BUSH: "Timeline will give enemies victory"

corplinx said:
At this point we need to set some goals, achieve them, get out. A timeline however is basically a statement of surrender if the timeline doesn't move if goals aren't met.
Click to expand...
What reasonably attainable, yet non-arbitrary, goal would be possible that would allow us to "save face" in your eyes?
 
Puppycow said:
It seems to me like the Vietnamese as a whole wanted the North to win. The south never had nationalist legitimacy. I think the situation would have perhaps been better and at least no worse if we hadn't gotten involved and also if we had pulled out earlier. The lesson of Vietnam is not to fight in someone else's civil war. We should have let them make their own choices as an independent nation. The same applies to Iraq. Today, Vietnam is not really so bad. All the dire predictions of a domino effect did not come true. In fact after we left, cracks began to form in the communist monolith. Vietnam attacked Cambodia, and China attacked Vietnam, and the Sino-Soviet relationship went sour, which turned out to be an opportunity for the US which Nixon took advantage of. Basically, we gained nothing by prolonging Vietnam, and actually delayed some good developments.
Click to expand...
US was not just fighting Vietnamese in Vietnam, so Vietnam war was just a part of the cold war with commies, and it has been finished yet with China still making trouble around the world.
 
Azure said:
Is he wrong or right?

If we give a timeline, all the terrorists need to do is sit back, and wait until we leave.

Didn't we see this in Vietnam too? Where 2 million innocent people were killed after the US pulled out?
Click to expand...

If we (the americans, you are canadian so you're not part of this "we") don't give a timetable, all the terrorists have to do is wait until we leave. It's the same either way.
 
Crossbow said:
The reason why there is not a hue and cry from Canada to get out of Iraq is because Canadian forces are not in Iraq.

While there are some Canadians that are working for the UN in Iraq,
and there are some Canadians that are embedded with US forces in Iraq,

never the less, Canada is not now, nor was in the past, a part of the Iraq Coalition Forces.
Click to expand...

There are Canadian forces in Afghanistan, and they're doing most of the dirty work.

Too bad our other 'allies' don't have the balls.
 
Azure said:
There are Canadian forces in Afghanistan, and they're doing most of the dirty work.

Too bad our other 'allies' don't have the balls.
Click to expand...

Well, I cannot speak to your 'allies' missing their balls, but just in case you missed it in the great white north,

Afghanistan and Iraq are two different places and the timeline being discussed refers to Iraq and not to Afghanistan.
 
Crossbow said:
Well, I cannot speak to your 'allies' missing their balls, but just in case you missed it in the great white north,

Afghanistan and Iraq are two different places and the timeline being discussed refers to Iraq and not to Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

You're really bright today.

The situations are alike in certain ways. We do not have a timeline either, only to stop the resurgent Taliban.

Of course, I would have liked it better if the US had stuck all their resources into Afghanistan, and stayed there. But alas, I cannot change the past.
 
Azure said:
You're really bright today.

The situations are alike in certain ways. We do not have a timeline either, only to stop the resurgent Taliban.

Of course, I would have liked it better if the US had stuck all their resources into Afghanistan, and stayed there. But alas, I cannot change the past.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for the compliment, however I do not think that one has to be particulary bright in order to determine that the Iraq timeline is not the same thing as an Afghanistan timeline.
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks much for the compliment, however I do not think that one has to be particulary bright in order to determine that the Iraq timeline is not the same thing as an Afghanistan timeline.
Click to expand...

I was unaware that a timeline existed for either one.

Which in that case, makes both situations alike.

Are we going to stay in Afghanistan forever too?
 
Azure said:
And that bitch Hillary doesn't want to deal with the war either, neither do ANY of the Democrats, which is why they're pulling for a timeline.
Click to expand...

This absolutely doesn't make any sense, Azure. If I walked up and bitch-slapped your neighbor who happened to be a well-armed, highly motivated gang-banger and itching for a fight, would YOU personally want to take over the fight for me just because I had to leave?

I don't think so.
 
Azure said:
Well there is the option of the Iraqi military having enough strength of provide security.
Click to expand...

Never going to happen, Azure:

Iraqi insurgents ahead in war of intelligence

Baghdad: As usual, it was an inside job. Brig Amer Ali Nayef, deputy head of the Baghdad police, and his policeman son, Lt Khaled Amer, were driving to work in an unmarked civilian car, hoping to move through the streets of Dora without being noticed.

But the two carloads of gunmen who approached from behind knew the car, its registration number and its occupants. They blazed away with Kalashnikovs until Nayef, dead at the wheel, drove into a house.

Every day now brings its sinister evidence that the Iraqi security forces - supposedly screened by American military officers - have been infiltrated by the insurgents.

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=284&fArticleId=2369067
Click to expand...



Are we still stupid enough to arm them with the latest equipment to help them win? You remember how well that worked out when we supported the mujahedeen in Afghanistan while they were fighting Soviet Russia? As it is - we'll probably see some of our own equipment used against us in the future.
 
Upchurch said:
What reasonably attainable, yet non-arbitrary, goal would be possible that would allow us to "save face" in your eyes?
Click to expand...

Well, we toppled the regime. Mission accomplished or whatever. We have a bad case of feature creep in this project. Securing the fuel supply has tied us into to trying to establish civil order between mid and south.

As I am not a general in Iraq, I really can't say with authority what objectives we should accomplish. All I can do is offer an uninformed but intuitive opinion.

1. Leave behind a stable enough government that the oil supply will be uninterrupted.
 
Mephisto said:
This absolutely doesn't make any sense, Azure. If I walked up and bitch-slapped your neighbor who happened to be a well-armed, highly motivated gang-banger and itching for a fight, would YOU personally want to take over the fight for me just because I had to leave?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

A presidential candidate KNOWS he/she will have a tough job to clean up after Dubya.

Trying to weasel out of that job isn't a good sign.

And your situation does not compare properly. And if you can't figure out why, then I suggest you read some more books, perhaps starting with the Vietnam War, and the fiasco the Democrats started, that Nixon had to clean up.
 
corplinx said:
1. Leave behind a stable enough government that the oil supply will be uninterrupted.
Click to expand...
That can probably be done, but instead of a democracy it would have to be another ruthless dictatorship. If you kill enough Iraqis the country can be sufficiently pacified.

Of course, that would bring certain ethical, moral and diplomatic problems...
 
egslim said:
That can probably be done, but instead of a democracy it would have to be another ruthless dictatorship. If you kill enough Iraqis the country can be sufficiently pacified.

Of course, that would bring certain ethical, moral and diplomatic problems...
Click to expand...

But as long as the US has all their troops out, thats alright.
 
Azure said:
But as long as the US has all their troops out, thats alright.
Click to expand...
Well, killing several hundreds of thousands Iraqis - or more, as many as necessary - will have a number of nasty side effects. It will devastate the US's standing in the world, create huge support for terrorist organizations, and a number of years down the line the new Iraqi regime will collapse.
 
egslim said:
Well, killing several hundreds of thousands Iraqis - or more, as many as necessary - will have a number of nasty side effects. It will devastate the US's standing in the world, create huge support for terrorist organizations, and a number of years down the line the new Iraqi regime will collapse.
Click to expand...

So pull out, and be done with it?
 
Azure said:
A presidential candidate KNOWS he/she will have a tough job to clean up after Dubya.

Trying to weasel out of that job isn't a good sign.
Click to expand...

Which is WHY they're suggesting that we pull out BEFORE he leaves office. This is HIS mess, it's not going anywhere, there is no "light at the end of the tunnel," and no pullout "with honor." We invaded a country we should have left alone and you can't blame other people for not wanting to clean up this moron's mess.



Azure said:
And if you can't figure out why, then I suggest you read some more books, perhaps starting with the Vietnam War, and the fiasco the Democrats started, that Nixon had to clean up.
Click to expand...

I've read plenty of books about Vietnam, I served in Vietnam, I've had friends die in Vietnam.

And how, pray tell, did Nixon "clean up" the whole mess? Isn't that what we're suggesting now?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom