Surge or Surrender by Hero

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

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.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

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.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 7:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 7:53 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
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.

Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 7:55 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

What does any of this have to do with a Traitor advocating the military defeat of his nation?

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.
It must be worse than I thought.
You must be a fruitcake.

Friuty oaty Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:12 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:18 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY

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?

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?

Quote:
If the enemy is there and we are there why should we not fight them there?

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.

Quote:
And who cares about the 'first place' how can we retreat in the face of the enemy today...not 2003...today.

Well, you don't retreat by sending more troops.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:51 AM

HKCAVALIER

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

Which no one here is doing...

Quote:

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

...which no one here is doing.

Technicalities of law have fucked up your brain, Hero.

Yep. I said that Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:03 AM

Quote:
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.

Again, nicely put (and without resorting to the F-word like I did).

Ashamed (well, not really) Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:24 AM

STORYMARK

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:26 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Anybody read what our Officers in Iraq are calling "the surge"? JEL - Just enough to loose.

Anyone that uses that term is a TRAITOR!!!! Even THINKING we might lose is a treasonable offence!!!

WIPE THAT F***ING SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE, SOLDIER!!!!!!

Patriot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

The troops ARE mainly going to Baghdad- at least, that's what Bush said

Quote:
The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad.

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.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 11:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 12:14 PM

SERGEANTX

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That's right. Sadr City is the Shi'a stronghold, and supposedly it will be Iraqi troops who move to pacify it.

According to what I've read, USA and Iraqi troops should move in together.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 2:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 2:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 3:11 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 3:38 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 6:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:20 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:48 AM

SERGEANTX

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:26 PM

FLETCH2

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Quote:
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.

No, he wants to crush his enemies, have them driven before him, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

Chrisisall the Barbarian

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

"THIS is civilization ? Thank Crom I'm a barbarian!"
Conan, on first sight of Shadizar.

couldntresist Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 2:40 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:50 PM

ROCKETJOCK

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:41 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:00 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
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.
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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:04 PM

Yes, I agree. That's the impression I get too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 7:50 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:08 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:18 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 9:31 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 11:08 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Actions have consequences, right? They don't want us, that's a consequence.

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?

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 11:44 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 3:34 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 15, 2007 3:46 PM