A letter from Sister Meriam

[Guest]

Does that mean that anyone who is not for the incumbent US president is a political anarchist?

[jojo22]

Hi Pere,

Firstly, historical "net effects" are not evidenced by anecdotal personal experiences.

Yes, I agree with you there - the net effects comment is not something I base on my personal experiences, that was a wider comment. Net effects are things like going into a country, not getting the proper UN endorsement before doing so, causing instability, massive death and wounded, certain businesses profiting from that instability - those are net effects - things that happen as they stand on their own without any 'explanation or justification' cast on it.

You bemoan the hypothetical possibility that your Muslim and Arab friends ". . . if they found themselves in a 'paranoid' environment - could find themselves killed, abused, wrongfully imprisoned without due process, hassled at an airport, whichever, because of the clothes they wear or their physical appearance." The only one of your hypothetical scenarios that has any basis in reality is "being hassled at an airport" -- all the other scenarios are factually unfounded with respect to the United States. As for Arabs and Muslims, "being hassled at an airport" is the unfortunate price one pays when members of that person's religion or ethnicity commit heinous terrorism and massacre thousands of innocent people.

Well, I didn't nominate the USA as the only paranoid environment they could find themselves in. In fact, deliberately didn't specify an environment. Although you are likely to find that some of the people held in Gauntanamo Bay will fall into the category 'wrongfully imprisoned without due process' and I'm guessing that more than a few muslims in the USA have been abused in the streets, particularly soon after 9/11. There were certainly backlash actions like that in the South . after the Bali bombings. As to being killed, I wouldn't fancy my chances approaching a coalition force checkpoint in Iraq that is filled up with 'jumpy' rookies or being in the wrong village at the wrong time.

I note that your explanation of why you "dislike Bush so much" is devoid of reference to any specific act or omission by Bush. Evidently, your opinion of Bush is based on the opinions of your American sister in law and your "senior American mentor."

Well, you know that I have been vocal about the actions of Bush elsewhere and there are more than a few I could rabbit on about, but it would have been a tangent to the point I was making in this context. My opinion of Bush was somewhat influenced by my sister-in-law but is not in totallity - that would be like saying I can't have an opinion unless someone who is American gives me an opinion - that's just silly. I don't base any opinions on my senior American mentor, that was his response to something that I said - nothing more, nothing less - just to give you something to consider about the effect of having an outside perspective.

During his Presidency, Ronald Reagan was also called a "cowboy" with a "cavalier" foreign policy and portrayed as stupid in the European and American media (83% of American journalists vote Democrat). History has forced Reagan's detractors to begrudgingly credit Reagan for winning the Cold War and bringing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That's why I lend no credence to how Bush or any Republican President is portrayed by the same media.

Wasn't Reagan too sick to be president for a good long period of his rule? Wasn't he something of a puppet president for a while there? Someone said something about that to me.

Meanwhile, it turns out that while al Qaeda was committing terrorist bombings against the World Trade Center, American embassies in Africa, an American warship in Yemen and apartment buildings housing Americans in Saudi Arabia, and while al Qaeda was proceeding apace with its plans for 9/11, sex addict Bill Clinton -- the darling of Europeans and the American left who was portrayed by the European and American media as a great President and an intellectual -- was more interested in having the Secret Service illegally eavesdropping on Princess Diana's phone sex with her boyfriend. See http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1968664,00.html

Was it phone sex that this was all in aid of

[guest0209]

Pere pretty much said everything I wanted to say in his message.

Net effects are things like going into a country, not getting the proper UN endorsement before doing so, causing instability, massive death and wounded, certain businesses profiting from that instability

The USA did not need the support of the UN to go in. There was enough evidence to support that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions, and as a result of being veto'd by the big 3, the UN declined to support the war. This does not legally prevent the USA from forming its own coalition.

As for your 'profiting from instability' claim, What do you think was the main reason behind France going against the war?
Iraq owed France billions and billions of dollars, and It owed other countries Including the USA billions aswell, yet the French were the only ones who refused to forgive the debt to the New Iraqi government.
The French also had secret dealings with Hussein, and did not want the US to find out by discovering documentation linking illegal trades with Saddam. Incase you forget, it was France that supplied Iraq with its 1st nuclear reactor.

And you say as if there would not have been death or instability if the UN was involved. Have you seen casualty figures from current 'crisis zones' under control of the UN, such as Suddan? You are creating your own information here.

Although you are likely to find that some of the people held in Gauntanamo Bay will fall into the category 'wrongfully imprisoned without due process'

You are quite wrong about this. The people held in Gatmo cannot plead the fifth, and are not entitled to the same treatment as you and your fellow privileged little New Zealanders.
They can be held as either unlawful combatants/mercenaries, in which case their rights are pretty much non-existant, or they can be held as prisoners of war, in which case the US does not have to release any prisoner of war until hostilities with that persons organisation has ceased.

and I'm guessing that more than a few muslims in the USA have been abused in the streets, particularly soon after 9/11. There were certainly backlash actions like that in the South . after the Bali bombings.

What do you expect? A bunch of Islamic extremists killed 1998 Civilians on one day in the USA and you do not think there should be community anger? Look at what happened when the Pope made a comment about Islam using violence to force its beliefs... Groups of Muslims all around the world protested, rioted and burned down churches, attacked embassies etc.
Nothing on that scale occured in the USA following 9/11, yet they had more reason to riot and attack embassies than Muslims did over the comments of one man!! You are neither being fair or reasonable in your assesment or argument.

Also, you mention backlash actions in the South following the bali bombings... what were these backlashes?

As to being killed, I wouldn't fancy my chances approaching a coalition force checkpoint in Iraq that is filled up with 'jumpy' rookies or being in the wrong village at the wrong time.

Once again, you create wild allegations that our troops are untrained and unprofessional. Shame on you. These checkpoints processed thousands and thousands of people a day without incident. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Not only have you proven that you do not support the war, but you are now showing that you do not support the troops. You are disgusting.

Well, you know that I have been vocal about the actions of Bush elsewhere and there are more than a few I could rabbit on about, but it would have been a tangent to the point I was making in this context.

Yes, its all I have seen from you. I do not hear you complaining about Mass Genocide in Suddan, Christian schoolgirls being beheaded walking to school in Indonesia or Malaysia or Thailand, Somalian citizens being opressed by rebels who have seized control of the region... all in the name of religion.
I do not see you complaining that Communist China restricts the information or content that its citizens has access too.
I do not see you condemning North Korea for the sorry state in which it forces its citizens to live.
Instead, you are on here complaining because the war in Iraq has not gone as well as we would have hoped. You are here blaming the actions of George Bush for creating terrorism instead of applauding him for fighing it. This is so trivial. You try to come from a 'humanitarian' angle but you are no humanitarian. You simply use this to try to justify being a parrot for your sister in law.

My opinion of Bush was somewhat influenced by my sister-in-law but is not in totallity - that would be like saying I can't have an opinion unless someone who is American gives me an opinion - that's just silly.

The difference is, your sister in law has the chance to vote Bush out. You do not.
The difference is, your sister in law is effected by Bush directly. You are not. You do not lose/gain in any way from his domestic policies, where as your sister may.
You really have no right to be complaining about Bush whatsoever, as his actions do not effect you directly at all. You have just decided to jump on the anti-bush bandwagon like every other immature idiot who wants to go against the grain for the sake of being rebelious.

Wasn't Reagan too sick to be president for a good long period of his rule? Wasn't he something of a puppet president for a while there? Someone said something about that to me.

This has been your theme the whole way through. Basing your argument and forming opinion over 'something someone said to you'.
Was it Madonna or Greenday that told you to dislike Bush? Oh, thats right.. It was your sister in law. And now, to support the point of view that you have copied from her, you have created your own facts, made unfounded allegations, unfairly attacked the credibility of the troops that are on the ground doing the dirty work, and where you have been questioned you refuse to give an answer.
Sorry, but you truly are an idiot. People like you should not even be entitled to a vote.
Maybe thats why you like Saddam so much... you need people to tell you what to believe!

[jojo22]

There was enough evidence to support that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions

Based on old resolutions - so why was there so much noise to justify the action about him 'continuing' to create WMD's if these old resolutions were sufficient? - to quote:

'Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

As for your 'profiting from instability' claim, What do you think was the main reason behind France going against the war?
Iraq owed France billions and billions of dollars, and It owed other countries Including the USA billions aswell, yet the French were the only ones who refused to forgive the debt to the New Iraqi government.
The French also had secret dealings with Hussein, and did not want the US to find out by discovering documentation linking illegal trades with Saddam. Incase you forget, it was France that supplied Iraq with its 1st nuclear reactor.

Except France doesn't have approx 100,000 Iraqi deaths and almost 3,000 American deaths + some 25,000 Americans wounded arising as a consequence of the decision to go to war.

And you say as if there would not have been death or instability if the UN was involved. Have you seen casualty figures from current 'crisis zones' under control of the UN, such as Suddan? You are creating your own information here.

What!?!?! Where did I say there would not have been death and instability if the UN was involved? Whose creating their own information?

Although you are likely to find that some of the people held in Gauntanamo Bay will fall into the category 'wrongfully imprisoned without due process'

You are quite wrong about this. The people held in Gatmo cannot plead the fifth, and are not entitled to the same treatment as you and your fellow privileged little New Zealanders. They can be held as either unlawful combatants/mercenaries, in which case their rights are pretty much non-existant, or they can be held as prisoners of war, in which case the US does not have to release any prisoner of war until hostilities with that persons organisation has ceased.

Remember how the Japanese were corralled during WW2 - were they all unlawful individuals? Are there not American citizens in that prison who were stripped of their citizenship and therefore all rights after the fact of their apprehension? Are they all prisoners of war or are some prisoners of race and religion? I wouldn't be so silly to say there won't be any people there that could have been a real danger, but I'm betting that there are a number who are not and have no recourse for themselves.

What do you expect? A bunch of Islamic extremists killed 1998 Civilians on one day in the USA and you do not think there should be community anger? Look at what happened when the Pope made a comment about Islam using violence to force its beliefs... Groups of Muslims all around the world protested, rioted and burned down churches, attacked embassies etc. Nothing on that scale occured in the USA following 9/11, yet they had more reason to riot and attack embassies than Muslims did over the comments of one man!! You are neither being fair or reasonable in your assesment or argument.

I never said there should not be community anger now did I? I was simply pointing out that such actions provoke indiscriminate backlashs by some. I don't think you are being particulary fair or reasonable in your assessment or argument either - you dismiss the POPE (FFS) as the comments of one man - forgetting the power of that man and the massive institution that he represents.

Also, you mention backlash actions in the South following the bali bombings... what were these backlashes?

The most memorable was some kids who went around smashing windows in several mosques around Auckland.

Once again, you create wild allegations that our troops are untrained and unprofessional. Shame on you. These checkpoints processed thousands and thousands of people a day without incident. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Not only have you proven that you do not support the war, but you are now showing that you do not support the troops. You are disgusting.

I find you calling me disgusting equally digusting. If you want evidence that innocent people did come to harm at checkpoints, because troops were not given adequate briefing of cultural customs, then you only need to refer to this quote from this American marine:

Shortly after Massey arrived in Iraq, his unit was ordered to man roadblocks. To stop cars, the Marines would raise their hands. If the drivers kept going, Massey says, “we would just light ’em up. I didn’t find out until later on, after talking to an Iraqi, that when you put your hand up in the air, it means ‘Hello.’” He estimates that his men killed 30 civilians in one 48-hour period.

This quote is taken from an earlier post IN THIS THREAD! Must I repost information I have already posted in order to make a point!?!?! Mores the point, you are calling me disgusting because 'I do not support the troops'. I think it's awful that they are in this situation, but my respect comes from posting comments from men who have served! Was it Massey's fault that they killed those civilians or was it because they weren't prepared properly? Have you ever served? Training is one thing but the reality of war, I am sure, is quite another. And what have you to say about the growing number of Iraq veterans and veterans from prior wars before them, that are increasingly voicing their discontent with this war, that felt they were led there under false circumstances? Will you heap shame on them too? Or is it simply that anyone who doesn't worship the ground Bush walks on is a piece of shite in your book? If that's the case, then you better start wearing a face mask, cos the whole world is stinking up pretty f*cking fast.

Yes, its all I have seen from you. I do not hear you complaining about Mass Genocide in Suddan, Christian schoolgirls being beheaded walking to school in Indonesia or Malaysia or Thailand, Somalian citizens being opressed by rebels who have seized control of the region... all in the name of religion. I do not see you complaining that Communist China restricts the information or content that its citizens has access too. I do not see you condemning North Korea for the sorry state in which it forces its citizens to live. Instead, you are on here complaining because the war in Iraq has not gone as well as we would have hoped. You are here blaming the actions of George Bush for creating terrorism instead of applauding him for fighing it. This is so trivial. You try to come from a 'humanitarian' angle but you are no humanitarian. You simply use this to try to justify being a parrot for your sister in law.

Um, was there a terrorism problem of these proportions in Iraq in 2003, just prior to Bush invading? As to the rest, I have my topic - if you want to talk about the other topics why don't you go start a thread on them eh?

You really have no right to be complaining about Bush whatsoever, as his actions do not effect you directly at all. You have just decided to jump on the anti-bush bandwagon like every other immature idiot who wants to go against the grain for the sake of being rebelious.

One word - free speech - suck it up. I don't need you to tell me what my rights are or are not - sheesh! And despite your blindly America-centric view on who can have opinions, I am married to an American citizen, but even without that association what happens in America has effects on the rest of the world. How dare you say I can't have an opinion!

Wasn't Reagan too sick to be president for a good long period of his rule? Wasn't he something of a puppet president for a while there? Someone said something about that to me.

This has been your theme the whole way through. Basing your argument and forming opinion over 'something someone said to you'.

Um - did you notice that was a question? Not seeing an answer though, just an attack. My husband has clarified that after the assasination attempt he was severly wounded and underwent a lengthy recovery period during which time, instead of declaring him incapacitated, and putting the vice president (Bush Snr)in charge, they basically hid the fact that he wasn't able to fill his role but left him as a figurehead and made all the decisions for him. Hubby doesn't know who 'they' are.

Sorry, but you truly are an idiot. People like you should not even be entitled to a vote. Maybe thats why you like Saddam so much... you need people to tell you what to believe!

Ok - so I'm a political anarchist who just wants people to tell me what to do - oh and I shouldn't be entitled to my basic rights Whatever sweetie. And for the record, I don't like Saddam, I don't like what he did.

[jojo22]

Oh, and PS - if you want more balanced articles posted, why don't you start threads yourself? And if you want to really get stuck into the kinds of articles I post here, try http://www.netscape.com/

That's my home page when I open Netscape - most of my articles caught my eye there. Very lively debates there too. You'll find so much fodder coming up on such a regular basis that it will gaurantee you stay purple with rage from here till eternity.

[guest0209]

Based on old resolutions - so why was there so much noise to justify the action about him 'continuing' to create WMD's if these old resolutions were sufficient? - to quote:[i]
'Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.[/quote]

Oh so because it was an OLD resolution (one he had been breaking for over a decade), it was ok to just let him keep on breaking it? This is your logic? If old laws do not matter, why did the UN keep on extending the sanctions and resolutions against Iraq? Can you perhaps tell me why it was ok for Clinton to attack Iraq in 1998, under the same resolution (1441), but if you are George Bush and your country has been attacked by Muslim extremists, and soviet intelligence links Iraq with Al Qeada, and there is credible intelligence to suggest that Iraq is progressing toward a new WMD programme, that it is suddenly wrong to attack?

If you read up about resolution 1441, you will see that the UN deemed it necessary that Saddam destroyed all weapons that he was not allowed to have, including WMD's and long range missiles, and he must provide proof of their destruction. He did not.
On top of that, several under-reported cases of Saddams son Udday forcing top scientists to burt parts of a nuclear reactor in their backyards, components from Iraqs first nuclear reactor, parts which would have no use in an Iraq that was obeying the laws of the international community?

Also, whole semi trailers thought to process chemical weapons were wrapped in plastic and buried in the desert. They were completely sterilised and they were preserved for future use. Do you see any transport companies in your part of the world burying trailers for future use, or can you actually conceive the possibility that there was something very sinister and illegal going on here?

Oh.. but it is OK, because they were 'old' resolutions!!

Except France doesn't have approx 100,000 Iraqi deaths and almost 3,000 American deaths + some 25,000 Americans wounded arising as a consequence of the decision to go to war.

And neither does The coalition. Could you please give citations or credible links to proove this number? Do you know anything about International Law, which stipulates that indirect civilian casualties are the fault of the Military or Group that has taken refuge in a populated area (common guerilla tactics), unless the attacking force directly and intentionally targets civilians. This means that the casualty figure you just fabricated, would be added to the casualty figure of Saddam and his military Generals, and insurgent groups.
In all reality, there would probably be less than a few thousand civilians killed as a result of deliberate murder, bad intelligence, or stray ordinance, although these figures are yet to be determined.

[quoteWhat!?!?! Where did I say there would not have been death and instability if the UN was involved? Whose creating their own information?[/quote]

What difference does UN approval make? The UN pretty much screws up everything it gets its nose into. If you disagree with that statement, you clearly do not know much about the UN.
For the record, Bush gave the approval for the Invasion of Iraq to be put before the senate, where both Republicans AND democrats voted in favour. In fact, more democrats voted in support of invasion than against. Democrats such as John Kerry, John Edwards and even Hillary Clinton. And they all saw the same intelligence as Bush. So why are you just singling out Bush and saying that he went to war for the wrong reasons? It was the whole US senate that agreed!

Here are just a few of many many quotes from democrats prior to the Invasion:

Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam"

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


So what are you questioning here? The invasion? Are you going to create a new thread saying 'Senate, god told them to do it!' as you did for Bush?

Are you going to create a new thread saying "Hillary Clinton-war profiteer" ?

Remember how the Japanese were corralled during WW2 - were they all unlawful individuals?

Oh I love this part. This is the part where you blame Bush for ww2, and Vietnam etc etc. Yes, I've seen Michael Moore do this in his documentries too. And you might fool one or two ignorant people by utilising this tactic, but the mainstream can see what a complete idiot you are by comparing ww2 with Iraq. Congratulations, you are one of many uneducated morons to make this link.

The most memorable was some kids who went around smashing windows in several mosques around Auckland.

That is the most memorable backlash you have of community outrage?
And you are trying to compare that with global rioting, embassy trashing, and calls for jihad when the situation is reversed?
You have just defeated your own argument.

If you want evidence that innocent people did come to harm at checkpoints, because troops were not given adequate briefing of cultural customs, then you only need to refer to this quote from this American marine:

Have you ever seen a military checkpoint?
They have large clear STOP signs written in the national language.
Putting your hand in front of your face is not saying 'hello' in Iraqi. Stop taking the word of one soldier over 100,000 others just because the word of one suits your argument. You are full of as much crap as the media.

I think it's awful that they are in this situation, but my respect comes from posting comments from men who have served! Was it Massey's fault that they killed those civilians or was it because they weren't prepared properly?

No, it was Saddams fault that Massey killed those civilians.
And thanks for your 'concern', but the men and women who CHOSE to join the military CHOSE to take the good with the bad and knew what we were signing on for. And none of us ask you to speak for us, so stop pretending that you are our spokesman.

Um - did you notice that was a question?

Why yes, i did.
That was my point. Why do you ask people to tell you the facts instead of getting them yourself from reliable sources?
Is it really that hard, or do you just like to believe everything you hear from any old person?

And for the record, I don't like Saddam, I don't like what he did.

Oh it really sounds like you approve of his removal. You have criticised the war, the invasion, and said "when Bush attacked Iraq", which proves you have the same mindset as all those other ignorant little anti Bush conspiracy theorists who choose to ignore facts.
This is what I said to begin with.. You have made up your mind, and no amount of education or proof of any kind will change it, because you have decided what you want to believe.

[Captain]

I commend guest0209's intelligence and clear concise way of presenting an argument.

I think he's got some very good points.

[Guest]

Saddam a murderous dictator!!!!!!!!!

You have proof of that????????????/

Or is it something you read in the Western press!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Published on Monday, January 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Cure For Yellow Ribbon Patriotism
by Robert Weitzel

A man I once knew survived his tour of duty in Vietnam. In the privacy of a rented house trailer he drank alone until he finally had the “courage” to kill himself. I don’t know if he saw combat. He never said. I only assumed he had because when he spoke, what he said had the finality of a trigger pull. To my mind, there is only one way to acquire such certainty.

I only saw him on the weekends when he made beer runs for my high school buddies and me. We gave him a six-pack and ten minutes of our time for his trouble and then left him as we had found him, sitting at his kitchen table pulling on an unfiltered cigarette and sipping a lukewarm beer like he had all the time in the world.

I didn’t see him after high school and he was dead by the time I next thought to ask about him. I don’t know that he was a casualty of the war. He might have traveled the same road regardless of Vietnam. But then, he might not have.

Like most returning Vietnam vets before the release of the POW’s, he was not given a hero’s welcome. Hero was a term we seldom used back then; not like today when we toss it out like confetti on the deserving and the undeserving alike.

He came back instead to an indifferent, if not hostile, country. He and his fellow vets were slipped into the country singly or in small groups so as to diffuse throughout the population the “cure” they carried in their marrow, rendering it as ineffectual as a homeopathic dilution.

The “cure” these soldiers brought back from Vietnam was a potion distilled of moments: moments of bravery and sacrifice and sorrow, of bowel-loosening fear, of dehumanizing anger and hostility, of unasked and unanswered questions, moments too damaging to the soul to ever find release in confession.

It was a potion that if used thoughtfully could inoculate the nation against the disease of the god Mars. But it was ignored along with the soldiers. Vietnam vets, like the man I knew, were left to overdose on the potion in their own private hell.

The rally cry, “support our troops,” was born of a sincere desire to separate our feelings for the soldiers from our feelings for the war. It was meant as a mea culpa to the Vietnam veteran and a promise that we would never again make our soldiers the scapegoats for the machinations of the power elite. As a statement of concern for the wellbeing of the individual soldier, “support our troops” is unassailable.

But like the word hero, the vitality of the sentiment expressed by “support our troops” has been sapped by mindless iteration and the Machiavellian genius of warmongers. It has become little more than a patriotic platitude on par with, “God Bless America,” and a euphemism for “support our war.” As a balm to the national conscience for once again consigning our troops to the killing field, it is the battle cry that leads and sustains our country in an unjust war.

In a recent Military Times Poll, only 35 percent of our troops approved of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, while only 23 percent believed Congress was looking out for them. The troops are telling us they do not feel supported by the politicians who sent them to the killing field for a dose of the “cure.”

Against the advise of both retired and active duty military leaders, President Bush’s new strategy for winning the war in Iraq is expected to include a “surge” of 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops to help quell the sectarian violence unleashed by the illegal invasion and botched occupation of that country.

A November 2006 survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org revealed that 72 percent of Iraqi Shias believe the presence of U.S. occupation forces only exacerbates an already lethal situation and wants them out of their country within the year, while 91percent of Sunnis approve of attacks on U.S troops.

Our troops, our top military leaders, and the Iraqi people are sending a clear message. It is time to for the U.S. to “cut and run.”

Yellow ribbon patriots finally have an opportunity to support our troops in a meaningful way. They can begin by removing their magnetic yellow ribbon bumper stickers, by listening to the troops and helping to get them home, and by demanding that those who took the country to war with lies and deception be held to account.

All Americans will continue to abdicate their responsibility to the living and the dead and the wounded troops if they are unwilling to inoculate themselves with the “cure” brought home from the killing field.