Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 8 of 21
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