Captain's Quarters -

Dems who vote to retreat should also be aware that they are voting to provide homes in the USA for those in Iraq who must leave. Now which state provides for the most? Which states voted for the Dems? Now we know where to build the homes.

Gee, using that logic stackja those states whose representatives vote to continue to referee this civil war should be providing all their national guard resources and the majority of troops should come from those states.

Stackja,

You get to tell the 14 families who lost loved ones this week end that you are scared and worried about what may happen if to the Iraqi's if we leave. You get to explain to them how this is all the Democratic parties fault....you get to see if they've figured out how pitiful your twisted excuses and blaming everyone but yourself and your own party for this most horrific US tragedy still holds water. You get to explain again how you are the one who support the troops by insisting they stay there and die more for your stubborn illogic, while us traitors have been saying 1,500 tragedies ago they must come home. Good luck with all that because I think the soldiers have figured out just who is selling them out by putting ideology and party ahead of them and their country.

Which war are we talking about? Sounds like all past wars. As we approach the anniversary of D-Day we remember "The V Corps losses for the day were about 2,000 killed, wounded, and missing." Of course Ike called off the invasion and retreated to the UK then USA and left Hitler in control of Europe. And the deaths at Midway on June 4 1942 were not followed up with the defeat of Japan but a retreat. The USA lives today only because many have died to protect the US people, even those people who now want to retreat and live in isolation.

One more time: "If they're dumb enough to depend on us, who needs 'em?"

http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/06042007.htm

There are some very smart people in Iraq. They know the blood of millions in Southeast Asia has dried on the hands of the democrat party and the party needs and wants to bathe it's hands in the fresh blood of millions. There's no question this will happen if and when the party of cowards get complete control, again. They have no loyalty to this country or each other, so why would anyone one expect them to be loyal to the Iraqi's? Democrats run, millions fall to the gun.

Amazing when I think of it: I voted for Clinton and then Gore, and today I would not vote for a Democrat for dogcatcher.

What the hell turns people into the opportunists they have become? I'll wager it's never being held accountable for anything. They get a free ride in the media, so they can do and say anything they want without fear of being confronted about it.

When you have the refs in your pocket, you don't even have to pretend to play by the rules.

What is the point of training Iraqis to defend themselves and to govern themselves if in the end they do not do so? If indeed they need us, then rather than crying, "take us with you" they should provide permanency for our presence with treaty. If indeed it is the permanent military base in Kurdish Iraq necessary to protect the USA from jihad for which we were willing to do all that we have for and in this democratic Iraq to date, then where is the treaty to legitimize our military's permanent base in the middle east?

"Take us with you" is the weasle's way out. Of course retreat is easier than standing ground. Ultimately, it is the bloodiest way out, as jihad goes marching on. This war in Iraq is indeed a war fought over the legitimacy of jihad. This war began before we were born. Surrender is no solution if what one desires is freedom. Surrender or Western ignorant denial of relevance does not protect one from jihad's destruction. Jihad is here and now. "Take us with you" means that we fought in vain. If you realize that you are already dead in the face of destruction, what are you going to do about it? If they need us, then we stay--for our own survival, not just theirs. But the staying must be done according to thorough military scrutiny, not by the quick sand of transient public opinion. If our Commander in Chief washes his/her hands of this Iraqi affair, it will sever the cords that bind America together, cords already knawed and unraveled by illegal immigrants being legitimized for the sake of big business.

Our attentions should focus on protecting the legitimate road to citizenship from the gross onslaught we suffer today. As individual citizens, we can do something at home about protecting the constituency requirements of citizenship. Enforce current law. Protect our borders. Allow the military to protect their own as they protect us. Write and call your representatives REPEATEDLY.

Has Petraeus reported on the progress of training and equipping Iraqi security forces?

Personfromporlock,

I guess your comments apply also to those liberated by the US from Nazi death camps.

Lots of the Republican base, the LGF crowd, does nothing but rant and rave about Arabs and Muslims.

Do you think that's why the USA has let in almost no refugees from Iraq?

I don't know if we're winning or losing, but if we do lose it will be in large part because of Rumsfeld's (and Bush's) failure to put enough troops on the ground and to expand the size of the Army to meet the requirements of the deployment schedule.

Now, the Army and USMC are just about used up. The services are in a race against time, finally trying to ramp up under adult leadership (Gates), but with a U.S. populace turning against the war because of the lack of successes in Iraq, because of the toll on our troops, and because of the bullshit which was peddled by the White House.

Those Iraqis who stood with us will be the victims of this dynamic if we leave, but in the end, it will be the rabid racist crowd that will keep those brave Iraqis who stood with us out of the country.

It won't make any difference if Ahmed was an interpreter for the Special Forces for three years - in the end he's just another scary Arab Muslim to Michelle Malkin.

Some are saying we should leave Iraq and redeploy to Darfur.

Great thinking, go to fight a genocide in Darfur and let a much larger one happen due to the power vacuum in Iraq.

You can't make this stuff up.

Captain, When you refer the our Southeast Asian allies please do not forget about the Hmong. They were murdered in mass for rescueing downed U.S. pilots. By the end of the U>S> forces involvment in Viet Nam the Hmong had tied up a whole battalion of Viet Nam soldiers in Laoes. The murder continues to this day.

Um Pol Pot was overthrown by the Vietnamese who then left Cambodia probably just to put the lie to the Domino Theory. Snark aside it also put the lie to the theory that the Vietnamese and Chinese are great friends because they also fought artillery duels and skirmishes across their border because the Chinese were angered that the Vietenames overthrew their ally the Kmer Rouge. The Chinese occupied Vietnam for a thousand years way back when. The Vietnamese didn't like it then and still don't like the Chinese now. Let's keep that in mind when Bush talks about staying in Iraq for the next 50 years.

Anyway as for Iraq we'd better start laying plans now to bring out the Iraqis who've helped us. That goes for the ones who've escaped to Syria, Jordan and Sweden too. Rough guess there's probably two million of them. That's a lot more than the few hundreds we've taken and the paltry few thousands the cynical Bush adminstration envisions. And you nativists who hate immigrants
and paranoids who fear Arabs and people of the Islamic faith are just gonna have to get over it.

The plus side is most Iraqis who worked with us have English language skills and a pretty good education. They ought to be employable.