[Blackrain4xmas]

I do not think that the Iraqis or the world are prepared to watch what happens when Dems and insurgents accomplish the mission of getting US troops out of Iraq asap.

If they think the TV is ugly to watch now...just imagine watching Baghdad turn into 1980's Beirut. Imagine watching tens or even hundreds of thousands of people dying. Imagine watching hundreds of thousands or millions fleeing. And imagine trying people trying to convince themselves that abandoning the Iraqi people to terrorist insurgents was a good thing to do.

This is the difference between chess players and checkers players.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

One person is calling for a British troop pullout and suddenly the war's over and everybody's going home? Yeah, right.

[.cnI redruM]

Nice article. Where's the link?

[huck von finn]

Link?

[jrooney]

The British General in question is known to be too political and left leaning in his politics. The British soldiers in iraq are said to be very upset with his comments and disagree all the way up the chain of the command. It is being rumored he is going to be replaced because of playing politics.

[capitalist229]

IBTZ

[SF Republican]

The 1990-2006 War in Iraq might soon be over. Bill Clinton had our troops there for 8 years? News to me.

[Antoninus]

Should be in blogs...

[Alberta's Child]

President Bush Sr. could have removed Saddam in 1991. He was afraid to do so for fear of its results. When he made that decision, the soldiers and Marines currently fighting and dying in Iraq were only 2 years old. Now, they’re 18 years old and fighting a war that should have been fought and ended 16 years ago. Back then, President Bush Sr. followed the post-Vietnam American populist strategy, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”

This is an overly simplistic view of the issue. Bush #41 didn't "fear the results" at all -- he knew the results . . . which is why his position was thoroughly consistent with the strong public stand (adamant opposition to the use of military forces to engage in "nation-building") taken by Governor George W. Bush when he was running for the White House in 2000.

As far as this issue is concerned, Bush 41 looks more brilliant by the day.

[OESY]

"Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight - wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and never will lose a war, because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."
-- George S. Patton, Speech to the Third U.S. Army, March 24, 1944

[lesser_satan]

WAYR?

[Madame Dufarge]

I'm just a tad skeptical of an article with no link that ends with a quote from John Kerry.

[MadIvan]

Go away. Sir Richard was misquoted by the Drive By Media:

LINK

On the transcripts of those interviews Mr Blair said: "I agree with every word of it."

"He sets in proper context what he is actually saying. What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying. Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done."

Mr Blair said when Sir Richard talked about the troops' presence exacerbating problems in Iraq, he thought he was "absolutely right".

"I've said the same myself, in circumstances where the Iraqis are ready to take over control of areas and we're still there."

In places like Basra, the presence of British troops was still "absolutely necessary", he said.

Mr Blair told the press conference he had received a "report" about the Daily Mail article on Thursday night, and Sir Richard was "plainly not" saying that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now.

A spokesman for the Iraqi president said the departure of multi-national troops now "would be a disaster".

Mr Blair said he "suspected" Sir Richard had given a long interview with the Daily Mail, and that some of his comments had been taken out of context.

And so they had.

Ivan

[msnimje]

Idiotic

[RightWhale]

While not willing to take the time to read the article, why would somebody post an article without comment? Posting articles without comment is a useless exercise since anybody can read the article whether it is posted or not. The point is discussion, but an initial comment might start discussion of the topic rather than reading techniques.

[Steel Wolf]

It will be at the stroke of a pen, and the click of a mouse button both of which follow my will, and your will, and the will of the American people in general. It is WE who will order the defeat of American soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. Does our resolve for the ugliness of black ribbons on trees match that of Marines dug in and fighting in Ramadi as you read this?

For anyone who doesn't want to read the article, here is the author's point.

Maintaining public opinion is vital for prosecuting a war in our republic. The best weapons and the toughest training can't propel the military to victory, when the public gives up.

That might look like where the blame stops, but it's just the beginning. The majority of American people aren't anti-war, by any means. Most people understand history, and recognize that violence can solve problems. If the average American is losing confidence that this is one of those situations, then those concerns will end the war.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The folks at NPR are scratching their collective cone heads today as to how the British commander could back pedal, as if he might have been pressured by Blair. It doesn't occur to them that perhaps the commander was misquoted in the first place. I reckon that's a matter they'd rather not look into.

[Billthedrill]

The difficulty with oversimplification on this issue is that one very quickly gets to the point that staying is a defeat and withdrawing is a defeat as well. Turning over the issue to an Iraqi government capable of maintaining itself appears nowhere in this set of criteria.

This is not a terribly complicated business but it isn't exactly straightforward, and it is complicated by the fact that persons with a vested interest in doing so will proclaim it a defeat no matter what we do. Iraq partitioning itself is not a defeat if it's the choice of that government. Victory does not consist in our getting everything we want or establishing a utopia. Neither is possible.

[bnelson44]

Go to the page:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/10/army_strong.html

Click on the video. Watch it.

[metesky]

You're full of shit.