ON WEDNESDAY, The Associated Press reported that at least 3,620 members of the U.S. military had died in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Of that number, at least 2,973 were killed by hostile action.
On the same day, The Military Times “Honor the Fallen” Web site reported that the combined toll for Iraq and Afghanistan had reached 4,008.
None of those figures is accurate today. As of Wednesday, there had only been two days in July without any casualties and some of the other days were heartbreakingly bad. On July 5, nine soldiers were killed. On July 6, the very next day, 10 soldiers died. The casualty list grows by fits and starts, but it always gets longer. It will never get shorter.
The casualty list drives the current debate about the United States’ military engagement in Iraq. The list is used as a reason for withdrawing and an excuse for staying. Those for withdrawal say that too many have died already for a failed policy and a bad war. Those in favor of staying say withdrawal without a clear victory would dishonor the memory of the soldiers who have already died.
Both sides increasingly assume that, whether the United States stays or goes, the bloodshed will continue in Iraq.
Before the war began, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted as telling the Oval Office hawks to remember the “Pottery Barn rule”: “You break it, you own it.”
Envisioning the immediate creation of a friendly, stable, oil-rich Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, the hawks ignored Powell.
So Iraq was broken. In its own eyes and the eyes of the world, the United States now owns the country and will continue to own it as long as the blood flows.
Other things were broken in the rush to war. The sense of American national unity was shattered. The good will of the rest of the world was squandered. Increasingly, the nation fears that its own military is being broken on the wheel of endless deployments and unfocused strategy.
All of these things the United States owns and now must try to mend.
They cannot be fixed by using the military alone. Only with the support of a strong and focused diplomacy can this nation begin to catch a glimpse of an end to the bloodshed — the closest the United States can expect to come to victory.
So far, that kind of diplomacy has eluded the limited imaginations of our leaders.
And so, the casualty lists keep growing.
treetrunk (anonymous) says...
Diplomacy got us into the war with Iraq. The UN showed it inability to do anything. Our Congress (both sides of the aisle) supported the war. Stop blaming. Today we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting Al-Queda. Two completely different issues. Who do you suggest we negotiate with? Bin Laden?
July 21, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Colin Powell never said he didn't support overthrowing Saddam Hussein. What he said was that if/when we did we had an obligation to fix things. Not only did the President hear that, but also the Congress and Senate, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.
Now that things are unpleasant and uncertain, it's become fashionable and trendy to call for withdrawal. And, it will probably happen. And, it is almost certain that terror and mayhem will fill the vacuum we leave. The region will become de-stabilized, Al-Queda will gain an enormous victory. Sooner or later bin Laden will be issuing the negotiating terms - unconditional surrender or else. Then, when the terror is exported in greater and greater measure, Europe will begin to feel its grip and begin to speak. "Send Americans." So will the Germans. "Send Americans." So will Patrick Kelley and the Gazette editorial board. "Send Americans." When it all becomes "too costly" they'll all call for capitulation.
As for the limited imagination of our leaders, I suspect there's a grain of truth in that. What's also true is that there is an alarming lack of imagination in our newsrooms as well. The terrorists do seem to be the imaginative ones. They've found clever ways to terrorize the world, with suicide bombings, decapitations, and murder. What's more, they're, resolute. That puts them light years ahead of the majority of us right now.
I suppose if it happens there will still be an Emporia Gazette. I suspect the editorials might change a bit, reflecting the shift in power. But, that'll be okay. It'll pay union scale and keep the family fed.
July 21, 2007 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
p4nch0 (anonymous) says...
Hey! the reason both sides of congress supported the war, was that they were lied to, like the general public, when the president announce, that intelingence sources had found weapons of mass destruction, in an effort to have probable cause to invade IRAK, to create kaos upon the oil prices, knowingly that they could benefit from it , sinse they dealt in the oil market, himsef and vicepresident CHANEY, without thinking of human casualties of u.s soldiers and civilians in irak.
July 22, 2007 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It doesn't lend any dignity to arguments to start claiming that the war on Iraq was all a grand conspiracy to inflate oil prices.
Whatever elese might be said about George Bush, being smart enough to manipulate world oil markets isn't one of them. In fact, I've heard many Bush detractors say that he is stupid. They can't have it both ways. He can't be smart enough to design an elabortate conspiracy like that and be stupid at the same time.
The Congress and Senate had access to all the pre-war intelligence, the same intelligence available to the Bush administration. Prior to that, the Clinton administration policy analysts (Kenneth Pollack - "The Case for Invading Iraq," for example) were certain that Saddam was re-constituting his weapons programs. The Clinton administration's official policy on Iraq was regime change.
Further, oil wasn't the primary reason for invading, nor was the possibility of WMD the only one. The United Nations charter itself was violated repeatedly by a member state. Saddam engaged in massive acts of genocide against the Kurds, the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, and the Shia. But, like Rwanda, the Balkans, and other areas, the United Nations did nothing to stop the murder.
Were there serious errors in judgement in Iraq? Undoubtedly. Colin Powell called for a massive invasion force of 300,000 or more. The final decision was to send half that number. Had we used more troops to begin with the situation may have been far easier to stabilize. But, we didn't. We also made diplomatic errors and tactical errors as well.
That's all par for the course for any war. They're brutal and bloody. They're not computer games. They involve flesh and blood tragedies. Every war we're ever been in has been like that. Our Civil War cost nearly a million lives and many more wounded and maimed. World War I had the Battle of the Somme where there were nearly 2 million casualties in less than a year. World War II saw the cost of appeasing Adolph Hitler in the 30's in the great battles like Normandy. Korea had us in full retreat when the Chinese communists streamed across the border, catching the allied forces by complete surprise. Vietnam was full of tactical and strategic errors.
I'm not asking anyone to change their position. I suspect we'll be in the process of pulling out of Iraq come September. Everyone needs to ask what our fallback position is when that happens. We'd better be ready, because I can say with certainty that the terrorists will be. They'll be acting while we're vacillating, counting the cost to maintain western civilization.
July 23, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vankamp (anonymous) says...
I agree with you netloafer. While the US will be celebrating the return of the soldiers starting in September, the terriost will be celebrating even more, because they won. They were able to send the US packing and now I would bet money they will be here shortly. I don't know what the answer is to this war but I truly believe when we pull out it will be mayham. I hope I'm wrong.
July 23, 2007 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I'm not going to disagree with anything written here but I would like to ask: What makes anyone so sure that we don't already have terrorists here?
Timothy McVeigh, anyone? He was young, white male. Not exactly the stereotype of a terrorist but how does anyone know there aren't 200 more just like him?
And has anyone who posted here noticed that the U.S. seems to be doing this alone? Why? Yeah, we have a few allied forces in that general vicinity but nothing like the numbers of troops that we have over there....so I think it's unfair to say that millions were killed in X war because X war contained MANY more countries and/or military forces.
How far are we going to keep going in this war when there is nothing to fall back on? Our troops are going on 15-18 month deployments now, up from 6 months deployments which were normal 3 years ago. And not only that but they are being sent over two and three times......Our troops are stretched thin. Money is running out. Necessities are running out.....
M
July 23, 2007 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
There are without doubt sleeper cells in this country right now. I never said otherwise.
A good deal of western Europe is going to sit it all out. One of the by-products of the fall of communism is that countries like France, Germany, Italy and others in the western sphere reduced their defense budgets dramatically and made a deliberate decision to rely on the United States for their defense. Right now we spend about four percent of our GDP on defense. Our per capita spending on defense is about $800. Europe's is about $350 to $400 per person: see http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=2...
If/when the terrorists win in Iraq they will then make a massive move to restablish its caliphate and regain the soil they once called Andalusia (two stated goals of Usama bin Laden and al Queda), I suspect Europe will be one of the first shoes to drop. As I said earlier, Europe will then cry, "send Americans" because Europe does not have the capability of defending itself.
That probably seems far fetched to most Americans, but I think these sorts of things seemed far fetched a short time before the barbarians came to Rome's gates. Until that happened, Rome's best and brightest foolishly believed they were either too wise or clever or rich to lose to the barbarian hordes.
As for our military, I have the greatest admiration and respect for them. The long deployments, the second and third tours of duty. They are going far and above the call of duty. I think if we ask them, the overwhelming majority would let us know what's at stake. They see the enemy first hand on a daily basis and they understand how committed they are to our destruction and the ideals of western civilization. They would in all likelihood let us know that there no negotiating terms al-Queda and other terrorist organizations and terrorist states will ever recognize. They either want to kill or subjugate us.
I'm also sure that many terrorists don't fit the sterotypes. We're even finding that out now, with doctors being involved in a massive terror plot in England.
My point in using the other wars was not to compare casualty counts, but to show that every war has its folly and poor planning. Call it the fog of war, or whatever, but it's there.
Our Civil War was not a war with many countries and many other military forces. It was an American War. We had a few allies in Vietnam (South Korea and Australia) but we bore the brunt of the casualties.
There are no easy answers to the war on terror. One side is going to win and one is going to lose. There is no middle ground. And, if you think things are difficult now, I can say for sure they will only get worse if we give in to the impulse to pack it in.
Iraq has become extremely unpleasant, but I'm sure that if we give in there it will get even worse here and other places in the world.
July 23, 2007 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
John Kennedy also had this to say at his first innauguration:
"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
I don't fear negotiation. As Kennedy also said, "Let us not negotiate out of fear, but let's not fear to negotiate." But I'm not willing to negotiate with al-Queda any more than I'd be willing to negotiate with the thief who is breaking down my door or the murderer who is intent on killing my children or grand-children.
I doubt that there is anyone on this planet who can reasonably negotiate with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. I don't believe the current administration is capable of doing so. I don't believe Hillary Clinton can, nor can Barack Obama. Fred Thompson can;t, nor can Rudy Guiliani. There are no negotiators skilled and learned enough to find an avenue of comprimise with al-Queda. The only acceptable outcome for them is death or subjugation.
I have no wish for Armageddon. I have children and grand-children. I, and they, have a lot to live for. We love life.
Perhaps you're the one person who can find the avenue of negotiation with terror that has escaped all the world's wise men. If so, issue them an invitation to negotiate here in Emporia. I'm sure the Gazette would be willing to provide the office and other logistics in return for the scoop. When all is said and done they can print the banner headline - "Peace in our Time."
Ah, but that one has been used before, back in the 1930's when Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany with a meaningless piece of paper. They'll need to come up with some other creative way to make appeasement seem fashionable.
July 24, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Quoting a politician is the same as reading your own contradiction, and Kennedy was a master of quotable words. Taken altogether, though, they equal zero.
The fog of war prior to our invasion of Iraq in '03 was created by the Bush administration. I clearly remember Powell sitting at the UN telling us in apparent sincerity that the US had the information about WMD, knew where it was, could and would prove it. I wanted so badly to believe that Powell was not lying. I wanted even more to believe our President would not lie to us this way. I was well informed, did not believe Iraq was a threat, but I wavered then, wanting to believe what turned out to be grotesquely and purposely untrue. Everybody did, I think, including Congress. They were told their authorization was necessary so that the administration could negotiate credibly. There was no negotiation, though. The decision to make war had already been taken.
Bush lied. So did Powell, whether or not he actually knew he was doing so at the time. That was not fog of war; it was lying.
EU nations are doing their part in fighting terrorists. Germany is sending troops outside of Europe and increasing defense spending. Britain has sustained several attacks as have other nations, and is very active and successful in pursuing terrorists and their supporters inside and outside their country. Even Sweden is building up its military, building more planes and ships, reinvigorating its army.
Having just returned from there, I can say with certainty that they will not say, "Send the Americans," if and when they are attacked. They believe - rightly - that our actions since 2001 have allowed terrorists and their organizations to flourish. Nobody ever had a better ally than Osama bin Laden has in George Bush and American policy. His recruitment costs are zero because we are doing it for him.
If we leave, there will most probably be a great deal of blood spilled. It will happen anyway. By staying, we just put it off. This conflict as it exists today cannot be won by using our soldiers. It can be solved in some manner only by the Iraqi people and we must remove ourselves from the battlefield for that to happen. Staying just makes a terrible situation worse.
We entered this war on false pretenses, wanting to believe what was not true. Just as falseness usually leads to a bad end, we have arrived. It is time to get out, support the government of Iraq as best we can from the sidelines, negotiate with anyone in an attempt to ease the transition, and do better in the future.
C A French
July 26, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia
I have little doubt that we will be withdrawing from Iraq in September. The important question then will be "who is going to fill the power vacuum?"
There are some other questions that will flow from that. "With whom will we negotiate?" Al-Queda? Syria? Iran? Bin Laden? Al Sadr? What will we be willing to give up in the negotiations? Who will be our negotiator? Barack Obama seems to be willing. Is he the man for the job? What about someone like you? You seem to be imbued with some sort of superior wisdom that's eluded the rest of us.
I've travelled a great deal in Europe and I can assure you that when the time comes western Europe will indeed cary for Americans to come. I was there in the nineties when the genocide in the Balkans was taking place. I have vivid memories of what folks in Vienna, Munich, and Paris were saying when Bill Clinton decided to unilaterally stop the carnage. They wanted to just leave it alone, so that it would all just go away. Bill Clinton, to his credit, did the right thing.
July 26, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I agree with CAFEmporia, 100%
M
July 26, 2007 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Mel said - "I agree with CAFEmporia, 100%"
So do I.
K
July 26, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I think we can agree, the topic of "George W. Bush" is irrelevant. After all the mistakes and poilitical divisions he has created over the past 6.5 years, very few people take him seriously. After all, most Americans (even Republicans) are looking forward to the 2008 election and more closely watching the actions of Congress, rather than listening to the words of our current president. What was his latest approval rating? Only 25%, I do believe.
From my point of view, living in one of the nation's most populated metropolitan areas, I think about terrorism everyday. I, like most San Franciscans, have become accustomed to seeing law enforcement patrolling the subways and crowded public areas. My knee-jerk reactions are not as quick when hearing about a suspicious package being found, and a city block being roped off. Alarms go on, and alarms go off. These examples shouldn't infer that I am not concerned about terrorism, I've simply adapted to the fact that we live in a world much different than it was ten years ago.
I would rather see money spent upon Homeland Security, diplomacy with those nations who do pose a threat to the US (i.e. N. Korea), and the search for Osama bin Laden. Fighting a war in Iraq doesn't make me feel any more safe, just more frustrated that our tax dollars are not being spent wisely. What is taking place in Iraq is a civil war between religious factions. As we all know, a religious debate (or fight) has not any winners because those engaged in the battle will not compromise their beliefs. Our troops do not need to be in Iraq.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
July 26, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
That doesn't come as any great surpise to me.
I've seen this all before. I saw Republicans letting their hatred of Bill Clinton cloud their judgement in the nineties. I saw Harry Truman villified in the fifties. I've read our history and have seen that Abraham Lincoln was considered by most "good" folks to be nothing more than an ignorant monkey
Attitudes, like history, shouldn't repeat themselves,but they do..
A lot of what's fueling things right now is people's hatred of George Bush. In fact, for many it has more to do with personal hatred than it does with our national security.
We'll begin the withdrawal come September. At some point after that negotiations will begin in earnest. When that time comes the terrorists, bin Laden, et all will clearly demonstrate who the master negotiators are, and it won't be us.
July 26, 2007 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer, please don't misunderstand the postings of CAFEmporia, myself, KristieR or bdprotheroe as holding "hatred of George Bush."
I daresay that not one of us has met the man in person, therefore, it would be most difficult to personally hate him.
His politics are quite different, however. He's had 6.5 years to do something and I've yet to see it happen (unless lying is counted).
We feel how we feel, as do you. I refuse to live my life in fear because our gov't actually stopped fighting a war that, to date, has yet to make any (good) impact on any part of the world.
It is negatively impacting the lives of military members over and over and over.....
M
July 26, 2007 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Mel - thank you. I don't care enough about GWB to hate him. He's not worth the effort. I just think that he wanted to be the hero who finished what his father started. We will see what the history books say down the road won't we?
Until then, I am anxiously awaiting September.
K
July 26, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I certainly don't "hate" President Bush. I am, however, anxiously awaiting 01.20.09, whomever the victor of the next presidential election will be.
Speaking of which, check this out: http://www.unity08.com/ I like the idea of both political parties putting down their "swords and shields" and beginning to work together to pursue common goals. I think our nation is ready for a fresh start, and positive outcomes.
BP
SF, CA
July 26, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'll say one thing in defense of Bush. At least his approval rating is significantly higher that that of Congress. What was the last I heard for Congress - something like 18, 19 percent?
People seem to have such short memories. In addition to all our own intelligence (and Clinton's) telling us about the WMD's in Iraq, we had Egypt, Saudi Arabia, plenty of other countries around there confirming it with their own intelligence. So tell me again, who lied? Sounds like possibly we were manipulated by other countries that wanted us to take out Saddam?
I remember after we went into Iraq, Libya came clean and announced they had a WMD program that NOBODY knew about, and were giving them up - UN inspectors invited in, the whole works. Then, about a month or 2 later, I'm watching the news, and the commentator made the remark that we haven't seen a single country in that region give up WMD's as part of a "ripple effect" - nor did any in the country in that region have any.
I'm not arguing for anything here, other than a sad commentary on how people's hatred of 1 person or administration clouds their minds, narrows their vision, and shortens their memory - such a sad picture of the times we live in....
July 26, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As for terrorist cells in our country, if you wanted to get over here, it's obvious how you could easily do it - go into Mexico, shave your beard, keep a low profile, come across the border, pose as an illegal immigrant "just looking for honest work". Then once your here you can take advantage of the free health care, free education, etc... all those freebies that we deny our own citizens, and bide your time.
By the way, anyone catch the article talking about how Al Queda is now recruiting heavily in Somalia?
July 26, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
These comments make it sound as if some of you believe the terrorists are targeting Emporia. Do you think the terrorists are going to plant a dirty bomb at the Tyson's plant, and then march north to create an offensive line at Wal-Mart before trekking east to invade the rest of the city? Will the terrorists be landing their aircraft at the Emporia Municipal Airport?
As to my earlier point, if terrorists want to create a ruckus, they will target a large population. If we, in the major, urbanized areas of America aren't fearful, then why are you? We are alert, but we don't allow fear and propoganda to consume us. Sure, terrorists did create a ruckus in September 2001, but the government and the people are now aware, alert and are taking precautions to prevent a future attack. To be productive, this dialogue should be focused upon "how might we prevent an attack" rather than "them there foreigners are comin' to get us!"
BP
SF, CA
July 26, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Exactly, B.
M
July 26, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Brian and Mel, remember this is small town Kansas. If they are not afraid of taxes then they gotta be afraid of something. I personally believe that the whole central United States could be targeted at one time, which could actually divide the coasts.
July 26, 2007 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry you take my comments to mean I'm a "shucks, dang, slack-jawed yokel" - but only someone who really is that would take my comments to mean that they are targeting Emporia. Geez. I think terrorists could and would strike anywhere they can when they decide, but obviously they would probably want to target high-visibility and high-population centers. That doesn't mean they can't live anywhere in the US until that moment. Gee whiz, it might even be prudent to lay low for awhile somewhere more out of the way. My POINT WAS - to borrow your own phrase "this dialogue should be focused upon "how might we prevent an attack" - that the first thing we should do is SECURE OUR BORDERS. If you were an Al Queda operative trying to slip into this country, tell me, what would be the most obvious and easy way?
I see today a town tried to pass a bill penalizing landlords and business that rent to and hire ILLEGAL immigrants (please, notice the word ILLEGAL in all caps, lets not turn this into a general anti-immigration ruckus) - and the judge struck it down.
Just another example of why what we currently live in can no longer truly be called a "democracy". In a democracy, the people have the power. Not 1 lone judge representing 5-10% of the population.
But I digress (sorry if that's too big a word to be used in context of "them there foreigners are comin' to get us"). Again, start with securing our borders.
July 26, 2007 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Problem is, the many of the governments steps to prevent another "ruckus" like 9/11 (I would like to know if surviving families and loved ones of people lost in 9/11 would refer to it as a "ruckus") get plastered all over the front page of the New York Times, which then renders it much less effective, like the money tracing system.
As for the central US, remember what Geraldine Ferrarro said on TV awhile back - "Well, you've got New York on one side, and LA on the other, and what have you got in between? Nothing!!!!"
At least we know what the Democratic Party thinks of Central US.... not that the other party does us much better.... but at least next year we will replace our 30% approval rating president with someone from the ranks of 19% approval rating....
July 26, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, I've ran into alot of the Geraldine Ferraro & others attitude towards us "ignernt farm yokels" (I hope I misspelled it enough to be convincing) - thought I'd share this little news item that came out this week...
Report finds rural students outperform city kids in math and science
Associated Press - July 25, 2007 6:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - A new study finds that rural students are doing better in math and science than their urban peers.
The Education Department report says rural kids outperformed students in city schools on all grade levels in both subjects. And rural fourth- and eighth-graders read better than their counterparts in urban schools.
July 26, 2007 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I don't think (and I could be wrong) that Emporia is considered a "rural" district.
I think the qualification for a rural district is 3800 students or less.....but don't quote me on that exact number.
M
July 26, 2007 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Oh, and to bring in political parties is a moot point, imo.
Why? Because (1) history will (and does) repeat itself and (2) a majority of citizens are no longer in favor of what is happening.
Furthermore, what one judge does is because of the current laws--and that's how any judge is to base his/her decision. What case, in particular, are you speaking about? I'd like to look it up. Was this a federal or state case? Was it a class action suit or a private party suit? What jurisdiction? Was there a bench trial or jury trial? When did the suit start? When did it end?
Thanks.
M
July 26, 2007 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
The case happened in Farmers Branch, Texas, a suburb of Dallas in mid-May. But there was another one in Ohio that is more recent. The Texas case was challenged by a Latino pro-immigration group. The one in Ohio was an offshoot of a criminal case involving arresting undocumented aliens.
As Melissa said, the courts threw it out because federal law prevents such local laws as a matter of civil liberties. Until that is changed, the courts will have no choice but to rule as they have. The people do have the last voice in such things and, seriously, it is the Congress and administration that block the people's desires much more than the courts. Because they must remain silent in the face of criticism, it is fun for politicians to place blame on the judiciary.
Also, I hope netloafer is right and we do start withdrawing troops in September. What will happen in Iraq if we get out will happen anyway. They must fix their own country and we need to address other problems which are more easily addressed, like finding bin Laden, confronting al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rebuilding relations with other countries.
Let's face it, since we invaded Iraq, 4.5 million have been displaced, possibly a million have been killed, and who knows how many have been injured by this war. I ask you, how could it get much worse? A quarter of the population have had their lives ruined or ended because of our stupid invasion. Those who say it will be a bloodbath if we leave are so out of touch with reality it is just plain sad. It is already a bloodbath. The consequences of our presence have actually been as hard on the people there as was Saddam.
We need to get out now, not wait until September. From the sidelines, we can support their government, provide some training to legitimate government troops of their choosing, and hope for the best.
C A French
July 26, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It has been all over the news today about the law struck down in Hazelton, Penn. Good grief, doesn't anyone watch the news? Oh, that's right, everyone watches the major media that leans WAY left, and complains about Fox News being biased because they dare show both sides of a story. Well, here's a link from AP.
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20070...
The thing is, there are PLENTY of federal laws that local law enforcement DO help to enforce. Counterfeiting, bank robbery to name a couple. But the courts like to pick and choose which ones they will enforce, and which ones they won't. Just like the cities that declare themselves safe havens for illegals, even though that goes against federal laws.
As for what constitutes "rural", that wasn't the point - hey, even better that the even smaller schools are ahead. Just making a point about the snobby intellectual holier-than-thou attitude of the Geraldine Ferrarro's of the world.
I agree with you totally on the fact that history does and will repeat itself. Its just that the people repeating it aren't always the ones that you think ... every great civilization in history has always collapsed from within - sadly, we're heading down the same road - but nobody seems to see it but a few, and we'll have to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut them up.... :(
July 26, 2007 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
BTW, on the subject of WMD's, here's an interesting article that's been around awhile - especially interesting when you get to the part about the "agricultural and pesticide" chemicals that were stockpiled in Iraq...
Apparently he didn't managed to get quite EVERYTHING trucked to Syria during the run-up to the war....
http://www.wmdterror.com/articles/wmd...
July 26, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
My apology for my error regarding the city ordinances prohibiting renting to undocumented aliens. I should have looked that up before writing my response. There is just too much in the news to remember the details of everything and so commenting on it publicly without going back to look at it again becomes dicey. I am sorry for the error and thank you for the correction.
It would help, open_eyes, if you could be a little less caustic in your responses. I certainly appreciate being corrected when I state something incorrectly, but it is not necessary to imply such negative personal characteristics as you do. This is a discussion forum and, given your tendancy to deride people, it damages your credibility. I dislike that because you do provide a great deal of information which is of value to the topic being discussed. I think it should be considered, but it is unlikely to gain comment if there is a risk of being verbally assaulted as a result. Worse, it is not unlikely that you will be derided and insulted which would also be wrong. Please give some consideration to softening it up a bit.
Your call, and I do not mean this to be an insult.
I would like to say that Ferraro's comment about everything being NYC and LA struck me as being ironically parochial. She was proving, in a way, that she is the hick, not those of us out here in the vast wilderness. It was pretty funny.
True, that every great civilization tends to collapse upon itself, but then how that happens is a perspective call. Sweden did that, had their century as a world power and then collapsed. In that (16th) century, a third of their population died off and their treasury disappeared. A similar thing is happening here and now. We are squandering ourselves to be a "great power" and we are committing a form of suicide in the process. Many Swedes think we are bozos for not seeing that we are repeating the mistakes of history, mistakes they made in the past.
Even the repetition of history requires the analysis of various perspectives. What seems obvious is often quite incorrect, it turns out.
C A French
July 27, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoahjoe (anonymous) says...
BP - September 11.2001 was simply a "ruckus" to those on the west coast? So, glad to know that SF is not nervous about attacks and not fearful. Also, good to know that Emporia is not a terrorist destination.
I lived in downtown NYC during the attack, a little more than a "ruckus".
But thanks for your take, as an outside observer from a "major urbanized area of America." Good to know SF, is watching over those of us, who believe 'the foreigners are out to get us.'
July 27, 2007 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi...
Postville, Iowa (pop. 2273) had a middle eastern man living within it's city limits for a few years. A few days after 9/11, he was gone, left all of his belongings and his computer hard drive erased. Another man, in the Prairie du Chien, WI area left behind flight manuals and textbooks that indicated the man was attending flight school, as well as aviation navigational charts with the cities of Kansas City, Kan., and St. Louis circled. A computer was found in the abandoned apartment in Postville, Iowa, with its hard drive erased.
The FBI determined that neither were related to the 9/11, but we all find it hard to believe in the coincidence of it. Small towns can be safe havens. We tend to be more trusting.
July 27, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia, my "caustic remarks" were in response to the comment that apparently out here in the sticks we all feel that "them there foreigners are comin' to get us!". As a midwesterner who has worked on both coasts and had direct experiences with people in large cities who had those kinds of attitudes towards middle America, I will admit I am a little over-sensitive to the ignorance (yes, that is the correct word I would use) shown towards the midwest. I could tell you stories of questions I have been asked by highly-educated professionals on both coasts about middle America that would make you shake your head in disbelief. You probably would not understand unless you had been in my shoes and had my experiences. And I responded to the insult. But that is my problem, not yours - If I carried it a little too far for you, I apologize. Point made, lets move on.
July 27, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, I do watch the news.....however, I was working so that's why I asked......
And your stereotyping (and cynicalness) regarding all of "us Ferraros" is annoying and makes it really hard to have any type of discussion.
It's like me saying "all of you Nixon's" or "all of you war mongers". It does not conjure up happy thoughts nor any sort of thought-provoking discussion.
M
July 27, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Neither do the comments such as "them foreigners comin' ta git us". Again, I apologize for my over-sensitivity. I let it carry over onto other things where it did not belong.
July 27, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Point taken regarding the comments. :)
I think this (war) is a very touchy subject for everyone.....regardless of stereotypes, kwim?
M
July 27, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madhouse (anonymous) says...
I don't know that pulling all out troops out is necessarily the right answer. I think we should try and educating the Iraqi's. Perhaps see if any of our business people/educators would be willing to help the Iraq people learn to stand on their own two feet, while still having the support of our troops and pull out gradually. Maybe that would help with some of the up coming bloodbath.
July 28, 2007 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I agree that rural areas are vulnerable if only for reasons involving self-assuredness. We think we are not vulnerable while we are, often in ways that are not so common in larger cities. That said, I do think that most (emphasis on "most") terrorists would be looking for the big hit which would involve hundreds of thousands rather than dozens of people.
The problem with terrorists is that we just don't know what they might be thinking. That is part of what defines them.
Thank you, open_eyes, for your words and explanation. I will be more sympathetic in future.
C A French
July 29, 2007 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks for understanding CAFE, and again I apologize for being somewhat over-sensitive.
As for rural areas being targeted, I think that could be more likely than people might suspect. We've read stories about terrorists plans to use such methods as crop-spraying to deliver anthrax or some other biological agent over a broad area or to contaminate a food supply. Hitting the food supply could start off as big a general panic as hitting a high-population area, even if the initial death toll was much lower. If America had a big scare regarding our food, be it plant or animal, in addition to the fear it would put into the consumer, think what that could do to our exports and markets, and as the dominos fall, our economy.
Remember, by very definition "terrorists" goals are to spread fear and terror. I'm not looking for the boogey-man in every corner, but I do think it is prudent for every American to be aware and diligent no matter what part of the country you live in.
July 29, 2007 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
You know, the rural target is a reasonable one, but if most people in rural communities would shop and/or buy local, I doubt biological terrorism could infiltrate the rural communities. Or, if it did, it would be minimal.
Rural communities often have better access to locally owned/operated and grown items. No factory necessary. No processing. No "middle man" so to speak.
Lots of city people want that--they just don't know how to get it (local co-ops are a good place to start). Because local people often don't have the advertising money that factories have.
M
July 29, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That would be nice, but not sure it could/would work that way in today's economy. For an individual buying food, yes, but even in Emporia....Let's see, our local dog food plant - poisoned pets .... due to contaminated wheat from China...
I guess the point I was trying to make is that I would assume they would try to insert whatever it was they were using into the food chain, so that it would/could spread as much as possible. And no better place to do that then somewhere we would least suspect. Where people, by nature, are more trusting, and more people have the attitude that it couldn't happen here. Just keeping my EYES OPEN :)
July 29, 2007 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )