Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 1 of 3
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.
OR
I say it aint worth it. I want the soldiers home so I can use that money to fund gay stem cell wedding research to feed to poor polar bears and sponsor El Nino's global warming TV commericals to end smoking and promote legalized drugs.
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).
There's also a small third party called the Whiners (in favor of complaining about the war) and to them I note the following:
* A chicken can travel up to 9 mph.
* The world's largest chicken egg weighed 12 ounces and was 121/4 inches around.
* Chickens experience REM sleep.
* Alektorophobia is fear of chickens.
* There are more chickens on earth than people.
* Each year Americans eat 80 pounds of chicken each.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Surge against the Sunni militias in Baghdad to free up Iraqi forces to move on Shi'a militias as part of PM Maliki's plan to shut down all illegal armed groups. If, after a while, the Iraqi government can't, or won't, shut down the Shi'a, start removing US combat forces.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like trying to kill off cockroaches...they just hide deep inside the walls...you never get 'em all.
Surge...smurge...ain't really gonna matter.
All that really matters is preventing future American & coalition deaths.
Let's put the billions we're spending in Iraq into securing our own borders and strengthen our intelligence to root out sleeper cells & terror threats here in America.
Iraq's had their chance to be free....they've blown it .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Surge or surrender - another false dilemma. It's not as if a surge is going to 'win' the war. The choice is surge now then withdraw later, or withdraw now. Kinda changes the perspective.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.
How long exactly does it take you to wash the taste of Bush out of your mouth?
I'm guessing you're totally in agreement with Kevin Klein's character in "A fish called Wanda".
"We didn't loose Vietnam! It was a tie!"
"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
That's funny. I could have sworn the war ended back in 2003. Didn't bush declare victory some time in May that year?
Personal opinion of someone not in the US - you've already lost. You went looking for weapons that weren't there and didn't find them. You united every faction against you, soured relations with allies and adversaries, provided more material than your enemies know what to do with and lost more people than you lost when the twin towers fell. And worst of all, now you're in a mess you can't get out, so it's likely you'll lose more people than were lost during all the 9/11 attacks combined.
All this for a country that had nothing to do with those attacks in the first place.
On the plus side you did end the regime of a genocidal maniac.
You want to push? Go ahead and push. It won’t make a difference. You can’t colonize a country that hates you. It just means the targets are within walking distance.
Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
Blog available at http://desktophippie.blogspot.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.
You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject. I just outlined the three sides this seems to have. The Winners (cause they wanna win and this is how they do it), the Losers (because 'go-homers' gets confusing with the new Simpsons movie coming out), and the Whiners (because complaining is all they do...for example complaining that there isn't a draft, proposing a draft, and then complaining that we might have a draft).
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). Use the surge to cover a troop deployment with another objective...like launching a strike on Iran. I was going say it, then I saw the bombing of the AQ fellas in Somalia and thought...maybe not Iran.
I kinda liked the idea that, instead of bombing Iranian nuclear plants, we drop a division on them. Hole up for awhile and the engineer folks can dismantle, destroy, or remove everything safely, and then we fly away leaving behind a liberal dosing of salt. There's no piece of ground in Iran we can't take and hold for a few days with a unit like the 101st. After that we send them to Arizona to kick ass on those Mexican folk who made our National Guard unit retreat the other week. I say if Mexico wont get them, then we do it just like the old days with Black Jack...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.
You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject.
H
Bullshit. You're wording made it perfectly clear what your opinion was.
Not that we all didn't know it in the first place.
Wipe your chin, Hero, still got some president left on you.
"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:Yeah, if nothing else the rest of the world can watch you turn it in to Vietnam 2: A failiure too far.
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.
Quote:Just not 'doing it yourself'
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).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.
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).
Hero- this is the poisonous flaw in your logic that prevents you from freeing your mind from years of subconscious conditioning, which may have unwittingly turned you into a closet neoNazi. for starters THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR! if you mean Osama bin laden.. the FBI doesnt have evidence that links him to 9/11. if you mean Alqaeda.. no one can prove that its a physical organisation, and they most certainly had no ties to 9/11 or Saddam. if it were not for the CIAs boogeyman Alqaeda, and the governments OWN orchestration of 9.11, the public would never have supported a war on terror, or rather any pretenses to have gone into Iraq.
when you talk about "winning", you mean the American military completing its mission or agenda successfully- but you wrongly assume that a political or military success is a benefit to everyday americans; im not sure you understand the nature of government, but you need to realize that the 'agenda' is a wholly homogeonized global government, with the elite masters atop a fascist plantation of indentured servants. this provocation with the middle east was predestined, read the CFR and PNAC documents.. its there in print-google them.
i get the impression that your one of these people like Rush and Hannity and Beck, who essentially believe what the CIA and pentagon and white house neocons tell them.. because they are part of the establishment, it sounds official and so it makes the news. (the irony is when Fox does a segment on conspiracy theorists, they claim we're in it for the money). look some of us know better, anyone who has actually looked at the scientific facts of 9/11 for instance...and we know not to put faith in any idealogy or plan hatched in the bowels the the most satanic building in AMerica- the Pentagon. you take the side of the globalists and internationalists who are literally subjugating and murdering a world populace into global monetary submission and regulation and an eventual global government.. and like the patriotic germans of the 30's you goosestep right alongside skull and bones Bush and his ss officers... right into WW3 and an AMerican union. ultimately you must share the same mindset as these people, using all means neccessary to establish as Bush sr stated forthrightly, a "NEW WORLD ORDER". well youre getting it.. but its not what they promised us is it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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
things are actually working just as the white house planned; apparently you guys have never heard of "order out of chaos" or "problem+ reaction= solution".. but as long as the Iraqis are busy fighting themsleves, sumberged in chaos and insecurity.. then it is only a matter of time until their collective will to resist breaks down and they accept a permanant UN authority in the region. there is no solution, thats the beauty, neverending war and chaos brings endless oppertunity for the globalists to fragment and influence society in the direction of a single centralized government
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I knew this was coming. 'Scuse me folks, but I feel the need to answer our Hero point for point. Like this one. You see the trick is, when your opponant criticises a specific thing (in this case, our war in Iraq) the trick is to generalize their argument as much as you can (in this case, say I'm talking about all wars) and go for the jugular. If you can imply that your opponent is soft on Nazis, so much the better.
Originally posted by Hero: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.
Unfortunately for Hero, I was talking about this useless war in Iraq, not all wars in general and certainly not the Second World War.
Quote:Now you see what Hero's doing? He moved within one sentence from my vision of this specific war to "war's historical context." It's really important to him that I not be talking only about this embarrassing failure in front of us. I must just be anti-war, you see.
Yours is a narrow vision of this war and ignores war's historical context.
Quote:Here's where Hero begins to rev up the paranoia because this pointless and wasteful war in Iraq is really just a battle in the larger war against our great unified enemy. You see, the folks we're slaughtering by the tens of thousands over there are all of them allies of "our enemy." Hero wants you to forget that Iraq had no ties to Osama, that this Iraqi adventure of ours was and is a detour in his beloved GWOT.
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.
Quote:A troubling rhetorical flourish here. After the grammar school level lesson in statecraft, Hero compares our humiliation in Iraq to the defeats of Napoleon and Hitler. Hrm.
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.
Quote:Hero really wants to run for office. Total emotional appeal and non sequitur. Again, I was speaking specifically about the Iraq debackle, not all wars in all times.
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.
Quote:Wowzers! Bet you all didn't realize that if we pull our troups out of Iraq (I'm guessing, ever) our nation will be defeated. What Hero doesn't want you to realize is that our Iraqi escapade is a fruitless, pointless clusterfuck.
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?
By Hero's definition, America was surely defeated in Viet Nam, but did our withdrawal of troops from that sorry peninsula usher in a new dark age here at home? Did the dominos we were so fervently promised would fall, even jiggle?
Quote:Oh my fricken god. Look at us now, "last place" among nations if we don't "stay the course." All because our projected capitalist utopia in the Middle East didn't pan out. Amazing.
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.
Quote:
North Korea willNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I give one solitary point to Hero...
The US has proven that a few thousand lives can move them. It can move them to declare war. It can move them to withdraw from war.
During World War II, there were campaigns where we sustained thousands of losses per day. I do occasionally wonder if we have the resolve to do that nowadays.
But if we are to find the resolve to see a war through to the end, through horrible loss and strife and suffering... I want it to be a better war than the one we find ourselves in within Iraq. Very little (if anything) has been 'right' about this conflict, and I feel we've paid a high price with little result. A madman is out of office in Iraq, but he will be replaced by new madmen as soon as we leave. And we can't stay there forever.
Anyway, what I said before, I reiterate. Whether we surge or not, the troops come home within the year. That's something to celebrate. The end to this debacle is in sight.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
global war on terror
fight against terror - blah blah
our safety here at home - indirect way of saying 9/11
We thought that these elections - who is this WE ? I never thought so.
But in 2006, the opposite happened - who'da thunk ? heckuva job though !
Al Qaeda terrorists - fig leaf blah blah blah
Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger - yep, their day of reckoning was at hand with a majority Shiite government
Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran - I see the big gun being cranked around to aim elsewhere
vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today - what, it's NOT al Qaeda?.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me - TL ^2 (too little, too late)
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. Which I then ignored.
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. Drop the word 'magic' and you get closer to the truth.
One message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. And my legacy, of course. Heh heh heh heh
The consequences of failure are clear, though what constitutes success is still hazy.
On September the 11th, 2001 - AHHHHhhhh ! NOW I'm satisfied. It had to be in there somewhere.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad
It used to be Tikrit, then Fallujah, then western Iraq, but today it's Baghdad.
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents - oh ! the Fallujha plan ! That worked so well, too.
But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. Actually what they say is TL^2.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Good question !
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. Not such a good answer.
Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. What does that mean exactly? Winning hearts and minds by leveling neighborhoods ?
The Prime Minister told his people: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." OOOhhh yeah ! baby. I'm sure your militias ... I mean troops, will do just fine.
reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible - I thought hanging Hussein was supposed to do that.
-------------------
Anyone want to pick this up where I left off?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Great speech, great plan, and great whinny assed reaction from the leftist browncoats. How the reality of this conflict escapes you apes is mind-boggling. I guessed where you all stood on this just from reading the thread title, so I shouldn't be surprised.....well, I am. You freaks never cease to amaze. How are you still bringing up the issue of WMDs, or US casualties? WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year. As far as US casualties, the number is so small...its moot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
Then why don't we approach it that way, Mr. President? 20,000 + troops doesn't show a lot of dedication to this "decisive ideological struggle"
Do you even pay attention to your approval ratings anymore? How about the dissenters within your own party?
Sheesh. At least if he's going to feed us crap, he should back it up with actions.
Oh, yes, and the "I listen to my military advisors" vs. "He's like Lincoln - he fires all the bad generals" is funny, too.
It's so funny, I forgot to laugh.
I really don't want us to still be in Iraq come 2063.
::sighs, then walks away::
P.S. Thank you SignyM for the transcript. I got bored of the wooden-ness after a minute or so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unfortunately, regardless of what we think about the war up to this point, the question right now is, do we leave the Iraqis hanging out to dry again? We crapped on them once at the end of Desert Storm when we urged the Shi'a to rebel agains Saddam, and then didn't support them. If we drop them in the shit and then leave them again, we might as well just seal the borders and watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket. Not my preference for a future.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If we drop them in the shit we might as well just watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket." I know you don't believe that. There are whole areas of the world that have not much to do with the middle east. Why, just look at Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela ... everything there is going just fine ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year."
There is a saying about people who can't remember history. Now, what was it again....?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq. And we should do it as quickly as possible. If we lose now, rather than extending the losing out over the next twenty years, we'll save billions of dollars and we can begin rebuilding our tarnished reputation that much sooner.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm with Sarge on this one, but lemme put it in the crudest possible way so the rightwing troglodytes comprehend it.
When you realize she's got the clap, you pull out, and go find a doctor, not keep humping away.
Capisce ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem is that a more apt analogy is that you banged the girl up and now she's moody and difficult to deal with you decide it's better to run off and just leave her to her fate. If you do, she has an uncertain future and will probably hate you forever. In addition at least some of your friends will think you are a callous heal for getting her into that state and then abandoning her.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
duplicate
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The problem is that a more apt analogy is that you banged the girl up and now she's moody and difficult to deal with you decide it's better to run off and just leave her to her fate. If you do, she has an uncertain future and will probably hate you forever. In addition at least some of your friends will think you are a callous heal for getting her into that state and then abandoning her.
Wow, you should write for the President.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq.
Now if I accused you of being in favor of losing then you'd be all upset. After all just disagreeing with the President does not make a person unpatriotic or a traitor. Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.
Be sure to foreward your posting to all the soldiers in Iraq and I suggest you include your home address so they can personally express their gratitude for your support.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Why, just look at Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela ... everything there is going just fine ...
Yep. Venezuela is verging on setting a fine example: President-for-life, rule by decree, firing the vice-president (after he delivered the centerist vote) for being insufficiently committed to the revolution, nationalizing industry, thereby removing any chance of foreign investment in the future, pulling the licenses of broadcasters who disagree with the government. Let's all move there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ROFLMAO!!!!
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you realize she's got the clap, you pull out, and go find a doctor, not keep humping away.
Ya gotta love that.
Here is a less hilarious analogy.
We invaded Iraq. In our delusion, we thought she would welcome the invasion. We thought she wanted us coming in hard and strong. She didn't. She fought back. We kept pushing her down, but she is fighting relentlessly. Now we are getting injured and tired.
The question is not conquer or surrender. The question is, when will we realize we were wrong to assault Iraq in the first place? Now? Or after one of us is dead?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whether troop drawdown in Iraq is surrender or not is really dependent upon the reasons why it’s being done. Clearly leaving Iraq should be and is our goal; the idea was always to leave Iraq with an Iraqi government. The question is when. Some Democrats have appeared to promote a policy towards Iraq that does amount to surrender, but most reasonable people see the futility in that. Leaving Iraq prematurely because Islamic terrorists have unnerved us into believing we can’t win is a policy that is likely to produce the next Al Qaeda headquarters which we will have to re-invade when the next 9/ll occurs. It’s puzzling to me that some people have found that scenario preferable to holding Iraq, but I’m not sure all or even most Democrats are in this category, and clearly some certainly aren’t. Either way, it is definitely a policy that we need to avoid, and the Democrats should not allow themselves to be influenced by the more far Left branch of their party.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Leaving Iraq prematurely because Islamic terrorists have unnerved us into believing we can’t win is a policy that is likely to produce the next Al Qaeda headquarters which we will have to re-invade when the next 9/ll occurs."
Ironically, that's not a bad argument in favor of leaving Iraq prematurely. The enemy is kinda diffuse right now. Might be nice to have a traditional headquarters that can be taken out.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Props HK, for THE most amazing and precise deconstruction of Hero's crap ever seen on this board, IMO.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Oh my fricken god. Look at us now, "last place" among nations if we don't "stay the course." All because our projected capitalist utopia in the Middle East didn't pan out. Amazing.
Problem with Hero is that he puts words together well enough that most folk didn't graduate high school will find him most convincing.
Fear rules that boy's take on things; obviously there was abuse or plain lack of love somewhere in his life, we must remember that.
The missing piece Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow. Define over-reaction, why don't you.
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq.
Now if I accused you of being in favor of losing then you'd be all upset. After all just disagreeing with the President does not make a person unpatriotic or a traitor. Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.
Be sure to foreward your posting to all the soldiers in Iraq and I suggest you include your home address so they can personally express their gratitude for your support.
H
Did Sarge make you angry? Rember Mal and the Operative- which one are you now?
Dr. Phil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Notice how Hero gets all authoritarian and threatening when you disagree with him? I'll bet that man has put many innocent people in jail. He loves throwing his weight around more than being right.
Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know you're trying to swing the arugment away from your losing point ("the world will go the hell in a handbasket") but nonetheless there are MANY parts of the world that will be unaffected by events in Iraq.
Yep. Venezuela is verging on setting a fine example: President-for-life, rule by decree, firing the vice-president (after he delivered the centerist vote) for being insufficiently committed to the revolution, nationalizing industry, thereby removing any chance of foreign investment in the future, pulling the licenses of broadcasters who disagree with the government. Let's all move there.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't read Bush's speech carefully from beginning to end. But I can guarantee that Bush will tell you what he needs to in order to do what he wants to do... and the two are not the same, just as a previous administration proclaimed they would not negotiate with terrorists while secretly dealing arms with Khomeini, Bush had to toss in 9/11 and al Qaida for a gloss of consistency.
So.... What's really going on here? Who gets what?
The big winners are.... the Sunnis. They get oil revenues. De-Baathification is reversed. Sadr City gets stomped, and Fallujah and all those other insurgent Sunni cities get left in peace. There is probably a Sunni leader somewhere behind the scenes who has given this his blessing.
Altho they lose some oil revenue, the Kurds get big brother's protection on the Turkish border.
The Shiites- who are made up of a number of diverse and competing groups- get the south, altho they also lose some oil revenue. It'll prolly go to some guy named Hakkim, who gets his main rival (al Sadr) stomped on.
The big loser is al Sadr. The other potential loser is Maliki himself. For the life of me, I can't figure out how they got Maliki's concurrence on this. Maybe he got to keep his head? But as far as I can tell, it means that internal security will be split three ways, and that Baghdad- the one major place where a lot of Shias and Sunnis live together- will go to the Sunnis. It could work. It means that Iran does not get to dominate all of Iraq- one of the things we didn't want happening. It also means that if native Sunnnia leaders are allowed to rise, they will displace al Qaida.
But I'm not sure what the additional 21,000 troops are for. To wrest control of Bahgdad from the Shiite death squads?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Whether troop drawdown in Iraq is surrender or not is really dependent upon the reasons why it’s being done.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'll bet that man has put many innocent people in jail.
Naturally. Anybody can convict the guilty. Only a master prosecutor can convict the innocent. Just look at the Duke case. I'd have had those boys in jail six months ago, then charged the accuser for making false statements and convicted her too.
I did that once. DV case. Lady admitted in court she lied to the cops. I still convicted her boyfriend then charged her with Falsification (my theory was she either lied to the police or under oath).
What does any of this have to do with a Traitor advocating the military defeat of his nation?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You CAN'T like Firefly- I refuse to believe it. There are too many greys- you demand black and white. To word it so that one wants to lose technically to preserve AMERICAN lives is not the act of a traitor.
Originally posted by Hero:
What does any of this have to do with a Traitor advocating the military defeat of his nation?
It must be worse than I thought.
You must be a fruitcake.
Friuty oaty Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Why not? If the enemy is there and we are there why should we not fight them there? And who cares about the 'first place' how can we retreat in the face of the enemy today...not 2003...today.
I note for the record that sometimes wars are fought in places where neither side was when the war started. For example, we invaded Africa to fight Germans in WW2. We had no business in Africa, no pre-war interests, nothing. All Africa had to offer us was Germans (and a few Italians), so we went there and took it from them.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To word it so that one wants to lose technically to preserve AMERICAN lives is not the act of a traitor.
Traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
Treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies
*********************
Seems your arguing for an affirmative defense. Its all about having "a good reason". Good luck with that one at trial.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...nonetheless there are MANY parts of the world that will be unaffected by events in Iraq.
Unaffected directly, perhaps. But the next time a Darfur-type crisis or Ruwanda-style genocide comes up and we attempt to organize a response, we'll hear, "Sure. You Americans are with us, right until the going gets tough." Don't you think the South Koreans are sort of wondering if we won't leave them in the lurch if Kim starts waving his nukes around? Like it or not, the idea that America will fight for our friends is the only thing which keeps the lid on in many places around the world.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because we have no business invading other countries that have not declared war on us? Because it is not our job to remove the hundreds of despots all over the world? Because there are less offensive and costly solutions to political threats than armed invasion?
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Why not?
Quote:We have "enemies" everywhere. We are not waging war with all the people who are our "enemies." There are other solutions to enmity besides use of sheer force.
If the enemy is there and we are there why should we not fight them there?
Quote:Well, you don't retreat by sending more troops.
And who cares about the 'first place' how can we retreat in the face of the enemy today...not 2003...today.
If I had the say so, I'd outline a 3 month plan for bringing our troops home. In these three months, I'd hand out a weapon to every civilian Iraqi household that wants one, and provide the military training to use it. Then I'd pack us up and leave.
The only way to protect the Iraqi people is to empower them to protect themselves. It is better to teach a man to fish than to make oneself responsible to providing him a fish every day for the rest of his life. End of story.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ever heard of The Emperor's New Clothes?
The issue is not whether we win or lose the war now. The issue is whether or not we recognize reality now or later. Sending 20,000 more troops into a hopeless meatgrinder simply doesn't make sense--if the situation is indeed hopeless, sending more troops is barbaric.
I perceive the matter as hopeless, others do not. Now those of us who consider the situation hopeless are considered traitors to our country by some. Now, they're saying my love of my country hangs on whether I believe we can do the impossible, while our sons and daughters die daily attempting the impossible.
The impossible. Sure, we humans have a way of surpassing ourselves, sure we are prone to underestimate ourselves out of a good thing. But for the moment, forget Captain Kirk, forget Man of La Mancha and all the g.d. leadership seminars you've attended--there actually is such a thing as the impossible: that which will never ever be achieved.
This war was a failure before it began. Those of us who were not blinded by fear and rage after 9/11 could see that plain as day. The GWOT was a failure before it began. Thankfully, the GWOT is not necessary. Like Communism before it, this new "evil empire" will fall of it's own internal contradictions.
NOW HOLD UP! I'm not saying that our various brinksmanshippings and li'l wars in convenient corners of the world didn't help communism along to its innevitable grave. It was innevitable that America would battle "Communism" just as it is innevitable that America will battle "Terrorism." I'm just saying that "losing" Viet Nam did not harm our status in the world or bring the commies marching down mainstreet, much as the warhawks of the day swore it would. And "losing" Iraq (seriously, I put losing Iraq in quotes 'cause you can't lose what you never had--unless you believe that the CIA owned Saddam for a while, at which point you'd have to say we "lost" Iraq years before 9/11 and what we're doing there now is trying to get it back and failing miserably), losing Iraq, I say, will not bring the world crashing down around our ears. It will however discredit the warhawks, just as it did after Viet Nam, and that's not such a bad thing either.
You see, the Emperor didn't start out the day with a shiny new outfit that then began to fade; it didn't vanish somewhere in the middle of lunch; the guy was naked from the get go. And I want the tailors responsible brought to justice.
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 SignyM:
But I'm not sure what the additional 21,000 troops are for. To wrest control of Bahgdad from the Shiite death squads?
I had understood that it was to wrest control of the Sunni parts of Baghdad from the Sunni death squads while the Iraqi Army took on the Shi'a. This is supposed to be better because it won't give Sadr as much reason to gripe about the Americans, since they weren't going up against his people.
Some are also going into Anbar province to hunt down Baathists and foreign fighters.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which no one here is doing...
Originally posted by Hero:
Traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
Quote:...which no one here is doing.
Treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies
Technicalities of law have fucked up your brain, Hero.
Yep. I said that Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Again, nicely put (and without resorting to the F-word like I did).
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You see, the Emperor didn't start out the day with a shiny new outfit that then began to fade; it didn't vanish somewhere in the middle of lunch; the guy was naked from the get go. And I want the tailors responsible brought to justice.
Ashamed (well, not really) Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anybody read what our Officers in Iraq are calling "the surge"? JEL - Just enough to loose.
Meanwhile, England is pulling out 3000 troops. Good thing we have our multi-national coalition to fill the gap.
Oh, wait...
"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
I remmeber a quote from Mark Twain Tonight!
Hal Holbrook as Twain is talking about war. " Even tho' the war be wrong, we are in it. We cannot retire without dishonor. ( Pause) Why, not even a burglar coulda said that better."
And what is it Zoe said about heroes? People who do things that get OTHER folks killed?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anyone that uses that term is a TRAITOR!!!! Even THINKING we might lose is a treasonable offence!!!
Originally posted by Storymark:
Anybody read what our Officers in Iraq are calling "the surge"? JEL - Just enough to loose.
WIPE THAT F***ING SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE, SOLDIER!!!!!!
Patriot Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Geezer, I think one of us misunderstandz the situation. Sadr City was the one place where American troops were not allowed (by the Maliki government) to enter.
I had understood that it was to wrest control of the Sunni parts of Baghdad from the Sunni death squads while the Iraqi Army took on the Shi'a. This is supposed to be better because it won't give Sadr as much reason to gripe about the Americans, since they weren't going up against his people.
Quote:And it is not Sunnis who've formed semi-governmental "death squads", but Shias. In any case, it appears that Maliki has NOT bought into this plan. (No wonder I couldn't figure out why he was going along with this.... he isn't.) He, being Shiite, simply wants to take over all of Iraq. He has not personally endorsed the Bush plan. And the reaction in Baghdad is
American soldiers rolled up their barbed-wire barricades and lifted a near siege of the largest Shiite Muslim enclave in Baghdad on Tuesday, heeding the orders of a Shiite-led Iraqi government whose assertion of sovereignty had Shiites celebrating in the streets. The order by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to lift the week-old blockade of Sadr City was one of the most overt expressions of self-determination by Iraqi leaders in the 3 1/2 -year-old U.S. occupation.
Quote:The troops ARE mainly going to Baghdad- at least, that's what Bush said
In the streets of Baghdad, reactions followed, broadly, the familiar pattern in a city that is more and more divided on sectarian lines. Many Shiites said that Iraq's own security forces, which are predominantly Shiite, should be left to do the job of stabilizing the city, while many Sunnis, shocked by the violence of Shiite death squads in recent months, said they would welcome the Americans if they could rein in the sectarian killing.
Quote:I think the plan is that there will be about a half-brigade (2000?) of American troops for each Iraqi Army brigade and each police brigade (about 2000 each, total 4000) for each district in Baghdad. I think the point is to keep the Iraq forces honest. Good luck.
The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I think one of us misunderstandz the situation. Sadr City was the one place where American troops were not allowed (by the Maliki government) to enter.
That's right. Sadr City is the Shi'a stronghold, and supposedly it will be Iraqi troops who move to pacify it.
Quote:
And it is not Sunnis who've formed semi-governmental "death squads", but Shias.
Someone is rounding up and killing Shi'a in Baghdad. Semi-governmental or not, there are apparently also Sunni death squads.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq.
Now if I accused you of being in favor of losing then you'd be all upset. ...
I was mocking your simplistic assumptions. My apologies if I was being too subtle. Would it help if I typed slower?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to what I've read, USA and Iraqi troops should move in together.
That's right. Sadr City is the Shi'a stronghold, and supposedly it will be Iraqi troops who move to pacify it.
AFA Sunni "death squads", from what I've read the Administration is getting a little pissed off at Maliki. He's been protecting Sadr City since he came into office- not surprising because al Sadr is Maliki's ally and Sadr City is Maliki's support base. Sunni "death squads" are not the biggest problem in Baghdad.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Al Qeada is probably not going to manifest itself into a traditional military in Iraq. It’s going to be the same thing it was in Afghanistan, and when we hypothetically reinvade Iraq it’s going to put us right back where we are right now, just years behind where we would have been. There’s only one way to get rid of Al Qaeda and that is to apply constant pressure with no concessions.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Ironically, that's not a bad argument in favor of leaving Iraq prematurely. The enemy is kinda diffuse right now. Might be nice to have a traditional headquarters that can be taken out.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The BEST way to get rid of al Qaida is to make sure there is no power vacuum for them to fill. Also, don't fund or arm them.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi all,
In my opinion...
Saying that we should lose this war is not traitorous.
Giving US battle deployments and plans to the enemy would be traitorous. Giving supplies to the enemy would be traitorous. Putting on a USO show for the enemy would be traitorous.
Saying that we should lose this war is just an opinion of a course of action we ought to take.
Here's where I draw the line:
If Miss Fonda wants to tell Americans they ought to go home and they don't belong in Vietnam, that's her opinion. She's entitled to it.
When she climbs into a Vietnamese antiaircraft turret and takes publicity photos, she's crossed the line. It's no longer an opinion about what US policy ought to be. It's actively helping (giving comfort) to the enemy.
I haven't seen anyone here on FFF give comfort to the enemy, so no one here needs to be called a traitor. They have only disagreed with our leaders and the course of action our military is taking.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A desire to see the US lose a war is, generally, a much stronger sentiment then just disagreement with foreign policy. I’ve disagreed with our leaders and their military strategy, I’ve never wanted to this country to lose. There is a distinction to be made here.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I haven't seen anyone here on FFF give comfort to the enemy, so no one here needs to be called a traitor. They have only disagreed with our leaders and the course of action our military is taking.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If America wanted to send astronauts to the sun, once again, some would call me a traitor for not supporting the missions. I would feel what we could gain wouldn't be worth the loss of life due to, y'know, our inability to sheild against the awsome heat. I don't care what military scientists develope, I don't believe it would work. Call me cynical.
Just don't call me anti-astronaut Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well,
I think this is very much a 'lose the battle, win the war' type of mentality by those who say they'd like us to 'lose, and as quickly as possible.'
Their contention is that we are expending lives and resources on a failed conflict. So, the quicker we cut out losses, the better off we will be.
I don't know how apt an analogy it is, but the Emperor of Japan did his country a great service when he ordered his military to surrender. He certainly wasn't a traitor to his people by advocating that course of action. He saved his country from a much costlier fate. Our choice in Iraw is much simpler. We can admit to losing this conflict and still retain everything that we are as a nation.
In Iraq, ironically we've managed to 'destroy' an enemy whilst simultaneously losing to them. The tangible enemy has been eliminated, but the ideological 'war on terror' is going badly for us, with terror levels in Iraq at an all-time-high, and the country descending into civil unrest. So maybe it's time we admit to losing this particular conflict and focus on winning the next one?
I have a strong feeling that the US will soon enter a period of isolationism that will end in 4-12 years with the next major war. I don't think there's much we can do about diverting that fate. So let's get ready to meet it when it comes, eh? If we stay our current course beyond the current year, we'll be too depleted too fight the bigger war that's ahead.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
I read the speech and this part caught my eye:
"... the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November ... Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis ... the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects ... Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year ... the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."
My first thought was - it looks like the US is running Iraq. My second thought was - I wonder how Bush got agreement on these? You say Maliki isn't on board? Do explain.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maliki didn't personally endorse the speech. He had a spokesperson say that they wouldn't oppose it. As usual with politics there is what people say and what they intend, and the two are usually not the same- especially in the Middle East where NOBODY can be seen cooperating with the USA. So part of the problem is figuring out public from private posture. But given Maliki's consistent alliance with al Sadr- and Sadr City- and his consistent protection of Shiite death sqauds, I think his tepid (at best) tolerance of the Bush plan is genuine.
The best I can figure is that the USA troops are supposed to disable Maliki's Praetorian guard of Shiite security forces/ death squads in Baghdad in a move to overthrow Maliki. I just read an article in the LA Times that Shiites are slowly but surely taking over Baghdad, burning and killing Sunnis out of their homes under the protection of the governement. The fact that this has NOW been made public in a major way leads me to think that the Bush admininstration is going to try to re-paint Shiites as "the enemy". We may at some point find ourselves tolerating- even supporting- al Qaida.
My humble opinion is that it's too little too late. THe one part of the plan that Maliki really gets behind is taking operational control by November. It's a race as to whether we can disarm/ depose Maliki before he takes control. He's betting on the idea that most American really just want out, and once that happens he can do whatever he wants. This strategic revision is a fine idea but it should have happened over a year ago. My advice to Bush would be to come clean to Congress and the American people for support.
OF course, I could be entirely wrong. It's possible that Bush has no long-term interest in Iraqi stability. It's possible that Bush wants to quiet Saigon- er I mean Baghdad- just long enough for us to make a credible getaway. It's possible that he wants to give Maliki total control of Baghdad to reduce the appearance of violence. It's easier to read Maliki than the Bush administration, which has made so many mistakes that it's impossible to read their intent from their (usually counterproductive) actions.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
seems to me nobody has actually said , " I want America to Lose", except Chrisisall, facetiously. What a lot of us have said is, " I want America outta there, NOW."
And a lot of Limbaugh lovers have said, " Well, that means you want America to lose."
And some of us have said, " OK , we'll agree to that. 'We want America to lose'. Now bring the bos home."
And the Bush Buddies and Haliburton Huggers and Rove Rangers and Cheney Chums said, " Aha ! That proves it. Yer all commie faggot traitors."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They know that. It's just the same old strawman crap. Bushites have made careers on deliberate logical fallacies. They can't discuss anything straight, so they have to mis-cast other people's statements and create false dichotomies to cover up the fact their position doesn't make any sense.
It's all fun and games until you stop and think about all the people dying for their sophistry.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[BThe fact that this has NOW been made public in a major way leads me to think that the Bush admininstration is going to try to re-paint Shiites as "the enemy". We may at some point find ourselves tolerating- even supporting- al Qaida.
It's an interesting hypothesis. Truth is that we have an interesting situation. When it comes to Muslim countries then all of our friends are Sunni's, including Saudi, Egypt and the Emerates. However the Islamic nutjobs that attack us are also Sunni and indeed come from those kinds of places. If we look at countries in the region we are not friends with they are mainly Shi'te but on the other hand their proxies don't tend to attack America.
It is not in our best interests for the Shi'te majority in Iraq to form a Shi'te state, places like Saudi would become nervous and have already said that they would support the Sunni minority. Either we will see a situation like Northern Ireland where terrorist groups from the various communities fight things out on the street or we will see foreign terrorists constantly trying to destabilise the Shi'te government. In any case the power block that could emerge Iran-Lebanon-Iraq-Syria could spark a religious war in the region.
However, there is a lot to be said for leaving well alone and seeing what happens. Europe had a couple of hundred years of Catholic/Protestant conflict that ended up giving us the enlightenment. Nothing encourages folks to learn how to live with others quite so much as pointless internecene warfare.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, he wants to crush his enemies, have them driven before him, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's possible that Bush wants to quiet Saigon- er I mean Baghdad- just long enough for us to make a credible getaway.
Chrisisall the Barbarian
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"THIS is civilization ? Thank Crom I'm a barbarian!"
Conan, on first sight of Shadizar.
couldntresist Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's possible that Bush wants to quiet Saigon- er I mean Baghdad- just long enough for us to make a credible getaway.
SignyM
No, he wants to crush his enemies, have them driven before him, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Chrisisall the Barbarian
"THIS is civilization ? Thank Crom I'm a barbarian!"
Conan, on first sight of Shadizar.
couldntresist Frem
Oh jeez, now I have coffee everywhere. THANKS! all for making my day, coffee spray aside. And thanks SignyM for your reply.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=11833
"Here's the situation we're in. President Bush and his gang lied us into a war. The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or 9-11 or Saddam Hussein or democracy or making Americans more safe. There is no reason for this war respectable enough to discuss in public. And so, the U.S. corporate media does not discuss the reason, or absence of any reason, for the war. Instead we're treated to endless debates over whether the war is a civil war, or we're given hundreds of hours of coverage of a report that has no legal force and no coherent point to it. Or we learn all about new appointees and how their personalities differ from those of the outgoing war-makers. Or we learn about new committee chairs and power-shifts in Congress. Or we hear about polls and surveys on the war. Or media coverage focuses on whether to escalate the war by sending in an additional number of troops that is small relative to the number already there.
All of these stories, including the story of Bush's expected proposal for escalation of the occupation, serve the same purpose: they allow the U.S. media to claim to be covering the war without actually discussing what purpose the war serves and without showing us what the war is doing to people."
Pretty much says it Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Why not? If the enemy is there and we are there why should we not fight them there?
The problem here is that little word, "if". If Iraq had actually had jack squat to do with 9/11, if our duly appointed President had actual proof (as opposed to cherry-picked wishful thinking) about WMDs, then we shoulda been there.
But since neither of those situations obtained, then, no, we shouldnt'a been there.
I do bow to reality; we cannot easily pull out of Iraq now, since one who mounts the tiger cannot soon dismount--but I reserve the right to feel anger at he who talked us into mounting that tiger under the carefully self-deluded perception that it was a carousel horse.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That may be the reasoning, but it seems seriously flawed at best, particularly in that it ignores any consequences of prematurely disengaging from Iraq. People who advocate a desire to “lose” the Iraq war never justify that with any discussion of strategy; their arguments are always anti-war positions (displeasure with casualties, disapproval with the casus bellum, etc). And really I think a lack of resolve or defeatism plays as much or a larger part then strategy.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well,
I think this is very much a 'lose the battle, win the war' type of mentality by those who say they'd like us to 'lose, and as quickly as possible.'
Their contention is that we are expending lives and resources on a failed conflict. So, the quicker we cut out losses, the better off we will be.
It’s hard to imagine how the challenges faced by the US in Iraq could possibly resemble those faced by Hirohito at the end of World War II. It’s even hard to imagine how Iraq resembles Vietnam. Four years into the US escalation of Vietnam, there were 20,000 US casualties, half a million servicemen incountry and a draft. Four years into Iraq, we have 3000 US casualties, less then a 150 thousand incountry and no draft. And then you look at the dangers of disengagement: Al Qaeda was formed partially as a consequence of Western disengagement from Afghanistan; 9/ll occurred in part because Al Qaeda leaders didn’t believe that the US had the resolve to respond or stay engaged and Saddam Hussein was able to thumb his nose at the UN because he didn’t believe the West would do anything either. The reality is that apocalyptic terrorist organization and rogue regimes thrive in a world where the only powers capable of containing them suffer from an international attention deficit disorder. If we were to lose in Iraq, it could be a major defeat for the war on terror. Regardless of how critical Iraq may or may not have been initially, it is now inexorably entwined with our success in the greater war against terror.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:That may be the reasoning, but it seems seriously flawed at best, particularly in that it ignores any consequences of prematurely disengaging from Iraq. People who advocate a desire to “lose” the Iraq war never justify that with any discussion of strategy; their arguments are always anti-war positions (displeasure with casualties, disapproval with the casus bellum, etc). And really I think a lack of resolve or defeatism plays as much or a larger part then strategy.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well,
I think this is very much a 'lose the battle, win the war' type of mentality by those who say they'd like us to 'lose, and as quickly as possible.'
Their contention is that we are expending lives and resources on a failed conflict. So, the quicker we cut out losses, the better off we will be.
It’s hard to imagine how the challenges faced by the US in Iraq could possibly resemble those faced by Hirohito at the end of World War II. It’s even hard to imagine how Iraq resembles Vietnam. Four years into the US escalation of Vietnam, there were 20,000 US casualties, half a million servicemen incountry and a draft. Four years into Iraq, we have 3000 US casualties, less then a 150 thousand incountry and no draft. And then you look at the dangers of disengagement: Al Qaeda was formed partially as a consequence of Western disengagement from Afghanistan; 9/ll occurred in part because Al Qaeda leaders didn’t believe that the US had the resolve to respond or stay engaged and Saddam Hussein was able to thumb his nose at the UN because he didn’t believe the West would do anything either. The reality is that apocalyptic terrorist organization and rogue regimes thrive in a world where the only powers capable of containing them suffer from an international attention deficit disorder. If we were to lose in Iraq, it could be a major defeat for the war on terror. Regardless of how critical Iraq may or may not have been initially, it is now inexorably entwined with our success in the greater war against terror.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Well, Finn,
You have to remember that for those who want to disengage as soon as possible, it is because they believe that all the bad things are going to happen anyway. Region instability, terrorist haven, etc. All that's going to happen whether we pull out now or in a year. The idea is that we have already failed, that it was a doomed course from inception. That, essentially, no matter what you do as you fall off the cliff, you are going to go splat at the bottom.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, the only thing you can control is how many losses we take before we eventually disengage. If we disengage now or later, we have all the same problems... but if we disengage now, we have those problems and save hundreds or thousands of lives and billions of dollars of resources.
Lives and resources we'll need in 4-12 years when the inevitable consequences of Iraq come back to bite us.
At least, I think this is the position? It's how I understand it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I agree. That's the impression I get too.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
The problem here is that little word, "if". If Iraq had actually had jack squat to do with 9/11, if our duly appointed President had actual proof (as opposed to cherry-picked wishful thinking) about WMDs, then we shoulda been there.
I don't think the question of Iraq's 9/11 connection or its WMDs is relevant to the question of whether we should stay in Iraq.
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today, shouldn't we fight them in Iraq today? I mean its really convienant for everyone right now. I mean our Army is already there, they want to fight, and we have some support from the locals (Kurds, pro-US Iraqis, etc.). The enemy has to walk a long way to get to Iraq. I say as long as they're willing to make that walk, we owe it to them to kill them when they get there. Would you rather us have to go to the terrorists every time they needed the killin? Or maybe you'd rather the battlefield be somewhere else, like Tel Aviv or New York.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
I do bow to reality; we cannot easily pull out of Iraq now, since one who mounts the tiger cannot soon dismount--
Really bad metaphor, dude. The one who mounts the tiger can stick a .44 Magmun in its ear and make tiger skin rug out of it, then dismount at leisure.
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, Finn,
You have to remember that for those who want to disengage as soon as possible, it is because they believe that all the bad things are going to happen anyway. Region instability, terrorist haven, etc. All that's going to happen whether we pull out now or in a year. The idea is that we have already failed, that it was a doomed course from inception. That, essentially, no matter what you do as you fall off the cliff, you are going to go splat at the bottom.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, the only thing you can control is how many losses we take before we eventually disengage. If we disengage now or later, we have all the same problems... but if we disengage now, we have those problems and save hundreds or thousands of lives and billions of dollars of resources.
Excellently put, Anthony. We propped up the Viets for years because they would collapse without our help. We left. They collapsed without our help.
Whatever we leave behind in Iraq, whenever we leave it, will either collapse or be our enemy.
We went there because Saddam was a WMD threat, so we had to remove him. That's what the Prez said.
We removed him, and there was no real threat, as it turns out.
So Mission Accomplished! Bring the boys home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
a third thought before I stop for the day:
I like Shakespeare's solution. Early in Henry V, he has Henry comment about his coming invasion of France, another war with questionable justification"
" France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe,
or break it all to bits."
So we pull a Kuwait retreat. Burn the oil fields, destroy the oil port at Basra, absolutely wreck the power grid and water system, blow the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
The leave the place to the Iraquis and Iranians. Let 'em squabble in the dark, while they starve to death, and have nothing to sell in the bazaar.
Actions have consequences, right? They don't want us, that's a consequence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why not just do it properly. There's all these Nuclear weapons lying around, built with loving precision by the Scientists and Engineers that built them, don't you think they should see them used?
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Actions have consequences, right? They don't want us, that's a consequence.
Nuke Irack!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, they did. And then Khmer Rouge, backed by the North Vietnam government and advantaged by US disengagement in 1973, took control and systematically murdered ~2 million people in a genocidal campaign between 1975 and 1979. Indochina would continue to be destabilized by regional wars for many years culminating in the collapse of all US allies in the region. Was that an acceptable result for US disengagement? Most Americans think it is, but then again most Americans keep the Khmer Rouge and US withdraw from Vietnam intentionally separate in their minds. They don’t like to compare the two. Even more troubling is that in hindsight we realize that Vietnam may not have been a lost cause, but rather we lost because of a lack of political will at home, both in government, the populace and the media.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Excellently put, Anthony. We propped up the Viets for years because they would collapse without our help. We left. They collapsed without our help.
By contrast, the consequences of a premature disengagement in Iraq could be much worse then that, and the US commitment in the region is much smaller then it was in Vietnam.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"By contrast, the consequences of a premature disengagement in Iraq could be much worse then that, and the US commitment in the region is much smaller then it was in Vietnam."
Finn,
I must admit that I am unable to imagine what a non-premature disengagement would be. A decade of occupying the country? I honestly don't think the trouble there is going to dissipate within the next year, regardless of what we do.
So then what? As long as we commit troops and resources to the country, it gets kept (somewhat) under control. And as soon as we leave, chaos descends.
The enemy in question is a divided country. The enemy troops are anyone. The enemy needs remarkably little supplies to maintain an ongoing terror campaign. The enemy exists on all political sides.
The enemy does not form up in divisions. They don't field tanks or planes. They are anyone in any home or any building fighting you with anything they have at any time that's convenient.
How do you stabilize something like that?
Meanwhile, while the US is the richest and coolest country around, and while we certainly have a high enough breeding rate to keep shoveling lives into the fire, we can't afford to keep shovelling *money* into the fire. Eventually that kind of spending catches up with you.
So what do we do? Unless you believe that we are on the cusp of a major victory, then you are left with the possibility of an ongoing campaign with no clear endgame.
I understand those who wish to pull out yesterday. At the same time, I'm prepared to give the Pres his one last gasp. I feel very strongly that it will fail. And then everyone can come home for Christmas.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Iraq is not going to immediately stabilize. I don't know how long it will take, but it could likely take longer then a year, and even after Iraq does stabilize, we're going need to keep some support in the region for quite a while.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Finn,
I must admit that I am unable to imagine what a non-premature disengagement would be. A decade of occupying the country? I honestly don't think the trouble there is going to dissipate within the next year, regardless of what we do.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME