Our President just said that in a speech to the American Legion, to a smattering of applause. Godalmighty DAMN! he is a stupid lying prick. SONOFABITCH!
I truly hate this motherfucker. Hate is an awful emotion, but he, and only he, brings it out in me. Is it possible that he is so deluded that he believes this shit? Is he simply morally bankrupt? Or are stupid and crazy and evil running neck and neck and neck?
Fortunately the US have already completed their mission in Iraq.
I know because President Bush told me so (on a ship).
Also Bush got re-elected and the Iraqi oil flows to US companies. So everything worked out as Bush planned.
As Jon Stewart pointed out last night on the Daily Show, Bush did not put that banner up. The sailors on the carrier did. He (Stewart) showed a clip of Bush saying just that. What a chickenhawk pussy mealy-mouthed asshole.
Ditto. I start my morning with a dose of CNN before my local news. Shrub’s voice is enough to make me turn it off. I cannot stand that slimy piece of pond scum.
Yes. God tells him so. Seriously.
Absolutely, but there’s nothing simple about it. See reason for delusions in answer #1 above.
I doubt stupid, but yes, he’s quite insane. Cheney and Rove provide the evil necessary to feed the delusion.
I notice folks here are just attacking the speech instead of asserting why they believe it to be false.
Still, there is a good bit of truth to it. At the end of the Vietnam War, in contrast, the Vietnamese Communists were happy to just set up their reeducation camps, push a good portion of their citizens into other countries as refugees, and similar activities. Further attacks on us or our soldiers weren’t possible for them, and even if they were, there were structural factors in place that likely would have prevented this.
This situation is different. I don’t think anyone can argue that Islamic extremists of various stripes continue to plan attacks on Americans and American interests both abroad and here. Furthermore, a defeat of America in Iraq would likely embolden these forces and encourage them to plan further attacks on us.
The degree to which we can engage and prevent such attacks in a post-Iraq environment ought to be a matter of concern, study, and debate.
Nah, we’ve already screwed up badly enough to leave them sufficiently emboldened to continue their attacks regardless of what happens in Iraq. The president’s talk of them ‘following us home’ is just life support for the brain dead flypaper strategy.
I think terrorist activities against us will continue regardless of the outcome, believe me.
Still, it is true that previous displays of American weakness, from the Iranian hostage situation to the debacle in Somalia, encouraged generations of Islamic radicals and provided rhetorical ammunition to their leadership.
It’s reassuring, then, that displays of American strength, like the current war in Iraq, have done nothing to encourage Islamic radicals or provide rhetorical ammunition to their leadership.
Well, shit. Just when I thought I discovered a shortcut to the office and back, one with very little traffic. Now those pesky terrorists will be clogging the roads, probably refusing to turn right on red. :smack:
Dammit! 
Well many of the people attacking US troops are trying to get the invaders out of their country. So if the US lose and leave, they will not be followed back.
Also Bush’s logic is presumably ‘to drive terrorists out of Iraq’. Where does he expect them to go?
You want AlQ wiped out in Iraq? Leave. The Shia will grind them into hamburger in a matter of days. Of course, there is likely to be a wee bit of “collateral damage”…
If we fail in Iraq? We couldn’t succeed: our goals were false. No weapons of mass destructiion; no ties to terror; no imminent threat. Being there at all was a failure. All we’ve done since is compound our failure.
But it is true that if we were not providing ample American boys and girls to kill there, then there would be more motivation for terrorists to travel to do it. Not the best reason to have our people there though, to save the terrorists from potential travel expenses, to make it easy for them to achieve their goals.
What few seem to realize is that we are not really anything more than a prop in the big war within the Arab/ME world. The battle (and I’ve said this before and will say it again) is within the Arab/ME world and is between those who embrace modernity with its integration into the world’s society of societies (and its percieved amorality) and those who fear it and wish for their world to retreat into an insular Islamist fundamentalism. Having an other to rally your troops against, to unite the tribes, the cousins, the brothers, all against an infidel … this is a prop the Islamist needs in this fight. We provide it there, or they’ll try to get us back there to provide it for them. The more we provide the prop the more we help the Islamist cause and handicap the forces of modernity. With our help the forces of modernity are now losing badly.
Know the battle that you need to fight; define what your goal really should be, and then maybe you can actually win. If you fight it wisely, not just with bigger sticks. Maybe.
Excellent post, DSeid. That third paragraph summed up the situation as well as anything I’ve ever read.
My only question is, if they follow us home can we keep them?
Iraq is a great training ground. They are learning to fight and make bombs Useful talents in this strange new world. They are getting armed too. What a great plan this was.
The average age of a male iIaqi is 15. They will be around a long time. We are killing and training kids to savor revenge.
'Course not. You don’t know where they’ve been.
True.
False.
a) You’ll notice that this is the Pit, not GD.
b) I dimly recall several dozen previous debates here over the past few years on this very point. There comes a point when it’s not really necessary to rehash the damned debate ONE MORE FUCKING TIME.
Well, of course. Since ‘the terrorists’ have bases in North Waziristan, and cells around the world, the outcome in Iraq won’t matter worth beans.
The ‘display of American weakness’ is ongoing: we’re in a mess that we can’t control, and we’re too stupid and pigheaded to leave.
There’s the chance that our ultimate departure - and there will be an ultimate departure - will ‘embolden’ the terrorists even more than our current situation does. But how many American lives are we going to sacrifice for a psychological advantage of dubious value?
How many fighting men’s wives, mothers, sons, daughters, are you going to bereave for that weak purpose? How many soldiers are you going to turn into human wrecks to wander around the grounds of Walter Reed, just so ‘the terrorists’ won’t have a psychological boost?
And after they die or are physically and psychologically maimed, won’t we just be facing the same question a year or two from now, just as we faced the same question a year or two ago?