A Message to All the Cut and Run Freepers Currently Polluting Free Republic

Friday, November 24, 2006 | Kristinn

[mabelkitty]

Yes.
Next?

[ZULU]

We CAN'T cut-and-run.

Osama Bin Laddin himself said Americnas were "soft". Muslims and Islamic society is a war obsessed society and cutting and running is out of the question. To loose face by leaving at this juncture would endanger what little respect tehy might have for us. At this point it isn't much. It was quite a bit after Shake and Awe.

Equally out of the question is let things remain as they are. We should use Iraq and Afghanistan as military bases to take out the Baathists in Syria and the Ayatollahs in Iran. Iraq will never be secure with the Ayatollahs running Iran and the Baathists in Syria.

THEN leave and let them deal with the mess THEY hace cerated in Syria and Iran.

[fight_truth_decay]

I posted this earlier today on the RFK film review and likened the comparison to present day "cut and run" scenario:

In a series of oral history interviews for the JFK Library, RFK said that "it was worthwhile for psychological, political reasons" to stay in Vietnam.

RFK said: "The President felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam....If you lost Vietnam, I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall." (32)

John Bartlow Martin point-blank asked RFK: "if the President was convinced that the United States had to stay in Vietnam." The one-word response was "Yes." (33)

[FreeReign]

If we can't fight it the way he and McArthur would we should leave.

This isn't WWII.

[Mr. Mojo]

If the "PC" people ran football....

Already happening. I've seen countless "roughing" penalties this year for play only slightly rougher than flag football.

WWPD?

Answer: Certainly not what we're now doing. Different era, different breed. The PC that has infected almost every aspect of American life would've undoubtedly repulsed him.

[Sam Ketcham]

Well said young scholar. Guess the opening vitriol stopped you from posting specifics. Pulling out doesn't mean not going back, except to a Democrat. As I see it, leave 9MM ammo and weapons on every street corner. Go back in one year and shoot the winner.

If people really support the troops, then express the need to blow the living ... er .. out of the Iranians; put the Chinese feet to the trade fires and generally give the terrorists the idea we are going to win. As it is now, these guys are pop-up targets. There is a NEED for change in strategy and definitive action. In war the more timid the approach the more casualties.

[M. Thatcher]

is there only one acceptable path

Yes. Victory.

[vbmoneyspender]

Huh?

[Choose Ye This Day]

Or: "I'm as Republican as anyone..."

Or: "I'm a Reagan conservative, but..."

[Cobra64]

FReepers don't cut and run from terrorists and we don't cut and run from democrats.

Truer words were never spoken.

[trooprally]

Reasonable discussion yes, but bashing the President, reveling secret programs aimed at stopping the radicals, calling the President a lier in Congress, preaching in schools that America is the blame for 9/11, trying to stop the President cold in every move he makes, makes one unpatriotic and a liberal, radical Islam lover.

[Mr] T

[He Rides A White Horse]

Or: "I'm a Reagan conservative, but..."

Invoking the name of Reagan.....I see such posters jumping up and down shouting, "I'm from Dummycrat Underground!"

[vbmoneyspender]

Exhibit A

The war in Iraq is lost.

[WatchOutForSnakes]

That is my point as well. I have no problem with going to war in Iraq. The problem I have is the way it is being conducted right now. You put it well, our forces over there now are not much more than policeman walking a beat. They are sitting ducks for every wacko with a bomb. I think a lot of us who question the war effort right now don't want to cut and run. We don't want to reduce troop strength. What I want is MORE troops. I want to fight to win this thing.

Which leads me to another subject. Are we so low in forces that it would be a strain to send more troops to Iraq? Is 140,000 or so troops all we can muster? What happens if we were to get into a war with a really serious, well trained army with a million troops? We are to PC right now to do what it takes to destroy an enemy.

[domenad]

Okay I read it. Now I have to ask some questions.

The Iraqi people were celebrating the death of our soldiers in Falluja. They danced on the corpses and spread the bodies out like sick animals. When Israel was defending itself from Hezbollah rocket attacks, they were marching in the streets and denouncing Israel. The rejoiced when American soldiers were killed, and they still do.

The Iraqi people, in my opinion, are animals. They have chained themselves to the post they called Islam, they are slobbering a rabid saliva called Jihad. They have put themselves in this situation, a situation where they were given the world and pissed on it. American blood is too good to shed for them.

[ZULU]

What too many Americans fail to realize is that the war in IRaq is really a battle ina greater war against Islam. Upon the outcome of this greater war lies everything western civilization has so dearly achieved over many centuries.

[Sir Gawain]

Yes. Victory.

Fair enough. Define victory. You might be able to do it, but our spineless politicians most likely can't.

[crazyhorse691]

You do us proud. Guess we will keep you around.

[PhilDragoo]

Tehran and Damascus are inciting, supplying and directing much of the current unpleasantness.

Yet, astonishingly, Robert Gates has been catapulted to SecDef, having written in 2004 in a CFR report that we should engage Iran in negotiations.

I posit we should engage Iran with a rain of penetrating bunker busters of either conventional or nuclear type.

The existence of a nuclear Iran under the new Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will mark a significant downturn in the prospect for a good ending to the neoislamofascist challenge.

Or we could simply party like it's 1938, as James Baker and Jon Cary would have us do.

[gondramB]

>>The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.<<

This is two separate issues and we should keep them separate. The key point is that we are in Iraq, in a war, a difficult war and we need to stand together in finishing the job there- to leave Iraq as a stable friendly country, as democratic as possible with as many freedoms guaranteed as possible.

A time table for withdrawal just tells the terrorists to wait til we are gone. A sudden withdrawal just leads to slaughter of all there who have stood with us. There is no "peace with honor" by leaving early.

Constantly re-examining whether it was wise to go in the way we did at the time we did with the level of support we had and the legal justification we claimed is not productive. The historians will handle that and their verdict will largely depend on how we fulfill our obligations there.