Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Is It Time to Scrap the Food-Aid System? | Main | Burned by global warming »

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Grim Milestone Watch


Brought to you by Little Green Footballs, where Charles Johnson is hosting a "Grim Milestone Watch".

Posted by Rob Huck on October 26, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grim Milestone Watch:


zombie has been busy again.

His latest entry, "Celebrating the 2000th American Death in the Iraq War", shows lots of smiling faces. Seems a little odd to be having a good time at a commemoration of such a "grim milestone". Even the MSM noticed the smiles and focused their cameras on the candles.


Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-27 8:21:41 AM

You forgot the part where Bush lied to the American people. Also you forgot the part where they played right into the hands of the Islamofascists by invading Iraq thus confirming their paranoia about the US.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-27 9:03:21 AM

Dieppe, the morning of August 19, 1942. Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives. One single morning.

On September 9, 2001 Muslim terrorists killed 3030 civilians. One single morning.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 9:05:02 AM

Justin, I think the 'Islamofascists' need to have their 'paranoia' confirmed.

Leftists asked, in the wake of 911, "Why do the Muslims hate us?"

The really germane question should have been, "Why do they not fear us?"

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 9:14:30 AM

Above should have been September 11.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 9:17:58 AM


Perhaps, but I know I didn't forget the part where most of those who opposed the war are taking a macabre solace in the fact that 2000 American soldiers have died trying to bring democracy to a part of the world where it had never existed before.

So don't worry, I didn't forget about you.

Posted by: Huck | 2005-10-27 10:21:18 AM

The panorama of Islamofacist paranoid fantasies which state the west secretly wants to re-colonize the Middle East; rape each and every Arab woman seven times; 'steal' [buy] their oil so we can, through some miracle of economics, pave our streets with gold; force every Arab over the age of 17 wear a Chicago Bulls T-shirt and then, in our long-planned coup d'etat, transform Mecca into a pornographic theme park?

This is the paranoid bullshit propaganda the cave-dwelling, apocalypse-believing followers of Osama Bin Laden use to convince more idiots to blow themselves up? We need to confirm this?

Good one.

Posted by: Hmmmm ... | 2005-10-27 10:29:16 AM

'Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew today [Oct.26] made the following statement regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel:

“On behalf of all Canadians, I want to vigorously condemn the remarks made by Iran’s President. We are in the 21st century. Canada will never accept such hatred, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Never.

“We believe that this extreme view does not reflect the opinion of the Iranian people.'

Once again the Iranian government will be quaking in their slippers at Canada's continuing refusal to accept their behaviour (Kazemi). My goodness but our government is giving it to them.

And how does M. Pettigrew know what the Iranian people think, one way or the other? Just wondering what polling firm has been surveying them.

Justin: Perhaps the Iranian president has also played into the hands of the paranoid Israelis by threatening them with annihilation. The Israelis, thank goodness, might just try to do something. Rather than endless babbling "unacceptable" (today in scrum after cabinet meeting The Grand Ditherer called the situation at Kashechewan "unacceptable"; could have blown me over with a Liberal fart).


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-27 12:08:46 PM

Who is taking macabre solace?

While every casualty deserves to be mourned, 2,000 dead hardly represents a high cost in lives.

The more honest critics appear to be using the dead as an opportunity to highlight the absence of anything which could be termed a plan. A situation which has become obvious to even the war's supporters. Plans are important. Especially when lives are at stake.

And what's with the allusions to sodomy?

Posted by: EBITDA | 2005-10-27 12:16:26 PM

"The more honest critics appear to be using the dead as an opportunity to highlight the absence of anything which could be termed a plan" ...

... while less honest critics use the body count as one more reason to proclaim that "Bush lied" while conveniently leaving out what brilliant game plan they would have suggested when dealing with a murderous despot who had invaded two neighbours, flaunted more than a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions, used chemical weapons on his own people, threatened to build WMD and harrassed those inspectors trying to ensure that he didn't do just that.

I'm all for plans and I'm all for coming to terms with mistakes which have been made. What I don't accept are cynics who have nothing to offer but snide, self-satisfied remarks made on the backs of those willing to sacrifice their lives in order to make this world a safer place.

Posted by: Huck | 2005-10-27 1:00:22 PM

The supporters of the Battle of Iraq phase of the 'War on Terror' do indeed see the plan, EBITDA.

It may not be EBITDA's plan, but developements show there is a successful plan unfolding.

The appeasers said democracy was impossible in an Arab country. They were wrong.

The appeasers want the Coalition of the Willing to leave before the job is finished. The appeasers will be wrong there too.

Germany and Japan took how many years to develop functioning democracies and democractic traditions?

Like Iraq, Germany and Japan, required constituitions, elections, the rebuilding of infrastructure, police and military capabilities, and the presence of US troops, to safeguard the process.

The difference is that Iraq was just one battle in a wider war which is still being fought.

Would you like to see the Coalition of the Willing invade the countries that are keeping the war going, EBITDA?

I would.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 1:10:18 PM

Why in the hell does everyone give justin a platform? Ignore him/her/it.
Just reply
-just justin again - no real response will drive him crazy and tell all other readers no one takes him seriously.

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-27 1:11:17 PM

If Justin wasn't refuted, new readers might be unduly influenced. He does make a nifty punching bag!

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 1:29:26 PM

Except Saddam's Iraq was in no way a threat. And the west was already engaged in one struggle -- against the Sept 11th murderers. Linkages between the two are spurious.

While Saddam was an obvious irritant, he was little more than a regional bully, one with greatly reduced circumstances.

Before the invasion many informed commentators, like Snowcroft, wrote it could prove harmful to the larger, more important battle against radical Islamic terrorism. If only because of the timing.

This hyposthesis has largely been proved to be correct. The absence of a post-invasion plan has only worsened the original mistake.

For example: the invasion of Iraq has been great for el Queda's recruiters. It has bolstered their insane arguments. They don't seem to be having problems filling their quotas.

Posted by: EBITDA | 2005-10-27 1:31:37 PM


The US had some justification to invade Iran. But now that is impossible. They couldn't invade Syria.

What country do Iraq's Shias feel closest to?



Where did Sistani, spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shia community, spend his exile?



Who trained el Dawa and the Badr Corps, the dominent Shia militias?


Could you please reconcile present conditions, corruption, bombing, lawlessness, sectarian divisions, etc ... with this plan? I assume you are are referring to the Santa Clausesque dream of a grand Middle Eastern transformation?

Even if Iraq became a functioning democracy why are you so sure terrorists wouldn't be able to operate from there? Or that the country wouldn't support terrorist organizations?

And isn't that the goal. To defeat radical Islamic terrorists.

Posted by: Mum | 2005-10-27 1:44:55 PM

EBITDA: What would have happened when the UN sanctions came off, as Russia, France and China were urging strongly at the Security Council? The sanctions would have been removed or very wide-scale evasion (think Oil for Food) would have happened.

Kay's Iraq Survey Group, which confirmed the lack of WMDs, also said the programs were ready to be rapidly reconstituted. Not something to look forward to.

And I agree the post-war planning and immediate administration was botched.


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-27 1:49:01 PM

The Islamists have never stopped fighting against civilization since their first leader started the war in the 7th century.

911 just woke some in the west up to the ongoing war.

Saddam was a terror enabler. Everyone, including Saddam, thought he had WMDs.

Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 for each terrorist act. It was reasonable to assume Saddam would enable terrorists in other ways.

Do you know what the Caliphate was, EBITDA?
The Caliphate was historically in Baghdad.
Saladin, a Kurd, was a Caliph.
Saddam was a regional bully because he wanted to be the new Caliph.

At some point, in order to win the 'War on Terror', Iraq had to be invaded. Iraq borders on many of the Islamic terror enabling countries.

The strategic importance of the Battle of Iraq is obvious.

You'd better get used to being wrong, EBITDA. Your side is losing the war. Again.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 1:59:39 PM

My side?

Saddam had about as much chance of becoming the new Caliph of some pan-Islamic empire as Ariel Sharron did. I feel dumber even having read that.

Turkey borders on lot's of 'terror enabling' countries as well. They've even got an Islamic government. Probably want to revive the Ottama Empire.

Psst: Most of the Sept 11th terrorists were Saudi. The Muslim brotherhood was/are primarily Eygptian. Hizbolla is Lebannese.

Mark I sympathize. But I don't know what would have happened after the sanctions against Iraq came off, or even if they would have. Neither do you. Because it never happened. That's empty speculation. Based on bias.

But anyway: the US invaded Iraq because of the chance Iraq might re-constitute its weapon programs?

Come on.

There were better ways to deal with that if that was truely what they were worried about.

Posted by: EBITDA | 2005-10-27 2:13:29 PM

Mum, few people believed muslim Arabs could live in their own democracy. I didn't. Now, in a nuclear armed world, the alternatives are either to surrender to Islam or destroy them all.

There is a third way.

The growth of democracy in Iraq is proving to me and other honest disbelievers that the utter destruction of Islam may be unnecessary if democracy could really take hold.

You and the muslims better hope there is a Santa Clause, Mum.

As for EBITA. If Saddam thought there was a chance of becoming the Caliph, that was all that mattered. Intent.
The spy agencies of all the western countries, plus Russia, and Saddam himself believed he could reconstitute his WMD programs. I hope you feel dumber.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 2:42:37 PM

"The growth of democracy in Iraq..."

Hi my name is Speller and for me a proper gauge of the history of Iraq is the past 12 months. Sure, I know a lot of people will try to tell you about the 'History' of the place but I say 'you want to talk history buddy? well just look at the last TWELVE MONTHS' and I'll tell you this much buddy democracy has taken hold and it's stable and it's not going anywhere. I say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

No - like - seriously this time.


Posted by: Can't Speller | 2005-10-27 2:55:27 PM

Justin/EBITDA/Mum/Can't Speller, do you really think the UN had Hans Blix and his teams in Iraq looking to VERIFY the destruction of WMDs in accordance with UNSC 1441 and 13 other resolutions governing the ceasefire of the Gulf War because nobody thought there were any WMDs there?

That Mission certainly was Accomplished.

As in any ongoing war, there is always a next mission.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 3:07:09 PM

I actually feel smarter in comparison.

However, I am relieved you don't feel the destruction of Islam to be necessary. Especially with all those nukes out there. Like the ones the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India and Pakistan have. Oh North Korea too. Shouldn't non-nuke countries be the ones afraid? Instead of the west? Who has a preponderance of nukes.

I'll sleep better tonight knowing that even in a world like ours, which has nukes, we won't, against all expectation, have to destroy Islam.

How would we accomplish this anyway? Fire and Brimstone? Poisen? an excess of laughing gas sprayed in the faces of humourless mullahs?

Opps. Quick! Someone tell Dick Cheney before he pushes the destruct Islam button.

Don't be so sanctimonious. Just because you are so ignorant as to believe the west has a lock on democracy doesn't mean others do. Just because you live in a world defined by your narrow-minded biases doesn't mean others do.

Intent is enough to invade a country? In what juristiction? Your fervered immagination?

So, Saddam had to be stopped because he believed in some wacked out fantasy about re-constituting an 11th Century Islamic Caliphate.

Good try. What's next?

I heard on 60 minutes that Saddam's agents were close to discovering the Holy Grail, granting him unlimited power of biblical levels. Unless Indiana Jones can find a way to stop him we'll have no choice but to invade. Unless it's already too late. Oh no!!!!

The stuff about Saladdin: That was propaganda. Congradulations! You seem to be one of the few who believe the bullshit put out by the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

Saddam used the whole Muslim historical thing to enhance his standing. Next you'll be claiming the Johnny Walker swilling Saddam was a devout muslim who only had an earnest desire to kick the infidel from the Middle East. And was thus a serious threat.

Who knows. He might have emerged as the leader to unite all Muslims. Except even, or especially, other Arabs considered him a major jackass.

But, thus, according to Spellinger, we had to invade.

That's quite possibly the worst excuse for invading Iraq I've ever read: That Saddam wanted to be a modern Saladdin.

I feel embarrassed to have eyes, to know how to work a computer, to be able to read.

I might have a chance of becoming the modern Caliph ... don't tell Bush I don't want to get invaded.

Ha Ha!

If Europe cannot get itself together enough to develop a common army, or even a foriegn policy, what chance do a bunch of wachos living in a cave have of building an Talibanesque empire from Indonesia to Spain?


How long before this 11th Century model train set recreation would collapse under the wieght of its own faulty economics? Among other things.

This is something we're supposed to be worried about?

Posted by: I am the new Saladin: Hear me roar! | 2005-10-27 3:21:46 PM

Just a quick US perspective here.

9/11 proved that the US could be struck by Middle Eastern attackers. That being the case, just running around chasing bad guys was no longer sufficient. After all, as they had proven they could hit us and also retaliate, just chasing various individuals and particular groups could no longer be any assurance of security from any attack.

Some strategy had to be devised that at least had a good possibility of draining the swamp and also re-orienting al Qaeda into defensive military actions on their own territory in order to expend their personnel and resources outside of North America. This of course would be no light undertaking, but did have many virtues from the point of view of North American security.

The present strategy places coalition troops and firepower in a pincer movement from Afghanistan and Iraq with Iran in the center. This gives the Western world the option of pouring as many military assets as one wishes into countries surrounding Iran. Now we have no need to consult in the UN if it is necessary to act against Iran. There is no need to consult Iraq or Afghanistan about Western coalition use of air strips or air space in these two countries. We could flood Iran with Western military assets any time we wish.

Additionally, since most of Iran's population is very young, pro-Western, with a ferocious desire for Western freedom, we have huge opportunities from the point of view of our intelligence services for destablization of the Iran regime.

The plan has some detractors, and while it may not be perfect, it actually is a pretty good plan strategically, and so far North America has not suffered another devastating attack.

Incidentally, is it true that Justin is really threatening to beat up posters on the Shotgun? Should I be concerned for my safety? Justin must be a tremendously ominous and tough hombre. Maybe we should all quit posting, less he decide to swish into our personal space scowl at us after knocking back a half a dozen Shirley Temples.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-27 3:27:01 PM

My mistake. The pincer movement argument is the worst I've ever heard. You win a no-prize Greg.

Sept 11th taught that terrorists could strike the US? What about the attack in 93?

Maybe they haven't attacked again because they're useless.

I've got to question your strategic insight. How many troops are in the northern pincer? Maybe 20,000? Those tied down in Afghanistan, the southern pincer busy dodging car bombs in Bagdhad. With that you will conquer Iran? Fat chance.

Excuse me but: The invasion of Iraq, especially its botched aftermath, is the best strategic development to happen to Iran since the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.

The Iranian foreign minister started laughing when in a recent interview he was asked if Iran was worried about the US. He felt bold enough to warn the US to back off, or Iran would really make life tough for the US. Overblown rhetoric yes, but the point is, the Iranians don't seem scared.

Shia Iran has long been amazingly close to the Iraqi Shia. Sistani lived in exile in Iran. The principle Iraqi Shia militias were trained and armed by Iranians. There's more ...

Sorry Greg.

How about concentrating on capturing Bin Laden. Those el Qeada murderers. Remember them

Posted by: I am a pincer! | 2005-10-27 3:56:40 PM

I think he's just a harmless heterophobe, Greg...but one never can tell...especially once he gets those Shirley Temples into him...

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-10-27 4:10:44 PM

Greg, 'Justin' should be called Legion for the number of names it hides behind to support itself.

It's too bad the Shotgun isn't a blog with better standards than to allow thread spamming like this.

It's the hiding behind multiple names that bugs me, MarkAlta. The fake e-mails have commonalities which give it away.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 4:18:25 PM

I am a pincer, in 1993 Bill Clinton was president. Today George Bush is. Additionally, Republicans, have a majority of seats in the Senate and House.

We have ample troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to clear whatever space we need (actually we've probably already done it) for the logistical details involved with airlifting personnel and military equipment into the theaters of operation. There is absolutely nothing to stand in the West's way of pouring in as many troops, artillery, and air power as needed.

Simply launching saboteur and assassination teams composed of Seals, recon Marines, Delta Force, long range patrols (Rangers), SAS, and SBS teams would be absolutely devastating to the Iranian regime. Actually our biggest problem, should that eventuality materialize, would be our extreme reluctance to harm our many friends and pro-Western citizens in that area.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-27 4:59:40 PM

I am the new Saladin: Hear me roar!: In 632 what would you have said were the odds of the Arab Muslims, starting in an Arabian backwater, within twenty years taking the Near East and Egypt from the greatest regional power, the Byzantine Empire, and utterly defeating and occupying the Persian Empire?

This is what inspires bin Laden et al.

And I agree Saddam was out of the running from this standpoint. Though in 1991 the Palestinians were sure cheering for him. Never miss an opportunity to miss...


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-27 5:38:23 PM

Mark and Greg,
'i am a pincer' and 'Saladin hmr' are Justin hiding behind MULTIPLE NICS. Click on the names, see the e-mail addresses.(Yahoo/tax/yahoo/taxes etal.)
Click each EBITDA/Can't Speller/Hmmmm/ etc.

Note grammar and arguement patterns and repeated use of fingerprint-like phrases.(cave-dweller, excuse me, snide asides to famous polititians/historic figures)

Every lefty anti-US comment are all from Justin hiding behind multiple nics.
Every one.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 6:00:42 PM

In 632 I probably would have said something in latin. What would you have said?


Nice work on the timeline. So that's who was president then. Cool!!

But ... a Republican President can magically conjour up troops which don't exist? All to invade another country when he's looking to get out of the one he's in? Interesting.

Recent army testamony in Congress has the armed forces at near breaking point? Do you have some inside knowledge?

You're wrong.

As for the rest, spare me the Tom Clancy fantasies about Delta Force troops and Green Spincters worm-crawling through the mountains. That's type of stuff has it's uses, but it quite clearly hasn't helped quell the Iraqi insurgency, so why would it help in Iran? I agree with you that, from what we can tell, many Iranians would like to see the back of the ruling theocracy. Many wouldn't though. Iranians are also very nationalistic. They probably will react about as well as would be expected to being invaded. Or as well as anyone but Bush et al would have expected.

Don't know any Justin though. Sorry.

Posted by: Hive Mind | 2005-10-27 6:18:59 PM

Shirley Temples. Heh. Very droll, Greg.

I shouldn't be telling y'all this, but get out a map of the eastern hemisphere. Highlight the principal islamofascist logistics routes on it. Now highlight the borders of Iran and Afghanistan. Notice anything interesting?

This operation has being ongoing since the fall of the Berlin wall; planning started before that. It will continue for at least another twenty years, even if things go relatively well.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-10-27 6:24:25 PM


I wish our gov't had balls like this!!!!!!!

FINALLY, a Country with some Backbone
Get out if you want Sharia law, Australia tells Muslims (Maybe we
should move to Australia...)

CANBERRA: Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told
on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted
radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a
group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a
special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers
made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that
some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did
not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by
parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which
has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,"
he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are
teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the
Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false."

If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts,
democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go
to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better
option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be
forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be
asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson
later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local
values should "clear off." "Basically, people who don't want to be
Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and
understand them, well then, they can basically clear off," he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by
saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques; agencies.

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-27 7:02:25 PM

Hive Mind: Actually in the Near Eastern part of the Byzantine Empire people spoke Aramaic, Coptic and Greek. In the Persian Empire they spoke, er, Persian.

I would have said, in any of the above languages: "No way".


Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-27 7:30:04 PM

I agree with Viviacious. It's so obviously about the trade routes. I'm not sure however if this open blog thread is the appropriate place to put information of that importance. You really looked at a map? Good thinking.

Mark: Really. Cool.

Though I wouldn't have been living in any of those places. Too hot. And I hate Greek food. Though maybe if the de-forestation hadn't started yet I could lounge in the shade under one of those big Lebanese oak trees. I'd prefer to be living in Latinia though, that's where Latinas were invented. Rrrrr.

Call me Pierre, but I'd surrender. How do say "If you don't kill me I'll join your new religion thing or whatever, friends, okay?" in Copt?

Posted by: Fosters Forever | 2005-10-27 9:52:48 PM

Speller, thanks for tipping us off about the "Justin" troll. It was pretty obvious that his only raison d'etre on the Shotgun is to spew vitriol. Still, if you hadn't clued me in on the fact that he was the same fraud under all these different names, I might have felt there was some reason to respond to him.

He is very naive about the American military.

I've occasionally wondered what these trolls get out of their activity. It's some kind of psychological glitch. Maybe sometimes they grow out of it.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-27 9:57:13 PM

Hive Mind/Justin/Vetruvius/etc/etc, "In 632 I probably would have said something in latin."

One might have said, "Vitam regit sapientia non fortuna."

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-27 10:34:29 PM

Hi Greg, how do you feel about sharing an e-mail address with 'i am a pincer' twelve posts above?

Isn't identity theft supposed to be a criminal offense? Isn't that what the FBI in the US calls a felony?

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 10:35:31 PM

I feel my job is one of an educator. Clearing up misconceptions. Like there exists a hope in hell that Iran can be invaded. And I'm no fan of the Mullahs. But change is going to have to come from within.

Not least because:

Testimony before Congress May 2, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers voiced concern the sustained deployment of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan poses significant risks for future war plans.

In the annual “Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan,” Myers stated that the level of deployed troops meant that future wars could not be carried out as quickly and with as few American casualties as the Pentagon has planned.

A senior Defense Department official quoted in the Los Angeles Times said, “The assessment is that we would succeed [in future wars], but there would be higher casualties and more collateral damage. We would have to win uglier.”

Commenting on the assessment, the Times noted that it “is a concession to military realities of the past three years...Now, with nearly 140,000 US troops in Iraq two years after the fall of Baghdad, along with commitments in Afghanistan and for the global war on terrorism, many Pentagon officials admit that the bloody insurgency in Iraq has tempered that vision of what the US military can and cannot do.”

General Cody, a top Pentagon official, recently told the House Armed Services Committee: "Are we stretched thin with our active and reserve component forces right now? Absolutely."

To make up for the shortfall the U.S. military is cutting back its other commitments, like pulling thousands of U.S. troops out of Korea in order to supplement US troop strength in Iraq. (The Washington Post: "U.S. Troops Moving From S. Korea to Iraq")

The military has repeatedly extended tours of duty for US soldiers and placed enormous strains on the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.

Over 40% of the troops being rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and Reservists. By July 2005, the Army National Guard had missed its recruiting goal for nine straight months. (The Associated Press) The Army missed its recruitment goals in February, March, April, and May -- each month by at least 25%. (CBS News) In June, the Army finally made its goal -- but only after dramatically lowering their goals.

In September, 2004, the Army Times reported that only 1 in 3 of the civilians called back to service through the IRR have actually shown up.

The Army has had to increase their efforts in order to reach enlistment goals, including greatly increasing cash bonuses for enlistees and hiring hundreds more recruiters. (USA Today) The Army has recently gone so far as to lower the standards for enlistees (The New York Times) and is even considering shortening the long combat tours that many believe are lowering interest in enlistment. (Reuters)

Posted by: R2D2 | 2005-10-27 10:39:40 PM

Speller, my wife picked up on the same thing. There's a good possibility that one of the differences between the "Justin" troll and us is that we can afford to hire attorneys and he probably can't. Still, it's not my main email address. I can correspond using it, but thank God I've got two of them.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-27 10:41:12 PM


Thanks for posting that. One hears so little good news like that lately.

Posted by: Darrell | 2005-10-27 10:44:18 PM

Report Justin to Ezra via the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom right, white on red border.

Identity theft is serious.

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 10:45:39 PM

Speller, Thanks for making my point in spades about idiots like justin. Thanks also for taking the time to figure it out.

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-27 11:15:32 PM

You were right, AsIseeIt. I've been surfing the archives and Justin has a huge number of multiple nics for fronts.

Does that mean one should never engage in debate, AsIseeIt?
Maybe multiple nic losers like Justin should be banned?

Which? Can you say you've never debated one of Justin's alias' like Herstory? or Herstory Dude? HMMMM, or a random spray of letters like EBITDA?

Do you never debate, AsIseeIt, or are we just writing vainly into the void?

Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-27 11:44:20 PM

"I feel my job is one of an educator."

Oh goody. Someone else who feels, rather than thinks. I suppose he/she also feels it's okay to pass off others' work as their own.

The first 4 paragraphs are taken directly from

The 5th paragraph is from

I didn't google the rest. It is undoubtedly plagiarised as well. Since he/she feels and steals, R2D2 is another that should go on the permanent scrollover list.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-27 11:57:37 PM

Debate is fine. I simply state my piece, I don't debate it.

Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-28 12:20:57 AM

You stupid stupid idiots. Your administrator WILL TELL YOU THAT I ALWAYS WRITE FROM THE SAME IP ADDRESS!

God your stupidity knows no bounds.

I only post as 'Justin' and your site administrator can confirm that.

I haven't even been here for a few days and I come back to find you people running around with pitchforks - I've been digitally lynched by a bunch of inbred bigots and I didn't even know it.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-29 1:00:45 PM

Been reading more of your comments and I must commend the other 'Justin' for working you guys up so much. You've managed to get them on 'facts' and they had no other recourse other than character slander (see Greg's 'Shirley Temple' comment or his implication that I wouldn't have enough money for a lawyer - if you only knew Greg but you don't cause you're a fool).

Anyway Congrats but debating these people is a fools game - they go on here to confirm their own ideologies and reassure themselves that the world is flat and that Intelligent Design is in fact intelligent. I initally read the posts here to have my ideas challenged cause I figured why go to sites where they confirm things I already believe? It's intellectually weak to just hang out with people who all agree with you (see above for many examples of this). Unfortunately they've only confirmed that most of the political ideas stem from their deep resentment and anger.

The politics of resentment is an avenue for them to express their physiological pain. It's sad really. Sad cause it's so obvious.


Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-29 1:15:55 PM

Glad to see you back, Justin, as there's a question I'd like to ask.

You mentioned GWB lying to the American people. Would you by any chance be referring to WMDs?

If your answer is yes, I have a follow-up question. What do you make of Kerry and Gore saying the same thing?

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

I don't recall any accusations that either Kerry or Gore lied. For the third and final question - any idea why?

Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-10-29 2:58:02 PM

They are part of the same military-industrial complex as Bush. They are simply lesser of evils but evils none-the-less. Also I don't think they would have been so quick to solve the Saddam problem by indifferently throwing hundreds of American troops to their deaths. Kerry knows war personally - Bush doesn't.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-01 11:41:44 AM

Justin, your response leads to me more questions.

1. What do you mean by military-industrial complex?
2. How are Bush, Kerry and Gore tied to it?
3. Can you provide links proving what Gore or Kerry would have done had either been president? This may be tricky. OIF happened after Gore lost and before Kerry ran.
4. Why does the 'Kerry is a war veteran' position carry more weight than the 'Bush is a chickenhawk' position?
5. Indifferently - fact or opinion? If fact, please provide links.
6. What is your definition of quick? Before you answer this one, please take note of June 7, 1981, March 16, 1988, August 1, 1990 and Gerald Bull. (Hints - Osirak, Halabja, Kuwait and Canadian.)
7. If Bush, Kerry and Gore are evil, what term would you use for the truly evil people in the world?
8. How would you have solved the Saddam problem?

Actually, you don't have to answer these questions, but there is a point to them. Don't use adjectives you can't back up; don't make assertions you can't back up; learn some history.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-01 6:08:11 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.