• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Leo, Aries, Cancer Vote to Defund Iraq Troops

BPSCG said:
Here's some framing: Why don't we start calling people who want to "defund the war," "surrender advocates" instead? Harry Reid is saying the war is lost; if we've lost the war, then presumably someone else has won it, and we should surrender. Just gotta figure out who we surrender to...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I keep forgetting--who is the enemy? The terrorists in Iraq who weren't in Iraq (or at least weren't terrorists) until we invaded Iraq? So we invaded Iraq to fight a war against terrorists that weren't there yet? That's strategery for sure--so we could have time to build our permanent bases there before they gathered up strength.

Let me see--"Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy."

Iraq is our ally (and always was and always will be our ally) because Iran is our enemy--no wait. Saudi Arabia is and will always be an ally of freedom loving Americans. And there's an axis of evil connecting Iraq, Iran and North Korea somehow. . . .
 
The Painter said:
post #11

If you don’t like surrender, how about forfeit?
Click to expand...
Why not look at it functionally: if you quit before whoever you are fighting quits, you lose. That is how war works. What W did not appear to recognize was that the game was a free for all, or as some medeival jousts were called, a melee. Free for all.

Saddam's team lost, but the game wasn't over. At this stage in the game, whoever quits, by default, loses. If you don't want to fight badly enough, you will eventually stop.

How much "want to" does the American team have?

Consider.

1. The disunity and stark disagreement across the breadth and depth of the political and social spectrum,

2. War is a political act of armed force,

3. The moral is to the physical as three is to one (Bonaparte)

Perhaps not enough "want to" to win. Anyone who boxes, or plays competitive games/sports, will understand.

I just heard Senator Lieberman lamenting "loss of security in the Mid East" if the US withdraws.

Dear Senator Joe

The relative security, or insecurity, is a direct outcome of having begun the war in the first place. The aim was to change the security calculus in the Middle East.

We must have a victory, the security calculus in the Middle East has indeed changed.

Toss confetti, put on your party hat.

How do you like your bouncing baby boy, Mr Death?

(I forget which American poet wrote that line, but I love it. Something about Buffalo Bill.)

DR
 
Last edited:
Post #11 says "to the terrorists." If they show up to accept surrender, then I suggest we shoot them on the spot.
Click to expand...

Oh, we do shoot them. Whether you believe it or not, there are terrorists in Iraq. A lot of them from the same organization that was responsible for 9-11


Among those captured was a regional al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader who reportedly controlled five al Qaeda cells. The cells are believed to be responsible for attacks on coalition forces in Tikrit and Dawr, officials said.

In addition,coalition forces detained two senior al Qaeda in Iraq leaders and three other suspected terrorists during multiple raids in central and northern Iraq on July 29. A recent detainee provided information that led to the raids, officials said.

In another raid, Iraqi security forces detained a principal financial and logistical coordinator for al Qaeda in Iraq. He was also reportedly the leader of a terrorist cell responsible for kidnappings and makeshift-bomb attacks in Mosul, military officials said.
Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro on which a wheelchair-bound American was killed, was captured by U.S. Special Forces in the outskirts of Baghdad, U.S. Central Command said Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Coalition and Iraqi forces killed six terrorists and captured 32 suspected terrorists today, military officials reported.
Click to expand...

US and Iraqi forces have killed or captured at least 7,000 Al-Qaeda fighters in the past two years, with 30 "senior leaders' taken out of action since July.
Click to expand...
 
BPSCG said:
Talk about framing...

Here's some framing: Why don't we start calling people who want to "defund the war," "surrender advocates" instead? Harry Reid is saying the war is lost; if we've lost the war, then presumably someone else has won it, and we should surrender. Just gotta figure out who we surrender to...

Anyway, what I want to know is why Leos, Aries, and Cancers hate America.
Click to expand...
I'm a Leo. I don't hate America.
 
BPSCG said:
... if we've lost the war, then presumably someone else has won it, and we should surrender. Just gotta figure out who we surrender to...
Click to expand...

As the military says, this is asymetrical warfare. In 1991, we had a conventional war and someone to negotiate treaty terms, Saddam. And that is what happened.

This time, we don't have the traditional, unitary enemy. We are stuck amidst Sunna, Shia, Kurds, Al-Qaida, and maybe others. So, just as asymetric and convention warfare are different, so are the ends different. More specifically, if we leave (surrender, in your words) that does not mean there is a winner. IOW, it's not a zero-sum game.

While I personally agree with what Reid said, there is a way to get out and legitimately call it a win. The original war authorization reads, in part:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to say that those ends have been achieved. So, if you want to keep your zero-sum thinking, Beeps, why not say, "We won!" and get the hell out. What remains to be "won" that is justified by the originally authorized intents?
 
I think the Appropriations bill deserves its own thread so I created one. Don't mean to tread on your toes, Beeps, but I am concerned that your title won't draw all the political junkies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom