Posted on 12/05/2006 7:51:51 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe
Edited on 12/05/2006 8:08:27 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Actually the British were far more brutal occupiers.
Anyway, if there is a sense that "not moving forward" = "losing", that's our problem. We've got to get rid of that attitude.
Good question. I say winning = maintaing the power of the elected government. After all, that is why we have support military in country, at said government's request, under a UN mandate. So winning = the government doesn't fall.
In which case, we're winning and the only way we can lose is if the government falls, which is really only possible if we exit precipitously because we all convince ourselves we're "losing".
In what sense do you claim we are "not winning"? What military objectives remain to be taken? I really don't understand this mentality.
It's taken a while for me but I've basically come around to your way of thinking on this. It may sound callous but after what we've done, if they want to resort to tribalism, I have a hard time seeing it as a tragedy that Shiite militias slaughter Sunnis and vice-versa.
3. I say pull our troops out and let the regional conflagration begin. Yeah, yeah, the price of oil will go through the roof. I say so what. Small price to pay if the Islamofacists will exhaust their blood lust on each other.
I say leave our troops there as a safeguard to prevent a full Al Qaeda takeover or open training-camp presence. Remember Al Qaeda and the problem of failed states? You may recall a cost we paid for allowing such things to persist. It was in 2001, I seem to recall.
That's a curious inversion. Usually battles are considered smaller than wars?
Are you just trying to say that while we won the "Iraq war", we haven't won the larger "war on terror"? If so, I agree.
I wouldn't frame it like that. The truth is that the President doesn't have the political power right now to wage a war against anyone. There is a significant public perception that Iraq is slipping out of control - while overstated, it would be immature to not recognize at least some validity to it.
The last election amounted to a vote of no confidence in the president, much of it based on the war. The truth is, and I said this over a year ago, that public sentiment has been rising against the president for a while, though many on FR insisted on denial and cheeky comments like "looks like no third term for Dubya.'
Now the electorate has rejected the GOP and we're on the outside looking in, and the cheeky comments have stopped.
In any case, I see this as just a political reality - the nation doesn't trust Dubya to wage a war in Iran or Syria. This has been a problem for a while, despite this denial that has been common for over 18 months now.
I wouldn't write off Europe, nor write off possible military action against Iran or Syria. Things have to change, and unfortunately change for the worse. Dubya is handicapped right now, which puts us all in danger Then again, he seemed to have gone out of his way to cultivate an image that has lost public confidence. People get what they deserve.
We are there to help safeguard the elected Iraq government (at their request, and by UN mandate). This involves going after terrorists, illegal militias and the like so they don't gain a foothold and/or crumble Iraq into a failed-state. There's no "spin" about this, it's been our objective for years. What part don't you understand?
Then I won't explain it to you.
That's your prerogative and all, but I have to wonder, were you unaware that this is a discussion site?
Now THAT says it, about the Dem's approach on this.
Iran's proxy Hezbollah will soon control Lebanon, and the Iranians are shipping what they can to Hamas.
Those two proxies will then shell Israel out of existence, not by killing everyone, but by simply making the country unlivable.
In the meantime, due to the mediocre stupidity of our political class, we will have turned Iraq over to the Iranians.
A nuclear armed Persian Empire stretching from the Eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan will be the result, and every American military base in the region will be booted out.
Then, using existing or new proxies, the Iranians will smuggle several nuclear warheads into the US.
Game, set and match for Iran.
Why? Because we have no ba@@s.
do you mean, "balls?"
LOL!
Do anyone remember that we entered Iraq in 2003, only 3 yrs ago? For those that have failed to stay tuned it seems like 10 years doesn't it.
A few comments...
...I see this as just a political reality - the nation doesn't trust Dubya to wage a war in Iran or Syria.
I doubt it's a question of trusting Bush with running it. Frankly, I see nobody anywhere on the current list of 2008 possibilities to stand up to the task better than Bush does.
A size-able portion of Americans simply doesn't think a war against Iran or Syria (or Iraq, for that matter) should be done for any reason. The portion includes most of the Democrat Party and the MSM.
I wouldn't write off Europe,...
Probably not yet. But they seem hellbent in writing off themselves.
... nor write off possible military action against Iran or Syria...
With us involved, I would - unless there is a sea change in other situations. That might be prompted by a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv or an Israeli preemptive attack against Iran. On the other hand, if Iran and Syria "stay the course" and continue to sabotage our Iraq aims and simply kill American troops by proxy, it is highly unlikely to provoke our major response. IMHO, despite what the President has said, even if Iran blew off a nuclear weapon tomorrow we would find an excuse not to act. We would just ratchet up the "talk".
Things have to change, and unfortunately change for the worse.
I agree. But that change will probably have to do with either a nuclear attack in Israel or a massive attack again in this country larger and much more deadly than 9/11. Whatever is happening in Iraq does not seem to meet the threshold.
Outside of Commander-in-chief, let's list those duties...
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Not much governing is going to take place. GWB will hold the line on increasing taxes, keep us in the fight with Islaminazis, and keep the economy perking along. I'm ok with that.
Look at the bright side of the recent Dem victory.
At least we will no longer have to live under the delusion that the Republicans are the ones in charge.
Please allow me to clarify. The "WAR" itself went swimmingly. A-1 victory, did almost everything right. What we have been engaged in since has failed, almost completely. I'M NOT BLAMING THE TROOPS FOR THIS! It's the fault of the politicians and the segment of America that doesn't have the stomach for all-out war and decisive, indisputable victory.
This is Bush`s choice to replace Don Rumsfeld. If Robert Gates is making these statements in public, you can bet that Bush is thinking along these same lines. It will hurt troop moral, and right now its critical that our men and women in Iraq aren't sent conflicting signals. The GOP`s election day loss is quickly coming home to roost.
"By the end of December Hitler’s strategic aim of splitting the Allied front in half was doomed to failure and Germany’s ultimate defeat had become only a matter of time. Nevertheless, considerable heavy fighting lay ahead before the battle of the Bulge could be called over. As the fighting raged around Bastogne, Patton observed in his diary on January 4 that, “We can still lose this war.
Not until January 12 could the bloody three-week battle be declared won when three American divisions broke the back of the siege and erased the final German salient, dooming some 15,000 of Hitler’s best troops to capture. As the crisis in the Ardennes faded, for the first time in weeks Eisenhower seemed more relaxed.
In its aftermath, Eisenhower was asked if he had been frightened by the German counteroffensive. “Well, not at the time,” he said, then added with a grin, ‘But I was scared stiff three weeks later when I got around to reading the newspaper accounts.”
Article by Carlo D'Este quoted from the below website http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?page=1&p=2702&page=5
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.