|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
How can a withdrawal be a "surrender"...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| How can a withdrawal be a "surrender"...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| rod_jammer |
How can a phased withdrawal from Iraq be (in the words of Romney & McCain) a "surrender to terror" when (in the words of G. W. Bush):
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
How does one surrender when they have already won nearly 5 years ago?
Our remaining tasks in Iraq have been defined as:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. Done (The surge, right?) We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes Done: Saddam tried and executed We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. Done before it started We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people Done: Iraq has an elected government
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Great! Let's get the fuck outta there. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Sounds like Ron Paul is your man this election. Clinton, Obama, or McCain don't share your assessment. |
|
|
| Luther |
| That's called propaganda. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Your one of the few here that knows thats true Luther |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
| No one can ever snatch away our glorious victory on the battlefields of Mesopotamia. |
|
|
| x76 |
When Israel tells us that we can withdraw, we'll withdraw. Otherwise we're staying indefinitely.
Believe it. |
|
|
| flamslam64 |
| If we have not moved from Europe or Korea or even the South Pacific what makes us think that we are going to walk away from some of the most strategic real estate in the world. No one or either party is going to do it. |
|
|
| tonguechow |
Withdrawal:
When you have defeated your enemy and you can safely leave that country at a time of your own choosing.
Surrender:
When you don't allow your forces to win and kill the enemy and you have your forces flee an advancing enemy that is still shooting and attempting kill and destroy your forces. |
|
|
| Anogram |
Quote: Originally posted by tonguechow
Withdrawal:
When you have defeated your enemy and you can safely leave that country at a time of your own choosing.
Surrender:
When you don't allow your forces to win and kill the enemy and you have your forces flee an advancing enemy that is still shooting and attempting kill and destroy your forces. |
Withdrawl:
You can even call it cut and run it doesn't matter. You realize the mistake and you need to get out instead of continuing the insanity.
Surrender:
When you realize that all the shit that was predicted to happen ends up the opposite. Time to say, "hey I am no good at knowing what is going to happen in Iraq." Time to pack your shit and lets regroup.
Get your penis out of the butts of Iraqis. |
|
|
| Luther |
Surrender is when soldiers, nations or other combatants stop fighting and become prisoners of war, either as individuals or when ordered to by their officers. A white flag is often used to surrender, as is the gesture of raising one's hands empty and open above one's head.
Surrender may be conditional, if the surrendering party promises to submit only if after the victor makes certain promises. Otherwise it is unconditional surrender; the victor makes no promises of treatment other than those provided by international law. Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_%28military%29 |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by tonguechow
Withdrawal:
When you have defeated your enemy and you can safely leave that country at a time of your own choosing.
Surrender:
When you don't allow your forces to win and kill the enemy and you have your forces flee an advancing enemy that is still shooting and attempting kill and destroy your forces. |
Idiot. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| rod_jammer |
The criteria for withdrawal has already been defined by President Bush above on May 1, 2003. We have completed all of those objectives, so now, by the President's own order, we should leave.
Can someone who still wants to stay tell me what else we need to accomplish there? Because I'm convinced that Bush, Cheney, and McCain would like to stay forever. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by rod_jammer
Can someone who still wants to stay tell me what else we need to accomplish there? |
Defeat Al Qaeda.
Or would you rather leave them a sanctuary where they can plan and train for another catastrophic attack on the US homeland? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
So what - a bunch of sound bytes made before 9/11?
"OOPS!" |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Defeat Al Qaeda.
Or would you rather leave them a sanctuary where they can plan and train for another catastrophic attack on the US homeland? |
Yea, Iraq's their only option to do that .....LOL :rolleyes: good god you Bushies are gullible fucks |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Defeat Al Qaeda.
Or would you rather leave them a sanctuary where they can plan and train for another catastrophic attack on the US homeland? |
The catastrophe of the 9/11 attacks:
3,000 Americans killed.
Tens of billions of dollars of economic loss.
The catastrophe of the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:
5,000 Americans killed.
40,000 Americans seriously injured.
One million Iraqis killed.
Trillions of dollars of economic loss.
It is also worthy of note that military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq do not make terrorist attacks against the United States any less likely. In fact, the opposite is probably true.
Which is the greater catastrophe? A rational analysis permits only one answer. So the question is, would you rather avoid the greater catastrophe and decrease the odds of other catastrophe reoccurring, or would you rather embrace the greater catastrophe and increase the odds of the other catastrophe reoccurring? For me, it is an east question to answer. |
|
|
| mb33139 |
At a minimum, we will leave troops in our $1,000,000,000 base. We are certainly not going to leave that kind of money on the table.
We will also leave contractors protecting oil assets in the region. So, in a sense, we will have troops there for mony years to come. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Defeat Al Qaeda.
Or would you rather leave them a sanctuary where they can plan and train for another catastrophic attack on the US homeland? |
To expand on your point...
3) “Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad” is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration. “It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington.”
2) Before you can talk Iraq, you must talk about Homeland Security. Make the case for PREVENTION here at home before the need for action abroad.
After explaining the context of 9/11, it’s equally important to paint a vivid – but not too graphic – picture of what you hope to prevent in the future. Prevention is a positive, optimistic, hopeful concept, but terrorism also requires that you communicate your concern of what may but hopefully never will occur. It’s not just a “we want our kids to have opportunities in the future” message, like most political issues. It’s also a, “we want our children to have a future, period” message.
You have to explain that this is not a war in which victory is measured by a signed treaty or a definitive military victory. It measured day-by-day in terms of prevention – in events that did NOT happen and lives that were NOT lost.
3) Even while you are making the case for prevention, talk about what you are PROTECTING.
“We need to do what we’ve been doing for the last 200 years – and that’s being America.”
Homeland security means maintaining the quality of our homeland just as much as it does protecting it from attack. As we said above it’s important to be realistic about what our future may hold, but we are not recommending you play the politics of pessimism or doom and gloom. Emphasize what we are trying to protect, which by extension places that much more value in the principle of prevention. Let them know what you are trying to protect and they’ll give you a wider birth in what you are trying to preempt. As below, espouse the principles of being responsible and reasonable in how we react to the threat of terror. But above all else, reassure Americans that you are protecting them.
8) Communicate that you are leading the fight for the principles of freedom and security.
The passing of President Reagan has reminded so many Americans of the greatness of America, and the power of strong leadership and optimistic confidence in our great future. We were reminded that it was his commitment to bring down Communism that led to its fall. And yes, it did not happen overnight, but it did happen. We will have to preach patience and perseverance, but Americans are willing to accept sacrifice if it is in the cause of freedom and security.
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=336143 |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
To expand on your point...
3) “Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad” is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration. “It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington.”
2) Before you can talk Iraq, you must talk about Homeland Security. Make the case for PREVENTION here at home before the need for action abroad.
After explaining the context of 9/11, it’s equally important to paint a vivid – but not too graphic – picture of what you hope to prevent in the future. Prevention is a positive, optimistic, hopeful concept, but terrorism also requires that you communicate your concern of what may but hopefully never will occur. It’s not just a “we want our kids to have opportunities in the future” message, like most political issues. It’s also a, “we want our children to have a future, period” message.
You have to explain that this is not a war in which victory is measured by a signed treaty or a definitive military victory. It measured day-by-day in terms of prevention – in events that did NOT happen and lives that were NOT lost.
3) Even while you are making the case for prevention, talk about what you are PROTECTING.
“We need to do what we’ve been doing for the last 200 years – and that’s being America.”
Homeland security means maintaining the quality of our homeland just as much as it does protecting it from attack. As we said above it’s important to be realistic about what our future may hold, but we are not recommending you play the politics of pessimism or doom and gloom. Emphasize what we are trying to protect, which by extension places that much more value in the principle of prevention. Let them know what you are trying to protect and they’ll give you a wider birth in what you are trying to preempt. As below, espouse the principles of being responsible and reasonable in how we react to the threat of terror. But above all else, reassure Americans that you are protecting them.
8) Communicate that you are leading the fight for the principles of freedom and security.
The passing of President Reagan has reminded so many Americans of the greatness of America, and the power of strong leadership and optimistic confidence in our great future. We were reminded that it was his commitment to bring down Communism that led to its fall. And yes, it did not happen overnight, but it did happen. We will have to preach patience and perseverance, but Americans are willing to accept sacrifice if it is in the cause of freedom and security.
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=336143 |
The power of propaganda. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
The U.S. should pull out of Iraq and the entire Middle East. Unless we want to have our own W. Bank or Chechnya or Kashmir. Our own never-ending war.
This never ends. Ever.
We are there and nothing can change that fact. Now we must decide if we want a war forever in the middle east. That is the question.
For those of you out there who want to stay to kill al Qaeda... forget it. It is never-ending.
Don't let Muslims into the U.S.. That will prevent attacks.
Bomb when necessary. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
The catastrophe of the 9/11 attacks:
3,000 Americans killed.
Tens of billions of dollars of economic loss.
The catastrophe of the Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:
5,000 Americans killed.
40,000 Americans seriously injured.
One million Iraqis killed.
Trillions of dollars of economic loss.
It is also worthy of note that military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq do not make terrorist attacks against the United States any less likely. In fact, the opposite is probably true.
Which is the greater catastrophe? A rational analysis permits only one answer. So the question is, would you rather avoid the greater catastrophe and decrease the odds of other catastrophe reoccurring, or would you rather embrace the greater catastrophe and increase the odds of the other catastrophe reoccurring? For me, it is an east question to answer. |
:whistle: |
|
|
|
|
|
