The Squeaky Wheel...

I am at the point that I believe that the situation in Iraq is not winnable or at least at the edge of being so. Hand in hand with that also goes the WOT.

I am sad that America, where I was born and have come to love, has shown the world that though being the most powerful military force on earth, it is morally lacking and without true vision or focus. Our collective moral compass is so dar off, it never stops spinning. Every rogue nation and terrorist group gains strength and boldness from that very lack of direction.

The situation with this Al-Sadr guy in Iraq is case in point. I am sitting here wandering why this guy was not arrested or put down when he first ordered his army kill US soldiers and innocent civilians. Oh yeah, it is because 30-50% of the US population, and half of their representatives felt uneasy about doing that and let the administration know. Then the President lost some resolve and gave in to the notion that "negotiations" would work, rather than a preemptive strike.

Now again we are at a crossroads and the future once again hangs in the balance, and we hear that "negotiations" are being relied on. Of course, they broke down, DUH. and now more people are going to die. The only thing that stands between some chance for peace and months or years of fighting the "Mahdi Army" (spelling, I know) is a military base disguised as a mosque.

Where is the squeaking coming from? Well, those of you here and your counterparts across this and other countries, that have questioned and cast doubt on everything that this administration does/has done, are the the proverbial wheel. Are you right? Hell, I hope so. Al-Sadr has a larger following as each and every day that passes. I predict that he becomes yet another Anti-US figurehead like UBL, if he is not already there.

I am at a loss as to why this thug, Al-Sadr, is worth any legitimacy. I would be glad to hear where I am going wrong. But, as it sits now, I just cant see it. How many here argued against taking this guy out last time?

As far as squeaking goes, many of you have adopted the practice of protest just because you can, along with adopting the notion that this is somehow patriotic, in and of itself. I am not trying to finger anyone here in particular. How could I, when our national and political leaders are setting the precedent? If we are going to squeak, it should be be about things that are bigger than politics. Sadly that's not how it is now.

I know that I'm talking about more than just the Al-Sadr problem in iraq, but it seems to me that a lot of things relate to this problem. It is a fact that political pressures effect major decisions.

I know that a lot of you will point fingers at GWB and his "people". However, the problem lies with each citizen, US and world, it is up to us to get along and fight for what we all agree is right and stand up to what is wrong.

Is this even possible anymore?

Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven

I am actually leaning more and more away from the notion of a "Left-wing" or "Liberal' media. Although I really don't think that there is a dispute that the majority of media people are liberal. The media overall is simply lazy, regurgitators of gossip and innuendo. The fact that it is made up of mostly liberals does not speak highly of that group. I do believe that there are a small percentage that are strictly politically driven and hiding behind their legitimate press credentials. Of course the rest gladly parrot any information to garner ratings.

But as is usual here, the point that I was making is totally blown out of context. I am thoroughly pissed about the situation with Al-Sadr. I am also disappointed in this admin, or whomever has given into the "talking" notion visa vi Al-Sadr.

But what I and most savvy media types realize is that our leaders are political creatures and can be influenced in any number of ways.

As far as the WMD situation, I predict that they are found outside of Iraq and maybe even used in an attack. Of course everyone will blame Bush for not acting fast enough.

There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ. I assume you're just choosing to ignore that fact...

As far as blaming anyone, I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.

Um, read my previous post.

i would love to, I am not sure if I was commenting on the war when I first started posting on AO, or even on here. I will have to check.

Edit: When did they change the message in the left? It's now back to the way it was before.

<----------- Signup date is right here.

Um...

Mar 2003 was when Operation Iraqi Freedom started....

I began posting on AI June 2003 and didn't even discover AO for many months after that.

Saying that the war would have problems is not exactly predicting what will happen. Saying "Bushie lied" until you are blue in the face, does not make it true. Saying that some Iraqi's would be against an occupation, is a given.

Some of the very same things that you and others are saying about this war, were being said about WWII after the major fighting was over.

You cannot judge a war's success or failure so soon after the fact. Decades of ebb and flow will however. I think history will look kindly on the results.

He wants to get re-elected.

Good points.

However, we had the chance before the hand-over. We did not take it, and partly because of the reasons that I mentioned, IMO.

So when I hear someone use the line that Clinton had a chance to get UBL, the same can now be said of GWB in regards to Sadr. I think it was a bad decision then as well as now. Yes, you are right the onus is on Bush, and he or someone in the admin dropped the ball on this. If this guy Sadr is not taken care of, it will seriously set back the war in Iraq and probably the WOT, IMO.

Resolve has been set aside in favor of getting reelected. I'm not sure if that is the right approach. I don't like it, even though I know it is somethiing that he must do, being an election year and all.

And as far as this war being waged to get re-elected, that is far fetched speculation. If that is true then he would have started this war much closer to election day, if that was the aim. I think the perceived threat of further terror after 9/11 prompted the urgency to remove SH. The WMD issue was blown up by the opposition and thrown to the masses and is being used to bludgeon bush even though it was not the only reason for the war. But that's polotics, right

We Americans love a good scandal to rally around.

You wage war to destroy you're enemies. Period.

And as far as waging the peace, we just don't do it fast enough for the bleeding hearts. We can go in and totally annihilate our enemies in days and weeks. What used to takes years now takes months. But when the stabilization process drags on, like it will, the US bashers call to arms because it seems so out of proportion. But if anyone cares to research it any, they know that reconstruction takes longer than what some are demanding take place now.

The US is not taking over the world. Bush's plan to withdraw some of the troops from countries of former conquests, shows just that. But of course who is crying about it? Hmmm?

I try to stay away from doing the point by point but you have covered so much ground, so here goes:

Ok so the childish name calling is out of the way.


I am assuming that you have a bathroom plan. Ya know, in case anything goes wrong. Anything could happen when you're in there...


Yeah that would be ideal, except the kind of intel we needed was not available. And that was a result of what presidency? Not this one.

I hope that if Kerry gets the job, he will not attack anyone until the facts on the ground are all there. That could be what... 10 to 20 years?


Is this an official outing of the AO liberal alliance? Don't forget jimmac.


Expressing concern. And?


You forgot to stick your tongue out at me. Welcome back to the 4th grade.


More name calling to put an exclamation an my point. Bonus.

Besides, I tried to stay away from predicting anything for a certainty. I may state my opinions but I shy away from predicting.

Who do you suggest I vote for?

As an aside, is the "f**king numbwit. Now go away." comment, acceptable in these boards now. I have been warned by the mods for far less than that. Is this the "borderline", if you will? Is this a "almost, but not quite over the line" kind of thing. Or does it sound better from a left leaning person? Is it the *'s that make it OK?

Just a bit curious.