“No secret I’m anti-war.”

Who isn’t, in principle?

“No secret I support the troops.”

Our troops? Any troops? Whose troops? My policy: I support humans, but not so-called human nature, and if those humans, especially poor and uneducated humans, are used for monetary purpose under the guise of “freedom” and “hope” doesn’t this become more than a black-n-white statement? Don’t, as a responsible citizen, you have to see more texture that exists in the situation?

“So it’s not clear to me how an event aimed at supporting the troops is viewed as a pro-war rally.”

This event was aimed at the vague concept of “supporting the troops” in a time that’s defined by a very explicit need to get these troops home immediately. The people who organized this have their heads in the sands at best, and are trying to undermined the righteous movement to bring our troops home now at worst.

“If kids make care packages and send them to the troops at Christmas, will that be seen as a a pro-war move? To me it has less to do with war and more to do with supporting the troops as human beings.”

Is that why the kids are supporting them? As human beings? If that were the case, and if that were what we were truly trying to instill in our youth – human suffering – wouldn’t these children be far more educated and active about, say, with the human casualties in Iraq, our partners in crime in Saudi, the child-laborers in China who sewed the clothes these Willard children wore to the their “rally for human beings”, the bodies in Darfur and Burma, the injustice in Jena, the Negro humans on roofs in New Orleans, the innocents on our own government-funded death row, the victims of a Taliban who made deals with Dick(s) in our government pre-9/11, etc., etc., etc.
These kids are pawns in the game. No more, no less. Care packages, or no.

“Oh, and I didn’t miss the content of the Saw post. But I’d still like to know if anyone thinks the Saw movies are any good.”

They suck. Then again, I’m a communist, terrorist-aiding idiot according to this board, so take that for what it’s worth.

Wow, what an original reference! I’ve never heard Mr. Bill O’ Reilly use the same euphemism. And, hypothetically, if I had, I would surely be just in suggesting that you drink from the same hackneyed Kool-Aid (love the fact that you advertised for a corporation in your post, by the way – can’t we just call it “fruit drink”?).

“There was not even an attempt at intellectual honesty or the willingness to engage in open discussion and civilized debate.”

No, sir, at the very least, there was an attempt; whether or not that “attempt” failed is subjective. If you care to expound upon why it “failed”, go for it.

“For those people I would pay no mind.”

Shocker.

“The truth is that our men and women are fighting a very evil enemy in a foriegn land which most of us do not even understand the basics of their culture.”

You meant “foreign”, correct? I’m basing this post on that assumption, which is more logical than our basis for war, so what the hell, no?
“Very” evil? Not just “EVIL” these days, eh? Failed policy makes us stretch hyperbole, right? It’s gotta be “very”? But, you are correct, most of us do not understand the basics of a “their” culture, including, most importantly, our ELECTED representatives.

“I would agree that the Bush administration has not handled the war as it could have, and in retrospec the post war phase was completely botched post abu grahib.”

What a bold stance! A war against a sovereign country with no connection to 9/11, no army, no money, and no WMD lasting more years than the it took to defeat the two biggest armies in the world during WW2 has been “mishandled”? Shocker. Scholars, experts, and fools could’ve told you that about the same time President Maverick landed on that aircraft carrier. And, the war-phase was botched POST naked-torture-gate? Really? Pretty sure we disbanded any semblance of legal authority well before Abu-Gharaib, pretty sure we didn’t destroy the weapons rations because of the unproven notion that they contained WMDs, pretty sure we booted a number of military gays who spoke Arabic under “Don’t ask, don’t tell” – long before that torture-prison nightmare.

“I would also point out, though, that people like Mr. Capps share a measure of responsibility in encouraging our enemies and strengthening their resolve.”

Here’s where you cross a line, tough guy. I’m “encouraging our enemies and strengthening their resolve”? Really? Are there a lot of subscriptions to the Springfield News-Leader in Pakistani caves? In Haditha? You resorted to hyperbole and slander to try to prove your ridiculous point, and I call you on it. Hmm, what truly inflames our enemies and ruins the real hope, that hope that fewer and fewer impoverished Arabs join terror groups: a Josh Capps editorial in a redneck newspaper, a Code Pink protest at a minor league baseball game, or a bunch of under-funded, poorly-trained, culturally-inept soldiers invading an Arab country run by a dictator who opposes terrorism – soldiers who, at that, are undercut by mercenaries like Blackwater who were given sweetheart deals, triple the pay, and carte blanche in order to protect a Green Zone that’s more of a fantasy the Oz and do exactly the opposite of winning “hearts and minds”.

“There is a good reason why 2006 had a record number of casualties in Iraq - and why people like Iran and Al Qeada cheered a Democrat win in November.”

Seriously? You’re citing Iran and Quaeda as proof for your arguments? Maybe you’re the real terrorist… nah, while you have the misguided mindset, you don’t have the heart or courage.

You seem to be an intelligent person who has thought through his arguments and opinions. I respect that. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Not just no, hell no. You and I were not lied to any more than the members of the intellence deparment who gave us the information, that includes defectors and intellegence from France and Germany.

There are reports out there from people (and countries like Isreal) who claim that many of the WMDs were flown to Syria (the Bekka valley if memory serves me correctly). In fact, Isreal warned us before the invasion what was going on.

Still, lets grant you the point that the world’s intellegence agencies were wrong and Saddam had no WMD.

The David Kay report found that Saddam was gearing up a WMD program - that as soon as sanctions lifted - he would put into high gear.

To say that the war was for oil is a bold face lie born out of extreme propaganda.

The reality is if Bush administration wanted to keep oil prices down (and his popularity high) he would have played the same game France did at the time and allowed the oil for food scandal to continue. It was because of the invasion that speculation began its sky rocketing prices.

In short, the logic does not follow.

In any case that is the past and it brings us to where we are here.

Victory has been outlined repeatedly. There never has been a shift in said policy.

Yes, the ouster of Saddam was achieved, but creating a stable democracy is still in the works. That is in no small part thanks to Iran and Al Qeada.

At the same time, the Administration does share blame for selecting the wrong strategy for rebuilding and securing Iraq. That has now been corrected and we are winning.

The result? Marines are getting to come home without being replaced by another unit from here in the states.

Should we change our definition of victory to simply create a secure environment? That is debateable.

I would also point out that from my perspective, its border line racist (not saying you are intentionally) to say another culture cannot handle freedom and democracy. In fact, many Iraqis find it just a bit condecending to hear Americans say it.

The truth his, many Iraqis want freedom and peace.

How do I know this? Ive talked to a number and interviewed some for my blog.

In any case I still know that we are only harming those in the field through the support of our surrender to Al Qeada and Iran through the withdrawl from Iraq.

One only need to look as far as the response from Bin Laden and Iran’s President who praise the Democrat’s taking over of Congress in 2006 to understand the ramifications of a political party here in the U.S. banking and advocating the defeat of our forces.

We went into Iraq to fight an oil war under false pretenses. Our elected officials agreed to the war after being lied to. There is plenty of evidence to support this assertion. It’s a mess now, and one we should consider getting out of.

I’m not even sure how victory is defined here (I’m not being snarky). The objective was get rid of Saddam Husein and WMD. #1 done, and #2, well, it turns out that was an exaggeration at best. The objective has been to develop a democratic government in Iraq. Well, we’ve tried, and I’m not sure given the history and politics in their country we can succeed. Because of what we’ve done, terrorists have moved in. Now the objective is to get rid of all of them. There are plenty of other countries full of terrorist, and I hope we don’t plan to run around the world trying to get them all. That is not a strategy that can be successful in fighting terrorism.

I think if our leaders could be honest about the objective, which is economic and related to oil, then people would at least understand what “victory” means in this case.

You can support the troops as human beings with families and lives who are in harm’s way everyday without supporting the mission their leaders have ordered them to carry out.

I’m curious why when I (or anyone else for that matter) express an opinion opposing the war, I’m suddenly a Democrat trying to use the war for politics. My opinion on this issue has nothing to do with who is in office. It is possible, you know, that I just thought about it and formulated an opinion. It is also arrogant to assume that no one on the opposing side ever talks to the troops.

I am also not sure how you can oppose the mission and support our men and women in combat.

I happen to believe that while it can be a divisive issue, it should not be one.

It used to be that politics stopped at waters edge, but I guess that since its a Republican in office that doesnt count.

I am still grapling with why people desire to see us defeated in Iraq and afghanistan - especially with the stakes what they are.

If you are maintaining that the war was mishandled, I would say that to an extent you are correct. Why? Because certain elements of the command did not understand the significance in tribal relationships.

Similarly, many of those tribes didnt understand the threat in holding hands with Al Qeada.

That changed last year. As did our strategy.

Instead of working top down, the process switched to working from bottom up. The results speak for themselves.

What I pray happens, though, is that we are able to continue to keep the area stablized through the 2008 election cycle.

I firmly believe Al Qeada and Iran (Shiite death squads) ratcheted up the violence for the sole purpose of trying to influence the elections here - just like they did in Spain a while back and a few weeks ago just before the Petreaus report.

In any case I still maintain the best way to exit Iraq is through victory.

That philosophy is working as troops are starting to come home now (the first Marine detachment of 2200 is coming home with no replacements).

Had we listened to Reid and those who wish defeat upon our nation - and victory to the terrorist (there is a winner if there is a loser, like it or not), violence would not be going down and Iraq would be in a much worse situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyqk1LsCDBQ

Something to think about.