps this small showing of discontent with
the article will show them that many people think the Iraq war was a mistake.If we are forced to go back by pressure groups I agree we need to have a
excess war tax so we do not burden future generations with debt. Also reinstate
the draft so every one has the chance to be a "hero" in the middle east.
I'm with lds liberal here. Where's the "party of personal
responsibility" on this one? They started this war. They're the ones
responsible for the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost. I think it's only fair that if they want more wars that they pay for it.
I don't think it's right that my children and grandchildren should
have to pay for the corrupt Bush regime and the ilk who voted them to power. Why
should they have their hard earned money stolen by the government to pay for
Bush's wars? If republicans want wars then we need to come up with the
trillions to pay for them upfront.That's what being personally
responsible is all about.
I'm still waiting for Republicans to own-up, cough-up, or shut-up and pay
for the LAST 2 times we went in over there...
I suggest the writer of this letter put boots on himself and his children and
volunteer for active duty in the Iraqi army.
"Once inside the U.S. their expertise at bomb-making and their willingness
to sacrifice their lives in suicide missions allows them to perpetrate horrors
that will make the events of 9/11 seem like mere child’s play."This reminds me of the "smoking gun mushroom cloud" fear tactics
used to invade Iraq.Methinks we're overthinking this. ISIS
isn't out for world domination or to hurt the US. They just want their
country (Iraq) back since Maliki's corrupt government has taken away the
rights from the Sunnis.Isn't it telling that none of the
typical conservative commentators have come to defend this writer? Red, mike,
lost, Mtn, etc are all MIA today. Not even they believe Iraq is worth fighting
Wow . . . What a ridiculous rant . . . And the author calls Obama
“feckless?” That’s a better description for the Neocons in the
Republican Party.The irresponsible use of force doesn’t equate
to wise and effective leadership. Bombast, irresponsibility, and pushiness does
not equate to strength of character or competence.Obama has been
doing a pretty decent job of rescuing this nation from the disaster that was the
GW administration.None of the problems outlined in your tirade,
Whitt, would exist now if it had not been for the stunning incompetence of the
Bush-Cheney administration. The removal of Sadaam Hussein was the absolute worst
thing they could have done to the Middle East.Sadaam’s secular
government kept DOWN Islamic Extremists. But GW eliminated that restraint.Way to go “Conservatives.”
Oh and BTW, if we do an Iraq Invasion II let's pay for it this time up
front with a WWII tax paradigm - top marginal tax rate of 91%!
The big problem is of course that we can't anticipate fully the
consequences of our actions - witness the Iraq invasion of Bush II. That action
has had catastrophic effects. Massive troop buildup again? The idea being I
guess that it didn't work the first time it is bound to work the second
time?The bigger the action the greater the consequences. So I
suppose another troop build up could be spectacularly successful - but could
also be another catastrophe. This would be an enormous gamble.
Can someone loan this guy a rifle and a one-way airplane ticket to whatever
ground he wants to put his boots on?
Incredible...Will we ever learn from history?The same
folks who created ISIS and destabilized the entire region are calling for more
boots on the ground?How many more times must we commit this same
error? Let Allah sort this out. No matter how many lives we send and trillions
we waste, the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds will never get along. We cannot stop the
violence there. We can only create more ISIS and more genocide with our
continued meddling in the Middle East.
Let the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds fight it out amongst themselves. I'm not
opposed to airstrikes as a response to beheading Americans and genocide, but
this isn't our fight. The whole reason this problem exists is because of
meddling Western nations drawing lines on a map and putting people together who
don't fit. They need to be 3 states, and let them fight it out to determine
where those natural borders should be.
Put boots in the ground in Iraq? Spend an other $ trillion we don't have
that we would then have to borrow from China? Condemned hundreds or thousands
more Americans to death or mental / emotional damage .. or come back physically
damaged? Desnews when will it end? This war could easily go on for a hundred
It's time for us to get out and stay out.We're $17
trillion in debt and have already used up 5k of lives. How do you propose we
fund this? Raise taxes? Go $20 trillion in debt? Reinstitute the draft?And how do we know that there won't be another ISIS once we leave?Just stay out and let Iraq figure itself out.
No. The feckless and politically motivated strategy that has put Iraq in the
situation it is in was that of GW Bush. Do we have to keep exacerbating that
It may be time, but only if others join in, like NATO, Mid East allies.
Boots on the ground in the middle ease will require a substantial across the
board tax increase to avoid a 2008 or to increase the deficit. Congress should
require immediate increase before any war, especially a long term war in the
middle of sunni and sheites.
Those boots on the ground have American men and women in them. Don't
trivialize their existence by calling them boots. It is easy to send other
people to war.
OK Whitt, Let's start with YOUR boots on the ground!We've been in and out of Iraq since the 1st Gulf War and the 1st G Bush,
Do you seriously think that after almost 25 years anything has changed?
"To finish this vitally important task, Obama will have to put American
boots on the ground — about 20,000 crack troops equipped with 100 or so
tanks — could handle the task easily"You been talking to
Cheney and Rumsfeld?What a dumb notion. The first time this group
was run out of town it was by the Sunni's themselves, bought off by us.
This time they were allowed to return by the Sunni's to combat Maliki. The
Sunnis and only the Sunnis can end this.