Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 3 of 21
Real bad move for America
I hope Congress cuts off all the funding
Iraq has had too much time already to embrace freedom & democracy...
And way too much time to train their police and army
I don't care if Iran DOES go to war against Iraq after we leave...so what? We don't get anthing from either of those countries anyhow
Iran may become a nuclear renegade....whether we have ground troops in Iraq or not...so why be there?
The countries most threatened by a fascist nuclear Iran are Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordon, Turkey, and all of Europe.
I don't see that being America's concern at this point...Let those countries deal with Iran...for once, not America.
!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Surge or Surrender, eh?
It's good news either way.
No matter if the Reps or Dems have their way, we will have the troops home within the year. That's a far cry better than the last plan, which had them out there till whenever.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Surrender" is a pretty loaded word. Literally, "To give one's self over" to the enemy. But ya see, leaving Iraq is the only way for us to stop giving our lives over to the enemy. We are currently surrendering an American life to this war every day we continue. We Americans call pulling out of Iraq "surrender" out of pure ego, pure testosterone fueled hubris.
The truth is, America has never known surrender. The Union prevails. We've had to quit messing with things we shouldn't have been messing with in the first place, but when we did, we just went back to business as usual. That's not surrender.
Hero equates his surrender with losing--you know, like it's a game. But again, we are losing lives (more now than were lost on the morning of 9/11) and losing trillions of dollars as long as we persist in this war to keep our arrogance intact. Now we fight to keep the shame of this horrendously costly mistake at bay.
So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Surrender" is a pretty loaded word. Literally, "To give one's self over" to the enemy. But ya see, leaving Iraq is the only way for us to stop giving our lives over to the enemy. We are currently surrendering an American life to this war every day we continue. We Americans call pulling out of Iraq "surrender" out of pure ego, pure testosterone fueled hubris.
Excellent point. The people who keep talking about a withdrawl as being equal to surrender(Hero being the poster child on this board), are the same ones who get hard at the idea of war.
They're also the ones who quite conspicuously don't sign-up themselves.
"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:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.
By your definition we surrendered hundreds of thousands of lives to the Nazis in World War II. By your definition we were losing the war on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
Yours is a narrow vision of this war and ignores war's historical context.
A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive.
History has taught us that one battle may or may not mean defeat in war. If we give up on Iraq then its not merely one battle its an entire campaign and lost campaigns do lead to total defeat. Ask Napoleon, Hitler, and any number of tyrants. You could even ask a fair number of Americans whose history includes total defeat. The American Civil war taught us that even Americans can be totally defeated, their lands occupied, and their elected governments thrown over.
3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say? Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place. North Korea will know that if they can potentially bomb Seattle then we wont defend Seol. China will know that if they can promise us a few thousand dead then we wont defend Taiwan. Russia will know that American commitment to NATO is as hollow as our commitment to Iraq. Iran and Syria will know that Isreal truly stands alone. Venezuela will know that we talk loud, but our big stick is broken.
War means fighting and fighting means killing. You winning if its proportionatly more of them then you (especially if the fighting is taking place someplace other then your territory). Winning yes, but one side only "wins" when the other is unable or unwilling to continue. If we are unwilling then America loses...not George Bush (he merely fails his goal, writes a book, and builds a nice library). Is that what you liberals want for America? Are you so desperate to defeat the man that you'd sacrifice the good of the nation?
This nation was attacked on 9/11. Right or wrong the war has carried us to Iraq. Whatever you think of the invasion in 2003...we are fighting in Iraq today and we need a strategy to win today, not four years ago, or nine years ago, or sixteen years ago. If victory is not their goal then the Democrats are seeking defeat because in war you can't bet the future of your country on the unsure footing of the so-called middle ground of a 'draw'. Last 'draw' we accepted looked an awful lot like a defeat, just ask the Republic of South Vietnam...if you can find it on a map.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, let's get practical:
"A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive."
A new enemy offensive against "us"? Where? In the USA? If not, where else do you consider to be "our" country?
"3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say? Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place. North Korea will know that if they can potentially bomb Seattle then we wont defend Seol. China will know that if they can promise us a few thousand dead then we wont defend Taiwan."
It shouldn't be about winning every battle. We have to evaluate the cost and the benefit. I think that if we were truly threatened, people would defend this nation with a fervor that would surprise you. But they don't consider Iraq to be "us", with good reason.
"This nation was attacked on 9/11. Right or wrong the war has carried us to Iraq. Whatever you think of the invasion in 2003...we are fighting in Iraq today and we need a strategy to win today, not four years ago, or nine years ago, or sixteen years ago."
Now you've confused me. This must reflect your own confusion. Are we fighting Iraq? Are we fighting FOR Iraq?
--------------------
For those of you who like to pick bones, here is George Bush's speech:
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now you've confused me. This must reflect your own confusion. Are we fighting Iraq? Are we fighting FOR Iraq?
Doesn't really matter to his ilk. Just as long as there is fighting.
"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
The funniest ( and saddest ) line so far is that by Ted Kennedy , 'accusing' Bush of being obssessed with victory.
Umm.....shouldn't we all be ?
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
Quote:Umm... in a word... no.
The funniest ( and saddest ) line so far is that by Ted Kennedy , 'accusing' Bush of being obssessed with victory. Umm.....shouldn't we all be ?
let's decide what we're fighting for first, before we decide to get obsessed over it.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What abject horseshit. As usual.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
I don't understand what it's all about anyway; we won't give a rat's ass about the region once the wells are completely tapped out (25-40 yrs.).
Who do we invade for solar power, or fusion energy?
GRRRRR Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME