<p>Joe Darby is the only documented case of a returning Iraqi war veteran being spat upon, physically threatened, and experiencing threats on his life, so severe that he and his wife had to abandon their home town.</p>
<p>Just another day at the office for the Hate America Crowd. Though Petraeus’ actions were likely worse, as his 2004 lies certainly resulted in the deaths of addditional American soldiers.</p>
<p>Yeah, I really do get it. I just don’t want to discourage fellow CC’s from being able to read posts or feel cruelty is being directed at them.</p>
<p>As Gandhi opined, Be the change you want to see in the world.</p>
<p>I know it’s not much, but it’s all we have.</p>
<p>I was personally part of a consortium of ten college professors who lobbied representative in the US Congress, pleading with them to oppose the war. I can assure you that I was one of the least knowledgable one there because most of them were mideast experts, which I am not. Still, I was selected from the Peace Group at our institution to go, and go I did, even driving through two separate blizzards. </p>
<p>I argued that the US had more weapons of mass destruction than any other country and no one was invading us and that I was more afraid of John Ashcroft threatening my way of life than Saddam Hussein. Sadly, the Dems were no more receptive to our message than the Reps.</p>
<p>There has been so much shifting and turning in our position, it’s hard to follow who it is that our soldiers are presently fighting in Iraq. I found this article by Patrick Graham helpful, and fascinating.</p>
<p><a href=“Macleans.ca - Canada’s magazine”>Macleans.ca - Canada’s magazine;
<p>Meanwhile, we are arming the Sunni tribesmen, Sunni nationalists, AND Al-Qaeda, all of whom want to kill Americans.</p>
<p>mini: Hasn’t this been our foreign policy for the past thirty or so years?</p>
<p>It’s a good question, but the reality is, at least as regards Iraq, the answer is no. Following the Iranian Revolution, Saddam Hussein, a secularist, modernizing dictator of the very kind U.S. governments of both parties have traditionally liked best (except that he had universal free health care, the best in the Middle East), became a surrogate for the U.S. war against Iran. They backed his 8-year aggression, and (as you remember from the Rumsfeld Handshake) supported his use of chemical weapons against Iran. Upwards of 500,000 Iranians were killed, with the U.S. being able to claim that we didn’t get our hands dirty. Under these conditions, the U.S. did not support any of the major Sunni parties other than the Baathists. In hindsight, I think the major reason why GB the First was unhappy with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not because of any threat to the oil fields, but that Saddam Hussein was no longer fighting against Iran, which threw a great wrench into U.S. foreign and military policy. </p>
<p>What has been a steady drumbeat have been attempts to overthrow the elected governments in Iran (and it doesn’t seem to matter much who they elect). Which again raises the question for all the Democratic candidates: which ones will commit today to dismantle the permanent U.S. military bases being built on the Iranian border? I think that should be the litmus test question for any Democratic Presidential aspirant.</p>
<p>Does Iran send weapons to Iraq to fight the Americans? I’m sure they do. They have 28 years of history, and they know (with their half million dead) who the Americans are gunning for. (But, notice, in the government propaganda, we are never told where the captured Al-Qaeda weapons are from…funny thing…)</p>
<p>Quiet in here…</p>
<p>But ‘Childrens do learn’.</p>