Baghdad Peace March
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:55pm Mark Noonan
Small, but every step in the right direction is a good thing:
Approximately 1,000 Iraqi citizens, of both Shia and Sunni religions, joined together on the sectarian fault line in Rawaniyah, the Karkh District of Baghdad, to march with one another in what they called a “Peace March”, Dec. 19.
It was an Iraqi initiative to ease sectarian tensions, solely driven by Iraqi Neighborhood Council (NAC) and District Advisory Council (DAC) leaders and Sheiks from both religious sects in the area, said Capt. Marcus Melton, commander of Pale Horse Troop, 4th Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
With Iraqi Army and Iraqi policemen maintaining the security on the streets and within the crowd during the event, they were able to successfully complete the march for united peace among all Iraqis.
Drums beat, children ran, silly string littered the air and one man nearly wept. It was an exciting, yet emotional day for the Iraqis who participated.
A local Sheik came over a loud speaker during the march to talk with his local comrades. He expressed his joy for their wanted peace, but nearly wept in the thought of those who have lost their lives in the battle for sectarian dominance. Many families, friends and sons have lost their lives during this time.
3,897 American servicemembers have given their lives during the Iraq campaign. Approximately 7,700 Iraqi military and police have also died. There have also been 473 US deaths in Afghanistan, and an unknown number of Afghan police and military. These 12,000+ men and women gave their lives precisely for this - so that all the people of the area can come together and work for peace and freedom. Remember them all this holiday season, and pray that peace comes soon.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
49 Comments
1. Almiranta | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
But Mark, it doesn’t matter—-there is still violence, there is still death, there is still strife, there is still conflict. And until Iraq is a lovely vision of Utopian perfection—meeting, by the way, the constantly shifting requirements and definitions of the radical Left—–it is a failure, a quagmire, a disaster, a “mess” and so on.
We all know that there is no way the Loony Left will ever, under any circumstance, admit that Iraq is better off now that it was before our invasion, or that anything good has come of it. They demand not just that this country discard decades of tribal conflict overnight and abruptly morph into an idealistic and flawless democracy, they refuse to admit to any progress that falls short of that ideal.
Did you note the recent story on the growing crime rate in Iraq? Yep, it’s getting out of control, proof positive that our efforts have all been for naught.
People are stealing water to wash their cars—it makes you wonder why we even bothered!
But the story, you see, is not that people have cars to wash, or that their lives are so mundane and normal that they even care about washing them—no, it’s about Rising Crime. (I’ll bet people weren’t breaking the law to wash their cars when Uncle Sadaam was in charge, no sirree.)
It reminded me of the breathless story a few months ago about the skyrocketing unemployment rate in Iraq—among gravediggers, that is, which you would learn only if you read deeply enough into the story. I always wondered who came up with the bright idea to try to spin fewer deaths as a negative. (I know it was the Agenda Media, just wondered which particular “journalist” came up with the idea.)
2. LiberalMind | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Gee when we have “peace” marches here in the U.S. the right wing crazies call us traitors……
The Iraqis want our forces to come home and so do about 65% of Americans.
I guess we are all dirty smelly hippies now.
3. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Liberals,
We call you that because your “peace” marches are about American surrender, not about peace…there’s a difference.
4. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Almiranta,
They are even trying to spin the clear surrender by Iran in the Iraq campaign as some sort of defeat for us - I’m telling you, when free Iraqi forces are helping us reconstruct post-revolutionary Iran in ten years, the lefties will still be calling Iraq a debacle.
5. Kahn | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Libya and Iran stopped their atomic bomb programs because of Iraq. It probably played a part in North Korea’s decision also.
Now, I know that Iran is still messed up and could restart at the drop of a hat. And North Korea is stretching it out and trying to get as much as they can out of it.
But to my knowledge, no other president has managed anything even close to this. If you add in the fact that we are in the process of destroying somewhere around 2000 additional nukes of our own, we are doing pretty well at pushing back the “nuclear doomsday clock”. Remember that thing? During the Reagan years thats all we ever heard about from the left.
It’s very similar to the Gore doomsday clock, come to think of it.
6. liberalT | December 24th, 2007 at 12:09 am
no mark - peace marches in the US are not about surrender. You can slander, lie, and vilify the peace movement here all you want with ridiculous claims of treason, defeatism, and cowardices. However, because people disagree with the war does not make them defeatists. Some day Mark, maybe some day you will grow up become a man and have the courage to not slander and lie about those who disagree with you. Until then we will continue to pray for your sad sad sad soul…
7. Mark Noonan | December 24th, 2007 at 12:15 am
LiberalT,
And I pray that one day you’ll see the world as it is, not as you wish it were.
8. AgentFear | December 24th, 2007 at 1:40 am
BBWWAHHHAAAAHHHAAHHAAA!!!!
9. Diana Powe | December 24th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Mark,
So, have some of my comments been too pointed to ever move them out of moderation status? I wished GOP4ME a Merry Christmas after his or her hateful insults pointed at me so I thought I was being a polite guest here.
10. neocon | December 24th, 2007 at 7:52 am
This reminds me of a couple of things: First, in one of their many efforts to denigrate the effort in Iraq, one of our resident lefties asked me if I had the courage to walk the Baghdad streets alone at night. To which I replied that I wouldn’t have the courage to walk some LA streets alone at night.
Evidently, the sign of success in Iraq is if one can safely walk the streets alone at night. A standard which is not even held here in America.
Secondly, Ricorun had suggested the other day the Shi’a and Sunni cooperation was RARE and suggested that Iraq was lost because of it. Rico, any thoughts on this thread?
11. neocon | December 24th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Agentfear pipes in with his usual intelligent commentary. I’ve noticed a few more vowels in the post though. Well done.
12. Jerry Haberer | December 24th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Why is it I can NEVER get the link to the mnf-iraq to work? This has been a problem for many, many months ….
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16005&Itemid=1
13. neocon | December 24th, 2007 at 9:11 am
The following is an excerpt from a story highlighting the cooperation between factions in their effort to unite Iraq and defeat AQ.
Rico, and other lefties, feel free to denigrate their effort, as you usually do, to convince yourselves that defeat is right around the corner.
Unlike the Awakening, which is made up mostly of former members of Al-Qaeda and Sunni tribes who welcomed the extremist group until it started killing those who would not adhere to its strict Islamic regime, Diyala’s sheikhs are both Sunni and Shi’ite.
“We decided that both the Shi’ite and Sunni are suffering from Al-Qaeda,” said Sheikh Ali Zuheiri, the local leader. “We needed to make one group together to fight this evil. We are fighting for our homes.”
The 28 sheikhs – 15 Shi’ite and 13 Sunni – meet to make decisions together. Zuheiri is Shi’ite; Janabi, Sunni. Their composition reflects the population of the province, almost evenly divided between the two Islamic branches. Shaema, a Shi’ite, has been given refuge with her family by Janabi even though he is a Sunni. Shaema’s husband is Sunni and one of Janabi’s three wives is also Shi’ite.
14. Web Smith | December 24th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Why does the Righteous Right always leave out the 650,000 innocent Iraqis who have been killed and the additional 2.3 million who have been displaced when they add up the numbers?
Is it that they hope if they stake a claim on nobleness and victory loud enough that the rest of the world won’t notice the genocide?
Is it their inability to face the truth or wish it wasn’t so?
Or is it that deep in their soles, they don’t consider Iraqis humans?
Winning or losing a war that was meant to be sustained and not won will not change what really happened.
15. Ricorun | December 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am
neocon: Secondly, Ricorun had suggested the other day the Shi’a and Sunni cooperation was RARE and suggested that Iraq was lost because of it. Rico, any thoughts on this thread?
First of all, any freedom march is an encouraging sign. I hope we see more of them — with increasing frequency and with increasing support from the people.
I don’t believe I said what you think I said. I believe what I said was that the central government has consistently obstructed incorporation of the Sunni Awakening militias (the so-called Concerned Local Citizens) into the Iraqi armed forces, and have been both slow and miserly in funding reconstruction in predominantly Sunni areas. That’s a fact, and is reinforced by
a very pointed statement by Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi the other day that they intend to eventually disband the Concerned Local Citizens groups: “`We completely, absolutely reject the Awakening becoming a third military organization,’ al-Obaidi said at a news conference.” Statements like that don’t foster reconciliation. Rather, they serve to perpetuate distrust.
IMO, it’s becoming increasingly clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Iraqi central government is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. Up until a few months ago the plan was to try to apply the pressure more directly. Recall the veritable parade of politicians carrying the message to Maliki that they needed to make concessions? That didn’t work. The current MNF plan is to circumvent the Iraqi government and directly build and fund local and provincial support, hoping to force concessions by the central government from the ground up: But the day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, and his staff believe that the increasing competence of provincial security and political leaders will put pressure on the government in Baghdad that “will breed a better central government,” said his chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.
One certainly hopes they enjoy a great deal of success in that endeavor. But especially considering the central government has proven resistant to pressure in the past, it is equally certain it is not a done deal. Also keep in mind that the US will be forced to end the surge in the spring, which could present some very difficult tactical problems while trying to maintain pressure on the central government. So, while I welcome the good news coming out of Iraq and hope and pray it continues, I also believe that it’s way too soon to engage in a victory dance. I do intend to keep my dancing shoes handy, though.
By the way, there was a very interesting article by a guy named Dave Kilcullen on August 29, 2007 on the Small Wars Journal web site entitled “Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt”. Kilcullen is one of Petraeus’s senior advisors and an expert on counter-insurgency. He discusses the dynamics of Iraqi society and the MNF strategy in light of it. It’s lengthy, but a very good read. I thought you might like it because you talked about inter-ethnic bonds within families. That’s a very important consideration in their society — perhaps the lynch pin that keeps the place from going up in flames.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Peace on earth and good will toward men.
16. neocon | December 24th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Because the 650,000 dead innocent Iraqis is a lie. That’s why it is not discussed. We prefer reality based conversations.
I think the world is noticing the REAL genocide which is happening in Darfur. What is the pacifist liberal position towards the innocent people there?
17. Ricorun | December 24th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I tried to post this comment earlier, but with embedded links. Apparently I’m not allowed to embed links, because it is once again lost to the perpetual “awaiting moderation” purgatory. So here it is without the links…
neocon: Secondly, Ricorun had suggested the other day the Shi’a and Sunni cooperation was RARE and suggested that Iraq was lost because of it. Rico, any thoughts on this thread?
First of all, any freedom march is an encouraging sign. I hope we see more of them — with increasing frequency and with increasing support from the people.
I don’t believe I said what you think I said. I believe what I said was that the central government has consistently obstructed incorporation of the Sunni Awakening militias (the so-called Concerned Local Citizens) into the Iraqi armed forces, and have been both slow and miserly in funding reconstruction in predominantly Sunni areas. That’s a fact, and is reinforced by a very pointed statement by Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi the other day that they intend to eventually disband the Concerned Local Citizens groups: `We completely, absolutely reject the Awakening becoming a third military organization,’ al-Obaidi said at a news conference. Statements like that don’t foster reconciliation. Rather, they serve to perpetuate distrust.
IMO, it’s becoming increasingly clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Iraqi central government is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. Up until a few months ago the plan was to try to apply the pressure more directly. Recall the veritable parade of politicians carrying the message to Maliki that they needed to make concessions? That didn’t work. The current MNF plan is to circumvent the Iraqi government and directly build and fund local and provincial support, hoping to force concessions by the central government from the ground up: But the day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, and his staff believe that the increasing competence of provincial security and political leaders will put pressure on the government in Baghdad that “will breed a better central government,” said his chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.
One certainly hopes they enjoy a great deal of success in that endeavor. But especially considering the central government has proven resistant to pressure in the past, it is equally certain it is not a done deal. Also keep in mind that the US will be forced to end the surge in the spring, which could present some very difficult tactical problems while trying to maintain pressure on the central government. So, while I welcome the good news coming out of Iraq and hope and pray it continues, I also believe that it’s way too soon to engage in a victory dance. I do intend to keep my dancing shoes handy, though.
By the way, there was a very interesting article by a guy named Dave Kilcullen on August 29, 2007 on the Small Wars Journal web site entitled “Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt”. Kilcullen is one of Petraeus’s senior advisors and an expert on counter-insurgency. He discusses the dynamics of Iraqi society and the MNF strategy in light of it. It’s lengthy, but a very good read. I thought you might like it because you talked about inter-ethnic bonds within families. That’s a very important consideration in their society — perhaps the lynch pin that keeps the place from going up in flames.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Peace on earth and good will toward men.
18. FmrMarine | December 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Darfur????????
Oh THATS only a few CHRISTIANS being killed …..so who cares?
(sarcasm off)
19. plainjane | December 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
At Rightwing blogs it is as if the soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan barely exist. Post after post after post on Iraq for the sole purpose of trying to salvage a Presidency with a 29% approval rating while Bin Laden laughs. In the past we use to be told “he is probably dead, move on a quit trying to distract us from Iraq.” 1/20/09
20. Mark Noonan | December 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Plain,
Bin Laden is probably dead. Wouldn’t be hard at all for him to provide 100% verification of his continued existence, and the lack of such confirmation indicates to me that he’s a grease spot in the Tora Bora, and has been such since at least January of 2002.
21. liberalT | December 24th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
ah back to that nonsense Mark. Now what actual proof do you have that Bin Laden is dead. I mean real proof - not your mind numbingly dumb argument that he must be dead because it would be easy for him to establish that he was alive if he wanted to argument. I mean actual proof. Not rhetoric actual proof.
22. Mark Noonan | December 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
LiberalT,
Where is your proof that he is alive?
23. liberalT | December 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
nice try Mark - but the simple fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that he is either dead or captured. Given that he continues to produce videos which the CIA says are authentic and current the burden of proof falls on you my friend. Given that you don’t understand what constitutes proof I will give you some ideas: remains, verified eye witness accounts, videos and photographs which can be verified as unaltered, etc etc..
Further - its your argument that he is unimportant because he is dead. So its your burden to produce proof of that. Perhaps you can ask your dad to do your homework for you - you seem to do that a lot these days…
24. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 2:43 am
LiberalT,
No, my argument is that bin Laden is unimportant because he’s unimportant. He’s not like Hitler, upon whom Nazism lived or died - bin Laden is a symptom, not the disease. If it hadn’t been him who planned 9/11, it just would have been someone else. Six of one, half dozen of the other, as far as he goes - the only purpose in getting him is revenge, and I’m not in that business.
We are at war with an ideology, not with a particular man - and bin Laden, I’m sure of it, is dead; its just not credible that he can’t hold up a picture of a recent event - if they can smuggle a tape recorder in to him, they could smuggle a digital video recorder just as easily. As for the CIA judgement - you’ll note that they state they are fairly sure that the voice on the tapes is bin Lade - but they are not completely sure, and they can’t judge when the recording was made. A scratchy voice recording on a magnetic tape is never easy to judge - and when it is a copy of the tape, even harder (its not like CIA gets the original, now is it?).
By saying they are 80% sure, they are covered both ways - if he’s alive, they look like analytical geniuses, if he’s dead then they can point to the doubt in their analysis and still come out looking golden. You should familiarise yourself with the way bureaucracies work - CYA is a very large part of it.
25. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Diana,
You know the fastest way to tick me off? Say that I’m not putting up comments because I don’t like what they say.
From time to time, we’re finding that with the new format for B4V that some comments go for moderation without cause - we suspect this is due to a server glitch, or perhaps that too many comments are attempted at the same time on B4V. If a comment of yours goes to moderation, just be patient.
26. liberalT | December 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Mark ,
Its interesting that now you would choose not to believe the CIA evidence. You believed them hook , line, and sinker when they told you Iraq had WMDs. You believed them hook, line, and sinker when they told you he was in Afganistan and we needed to invade. You believed them hook, line, and sinker when they tell you that Iran is a danger - but you ignore them when they tell you that they aren’t pursuing nuclear weapons.
This is the fundamental flaw in your ideology. You don’t collect evidence and then decide what to do after analyzing it. You have a predetermined ideological slant on the world and then sift through the evidence ignoring things you don’t like - coming up with ever increasing ridiculous arguments why you can ignore it (eg. you don’t believe the CIA listening to tapes but you do believe in grainy photos showing WMDS). At the most hilarious you will believe that evolution is impossible because your dad says he did a calculation that proves it - but you will ignore the volume of scientific evidence that has accumulated over 150 years and by thousands and thousands of scientisits.
If Bin Laden were captured tomorrow you would post something about what a genius Bush is for protecting us. Why - because you don’t care how hypocritical it would be.
Look - finally you cannot be at war with an ideology. You can’t be at war with “terror” any more than you can be at war with hate. Think about it for a second. Think how incredibly boneheadedly stupid it sounds when you say you are fighting a war with an ideological concept with bombs?
Merry Christmas Mark and may god have Mercy on your soul
27. plainjane | December 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Think about it for a second. Think how incredibly boneheadedly stupid it sounds when you say you are fighting a war with an ideological concept with bombs?liberalT | December 25th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Mark, I think he go you there. This is where navydad, spook or kahn would just call liberalT a juvenile name.
28. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 11:01 am
LiberalT,
I didn’t believe CIA in 2002, either - I believed well known facts over a long period of time about Saddam, his regime, his aims and his actions. You’re barking up the wrong tree vis a vis the CIA - I’ve wanted that organization dismantled for more than 20 years as it has always been fairly incompetant…only during the years when Casey ran the show was there something worthwhile going on there. As a general rule, I ascribe just slightly more credence to a CIA statement than I do to a New York Times statement.
And was for the war, we’re not just fighting it with bombs - indeed, the military aspect of the war is secondary (as, of course, it is in most wars - and if you would make a study of war, rather than just listen to vapid complaints about it, you’d start to understand); but military action is a vital component as it allows us to break the logjam of that Islamo-fascism (of varied stripes) which has infected the Arab/Moslem world and has prevent the rise of hope which is the only way terrorism will be removed.
29. liberalT | December 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Mark - but it doesn’t work. We know that. We failed in Vietnam and we failed in Iraq. Indeed all indication is that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism (read the 16 intelligence agency report on the matter). It is not tough to understand - when you invade a country ending up in 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands dead, millions of refugees, and 1/3 of the population that is left doesn’t have basic services such as clean water, food, and basic medical services its not surprising that they are not happy with you, want you to leave, and indeed have created 1000 times more extremism then you could have ever done otherwise.
its a dead ideology. Its a dead foreign policy. “vapid complaints” - yes those tend to happen with hundreds of thousands die and millions have to leave there homes. You are just in denial because you want it to work. You want it to work so badly that you ignore all evidence that it doesn’t
30. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
LiberalT,
Iraq isn’t a failure - Vietnam wouldn’t have been a failure had we kept our promises (just a few bombing runs outisde Ban Me Thout in March of 1975 woudl have saved the day for Saigon - we promised we would: liberals in America prevented us from keeping our solemn promise).
You really need to understand how war works - and how entirely failed are the ideologies we have fought against over the past 70 years. Drop the idea that they have something equal to our better than what we offer - drop the racist and hate-filled notion that non-Americans don’t want what Americans want (ie, peace, freedom and prosperity). In an ideological struggle, our ideology will always win, provided we don’t lose heart.
As for how many have died in Iraq since 2003 - only in the mind of the left has it been hundreds of thousands. Grossly exaggerated numbers designed to make our effort look bad (one of our liberal commenters here is now saying that it is up to 1.2 million dead, for cying out loud). Direct deaths from battle are probably in the range of 25-50,000, and most of those have been killed deliberately by the terrorists. But we don’t really know - how many civilians have died - but with 10-12,000 Coalition and Iraqi military deaths, times two to five for civil military deaths is a reasonable assumption.
Additionally, you’re being asburd with the number of Iraqis who lack basic services - outside of the highly privileged under Saddam, no Iraqis had basic services pre-liberation; more than likely, not one in ten Iraqis could count on regular electricity and clean water before the liberation because Saddam and his regime just didn’t give a damn if the people had such things. Stories about less electricity in Baghdad since the liberation ignore the fact that Baghdad, as Saddam’s center of power, was given electricity at the expense of the rest of the country.
Really, Liberal, see things as they are - lose the prism of Bush-hatred.
31. liberalT | December 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Mark - i know it makes you feel better to write off my comments to some absurd motivation such as “bush-hatred” - I don’t hate bush i hate his policies. You are just making a fool out of yourself in front of everybody to keep up the blatantly ridiculous argument that anybody who opposes the war does it for no other reason than hatred of Bush. It is simply an excuse - a pathetic one at that.
As to the number of dead - you are right - we don’t know the exact number. But even assuming that your number is correct - thats 50,000 people who have died. 50,000. How many people live in your home town. Can you imagine the horror if 50,000 of them had died? I cannot comprehend how you can throw such a number around so callously .
Racist? Its racist of me ? Nice try - but again thats a completely moronic point of view (not surprising though). Look - of course Iraqis want similar things to what we want. And thats my whole freeking point - its their choice - and they don’t want us in Iraq. Every poll we take indicates that. You simply don’t want to acknowledge that becuse it doesn’t fit your ideology.
No Mark - its not me not seeing the way things are. Its you ignoring everything you don’t want to see. Its you ignoring the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of deaths. Its you ignoring the refugees. Its you ignoring the internal Iraqi reports indicating that there population is worse off now than it was under Saddam in terms of basic services, health , and clean water. Its you ignoring the fact that the majority of Iraqi’s don’t want us there. Its you ignoring the fact that majority of Americans don’t want us there. Its you refusing to see that after all those years in Vietnam that it was a failure - that somehow it could have all been different if only it weren’t for the left. Its you who is a complete failure - running to daddy every time you can’t understand something and claiming that he made calculations. Its you who is a failure. It is you who could not get a college education. It is you , always you. Mark Noonan - a waste of a life. Congratulations and Merry Christmas
32. Rana Quijotesca | December 25th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Wait a second… Liberals made us lose Vietnam?!?!
Didn’t Nixon come in to office with a plan about “getting out of Vietnam”? What about “Vietnamization”? I didn’t realize that Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were dirty liberals… huh… What drugs are you on? I know some people who might want some…
Some want us out of Iraq because they want the worst for us, but others want us out because they think that that would be the best for America. However, it is easier for the weak minded to assume the worst of its opponent, so you lump everyone who wants us out of Iraq (which I believe is the majority of Americans) into the first group.
Personally, I don’t think we should leave Iraq until we have a government that can do something for itself. We have a moral obligation to finish what we started. However, I refuse to assume the worst about my compatriots, something that seems to be lost on the righties on this site…
33. Rana Quijotesca | December 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
the “government” in my comment refers to the central Iraqi government. sorry about the vague noun…
34. Diana Powe | December 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Frankly, the identification of Vietnam as a failure is just an idealogical and emotional point of view that obsesses with some notion of “winning” rather than “losing” as though the world were a game of Risk. In the case of Vietnam, it is a convenient club for those inclined to beat hated liberals for “stabbing us in the back” and preventing the U.S. military from “winning” the war. The people in the geographical area now known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam suffered immensely from the effects of almost continuous warfare in that region from the latter stages of World War II until mid-1975. They then suffered from the typical defects found in planned economies until the Vietnamese spontaneously carried out economic reforms in 1986.
However, the primary rationale for our being in Vietnam was to stop the “domino effect” of a chain of countries in Southeast and South Asia becoming Communist states. Despite our “losing” the war in Vietnam, the domino effect didn’t take place. Courtesy of the Bilateral Trade Agreement between Vietnam and the U.S. in 2000, they are now an active trading partner with us and, ironically, probably the majority of Christmas gifts given today were manufactured by the North Vietnamese’s sponsors, the People’s Republic of China.
We lost nearly 60,000 soldiers in the fighting there, the North Vietnamese lost more than a million and we withdrew under fire. However, in what way did we “lose” in the long run? Communism, except for poverty-stricken outposts like North Korea and Cuba, is totally discredited. The United States still spends more on our armed forces than all the other countries in the world combined and we still feel free to intervene militarily in other countries even when they haven’t attacked us.
P.S. Mark, I apologize for suggesting you might be suppressing my comments. You’ve been very willing to allow contrasting points of view. I hope you and Matt are both having a Merry Christmas.
35. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
LiberalT,
Geesh - still hung up on Dad’s calculation? I only used it once, and only for the probability of life from lifelessness, and you say that I use it for everything, and then get mad at me because I won’t explain why it doesn’t explain everything…very strange of you. Of course, we come from different worldviews - to paraphrase Chesterdon, I’m of the view that an un-caused bird laid the first egg; you’re of the view that the egg laid itself. By accident. Its very hard for us to reach each other due to this disparity.
Anyways…
Throwing numbers around callously? Such as your throwing around a figure of hundreds of thousands? Or does a higher figure mean you’re morally superior? This is the level of, I’m sorry, foolishness in your argumentation - and a level of foolishness made worse by your arrogance and feelings of superiority (which likely mask the great doubt and pain which lives within your soul at the moment - there is a cure for that; ask me, and I’ll tell you where to find it).
To clarify a bit - I don’t think you’re opposed to the war because you hate President Bush, per se, but that your hatred of President Bush (unreasonable and based upon a completely fictional view of the man you have received without questioning from others) prevents you from THINKING about what is happening. Do you realise how downright asinine you look when you say that in polls, Iraqis want us to leave? What in heck does a poll do? Nothing - but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have joined the fight; I place these Iraqis against your poll, and I win the argument. You have anonymous poll respondents from a country where accurate polling is not possible (too many Iraqis lack means of communicating swiftly with the outside world) - I have the flesh and blood human beings who have picked up a rifle and dedicated themselves to the battle for a better Iraq. Your argument from polls isn’t just wrong, its pathetic.
36. Mark Noonan | December 25th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Rana,
I want us out of Iraq - preferrably tomorrow…but only with victory. See how it works? A poll saying ‘get out of Iraq’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘we like the far left view of Iraq’.
As for Vietnam - it was liberals in Congress who pulled the plug on South Vietnam. By the time the North Vietnamese struck in early 1975, ARVN forces were reduced to combing old battlefields to look for unspent ammunition. Certainly enough, the Saigon regimes decision to abandon the central highlands was the trigger for the total collapse of South Vietnam, but the reason for the abandonment was that the South Vietnamese government figured they didn’t have the means to defend the central highlands - but the decision to withdraw, once made, became a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom as it rippled through the South Vietnamese society and military that the government had lost heart, and why be the last man to die for a lost cause?
Thieu deserves his criticism - instead of trying to hold the Mekong Delta, had he spent his remaining resources defending the central highlands, he still might have blunted the North Vietnamese offensive and saved his regime. Of course, that would still have been dicey, and a battle to the bitter end in the central highlands, if lost, meant the end of the South Vietnamese regime - but as that was the outcome at any event, Thieu would have been better served by fighting bravely for the whole of his country.
All Saigon needed was ammunition, gasoline and - in extremis - American heavy bombers overhead. We gave them nothing, at the behest of the American left (and, yes, I know the post-war standard line was how the ARVN wouldn’t fight - but fight they did, and desperately, inflicting heavy loss on the enemy…until there was nothing left to fight with).
37. Diana Powe | December 25th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The discounting of Iraqi casualties proceeds apace as part of the general phenomenon of viewing Iraqis as part of a collective noun rather than as individual human beings with lives, homes and families. However, even with the fierce anger directed at higher numbers that have been estimated, there are a variety of sources that are summarized in the below report from the Congressional Research Service that indicate that the actual number is certainly in the tens of thousands and may be in the hundreds of thousands.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf
38. liberalT | December 26th, 2007 at 12:01 am
ah Mark. You see it shows a lot that you don’t believe in evolution because - at least in part - your dad did a “calculation” which shows that it is impossible. Though you cannot reproduce said calculation nor can you give me the assumptions. Its a bit bizzare no? It really points to how you go about your “reasoning”.
The point that I am making is not the absolute number. My point is that you ignore the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands who have died because of the invasion. You just would like it not to be true so you think of reasons why it has to be a small number, or go on about some hypothetical about how the number could have been higher if some possible other thing had happened.
Prevents me from thinking about whats happening? What about 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands dead am i not thinking about? What about Iraqi’s not wanting us in Iraq am I not thinking about? What about the WMDs that were never there am I not thinking about? What about the series of reports that come out indicating that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism and the threat of terrorism against the US. What am I not thinking about when they come out with reports saying AQ is as strong as it was pre 9/11 and Bin Laden - despite your ridiculously weak argument to the contrary - is still alive and causing even more terrorism than ever? What I am not thinking about when I look at the thousands of dead Americans who died for nothing? What I am not thinking about when there are millions of refugees.
You keep saying that I am not thinking about what is actually happening. Yet you don’t deny that there are at least 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands dead. You don’t deny that there are millions that are displaced in refugee camps.
Ah - now we can’t believe what the polls say in Iraq. Very nice try Mark - but again pathetic and uneducated. Actually - you can trust the polls - go read the gallop polls and any of the articles that have been written about the subject. In fact they discuss your concerns and find that they are unfounded.
Mark you are always just trying to make up reasons why you have to ignore information that you don’t like. Well - you are the one that isn’t thinking. Just do a google search on your name and see how many people have ripped you to shreds for your pathetic and destroyed views. Its quite amusing. You are literally the laughing stalk of the political world .
Do you know why? Because you say things like - “my dad did a calculation and found that evolution is impossible”. Well My dad did a calculation and proved that you are wrong about everything . So there..
39. Mark Noonan | December 26th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Liberal,
That calculation is really getting under your skin, ain’t it? Well, lets me know the last thing I’ll provide here…maybe in July, or so.
Ignoring the dead? How could I? I’m partially responsible for their deaths - their deaths weigh upon my conscience like a rock. You want very much for me to not care about the dead, because that fits into your worldview and prevents you from having to think about things - its much easier for you to hold to a false, two-dimensional view of conservatism than to actually consider a point of view your unprepared for.
Once you’ve grown up a bit more, you might get better at this sort of thing - it is to be hoped, at least, that you’ll learn a bit of patience, as well as some respect for others - especially your elders who, believe it or not, have lived longer than you and have already gone over your thoughts in times past. Some times my lack of explanation to you is because I know it will so clearly annoy you, and that is fun - other times it is because what you consider to be new and cutting edge is dated and boring to those a generation older than you are; and I, for one, tend to discuss the things which interest me.
Also, I’m aware that there have been whole blogs dedicated to hammering me - some of them have been interesting, most have been un-noticed (meaning that while I might have been aware of their existence, I never bothered to look them over). But your view of me should come from you, not from others. That would be another sign of maturity in you - an understanding that when considering another person, the last thing you should take into consideration is what other people think of him. I certainly wouldn’t judge you by what others have said about you…
40. Mark Noonan | December 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Diana,
I’ve acknowledged it is in the tens of thousands - it could, even be in the six figures. it is a horrific lot of people - but people do die, and death isn’t the worst thing which can happen. As Solzhennitsyn once discovered, being enslaved to lies is worse than any sort of physical torment.
41. Diana Powe | December 26th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Mark,
I’d be curious as to your thoughts on my question about whether our withdrawal from Vietnam can properly be termed a failure given the totality of events.
42. neocon | December 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Diana and libT,
Spare us the bleeding hearts. You two couldn’t care less about the deaths of innocent people. Unless and until, I see you two actively lobby your representatives to do something about the genocide in Darfur, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, etc, with the same effort you put towards crying about Iraq, I will know that your rants are nothing more than politically driven drivel.
In fact, by attempting to negate the efforts of the US Military, the only presence for peace, you are both guilty of those deaths as much as the perpetrators are.
Because of you juvenile, pacifist agenda, you both have blood on your hands. Sleep well.
43. Diana Powe | December 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am
neocon,
I’m not sure where you think you get all of this “knowledge” of what I do or don’t do beyond my comments on Blogs For Victo(r)y, but I’m sure the process of fabrication inside your head is pretty interesting. Aside from that, I will leave your fact-free and intensely hate-filled insults uncommented on and leave judgment to others on their merit.
44. neocon | December 26th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Diana,
I collectively lump you in with the left. Considering your support for their agenda, I have no choice. Therefore, unless and until I see and hear of actionable policies towards elminating genocide, AIDS, etc, from the left, all of the “concern” for the innocent lives in Iraq is simply hollow rhetoric.
45. Rana Quijotesca | December 26th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Neocon-
You do have a choice… You could not assume such things about people you don’t know; you know the opinions, but you don’t always know the reasoning behind them… You should probably probe for rationale instead of jumping to conclusions, but you don’t, and that says volumes about the distortions that are present in your world-view…
46. neocon | December 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Yet liberals, for the most part, feel comfortable constantly lumping together all Chrsitians into some right wing, homophobic, xenophobic category.
But, you take exception with that when the tables are turned?
Hypocrite.
47. liberalT | December 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Mark it doesn’t get under my skin. To me though - such an argument is like arguing kermit the frog came and told you the answer to global warming. Thats how completely stupid it sounds to me. So yes - it perks my interest when you seriously rely on it to help formulate your world views.
As to the nonsense about me not thinking about things. I would just say that you have never responded to any of the points that i made here. You simply talk about the fact that you are older than me. Congratulations you have wasted more time on this planet then me. To me it just makes it all the more sadder that you get your ass whipped on a daily basis by your youngers.
As for the 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of dead - if you truly cared about them you would realize that the ends can never justify the means - especially when it means 10s to 100s of thousands of lives. In particular - the ends that we have reached are disastrous. Although Iraq is better than it was last year - still close to 1000 people die every month. Still their government needs 100 k US troops to support it. Still the government cannot reach even the most basic benchmarks such as being able to bring clean water, health services, and electricity to 1/3 of its population. How you can sit hear in the wake of one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of our times on top of 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of deaths and claim I am not the one thinking about things is unbelievable. Only a worthless, old, uneducated, nutball that calls on Daddy to make “calculations” to prove evolution is wrong but cannot reproduce said calculation could think that…
48. Rana Quijotesca | December 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Neocon-
I don’t dump all Christians into the same group… I disagree vehemently with the Bible, but find me a place where I actually insulted Christians as people.
Hate the ideas, not the people.
49. Diana Powe | December 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
The Awakening has been a big hit for apologists for our invasion of Iraq, but reality is always much more complex especially when it’s associated with people being paid large sums of our money for their loyalty.