Article

2007-07-20 Home Front: Politix

B. Hussein Obama: Leaving Iraq Leading to Genocide in Iraq is Acceptable

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Adbinajab Loves you 2007-07-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Pandering to the base?
Heartfelt desire to make the whole war issue just go away?

Either way, words fail.

Posted by N Guard 2007-07-20 00:49|| 2007-07-20 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 Unbelievable

Posted by Danking70 2007-07-20 01:34|| 2007-07-20 01:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Sad to say, but perfectly believable for a Democrat. Absolutely anything to countermand Bush's plans while pandering to his own base. I cannot recall a time when either party has been so craven in their pursuit of the executive office. The republicans had better start milking this like the last cow on the farm.

Posted by Zenster 2007-07-20 02:05|| 2007-07-20 02:05|| Front Page Top

#4 The Germans at least have noticed he's an empty suit, according to a piece in the Deutsche Welle yesterday.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-07-20 03:21|| 2007-07-20 03:21|| Front Page Top

#5 Ahhh...I hate to jump in here, but what the heck. Did anyone read the article? The analogy is that we are not concerned with preventing Genocide in Dufar or the Congo, so standing alone, Genocide is not sufficient reason to remain in Iraq.

I tend to agree...there may be other reasons to stay, but Genocide is not enough to continue in Iraq.

I still come daily to Rantburg to get my news, but my writing on the subject has moved.

If you wish, for a really tough argument on the war and consequences, you could look at this Diary and comments.

http://theforvm.org/diary/traveller/the-war-6-us-soldiers-burning-to-death-in-a-bradley

I caution however that you need at lest 15 minutes to work your way through the video and thoughtful comments. But all of this requires deep reading.

I take a lot away from Rantburg, so I thought I might give something back.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 03:27|| 2007-07-20 03:27|| Front Page Top

#6 I disagree, Traveller. While stopping a genocide may not be sufficient reason to send in the army, knowingly facilitating genocide by walking away puts one at the moral level of the German villagers living next to the concentration camp who managed not to know. We all object to the French role in what the Hutus did to the Tutsis in Rwanda, and this -- given that we were in charge when the elections put the Shiites in power at the national level -- would not be a great deal different.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-07-20 03:44|| 2007-07-20 03:44|| Front Page Top

#7 knowingly facilitating genocide?

I think not. We are not selling Machetes's to the Tusi's here. I would tend to argue that some civil wars just have to be fought.

Our own civil war, delayed and put off again and again...was maybe worse for this. Likewise the Protestant wars in England, the Catholic wars in France where blood swelled the gutters of Paris and across the country with an unending flow, just had to be.

Of course we can't walk away...physically we couldn't walk away if we wanted to, though that might be my recommendation at this moment.

Time recently noted:

The reality is that it's difficult to get out fast. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out. Pulling out 10 combat brigades roughly 30,000 troops, along with their gear and support personnel would take at least 10 months, Pentagon officials say. And that's only part of the picture. There are civilians who would probably want to head for the exit when GIs started packing. They include some 50,000 U.S. contractors and tens of thousands of Iraqis who might need protection if we left the country.

Slowing things down further is the sheer volume of stuff that we would have to take with us or destroy if we couldn't. Military officials recently told Congress that 45,000 ground-combat vehicles a good portion of the entire U.S. inventory of tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, trucks and humvees are now in Iraq. They are spread across 15 bases, 38 supply depots, 18 fuel-supply centers and 10 ammo dumps. These items have to be taken back home or destroyed, lest they fall into the hands of one faction or another. Pentagon officials will try to bring back as much of the downtime gear as possible dining halls, office buildings, vending machines, furniture, mobile latrines, computers, paper clips and acres of living quarters. William (Gus) Pagonis, the Army logistics chief who directed the flood of supplies to Saudi Arabia for the 1991 Gulf War and their orderly withdrawal from the region, cites one more often overlooked hurdle: U.S. agricultural inspectors insist that, before it re-enters the U.S., Army equipment be free of any microscopic disease that, as Pagonis puts it, "can wipe out flocks of chickens and stuff like that."

*********

But the real thrust of your position is that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi's....the old, we broke it, we have to fix it argument.

I don't agree...no more treasure, more importantly, no more American blood...so that we have a Military intact for the next, really necessary, war.

Sorry this got so long.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 05:28|| 2007-07-20 05:28|| Front Page Top

#8 the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems

.... yep, Washingtion politicians learned that at Chickamauga, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Didn't stop them then either.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-20 05:37|| 2007-07-20 05:37|| Front Page Top

#9 My $.02:

We are in a borderless war that will extend for a generation or more. If we do not fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will fight it elsewhere - quite likely on our own borders or within them.

There were good reasons to take a stand in Iraq. Hussein's ongoing attempts at chaos, murder and terror outside Iraq's borders was one reason. Rather than be a buffer against the Shi'ite fascists in Iran, he was erratically but dangerously seeking WMD and showing no signs he would be deterred from their use if he had them -- most likely through proxies.

More strategically, look at a map Traveller. It's not just Iraq that is at stake if we leave, any more than it was just Iraq that caused us to go in. There is a huge swath of the globe from northern Africa to Indonesia in which a deadly mix of illiteracy, corruption, authoritarian governments, oil riches, global media (including the Internet) and a global economy have mixed with fundamentalist Islamicism to create an explosive situation that directly threatens the US.

Sure we could leave and let the region explode. The costs would include the collapse of the global economy and quite possibly the collapse of the west, since we waited until that region had its hands on massive wealth combined with our military and other technologies before we attempted even the lukewarm effort we've made these last 6 years.

This situation in the Global Swath of Rage can be diffused - but not from a distance and not without cost. Pay the cost now or pay a much higher one later. Those who seek to put off the bill - as many Europeans are doing, as many 'realists' seek to do - only ensure that we pay a higher price and are in a weaker condition when the bill comes due in full.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-20 05:44|| 2007-07-20 05:44|| Front Page Top

#10 Very good thoughtful post...and for a lousy .02 cents too! (Grin)

Your position has merit...sigh...enough so that I, who has been writing and thinking on this for years now...

Will back up a little.

I will think on what you've had to say.

But, emotionally, inside myself...I don't like it.

But I will think on it.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 05:50|| 2007-07-20 05:50|| Front Page Top

#11 A mans memory is a most terrible thing to lose.

Policy Adrift on Darfur
By Barack Obama and Sam Brownback
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; Page A25

The Bush administration has helped reduce suffering in Darfur, but the situation is dangerously adrift. And when the history of this tragedy is written, nobody will remember how many times officials visited the region or how much humanitarian aid was delivered. They will only remember the death toll.

Barack Obama is a Democratic senator from Illinois. Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-20 05:52|| 2007-07-20 05:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Which raises the question, if Obama and Brownback can agree on this...well, I still must question, Can we, should we, be policeman to the world?

Which brings me back to Lotp's position above.

It is easy to say pay now or pay later and paint the picture full of apocalyptic imagery...but is that true?

I would tend to agree that there will be a show down of some sort...but maybe not also. The more proper question seems to be are we currently making this outcome more or less likely?

This also presumes that there is an acceptable out come in Iraq...and this assumption may not be true either.

I think our Counter Insurgency efforts are...not only not effective...they are bad. Out and out bad.

The fact that our Soldiers still seemingly possess no Arabic language skills at all, (from what I have been able to glean), and the open fact that neither the Army or Marines are placing, even four years into this puppy, any emphasis on this absolutely vital component to any COIN opps...leads me to believe that we are simply not serious about this war.

Back up, re-group, re-fit, make language acquisition an absolute pre-requsite part of training and then approach this from another direction...that's the ticket.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 06:36|| 2007-07-20 06:36|| Front Page Top

#13 So, Traveller, must we wait until these evildoers strike within the confines of the United States to muster the resolve to defeat them? More precisely, what domestic devastation will be sufficient to raise you to the level of commitment this country had after Pearl Harbor? Is there any point at which you will say there is no substitute for victory? Because you surely don't think withdrawing from Iraq will mean they will stop trying to destroy our culture, do you?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-20 06:54|| 2007-07-20 06:54|| Front Page Top

#14 No, but culture is made of pretty stern stuff...both ours and theirs, (something we are coming to learn to our regret).

Evildoers? I can't find it right now, but there is an argument to be made...that...well, I was watching The Patriot with Mel Gibson one night and, like lightening, it struck me that it wasn't that far a stretch to see that an Insurgent could see himself playing the Mel Gibson role.

Yep.

There was a time when I argued that the only real basis for this War was Liberal Enlightenment...with all that that implies. Liberal values....Freedom of Conscience....that's all there is.

Democracy? Pifft...see Gaza today.

I don't care about the form of Government. Freedom of thought, Freedom of Conscience...that's what we should have premised this war on.

And when I can carry a Bible in Riyadh, SA, the same as a Muslim can carry a Koran in Washington, that's when this war will be over.

(Not that I care a wit about carring a Bible...but those are the terms)

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 07:18|| 2007-07-20 07:18|| Front Page Top

#15 And, just for the record, I'm not the one in bed with the Saudi's. You know who is.

And you do know which country is sending the most foreign fighters into Iraq, don't you?

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 07:23|| 2007-07-20 07:23|| Front Page Top

#16 The reality is that it's difficult to get out fast. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out.

The Soviet Army planning norms were for five percent casualties in certain types of live artillery fire exercises. And to compare as Time did American forces to the Soviets is a tremndous stretch. The Soviet Army at its peak military efficiency was no more than a technologically efficient third world rabble, they have never been much more than that, likely the current Russian Army never will be.

Your presentation of this comparison is invidious.

Look at the map yourself. Iraq is if nothing else a strategic block against Iran. If nothing else it is a great staging ground for the liberation of Iran, the last piece of the WoT terror puzzle. Iran, as you may recall, is Jimmy Cater's crowning foreign policy achievement.

Iran is an ongoing sucking vortex of hatred, and the center of the rise of Islamic terrorism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Eliminating Iran as the main central node of worldwide terrorism will certainly temper Islamic terrorism through the world, perhaps for a generation and maybe more.

Maybe our being in Iraq is bad, but I believe for every day we are there is a day less Iraqis will suffer from whatever Islamic evil will come to fill the void, is a day added to Iran's misery, and a day less from the date of liberation of Iran from Islamic terrorism.

If you ever come back, Traveller, I will take you to the woodshed for your remarks.

Posted by badanov 2007-07-20 07:51|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-07-20 07:51|| Front Page Top

#17 The fact that our Soldiers still seemingly possess no Arabic language skills at all, (from what I have been able to glean), and the open fact that neither the Army or Marines are placing, even four years into this puppy, any emphasis on this absolutely vital component to any COIN opps...

You are misinformed. I work with some of the soldiers who are passing along language and cultural skills. It is a key priority in both officer training and enlisted training, along with other important skills.

leads me to believe that we are simply not serious about this war.

due to people who downplay the consequences of losing it, IMO.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-20 08:01|| 2007-07-20 08:01|| Front Page Top

#18 Traveller, you dodged my main question while preparing a cute answer. What will it take for you to be committed to fighting this war to victory?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-20 08:14|| 2007-07-20 08:14|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm a bit surprized that Obama acknowledges that genocide would happen subsequent to an early withdrawel. He didn't have to do that. He could have said that "...Certainly there would be many killed (perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps several million) but it would be during multiside ethnic-sectarian conflict which might result in a relatively stable quasi partition." or some such.

Posted by mhw">mhw 2007-07-20 08:26|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/] 2007-07-20 08:26|| Front Page Top

#20 Barry Obama needs to return to pick up basketball with Salami.

Posted by doc 2007-07-20 08:48|| 2007-07-20 08:48|| Front Page Top

#21 Triling wife

The French supported the Hutu Power people both before but also after the genocide. You see the leasdrers of the FPR were English speakers (their parnets had fled to Uganda in the 60s) while the Hutu leaders were French speakers and integrated in France's satellite system.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2007-07-20 09:11|| 2007-07-20 09:11|| Front Page Top

#22 What he said was we can't use the Military to solve humanitarian problems. I disagree. We used the Military to great effect after the Indonesian Tsunami and after the Pakistani earthquake. There are areas where a military presence is necessary to assure the safety of humanitarian workers. The difference between Darfur and Iraq is we are already in Iraq and the situation is somewhat of our making. He also says there is the potential for genocide in Iraq if we leave now but it doesn't sound to me as if he believes there will be. Every indicator I have read is that there will be. Again he and other Democrats are willing to sacrifice other peoples' blood for Political gain. I find that abhorrent.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2007-07-20 09:52|| 2007-07-20 09:52|| Front Page Top

#23 I would actually agree that using our military as a combatant force, instead of in a peacekeeping role, solely to prevent a genocide in Iraq is not enough.

However, and this is a big "if", if the genocide would be limited to *only* Iraq.

The entire region is dangerously near the brink of a far wider conflict, and without US forces in Iraq, there is a strong possibility that several nations in the region would *rapidly* develop nuclear weapons to resist Iran.

And from that point, you have what amounts to a tinderbox ready to turn into a major nuclear war--one big enough for fallout to reach the US on the other side of the world in significant amounts.

So one, small genocide, really ethnic cleansing, in which the Sunnis are driven out of Iraq, is not enough for the US to invade or remain in country, except as part of a larger group of nations trying to keep the peace.

But if our departure also means a major nuclear war, with the loss of much of the world's oil supply, a decades-long worldwide economic depression, and the deaths of perhaps 750 MILLION people, that is something else entirely.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-20 10:17|| 2007-07-20 10:17|| Front Page Top

#24 Recent reports state that new oil reserves have been discovered in western Iraq; new fields which may lead to a production level of up to 4 million barrels per day.

It is vital to the national security of the United States and the free world that the current and future revenue of Iraq not be placed in the hands of implacable enemies. Should Iraq fall into the control of AQ and/or Persia, it is pure folly to believe that "genocide" would be limited to the peoples of Iraq, SA, Lebanon, Israel, Italy, Greece, Germany, ...

The Democratic leaders dwell in some sort of Cloud Cuckoo-Okinawa Land.

Posted by mrp 2007-07-20 10:36|| 2007-07-20 10:36|| Front Page Top

#25 The problem is Islam. The problem has always been Islam. Cutting and running in Iraq won't fix that--it will merely make it worse.

Posted by Crusader 2007-07-20 10:44|| 2007-07-20 10:44|| Front Page Top

#26 IIRC, accusations of geneocide in the Balkans was enough for Bill Clinton to get us involved there.

The amount of effort it would take to stop genocide in Darfur is ridiculously small. Only the fact that Muslims are engaging in it, with the support of the Communist Chinese, keeps anyting from being resolved. Problem is, it's Obama's job to KNOW stuff like that, and he is no stateman if he chooses to ignore it while grandstanding.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2007-07-20 10:46|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-07-20 10:46|| Front Page Top

#27 This is just before he demanded troops for Darfur, right?

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-07-20 10:50|| 2007-07-20 10:50|| Front Page Top

#28 lotp, your #9 post is spot-on. My only difference of opinion is that this war will not last a generation. It seems far more likely that Islam will push its miserable luck with some truly barbaric atrocities (i.e., NBC attacks) until the West simply throws up its hands and sterilizes much of the MME (Muslim Middle East).

While not a pleasant prospect, neither are the intentions of Islam with respect to the West. One thing we most certainly agree upon is that the butcher's bill only increases with time. Worst of all is that Islam greedily counts upon this despite how they do not realizeor, more likely, refuse to admitthat they will bear the brunt of the tab.

Posted by Zenster 2007-07-20 13:10|| 2007-07-20 13:10|| Front Page Top

#29 Dearest Nimble;

I certainly didn't mean to doge your question...and heaven knows we could go round and round what Victory is.

To answer your question directly, I don't think there is anything at this moment that could turn around my opinion.

To quote myself and to put it succinctly:

Be that as it may...my argument has been for the longest time:

Do what you're good at.

We, the United States, are good at making War....

Not so Good at Counter Insurgency...but then, no one is.

And no one really has been. Maybe we'll pull off a coupe, but I doubt it. Not even the Germans could subdue Yugoslavia or the marches of Russia...and God knows they tried by, all in all, killing millions and millions of Russians to no avail.

The reason, as I see it, that we can't go to War a lot...frequently, if need be, is is the cost in men and treasure of these kinds of willful occupations.

And the resultant bad name that these occupations give to War in general.

It is this crippling of our War Option in the future that I so, so, so object to.

*****

There you have it.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 14:39|| 2007-07-20 14:39|| Front Page Top

#30 Traveller
First If you intend to try to communicate in English you best learn to spell "traveller" properly in English ( i.e. traveler ).

Secondly If you intent to communicate in issues regarding America, you better learn American History. Defeating insurgency is our forte and has been trough out history ( indian uprisings, mass rebellion against freedom for slaves, etc., etc. )

There you will also find that we are very good at starting wars AND ending them.

You are a Hussein Obama butt kisser. That puts you in the category of can't do which is the Dhimmicrat slogan, which makes "Aluha Akbar" another one of your slogans.

Genocide in Iraq will not take place. I know that hurts your feelings to know genocide will not take place and that the insurgency will be defeated. Get over it. And in the mean time, work harder on learning English.

Posted by Adbinajab Loves you 2007-07-20 14:52|| 2007-07-20 14:52|| Front Page Top

#31 No, I tend to agree, Genocide will not take place whether we are in Iraq or not.

As to to our position re Indians, etc, we were here, ever expanding, inter-marrying, pushing westward. The same problem obtained in Viet Nam...we simply were not there for the...really long haul.

BTW, Viet Nam, aside from some political freedom issues, is doing very nicely now that we are not there...thank you very much.

We could only wish the same for Iraq.

Good at winning wars? I'm not so sure...See Korea and Viet Nam and I sense that we are even losing Afghanistan.

Be that as it may, Iraq is winnable if we were willing to do a WWII...level every city as we did in both German and Japan and kill 20% of the population.

I am not at that point yet...and, as noted, a slow bleeding of our manpower and treasure is not acceptable to me.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 15:07|| 2007-07-20 15:07|| Front Page Top

#32 No Ticket

We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
I seem to remember asking Uncle UN for action; where is that?

"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question,"
What does that mean? What question? I can only (hopefully) guess that the quotes are taken out of context because I would be laughed out of a beer joint for making such nonsensical statements.

My guess is that the Ivory Tower of Peace-a is attempting to shore up his foundation. And for our GURPS Traveller, some people do not mind giving all to save lives even when it seems futile - lest we forget the thousends who died in Greensburg. And with your unknown stance on any issues you have brought up I understand the 'why' when you state Obama and Brownback agree; I give you Whats the matter with Kansas. My blue (blooded) friends in East Kansas try to tell me (an Independent) Obama is the choice because he is a centrist. Based on what? This? His first year in Congress has been spent campaigning and he cant really get that straight. At least Brownback has a (lousy) voting record.

Where I live, we have a 4th of July community event. In this previous celebration we had some snapping turtles on display, big ones. Being a volunteer firefighter I am of course helping out when I notice a toddler getting ready to pet one of the big ones. I could: (a) let this five year old get bit and, although may lose a finger, feel good that it was a lesson to last a lifetime or (b) drop what I was doing, charge 10 yards through a crowd in less than a second, and grab that little arm out of the tub, explaining (and demonstrating with a handy stick) what that snapping turtle was about to do. Without really needing to explain to serious patrons of Rantburg which choice was made, I now have 2 new lifelong friends the parents and the lesson was still taught.

Oh, and my cousin would drop anyone out of her Blackhawk who told her that she did not help out with the Pakistan earthquake while she was in Afghanistan. The others I know would just laugh in your face. Any epiphanies from What Girls Want? At least give me a passage from a Shaara book, and include those documentations of blatent mass civilian murder for such mirage deep analogies

So Traveller, next time someone from Kansas tells you that Kansas is Fly-over country, do take it personally.

Posted by SW KS Vol FF 2007-07-20 15:26|| 2007-07-20 15:26|| Front Page Top

#33 BTW, Viet Nam, aside from some political freedom issues, is doing very nicely now that we are not there...thank you very much.

"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Vietnam - not so hot

Nice topic switch, though. Obama - not ready for prime time.

Posted by mrp 2007-07-20 15:30|| 2007-07-20 15:30|| Front Page Top

#34 I have nothing against Kansas, and I'm not even an Obama man....the question was, Is the potential of a Genocide sufficient reason to stay in Iraq? I think that Obama answered the question correctly, but that doesn't make me a supporter of Obama. He said something that seemed correct...that's simple enough.

Viet Nam not so hot?

Viet Nam in 1970, 1975, 1980...is much better now. There should be no question on this...Just joined the WTO, their President feted by President Bush...oh how times change.

As they will in Iraq.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 15:44|| 2007-07-20 15:44|| Front Page Top

#35 I Just read Thailand's Endless Woes above...Geeze, insurgencies are tough...I ain't got no answers for that one either.

Sigh...

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 15:49|| 2007-07-20 15:49|| Front Page Top

#36 Drudge Report has picked up on Obama's outrageous remark and has made the story it's Main Headline. That will reap a tremendous amount of anger from American's towards Obama.

Traveller (sic) This is the genocide throughout South East Asia when the American's left. These are people, like you. If you think this is great, be a real Traveler (proper spelling) and go there. Experience first hand your love and acceptance of genocide.

Posted by Adbinajab Loves you 2007-07-20 16:01|| 2007-07-20 16:01|| Front Page Top

#37 Click this link Traveller (sp).

The above was buried in a bold tag. I want to make sure you get a chance to see what is left of these people of genocide of which you openly support. You are having a problem with reality, click the link.

Posted by Adbinajab Loves you 2007-07-20 16:05|| 2007-07-20 16:05|| Front Page Top

#38 The link provided was Cambodia, I believe, a matter in which we had no small hand in creating ourselves.

It was the Vietnamese Army and their invasion of Cambodia that put an end to Pol Pot...no us.

And we have the Communist Victory in Viet Nam to thank for this.

A bitter bullet to bite, but there it is for you.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 16:15|| 2007-07-20 16:15|| Front Page Top

#39 Strike Three Traveller(sp)

1) You can not spell in English properly.

2) You are unaware of American History.

3) You are completely unfamiliar with the rise of Pol Pot resulting in genocide in South East Asia.

Pol Pot was also contacted by the Vietnamese who now offered him whatever resources he wanted for his insurgency against the Cambodian government. China was supplying five million dollars a year in weapons and Pol Pot had organized an independent revenue source for the party in the form of rubber plantations in eastern Cambodia using forced labor.

The withdrawal of American influence in South East Asia caused the death of million in the killing fields of South East Asia.

Traveller your problem is that you show complete ignorance of anything factual regarding real world events, proper spelling while using the English language and your debased support of genocide. There will not be one genocide if we leave Iraq now. Terrorists will reek genocide all across the world with weapons revenue from 100 Billions of Oil reserves will purchase for these terrorist, barbarians you support.

Posted by Adbinajab Loves you 2007-07-20 16:37|| 2007-07-20 16:37|| Front Page Top

#40 Adbinajab...do you really love me?

I will take my solace from your posting handle.

Thanks.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 16:48|| 2007-07-20 16:48|| Front Page Top

#41 Genocide would be just the start in Iraq. The creation of another failed terror exporting state (like Afghanistan under the Taliban) would follow, along with regional players (Turkey, Iran, Syria) jousting for control.

I understand that the Democratic base was hostile to U.S. involvement in Iraq from the very start, but now we need grownups in charge to deal with the dangerous and volatile geopolitical situation which can not be petulantly wished away.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-07-20 17:02|| 2007-07-20 17:02|| Front Page Top

#42 As a Kansan, I have an easy time spotting a Straw Man argument. As a professional blogger it is commendable that you visit multiple sights for your research before accepting the responsibility of expressing your opinion, and you most likely have access to this kind of information, but let me help us 'others' find Kampuchea, and Evacuation of Saigon. Of course there are others who frequent Rantburg who would be, I'm sure, more than welcome to give a serious history lesson, but I have work to do and Wikipedia looks like a good start for ya.

Did we have something to do with that? Well, the U.S. withdrew troops and support from the (then winning) South Vietnam government. Notice how this entry coincides with the previous two links. As posted in #39, perhaps you should blog in a location where 'there are no striks, no outs, and everyone is safe'.

Vietnam, been there. When our 'handlers' were not within ear shot our guide, a nephew of an American ally (his uncle disappeared after the communist victory 'making rocks into rice') pointed out the different colored school uniforms of the children. One color was the descendents of communists and the other color was the decendents of South Vietnam. Long story short, the offspring of northerners get to go to college, the southern offspring get rudimentary education to become laborers. I saw a 'lawnmower' of laborers - eight gals hunched over with clippers, cutting the grass. Stopped by Cambodia while in the neighborhood; the locals say the UN is the biggest bunch of theives and corruptors around. Your penniless posts fall on its face.

Posted by SW KS Vol FF 2007-07-20 17:10|| 2007-07-20 17:10|| Front Page Top

#43 Your last paragraph is certainly interesting. I simply do not know if it is true. It does not comport with the reports that I get back from people visiting VN.

And, of course, I've been there also, but it was long ago...lol

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by Traveller 2007-07-20 17:22|| 2007-07-20 17:22|| Front Page Top

#44 Traveller,

It's good to know there are some people for whom even a nuclear attack on the US would not stir them from their lethargy.

Others,

General Lee spelt Traveller with two l's and that was my assumption about the reference in the nym.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-20 17:29|| 2007-07-20 17:29|| Front Page Top

#45 The commentary led me to believe it is this Traveller unless, of course, you mean this horse.

Posted by SW KS Vol FF 2007-07-20 17:34|| 2007-07-20 17:34|| Front Page Top

#46 Just thought I'd note that my Pocket Oxford Dictionary (1969) spells traveller with two 'L's. Is the one 'L' an American spelling?

Posted by Gladys 2007-07-20 17:42|| 2007-07-20 17:42|| Front Page Top

#47 American spelling is one L, Gladys.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-07-20 17:59|| 2007-07-20 17:59|| Front Page Top

#48 Where to start on Traveller's BS?

Okay, Vietnam : still has secret police attacking ANY ethnic minority like the hill peoples that refuse to completely drop their culture for the vanilla-Hanoi version of a Vietnamese. And remember, these attacks have included chemical weapons, mass killings, and scorched earth attacks. Also, NO apparent rule of law when it comes to property, patents, or intellectual property. So more than a "little issue" with the freedom issues.

Cambodia : the US had NOTHING to do with Pol Pot's rise or his killing fields - unless you consider the US withdrawal from Saigon as a green light for genocide in Cambodia, an entirely different country with a different language and ethic groups.

Iraq : How would leaving Iraq benefit the US in any measurable way? Al-Qaeda and their terrorist allies have made it clear that simply withdrawing from Iraq will NOT stop attacks against the US anywhere and at any time. No, we would have to abandon ALL of the Persian Gulf region {including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, and assorted other SW Asian friends}; basically give them Israel on a silver plate; apologize to all Muslims for our "sins against Islam"; and as a people convert to the Salifist form of Islam. These conditions have be laid out repeatedly in Al-Q communiques over the past 5 years.
Also, what country in the region would EVER trust American security guaranties or aid us in any fashion if we cut and run on Iraq? If the US cannot lose in 5 years the amount of men and material that we lost in a single day's combat during any major WWII battle and keep going on to victory, then NO state would be sensible to rely on us again - since all that would have to happen to make the US cave would be to kill a few thousand troops. And that would basically guarantee terrorist states all over North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia. Plus, rolling genocide against any Christian, Jewish, animist, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, feminist, homosexual, or Shite in that whole zone.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2007-07-20 19:56|| 2007-07-20 19:56|| Front Page Top

23:45 Super Hose
23:39 Super Hose
23:29 Super Hose
23:21 Super Hose
23:03 Super Hose
22:15 Super Hose
22:06 djh_usmc
22:05 Zenster
22:00 WTF
21:45 Danking70
21:41 Super Hose
21:37 Mullah Richard
21:22 Frank G
21:20 Frank G
21:19 Slinesing Angomolet1065
21:19 WTF
21:16 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:16 Bright Pebbles
21:13 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:06 Iblis
20:59 AT
20:57 AT
20:55 RD
20:52 McZoid