Posted on 04/07/2008 7:57:18 AM PDT by moderatewolverine
Losing wars is always bad. One of the major reasons for America’s current global predominance economically and politically is that America doesn’t lose wars very often. It seems likely, however, that the American people are about to be told that they have to decide to lose the Iraq war, that accepting defeat is better than trying to win, and that the consequences of defeat will be less than the costs of continuing to fight. For some, the demand to “end this war” is a reprise of the great triumph of their generation: forcing the U.S. to lose the Vietnam War and feel good about it. But even some supporters are being seduced by their own weariness of the struggle, and are being tempted to believe the unfounded defeatism — combined with the unfounded optimism about the consequences of defeat — that hyper-sophisticates have offered during every major conflict. Americans have a right to be weary of this conflict and to desire to bring it to an end. But before we choose the easier and more comfortable wrong over the harder and more distasteful right, we should examine more closely the two core assumptions that underlie the current antiwar arguments: that we must lose this war because we cannot win it at any acceptable cost, and that it will be better to lose than to continue trying to win.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Iraq is a classic “Pay me now or pay me much more later” situation. The Democrats need to understand Iran isn’t backing down. Radical Islamism goes way back. We fought it before and beat it. We need to do so again. Instead of rifles and knives we’re potentially dealing with nukes this time around.
Last time the quiters had their way, probably a million people died because we left Vietnam. We’ll be lucky if only a million die as a consequence of the quiter’s temper tantrum.
Except that we already won. The goal-post just keeps changing. Iraq was conquered with speed and precision with only a little over 100 losses on our side. The country was cleared for WMDs (a valid military objective). As if that wasn’t enough, our military even removed the Sadam regime for the Iraqi people, putting them on the path to forge a new and better future for themselves. When given the chance, they voted in only Islamic clerics. As if that wasn’t enough, a whole lot of bad guys were killed in the process (always a good thing).
Our military served with honor. They come home with honor and just because the politicians keep setting non-military objectives does not mean our military has failed in Iraq. The people of iraq failed and our leadership failed to clearly identify and articulate to the American people the difference between valid, achievable military objectives and humanitarian nation building efforts that sometimes work (when those defeated are ready and capable of forging their own futures with a little bit of assistance) but usually do not work.
Phase two of the WOT should have begun years ago. The phase of punishing other regimes who harbor, support, encourage, and fund terrorist networks around the world. This was the pretext we were given for war and it got derailed by the humanitarians, many of which can be found on sites just like this.
“Last time the quiters had their way, probably a million people died because we left Vietnam. We’ll be lucky if only a million die as a consequence of the quiter’s temper tantrum.”
When we fight the right way, we win, whether it’s Vietnam, Iraq or anywhere else. The problem is that we haven’t fought the right way since WWll. If we are going to send our service members in to die, we owe it to them to fight the right way or not send them at all. It’s painfully obvious that we haven’t learned the lessons of Vietnam and it’s because of the kinder, gentler approach to warfare that has plagued the thinking of this nation since the end of WWll.
Hey newbie, offer some proof for this statement or else retract it.
Now.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Did a single seat go to a secularist? Name one. They are either all Islamists or all of the reports back during the Iraq elections as well as the history channel has been lying.
“When given the chance, they voted in only Islamic clerics.”
Hey newbie, offer some proof for this statement or else retract it.
Now.
CNN.com - Shiite alliance wins plurality in Iraq - Feb 14, 2005
___Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni leader, told CNN he was “disappointed” that his party mustered only about 0.1 percent of the vote nationwide.
So, when there is victory in Iraq, there won’t be any more terrorist networks all around the world with the means and intent of attacking Americans? If Iraq is the starting point, at this rate it will take us a thousand years to get them all doing it this way, and I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Your exact quote was "When given the chance, they voted in only Islamic CLERICS (emph added).”
This is blatantly NOT true, and you know it's not true. Consider yourself exposed for the fraud you are ( and have been since you've been at FR).
“Your exact quote was “When given the chance, they voted in only Islamic CLERICS (emph added).”
This is blatantly NOT true, and you know it’s not true. Consider yourself exposed for the fraud you are ( and have been since you’ve been at FR).”
Take it easy Francis.
I agree that the qualifier “ONLY (Islamic clerics)” may be technically inaccurate (I don’t know) but if LaurenD’s intent is to point out that political advances are being thwarted by political power being held by parties whose interests are different then ours and those interested in a unified Iraq, then LaurenD is right on. Mukie Sadr is not only a thug and warlord but he is an elected member of the parliment. Forty percent of cabinet posts are unfilled because of internal squabbling, parliment can seldom seat a quorum.
When Basra went up in flames due to the work of the Mahdi Army, Maliki went against US suggestions, tried to fight the battle himself and was soundly routed when more then 1,000 of his security troops deserted- Iran was called in to negotiate the cease fire.
US interests are not even a consideration to those in power in Iraq but its our brave troops with their butts on the line while Iraqi politicians look out for themselves when they are not on extended vacations.
All Americans should be irate with our Iraqi “allies”.
"When Basra went up in flames due to the work of the Mahdi Army, Maliki went against US suggestions, tried to fight the battle himself and was soundly routed when more then 1,000 of his security troops deserted- Iran was called in to negotiate the cease fire."
Hmmm, more disinformation right from the liberal media playbook. You may want to check the news today regarding the latest on Mookie and his "Army". Current events are showing your BS statements to be just that - BS.
Oh, and the quote from "Stripes" is "Lighten up (not "take it easy"), Francis". Is there anything you can get right, Einstein?
Secularists as in someone who does not want a theocracy. The New Iraq is based on Sharia law. The term I should have used is Islamists, I do concede that. I don’t think that pointing out that when given the gift of freedom (paid for with the blood of those fighting for their freedom) they voted for oppression, makes me a fraud. What does calling me one for daring to point this out make you?
How do you stay focused on the issues when half your time is spent accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a leftist and implying that there is some sort of conspiracy of posters coming here? Guess I just answered my own question.
I've got no more time for you now, but I'll be sure to pop up and remind people of your MO when I see you spouting similar nonsense on other threads...
(And I find it extremely hillarious that you have no idea of the incongruity in your statement "they VOTED for oppression". Too funny.)
LOL........you have the time and interest to look up poster’s sign up dates. I don’t even look at the screen names of posts 99% of the time because I don’t care. This is exactly the kind of tactics one would expect to find on the lefty loon boards. I would expect better of a conservative forum but then the so called conservatives now days leave a lot to be desired and are looking more like liberals by the day.
Any other burning issues I can clear up, sweetie-pie?
They did vote for oppression. Islam is about oppression and they voted for Islam. You obviously have no idea what makes a free society. Democracy is a tool, not the supreme element of a free society. Democracy without a foundation of liberty such as we have, is nothing more than a power grab. So now, women can be beaten by her husband using democracy instead of a dictatorship. Well, that’s a big improvement in your alternate reality. But you continue to play your immature little games. It’s much easier for those like you that can’t back up your positions with anything else........LOL.
Why do you care what poster’s sign up dates are? You must have a reason. Not a good reason of course. Just part of your silly little tactics you learned from the lefty sites.
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.