For completely altruistic purposes...I am sure!
Posted on 07/07/2007 10:07:54 PM PDT by bnelson44
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
•
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Like the NYT I too am demanding surrender. Where I differ with the NYT is on the matter of which side should do the surrendering.
The enemy speaks.
For completely altruistic purposes...I am sure!
Put another way, "Get out now, Mr. Bush! Otherwise, our anointed Hildebeest's fecklessness will be apparent so quickly we won't have a chance of stealing the health care industry!"
The surrender lobby is running out of time.
In 1951 full wartime censorship was imposed on correspondence out of Korea. Among the many stringent rules....
Correspondents
South Korea's first attempts at government were "rocky" after we freed it in 1945. There was still much social and political unrest when we made the disastrous mistake of withdrawing our troops prematurely in 1949. Some folks would have labeled the conditions in South Korea as a civil war. (see, for example, Cheju uprising, 1948-49)
As was forseen by some wiser minds who had said we should remain in S. Korea , a weak South Korea was invaded from the North in 1950.
In 1950, Truman sent our troops back to Korea, under the guise of fighting a "police action" against "bandits." He was able to get the UN to co-operate in the endeavor because Russia was boycotting the Security Council.
30,000 Americans died in Korea in the remaining 30 months of Truman's presidency
Most of them would not have died under Truman in 1950-53 if we did not pull out of South Korea under Truman in 1948-49.
Better than buying it at 42 : )
I think you have it backwards, Rat:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
Cousin ... no right is absolute. Not even the First Amendment, especially when it’s being cynically used by an outfit like the Slimes that works so hard to undermine legitimate national security interests. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt didn’t tolerate this sort of treachery. Bush shouldn’t either.
After all, we lingered in West Berlin and West Germany, and our presence helped protect those places from their enemies to the East.
We abandoned South Korea in 1949 which did plenty to invite invasion from stronger neighbors.
If we want to abandon Iraq's men, women and children, let's at least be honest about it and quit pretending redeployment would protect them.
Foreword from South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu
At the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the U.S. Army combat units nearest the scene were the four infantry divisions performing occupation duties in Japan. When the Army of the Republic of Korea, supported only by U.S. air and naval forces, was unable to halt the North Korean aggressors, these divisions, seriously understrength and only partially trained and equipped for fighting, provided the troops that were committed initially to action in response to the call of the United Nations Security Council.
Mr. Keller,
You and your newspaper are a disgrace. If Americans wanted to read this drivel we would subscribe to Pravda. At least we know what side they are on.
You have sided with the jihadists against your own president and for what? Because you have been beaten by that moron from Texas so many times that it is making you look like the morons? Is it so that you can get Hillary! elected president and she can push through all of your pet wealth redistribution programs.
In days past, you and your ilk would have been labeled by their proper names – Treason and Sedition.
You claim to care so much about the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that do all of the fighting and dying and yet my guess is that there aren’t many of those same people invited to your swank parties on the Upper East Side. The reason is that you don’t care about them unless they are fighting for “the children” of some far off land that the Times have deemed worthy of their sacrifice. What costs have you incurred because of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq? My guess is nothing because none of your children and those of your colleagues would ever consider lowering yourself from your ivory tower in New York to join the military.
When and if you get your wish, those same soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are going to start coming home and I believe that they are going to tell you and your other socialist partners that not only was your “help” not appreciated but that it got men killed over there. The NY Times has done what no one thought possible – you have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I also believe that they will come home and tell you that you and your newspaper should “go f!$% yourselves”! Pardon my French! Speaking of the French, has the Times decided to surrender to them yet?
As well, when your Marxist buddy Hillary decides that she needs to take the military to war in some other far flung country don’t even think of trying to sell it to people like me. You and the liberal press have now set the bar so high that we won’t be able wage war against any of our enemies and you know what, when you try to sell it to us because it is for the “children” I will have one question to ask you – Do they have weapons of mass destruction? If the answer is no then you should not expect any one on this side of the fence to sign on. You made it so and now you and the Democrats that want the office will have to deal with the aftermath of this petty decision.
Also, you claim that we have diverted resources from Afghanistan? Is that the same Afghanistan that you said would be a quagmire for our soldiers? If you had any understanding of military theory you would see that we have Iran in a pincer movement with troops on both sides of them. Why do you think the Iranians are so nervous? Because they see American soldiers everywhere around them now! If you don’t believe that this will give them a moment of pause then you and the rest of the bed- wetters at the Times couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh and lets consult with our “allies” in the region and while we are at it lets consult with our enemies and see how they feel and if they would like a boat load of our money to make them happy and make them like us again. What a bunch of simple simons! I’m sure if we only acquiesce to all of their demands then everyone will think we are great! Especially those Al-Qaeda types! What you liberal multi-culti morons don’t realize is that they want a global caliphate under sharia law and they don’t care if you write for the Times or not. You either submit or if you don’t you pay the jizya and if you don’t do that you go under the sword. I’m sure that your wives and daughters will look great in a burqa!
All of this would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. You and the communist/Marxist left in this country have made your deal with the devil. The hilarious part about that is that when the Jihadists finally get their wish they are going to come for you and the liberals first because you represent all that is evil in the world to them but hey anything to get George Bush right! Oh and by the way, when are you going to get a charge to stick against President Bush? You’ve tried everything you can think of and you are still flummoxed by the dummy from Crawford and his puppet master Darth Vader oops I mean Vice President Cheney!
We understand that the Times and the Democrats would sell their mothers down the river to get the President but what we didn’t know is that you would send them C.O.D. When it all goes south in Iraq I’m sure that the Times will apologize to all those people in Iraq that they advocated abandoning to Al-Qaeda but I’m not going to bet my rent money on it. You are cowards with no stake in game and even worse you have sold out your country for 40 pieces of silver. The real men are over trying to accomplish the mission while you sell them short here at home.
One day, people like you will be held to account for stabbing our soldiers in the back and pay back as they say is a bitch!
Have a nice day!
Why do stories disappear off FR so rapidly?
Actually, Rat, each one of those presidents tolerated a great deal of “this sort of treachery” before, during and after their respective wars. Those notorious instances when they failed to do so turned out to be blots on their otherwise sterling reputations.
Germany was (compared to Iraq) an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society with strong roots in Western rationalism.
Likely - as in Iraq today - we would have had a lot less success in places more similar to Iraq in this regard.
An example would be Yugoslavia, where totalitarian repression was required to tamp down these differences.
And where even 50 years later they boiled over - just as in Iraq as has soon as the lid was off - and it was impossible to hold the country together.
These measures were judged as “blots” by liberals in academia, especially those “thinkers” who view every bit of history through the prism of the “Marxist dialectic” that has been metastasizing through higher education for 40+ years.
Lincoln’s activities against the Copperheads, Wilson’s Committee on Public Information, Roosevelt’s various crackdowns, the pursuit of Communists through McCarthy and HUAC, and Nixon’s efforts to undo radicals and traitors (who, tragically, undid him through many of the same traitorous elements in our midst now)-—all of these were admirable, effective and pragmatic. By shutting down the Times (and why not CBS and one of the more TreasonRat blogs as well?)
American Conservatism believes in minimalist government, but not to the point of letting internal and external enemies work together to destroy the Republic. To that end, few things would warm my heart more than to see the Times shut, its assets seized, and the slimebags who edit and write it left to rot in the pokey.
Is this a muscular approach? You bet it is. But we are way overdue for smackdown of the psychopathology of liberalism, a condition that has robbed us of common sense and the instinct for national self-preservation. Bush’s continued acquiescence to liberalism — as seen in the debate over illegals — proves how far out of balance things have gotten.
LOL!
The Thirty Years' War began as a civil war and was fought between 1618 and 1648, principally on the territory of today's Germany.[snip]Wars of religion are often very bloody. Consider the The French Wars of Religion, (1562 to 1598)The major impact of the Thirty Years' War, which primarily used mercenary armies who had little concern for anyone's rights or property, was to lay waste to entire regions scavenged bare by the foraging armies, causing a much higher than normal death rate among the civilian population, as episodes of widespread famine and disease (a starving body has little resistance to illnesses) devastated the population of The Germanies and The Low Countries, while bankrupting many of the powers involved. [snip].
Germany's population was reduced by 30 % on average, in the territory of Brandenburg the losses had amounted to half, in some areas to a an estimated two thirds of the population. Germany’s male population was reduced by almost half.
were a series of conflicts fought between Catholics and Huguenots (Protestants) from the middle of the sixteenth century to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, including civil infighting as well as military operations. In addition to the religious elements, they involved a struggle for influence over the ruling of the country between the powerful House of Guise (Lorraine) and the Catholic League, on the one hand, and the House of Bourbon on the other hand. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in these wars.Wikipedia has great lists of Civil Wars - past and present. They are not as uncommon as one might think at first.
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.