That’s quite a fatalistic viewpoint. Do you think there is such a thing as cause and effect, or do people just do things because of whatever they are?
And to what part of the Iraqi debacle does this apply? We won the war quickly by use of overwhelming force, and the whole thing has still become a complete disaster. There’s no “Peace through Strength” over there, and I see no chance of it happening. What are you actually saying? “We can’t walk away” means what - we win just by staying endlessly, as things keep deteriorating, and just insisting that we’re not losing? I don’t really think “the terrorists” are gonna buy it.
Not at all, Marley, But, we haven’t fought a war to win it since the 1940’s. As long as there are namby-pamby members of congress and equally wussy media types it will be excruciatingly difficult to let the military do what they do best, i.e. break things and kill people. You want a quick resolution in Iraq, take the damned gloves off, start REALLY kicking ass and you will scare these piece of shit terrorists into good behavior. When Reagan bombed Libya in the 80’s Kaddafi sure quit fucking around didn’t he, and when Bush started kicking asses Kaddafi came to US and gave up his WMD programs! Don’t tell me it doesn’t work, its proven.
Bad comparison. We did not stay in Germany that long for the purpose of propping up the government. We stayed there because of the perceived danger of a Soviet invasion. Now that has passed and we should probably pull our forces out of Germany. However it is a place where troops are closer to possible trouble spots so there is some value to us in staying.
And while we are at it,
And just who is this bigger army and marine corps going to bomb the shit out of to help in the so-called war on terror?
The present authorized strength of the military seems adequate to address any military threat we might face.
I have no problem with this, although from time to time people like you tell me that I’m supposed to. The public has a right to know what’s being done in its name. I’m told I’m supposed to be okay with giving the military carte blanche to kill large numbers of people to bring others into line (which worked great in Vietnam, too), but I don’t support that.
This is so misguided it’s almost hilarious. You really think you’re going to scare suicidal terrorists? Please. We won the first part of this war with overwhelming force, just like you said. The problem is that that doesn’t work against local terrorism, especially when the rest of the planning is so badly botched.
Apples and I-don’t-know-what. Kadaffi is the leader of a country. This kind of thing can work with governments, yes, but not with stateless terrorists. And Kadaffi was working to give up those weapons before Bush started “kicking ass” in Afghanistan, which has since become un-kicked.
Oh, no! APT comparison, we stayed, at first, because of the HUGE amount of violence , post war. Trouble spots… Like the MIDDLE EAST? Like President Bush said in his speech, those who sponsor terror, those who perform acts of terror, those who condone terrorism.
Here it comes. Its like having your feel nailed to the railroad track, you can see the train coming twenty miles off, and there’s nothing you can do but watch it come… Fucking inevitable.
“We lost in Iraq because the liberal wussies tied our hands behind our back!” Then we’ll have a Chuck Norris movie about him rescuing American POWOT’s from behind enemy lines, Sean Hannity shitting himself over hippies spitting on returning heroes…
Thing about a shit casserole is, kept in the fridge for thirty years, rewarmed and served, its still a shit casserole. And there are still those who will spoon it down with eager appetite, “mmmmmm- Good!”. Lordy.
Well, I moved from Belgium to Schleissheim, Germany about 3 months after the end of the war and there was no “huge amount of violence.” For a few weeks after the end of the war there were some scattered disturbances but in general things were quiet as a tomb. Your statement tried to tie our military being in Germany for 60 years to our being in Iraq now. Namely that there was tremendous violence postwar. I don’t know where you heard that, but it’s bullshit. I suspect you will wave offthis cite from Media Matters because people love their myths, but I’ll put it in to help those reasonable people who weren’t there and want to know what postwar Germany was really like.
So you advocate generalized and unspecific bombing in the Mid East? Should we use B-52’s or B-2’s and carpet bomb or nukes and get it over with quickly?
This statement indicates to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Several other problems. Logistical, for the most part. Recent surveys have confirmed that a majority of Iraqis “condone” terrorism directed at US troops. Having lost confidence in the Iraqi people, it becomes necessary to abolish same. Have we enough bullets? It would be tiresome in the extreme to have to stop midway in order to resupply.
As well, many indigenous Iraqi personnel fall under the broad categories of “women” and “children”. Our troops are notoriously sentimental, and have had their morale and vigor undermined by liberal media. We may be required to selectively recruit “special action” squads, the kind of people we generally refer to as “sociopaths”. Reintegrating such men into civilian society presents daunting challenges. (Some foreign recruitment, of the type currently being proposed, may be helpful. There are, for instance, any number of Hutu tribesman available who might leap at the opportunity for a “green card”. True, they would lack English and Arabic language skills, but their instructions would be simplistic in the extreme, basicly consisting of but a single verb.
Of course, on 9/11/01, we did have unclean infidel troops in SA – the homeland of the Prophet himself – which was one of the things Bin Laden was complaining about . . . We pulled our troops out of SA in 2003, but of course by then we had another place nearby to station them, where they would be perfectly safe and their presence would piss off nobody.
“Peace” can only be realized once a viable “civil” infrastructure is given the opportunity to work. If we leave now, or pull back, the successes we’ve had in Northern Iraq would inevitably lead to a step up in military action far more devastating to the region - as well as here at home.
Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. And Osama bin Laden is no Hitler. In terms of threat posed, none of them ever were more nor will ever be more than pathetic bush-league Hitler wannabes.
We’ve been trying that for four years. The insurgents just won’t let it happen and we have no effective way to counter them; adding more troops won’t change that. At some point you’ve got to cut your losses.
I recall one of the Middle Eastern folk tales of the Mullah Nasrudin:
Walking along a road in India, Nasrudin grew very hungry. He came across a man sitting under a tree selling small, green fruits out of a basket. Nasrudin handed the man a few coins – and the man handed over the whole basket; such fruits being very cheap and usually bought in small amounts.
Nasrudin walked along, found a tree to sit under, and began to eat. He soon noticed his throat was burning and his eyes tearing.
Another traveler – from Persia, like Nasrudin – rounded the bend and saw what Nasrudin was doing. “Fool!” he cried. “Do you not know the chillies of India?! They are for making curry! You don’t eat them whole! Stop and drink some water or you’ll be dead by sundown!”
Nasruding kept on eating the fruits, eyes tearing, and making involuntary moans of pain.
The traveler repeated, “Stop, fool! Stop eating the fruit!”
“I am not eating the fruit any more!” Nasrudin choked out. “I am eating my money!”
Osama IS no hitler. Saddam was a Hiltler wannabe. As for Ahmadinejad…you might wanna pick up a book or two on history. This guy makes Hitler look like a pussy!
Granted, but we’ll only have THIS one opportunity. I hate the losses and seemingly futile attempts to stabilize Bagdad, but the North. They deserve the chance at stability.
Arguably. But I was speaking in terms of “potential threat.” Even if he gets nukes, he’s never going to be a potential empire-conqueror. Sure, the Iranians might succeed in taking over Iraq – which at this point probably would be the best thing for all concerned, including the Iraqis, and us. But he can’t hope to go any further west, nor east, nor north. And he’s never going to get at Israel, let alone directly threaten any U.S. territory.
