Why Do Republicans Hate The Troops?

[friday]

I know it's a loaded question but, it seems as though Republicans don't care how many of our soldiers die in Iraq in order to save face with a failed plan. "W" himself has admitted that Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He also admitted there were no WMD's. So, 3376 fallen soldiers later,...we're still there! The administration keeps changing the reason we're there and Republicans keep falling for it...hook, line and sinker! Wake up! Give our troops a break! We can Save Lives by bringing our troops home.

Italy had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. It is fact that Saddam Hussein had the technology to build a nuclear bomb. Now, its true that Al Qaida may not have been in Iraq when we invaded. It is entirely possible that they did invade the same day we did.

Let me ask you who really hates our troops, the ones who voted them into war, approved a general with a troop surge plan, and now are cutting off their supplies, declaring victory for our enemies, and planning to surrender only after leaving our troops there for another six months? Or the party who still believes our troops can win and wants to give them the resources they need to fight Al Qaida (who is responsible for 9/11) in Iraq?

 

[Lerxst]

Regardless of why we went in? We are there? We did it?

I guess the difference is that you want to "see this thing through" even though, it seems, you might accept it was wrong in the first place.

I fully believe we had no business invading Iraq. Period. I do believe there were legitimate justifications on the table, but they were not what I considered worthy of occupation of a country over. Others obviously disagree. Regardless, we went in. When we did we obliterated the government in that country. Gone. We left them with no way to administrate their state and care for their people. Hence our occupation and foray into nation building. And despite what some on here will contend, we played a major part in opening gates and allowing the sectarian lions to run loose amongst the lambs. That situation threatens to leave Iraq a failed state. For all of the very transparent fear mongering that has gone on in Washington, a failed state in Iraq will make those fears a very real and very deadly reality...not just for the U.S. but for many nations on this planet. A failed state is ripe training ground for radical Islamism. It offers it's occupants no hope and no alternative. And the blame for that failed state will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. That wound is already infected. Failure now allow it to fester and spread. Whether we like this or not, whether we agree with the invasion or not, it is in our best interest to succeed. It is crucial that we succeed. If we do not, we will fight this war for decades and decades to come. My grandchildren will be fighting it, and so will there children. This war is no longer about just Iraq. We got ourselves into a real mess over there and now we have to find a way to fix it. Islamic terrorism was certainly an issue prior to the invasion of Iraq, as we all saw. But now it is worse. Much worse. Pulling out will only ease the U.S. body count there. It will climb elsewhere because there will be an entire oil rich nation ripe for the picking by Iran and others. That is a hell of a lot of resources to pour into revenge. We must do everything we can to set the Iraqi's up to win now. It is a strong Iraq that will close this wound and allow it to begin the long healing process. I know this sounds somewhat cliche' but it's true in my opinion.

I think we are creating more enemies by being there. More of the world hates us now. Remember what it felt like weeks after 9/11. We had the world's support behind us. I supported this president, but we have to face the fact that this administration went in with a failed plan. More soldiers are dying now but you guys think we're making progress! What has to happen for you to say enough is enough?

Of course we are creating more enemies there right now. But the insurgency is still in full swing. We are learning that we did not have an adequate plan to deal with this and have been slow to change up our strategy. As such, through corruption and certain incompetencies, we have prolonged the plight of the Iraqi people. The insurgency and the terrorists are taking full advantage of this and exacerbating the problem through their killing of scores of innocent people.

Know this. The insurgency and the terrorists are cowards. They are not fierce warriors. They prey upon and kill innocent, unarmed civilians. They are incapable of defeating our forces in this war. There tactic is to keep Iraq in chaos and bide their time until the American public forces their politicians to pull our troops. And then the show will really start.

Our border security is a joke. Our Homeland Security is a joke. We are still trying to convince the bureaucracy in Washington to actually implement efficient and effective plans to bolster our national security. You know what they are doing? Spending billions in Homeland Security money on what to do "after the bomb goes off" and how to recover from natural disasters. While the law enforcement apparatus that could potentially defeat these murderers before they strike is left scarcely able to meet it's annual operating expenses (in the wake of the virtual gutting of the Justice programs by Bush and Congress). We are not secure enough to just pull our troops and live in fortress America. That fortress has too many gaping holes in it.

Oh you better believe we have to win over there. We don't have a choice in this matter. If we don't we will feel the knives of our enemies at our throats for years to come. The body count in Iraq to this point will pale in comparison to what innocents will suffer at their hands. That's not fear mongering, that's a fact. Bush may have led us into this thing through bad intel and outright deceit, but we have no choice but to find victory now. To think we can just let Iraq tailspin into a failed state and it not become our worst nightmare realized is sheer folly.

Just my .02.

 

[Panache]

"If you fail to pay the butcher up front, you will pay in interest later."

Does it not make more sense to pay a price outright rather than charge it with interest due?

That depends on what kind of interest you gain in the meantime.

If you have $100 and can invest it for 25% annual return, and the proverbial butcher is only charging 5% in interest each year, it makes more sense to pay the butcher $105 in a year, than to pay him $100 now.

If you are tired of the finance metaphore (I know I am) look at it this way. We could waste another $500 BIllion dollars on trying to protect the different warring factions from each other, or we could invest it in our own infrastructure/economy/schools/etc...

This isn't a war where its us against them. Its us caught in the middle of a variety of different warring factions (factions, I might add, that have been at it for quite a while). If we leave, they arn't going to all set aside their differences and gang up on us. They are probably going to go back to killing each other. (as they have been since long before 9/11)

So while we are creating jobs, bolstering our economy, and just generally setting a good example of prosperity, all of their resources will be devoted to killing each other.

So when the time comes to pay the butcher, and the butcher turns out to be whatever's left after a bloody civil war with enormous casualties on both sides, we will be in a stronger position than we are now, and they will be in a weaker position.

 

[Lerxst]

So when the time comes to pay the butcher, and the butcher turns out to be whatever's left after a bloody civil war with enormous casualties on both sides, we will be in a stronger position than we are now, and they will be in a weaker position.

You are speaking as if the butcher is Iraq. The butcher is a radical and burgeoning sect of Islam. And Islam is global. The avengers will come from all over, not just Iraq. Our abandonment of the Iraqi people will reinforce their hatred of us even further. In their mind when we went to war with Iraq, we went to war with all Islam.

 

[Panache]

The butcher is a radical and burgeoning sect of Islam.

Do you mean the Sunni sect? Certainly we have the most cause to hate them.

Do you mean the Shiite sect? arguably they have the most cause to hate us.

And Islam is global. The avengers will come from all over, not just Iraq. Our abandonment of the Iraqi people will reinforce their hatred of us even further. In their mind when we went to war with Iraq, we went to war with all Islam.

We can't go to war with all of Islam. Islam is already at war with Islam, so going to war with all of Islam means that we are allying ourselves with all Islam as well.

The Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other a lot longer than they have hated America, and the hostilities between them run a lot deeper. I don't think either group is keen on having us stick our nose in their business, so I doubt that either sect will bemoan our leaving too loudly, regardless of whether they are in Iraq or not.

Iraq is not the only place in the world where the Sunnis and Shiites don't get along. Trying to protect them both from each other is not going to improve our image in the eyes of Islam on a global level any more than it will on a local level.

 

[Lerxst]

Do you mean the Sunni sect? Certainly we have the most cause to hate them.

Do you mean the Shiite sect? arguably they have the most cause to hate us.



We can't go to war with all of Islam. Islam is already at war with Islam, so going to war with all of Islam means that we are allying ourselves with all Islam as well.

The Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other a lot longer than they have hated America, and the hostilities between them run a lot deeper. I don't think either group is keen on having us stick our nose in their business, so I doubt that either sect will bemoan our leaving too loudly, regardless of whether they are in Iraq or not.

Iraq is not the only place in the world where the Sunnis and Shiites don't get along. Trying to protect them both from each other is not going to improve our image in the eyes of Islam on a global level any more than it will on a local level.

You have missed the point of my post. Our enemy here is not just the Iraqi insurgents or terrorists there. The RIF's are coming from all over the globe. Iraq is their rallying cry. Of course we can't go to war with all of Islam. But in the eye's of the RIF's, and some other groups of Muslims, we already have gone to war with all of Islam. To them Islam is not just a religion, it is a nation that transcends all borders and state identities. To them, national sovereignty is a western concept, all Muslim countries constitute the whole of the nation of Islam. You attack one you attack them all.

So my point was that your point about simply waiting for the smoke to clear in Iraq while we build up at home is to short sighted. Why? Because Iraq is the rallying point. If we just pull out we go from fighting a raging fire to actually pulling a fuel tanker up to it and walking away. The tanker will explode before the fire dies out and the smoke clears. We need to step up and do our best to fight these fires.

 

[RBLpolitics]

Say we didn't opt to do anything of substance in the Middle East. Say we simply waited until later when more people could see that somehting has to change. Would not more Americans die after we decided to do something then?

You're kidding, right?

If there was a "real" reason to go into Iraq, we would have had a "real" multi national coalition behind us. Our troops wouldn't be stop lossed into another exhausting tour because we're having to do everything ourselves. We would've had other countries sharing in the work, and the casualties. The problem is, there was no "real" reason to invade Iraq. So we're left to deal with the mess we created.

Had we opted to concentrate our forces into Afghanistan and take down Bin Laden and the Taliban(remember them?) we would be in a better situation to deal with Iraq. Thousands of our soldiers would still be alive and ready for the right time if needed.

War takes careful planning, you should know. This has been nothing short of reckless.

 

[Panache]

Our abandonment of the Iraqi people will reinforce their hatred of us even further. In their mind when we went to war with Iraq, we went to war with all Islam.

Perhaps I am simply lacking some information about Islamic psychology, but I don't see how us "abandoning" Iraq will reinforce their hatred.

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that Chinese forces were to invade Ireland, in an attempt to make the Catholics and Protestants play nicely together. The Catholics would resent the Chinese for interfering, and the Protestants would resent the Chinese for interfering.

Should the Chinese be scared to leave for fear that they would be seen as "abandoning" the Christian people? Would Christians around the world see China leaving Ireland as an act of war against Christianity?

I think Catholics and Protestants alike would agree that it was about time the Chinese stopped sticking their nose in affairs that were not their own.

Or to put it another way, which radical Islamic sects do you suppose actually want us to tay in Iraq?

 

[Karmashock]

Perhaps I am simply lacking some information about Islamic psychology, but I don't see how us "abandoning" Iraq will reinforce their hatred.

Then you're not a student of history or human psychology. Turning your back on an enemy that hates you does NOT make them leave you alone. They see that as weakness and tend to despise you more for it. There are literally thousands of historical examples of this...


Perhaps a source you'd respect:

If you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you. On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous. But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.

-Machiavelli

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that Chinese forces were to invade Ireland, in an attempt to make the Catholics and Protestants play nicely together. The Catholics would resent the Chinese for interfering, and the Protestants would resent the Chinese for interfering.

Should the Chinese be scared to leave for fear that they would be seen as "abandoning" the Christian people? Would Christians around the world see China leaving Ireland as an act of war against Christianity?

false analogy.


you're not accounting for the US relationship which china does not have in ireland... you're not accounting for saddam... and you're not accounting for Iran.


You have to have all those elements in your analogy.

Or to put it another way, which radical Islamic sects do you suppose actually want us to tay in Iraq?

I assume no radical islamic sect wants us there but they don't make up a significant portion of the population. Most people want to live in a safe and logical society.

 

[Lerxst]

Perhaps I am simply lacking some information about Islamic psychology, but I don't see how us "abandoning" Iraq will reinforce their hatred.

My point is that if we leave Iraq it will plunge straight into a failed state. The suffering of the people will be immeasurable. It will make their current plight seem like a hot summer day without AC. That failure and subsequent suffering will be our fault because we A.) came in and destroyed their government, and B.) left before re-establishing their ability to administrate the needs of the state. Radical Islam will use that to further vilify the U.S. and call for revenge against. Payback will come from around the globe.

Further, Christianity does not have a unified world view like Islam does. Nation states are a decidedly western concept in this area. Islam is Islam, nation states are just lines on a map in the concept. All fall under the nation of Islam which they believe should rightfully ruled over by a single Caliph.

Our trespass, in their minds, was not against just Iraq...it was against the nation of Islam.

 

[MSgt]

You're kidding, right?

Nope.

If there was a "real" reason to go into Iraq, we would have had a "real" multi national coalition behind us.

I'd go ahead and abandon this train of thought. Were there any "real" reason, we would have a multi national coalition to stop mass murder like what we saw in Rwanda and Sudan. But, apparantly genocide isn't a "real" reason either. There was a reason for Iraq as I clearly outlined for you. It's just not reason enough for you. But if you actually looked at the Middle East and where it is heading, you might change your mind a bit. These terrorists that have been attacking my kind for 14 years didn't come from a small island off the coast of Saudi Arabia and they certainly didn't make their presence known on 9/11 when American civilians decided that war for revenge is what's best for the troop. Anyone that was paying attention would not have been surpised on the morning of September 11, 2001.

This failing civilization is headed staight for hell and until we knocked the door down in Iraq, the troop was being set up for extreme blood shed all for the sake of oil stability. The minority of this population believe in a vengeful, blood thirsty god. And it would be a wonderfully politically correct thing to mention that the vast majority of the Middle East is not the problem, but it would be of no consequence since the fundamental minority are the ones at the helm. They are determined to create a hell on earth and the product of their radicalism is the armed warrior for god. He may preach that he murders civilians out of rage for American sins upon his world (though his stated reasons are alwaysexaggerated or simply rediculous), but ultimately he is pleasing the god he has been so indoctrinated to.

We are headed for something big and the longer we wait, the larger the enemy will become. So, while you remain determined to think that pulling out of the Middle East will save our troops lives, you are merely protesting to reserve them for a much larger and deadlier fight in the future.

Our troops wouldn't be stop lossed into another exhausting tour because we're having to do everything ourselves. We would've had other countries sharing in the work, and the casualties.

We've been going it alone since the end of the World War. Even the Gulf War with all the representation of other nations was an event led by Americans and overwhelmingly largely conducted by Americans. Somalia was an exercise that saw U.S. Marines invade the beach and American troops doing most of the work throughout while coalition forces babysat peaceful sectors.

And the reasons we are exhausting the reserves and stop lossing our troops is because we are too few in the Active Forces. We are literally located in every corner of the world and simply cannot complete our missions in the 21st century. Iraq will not be the end of this war. We are already looking at a strong presence in Africa.

Had we opted to concentrate our forces into Afghanistan and take down Bin Laden and the Taliban(remember them?) we would be in a better situation to deal with Iraq. Thousands of our soldiers would still be alive and ready for the right time if needed.

Oh. You are one of those.

To answer your question, "yes" I do remember the Tali-Ban and Bin Ladden. It took us three weeks to wreck the Tali-Ban and after another year we helped Afghanis install a democracy. In fact, thousands and thousands of American troops continue to pour into Afghanistan and do most of the work, despite a coalition presence, to this very day. And we have every indication to believe that Bin Ladden is dead.

But, like I said...this effort is not about chasing down a few terrorists because of 9/11. We have almost two decades of Arab terrorism that went unmolested. This has been an exponentially growing problem throughout the world and our government only cared on 9/11. This enemy has been boasting to us their intentions for years and we ignored them, because aknowledging them would be too inconvenient. Continuing to chase down terrorists as this civilization breeds them is like punching thin air.

War takes careful planning, you should know. This has been nothing short of reckless.

Yes it has. This is what happens when men that never served fool themselves into knowing better than the warfighters. Every rule for occupation was dismissed and every military basic for assault was scoffed. I can write out exactly where our civilian leadership failed us throughout our efforts in Iraq and throughout the decade prior if you like. It would be a bit more detailed than just safely assuming the act itself was the mistake though. We have been making mistakes since 1994.

 

[Panache]

Perhaps a source you'd respect:

You are quite correct, however Machiavelli was specifically discussing a situation in which you are pressured by a superior force to yeild some resource being contested.

will seek to extort further concessions

But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you

Machiavelli is quite correct that when faced with demands by a superior force, it is better to put on a show of defiance and assume airs of confidence than to meekly give in to their demands.

In this case however, we are not faced with a superior force. In direct confrontation, we always come out on top. Thus we should seek to place ourselves in a position where we must be confronted directly.

As the superior force, we have no need for pretension. We have the stronger military force, and they know we have the stronger military force, our allies all know we have the stronger military force. We don't need to put on a show of standing up.

This text has more application to our Enemies, who are in fact standing up against our superior military force, rather than yielding to our demands that they play nicely together.

It is worth noting that Machiavelli is once again correct, in that their Allies see their defiance of us and respect them more for it, and take up arms where they otherwise would not have.

By maintaining our presence, we allow them to continue this David vs. Goliath display of bravado, and they will continue to gain support.

Furthermore, our allies are not seeing our brave display of standing up against the mighty Islamic military and coming to our aid. On the contrary, most of our allies do not support the war, and even advised us against it prior to our confrontation. So we do not need to be concerned that our Allies will see our withdrawal as a weakness and withdraw their (nonexistant) support.

Further, Christianity does not have a unified world view like Islam does. Nation states are a decidedly western concept in this area. Islam is Islam, nation states are just lines on a map in the concept. All fall under the nation of Islam which they believe should rightfully ruled over by a single Caliph.

And in that my analogy is flawed. However, my point was that extremist activism is related to a person's situation and environment.

The Catholics and Protestants in Ireland are happy to kill each other over their religious differences.

The Caltholics and Protestants who live on my street go Christmas caroling together.

I don't think the the Islamic guy who cuts my hair is going to take up arms against America.

I assume no radical islamic sect wants us there but they don't make up a significant portion of the population. Most people want to live in a safe and logical society.

Exactly. None of the radical sects want us to be there, so they will have no reason to object to us leaving. The people who want to live in a safe and logical society are not going to attack America, because there is no reason to believe that attacking America will make their lives any more safe or logical.

So who is going to hate us for leaving enough to attack us? The radical Islamic sects that want us to leave, or the people who want to live in a safe and logical society?

That failure and subsequent suffering will be our fault because we A.) came in and destroyed their government, and B.) left before re-establishing their ability to administrate the needs of the state.

This is the same reasoning that 9/11 apologists use to say that 9/11 was our fault.

Lets be clear here. If we leave, we will not be causing any suffering. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who are actually causing the suffering, namely the radical Islamic forces. I think those who value a safe and logical society will bear more ill will toward the extremests who are actually causing suffering than they will toward American for not staying in Iraq indefinitely.

That said, I don't think we need to pack up and leave tommorow morning. We need to shift responsibility to the Iraqi governement. We should set a date for our departure, and tell them that we will continue to help them until then.

When they see that we are serious about leaving, the people who want to live in a safe and logical society will get to work on making sure that they are ready to deal with insurgency.

If we give them every impression that we will continue to pay for their well being out of our own pocket, they will have every reason to put off being self sufficient for as long as they can get American taxpayers to foot the bill.

We would not be turning our back on the enemy by saying that we are going home, and then doing so. It would not give the enemy any tactical advantage over US troops to know that they will be gone by a certain date. There is no reason not to set a timeline for withdrawal.

 

[Tashah]

Lets be clear here. If we leave, we will not be causing any suffering. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who are actually causing the suffering, namely the radical Islamic forces.

Regardless of where the blame for suffering reposes, to asert that the withdrawal of US forces would not exacerbate said suffering is disingenuous. One only has to look at the Iraqi infrastructure to deduce this.

We would not be turning our back on the enemy by saying that we are going home, and then doing so. It would not give the enemy any tactical advantage over US troops to know that they will be gone by a certain date. There is no reason not to set a timeline for withdrawal.

Lol. Clearly you have never been in the military.

 

[Panache]

Regardless of where the blame for suffering reposes, to asert that the withdrawal of US forces would not exacerbate said suffering is disingenuous. One only has to look at the Iraqi infrastructure to deduce this.

Again I return to the 9/11 comparison. In hindsight, there are things we could have done to prevent/minimize the damage. If we had managed our relationships in the middle east in a different way, we might not have been attacked at all.

Regardless of what we could or could not have done, 9/11 was no-ones fault except for thoses terrorists who were involved in its planning and execution.

To say that America would be at fault for suffering in Iraq at the hands of terrorists is no different from saying that America was at fault for the suffering in America at the hands of terrorists.

The only people responsible for suffering at the hands of terrorists, are terrorists.

Lol. Clearly you have never been in the military.

I have not. Please tell me how knowing that we will leave Iraq in October will enable Islamic radicals to kill more American troops than if they were given to understand that we would be there indefinitely.

 

[Volker]

Lets be clear here. If we leave, we will not be causing any suffering. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who are actually causing the suffering, namely the radical Islamic forces. I think those who value a safe and logical society will bear more ill will toward the extremests who are actually causing suffering than they will toward American for not staying in Iraq indefinitely.

If the coalition troops leave, they are not to blame for things which happen in Iraq from the moment on they left.

That said, I don't think we need to pack up and leave tommorow morning. We need to shift responsibility to the Iraqi governement. We should set a date for our departure, and tell them that we will continue to help them until then.

When they see that we are serious about leaving, the people who want to live in a safe and logical society will get to work on making sure that they are ready to deal with insurgency.

If we give them every impression that we will continue to pay for their well being out of our own pocket, they will have every reason to put off being self sufficient for as long as they can get American taxpayers to foot the bill.

We would not be turning our back on the enemy by saying that we are going home, and then doing so. It would not give the enemy any tactical advantage over US troops to know that they will be gone by a certain date. There is no reason not to set a timeline for withdrawal.

There is no rational reason for not setting a timeline except for those guys who are making money with this war.

 

[Tashah]

Again I return to the 9/11 comparison. In hindsight, there are things we could have done to prevent/minimize the damage. If we had managed our relationships in the middle east in a different way, we might not have been attacked at all.

Managed our relationships? Have you read OBL's demands? If so, then you should understand that there would be nothing left to manage in the ME beyond the departure travel arrangements.

Regardless of what we could or could not have done, 9/11 was no-ones fault except for thoses terrorists who were involved in its planning and execution.

One can't use 9/11 as an analogy for Iraq. They are two different events in time, place, and scope.

To say that America would be at fault for suffering in Iraq at the hands of terrorists is no different from saying that America was at fault for the suffering in America at the hands of terrorists.

I never said that. YOU said an American withdrawal would not engender additional suffering. I showed you via the infrastructure exemplar that your statement is incorrect.

I have not. Please tell me how knowing that we will leave Iraq in October will enable Islamic radicals to kill more American troops than if they were given to understand that we would be there indefinitely.

The US is in this fix because it made core assumptions that turned out to be very wrong. You seem to be making a core assumption here. You assume that a US pullout in October - for example - would be the finalé. I would like to know what you base this assumption on. I (and others) don't quite understand how you can posit (or imagine) that the US would never return to Iraq under any circumstance. Prescience?

 

[disneydude]

They are with few exceptions patriots and those that aren't have no business being there. They are our champions. Our heros. They go into fire and ash... to fight for this republic. And we will use them. Not abuse them... not discount them... not take them for granted... not treat them like poker chips in a game. We will out fit them with the finest hardware in the world. Designed by the finest military engineers in the world. We will give them the best training of any military force in the world. They will be backed up with air support, sea support, and vast land based logistical networks to see that they get what they need when they need it. Death from above? Point your laser GPS target painter and say "die" into a radio. It goes on and on... The american people are supporting the troops. There might be political wavering but the muscle of the country remains behind the troops. Our champions will not give up their blood easily sir. Often I'm quiet sure the enemy has realized exactly how expensive trying to take american blood really is... Typical attempts yield NO american dead and perhaps 30-200 enemy dead. That's a hard lesson for the enemy... and one that should be taught without mercy. It is in the interest of this people to see to it that our enemies are defeated utterly. Our enemies cry "death to america"... their cries have not gone unheard... and they shall be answered with thunder and lightening.

I agree with pretty much most of your post. However...it is this last part that I have quoted here that I think actually speaks to why we SHOULD leave Iraq.

Our soldiers/Our heroes should be used but not abused - GWB/Cheney/Rumsfield have abused our military like no other administration in the history of this Country. The neo-cons wanted to invade Iraq for years. There were no WMD's - that was just the lie to justify the mission. There was no link with 911 - that was just the lie to justify the agenda.

Our troops are not to be taken for granted or treated like chips in a poker game - worse, GWB has treated our troops like pawns in a chess game. Willingly giving them up in order to continue his game. George Bush's statement that "no one cares more or suffers more about our troops than Laura and myself"...was a slap in the face to every soldier and every family who has lost a loved one or had a loved one maimed or injured.

We will outfit them with the finest hardware in the world - Well, we all know how this went. When our troops get the same armored vehicles that John McCain had when he went on his mission there....I will believe this.

Our enemies cry "death the America" - That is true....but I don't know what is worse, having our enemies say that or having our "President" give the American public the finger and say "FU America" which essentially what "The Decider" has told Americans over and over.

 

[Karmashock]

You are quite correct, however Machiavelli was specifically discussing a situation in which you are pressured by a superior force to yeild some resource being contested.

No, he was talking about appeasing an enemy that hates you. He was just further saying that your odds of survival are still better if you fight then if you appease them... even if they're stronger then you.

Your interpretation of the text was entirely based on the notion that because we have more power then the enemy that it does not apply.

I'm going to go over this text sentence by sentence just to demonstrate how completely wrong your interpretation of it was... not as a burn or insult but simply to hammer the point home that the "superior" forces thing is NOT an exception.

If you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war.

Here is the first statement. He is saying that if you give way to an enemy or rival to avoid conflict... by giving them some concessions they threatened they needed to avoid war... it "more often then not" does not avoid war.


nothing about superior forces there.

For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you.

Here he is saying that if you show weakness before an enemy, they "will not stop there", but will press you for more concessions. And the more they hate you, the more incensed they will become if you grant these concessions.

nothing about superior forces there.

On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous.

If you give way to a hated enemy your allies will distance themselves from you because you look like you're weak or seem cowardly.


nothing about superior forces there.

But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.

If you prepare for war the moment you realize your enemy acts aggressively towards you, EVEN if your forces are inferior to the enemy, he will at least start to respect you. Furthermore, since your allies see that you are prepared to fight to defend yourself and are not a coward you will be more likely to count upon their support. If you had given up, your allies would never have come to your aid.


You tried to use this line "even though your forces be inferior to his" to try to say that the whole passage only applied to situations where you're faced with a superior force. Which as I've made clear... is nonsense. The term "even" means that his above statements STILL apply or "Even" apply in situations where the enemy is stronger. NOT "only if" there is a massive difference which you have to recognize. You can dismiss what he's saying... say he doesn't know what he's talking about... or whatever you like. But you cannot say that his statement cannot be applied to our situation. This quote DIRECTLY applies to it. That doesn't mean he's right or wrong. Merely that he is talking about just THIS sort of problem.


The US has thus far acted in accordance with what it would seem he would recommend. And despite being heckled by our enemies our allies have held with us through this problem. Remember, many of the nations that make practice of harassing us have a long history of being vocal enemies of the US or at the very least consistent critics. Where as our real allies have generally helped us.
==========================================

Our soldiers/Our heroes should be used but not abused - GWB/Cheney/Rumsfield have abused our military like no other administration in the history of this Country. The neo-cons wanted to invade Iraq for years. There were no WMD's - that was just the lie to justify the mission. There was no link with 911 - that was just the lie to justify the agenda.

First, exaggerating only hurts your argument... I think the spanish american war was probably a bigger abuse of hte military... or perhaps the mexican american war... or if you like most of the campaigns against the indians.

You might also consider vietnam or Korea.


All of these would be under any logic that declared Iraq and abuse, larger abuses in themselves.



Furthermore, by demonizing a political faction you make your argument sound like a politically motivated statement instead of a morally or logically grounded one.


So... right off the bat, you're off to a very bad start.

Our troops are not to be taken for granted or treated like chips in a poker game - worse, GWB has treated our troops like pawns in a chess game. Willingly giving them up in order to continue his game. George Bush's statement that "no one cares more or suffers more about our troops than Laura and myself"...was a slap in the face to every soldier and every family who has lost a loved one or had a loved one maimed or injured.

There's no justification for that statement. We've lost very very few people in this conflict considering the scale and scope.

What can be said is that he is treating our tax dollars like poker chips... but you can't say he's treating our soldiers like poker chips.

We will outfit them with the finest hardware in the world - Well, we all know how this went. When our troops get the same armored vehicles that John McCain had when he went on his mission there....I will believe this.

Our armor and equipment is still the best in the world.


that's a fact and you own it to your own intellectual integrity to admit it.

Our enemies cry "death the America" - That is true....but I don't know what is worse, having our enemies say that or having our "President" give the American public the finger and say "FU America" which essentially what "The Decider" has told Americans over and over.

This is more a reflection of your political bias then it is anything objective. The president has, I think most would agree, tried to do the right thing by his own judgment of what that is... I understand that you disagree with that judgment but there is a difference between doing something you don't agree with and intentionally hurting the country.

 

[Panache]

To say that America would be at fault for suffering in Iraq at the hands of terrorists is no different from saying that America was at fault for the suffering in America at the hands of terrorists.

I never said that. YOU said an American withdrawal would not engender additional suffering.

You did not say that America would be at fault, but JeffMerriman did.

That failure and subsequent suffering will be our fault because we A.) came in and destroyed their government, and B.) left before re-establishing their ability to administrate the needs of the state

I argued that the suffering would not be our fault. This was my response:

Lets be clear here. If we leave, we will not be causing any suffering. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of those who are actually causing the suffering, namely the radical Islamic forces.

No where in here did I say that an american withdrawal would not "engender additional suffering," nor did I say that there would not be additional suffering after we left. I said that America and American troops would not be the ones at fault.

Managed our relationships? Have you read OBL's demands? If so, then you should understand that there would be nothing left to manage in the ME beyond the departure travel arrangements.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive you are reffering to a letter issued Sunday November 24, 2002. These are demands that were issued after 9/11, and long after we started making enemies in the middle east.

Why is it that everyone seems to think that "managing relationships" is the same as "giving into outrageous demands."

Have OBLs demands been issued to Ethiopia? They arn't an Islamic nation. Have they been issued to Switzerland? They arn't an Islamic nation either.

It is ridiculous to think that the only way we could have avoided our current entaglments would have been to give into OBLs demands. Canada seems to have avoided becoming the target of such passionate hatred, and yet they have an almost identical culture and lifestyle.

In fact, Canada is much more liberal regarding things like homosexuality, which was one of the things mentioned in OBLs rant against the US, so why has OBL issued demands to the US and not to Canada?

One can't use 9/11 as an analogy for Iraq. They are two different events in time, place, and scope.

time place and scope have no bearing on the fact that when a terrorist causes suffering, it is the fault of the terrorist, and no one else.

The US is in this fix because it made core assumptions that turned out to be very wrong. You seem to be making a core assumption here. You assume that a US pullout in October - for example - would be the finalé. I would like to know what you base this assumption on. I (and others) don't quite understand how you can posit (or imagine) that the US would never return to Iraq under any circumstance. Prescience?

I have never suggested that the US would never return to Iraq. In fact, I think it is almost inevitable that we will return to Iraq, regardless of whether we set a timeline or not.

Even if we set up a functioning Democracy in Iraq, and the government stabilizes, you think all of Iraq's neighbors are going to suddenly decide to be friendly to them? The one Democractic Nation in the middle east, surrounded on all sides by hostile non-Democratic states who feel threatened by Democracy... You do the math.

We either return to Iraq to counter the threat of radical Islamic forces there, or we will return to give military aid to our new ally every time they get in a fight with their neighbors. We go back to Iraq either way.

My specific question though, was how a timeline will provide insurgents with a tactical advantage over US troops in the meantime.

According to you, the answer to this question will be obvious anyone in the military, so it should be a fairly easy one.

 

[Panache]

You tried to use this line " even though your forces be inferior to his" to try to say that the whole passage only applied to situations where you're faced with a superior force. Which as I've made clear... is nonsense. The term "even" means that his above statements STILL apply or "Even" apply in situations where the enemy is stronger. NOT "only if" there is a massive difference which you have to recognize.

I think you have equivicated the term "even" incorrectly.

Consider the following statements:

Even though your engine is dead, you can still make a safe landing by immediately trimming for best glide speed, and selecting a suitable feild that is clear of obstruction.

Even if you were correct about Machiavelli's meaning in Discourses Book II, the US Military will not be seen as weak, because "our armor and equipment is still the best in the world."

In the first instance, the words "even though" are used to assume that your engine has failed. In the event that your engine is still running, trimming for best glide speed and selecting a suitable field that is clear of obstruction is not the best course of action. The best course of action if your engine is running is to maintain an efficient cruise speed and continue flying your course.

In the second instance, the words "even if" are used to indicated that the latter portion of the statement (that the US military would not be seen as weak) is true, regardless of whether or not the former portion (that you were correct regarding Machiavelli's meaning in Discourses Book II) was true or not.

So despite the common use of the word "even," on usage is dependent upon a condition, and one is not.

Now lets look at the word "though" and "if" respectively. the word "though" in the first instance makes the assumtion of the condition to follow.

Other example of this include "I suppose you can have some pudding, even though you didn't eat your meat." and "even though you were wrong about the use of the word "even" in Discourses II, the Machiavelli quote made me stop and think."

The word "if" in the second instance implies that the conclusion is supported independently of the truth value of the statement preceeding the conclusion in the sentance.

Other examples include "Even if you can't read, you should still be able to speak properly." and "Even if we were to make guns illegal, there would still be gun related violence in America."

Now lets look at the original quote.

"even though your forces be inferior to his"

Here is the first statement. He is saying that if you give way to an enemy or rival to avoid conflict... by giving them some concessions they threatened they needed to avoid war... it "more often then not" does not avoid war.


nothing about superior forces there.

As has been pointed out by people other than myself, the only concession that our enemy has threatened they need in order to avoid war is the absolute adoption of Fundamentalist Islam.

I am proposing that we set a timeline to bring our troops home. I am not advocating that we abandon the First Amendment.

Here he is saying that if you show weakness before an enemy, they "will not stop there", but will press you for more concessions. And the more they hate you, the more incensed they will become if you grant these concessions.

nothing about superior forces there.

I do not believe that it shows weakness to tell the Iraqi government that we are willing to help them, but they need to be ready by such and such a date, because we are going home.

And even if it did (or even though it did, depending on who you ask), the radical Islamic forces can go ahead and underestimate us. It only helps to have the enemy overestimate you if you are the underdog.

If you give way to a hated enemy your allies will distance themselves from you because you look like you're weak or seem cowardly.


nothing about superior forces there.

I doubt England is going to distance itself from America in the belief that its military strength is weaker than that of Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps this would be the case if our withdrawal was actually viewed as an admission of inferior firepower, but as I have already said, we would be making no such admission.

 

[talloulou]

Clearly it's because we're monsters.

 

[MSgt]

My specific question though, was how a timeline will provide insurgents with a tactical advantage over US troops in the meantime.

According to you, the answer to this question will be obvious anyone in the military, so it should be a fairly easy one.

It is an easy one. Speaking in terms of the terrorist enemy and *not* so much the Sunni insurgency......

The nature of this enemy is to achieve glory through the fight. He does not have some fantastical dream to ever defeat America or to defeat our military. What he does have is a burning thirst to embarrass and to strike. An enemy that sees death as its own reward is a dangerous enemy. His organizations are made up of empty souls petrified and angered at the disapointments of adulthood. Their societies are wrecked and every Radical cleric in the Middle East have instructed them that it is not the fault of their god fearing culture or their stagnate prescriptions, but ours. It is a fact that there isn't much that can happen in the Middle East that isn't blamed on the "Great and Little Satan."

In Somalia, our military was attacked in Mogadishu by Al-Queda and its agents. Despite the complete lopsided death count, Islam's terrorists saw only defeat as their martyrs rose up and struck at the "Great Satan." They saw two helicopters shot down and a soldier dragged through the streets. And to top it off, we tucked our tails and ran from Somalia as fast as our boats could carry us. This is the great victory that Al-Queda first had against us.

Later throughout the 90's we saw embassies bombed, a troop barracks bombed, and even a Naval Warship crippled. Failing to do nothing of substance, we continued to look weak in the face of Islamic heroism and strength. Bin Ladden even wrote on our weakness and specified these events. They were rallying cries for every disgruntled futureless youth in the region looking for a higher purpose in this world.

Then came 9/11.

Our activities in Iraq have been horribly managed by inept Washington suits who never donned a military uniform in their lives. With every scandal we produced, our enemies used it to embarrass us. Al-Jazeera even took on the mission of inventing news for the ignorant masses who knew no better. Now we have reached the beginning of the end in regards to our presence in Iraq. We can easily look back and see a batered wrecked Al-Queda since 9/11. We destroyed their base in Afghanistan and destroyed their ranks when they followed us to Iraq. But a date of withdraw will give them every popportunity to take advantage of saving face. They will commence to attacking and doing anything possible to prove that they defeated the "Great Satan" before we leave. Plenty of troops will be targetted for death just to hammer the point home that they fought us and they won. They will seek to inspire the next generation of recruits who will be fooled into thinking that all it takes to defeat the Amercian military is to shed their blood like in Somalia. And they will be waiting for us in the future at every time, whether we talk of missions of liberation, humanitarian missions, or simple embassy duty in a peaceful African country.

The best course for leaving Iraq is to one day just leave.

 

[Captain America]

Semper Fi Gunny.

Semper ****in' Fi!

 

[Iriemon]

It is an easy one. Speaking in terms of the terrorist enemy and *not* so much the Sunni insurgency......

The nature of this enemy is to achieve glory through the fight. He does not have some fantastical dream to ever defeat America or to defeat our military. What he does have is a burning thirst to embarrass and to strike. An enemy that sees death as its own reward is a dangerous enemy. His organizations are made up of empty souls petrified and angered at the disapointments of adulthood. Their societies are wrecked and every Radical cleric in the Middle East have instructed them that it is not the fault of their god fearing culture or their stagnate prescriptions, but ours. It is a fact that there isn't much that can happen in the Middle East that isn't blamed on the "Great and Little Satan."

In Somalia, our military was attacked in Mogadishu by Al-Queda and its agents. Despite the complete lopsided death count, Islam's terrorists saw only defeat as their martyrs rose up and struck at the "Great Satan." They saw two helicopters shot down and a soldier dragged through the streets. And to top it off, we tucked our tails and ran from Somalia as fast as our boats could carry us. This is the great victory that Al-Queda first had against us.

Later throughout the 90's we saw embassies bombed, a troop barracks bombed, and even a Naval Warship crippled. Failing to do nothing of substance, we continued to look weak in the face of Islamic heroism and strength. Bin Ladden even wrote on our weakness and specified these events. They were rallying cries for every disgruntled futureless youth in the region looking for a higher purpose in this world.

Then came 9/11.

Our activities in Iraq have been horribly managed by inept Washington suits who never donned a military uniform in their lives. With every scandal we produced, our enemies used it to embarrass us. Al-Jazeera even took on the mission of inventing news for the ignorant masses who knew no better. Now we have reached the beginning of the end in regards to our presence in Iraq. We can easily look back and see a batered wrecked Al-Queda since 9/11. We destroyed their base in Afghanistan and destroyed their ranks when they followed us to Iraq. But a date of withdraw will give them every popportunity to take advantage of saving face. They will commence to attacking and doing anything possible to prove that they defeated the "Great Satan" before we leave. Plenty of troops will be targetted for death just to hammer the point home that they fought us and they won. They will seek to inspire the next generation of recruits who will be fooled into thinking that all it takes to defeat the Amercian military is to shed their blood like in Somalia. And they will be waiting for us in the future at every time, whether we talk of missions of liberation, humanitarian missions, or simple embassy duty in a peaceful African country.

The best course for leaving Iraq is to one day just leave.

IMO we should not "just leave". That would look like complete abandonment without giving the Iraqi government the opporunity to prepare for the departure. Plus it will make it look like we are running. We should instead state a specific date in the future that we will be withdrawing the troop, at least 6 months to a year to 18 months.

Will it make a difference? Probably not. But leaving without any warning doesn't seem right.

 

[Panache]

...a date of withdraw will give them every popportunity to take advantage of saving face. They will commence to attacking and doing anything possible to prove that they defeated the "Great Satan" before we leave. Plenty of troops will be targetted for death just to hammer the point home that they fought us and they won. They will seek to inspire the next generation of recruits who will be fooled into thinking that all it takes to defeat the Amercian military is to shed their blood like in Somalia. And they will be waiting for us in the future at every time, whether we talk of missions of liberation, humanitarian missions, or simple embassy duty in a peaceful African country.

The best course for leaving Iraq is to one day just leave.

If I believed you were correct about a withdrawal timeline instigating a greater degree of violence, I would probably agree that a publicly available withdraw date would be inadvisable, and that the withdrawal date should be confidential, and only given to selected members of the Iraqi government.

The most common argument I have heard so far has been that they will lay low until we leave and then go back to their old tricks, which is in direct conflict with your theory.

Not being a militant Islamic extremeist myself, I do not know how they would respond, and generally accepted the "lay low until we leave" idea.

If anyone has information related to this and can provide a link from a credible source, I love learning new things.:mrgreen: