Political Crossfire Forums

[Trajan]

What is there to get? The Bush "plan" has failed. It has not gotten better. It has gotten worse. The failure was in the main the reason the Repubs lost Congress.

America has lost patience with the failure of stay the course. The Iraqis are not standing up. We have lost more soldiers post mission accomplished than VE or VJ day.

The country will not tolerate a massive increase, if any, of our military presence out there. It is not a smart move to continue an increasingly unpopular war.

There is no way of knowing what will happen when we leave. There can only be speculation. Which is no better than throwing darts really. One thing is certain. American troops will stop dieing on foreign soil in a conflict that was poorly planned from the start.

And we will see just how much Iraqis want this freedom we gave them. Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." But it isn't our tree this time.

[Chingu]

OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

3) Is it important to live up to your word?

4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

Answer each question honestly if you have the capacity to do that.

[Otacon]

Chingu wrote: OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

3) Is it important to live up to your word?

4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

Answer each question honestly if you have the capacity to do that.

1) No.

2) No, because we already knew they didn't.

3) Yes.

4) No.

5) Yes.

6) Yes.

7) No.

8) Yes and no.

9) Yes.

10) Yes.

[Chingu]

I'd like to hear from some sensible people if they notice the same thing I am noticing in the anti-war relpies here. Is it just me or do they all have opininions without anything relevent to base them on? I hear, that we are loosing in Iraq, but none of the military people nor our leadership seem to agree. Do the anti-war left here on this BBS know better than the military and the leadership in regard to if we are loosing or winning?

I hear claims that popular opinion is against thwe war as if the popular opinion is somehow the end all be all of intelligent decision making. Does the average Joe know as much as the people directly involved in this conflict? Does the average Joe have the intelligence and information to make an informed decision? Does the average Joe take into consideration everything one needs to take into consideration before taking a position regarding something so important?

Does the fact that we are involved in a violent fight mean things are messed up or that we are loosing? And, if so, wouldn't that suggest that D-Day, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tet, Gettysburg, Antiem were all lost causes and big messes?

Doesn't it sound like the left is myopic in their views? Perhaps less concerned with reality than with a partisan political position? Or, could it be that the left and/or anti-war types are idealic but naive enough to believe that our enemies are really not the threat that they are preported to be?

Doesn't the anti-war rhetoric sound just a little like a bunch of spoiled children who don't want to eat their vegetables or do their homework before they go out and play?

And, doesn't it just seem a bit selfish and arrogant to dismiss the Iraqi people out of hand and be more concerned with the financial cost of war than the ramifications involved in either position?

And, when we consistently read misguided and ill-informed reasons for their positions, doesn't that demonstrate that they really don't have an educated grasp on what is going on in Iraq? We hear them constantly mixing up who our enemy really is by saying things like Juhadists are in the Iraqi Government and that there is a high percentage of Shiite in the government and therefor they are Jihadists?

Have we not heard that we were going to loose, were getting into a quagmire from day one? Is it not possible that the left has intended for this to fail from day one and no matter what we do they would consider it a failure?

Does anyone else notice that when cold-hard facts are presented to the left they either change the subject, parse semantics or simply ignore them?

Isn't it showing that there is video-recordings of the entire Democratic leadership saying the exact same things Bush was saying regarding Iraq and our reasons for going to war and that the left can ignore all of those people - many of which - including Prsident Clinton - had access to the very same intelligence that Bush did - and then say Bush lied - but still believe that Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Ried, Madaline Albright and the whole lot of them were honest?

Doesn't it also appeare that a significant portion of these anti-war types are misguided into believing that mostof the problems in this world are the fault of America and that the motivations for our involvement in Iraq were conspiratorial rather than in the interest of our national security?

I believe the left /anti-war types here present my case in stunning clarity. They are not interested in the outcome here. They never were. They haven't a concern with the state of the world, the security of the nation or any of this. What they have is a simple-minded partisan perspective that disallows honesty and holds the ideals of this nation and others who seek to do the right thing in contempt. These folks are no different than the fantastic whackos that protest and WTO meetings.

I have not heard one argument to my points yet on this thread that really honestly address the issues. They have totally ignored the consequences of leaving question.

All we can hope for, I suppose, is that clearer heads prevail and that the left - which has failed in foreign policy at every turn for decades and decades - does not pressure us to take the wrong road because our future will be vwery grim if that ends up being the case.

[Chingu]

Otacon wrote: Chingu wrote: OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

3) Is it important to live up to your word?

4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

Answer each question honestly if you have the capacity to do that.

1) No.

2) No, because we already knew they didn't.

3) Yes.

4) No.

5) Yes.

6) Yes.

7) No.

8) Yes and no.

9) Yes.

10) Yes.
Would you care to elaborate on your answers? I find them stunning.

[Chingu]

Oh, and another trademark of the liberal left and its complicit buddy - the major media outlets:

You make sure all US mistakes, true or false - make the headlines and that any even slightly questionable activities are examined and scrutinized based on the idea that there is some conspiratorial reason for them - but then, ignore and or try and rationalize the actions of terrorists and dictators.

[Otacon]

Chingu wrote: Otacon wrote: Chingu wrote: OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

3) Is it important to live up to your word?

4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

Answer each question honestly if you have the capacity to do that.

1) No.

2) No, because we already knew they didn't.

3) Yes.

4) No.

5) Yes.

6) Yes.

7) No.

8) Yes and no.

9) Yes.

10) Yes.
Would you care to elaborate on your answers? I find them stunning.

1) It is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power. He was an evil man and needed to be removed, but I would have preferred if we attempted different methods other than invasion.

2) The U.N. weapons inspectors already confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq.

3) Yes, it is important to live up to your word, but it is sometimes acceptable to break your word.

4) Even if Iraq becomes a great new Democracy, other countries in the Middle-East such as Iran won't convert governments and might even attack Iraq and spark even more violence.

5) We have trained Iraqi soldiers and policeman, and it isn't the United States' job to play nanny with the world.

6) The world already has a pretty low opinion of our country, and I value lives more than I value how the US is viewed in the world.

7) No, one should believe whatever they feel is right. They shouldn't follow what the majority believes if they don't agree.

8) They have already won, but we could eventually exterminate them at the cost of lives and resources.

9) Yes. If we can stop a terrorist attack, we should, but wasting time in Iraq isn't what I would call preventing further terrorist acts.

10) This war wouldn't occur because of withdrawing from Iraq. It would occur because of something far worse, perhaps something that would warrant our involvement.

[Kilo Tango]

The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

[beachbum bob]

Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence...

[Timmytour]

Chingu wrote: OK, now that you are all done having your little anti-war acedemic psycho-babble - allow me to ask a few pointed questions:

1) Would you prefer that Saddam were still in power?

I never imagined for one moment that a campaign could be undertaken with such a lack of foresight and planning, with such gullibility and naivety, and above all with such incompetency, that I would hesitate to answer the above question on he grounds of asking what "am I comparing it to?"

Am I glad that Iraq ws invaded? No. I worry more about the consequences of that then I do about the consequences of Saddam still being in power.

Do I believe Saddam could have been bought down without resorting to it? Yes.

Do I think life has improved for Iraqis because of it? No. And at this I have to a certain extent have to hazard a guess. Becasue before the Americans got into the country they apparently were able to tell how many lives had been lost because of Saddam. However, when they were actually in the country they lost the ability to tally lives lost or no longer had the desire to "do body counts". One of your "good news" stories was about more children in a part of Iraq now being educated then was the case in Saddam's Iraq. But what's the story in terms of overall population? Has education been lost to a whole generation of children. And how does the comparison stand up to all the hardship being endured prior to the invasion because of sanctions?

Quote: 2) Was it important to find out if Iraq posessed WMD?

Well you might want to confirm firstly whether it has or hasn't been confirmed yet. I'm sure you are aware of plenty of people over the years on this forum who seem to think there was WMD :shock:

My answer is no. Never was there once a rational explanation given as to how Sadddam would have acquired them in the climate of sanctions and regular air raids that took place. Never once was there a reasonable explanation for why the comments of Powell and Rice in the first seven months of 2001 about Saddam being contained were not relevant later. Bush listened for the answer he wanted, not the answers that were true. He listened more to the Iraq National Congress than he did to the CIA. He did not stop to think fo one moment that Saddam's bluster was all aimed at deterring Iran rather than the US.

Saddam didn't get his way. Iran really does influence what goes on in Iraq these days. I can's help think that in this particular aspect we would have been better off with the way Saddam was doing things rather than the way Bush has done things

Quote: 3) Is it important to live up to your word?

No, espcially if your word involves some pie-in-the-sky promise. Humility will always get you further than unjustified and ineffective arrogance.

Quote: 4) Is the future of IRaq important to the region it is in and the ret of the world?

In 2002 it was as important as it was from 1992-2001. No more. No less. Now it has almost taken on the importance that Afghanistan was to the Soviets after they moved their troops in there.

Quote: 5) Is it OK to abandon the Iraqi people?

How many other nations in the world have been abandoned just because they don't have a US military presence on their soil?
Equatorial Guinea has oil, it's one of the richest nations in the world yet it's people are one of the poorest in the world. They are run by a dictatorship and a corrupt government. Has the US got any influence there? You bet! It even has a special trading relation with them. Would we consider the people of EQ to have been abandoned? Probably not, becasue all the BS about caring for them was never issued in the first place.
Were the people of Lebanon abandoned when, two months after after their President was received at the White House and told how much respect their was for the country, and despite the promise being made that the US would defend their sovereignty, Israel waltzed in and the US did nothing.
If the US withdrew from Iraq and then paid the country no more attention, perhaps it could be said that they were abandoned. But I know of no one who advocates that approach.

Quote: 6) Is it acceptable to diminish the credibility of the United States by going back on our word?

If the word of the US has been to not rest until Iraq has peace, democracy and stability, then to my mind withdrawal is the most reasonable next step to take if the desire to get anywhere near keeping the word is still there.

I don't see a promise to bring those things to Iraqi being kept by invading and occupying their country and then inviting the world's terrorists to come on down and fight it out on their soil.

It's not a question of losing credibility by doing something different...it's a matter of retaining the last remnants of it and having something of it left upon which to build.

Quote: 7) Does popular opinion mean that the opinion is correct?

It's no truer now than it was when Bush got re-elected.

Quote: 8) Is it acceptable to allow the terrorists victory in Iraq?

No. That's why I course the day Bush made it possible. The terrorists are getting freer and freer reign in Iraq. Something different needs to be done to prevent them being victorious.

Quote: 9) Is it important to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States of America and our allies around the world?

Yes. It's been happening. And I cannot recall, in all the suspected attempts that we're told have been thwarted, any instance of a team setting out from Iraq to launch a terrorist attack on the US or her allies. Even when one occured in Jordan, it was a Jordanian suspeced to be behind the bombings who then went back to Iraq to plough his nasty trade. So how did fighting in Iraq stop that?

Quote: 10) Would a war in the nearterm future that is of a far greater scale with far more casualties be an acceptable outcome after prematurely withdrawing from Iraq?

What's "premature" withdrawal? I think the seeds of falure have long been set loose.
It's possible it would happen, it's possible it will happen anyway, without withdrawal, and it's possible that withdrawal will ease a lot of the tensions that exist in Iraq and help expose those who can currently hide their anti-Iraq feelings behind the general anti-American sentiment. One undeniable improvement would be the reduction in US troops dying. And if a bigger war did ensue that was between different enemies of the US, what's the problem. It's noticeable that the nations emerging more and more in the last few years, such as Russia and China, are those who have not handicapped their military and budgets to futile hostile action.

[Gdawg007]

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....

The free press was shut down by the new Iraqi gov't in Saddam's hometown when they reported and showed video from the rally's protesting Saddam's verdict.

No, good news does not sell papers.

The news in Iraq is not that nothing is going right, it's that the one major thing that MUST go right, Iraq developing a stable gov't, isn't exactly working out. The violence we are seeing isn't just al Qaeda versus US troops, it's Iraqi on Iraqi fighting for power and revenge. So far, the current gov't has been unable to control it, and the current president can do little without risking loss of much of his Shi'ite support which tends to come from the hardliners intent on punishing the Sunni's. That's the real news in Iraq, and every car bomb or kidnapping or gunfight that happens as a result of this is much more newsworthy than a villiage rebuilding a school. Why? Because if the gov't in Baghdad can't get established, that rebuilt school is going to become nothing but rubble again.

[Kilo Tango]

beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

[Gdawg007]

Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

[beachbum bob]

Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

the stakes in the ME are only higher because of BIG OIL controlling the US GOVT energy policies...I could care less for OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the rest of those in the mix.

sending US dollars to OPEC fuels the hate.....

[Chingu]

beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence...

Yeah - it is -relatively - now that the Communist N. Vietnamese have murdered thousands upon thousands of civilians and forced everyone else to comply with their strict communist.marxist ideology. Now that the citizens of vietnam are in too much fear to speak openly or to be free.

And kampuchea isn't exactly an Eden on Earth -nor is Laos where there is an iron fisted Communist military presence over the civilians. Not to mention the millions slaughtered there. I guess all of that was worth it for peace though huh?

[Chingu]

Gdawg007 wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

I actually agree with you here. The big difference in future threat between Vietnam loss and this fight is that regading containment we also had another weapon which was detante and or MAD which was fairly helpful. that doesn't apply in this fight we face now. So, that really does make this one a bit more important to win in the short and long term.

[Gdawg007]

Chingu wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence...

Yeah - it is -relatively - now that the Communist N. Vietnamese have murdered thousands upon thousands of civilians and forced everyone else to comply with their strict communist.marxist ideology. Now that the citizens of vietnam are in too much fear to speak openly or to be free.

And kampuchea isn't exactly an Eden on Earth -nor is Laos where there is an iron fisted Communist military presence over the civilians. Not to mention the millions slaughtered there. I guess all of that was worth it for peace though huh?

And what would've been required to stop this outcome? We had how many troops in Vietnam? If I recall, it was near half a million at one point. Even if we had invaded the north and overthrown their regime, which is not to say it was politically possible at all, how many would we have had to kill in order to remove the communists from the North? I say kill, but they would call it murder just as you call what they did murder. How long would we have had to stay in order to ensure the Communists simply didn't take control back once we left? The communist party had the support of the people in the north, and a lot of support from the people in the South as well. Ho Chi Min did win the election, afterall.

[beachbum bob]

Chingu wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence...

Yeah - it is -relatively - now that the Communist N. Vietnamese have murdered thousands upon thousands of civilians and forced everyone else to comply with their strict communist.marxist ideology. Now that the citizens of vietnam are in too much fear to speak openly or to be free.

And kampuchea isn't exactly an Eden on Earth -nor is Laos where there is an iron fisted Communist military presence over the civilians. Not to mention the millions slaughtered there. I guess all of that was worth it for peace though huh?


sh*t happens...no where do I see in the US Constitution any amendment or article that says America is to nation build.....no do I see where it says american taxpayers will pay with their blood and their monies to do so...

[Gdawg007]

Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

I actually agree with you here. The big difference in future threat between Vietnam loss and this fight is that regading containment we also had another weapon which was detante and or MAD which was fairly helpful. that doesn't apply in this fight we face now. So, that really does make this one a bit more important to win in the short and long term.

Yes, but your assuming that the fighting is Al Qaeda interests versus US intersts. In reality, most of the fighting in Iraq is about control of the country between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and there are many factions that have ntohing to do with Al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda holds very little power in the largely Shi'ite dominated Iraq.

[beachbum bob]

[quote="Gdawg007"] Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

I actually agree with you here. The big difference in future threat between Vietnam loss and this fight is that regading containment we also had another weapon which was detante and or MAD which was fairly helpful. that doesn't apply in this fight we face now. So, that really does make this one a bit more important to win in the short and long term.

Yes, but your assuming that the fighting is Al Qaeda interests versus US intersts. In reality, most of the fighting in Iraq is about control of the country between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and there are many factions that have ntohing to do with Al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda holds very little power in the largely Shi'ite dominated Iraq.[/quote]

that is the reality of the situation and the very reason why it is ignored.....by the iraqi debacle supporters