The Will To Lose

from JoeUser Forums

The Bush administration repeatedly uses the refrain “cut and run.” This is only natural as it had cowardly cut and run in Afghanistan, and repeatedly used the same in Iraq — the cue was the banner “Mission Accomplished.” After May of ‘03, the outcome was “slam dunk” and the course of the war meandered in the simplistic confidence that the war was indeed over. When the harsh reality of insurgency ran rampant, it was too late to conjure up anything but pretentious bravado — “bring it on.”

For Rove to accuse Democrats of “cut and run” is hilarious. Democrats are not in charge of the war and whether they are for the war or against it has no bearing on the fate of Iraq — the administration decided long ago that it would not use its full resources to invade. In this sense “cut and run” was the strategy even before the combat began. Had they the backing of the UN “cut and run” would have worked to set the stage for UN peacekeeping within a truly liberated nation but with its infrastructure virtually intact. Had they resorted to this same strategy with Afghanistan, once the warlords, together with the Taliban, were forced to throw down their arms there would not be resurgence there today.

To “stay the course” is ludicrous when it is obvious our leaders have no will nor means to win.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: September, 4, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
5,111 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
hi man, well i realy agree with what you say, is very sad that this country is still on the hands of this a**hole, is good to know that
there is a lot of people that think the same way, but it's realy sad that the power of a few always controls what peace is about.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
is there no lie too low
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, if you read the Rove speech, you would see he clearly is not talking about democrats, and the only senator he names is a republican one from the FDR era.  It was Reid and Dean who politicized the speech and basically took off on a rant that had nothing to do with what was stated.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, if you read the Rove speech, you would see he clearly is not talking about democrats,
Ah, but how clear the implicitness! Not to mention again tying the current situation to WWII.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not to mention again tying the current situation to WWII.

Oh, the tying to WWII was very explicit!  That was the whole point.  If we fail to learn the lessons of that war, we are doomed to repeat them.  But this time, we truly do have the capacity to destroy man as we know him today.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

without reading this as an attack response. "what should we do"? Just pack and leave? stay?

What seems reasonable to you?

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, the tying to WWII was very explicit!
Oh, yes, I agree; but you think not mentioning DEMs explicitly   clears him of the charge, yeah, right. You know, the REPs in the '30's were the isolationists--you cannot accuse the DEMs today of that.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
What seems reasonable to you?
Even with a Democrat Congress it is unlikely that they would cut off appropriations for Iraq, but they might shortchange in tandem with troop attrition. Nothing can essentially change until '08 with Sen Hagel or Gen. Clark as president. 
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Wednesday, September 06, 2006
What seems reasonable to you?
Even with a Democrat Congress it is unlikely that they would cut off appropriations for Iraq, but they might shortchange in tandem with troop attrition. Nothing can essentially change until '08 with Sen Hagel or Gen. Clark as president.

nice non answer steven, "what seems reasonable TO YOU?"

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Oh, yes, I agree; but you think not mentioning DEMs explicitly clears him of the charge, yeah, right.

No left!  And not all the isolationists are Dems.  But I think the attack of the Dems on Rummy is more indicative of their guilt complex, than anything Rummy said.  If you made a statement like "All war mongers are poop heads!", it would not cause me to get defensive, as I know I am not one, and you did not say "All Conservatives".

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
...cowardly cut and run in Afghanistan


We left? Please explain.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Psst!  Welll done on the feature!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
We left? Please explain.
No, we're still there but thousands of our troops were redeployed to Iraq. Had we concentrated on Afghanistan without a blown-up diversion, the country would be more stable and our troops gone by now.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

nice non answer steven, "what seems reasonable TO YOU?"
There comes a time when one must cut his losses. Deploy near Syrian and Iranian borders and let the Iraqis kill themselves.

 

Doc, All conservatives are tax cut mongers.

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doc, All conservatives are tax cut mongers

Here! Here!  I represent that remark!

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, we're still there but thousands of our troops were redeployed to Iraq


Is this what the leading Democrats propose for Iraq? I was under the assumption they wanted to pull all the troops from Iraq and redeploy to .. wherever .. Okinawa is the only one that comes to mind but I believe the main point was all the troops.

I'm guessing there is no difference in those two tactics in your opinion, at least as far as categorizing both as 'cut and run'.