No Magic Moment To Withdraw

from JoeUser Forums

 When it is apparent that the US entered the war undermanned — and the ensuing years’ increasing casualties support this — is it really “supporting our troops” who are there as it were as a brave lost battalion? If it is true that early withdrawal would result in chaos — as if it didn’t now prevail — then why a mere skeletal force to try to maintain minimal order? Is that fair to ask our troops to hold the line, so to speak, without fully reinforcing them? Personally, I think that whether troops remain or not there will still be an unstable Iraq for years to come. It is unrealistic to hope that at some magic moment, Bush will be able to stand-down our troops and declare as in May ‘03, “mission accomplished.”

politics
6,532 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Defining when our mission is over there is not essential, allowing our government to do whatever it feels like doing, regardless of accountability or our will is imperative to it's perogotive (whatever perogotive that is).

Thanks to everyone for providing the blank check.

I, my children, and your children really appreciate this expensive shit.

I feel safer already!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feel safer already!
Euphoria in behalf of the hawk's indulgence, though it came with a terrible price and still counting.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
all your arguments fail to make sense when you consider that there has NEVER been a war fought to those specifications.

Why should we start now?

If we used the current democrat ideal, we would have pulled out of WWII in the first three years... if we got into it at all!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we used the current democrat ideal, we would have pulled out of WWII in the first three years... if we got into it at all!
When are you guys going to get off this non sequitur of comparing Iraq with WWII?--which was absolutely essential; Iraq is not. True, it goes without saying that our troops should always be supported. But as I implied there are different ways to support them. I happen to think either we put in more troops and actively engage in bloody civil war or withdraw from the current infighting and let the Iraqis battle it out.  
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
or withdraw from the current infighting and let the Iraqis battle it out.


Works for me. Since when can you hand freedom over like a sweet, antiseptic package to be unwrapped? Iraqis must assert themselves.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Since when can you hand freedom over like a sweet, antiseptic package to be unwrapped? Iraqis must assert themselves"

Exactly!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

When are you guys going to get off this non sequitur of comparing Iraq with WWII?--

The comparison is to the european theater only, and it is valid.  We did not have to go there.  Germany and Italy were not a threat to us, period.

So the comparison is valid.

And your premise is flawed.  While you accept it as fact, it is not universally accepted as fact that we did not go in with enough troops.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
While you accept it as fact, it is not universally accepted as fact that we did not go in with enough troops.
Tell that to the field generals. BTW Germany declared war on us!
Texaii, Yes, there comes a time when even the candy runs out.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
When are you guys going to get off this non sequitur of comparing Iraq with WWII?--which was absolutely essential; Iraq is not.

The comparison is to the european theater only, and it is valid. We did not have to go there. Germany and Italy were not a threat to us, period.


Japan attacked us, therefore they were a direct threat to Pacific holdings acquired in the Spanish-American War (Phillippines, Guam, Hawaii, etc.) They, like Taliban-held Afghanistan, intitiated the conflict and needed to be dealt with.

Germany and Italy, while incapable of directly threatening the United States or its possessions, were allied with Japan in the conflict. Germany and Italy also threatened its neighbors, who were our allies and friends. To declare war on Japan was to bring ourselves into the greater war also. This is paralleled with Iraq, who may not have had the technology but definitely the willingness to destroy America.

Comparison? Sure. Oversimplified? Maybe. Valid? Yes.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The comparison is to the european theater only, and it is valid. We did not have to go there. Germany and Italy were not a threat to us, period.


As much as this pains me to say....on this item, this time you'd be wrong. From Wikipedia.org


On August 23, 1939, just before the war broke out, the USSR and Germany signed the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which, among other things, divided Eastern Europe into regions of influence. But Germany violated the pact when it invaded the USSR in 1941. Similarly, the US had the (much older) unilateral Monroe Doctrine, which stated that Europe should not interfere in the Americas and in turn the U.S. would not interfere in European affairs. But the U.S. entered the war after first Japan and then Germany declared war on it and launched direct attacks on its navy, shipping and other interests.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is paralleled with Iraq, who may not have had the technology but definitely the willingness to destroy America.
It's far from "valid" to compare a tinhorn dictator nation with the lethal power of the Axis.

drmiler, this has got to be a first!!

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is paralleled with Iraq, who may not have had the technology but definitely the willingness to destroy America.
It's far from "valid" to compare a tinhorn dictator nation with the lethal power of the Axis.
drmiler, this has got to be a first!!


It more than likely won't be the last either! But I'd be willing to bet they'll be few and far between. So you better mark this on your calander.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jan 17, '06 drmiler Oct '06 ??


HA-HA! "You funny guy, ve kill you last"!

What happened to stevendedalus? "Ve let him go"!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW Germany declared war on us!

So did Iraq.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

As much as this pains me to say....on this item, this time you'd be wrong. From Wikipedia.org

You missed my Point Doc.  Yes, they did declare war on us.  Just as Iraq did by violating their cease fire.  However, like Iraq for 12 years, we could have saber rattled and sat back on this side of the ocean and done nothing.  And let Russia and England fight them.  We did chose not to (BTW:  I in no way think we were wrong to aggressively go after Germany and Italy).  I was only drawing a comparison, not making a value judgement.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, like Iraq for 12 years, we could have saber rattled and sat back on this side of the ocean and done nothing.
Again, no comparison. If we ignored the European theater, while fighting the Nips, Hitler would have defeated Britain and the Soviet Union, making it virtually impossible to defeat Hitler who would also have had the atom bomb.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, like Iraq for 12 years, we could have saber rattled and sat back on this side of the ocean and done nothing.
Again, no comparison. If we ignored the European theater, while fighting the Nips, Hitler would have defeated Britain and the Soviet Union, making it virtually impossible to defeat Hitler who would also
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
However, like Iraq for 12 years, we could have saber rattled and sat back on this side of the ocean and done nothing.
Again, no comparison. If we ignored the European theater, while fighting the Nips, Hitler would have defeated Britain and the Soviet Union, making it virtually impossible to defeat Hitler who would also have had the atom bomb.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Steven, when will YOU wake up to the fact that comparing war to war isn't some strange mystery?

Face it, you can't accept the comparison simply because you don't want to admit there are MANY comparisons from one war to the next.

The Revelutionary War was not a popular idea. Most of the colonists were either agaisnt independence or just didn't see it as necessary.

With WWII, there are still Americans who say we should never have gotten involved; there were just as many conspiracy theories surrounding our involvment there as in Iraq; Germany was never a direct threat to the U.S.; We were attacked by Japan, and went to war with both Japan and Germany over it; there were a lot more accusations of the government depriving citizens of their rights then than there is now; Our involvement in WWII was a DISMAL failure for the first few years. Thousands of Americans were killed in single days of combat, not over years; there were just as many accusations of our involvement in WWII being more about corperate interests than freedom as there is now with Iraq; The Concentration camps weren't even generally known about before our involvement in WWII, but now they are used as a major justification for getting involved; failed policies of appeasement and containment led to escalations of both WWII and the situation in Iraq; WWII was the result (in part) of Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles, our return to hostiliities was the result (in part) to Hussein breaking the ceasefire agreement of 1991... Etc, etc, etc!

It's ironic, democrats (and others against the war in Iraq) keep trying to draw a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam (which has little in common), but then refuse to recognize the MANY similarities between this war and the U.S. involvement in WWII.