Have any objections to that plan?

Bull, Ian.

If Saddam was indeed committing “war crimes”, why did you and your fellow leftists do everything in your power to perpetuate him for years, including voting AGAINST military action for his invasion of Kuwait (Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy), pushing to REMOVE sanctions 9all of the above), getting rid of weapons and human rights inspectors when there was ample evidence that Saddam was stonewalling and hiding things (all of the above and the Clinton administration), deliberately slanting news coverage away from his atrocities to preserve “access”(Eason Jordan) and deliberately covering up evidence of Saddam’s brutality, such as his imprisonment and torture of babies and toddler-age children of political dissidents (Scott Ritter)?

Better yet, why did you stand idly by and allow the corrupt UN to accept BILLIONS of dollars in bribes to ignore Saddam, as well as leftist European governments and their nationalized countries to illegally supply him with forbidden technology and parts?

And now that Saddam’s insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists are committing even more war crimes on a daily basis, what are you doing? Trying to prevent the US military from effectively dealing with them by using the slanted leftist media to portray US troops as baby-killers, calling any military action against them “war crimes”, and trying to stop the reinforcement of and cut off funding for US troops.

For example, if American troops were to enter a neighborhood that they knew housed terrorists and supported terrorists, if they are killed by an IED or sniper, you whine about the horrible loss of life. But if we use our technology to eliminate the problem — the rat’s nest of terrorists and their supporters — you whine about those poor, poor terrorists.

In short, you’re still mad your petty thug was taken out of office — because the UN diplomats and leftist governments to which you suck up are now deprived of one of their best and most desperate customers, who was willing to pay them literally billions to overlook his crimes. And as a result, you’re going to do everything in your power to sabotage US actions and try to win back your leftist friends.

You nailed ti exactly, NDXXX –I remembered that political useful positioning by our resident BlameAmericaFirster, also.

Gryph, predictably, challenges with: “I have said nothing of the sort.”

Problem is Gryph, over at Evangelical Outpost as early as 2 yrs ago, you WERE supporting the notion of more boots on the ground to quell the insurrection. You suggested that more troops were the reason why Bosnia was such a success.

You wrote: “… while there has been a great clamor for security from the Iraqi people, there has been no great clamor for more foreign troops on their soil. It would probably just make things worse. The only real option might be to increase the numbers of US troops, while at the same time continuing the course of getting the Iraqi’s to take care of their own security. But it may be too late for more US troops to do any good at this point.”

You then went on to slam Rumsfeld as a failure and pointed out the success of NATO in Bosnia was due to the presence of a sufficient military force of 500k troops on the ground.

Sort of sounds exactly like the President’s current Plan, eh?

Gryph, I can cook that crow for you rare, medium or well done. Or will you be the usual coward, ignore the post and NDXXX’s correctly callinng you out? Maybe the word “liar” was a projection on your part?

And the silliness about slamming Bruce on post deletions… come on Gryph, you’re no raj-baby or QueerPat or CowBoyBob or Mr Moderate. Step up to the plate, admit your error, resend the “liar” attribution you tried to smear NDXXX with and apologize to Bruce for being imprudently zealous.

ANd while you’re at it, did you want that crow on silver or silverplate?

If you don’t know the difference Ian – boy, are you lost.

Nor do you know squat about Iraq, if you happen to think our military has had ROE that let them engage the terrorists and militias effectively enough, up to this point.

Finally, I can’t find the comments where anyone advocated “scorched earth, massive bombing or collective punishment tactics”, other than TGC in #25 alone. Another figment of your fevered imagination?

It worked in Berlin, Dresden, Munich, Bremen etc. I say go for it. I guess it would only be a war crime if a Republican ordered it.

First, the massive bombing of Germany did not in and of itself do the job. Second, the US as an occupying power is in a distinctly different position in Iraq than the allies were in during WWII. I am not aware of any massive bombings, scorched earth tactics or collective punishment meted out to Germany or Japan while they were under Allied occupation. Third, it would be a war crime regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrator but your nervous use of snark is duly noted.

And finally, I seem to remember Gryph whining many moons ago that, when it was anti-Bush to do so, we needed more troops in Iraq, because that would help us quell the insurgency. Now, when it’s anti-Bush to say the opposite, he says the opposite.

Spot on. And true of many others. Give NDT a prize.

I also have no doubt that current troop levels would be sufficient to wipe the floor with the Sunni and Shia terrorists … if only political correctness allowed them to.

Just for once I wish you and the others who beat around the bush on this point would be honest and admit that you want a policy of scorched earth, saturation bombing and collective punsihment unleashed upon Iraq. All war crimes of course on the part of an occupying power but then might makes right, right? So come on, quit being wishy washy and show your true stripes.

Now why on earth do you think the media would feel the need to deliberately bias their coverage in that fashion, Gryph?

And do you think it might be possible that al-Qaeda and the other leftist groups that you support have figured out how to exploit that media bias to their own advantage — just as the Viet Cong exploited your Presidential candidate John Kerry and other Democrats to which he was playing like Jane Fonda?

And finally, I seem to remember Gryph whining many moons ago that, when it was anti-Bush to do so, we needed more troops in Iraq, because that would help us quell the insurgency. Now, when it’s anti-Bush to say the opposite, he says the opposite.

That’s why Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the left love people like Gryph; they know they can easily manipulate him into supporting anything, even if it’s supplying cash and support to terrorists, as long as it’s anti-Bush.

But how do you suppose that would happen? The US will be allowed by Al-Maliki and the Iraqi government to take on the Shi’a militias? Highly doubtful, since Al-Sadr has folks in said government.

The Iraqi military will take on the Shi’a militias? Uhhh … I don’t think so. Haven’t done much so far.

The divide and conquer idea is a nice idea, but it assumes that the Iraqi government would want one side to take on the Shi’a militias, which it doesn’t. It wants the Shi’a militias to win, and it wants the US to help it do that.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot10jan10,1,3592996.column?coll=la-news-columns

Sorry, but Bush and company did that when they decided to essentially stop looking for Bin Laden and invade Iraq. This was doomed from the start.

If U.S. forces and the Iraqi forces together simply turn on the different militias… that one action itself, right there, IS victory. Because it means the democratic government of Iraq has a monopoly on force within its territory. (One definition of a viable native government, and hence, victory.)

Also, in case the media didn’t tell you, in the last 6-9 months the Sunni tribes have finally turned on al Qaeda in Iraq. So the extermination of al Qaeda in Iraq (Anbar province) is well within reach. (Another definition of victory.)

And now what I came back to say: I wanted to leave for the evening on a positive note. How about… al Qaeda being completely routed in Somalia?

A particular important victory in the worldwide information / psych war… because al Qaeda can no longer say “Remember how we drove the Americans from Somalia?”

It’s very harmful to US interests in the long-term that both political parties have now learned that undermining support for a war when the other party is in power is an effective electoral strategy. I guess putting the interests of America ahead of one’s political power is too much to ask.

I also have no doubt that current troop levels would be sufficient to wipe the floor with the Sunni and Shia terrorists … if only political correctness allowed them to.

It’s a civil war now, folks, and part of a larger Sunni/Shi’a regional conflict that’s coming. No need for our young men and women to be in the middle of that for the long term.

But yeah… they should have killed Mookie in 2004… and done Fallujah in spring 2004, rather than November… and on and on. Just been very tough and made it clear they had to give up their weapons and play ball peacefully – or else.

What I will be listening and hoping for tonight is:

1) Real determination to win.
2) Loosening the ROE. (rules of engagement, for you lefties)
3) Doing something about Syria and Iran.

But I expected to be disappointed on at least 2 of the 3.