Posted on 09/13/2006 12:48:56 PM PDT by crazyhorse691
Yes, they must see us as a powerful enemy that will crush them if they attack us. The must see us as such a vengeful enemy that their grandchildren's children would quake in fear at the thought of launching a terrorist attack on us.
Rightttt....and Clinton didn't think oral sex was sex.
I disagree. Ultimately it must be shown that self determination is in their own best interests,
Does anyone else know how to win a war except by winning battles? Certainly, we might have to win just a few large battles, or many, many small battles before we win a war; that depends upon the situation.
But I know for sure that we cannot win a war by losing battles. God, we're dealing with SUCH morons.
Vaguely amusing as a joke, but dangerous as a foreign policy.
It's no more dangerous (to us) than the policy we are currently pursuing.
1) Afghanistan was a military victory in 2001-2002.
2) Iraq was a military victory in 2003.
3) They are both part of the War On Terror.
4) One, Two and Three are all good things.
"The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so."
-- Reagan
"Ultimately, winning this war means winning the trust and respect of millions of people who have been taught we are the Great Satan. The longer we engage these people mainly on the battlefield, the more opportunity our enemies have to portray us as something we are not. And the longer that goes on, the more unlikely "winning" becomes."
You know, I do believe they are onto somthing here. Taken literally, we should flood the Islaamic countries with Christian missionaries. Once they are all converted to Christanity....
Can't win a war without winning battles but the Rats and MSM are the only ones that can claim that US can't win period no matter how many battles won.
He says this like it's a bad thing. Newsflash, genius. You win wars by seizing the initiative and making your enemy fight your fight. Instead of waiting around for the terrorists to initiate "a new front" in, say, San Francisco, we are instead drawing them out to their deaths in Iraq.
This also has a bunch of side benefits. We gain strategic position in the ME, we eliminate a major terrorist bankroll, we drain the festering sore left over from 1992, and we try something other than the failed realpolitik stability policies of the past 40 years.
One of the biggest most important battles won was right here. The re-election of Bush.
Then like rats, eradicate them.....
"Ultimately, Afghanistan can operate as a state only if its citizens, its tribes and its local fiefdoms agree on a common future. We cannot kill enough Taliban to bring that about."
Sure you can... kill all the Taliban...problem solved...
"There is an Iraqi "front" in the war on terror all right. We created it."
Wrong answer hocky-puck...planned and directed by Saddam....
"The longer we engage these people mainly on the battlefield, the more opportunity our enemies have to portray us as something we are not. And the longer that goes on, the more unlikely "winning" becomes."
'Nuff said....nuke 'em all, let Got sort 'em out.....
So the leftist solution is.... what? More Christian influence in the ME? More playgrounds? Exactly what "goodies" can we give these terrorists that would make them "like" us?
Absolutely.
And the exact same goes for Democrats, a lesson sorely missed by President Bush.
Compassion for Liberals is like harboring a virus.
Yes.
Win the war without winning a single battle against U.S. forces? That is the question. The answer today is the same: yes. Just let the enemies within our borders keep on repeating the events of (especially) 1968 to 1974.
To me, except for no protests against the draft today the "reporting," the "anti-war" rhetoric, the worries about "how does the world view us" today look the same as a generation ago.
The result was winning the war while losing all the battles. "Thank you, America!" Ho Chi Minh.
After Washington embraces "peace with honor:"
January 1974 North Vietnamese Rebuild Divisions in the South . . .
September 1974 U.S. Leaves South Vietnam Underfunded . . .
October, 1974 Politburo of North Vietnam Plans Invasion of South Vietnam . . .
December 18, 1974 Hanoi Meeting to Plot Final Victory . . .
January 6, 1975 NVA Take Phuoc Long Violating Peace Agreement . . .
January 8, 1975 20 Divisions Set to Invade South Vietnam . . .
January 14, 1975 Schlesinger States That U.S. Has Broken Promises to South Vietnam Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace...
March, 1975 NVA Captures Quang Tri Province . . .
March 18, 1975 NVA Leaders Decide to Accelerate Offensive Realizing the South Vietnamese Army is nearing collapse, NVA leaders meet and decide to accelerate their offensive to achieve total victory before May...
. . .
April 23, 1975 NVA Advances on Saigon . .
. . .
April 29, 1975 Airlift Out of Saigon U.S. Marines and Air Force helicopters, flying from carriers off-shore, begin a massive airlift. In 18 hours, over 1,000 American civilians and almost 7,000 South Vietnamese refugees are flown out of... [more]
April 30, 1975 South Vietnam Falls . . . .
There ain't a bit of difference between the "anti-war" crowd back then and today vis-a-vis the part of the war against radical Muslims that's going on in Iraq. That crowd wants the U.S. defeated in Iraq and the Middle East. Period. IMO.
Permit to say something politically-incorrect.
Isn't the real problem that the societies living under radical Islam are truly evil, ignorant and unconscious?
Don't they need an immediate wake-up call?
History, including with kamikaze Japan, proves the case that peace follows overwhelming victory over evil. An exorcism.
And what better way than a devastating direct attack on their evil populace that awakens them to the consequences of their insane actions?
Like retarded children, Islamonutjobs plot and support the attack on Western civilians, without any awareness that the exact same attacks could befall their own homes and families.
Imagine, for a moment, if the creativity of our Western world was directed to terrorizing these same scumbag populations?
You know, poisoning of wells, SemTex prayer rugs, C4 camel dung, mosques that explode daily.
Our moronic leadership thinks it is honorable to take the high moral ground, and die fighting Marquis of Queensbury rules against satanic murders.
Well phuck you - I ain't dying and neither is my family - the mutherphucking terrorists will die by any means necessary first - GET IT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.