From an editorial on Iraq in the New York Times today …
It remains unclear what the Republicans will consider sufficient success to warrant bringing the troops home. Beyond tough-sounding talk about refusing to surrender, no Republican has ever defined victory in Iraq or given the slightest idea of how to achieve it.
Heh. Ain’t that the truth!
10 responses so far ↓
1
jenjw4
// Jan 15, 2008 at 8:28 am
Yes, it’s quite a parralel don’t you think? We didn’t have reason to go in and now we don’t have a method to get back out.
2
Cory
// Jan 17, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Vietnow!
3
Me
// Jan 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Just like a liberal. Missing the good ole days of the 60’s when it was in fashion to protest and always missing the big picture.
We have to fight them sometime. I would prefer to do it now while they can’t send a nuke our way. But, that’s just me.
4
Knight in Dragonland
// Jan 19, 2008 at 6:20 am
Just like a wing-nut … swinging the word “liberal” around as a dismissive epithet without providing any sort of logical argument.
Who precisely is the “them” that we need to fight sometime? Al Qaeda? Iran?
Al Qaeda is barely an issue in Iraq since the Sunni tribes figured out that they make poor allies. They are much more of an issue in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but too heavy a hand and the inevitable collateral damage it causes would drive public opinion in those countries even further against us and pile on recruits for the terrorists … maybe even swinging enough support behind Islamic parties so that they could gain control of Pakistan, a country that already has nuclear weapons.
As far as Iran, do you really think having almost 200,000 foreign troops on either side of their country is going to discourage them from developing nuclear weapons?
Say the United States did not yet have nuclear weapons, but was developing them. If there were 150,000 troops in Canada and 50,000 troops in Mexico from a country that frequently made angry noises about invading or attacking us … are you really saying that we would slow down our nuclear program in those circumstances???
Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially alongside the angry noises we keep making about dropping the hammer on Iran only serve to strengthen the Ayatollahs at a time when our military is stretched dangerously thin with troops heading back for 3rd or even 4th or 5th tours of duty in a combat zone.
We essentially abandoned Afghanistan when they needed us the most to bog ourselves down in Iraq. Do we really need to get our troops into a 3rd hot zone by picking a fight with Iran???
5
Me
// Jan 21, 2008 at 10:56 am
Okay, so let’s just pull out then. Leave them to figure it out themselves.
Yea, that’ll go over real well with the people living in Iraq. Screw you guys, we only care about ourselves.
And we’ve done a lot of good over there. Of course, the liberal media won’t show you that. Only dead bodies. I have a close family member who is special forces and I get the real deal from him. What he can tell me, anyway. And he feels it’s completely necessary. And that’s good enough for me considering he’s BEEN to all the regions you’re talking about.
6
Knight in Dragonland
// Jan 22, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Well, according to polls like this one, a majority of Iraqis think that the U.S. should never have invaded, that the Surge is a failure, and that attacks on American troops are justified.
I very much appreciate the dedication and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform … but U.S. troops are highly segregated from the general populace of Iraq. This is for good reason, of course … their safety depends on it.
Even when U.S. forces do mingle with the general populace, do you honestly think an Iraqi is going to tell an American soldier that he thinks attacks on U.S. troops are justified??? He’d end up dead or in a prison camp faster than he could blink!
Civilians caught in the middle of a war do what civilians have done for millenia … they become chameleons. When the U.S. soldiers walk by, they wave their American flags and cheer “God bless the USA!” When the insurgents come to their homes in the night, they praise Allah for the mighty jihadis who seek to rid them of the infidel Crusaders. It’s called survival, since civilians are always the ones who get screwed the worst during any armed conflict. Iraq is no exception.
7
Me
// Jan 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Yes, because polls can tell you anything right?
I tell ya what, how about you GOING THERE then decide? I’ve heard from many many MANY people in the armed forces who say this isn’t so. I guess they’re all a bunch of liars too, right?
8
Knight in Dragonland
// Jan 25, 2008 at 5:35 am
Please point out in my previous posts where I called anyone in the U.S. military a liar. These military sources you site are entitled to their opinions … but so am I.
Thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of American tax dollars have been spent in Iraq. As a U.S. citizen, I feel I should have a say in that even if I don’t wear a uniform. That’s called democracy.
Democracy is supposedly what we’re fighting for in Iraq, but most supporters of this war seem to have very little clue about what democracy really means. Everyone is just supposed to toe the line, salute the flag and hail to the chief, and anyone who expresses a different opinion is a traitor. In the books that I’ve read, that’s called TYRANNY. Our Founders are vomiting in their graves.
Yes, polls can often be misleading. However, I think the fact that millions of Iraqis have fled their country and millions more are displaced within Iraq lends quite a bit of weight to the polls you disparage. Dozens of Iraqi bloggers comment daily on what a cluster&#$% their country has become since the invasion. Yes, many also thank the U.S. for ridding them of Saddam and his cronies … but at the same time the vast majority say their life is now much worse.
9
vonster
// Feb 7, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Hawkeye.
10
l
// Feb 22, 2008 at 9:21 am
I have disagreed with Knight in Dragonland on several views of his but I cannot agree more than his view of this topic. May I suggest a novel by John Steinbeck for all the war supporters out there, The Moon is Down. Mr. Bush who I know at his own admission does not read should have read this book. It would have given him some insight to the way occupied people react.
Leave a Comment