Skip to comments.
What’s wrong with cutting and running?
Nieman Foundation ^
| August 03, 2005
| William E. Odom
Posted on 11/18/2005 6:56:32 PM PST by owen_osh
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
1
posted on
11/18/2005 6:56:33 PM PST
by
owen_osh
To: owen_osh
The terrorists have made it very clear that if we cut and runm they're coming after us.
2
posted on
11/18/2005 6:59:06 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: owen_osh
3
posted on
11/18/2005 6:59:25 PM PST
by
Gordongekko909
(I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
To: owen_osh
Treason seems to be the in thing this season. Like a lot of other fads, it won't look so hot a bit later.
4
posted on
11/18/2005 7:01:08 PM PST
by
speedy
To: owen_osh
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of: Certainly not the Iraqis headed to mass graves and shredder machines To begin with.
5
posted on
11/18/2005 7:03:40 PM PST
by
sionnsar
(†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azadi)
To: speedy
Actually I think "living in alternate universes simultaneously" is the "in thing" this season, treason and sedition are mere accesorizors!
6
posted on
11/18/2005 7:05:33 PM PST
by
acapesket
(never had a vote count in all my years here)
To: owen_osh
Wow- and we paid this guy?
7
posted on
11/18/2005 7:05:46 PM PST
by
fat city
("The nation that controls magnetism controls the world.")
To: owen_osh
I for one am glad this idiot is no longer in a position of influence. His arguments seem plausible on the surface, but they are the arguments of an academic. The world works by schoolyard rules. And those rules mean that whoever is the tough guy always gets chalenged. To cut and run invites nothing but relentless abuse and is perceived as a sign of weakness. In the Darwinnian world of schoolyard rules the weak get eaten for lunch.
8
posted on
11/18/2005 7:06:46 PM PST
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: owen_osh
"So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout?"
Because, despite your bleatings to the contrary, it's an idiotic idea?
9
posted on
11/18/2005 7:07:42 PM PST
by
Starter
To: owen_osh
You could have saved a lots of space by just saying surrender is the best course.
10
posted on
11/18/2005 7:09:29 PM PST
by
armydawg1
(" America must win this war..." PVT Martin Treptow, KIA, WW1)
To: owen_osh
I suppose that handing the terrorists a massive, unearned victory isn't that big of a deal. After all, we're the "hyperpower", our credibility means nothing, and allowing AQ, and their leftist allies, to crow in the worldwide media about driving out the infidel might make the world a safer place.
If I have any problems with the handling of the war, it's that we're not being ruthless enough.
11
posted on
11/18/2005 7:10:07 PM PST
by
Sterm26
(Indict....no, HANG Joe Wilson!)
To: owen_osh
and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.); Huh?
To: owen_osh
The good general would seem to owe more to Yale than to West Point.
I would point out that Odom's generation of generals were not known for their war-fighting abilities nor strategic acumen.
McMasters captured their essence in Dereliction of Duty
13
posted on
11/18/2005 7:10:42 PM PST
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: owen_osh
What's wrong with winning?
14
posted on
11/18/2005 7:11:09 PM PST
by
Brett66
(Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: Trailerpark Badass
From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Took great pains to avoid using the name "Carter."
To: owen_osh
From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Ah, yes, the Carter administration, which raised "cut and run" to an art form.
To: owen_osh
17
posted on
11/18/2005 7:13:45 PM PST
by
jim-x
(God help America survive its enemies within.)
To: Uncle Vlad; owen_osh
I've got the ropes for all of those pukes
18
posted on
11/18/2005 7:15:20 PM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: owen_osh
Must be nice living in such a simple black and white world, Mr. Odom.
19
posted on
11/18/2005 7:17:05 PM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
("If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one." - - Chesty Puller)
To: owen_osh
Let's go through the points in order.
- This would guarantee the Iraqis we want to win will win. CF: Vietnam 1975. Ted Kennedy is still in office.
- Speaking of the 70s... Brings to mind Moynahahn's quip about how it was inconvenient to be an enemy of the US, but lethal to be an ally. Hyperpower status needs to be maintained. It can slip away.
- The Sunnis are anti-American. The Kurds and Shia are not. Give them the strength and the capabilities to run the country and the pool for the Ba`athists dries up.
And (despite many wiseguy comments to the contrary) I do not believe that Islamic society is any more immune to the powers of democratization than the Japanese or South Koreans were. It just has to be implemented.
- Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists.
Maybe. But, unlike under Saddam, they can't train openly inside Iraq.
- Iran is happy we're there? Right. Maybe they see the US troops as a target of opportunity, but there is real nervousness in Tehran that so many US guns are in a quarter from where they've been attacked before. The stress is affecting the regime.
- Have you seen how nervous Assad Jr.'s been lately. If Ivy didn't drag Saddam out of his spider hole, he'd be still openly raping Lebanon.
- We delay the conflict until it stops being relevant or until our side can win.
- But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.
This is an outright lie. Congressional Democrats, strengthened by the radical influx in 1974 cut off all military aid over the protests of the scandal weakened White House. South Vietnam could not stop the NVA because they did not have the ordinance, equipment or fuel they were guaranteed under the agreements that led to the 'Peace Accords.'
- Sorry, but these sweeping statements are so vague (yet risible on so many levels) that one has to look askance at them with no comment beyond a scoff.
20
posted on
11/18/2005 7:18:26 PM PST
by
JAWs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson