Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Is 2500/18000+ Enough?
Topic Started: Jun 16 2006, 08:03 AM (743 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
So, we have passed 2500 Americans killed and more than 18,000 maimed and wonded in Iraq.

Do we really want to continue Bush's blank check on American lives approach -- telling the Iraqis they can take their time in getting their act together, Americans will continue to die for as long as the Iraqis choose to have them die?

Or is it time to give the Iraqis a deadline, a goal, by which time their problems are theirs and theirs alone so they'd better get their act together?

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Blank check.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Death rate for folks in uniform has not risen significantly, even compared to the peacetime army of years past.

Did you know that over 4000 servicemen died during the Clinton years?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 11:03 AM
So, we have passed 2500 Americans killed and more than 18,000 maimed and wonded in Iraq.

Do we really want to continue Bush's blank check on American lives approach -- telling the Iraqis they can take their time in getting their act together, Americans will continue to die for as long as the Iraqis choose to have them die?

Or is it time to give the Iraqis a deadline, a goal, by which time their problems are theirs and theirs alone so they'd better get their act together?

What makes you think we haven't given them a deadline? I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't. It's a natural thing to do. And if we did, why in the world would we ever publicize that?

I recall you once saying you did work for the State Department. With all due respect Rick, you exhibit no idea whatsoever of how Governments actually work on the international scene, especially in wartime. Almost everything is sub rosa, even that which arguably doesn't have to be, and feints and decoys are used regularly. Now how do you think I know this? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. :smile:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 09:09 AM
[What makes you think we haven't given them a deadline? I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't. It's a natural thing to do. And if we did, why in the world would we ever publicize that?

I recall you once saying you did work for the State Department. With all due respect Rick, you exhibit no idea whatsoever of how Governments actually work on the international scene, especially in wartime. Almost everything is sub rosa, even that which arguably doesn't have to be, and feints and decoys are used regularly. Now how do you think I know this? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student. :smile:

Frank,

Are you really saying that Bush has a secret plan to end the war? Sounds more and more like Vietnam to me!

(Although, I have to give you kudos for responding to my challenge by basically saying what I am arguing for has already been done -- it's just that no one knows it!)
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tcmod
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Not only is there a deadline...we have already caught Bin Laden...the war actually ended 6 months ago and the Iraqis have been self governing ever since...we just haven't been told
Dead girls don't say no, but you still have to buy them flowers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 12:17 PM
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 09:09 AM
[What makes you think we haven't given them a deadline? I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't. It's a natural thing to do. And if we did, why in the world would we ever publicize that?

I recall you once saying you did work for the State Department. With all due respect Rick, you exhibit no idea whatsoever of how Governments actually work on the international scene, especially in wartime. Almost everything is sub rosa, even that which arguably doesn't have to be, and feints and decoys are used regularly. Now how do you think I know this? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.  :smile:

Frank,

Are you really saying that Bush has a secret plan to end the war? Sounds more and more like Vietnam to me!

(Although, I have to give you kudos for responding to my challenge by basically saying what I am arguing for has already been done -- it's just that no one knows it!)

No not a secret plan. Just the usual tight security. It's a way of life in the State Department and Military as well as the Executive office.

You certainly see why they would have to keep the giving of a deadline, as well as its date, secret, don't you?

I'll add just this. If I ever were to find out they gave no deadline, I will concede to you that this is one screwed up, incompetent administration.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 09:09 AM
[What makes you think we haven't given them a deadline? I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't. It's a natural thing to do. And if we did, why in the world would we ever publicize that?

I recall you once saying you did work for the State Department. With all due respect Rick, you exhibit no idea whatsoever of how Governments actually work on the international scene, especially in wartime. Almost everything is sub rosa, even that which arguably doesn't have to be, and feints and decoys are used regularly. Now how do you think I know this? I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.  :smile:

Frank,

Are you really saying that Bush has a secret plan to end the war? Sounds more and more like Vietnam to me!

(Although, I have to give you kudos for responding to my challenge by basically saying what I am arguing for has already been done -- it's just that no one knows it!)

No not a secret plan. Just the usual tight security. It's a way of life in the State Department and Military as well as the Executive office.

You certainly see why they would have to keep the giving of a deadline, as well as its date, secret, don't you?

I'll add just this. If I ever were to find out they gave no deadline, I will concede to you that this is one screwed up, incompetent administration.

Depending upon one's goal, I can understand why the actual deadline might be kept secret, but not the fact one has been given. But depending on one's goal, I can also see why such a deadline can be made public.

And given the incompetence of this Admininstration in managing this war to date, I have no faith that they are acting competently now; indeed, it seems to me their incompetence continues to show itself.

(No, I have not worked for the State Department, Frank. I think you have me confused with someone else -- Isaac perhaps? :wink: ).
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
addendum:

Rick, I've never claimed this administration hasn't made mistakes. All administration's do, especially in war time, mainly because each war is really unprecedented.

The crucial thing is whether they make less critical mistakes than the enemy and learn quickly enough from their mistakes to turn things around if essential to success. I think our invasion of Iraq can't be judged in and of itself as a good or bad strategy. It's the execution that counts. Can we say a King side chess attack is always a better or worse strategy than a Queen side attack?

If we had deployed enough troops over there to win the peace, I submit we would have been able to draw down substantially already. And Bush's approval rating would be riding high.

That was the main screw-up in execution and we've been suffering from it ever since. But the game is far from over. Again, we don't have to be great at the game, just better than the enemy (inclusive of relative advantages and disadvantages).

P.S: it's important to note that the game here is not just about fighting terrorism. For anyone to think that is beyond naive. I know you know better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 09:38 AM
addendum:

Rick, I've never claimed this administration hasn't made mistakes. All administration's do, especially in war time, mainly because each war is really unprecedented.

The crucial thing is whether they make less critical mistakes than the enemy and learn quickly enough from their mistakes to turn things around if essential to success. I think our invasion of Iraq can't be judged in and of itself as a good or bad strategy. It's the execution that counts. Can we say a King side chess attack is always a better or worse strategy than a Queen side attack?

If we had deployed enough troops over there to win the peace, I submit we would have been able to draw down substantially already. And Bush's approval rating would be riding high.

That was the main screw-up in execution and we've been suffering from it ever since. But the game is far from over. Again, we don't have to be great at the game, just better than the enemy (inclusive of relative advantages and disadvantages).

P.S: it's important to note that the game here is not just about fighting terrorism. For anyone to think that is beyond naive. I know you know better.

First off, yes, I am well aware that the game we are playing in Iraq is "more than" about terrorism. I have and still argue it is not about terrorism at all -- and never has been. And I believe we are playing the wrong game -- and playing it very badly. I believe that even if we "win", we lose; both in the real war we should be fighting -- against the jihadists -- and in what we think we will accomplish with what we are doing in Iraq.

Secondly, the situation in Iraq has and continues to deteriorate. There is some window dressing, but it is bad there and I see nothing that tells me it is getting any better.

This tells me that the incompetence continues.

And while I am encouraged with what we appear to have found when we killed Zarquawi and the actions it is allowing us to apparently take, the real problems we face to "win" in Iraq have little or nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Even Bush has admitted they are a minor part of the insurgency. We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Here's some more window dressing from StrategyPage.

June 16, 2006: Al Qaeda in Iraq has been virtually wiped out by the loss of an address book. The death of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi was not as important as the capture of his address book and other planning documents in the wake of the June 7th bombing. U.S. troops are trained to quickly search for names and addresses when they stage a raid, pass that data on to a special intelligence cell, which then quickly sorts out which of the addresses should be raided immediately, before the enemy there can be warned that their identity has been compromised. More information is obtained in those raids, and that generates more raids. So far, the June 7th strike has led to over 500 more raids. There have been so many raids, that there are not enough U.S. troops to handle it, and over 30 percent of the raids have been carried by Iraqi troops or police, with no U.S. involvement. Nearly a thousand terrorist suspects have been killed or captured. The amount of information captured has overwhelmed intelligence organizations in Iraq, and more translators and analysts are assisting, via satellite link, from the United States and other locations.


Perhaps the most valuable finds have been al Qaeda planning documents confirming what has been suspected of terrorist strategy. Also valuable have been the al Qaeda assessment of their situation in Iraq. The terrorist strategy is one of desperation. While the effort continues, to attempt to trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, this is seen as a losing proposition. The new strategy attempts to trigger a war between the United States and Iran. This would weaken the United States, and put the hurt on Iran, an arch-enemy of al Qaeda. Other documents stressed the need to manipulate Moslem and Western media. This was to be done by starting rumors of American atrocities, and feeding the media plausible supporting material. Al Qaeda's attitude was that if they could not win in reality, they could at least win imaginary battles via the media.

Zarqawi considered al Qaeda's situation in Iraq as "bleak." The most worrisome development was the growing number of trained Iraqi soldiers and police. These were able to easily spot the foreigners who made up so much of al Qaeda's strength. Moreover, more police and soldiers in an area meant some local civilians would feel safe enough to report al Qaeda activity. The result of all this is that there are far fewer foreign Arabs in Iraq fighting for al Qaeda. The terrorist organization has basically been taken over anti-government Sunni Arabs. That made the capture of Zarqawi even more valuable, as his address book contained a who's who of the anti-government Sunni Arab forces. This group has been hurt badly by last week's raids.

The government deployed two infantry divisions and over 40,000 police in and around Baghdad to prevent "revenge" attacks by terrorists not yet rounded up by the growing wave of raids. Al Qaeda has announced an increased number of attacks. These have not occurred, although it is believed that more attacks are possible, as many attacks in various stages of preparation can be rushed forward before they are aborted by a raiding soldiers or police. At the moment, most al Qaeda members appear to be scrambling for new hiding places.

The damage done by the post- Zarqawi raids has spurred the Sunni Arab amnesty negotiations. These have been stalled for months over the issue of how many Sunni Arabs, with "blood on their hands", should get amnesty. Letting the killers walk is a very contentious issue. There are thousands of Sunni Arabs involved here. The latest government proposal is to give amnesty to most of the Sunni Arabs who have just killed foreigners (mainly Americans). Of course, this offer was placed on the table without any prior consultations with the Americans. Naturally, such a deal would be impossible to sell back in the United States. But the Iraqis believe they could get away with it if it brought forth a general surrender of the Sunni Arab anti-government forces. The Iraqis, after all, are more concerned with Iraqi politics, than with what happens in the United States. Iraqi leaders believe that the U.S. has no choice by to continue supporting Iraqi pacification efforts. However, the spectacle of amnestied Sunni Arabs bragging to Arab, European and American reporters about how they killed Americans, might have interesting repercussions.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Deadlines?

'OK lads, if you're not in Berlin before March, we're packing up and going home. We've got a Gantt chart here, and you're falling behind a bit, as we weren't expecting all that trouble in the Ardennes. As you know, this war is being run on a very tight budget, and once the money runs out, it's back to London and New York, and we'll have to leave the German Social Democrats to get rid of Hitler on their own. Yes, you're right, he did kill them all, but that's not our problem now, is it?'
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 01:11 PM
We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."

there, in essence, is what I as well as others find so grating about your posts on this subject: your certainty of failure. It's tantamount to wishing we fail since such personal certainty in the face of so much actual uncertainty betrays this.

If you shaded it by saying that we could possibly still lose, say, in a more fundamental, long term, way, I wouldn't have a problem. You would then have to elaborate what you meant but at least I would be predisposed to listen.

I'm not scolding you Rick. I wouldn't do that except as a put on. But you do frustrate me in this subject area.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I don't think losing is an inevitability, by any means.

But I don't think winning is inevitable, either.

As for whether 2500/18000 is enough? Nope. And there isn't a number that I would say is too many. For better or worse, we're there. Finish the job.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Jun 16 2006, 01:33 PM
Deadlines?

'OK lads, if you're not in Berlin before March, we're packing up and going home. We've got a Gantt chart here, and you're falling behind a bit, as we weren't expecting all that trouble in the Ardennes. As you know, this war is being run on a very tight budget, and once the money runs out, it's back to London and New York, and we'll have to leave the German Social Democrats to get rid of Hitler on their own. Yes, you're right, he did kill them all, but that's not our problem now, is it?'

whatever you might be spoofing, my meaning of a deadline does not imply "or else we pull out." It implies some penalty to the Iraqi leaders, not to our agenda. But you knew that already, right? :wink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I must take issue with Rick's statement that he can see keeping the deadline secret, but not announcing that there is one.

That would truly be incompetence. Once you announce that there is in fact a deadline, then anyone and everyone involved will be hounded to determine specifically what that is. One of two things then happen.. either the truth comes out or an incorrect timeframe is believed to be true. In either case it gives enemies foreign and domestic (are you listening Jack Murtha?) yet another club to wield against the people who are actually prosecuting this war.

I really cannot believe the constant drumbeat of 'failure to come' continues, in light of all developments to the contrary. I do believe, however, that there has never been a crow large enough to provide the serving some posters are going to have to eat.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 11:49 AM
John D'Oh
Jun 16 2006, 01:33 PM
Deadlines?

'OK lads, if you're not in Berlin before March, we're packing up and going home. We've got a Gantt chart here, and you're falling behind a bit, as we weren't expecting all that trouble in the Ardennes. As you know, this war is being run on a very tight budget, and once the money runs out, it's back to London and New York, and we'll have to leave the German Social Democrats to get rid of Hitler on their own. Yes, you're right, he did kill them all, but that's not our problem now, is it?'

whatever you might be spoofing, my meaning of a deadline does not imply "or else we pull out." It implies some penalty to the Iraqi leaders, not to our agenda. But you knew that already, right? :wink:

I don't think that was aimed at you, Frank.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
George K
Jun 16 2006, 11:22 AM
Here's some more window dressing from StrategyPage.

Has Rick chimed in yet on what a blunder the June 7 raid was, and how it only serves to show the incompetence/ truly evil intentions of GWB since it will only strengthen the resolve of our enemies, make Zarqawi into a martyr, dash any last hopes for peace in the region, and was only done under the personal orders of the evil Cheney to raise the value of Halliburton stock since they are obviously going to get the award to rebuild the damaged residence?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 10:43 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 01:11 PM
We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."

there, in essence, is what I as well as others find so grating about your posts on this subject: your certainty of failure. It's tantamount to wishing we fail since such personal certainty in the face of so much actual uncertainty betrays this.

If you shaded it by saying that we could possibly still lose, say, in a more fundamental, long term, way, I wouldn't have a problem. You would then have to elaborate what you meant but at least I would be predisposed to listen.

I'm not scolding you Rick. I wouldn't do that except as a put on. But you do frustrate me in this subject area.

When I define success, I define it in terms of 1) long standing and 2) changes the course of the Middle East in our favor.

I don't see either of these as the eventual outcome of what we are doing in Iraq.

I think we could have achieved both of these had we used another strategy. But given the anger and hatred we have so dramatically intensified by our invasion and occupation of Iraq, I do not see either occuring.


[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 11:02 AM
George K
Jun 16 2006, 11:22 AM
Here's some more window dressing from StrategyPage.

Has Rick chimed in yet on what a blunder the June 7 raid was, and how it only serves to show the incompetence/ truly evil intentions of GWB since it will only strengthen the resolve of our enemies, make Zarqawi into a martyr, dash any last hopes for peace in the region, and was only done under the personal orders of the evil Cheney to raise the value of Halliburton stock since they are obviously going to get the award to rebuild the damaged residence?

Yes, as a matter of fact, he has commented on the raid, but not based on the erroneous assumptions you are making

Here's what he said:

Quote:
 
And while I am encouraged with what we appear to have found when we killed Zarquawi and the actions it is allowing us to apparently take, the real problems we face to "win" in Iraq have little or nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Even Bush has admitted they are a minor part of the insurgency. We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 12:13 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 16 2006, 11:02 AM
George K
Jun 16 2006, 11:22 AM
Here's some more window dressing from StrategyPage.

Has Rick chimed in yet on what a blunder the June 7 raid was, and how it only serves to show the incompetence/ truly evil intentions of GWB since it will only strengthen the resolve of our enemies, make Zarqawi into a martyr, dash any last hopes for peace in the region, and was only done under the personal orders of the evil Cheney to raise the value of Halliburton stock since they are obviously going to get the award to rebuild the damaged residence?

Yes, as a matter of fact, he has.

Here's what he said:

Quote:
 
And while I am encouraged with what we appear to have found when we killed Zarquawi and the actions it is allowing us to apparently take, the real problems we face to "win" in Iraq have little or nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Even Bush has admitted they are a minor part of the insurgency. We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."

I knew that. I am happy that you can see a dark cloud behind every silver lining.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 01:11 PM
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 10:43 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 01:11 PM
We could rid the country of Al Quaeda, and we will still lose there, even if we "win."

there, in essence, is what I as well as others find so grating about your posts on this subject: your certainty of failure. It's tantamount to wishing we fail since such personal certainty in the face of so much actual uncertainty betrays this.

If you shaded it by saying that we could possibly still lose, say, in a more fundamental, long term, way, I wouldn't have a problem. You would then have to elaborate what you meant but at least I would be predisposed to listen.

I'm not scolding you Rick. I wouldn't do that except as a put on. But you do frustrate me in this subject area.

When I define success, I define it in terms of 1) long standing and 2) changes the course of the Middle East in our favor.

I don't see either of these as the eventual outcome of what we are doing in Iraq.

I think we could have achieved both of these had we used another strategy. But given the anger and hatred we have so dramatically intensified by our invasion and occupation of Iraq, I do not see either occuring.

What strategy?

I'm glued to the screen.

Glued, I tell ya....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
FrankM
Jun 16 2006, 02:49 PM
John D'Oh
Jun 16 2006, 01:33 PM
Deadlines?

'OK lads, if you're not in Berlin before March, we're packing up and going home. We've got a Gantt chart here, and you're falling behind a bit, as we weren't expecting all that trouble in the Ardennes. As you know, this war is being run on a very tight budget, and once the money runs out, it's back to London and New York, and we'll have to leave the German Social Democrats to get rid of Hitler on their own. Yes, you're right, he did kill them all, but that's not our problem now, is it?'

whatever you might be spoofing, my meaning of a deadline does not imply "or else we pull out." It implies some penalty to the Iraqi leaders, not to our agenda. But you knew that already, right? :wink:

No, it wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at Rick's original question 'how much longer before we pull out'. The idea that you can have a fixed plan for what you're willing to commit, and if it exceeds this amount, you go home, is not realistic, particularly in a very uncertain situation. Plans need to be very flexible, and so do ultimata.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
One y'all might find interesting....



Winning Is Not an Option
Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.

By Jonah Goldberg


Let me get this straight. For a couple of years now Democrats have increasingly demanded that America get out of Iraq now, soon or by a date certain. The Murtha bug-out chorus says “it’s not our fight,” “let the Iraqis handle it,” “let’s stay out of a civil war,” and, “we can’t win.”

I think I have that right.

So on Thursday the Washington Post ran a front-page story on how the democratically elected Iraqi government is considering offering amnesty for some insurgents as part of a larger “national reconciliation plan.”

In response, the Democratic leadership in Congress went ass over tea kettle.

“The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom,” shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: “We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have ‘reconciliation’ on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom?” He continued: “We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.”

Florida Senator Bill Nelson says “Terrorists and insurgents shouldn’t be rewarded for killing American soldiers.” And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a “get out of jail free card.”

This is repugnant. Shame on them.

What on earth do these people think cutting and running from Iraq means? When they say, “it’s not our fight” and “it’s a civil war,” how do they envision this non-American conflict to be resolved after we depart?

If America left Iraq tomorrow and then the Iraqi government granted amnesty the day after that, would these sanctimonious champions of military honor protest? I doubt it.

Do they really think that a negotiated peace to this civil war will involve every single Sunni insurgent being put on trial? Of course not. Indeed, if America bugged out and the factions came to just such an understanding on their own, John Murtha would jump up and down shouting “I told you so!” Nancy Pelosi would smirkingly gloat “See? America was a hindrance to peace!”

Look: Bugging out of Iraq is the greatest amnesty possible because it’s the only way the men who’ve shed American blood can not only get off scot-free but actually win the war. But that is precisely what Democrats want to do. These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be “devalued” by amnesty, but they see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they don’t want to “reward” those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chuck E. Cheese’s of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.

This sanctimony is so dishonest it stews the bowels. Most of these Democrats have denounced America’s decision to disband the Iraqi military after the toppling of Saddam. Those Iraqis fired on Americans and now they comprise the bulk of the insurgents. These Democrats wanted to keep many, if not most, of the same fighters in uniform and give them the color of authority in Iraq — not send them off to be ditch diggers and taxi drivers under some amnesty plan. They wanted them to command troops!

Now, it turns out that the story was wrong and the Iraqi government isn’t actually moving ahead with an amnesty plan. I think that’s for the good. But I don’t think America would be wise to tell the Iraqi government they can’t ever find a solution to this conflict that lets insurgents off the hook at all. Wars against insurgencies always involve cooptation. Telling the insurgents - as opposed to the foreign fighters who should be hung from the nearest lamppost — that it’s death or victory is not a path to peace.

The details are obviously complicated. The normal rules of war don’t fully apply, since the insurgents use terror tactics, don’t wear uniforms, etc. But, we didn’t ask that every German be put on trial who had American blood on his hands after World War II and we didn’t ask that every North Vietnamese soldier face a tribunal.

Oh wait, that’s because we bugged out, just like the Democrats want to now.

The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.



The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The Democrats say we can’t win. They also say we can’t find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is “surrender or fight to the death.” Winning is not an option.


I'm a Democrat. I haven't said we can't win. I haven't said we can't find a political solution. I think it's a quagmire and we're going to be there a long time, but I certainly hope we can win, and it would be much better to find a political solution. And I definitely don't want us to leave until we've finished the job, and that is most certainly not yet.

I think there are many Democrats who are right where I am. So go take your broad brush and paint another fence.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3