Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 2 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Just not 'doing it yourself'
Originally posted by Hero:
Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already).
Ha!
One of the sterling members of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardist Division!
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One of the sterling members of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardist Division!
HEY ! I was gonna say that !
So I'll just have to say: Zero, girlfriend - you go girl !!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).
Hey, " Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?" worked for a couple of weeks after
Sep 11, 2001. FIVE years later, it's gotten kinda stale.
If this is the great clash of civilizations, why doesn't the Prez advocate putting the nation on an absolute war footing, and going all out?
Why aren't we reinstating the draft?
Why are we sending only 20,000 GI's back to Iraq? or 35,000, which seems to be about the total available capacity?
Why are we gonna grow the Army by only about 7,000 the next few years?
Why aren't we raising taxes ,and cutting discretionary spending to pay for all this?
Why aren't business executives lining up to volunteer as " dollar-a-year" men to lend their expertise to the struggle?
Why isn't the Prez making EVERY speech about this, and using those words?
OH, yeah, he's thinking. He's gonna make a speech tomorrow night. Betcha a bottle of mudder's milk he doesn't really commit to that idea.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).
Hey, " Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?" worked for a couple of weeks after
Sep 11, 2001. FIVE years later, it's gotten kinda stale.
If this is the great clash of civilizations, why doesn't the Prez advocate putting the nation on an absolute war footing, and going all out?
Why aren't we reinstating the draft?
Why are we sending only 20,000 GI's back to Iraq? or 35,000, which seems to be about the total available capacity?
Why are we gonna grow the Army by only about 7,000 the next few years?
Why aren't we raising taxes ,and cutting discretionary spending to pay for all this?
Why aren't business executives lining up to volunteer as " dollar-a-year" men to lend their expertise to the struggle?
Why isn't the Prez making EVERY speech about this, and using those words?
OH, yeah, he's thinking. He's gonna make a speech tomorrow night. Betcha a bottle of mudder's milk he doesn't really commit to that idea.
All he's gonna do it draw the whole damn thing out long enough that the next President has to clean it up, so he doesn't have to admit what a massive clusterfuc# the entire war has been.
The buck stops... anywhere but with Dubya.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whoa! Just how stupid do you think we are??? This may work in your jurisdiction, but it doesn't cut the mustard here! Please, maintain SOME dignity, will ya?
You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa! Just how stupid do you think we are???
Must....Be....Strong. Musn't....Answer....That....Question.
NO....No....
Damn!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I say we have enough soldiers there to do the job. A 'surge' isn't so much required, imo, unless it's a surge in ammo and supplies for a large scale ( nation wide ) campaign against terrorist and those who supply them, Iran/ Syria. Stop the supply lines from crossing the border, and tcb , baby.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ignoring the false choice presented by the thread title, "to surge or not to surge" essentially depends on your point of view of the political process in Iraq. If you truely believe that the Iraqi military is improving rapidly(and that has been the party line for a while) then a surge is largely too late. If you think that Iraq's government is actually unable or unwilling to ensure its own security then a surge is too little too late.
As I see it we don't have any good options. Pull out and let the place slip into civil war and 1) the "Arab street" will still blame the west for any further deaths even if it's Shia or Sunni's that actually pull the trigger and b) there is the risk of a regional war with the Saudi's backing the Sunni's and the Iranians the Shia.
Stay there with no cohessive plan and it will become a meat grinder for civilians and the allied forces alike.
Back one faction over another and the loosing side will end up being ethnically cleansed to some degree. That's always assuming that the various interested neighbours dont become involved.
The current US position, the hope that a unified government can rein in the various factions has a very slim chance of succeeding. However it is probably the only chance that has some posibility of minimal bloodshed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like we have our answer after last night's address.
Surge or Surrender? We're going to try both.
The President is going to surge the troops to try and win the war. 
Meanwhile the Democratic Congress is scheduling votes on surrender.
Nice to know both ends are covered.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, and we've started with Iran too now, finally, that's good.
Originally posted by Hero:
Surge or Surrender? We're going to try both.
First their consulates, then their
country. ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME