Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 11 of 21
Finn,
Then we are left with the old:
"We can't afford to stay in Iraq indefinitely!"
Followed by the tried and true response:
"We can't afford not to!"
For my own part, I'd like our enemies to coagulate into a fightable force again. We can bomb a Headquarters and we can shoot a tank. It's much nicer than this amorphous blob of random resistance.
Plus it'll take them some time to rebuild and organize. Possibly more than a decade.
We could use that time to recover financially from this burden, and to plan the next engagement in a superior manner.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know. You said. But when we go back in to bomb the HQ and shoot the tank, it’s going to last about a month, then it will become the amorphous blob again. It sounds good because it achieves the only goal most Americans care about in this case, which is getting out of the mess in Iraq. But beyond that it’s really not much more then the standard practice of relying solely on American airpower, which we employed throughout the 90's. And maybe that is the best solutions for Iraq, I don't know.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
For my own part, I'd like our enemies to coagulate into a fightable force again. We can bomb a Headquarters and we can shoot a tank. It's much nicer than this amorphous blob of random resistance.
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
Well,
In the old days, when you fought a war, you took over the country.
You occupied the country entirely. It became a part of your country. All of the assets of the country became yours. The assets of the country helped to pay for the costs of your war.
Then you moved colonists into the country in large numbers. The colonists intermixed with the native population to some degree. Acclimation of cultures occurred. If you were lucky, then in 2-4 generations, you became basically one people. If you weren't lucky, then some kind of revolution kicked you out of there.
It was a long-term and dedicated process, but since the process was partially funded by the conquered people, then (assuming they have valuable resources) it was an affordable process in some cases.
But wars haven't been fought like that in a LONG time.
So I have no idea what you're supposed to do with an enemy that really is never going to like you or submit to you.
You can't kill them all. You can't police them forever. If you leave, they'll regroup and rearm and attack you later.
So I guess the new method of war is you blow them up every ten or twelve years until one of you gets tired.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know some see this as horrible naive, but I truly believe that Iraqis are just like everybody else. Give a guy a house to live in, a job to work at, a school for his kids, etc., and I do not believe he will readily blow himself up for anyone or anything.
Now, here's the role that we play: Big Bad America, coming into occupy Iraq and smash Islam on a "Crusade" (GWB's Freudian slip). We solidify resistance and nurture distrust - we're a convenient target. The vast majority of Iraqis, just regular folks, are drawn to the 1% of darksiders because they become certain that we are evil invaders - they aren't working, so they have a lot of time on their hands to sit around and stew. The ingroup always unites against the outgroup - it's been proven time and time again.
Things weren't better for Iraqis before, but they were stable - this makes for some rose-colored memories.
What if we weren't there to be the target? What if we left and forced them to solve their own problems?
I know it's been said before, but I must finish with this... President Bush has openly lied. His policies and statements have been disastrous failures over and over again. Why would anyone propose supporting yet another (more of the same) course of action?
Americans aren't stupid, we're just locked out of the running of our own country by the children of privilege who think they know better.
If anyone disagrees with me, I'd ask this question: would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?
Hero, I know you like having a conservative President, and that's really okay - it's better than okay - it's the beauty of our system. Unfortunately, this conservative president is also a moron and a liar who can't string together a thought half as coherent as most of what gets said on our little FFF.net. He's stupid and a slow, slow learner.
I'd have to say that the 95%/5% ratio of anti-Bush comments in this here thread should tell you something.
He's just a bad, bad person. That's it.
"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Phoenixship:
would you give your son or daughter's life today in this fight? And of course: why aren't you in the Marines right now?
This isn't directed at me, but I'll answer it. I'll answer it because I HATE this argument whenever I see it.
I would completely support my son's decision if he wanted to join the military, even if it was a time of war. I'd sit down and explain to him that there's a chance he could die horribly or experience grotesque horrors the likes of which modern humans aren't conditioned to see. Then, if he said he still wanted to join, I'd give him a hug, tell him I was proud that he'd found some direction for his life, and give him my every support.
The decision do join the military or not isn't based on your love or hate for the 'war of the moment.' It's based on what you wish to do with your life, and where your priorities lay.
As to part II of that question, "Why aren't I in the Marines?"
Well, because I'm out of shape and lazy. There was a time I considered joining the military. I have a lot of respect for their mission. Namely, protecting and serving the United States of America. But I just couldn't see myself getting through boot camp. Honestly. I've promised myself that if we're ever invaded I'll join the militia and do the best I can with my SKS rifle.
But anyway, here's what ticks me off.
If you support a particular war, are you required to sign up and join the military to fight that war? Is it possible to have a fcuking opinion without having to join the Marines? Is it possible to support an effort with something other than blood and steel?
If we had a popular war, and everyone who supported the war was required to join the Marines, wouldn't that make the country grind to a halt? You wouldn't expect 300 million recruits during a popular war, would you?
So why do you ask the supporters of an unpopular war to join the Marines, and then chastise them for not doing it?
It's bad arguing. I'm tired of hearing it.
Plus, it's not needed. You can argue against this war all day long without chastising supporters with, "Why aren't you joining the Marines? Why aren't you throwing your children at Iraqi insurgents like hand grenades irrespective of their free will? Didn't you know that if you don't do these things you can't have an affirmative fcuking opinion?"
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today
Whne ppl stat talking about"they" and "them" and "the enemy" w/o any specificity I kind of wonder about their lack of mental clarity.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.
First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners. So they, them evil commie VeetKong terrorists and genocidal types, done been rehabilitated, they're now former ex-" axis of evil" folks, and our good buddies now. Maybe if that war had ended earlier, they'd 'a been our ALLIES in 2003, part of the dreaded "worldwide coalition in the global war against terror."
Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever. Those happened after we left, and while they are tragic, the USA has no right to stick its big snoot into everything that happenns everywhere on the whole gorram planet, especially if the locals don't want us there.
Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.
"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Hero, just out of curiosity WHO is "the enemy"? Saudi al Qaida (sunni)? pro-Iranian Shiites lie al Sadr? Iraqi Sunni insurgents? Saddam and his henchmen? All of the above? None of the above?
Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the enemy is in Iraq today
In Iraq? I'd say a mixed bag of former Bathists, Syrian Bathists, Syrian terrorists (there are several large and small groups to choose from), Iranian special forces, Iranian Pasdaran, Iranian Shiites, Iranian supported Iraqi Shiites, Iraqi Sunni militia (the non-Kurdish ones) and a few stragglers from around the Gulf who got on the wrong bus.
I suspect your list would not include any of the above groups but would include the United States Military.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay, 33 years after we crap out on an ally we can regain normal relations with the region.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
First, you mustn't make any argument about Vietnam / Cambodia / etc. without considering the fact that the Prez went there last year ( 2006, remember), to finalizte the deal and make them trade partners.
Quote:Whatever you need to tell yourself.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Secondly, I/we bear no responsibility for the Khymer/ NorthViet genocides, slaughters, re-educations, whatever.
Quote:There are no world cops. International politics relies on vigilantes in white hats to save the day. The nations most capable of operating in that regard are the rich Western powers, of which America more then most has been willing to put itself on the line.
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Nobody died and left us the job of bein' the local cops for the entire world.
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
Hero,
the enemy is in Iraq today? that's why we should stay?
I've got news for you, we have enemies everywhere, and we are making new ones every day.
Iraq is a recruitment engine that isn't going to just peter out. Why? because we have not given anybody reason to trust us...we have not proven to the world that we can make things better there,nor that our interests are benevolent. We have not proven it to the iraqis.
90 percent of iraqis believe that Iraq is worse of now than it was under Saddam. 60 percent of them think its okay to kill Americans.
So which Iraqis are the bad guys? The 90 percent who think they were better off under Saddam, or just the 60 percent who think its fair and reasonable if somebody should happen to blow up an American?
If we need to kill 60 percent of the Iraqi population in order to win this war, then I applaud us for our excellent start, but at what point are you advocating more of a genocide than a liberation? And if that is truly what you believe is "winning", then could you please come out and say it already.
People in that country are having a hard time staying neutral because that leaves them with no protection. I wonder how many of them could not be connected to any of those groups you've determined to be the enemies.
Maybe you could define who fits your definition of the good guys we're fighting for in this conflict. That would help me out alot. thank you.
And vague titleslike the iraqi citizens isn't really going to cut it.
This fact really shouldn't need repeating every time you guys start talking about Iraq, but I guess I'll have to repeat it anyway. The Pentagon admits that this war creates terrorists faster than it kills them.
that means that this war has self sustaining reasons for the conflict. It's a never ending loop...a fatal error. We're really going to have to step up how we kill people over there if we want to fill that hole in with manfill, faster than we are digging it.
.........................
on edit
Just to clarify with you----
kurds definitely not our enemy then? that's good to know. I'm sure we don't have any documentation of killing any kurds, because after all, we only kill terrorists over there.
Now that we've identified the good guys, which are 20 percent of the population, we can proceed with a much cleaner and more efficient method of extermination. Thank you for your help.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME