Posted on 08/29/2007 7:04:54 AM PDT by jveritas
Bush will do nothing. I have hopes that he will do something, but doubt he will now.
“Could it be CBS wants to get on the side of truth and this will be their slick way of doing it?”
I don’t think so. She is being sent to help the Dems make their point to pull out. She is going to cover the plight of refugees. And its that nasty Bush’s war that is causing this refugee crisis.
I have to agree. The Left will continue to ignore any good news about the Middle East because they are invested in our defeat. If, before the 2008 elections, Iraq is cleaned up and declared a victory, what do the Democrats have to run on? Nothing. The Left has already chosen what team it wants to win and there’s just too much evidence of it to allow them to switch sides now.
bluto’s not doing well.
good picture.
because there may be a worse one waiting in the wings. and killing a charismatic ‘religious’ leader never seems to work out too well. yeah I know these clowns get their collar reading from the back of a koranic cereal box but still.
“What people don’t know, because of ignorance, is that the Shia don’t attack us anyway.”
Why would there be any need to call for a cease-fire regarding attacks against us, unless they already had attacked us?
I think your reasoning is correct. Same reason why we never took Saddam out until we could somewhat control the situation. It’s hard for people to wrap their mind around the concept, but it’s quite simply true. Manipulating control over a leader (especially one with the size army this guy has), is indeed sometimes the better option than creating a power vaccume - with even more bloodshed. That’s never going to be pretty, and of course we’ve seen some bloodshed there no doubt.
because there may be a worse one waiting in the wings. and killing a charismatic ‘religious’ leader never seems to work out too well. yeah I know these clowns get their collar reading from the back of a koranic cereal box but still.
Given the religious nature, there will always be ‘another one’ for a time.
The ME doesn’t respect weakness. Letting this turd run his mouth AND openly attack our troops is almost as insane as 72 virgins awaiting homicide bombers.
Almost.
GRRRRREAT post. Thanks.
I think your reasoning is correct. Same reason why we never took Saddam out until we could somewhat control the situation. It’s hard for people to wrap their mind around the concept, but it’s quite simply true. Manipulating control over a leader (especially one with the size army this guy has), is indeed sometimes the better option than creating a power vaccume - with even more bloodshed. That’s never going to be pretty, and of course we’ve seen some bloodshed there no doubt.
Uh huh, al Sadr is so easily ‘manipulated’ he’s been openly attacking our troops for three plus years.
Great strategy, I’m sure the troops appreciate it....
Its a war, one we’re fighting ‘not to lose’ as al Sadr being alive displays quite clearly.
Thats the path to defeat.
Well, defeat...victory, it’s all a matter of one’s opinion anyway. I’ve never been a fan of Bush’s policies concerning the stategery and haven’t been too quiet about that either. Some of the troops aren’t happy about it, but we support them anyway. As far as defeat goes, both sides will say they won, so I don’t get too excited about the word. It’s politics and propaganda both ways.
The “Cease fire” Is against the SUNNIS
It’s politics and propaganda both ways.
al Sadr’s propaganda is getting our people killed, with no response ‘in kind’.
And that goes to the heart of why these Islamofacists think they’ll win in the end.
I’ve also had problems with the President’s strategy in Iraq. To me, he played ‘not to lose’ until after loosing both the house and senate. And we’re paying a helluva price for that in my opinion. Whats irksome is the final price tag isn’t known yet.
I could easily argue that even some of our propaganda has got some of our guys killed.
“And that goes to the heart of why these Islamofacists think they’ll win in the end.”
That goes back to victory being defined by the one using the word. Who says in the very end the Islamofacists won’t win? Some of the arguments I’ve seen on this board don’t exactly convince me, even if I use the term ‘victory’ quite loosely. Again, at the end of the day, “we won” will be what’s expected, so I don’t even bother arguing with those supporting the strategery we’ve seen. It’s genious to some and insanity to others. Politics and Propaganda again. I’m just glad we can have an opinion and still be able to post. That says something anyway.
I would like to see the black slippery stuff secured in that region. I’ve not seen that yet. As far as dead terrorists goes...let’s define a terrorist over there (what day of the week is it)... Secure the energy resources in country, and then I’ll support troop drawdowns. That requires a stable government and secure facilities throughout, so I recognize it’s going to be a while before we get to that point.
‘As far as dead terrorists goes...let’s define a terrorist over there (what day of the week is it)... ‘
Pointing a gun at anyone wearing a US uniform is a good starting point in my view.
Telling others to kill Americans also seems to be another good starting point.
“Pointing a gun at anyone wearing a US uniform is a good starting point in my view.
Telling others to kill Americans also seems to be another good starting point.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re being logical and reasonable in winning wars...no fair! :)
‘You’re being logical and reasonable in winning wars...no fair! :)’
Yes, its a bad habit I hope never to lose.
“Uh huh, al Sadr is so easily ‘manipulated’ he’s been openly attacking our troops for three plus years.”
Going back to that one point...I understand what you’re saying, but for what we’ve seen with sectarian violence in that time period, I have no doubt whatsoever that it would have been proportionately bloodier with the alternative, and it would have been recognized in a higher loss of our troops. Just my opinion of course, but history has shown this method (good, bad or indifferent) to at least be effective in having some control in minimizing our troop losses. That’s of course a great thing.
Its a war, not a study in sociology.
Thats the mistake we’ve been making. We keep trying to apply ‘western’ points of view to the Middle East, especially on how to ‘win the war’.
They don’t think about this stuff. They think about how the Americans are ‘soft’ and ‘beatable’.
And every minute we allow punks like al Sadr to rant and rave, without consequences, we reinforce this viewpoint.
Its counterproductive as hell, and sorry, its gotten a helluva lot more troops killed and injured then if we had blown his head off publicly.
Just my opinion.
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.