Colleen Callahan, Democratic candidate for the 18th Congressional District, has announced that she advocates ending the war and withdrawing troops according to an “orderly time line.”
Callahan, whose husband Dick is a Vietnam veteran, visited Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 at her own expense while accompanying the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. She said she saw first-hand the destruction war causes and likely would not have voted in favor of the war.
That’s so easy to say now, knowing what we know now. It’s like saying, “If I were Buddy Holly, I would have taken the bus on February 3, 1959.” Yeah, obviously. Even if she were to argue that at the time, based on what she knew then, she wouldn’t have voted to go to war, so what? We don’t have a DeLorean with a flux capacitor that will allow us to go back in time and change that decision. We have to deal with what is, not what we believe should have been.
Until a stable government is operating, it would be misguided foreign policy and, frankly, immoral, to simply abandon the Iraqi people. Violence and genocide would ensue after withdrawal, resulting in millions of Iraqi deaths. That would embitter the Iraqi people (and further embitter others in the region) against the U. S., and our enemies (al-Qa’ida) would be able to parlay that into more violence against us, as well.
But perhaps the most disappointing thing is Callahan’s reason for pulling our troops out of Iraq — economics:
“Just imagine what we could do with an extra $12 billion a month [that we wouldn’t be spending on the war]: focus on relief of high gas prices, develop a functional health care system, begin infrastructure improvements and fund the war on drugs and crime in our own community,” she said Wednesday in front of the World Wars I and II Memorial in the Peoria County Courthouse Plaza.
Is this really a good reason to pull out of Iraq — so we can have more money to feed our oil addiction and start new government entitlement programs? Let Iraq descend into wanton violence and genocide so we can have cheap gas and government-funded health care? How callous and provincial is that?
When I saw that in the paper this morning, my first thought was “Well, she’s done.”
I agree, unless Dr. Schocklove utters some more clever foreign policy suggestions, she is just a token candidate hoping to win on coattails who really has little chance at all.
I’m sorry, but back in the 1700’s didn’t this country recieve help from other nations to become free. That help consisted of military and financial support.
How much more help do you want to force on them? How long did the French remain here after Yorktown? Are they still here?
Why are we there again? (Do they think that because oil prices out of sight now that we don’t know who is making money off this war?)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2005-10-27-xom_x.htm
Thursday, ExxonMobil (XOM) became the most stark example yet of how much big oil companies benefited from the huge run-up in oil prices during the third quarter even as two major hurricanes ripped through the industry’s Gulf Coast infrastructure. Exxon reported:
• Net income up 75% to $9.92 billion. That is the most a U.S. company has earned from operations in a three-month period and greater than the annual gross domestic product of entire nations including Cameroon and Zimbabwe.
• Revenue up 32% to $100.7 billion. That is greater than the annual GDP of all but just 38 of the world’s economies.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8n0vrd80&show_article=1
HOUSTON (AP) – Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company—$39.5 billion—even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.
The 2006 profit topped Exxon Mobil’s own previous record of $36.13 billion set in 2005.
It’s funny how a lot of the people who’re saying we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq now are the same ones who used to bash Bush sr for not finishing the job while we were there.
Some of the most ardent supporters of this war seem to share one very glaring commonality, though qualified to do so, they are not, have never been and never will be risking their lives over there. I believe the term used to describe that mindset is chickenhawk.
Please tell me that an anonymous commenter didn’t just call someone a “chickenhawk.” No one would be silly enough to leave an anonymous comment questioning someone else’s courage, would they?
Those who throw out the “chickenhawk” accusation would never in a million years allow only Iraq war veterans decide our foreign policy. Few veterans share their anti-American views
I also wouldn’t link the war and entitlement spending. It’s like saying that if we cut money to entitlements, we’d be able to afford the war. But took the statement as standard rhetoric.
The “chickenhawk” argument is silly.
Case in point: how many men are eligible to serve in the U. S. military? 50 million? 75 million? At least that many, and it’s obvious we don’t need that many in the service as our standing army(regular, reserve and national guard) is just over 1 million.
Not everyone can serve, but we are free to express our opinions…even those too chicken to use their real name on this blog 🙂
Hey, I have some XOM in my 401k. Guess I’m a war profiteer.
I notice he didn’t address my point.
Obama said similar comments today in West Va. .. the war is an economic drain and if we were not there we could feed the hungry, lower gas prices , etc… Sounds like a coordinated messege theme from the National Party.
The war is an economic engine in many ways. Ask CAT and thousands of other companies around the country, how much extra business they are doing because of the war. That money doesn’t all go straight to Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of it stays right here.
Show me a war, any war that was never about economics.
the point still stands. talk-action=zero. good bye ladies.
No, “been there,” your hypocrisy invalidates your “point.”
At 3 trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives, time is up. Iraq needed to divide the power, divide the oil revenues and hold an election. In 5 years, all they managed to do was hold an election. No more American support is due or deserved.
Tell that to South Korea. Harry’s war – 58 years and counting.
I have issues with the way a lot of wars were conducted, including the Korean War (which was a war, not a “police action”), but the presence of U.S. troops in Korea, Japan and Germany all these years has enhanced the peace and stability of the world, no question about that. It is also a fact that the premature withdrawal of British troops from India and Palestine in the 1940’s set off a series of bloody wars and conficts that are on-going to this day.
Also, isn’t it funny how these same people who can’t wait to declare defeat in Iraq and spend money on domestic “needs” are screaming about how we have to do something about Darfur and Kosovo and other “humanitarian” crises, and pour more money into foreign aid giveaway programs? How about withdrawing foreign troops from Kosovo and letting Serbia handle its own renegade province? Perhaps they could take some tips for China’s treatment of occupied Tibet and start with barring the western media from reporting? No, CJ, it’s not simple hyposcrisy, it’s about being anti-Bush and, supporting anti-American forces wherever they can find them.
[SOUND OF HEARTY APPLAUSE]
I think we are on the same side on this issue. OTOH I have to admit your coining of “who’re” is a new one to me! BTW I still KNOW that I don’t live in Peoria, or pay Peoria taxes like you tried to beat me up by saying…YOU just don’t know so shut up!
^oo^~
been there,
I think you’ve been snidely implying that you have some kind of decision making authority over other people because, from your username, you might have been there. Well thats great, but your military experience doesn’t qualify you to make foreign policy decisions either. So you’re opinion isn’t anymore valid than anyone else’s.
The idea that only a couple hundred thousand who have served in the Middlle East are the only Americans who have a right to voice their opinion is as ridiculous as name calling on a blog because you can’t form a rational argument.
It doesn’t take a genius or someone who says he has “been there” to annoint himself with a superior position in speaking on this issue to know that militarily we are winning. Finished? Not at all. Winning a war? Absolutely.
Why would we cut and run when it would then leave the lives of those who have fallen totally in vain? America and our allies cut and ran in Afghanistan when we helped defeat the Soviets. The Taliban then used that vacuume as a breeding ground for terrorism that brought down the World Trade Center and poked a big hole in the Pentagon. We cannot make the same mistake. If we leave we unleash genocide and anarchy. It will haunt us for generations. Our nation has been greatest when we finished what we started.
The icy cold hearts who just don’t care what happens over there when they would have us bug out is scary at several levels.
silent majority is wrong about one thing – the cut and run crowd does care what happens over there. They want the U.S. and its allies to lose. And they are making a last ditch effort to secure defeat. There are a few useful idiots who have a sincere, if misguided view about Iraq, but, YES, I believe the vast majority of the cut and run crowd want us defeated. And, frankly, it was partly their insidious influence that prevented the proper steps from being taken years ago to attain victory. This war has gone on way too long in part becuase of these despicable defeatists pushing the military to fight a “kindler, gentler and cheaper war”. The way to win a war is to send enough troops with enough weapons to do the job, and let them kill the enemy. That isn’t politically correct today, but it’s a fact. You win a war by killing the enemy, and keep killing them until they surrender, period.
“The way to win a war is to send enough troops with enough weapons to do the job, and let them kill the enemy.”
Agreed, so why didn’t this administration do this? Because “the cut and run crowd” demanded they didn’t?
And I still have a question: What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
They were harboring Abul Nidal but then whacked him to try an appease us before we invaded. Wasn’t the idea to go after all terrorists everywhere – not just AQ?
Oh Kat….
Ok, lets do the math …
talk-action =zero.
talk-action+action=zero+action
talk=action QED … draw your own conclusions
In a lot of ways, it is true, that being anti-war IS anti-American. But it is anti-an America many do not wish to be a part of. Since when did our nation decide that foreign policy is decided at the end of a big stick (or cruise missile)? What ever happened to “talk softly”?
Whatever happened to multi-culturalism and pluralism? Whatever happened to compassion and humility?
Our government is run by miltarists that share much in common with school bullies, neo-nazis (see The Stormfront) and the fundamentalist extremists we are and are combatting.
Might does not make right.
Terror does not equal truth.
kcdad, I don’t know where you are coming from (as usual), but just so there is no misunderstanding, let me say: (1) No rational person is “pro-war”; wars and violence are sometimes necessary evils; (2) Of course you can be a patriotic American and oppose a particular war; (3) My problem with the majority of the cut-and-run-crowd is that their view is based on a knee-jerk desire to oppose Pres. Bush and support enemies of the U.S., not a reasoned appraisal of the situation; (4) I have a lot of policy differences with the current administration, but to call them militarists is nonsense, you apparently need to spend some time in a militarist state; (5) multi-culturalism is a bunch of CRA-! If you don’t like American culture, then move to a country you do like the culture of, Iran will take any islamofascist that comes along, if that is your preference.
1961, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
During each of the years listed above, one or more successful terrorist attacks took place against U.S. targets [domestic and foreign].
Number of successful terrorist attacks against the U.S. since 9/11 [Afghanistan/Iraq]?
ZERO – War is Hell, but so is any terrorist attack against innocent people.
Mouse! You’re making me swoon!! 8-D
New Voice,
I understand the point you are trying to make [in listing all those years], but you fail. Unless your parenthetical of (Afghanistan/Iraq) was supposed to somehow mean …except…, then I don’t know how you could say there have been no terrrorist attacks against “US targets” (your phrase) since 2001. Every day it would seem there are terrorist attacks against US targets in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, didn’t someone just torch our embassy in Kosovo (maybe mob action terrorism). Either we count the terrorist attacks on US soil only (1993, 2001) or we count all attacks against our interests. You can’t have it both ways.
Sud O. Nym,
I am afraid you fail in failing me. You obviously know nothing about terrorism.
1: With the exception of a few steadfast civilians, all of our casualties in Iraq/Afgahnistan are military – a military involved in a military operation.
2: OF COURSE I can have it both ways. If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. I mentioned “U.S. targets [domestic and foreign].” An attack on a U.S. embassy, U.S. diplomat, U.S. owned company, U.S. airline…is an attack on U.S.
sovereignty.
3: Torching [part] of our embassy was a mob attack, not a concerted terrorist attack.
4: Not all terrorist attacks have to come from Muslim extremists [Oklahoma, etc].
Now you know how I can say there have been no SUCCESSFUL terrorist attacks against the U.S. since 9/11.
Before anyone starts whining about the Patriot Act and the loss of rights in this country… I challenge anyone to prove to me how this act or any such measure has really altered their lives.
I will say this though, I WILL BE DAMNED IF I AM GOING TO REMOVE MY SHOES AT AIRPORTS! Long live the freedom fighters! Smoke ’em if you got’em!
New Voice,
I still don’t know how you can say that our military assets in Iraq/Afghanistan aren’t US Targets. Yes, they are involved in a military action, but don’t we keep hearing our president say we are fighting the terrorists over there so that we don’t have to fight them over hear? When a group of Sunni insurgents rams a truck full of dynamite into a crowded market and kills a bunch of civilians and a few US soldiers/contractors, is that terrorism or not? I just don’t think you are making your point by only counting those things that support your point.
I am beginning to think Sud O is the only one not getting “my point.” Your understanding and/or definition of TERRORISM is…basic. Terrorism is essentially a tactic-a form of political warfare designed to achieve political ends. It falls under the rubric of low-intensity conflict. It is a form of violence in which political, economic, and psycho-social considerations play a more important role than conventional military power. Terrorism is a premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by SUBNATIONAL groups, usually to influence an ‘audience.’
My point is made by stating fact based on first hand knowledge, not the B.S. you hear on CNN.
You also prove an important point [whether you know you did or not].
“…but don’t we keep hearing our president say we are fighting the terrorists over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here?” YES! that is the point. Containment. This may sound cold, but this is one of the important reasons we have a military in the first place!
So you agree that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the Boards of Directors of McDonald Douglass, Haliburton, Chrysler, Exxon, Boeing, and all the other war profiteers are neither rational nor Patriotic Americans. Good. From here we can carry on the conversation.
Of course there is reason NOT to go to war… ANYTIME.
War is never a solution to any problem. Is facism dead because of WW2? Is colonial imperialism dead because of WW1? Is racism dead because of our civil war. NO. All war does is redistribute land and wealth. War is NEVER the solution.
Whoa, first time on this site. There is more hate here than Obama’s church.
Well, kcdad, with all due respect, I must say that your latest comment is the most moronic thing I’ve read in a long time. I’m sure the Jews who were saved from extermination and the slaves who were freed from bondage will differ with your view that “war is never a solution to any problem.”
TWP — Thanks for the drive-by flaming. Come again.
Are you claiming that was the reason we went to war against Germany in 1941? (Take 72 million lives to save 6 million?)
Are you claiming that was not the reason we supported Hitler prior to the war? (As if we didn’t know this was going on already in the late 30s?)
What about WW1? The “war to end all wars”? What did we solve there except to create the current problems in The Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia.)
AS for the slaves… come on… do you really think the Civil War was fought over slavery and the ideal to abolish slavery? We found it was expedient to free the slaves. It was expedient to point to attrocities in Germany, Panama, Vietnam, and Iraq as our excuse for going to war. Why haven’t we found it expedient to find the attrocities in Africa (or Mexico, Eastern Europe, China or any place else) as a reason to go to war?
I am glad you think I am a moron. At least you are thinking something, rather than just parroting the “God Bless America” patriotic nonsense of our government.
War is (contrary to the military genius Von Klauswitz)Economics by other means, not politics.
Is it any surprise that it is the privileged class that is exempt from service, and yet reaps (edit) MOST OF the economic and politic benefit from war?
We have averaged spending nearly 350 Billion dollars a year in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 6 years… next year it will nearly 600 Billion (as currently budgeted).
For what? $3.50 gas? Doubling and tripling property assessments and/or taxes? A collapsing economy? Americans having to work three jobs to get by? No affordable health care for the middle and working class? Political debates about race and gender rather than issues that really have objective meaning?
$1.7 Million dollars for a 30 second commercial during the past Oscars… $2.5 Million for 30 seconds in the SuperBowl… $1 Billion spent each year advertising soft drinks (soft drinks!)… all of this is about globalization.. expanding markets, increasing profits… for what? Peace? Prosperity? Humanity?
To kcdad,
Are you claiming that was the reason we went to war against Germany in 1941? (Take 72 million lives to save 6 million?)
You show so many flawed assumptions, but the worst is to blame your own country, which you obviously despise, for all WW2 casualties! Germany, Italy and Japan lost only 11 million of their own people yet their wars killed 61 million from scores of other nations!
Are you claiming that was not the reason we supported Hitler prior to the war? (As if we didn’t know this was going on already in the late 30s?).
We supported Stalin, not Hitler. Both were devils but we chose the “enemy of our enemy.”
Is it any surprise that it is the privileged class that is exempt from service, and yet reaps (edit) MOST OF the economic and politic benefit from war?
Uh…we have an all-volunteer force now. Enough said.
Kcdad, go read some history books…
Further comments on kcdad’s anti-American rant:
1. The “privileged” classes were NOT exempt from service in WWII. George H.W. Bush very nearly died in combat; Joe Kennedy’s son did die; Teddy Roosevelt’s son landed at D-Day; etc., etc. Maybe you also forgot that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan and Prince Andrew flew combat in the Falklands War. I could go on. Is the fact that too many of the “privileged classes” opt not to volunteer in the U.S. today a problem, yes, it is, but that doesn’t make everybody in Washington who isn’t a pacifist an evil war profiteer.
2. Economics plays a part, but only Marxists (which kcdad probably is) believe economics determines everything. I could write a book on the fallacy of that argument, but let’s start with U.S. support for Israel. If economics controlled, we would support Iran and the other oil regimes. We don’t need Israel economically.
3. World War I was a mistake for Britain and America; we should have never gotten involved, but that only proves how ridiculous this whole line of thinking is. Wars happen because of leadership, some good, some evil, some incompetent, some self-absorbed. Why did Bill Clinton get involved in Bosnia and bomb that asperin factory in Sudan? HIMSELF and POLITICS. Search me why we are still sending troops to Kosovo. It sure isn’t because we need Kosovo’s exports or market, both of which are all but nonexistent.
4. Finally, I concede that greed is the biggest reason the U.S. govt. continues to largely turn a blind eye to the monstrous regime in Beijing. I have been outspoken in my opposition to “free trade”. But that greed extends beyond big corporations. Are you, kcdad, willing to pay a little more for U.S. made products? To you even take the time to look where a product is made, or is a glance at the price tag enough to make the buying decision? Every American needs to decide, whenever possible (sometimes it is not possible) to refuse to buy products made in China, and other countries that routinely deny basic human rights. And don’t tell me Chinese products are all Americans can afford, either. The vast majority of Americans would not perish if half their “stuff” disappeared tomorrow. A lot of “poor” people have multiple TV’s. Sure it’s nice, but people actually lived just fine without TV’s for most of recorded history, and some still do.
OK end of my rant.