News is funny - but war is not

[MacRR]

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q196/rob33333/cnn2.jpg

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q196/rob33333/fox2.jpg

I just took snapshots of their homepages. :lol:

Now that's pretty funny.... but all aside.

I honestly wish Bush would concede this war, save lives, futures, money, or whatever could motivate him to let go of his pride for a second and put our country first.

The poor Iraqi's- by Bush's account they are getting it in both ends- the US on one side and Al Q on the other. Or by a lot of other reputable peoples account, it's more of a civil war. They are so screwed at this point. You can't even apologize for that kind of damage.

And our kick ass soldiers'.... man it is obvious we have the best military in the world. Some doing third tours, risking life and literally limb, managing to hold it all together on the ground. While politicians on US soil can't even respect that enough to plan and execute a war like you mean to win. What the hell are the soldiers supposed to be doing that will bring them home?

They need somebody to cease politically panic freezing and to figure out that either- A) They need a plan right fukn now- yesterday, and then begin executing that plan so they can get out or B) Just get out now since there is no plan. I mean, at least make an educated attempt to do something other than simply stay there.

This war has been an unacceptable train wreck from day one, and it's time to pack our bags and start making peace while ramping up and seriously defending our borders. We'd have a spare 2 billion a week to do so.

[Aurora]

Vietnam Iraq whats the difference? the ones who were draft dodgers during Nam got us into Iraq. Bush thinks he can just throw democracy on top of Islam. He lives in a different reality then most. Now he is saying stay until victory? Is that victory over WMDs? the WMDs that Iraq didnt have? The solution is to leave and break it up into 3 states but our arrogant im never wrong president is wanting to stay the course. 2 more years of him, 50 more before I ever vote republican again.

We had assanine policys that kept us in Nam,we have a assanine policy from this president in Iraq. Stay the course. Maybe if we had a draft of the rich kids this would all change.

[SDW2001]

Vietnam Iraq whats the difference? the ones who were draft dodgers during Nam got us into Iraq. Bush thinks he can just throw democracy on top of Islam. He lives in a different reality then most. Now he is saying stay until victory? Is that victory over WMDs? the WMDs that Iraq didnt have? The solution is to leave and break it up into 3 states but our arrogant im never wrong president is wanting to stay the course. 2 more year of him, 50 more before I ever vote republican again.

We had assanine policys that kept in Nam,we have a assanine policy from this president in Iraq. Stay the course. Maybe if we had a draft of the rich kids this would all change.

Umm...that's dead wrong. We lost Vietnam because we did precisely what shouldn't have done...we fought a half assed war and lost our nerve before we won. We could have won, certainly. Under Nixon the war began to go much better.

Iraq is the same situation. "Victory" is a stable country, and you know it. But you're saying exactly what the dems and some GOPers are: We can't win.

Well that's all there is to it then. Once you think that, then we're done.

[MacRR]

SDW-

We are done. We're like a blackjack player who was up $7 large and are now left with just enough to buy into the next hand. The fat lady is singing.

First of all- Vietnam has historical context if you will, but I think it convolutes the situation- which is plain. We lost the war. It was dumb to get into it in the first place, but there's a lot to be said about admitting defeat, learning from it (make a point to do that for once), and cutting your losses.

GWB needs to read Sun Tzu - because honestly- Sun said it right:

He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Remember- Democracy became plan b after all other excuses to fight fell apart. If democracy was the main goal- we should have fought that way from the beginning. You can't tack that on after everything else fails. Democracy is not an after thought, nor is it something we should subject a population to. I thought that was communism?

We destabilized that country utterly. We've destroyed more than their infrastructure. Honestly, put yourself in the typical Iraqi's shoes. If some other country invaded the US, and made a shithole out of your hometown after bombing it to the stone age, and killing your children- would you savor the sweet taste of democracy?

It’s over.

[sammi jo]

Umm...that's dead wrong. We lost Vietnam because we did precisely what shouldn't have done...we fought a half assed war and lost our nerve before we won. We could have won, certainly. Under Nixon the war began to go much better.

Iraq is the same situation. "Victory" is a stable country, and you know it. But you're saying exactly what the dems and some GOPers are: We can't win.

Well that's all there is to it then. Once you think that, then we're done.

According to the Bush Administration, there will be no withdrawal (or major change in policy in Iraq) until victory is achieved. What exactly is "victory", by definition?

In May 2003, 'mission (was) accomplished'... which could be construed as being true. The two main objectives had been achieved: Saddam Hussein's regime was out of power, and it was determined that no weapons of mass destruction existed to threaten Iraq's neighbors or anyone else. Rhetorically speaking, if "mission was accomplished then".. what are the other unnamed and undefined missions that must exist in order to justify the continued presence of US troops in Iraq?

If victory means a "stable country", then perhaps the US (and the Iraqi government, for what *that* is worth (!?!) should examine the conditions that have existed in Iraq in the past, when it was a (relatively) "stable country". Unfortunately, none of those correlate with "western style democracy". People have lived in that part of the world for 4000 years under patriarchal or authoritarian rule of one form or another, and a successful attempt to impose western societal values that are 180º in opposition to what countless generations have gotten used to for millennia, is utter fantasy land... really, no kidding. And when the reality of "imposition of democracy" for the Iraqi people is 650,000 dead in 3.5 years and destruction of property on a massive scale, then its hardly a wonder that insurgents, as well as the non-combatant Iraqi people are all saying "if this is what demioracy looks like, then you can damn well keep it". Meaning: "get the hell out of our country and don't ever come back".

[thuh Freak]

Iraq is the same situation. "Victory" is a stable country...

I agree, victory is a stable Iraq. How do we stabilize Iraq, to achieve victory? To this end, what have we been doing for the past 3 years? Why have those efforts failed so far? Considering the war effort has been adjusting plans to the enemy and not simply staying the course, why should we trust another failed plan from the same brains?

[southside grabowski]

We really messed this war up. The idea of fighting a politically correct war is preposterous. I knew we were doomed when Muqtada al-Sadr and his lads holed up in the shrine and we didn't incinerate them. Hitler and Hiro Hito were not defeated by politically correct kid gloves.

[jimmac]

Umm...that's dead wrong. We lost Vietnam because we did precisely what shouldn't have done...we fought a half assed war and lost our nerve before we won. We could have won, certainly. Under Nixon the war began to go much better.

Iraq is the same situation. "Victory" is a stable country, and you know it. But you're saying exactly what the dems and some GOPers are: We can't win.

Well that's all there is to it then. Once you think that, then we're done.

Actually it's a war ( just like Iraq ) we shouldn't have gotten into. We got into it for different reasons than were presented to the american public.

Both had wars that were already on going. We shouldn't have got involved.

A quagmire in other words.

In a situation like this there is no victory. Winning was never the point in either place.

The country will never be stable ( just like vietnam ) until we're gone.

[rageous]

We could have won, certainly. Under Nixon the war began to go much better.

What would the United States have "won"?

[Aurora]

Umm...that's dead wrong. We lost Vietnam because we did precisely what shouldn't have done...we fought a half assed war and lost our nerve before we won. We could have won, certainly. Under Nixon the war began to go much better.

Iraq is the same situation. "Victory" is a stable country, and you know it. But you're saying exactly what the dems and some GOPers are: We can't win.

Well that's all there is to it then. Once you think that, then we're done.
Your wrong, you cant win nothing if the people hate you. In vietnam there wasnt anything to win and the people hated us. We were in their land. Same goes for Iraq, there isnt anything to win and the people hate each other and they hate us. Iraq was stable with Saddam running it. The ones who think you can win something are allways the ones who never served,never are the ones on the front lines. Face it with No WMDs there is no reason to be in Iraq. What ever happened to the WMDs? Just another spin phrase from the master of lies.

[MacRR]

Vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq save a fanciful historical context.

Let's not get caught up in that bullshit. I feel like LOL because that's a microcosm of arguments that do nothing for the CURRENT situation.

The problem is the current situation. Vietnam is doing fine right now for all intents and purposes. Iraq is not. Our soldiers are not.

My GF's family are vietnamese refugees (awesome story) and even they are over it (for the most part just because they like being in the US).

Iraq is current. Vietnam is history. there aren't US soldiers dying in Vietnam, we aren't occupying vietnam, and the only expenditures from the US in vietnam are in the private sector.

[@_@ Artman]

Don't remember the exact words but Bush did say to the effect that all "active" or "involved" troops will return after the Iraqi security, armed forces and police are intact. Something like that...

But we will be leaving troops and personnel to guard and run the 14 military bases in Iraq. I guess you can define them as "inactive" since all they'll be doing is hiding behind the base 's fortifications.

I posted these in another thread but it should explain things to why we will never leave.

Oil fields and pipelines in Iraq...

http://gb2.chinabroadcast.cn/report/showdown_iraq/images/Iraqi_oilfields.gif

Permanent U. S. military bases in Iraq...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraq-base-map.jpg

Notice how closely related the oil refineries are to the bases. :no: