Posted on 11/21/2007 5:23:44 AM PST by Aristotelian
THE situation in Iraq has im proved so rapidly that Democrats now shun the topic as thoroughly as they shun our troops when the cameras aren't around. . . .
What happened? How did this startling turnabout come to pass? Why does the good news continue to compound? . . .
We didn't quit: Even as some of us began to suspect that Iraqi society was hopelessly sick, our troops stood to and did their duty bravely. The tenacity of our soldiers and Marines in the face of mortal enemies in Iraq and blithe traitors at home is the No. 1 reason why Iraq has turned around. . . .
Gen. David Petraeus took command: Petraeus brought three vital qualities to our effort: He wants to win, not just keep the lid on the pot; he never stops learning and adapting, and he provides top-cover for innovative subordinates. . . .
The surge: While the increase in troop numbers was important, allowing us to consolidate gains in neighborhoods we'd rid of terrorists and insurgents, the psychological effect of the surge was crucial.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
yeah right.
We have to base our troops somewhere. So assuming we don’t increase the size of the military, and since the bases are already built in Iraq, it shouldn’t cost any significant amount more to base them in IRaq than to base them in Germany.
Up till just before the Iraq war, we had troops based in Saudi Arabia, and we don’t have them there now, and it shouldn’t cost more to base them in Iraq than to base them in Saudi Arabia.
Gee, I missed that one. Well, if its for the CHILRUN, we’ll just have to do anything that you say. I just never imagined that it was for the CHILRUN. The CHILRUN just opens up my shallow mind to deep, profound, macro universalism thinking about life and everything. Geez, if I had just known it was for the CHILRUN.
So, we’re into the war about 470 billion dollars so far. That’s roughly 95 billion per year. After victory the costs of occupation should go down. How much do you expect to pay for the continued occupation of Iraq? Annually and for the projected 60 years?
Continued occupation? Words have meaning, and I think you are intentionally misusing words in this case.
Enlighten me. Ann Archy says that we will be in Iraq forever (its for the CHILRUN). We have, in fact, occupied Europe and Japan since 1945. How am I misusing words?
Indeed. And you may also have to start wondering if all of the things his detractors call "faults," really are faults after all.
Stem cells is another example -- turns out that his being stubborn on a moral matter has led to a non-controversial method for manufacturing them from regular skin cells.
And (for those keeping track) -- perhaps he's got some other ideas that might start to smell better once people begin paying attention to the real situation, rather than the situation as it's being touted by demagogues (coughimmigrationcough).
Winning is good but wining is not.
No, just missing the forest for the trees.
Question: has it hurt us, or helped us, that we stayed in Europe and Japan all that time? You know the answer to that one: it's helped. We wouldn't have won the Cold War without it.
1. The Amazing bravery and professionalism of our troops and their Generals headed by Maximus Patraeus
2. Incredibly strong leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to defy all the odds, the traitors at home, and the public opinion polls.
3. Steadfast leadership of the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress.
4. A minority of Patriots who always believed in VICTORY and never gave up.
God bless them all.
“What went right to achieve victory in Iraq:”
You could have written instead
What went wrong in Iraq for the defeatists and cynics:
What’s the matter with wine?
The cold war ended about 1990. So, will we be in Europe, Japan, Korea, and now Iraq forever, as Ann Archy says?
There are obvious strategic advantages to having military presence in Korea and Japan. Europe ... harder to say, but it does give us a useful influence even so.
and now Iraq forever....
Why bother with "forever?" A moment's rational thought will allow you to realize that we'll need to be there "for quite a while." And the strategic advantages of being there are rather enormous -- it's a wonder you refuse to admit it.
No, I don’t see any strategic advantages in the occupation of Iraq in perpetuity. Please explain them in terms of cost benefit analysis since the proposed defense budget for 2008 is 538 billion dollars. How do you propose to finance such expenditures? Your choices are raise taxes, borrow or print more money. Which do you choose?
That will do as well :)
The real question is: since we're there now, at what point does it make sense for us to leave?
The answer is quite obviously, "not for a couple of years, at least, and probably longer."
To simply leave right now, will be to turn Iraq over to the bad guys, in much the same way we left South Vietnam to the bad guys.
.. it's Bush's fault
As the Colonel said in his piece, Al Qaida overplayed their hand and the Iraqi people have grown weary of violence. So for critics who say we should have done this in 2005 remember, those two key pieces had not fallen into place. It was, as the Col. points out, unrelenting pressure that pushed Al Qaida into a corner. Their true colors (perverted thugs) finally showed through.
MidEast Oil $$$$.
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.