McCains call for Iraq, now and in 100 years. - Page 5

MUNKO1970 · #41 (**permalink**) 02-16-2008, 08:00 PM

I acknowledge the fact that there is NO simple solution to this problem. But I have a few questions:

Why do we keep comparing the occupation in Iraq to these 3?

Was there an insurgency in any of these nations that the history books failed to note?

Aren't we simply parked in South Korea, staring across the border and glaring at the North Koreans?

sunnyside · #42 (**permalink**) 02-16-2008, 09:14 PM

The Germans tried with their "Werwolf" groups. But they'd be brutalize for some time. And they had to worry about the Russians taking over if the US couldn't hack it.

The comparison though is to give an example of the situation he's thinking of when saying we'd be there in 100 years. But now we aren't there yet. And we'd probably have to stay in the Green Zone or something like that as opposed to freely moving about..

ThinkBeforeYouVote · #43 (**permalink**) 02-16-2008, 09:53 PM

A withdrawal is never as easy as they think it is. It would take Billions of dollars and years to move out all the people and all the equipment we have in Iraq. Why is it a bad idea? well leaving iraq for either the al queda insurgents or for iran to take is not a very good national security decision in the long run. What's the answer? Hell if I know, but i do know leaving iraq in the hands of enemies will only guarantee our return down the road.

lunecat · #44 (**permalink**) 02-16-2008, 11:45 PM

Iraq is comparable to previous war zones like Germany. S. Korean etc - because if you were to totally remove all military commitment that would encorage others to take advantage ie Russia and N.Korea in those examples - Iran and Syria in the case of Iraq.

Don't forget you also have troops and airforce bases in many other Countries the UK for example - this is a legacy of WWII and the reasons they are still applicable today as they were in 1945 that's one as a peace keeper!

I read/hear people saying they intend to vote for Obama to get the US out of Iraq - but you can't simply vote yourself out of a war! That war exists the UK, Canada, Poland and others are engaged in that same war. Call it a "war on terror" or call it "the war the terrorist decaled on West Democracy" makes no difference to me - but that war exists - and you can't vote yourself out of it unless you are voting for surrender or conditions granted to you by your enermy.

You may have to stay in Iraq for some time to come, continue the good work continue to hand over the security of regions to the Iraqi forces until only a few bases are required to continue to keep the peace and monitor the situation.

But don't for goodness sake - vote under the misunderstanding that Obama will end the war and bring the troops home without thinking of the price you have to pay for appeasement.

Hard-Driver · #45 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon

Point is we were there already from the first gulf war. Hussein broke his deals and resolutions and wouldnt comply. Fact is that nation before we went in supported terrorist groups including al quada. Fact is we leave now, we will yet again leave another nation of broken promises. Remember Afganistan back in the late 1980s? After Soviets let, we also left them hanging...Lets not do this to Iraq....

Here is the last UN report before the war, Saddam is allowing unfettered no notice inspections everyhwere at anytime... The Iraqi government was even called "proactive".. where is the non-compliance?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Show me one confimed operational link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

So then you are basically saying we need to stay to clean up the fubar we created...

Hard-Driver · #46 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunecat

Iraq is comparable to previous war zones like Germany. S. Korean etc - because if you were to totally remove all military commitment that would encorage others to take advantage ie Russia and N.Korea in those examples - Iran and Syria in the case of Iraq.

Don't forget you also have troops and airforce bases in many other Countries the UK for example - this is a legacy of WWII and the reasons they are still applicable today as they were in 1945 that's one as a peace keeper!

I read/hear people saying they intend to vote for Obama to get the US out of Iraq - but you can't simply vote yourself out of a war! That war exists the UK, Canada, Poland and others are engaged in that same war. Call it a "war on terror" or call it "the war the terrorist decaled on West Democracy" makes no difference to me - but that war exists - and you can't vote yourself out of it unless you are voting for surrender or conditions granted to you by your enermy.

You may have to stay in Iraq for some time to come, continue the good work continue to hand over the security of regions to the Iraqi forces until only a few bases are required to continue to keep the peace and monitor the situation.

But don't for goodness sake - vote under the misunderstanding that Obama will end the war and bring the troops home without thinking of the price you have to pay for appeasement.

The Iraqi people hate Al Qaeda, there is no way they will take over the country.

Iran is going to be an influence in Iraq, and to think otherwise is niave. But to think they are going to invade and take it over is also crazy. Hell, we can state our intentions to defend Iraq against an invasion, and it will never occur.

But if Iraq has a government that is anything close to representing the people of Iraq, they are not going to love the USA and there will be influence from Iran.

And no one is appeasing anyone. Turning Iraq over to Iraqi's is not appeasing anyone. Unless you think that we should stay in Iraq just to spite the people who want us to leave. This is as dumb as saying we should stay in Iraq because we care what Al Qaeda may say...

Al Qaeda will not have any support in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not support Al Qaeda like the Taliban did. They have won nothing. But if you think we need to sacrafice our soldiers lives and hundreds of billions of dollars because you are afraid some loser in a cave is going to call you a name, then all I can say is get some self respect and a spine.

maxell · #47 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunecat

He talks sense.

"Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible."

I agree, it's much better than "Bring em on!"

I wonder what that guy in your avatar would have done had Roosevelt told Hitler that?

Come to think of it, I wonder if King George set a date for withdrawal? Yes he did, he even signed it.

lunecat · #48 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maxell

I agree, it's much better than "Bring em on!"

I wonder what that guy in your avatar would have done had Roosevelt told Hitler that?

Come to think of it, I wonder if King George set a date for withdrawal? Yes he did, he even signed it.

How cryptic

DuH2 · #49 (**permalink**) 02-17-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

I agree, it's much better than "Bring em on!"

I wonder what that guy in your avatar would have done had Roosevelt told Hitler that?

He did.
"We will accept nothing less but the unconditional surrender of our foes"

..at the time it caused a stir but then the reality of the enemy became known. Today the unconditional surrender of the AXIS in light of their efforts to exterminate people who they didn't like is accepted as gospel by eveyrone but the revisionist who want us to feel bad for Dresden or the Atomic Bombing ....Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy..nobody was gassed..etc etc.

In todays conflict the reality of the enemy is very well known and my guess is Churchill would respond with something like....

Quote:

Some people may be startled or momentarily depressed when, like your President, I speak of a long and hard war. But our peoples would rather know the truth, sombre though it be. And after all, when we are doing the noblest work in the world, not only defending our hearths and homes but the cause of freedom in other lands, the question of whether deliverance comes in 1942, 1943 or 1944 falls into its proper place in the grand proportions of human history. Sure I am that this day - now we are the masters of our fate; that the task which has been set us is not above our strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us. In the words of the Psalmist, 'He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.' Not all the tidings will be evil.

...

Quote:

Do we not owe it to ourselves, to our children, to mankind tormented, to make sure that these catastrophes shall not engulf us for the third time? It has been proved that pestilence may break out in the Old World, which carry their destructive ravages into the New World, from which, once they are afoot, the New World cannot by any means escape. Duty and prudence alike command first that the germ-centres of hatred and revenge should be constantly and vigilantly surveyed and treated in good time, and, secondly, that an adequate organisation should be set up to make sure that the pestilence can be controlled at its earliest beginnings before it spreads and rages throughout the entire earth.

http://rightwingnews.com/speeches/churchdec.php

maxell · #50 (**permalink**) 02-18-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2

He did.
"We will accept nothing less but the unconditional surrender of our foes"

..at the time it caused a stir but then the reality of the enemy became known. Today the unconditional surrender of the AXIS in light of their efforts to exterminate people who they didn't like is accepted as gospel by eveyrone but the revisionist who want us to feel bad for Dresden or the Atomic Bombing ....Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy..nobody was gassed..etc etc.

In todays conflict the reality of the enemy is very well known and my guess is Churchill would respond with something like....

...

http://rightwingnews.com/speeches/churchdec.php

Roosevelt NEVER taunted or baited Hitler to kill his soldiers. Eisenhower wouldn't have put up with it.

Telling the enemy to "bring em on" is not the same as calling for surrender. Not even close.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
McCains record on illegal immigration	getinvolved	Immigration	0	01-19-2008 11:47 AM
Bush Skeptical of Dems' Call for Iraq Troop Withdrawal	JP5	Current Events	7	11-14-2006 05:48 PM
Iraqi forces will take over in Iraq by years end	Hard-Driver	Current Events	27	08-02-2006 10:29 AM
The McCains and War	DuH2	Current Events	6	07-30-2006 01:06 PM
Mom’s call FROM iRAQ prompts pupil’s suspension	f100supersabr	Current Events	7	05-09-2005 09:39 AM