Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
.....When you look around the worlds hot spots and see how many are 'jihads' its pretty clear that had we never gone into Iraq radical Islam would still be committing acts of terrorism all over. It is also my belief that the waffling, wavering, and whining of the left is going to do far more to embolden our enemies than a military action. If the left succeeds and gets us to pull out of iraq prematurely it will do far more to further the cause of radical islam then a steadfast resolve. We are there now, why doesn't matter, to lose is unthinkable from a long term point of view.
The terrorists can’t win in Iraq without your support. Perhaps that is the one reason to elect a democrat (provided they are sane) as suddenly the press would find that not all is bleak in Iraq, and perhaps some of the vitriolic nonsense can be put away for the good of the future of our country and our way of life.
|
Ustwo, if my local newspaper is correct, our wallets, our families, and our constitution cannot afford your "solution". We don't even agree on who and where the biggest threat to our future, actually emanates from:
<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:2QBjG5HMIpMJ:www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/09/11/0912iraq.html+ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2006/09/11/0912iraq.html&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">History will show that the U.S. government terrified its own citizens into supporting the invasion of Iraq.</a>
The "left" didn't cause the loss of US determination to "stay the course" in Vietnam, and it won't be responsible for the impending US military "cut 'n run" from Iraq. The hard reality "on the ground"......doomed our participation in both conflicts. Too many of the folks who we fought to "free" were killed in both conflicts, and enough of our troops die without an "improvement" in the level of reistance to US military presence to justify continuing.
The Vietnam war "ended" after the 1968 Tet Offensive, simultaneous, Lunar New Year attacks launched against US and ARVN troops in every Vietnamese [rovinicial capital, including an attack that breached the perimeter of the US Embassy compound in Saigon, although unsuccessful, tactically, exposed the false myth of "progress on the ground", just as it is exposed as false today, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The military adventures of the Bush admin., even if they are temporarily, and even more disastorously revived in an offensive against Iran, have failed, and it ain't the fault of "the left", Ustwo. Rhe failure is a failure to accomplish irrational objectives, just as in Vietnam.
Your solution is probably to project enough "firepower" to kill everyone who we've tried to "democratize", and I wish you luck with that.
I was wondering Ustwo, if you might be fluent in this senator's dialect. He seems to be on the "other side", too.
Please translate, into Amurrkin...
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1159109225870&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home">"Attacks here at home stopped when we started fighting Al Qaeda where they live, rather than responding after they hit," McConnell said in a statement.</a>
.....there were no al-Qaeda living in Iraq before the US invasion and occupation, so....how did our leaders know to "[start] fighting Al Qaeda where they live" ....in Iraq ?
it seems like face saving, BS propaganda from Mitch McConnell that will make it more difficult for the new propaganda that Jim Baker will soon be launching, to justify the withdrawal of US forces from Baghdad, after the current period of sacrificing more of our troops lives there, for the expediency of the current politcal campaign, only to withdraw when Baker's "team" dreams up a way to spin it properly, and remove the issue of the illegal, pointless, lost war in Iraq, from the 2008 election "warm up" period:
Quote:
http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkerryv...instthewar.htm
<center><img src="http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkerrystatement.jpg"></center>
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in [Iraq] Vietnam How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"...or to shore up election polling numbers?
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....dreyfuss.html
.......To some, it's unlikely that Baker will adopt anything resembling a plan that embodies a wholesale rejection of the Bush administration's policy, though it isn't impossible. Still, there is an outside chance, say observers of the task force, that Baker will come up with a report that uses diplomatic weasel-words, giving lip service to the idea of an American "victory" in Iraq but endorsing redeployment. "If Baker comes out with a report that basically says, if you read between the lines, we need to get out, that buys into the fundamental presumption of the redeployment crowd--the redeployment crowd is basically saying that staying there is worse than getting out--if he comes up in that consensus, that would be remarkable," says Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution. "It would be earth-shattering."
In any case, the Iraq Study Group won't issue its report until some time early in 2007. In a recent speech, according to a member of the task force, Baker said that to do something before the November 2006 elections would inevitably politicize the report, something that Baker desperately wants to avoid.
But with each passing day, the country is closer to the train wreck that Baker and others are said to fear. In the end, avoiding it might ride on the ability of Jim Baker to persuade the president that it's time to declare victory and exit.
"The object of our policy has to be to get our little white asses out of there as soon as possible," another working-group participant told me. To do that, he said, Baker must confront the president "like the way a family confronts an alcoholic. You bring everyone in, and you say, 'Look, my friend, it's time to change.'"
In a recent interview with the Texas Monthly -- and speaking for himself, not for the ISG -- Baker had this to say: “If you’re talking about extricating yourself, there has to be a strategic plan that would permit a reasonable and responsible type of drawdown, one that wouldn’t invite the kind of chaos that would be invited if we just picked up and left.” How to get out without chaos: aye, there’s the rub. One ex-U.S. official I spoke with yesterday, who’s been observing the Washington debate on Iraq from the inside, said flatly that getting out without chaos simply isn’t possible, but that get out we must.
How to calibrate a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, how fast or slow to make it in order to do the least additional damage, how to persuade Iraq’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to minimize civil war, and how to engage and involve Iraq’s neighbors to help stabilize Iraq during and after a U.S. withdrawal: that’s the work of the ISG’s Iraq experts. How to sell that to the Bush administration, to Republicans in Congress, and to the public -- without making it look like a humiliating defeat for the president: well, that's Jim Baker’s job. If he wants it.
|
Are our leaders really too stupid to have learned enough of the lessons of the US experience in Vietnam, to avoid repeating the errors and the consequences? Brent Bozell's "man of the century", Ronald Reagan, made the lessons vanish when he pronounced Vietnam, a "noble war", and so, these assholes who got us into another one, just like it.....will have to figure out how many more of our soldiers have to die, so that our soldiers who have already died there, won't have died for nothing. Maybe allowing the media to televise the dead, returning in flag draped coffins to the Dover AFB military
mortuary, might be the way to drive the point of the pointlessness of all of illegal war, "home" to the children of the folks who didn't even "get it", after 58,000 coffins came home from Vietnam.