From the New York Post:
Fresh from his declaration that “this war [in Iraq] is lost,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America’s unilateral surrender.
And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.
Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.
Never mind that such legislation:
* Likely wouldn’t pass either house of Congress . . .
* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn’t survive a veto.
So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid’s Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?
Or that war in the Middle East is OK—so long as no Americans are fighting?
Or, maybe it’s all about politics?
To be sure, Reid won’t risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party’s bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite “the restlessness” of those who “voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January.”
The problem, said Reid, is that “George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief—and this is his war.”
And there’s the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.
They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world—especially to America’s enemies—because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.
[…]
At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.
Their blood stands to be on his hands.
And that’s a terrible price to pay for a political payday that’s so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk.
[my emphases]
I’ve written it a thousand times, but it bears repeating: it’s not that Democrats like Reid are enamored over “losing.” Instead, it’s that they think of “winning” as a partisan exercise, with power as its own reward.
Similarly, any political angle that can weaken the US military, prevent a muscular foreign policy, and erode bourgeois concepts such as sovereignty and self-determination, will aid in the transformation of the US into a member nation of a global nanny government—a welcomed change, for the perpetually guilt-ridden, from its current status as hegemonic hyperpower. And—to riff off a well-known bromide—when all you have is paper, the whole world begins to look like a treaty.
It is telling that Reid’s fellow Democrats are reacting quickly to his gaffe, not because they don’t wish to see us lose the war— after all, many of them have staked their political future on just that—but rather, because they desperately don’t want to be seen as wishing us to lose. So they are forced to straddle the issue, agitating for legislation that will hamstring the military, offering propaganda victories to our enemies, and providing constant “dissent” that weakens troop morale and emboldens terrorism by giving the impression that the tactic is useful should its practitioners hope to divide a population—all while pretending to care about the troops and wring their hands over the possibility of a loss that they are working actively to help bring about.
Reid’s sin, from the Democratic Party’s perspective, is that he gave voice to the very kind of surrender rhetoric that has long cost Democrats the trust of the American people on issues of national security. Or, to put it another way, Reid’s blunder was one of candor—when what the Democratic party is about these days is keeping up appearances.
In his defense, however, Reid is being worked like a ventriloquist’s dummy by the Democratic base. So it’s hardly surprising that every once in awhile, their voice sneaks through and jolts his audience back to reality.
(h/t CJ Burch; see also, Instapundit and Jules Crittenden.)
If the quip do fit, you must not acquit.
When Collins asked for brief summations of the situation, mine was “Reid is Kos’ bitch now”.
What a sphincter.
It’ll be fun to watch him try to live down those words in the future.
Damn, I wish I were in charge of making RNC commercials! The sheer quantity of the red meat available makes me salivate uncontrollably.
One plausible conclusion to Reid’s remarks: The troops give it up, jihadis win, and Reid and the rest of his ilk get the chop on the steps of the Capitol – broadcast live on Al Jazeera.
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
A sphincter holds stuff back or in.
A common malady amongst very active sodomists is a leaky sphincter.
So he’s now Senator Hyacinth Reid?
Finally heard the podcast last night with you and neo-neocon. Great stuff. You totally nailed it with the observation that the Left has different goals and therefore a different definition of “victory.”
It IS the weakening of “bourgeois” concepts such as sovereignty that they’re after. That the US should “win” against the jihadis only means that this insufferable concept of national independence will continue, and the “jingoists” who wave the flag and call it patriotism will see no reason to submit to their transnational betters.
That’s why you can’t persuade the Left that they shouldn’t say things to undermine the troops or that the jihadis are our enemies: they might be our enemies, but they’re not the Left’s. They want the jihadis to do to the US what the USSR failed to do: overturn the current government and turn the whip over to the intellectual class.
They know best, after all.
I almost started a long rant about this, but decided not to burden the comments with it. I hope it suffices to say that we know we can win this war if we want to win it. The only way we can lose it is by giving up.
Too bad people are using it as a political football. Half this country’s “leaders” are profoundly unserious people. I hope voters realize this before 2008, but let’s face it, most people don’t pay attention to politics at all.
Yet, they can tell you what’s happening on American Idol in a heartbeat. I’d say that the Dem’s have them right where they want them.
What will history make of Senator Reid?
One can only hope that Reid’s words are the spark that ignites a will to win.
What’s even scarier is that even though I don’t watch the show, I knew all about Sanjaya just from watching other shows and reading blogs.
The Dems couldn’t ask for better stuff to distract people from what’s important.
Damn, I wish somebody were in charge at the GOP who knows where the fooking jugular vein is, and goes for it.
Seems like there hasn’t been anyone like that in years.
This is just the next logical step in the game Congress has been playing for 40-odd years to strip the Executive branch of power and turn it into a ceremonial post.
Kucinich’s impeachment game is more in the same vein – to wit: “You will cede your control over the military to the Congress, or the Congress will take you out of office and put someone amenable to our goals in your place.”
It’s not so much about winning the office as it is about neutering it.
I think the trick to getting America to watch politics is high definition televison. Seriously.
I can’t even begin to list the times I watched a totally worthless show on Discovery HD just because it “looked so damn good.”
That, and cheerleaders
…wrestling
…in baby oil
“Damn, I wish somebody were in charge at the GOP who knows where the fooking jugular vein is, and goes for it.”
It looks like they’re goign to take proud, proud ownership of what they’ve done in Iraq. Jugular? perhaps.
So true, Mikey. And we could all be poor Richard.
tw: deal
I linked it in another comment thread yesterday, but I think this post at Vilainous Company nicely details the Democrats political ploys in relation to Iraq. also follow the links to Mudville Gazette and Greyhawk’s post about message control.
Or maybe they just think that the costs of continuing the occupation indefinitely outweigh the likely benefits.
That, and cheerleaders
…wrestling
…in baby oil
Don’t give them the idea. Imagine: That, and Hillary
…wrestling
…in baby oil
Yuck
“Harry Reid: Like a skidmark in the underwear of FREEDOM!”
Then they should show some backbone and not vote for additional funding. oh, but that might cost them politically. as it is, it’s going to win them Senate seats.
Wow, who wrote that Post article? Sean Hannity? Karl Rove? That’s journalism at the apogee of its “Murdochiness”.
Omitted from the final version was how Reid “took a break from windsurfing to simultaneously bugger a child and abort a baby. Said Reid of his afternoon “Before plunging the Middle East into murderous chaos, I generally like to eat the children of white Evangelicals, but this will have to do. C’est la vie.”
>outweigh the likely benefits
What are you, Lloyd’s of freakin London?
Of course, freeing 50+ million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, congregrating terrorists away from our shores and bringing something other than religious zealousy doesn’t fit on the cost analysis sheet. Especially when little brown people are involved.
Maybe the Iraqis could offer Harry some land deals, you know, just so he can get a clearer picture of the benefits of being in Iraq.
Actually Cheney wrote it, after a heavy lunch of chicken fried haji steak and gravy washed down with several Basra Light-tinis.
Where does the cost of abandoning the people who put their trust in us to chaos figure in to that equation, moops?
And why weren’t we told that Harry buggers little children and eats the babies of white evangelicals? Damn Liberal media.
“Where does the cost of abandoning the people who put their trust in us to chaos figure in to that equation, moops?”
Are you looking for a dollar figure or US lives lost?
>Are you looking for a dollar figure or US lives lost?
What, you don’t have a calculation that uses both? If so, maybe you can put in some numbers for trust, courage and a belief in freedom.
What’s your going rate for little brown people these days. I mean in terms of lives not votes.
Are you looking for a dollar figure or US lives lost?
He asked “where”, not “how much”.
Trying too hard to be a snarky smartass just makes you look stupid, emmadine.
The new Democrat mantra according to Crow:
When all you have is paper, there are too many assholes.
He’s looking to fight with someone. He’s the Deputy of PW’s thought police and he’s here to accost someone for writing something heretical.
If you don’t respond, he will just go nuts and start cursing. if you go respond he will call Pablo and they will both go nuts and start cursing. The two of them are artists who use the word “fuck” as their medium.
BJTex walks through the thickening smoke, coughing, weaping and frantically waving his arms: “Substance! <choke> I was <cough> promised substance! <gasp> <wheeze>
PLOP!
Question for the trolling brigade.
Is Harry Reid right? Take your time…
Snarky smartass? On PW? With Professor Snark at the head of the class? Rickinstl, say it ain’t so!
You mean, B Moe, was serious? He wants an answer because he cares about Iraqis? Hah! That was 150% snark
If you don’t respond, he will just go nuts and start cursing. if you go respond he will call Pablo and they will both go nuts and start cursing. The two of them are artists who use the word “fuck†as their medium.
Well “timmy”, we now know you can direct vague, gratuitous insults at Pablo and um, some other person; but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? You remember. We were talking about what huge sphincters Reid and the rest of the congressional dems are.
Try to stay with us.
Look if it turns out no worse than ‘Nam (100,000 killed, 500,000 take to the sea out of fear, 1/2 die at sea, totolitarian government) Iraq will be another victory for the Democrats.
And if it turns out much worse? Well wars are unpredictable after all. Not our fault.
Questioning why the cost of failure isn’t figured into a cost/benefit analysis of success is snark.
Fuck.
I think Reid will get his wish: defeat. He’s already saying he “might” meet with Petraeus but won’t listen to anything Petraeus says if it doesn’t fit his “belief” that we’ve lost already.
I think Kos/Moveon will push a defacto defunding of the war: refuse to send any spending bill to the President and leave the soldiers there without food, ammo, etc. That’s the dynamics of his party and the Media of course can be relied to cover for him.
But then what?
Reid gets his wish: defeat of the US in Iraq (and Afghanistan, we can hardly hold Afghanistan if we lose Iraq). Turkey grudgingly allows us to supply Afghanistan by air the few troops we can put there. Any more troops than what we have and they starve to death in Afghanistan because lots of troops can only be supplied by sea/ground as in Iraq. There is a limit to air supply.
By losing in Iraq we guarantee an Islamist Turkey run by Erdogan will refuse to resupply Afghanistan. So we get double defeat. And Bin Laden is proved right.
What fear of the consequences then exist for Iran or Islamist Pakistan (essentially run by the Taliban and Al Qaeda already) not to nuke the US by deniable proxies?
Reid is likely to get his fondest wish. Defeat of the US by Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that wish will also inevitably come with nuked US cities and tens of millions of US dead.
It is incumbent upon us therefore to make this chain of events crystal clear, obvious and self-evident to all. To lay the blame on Reid and the Democrats for stupidity and outright treason for partisan advantage. And in the Aftermath accept a “war of the peoples” with traditional Western warfare: i.e. total destruction of the enemy and their ability to fight, with no restrictions on what the US military can do. The modern equivalent of the firebombing of Tokyo.
I see no reason in the aftermath of the loss of several major American cities why the nation should not be put on total war footing, why we cannot have a 1,200 ship Navy or more, an armed forces of 20 million or more, a massive naval air wing with double our carriers, double our Air Force strategic bombers, tankers, fighters, etc. and a war strategy akin to that of WWII.
But we will have to be careful and realize that Dems will do as they did after 9/11: march in the dust carrying signs saying: “Our Grief is not a cry for war.”
Still no answer from Emmadine or timmyb as to whether Reid is correct in his actions.
Take shots at other posters all you want; it doens’t make Reid any less a craven opportunist. It doesn’t change the implications of cutting the Iraqis adrift.
Blue Hen,
Notice I didn’t get a reply (not even snark) about my “No worse than ‘Nam” post.
Well, timmy, we already know that you are willfully ignorant when it comes to the future safety of Iraqi civilians.
From the timmyb redeployment manifesto:
timmy cares about the brown people soooooo muuuuuch that he can state, without a scintilla of evidence or logical thinking, that
redeploymentwithdrawal will have a net positive effect because, Clinton like, we will be able to peck at the enemy from afar with our mighty jets and long range guns.Allah help the insurgents if they try to build an asprin factory because WE WILL SO RAIN DEATH DOWN ON YOU … at night … after we’re sure everyone but the janitor has gone home…
BJ,
What a rotten bastard you are. Don’t you know that timmah’s left nut has more compassion for dusky-hued people than you have in your entire body? His right nut, meanwhile, will be on the design team for the Anzio Annies that we’ll be deploying to far-western Iraq to rain death down upon said janitor.
“What’s your going rate for little brown people these days.”
I’ve heard several opinions on this matter. So I was wondering how we should measure it before we could even try. I’ve heard that our rules of engagement should be such that we care less for innocents and more for the lives of our soldiers. Sometimes hyperbolically stated as saying that not one US life is worth some careful ROE. I’ve heard that we should dramatically lower our foreign aid. I’ve also heard that we should increase it. All of which are proxies for measuring ‘little brown people’ via US dollars or lives.
“Still no answer from Emmadine or timmyb as to whether Reid is correct in his actions.”
In which actions? in promising to send a clean bill if this one is vetoed? In saying that dubya’s lost this war? Sounds pretty good to me. It’s a mess over there and there isn’t much that can be done. And these morons that got us into this war really didn’t think it through. Too bad lots of people besides them are going to pay the price.
Though it is nice that the day after we declared that it was unacceptable to extend how long our military families must wait for return from deployments we…. extended deployments.
Now, if you really want boring, go watch jessica lynch.
I’d just like to mention that I too say “fuck” on this website from time to time.
Fuck.
See? I did it again.
BECAUSE OF THE PROFANITY!!!
Has anyone heard whether Soros has decided what to tell Reid to do or what to tell the media to print or broadcast yet? I don’t want to microwave that popcorn too soon!
emmadine – I thought the going rate on brown people was pretty low. We get a lot of them over our Southern border for free every day.
In which actions? in promising to send a clean bill if this one is vetoed? In saying that dubya’s lost this war? Sounds pretty good to me. It’s a mess over there and there isn’t much that can be done. And these morons that got us into this war really didn’t think it through. Too bad lots of people besides them are going to pay the price.
I was wrong emmadine. Stick with being a snarky smartass. When you try to address a topic seriously you look even stupider. True terminal BDS. Remember you wrote that shit when your city goes up in smoke.
“We get a lot of them over our Southern border for free every day.”
Sometimes its a two-fer—like if one of these border crossers happens to be one of the first US soldiers to die in Iraq. Thats going to completly wrench up any politically correct concern for brown people.
Ooohhh, it looks like Timmah! is on to me.
Fuck.
Interesting. So Reid’s correct in announcing that this is a lost cause? Is he willing then to admit what the consequences of this would be? Or has he not yet “thought this one through”? Also, can he or you explain just why Biden and other Democrats are calling for US forces to be inserted into the Sudan at the same time we’re abandoning the Iraqis? Has this been “thought through”? And what is the timeable for abandoning them? Would you agree that it makes sense to announce to those fomenting violence in the Sudan exactly what conditions are needed to cause us to cut and run there? Or not? If not, then why are we doing it in Iraq? Because it’s truly a lost cause, or because you never personally appproved, so any thing that can undermine operations in Iraq is okay?
It’s that kind of can-do American optimism that’s made the Democratic Party what it is today.
If Homer “If something’s hard to do, then it’s not worth doing!” Simpson ran for Senate, I’m sure he’d have emmy’s vote locked up. Ironically enough, Homer’d probably be a better spokeman for the party than Reid ever was. Certainly a better patriot.
“Remember you wrote that shit when your city goes up in smoke.”
I’ll be singing New Model Army’s “I Love the World.”
“Or not?”
They’re all fuckers aren’t they? Its probably quite fine for Biden to spout off about shit. I don’t really pay attention to him, and we’re not goign to fumble into the Sudan in any way like we did to Iraq.
Um…
Did emmadine answer either of my questions?
Anybody else?
What, by all the dancing druid priestesses is the meaning of this incoherent, dubious, obtuse skreech?
Pablo:
Isn’t it great to be recognized? To be a Star?
Fucker!
Sorry;
You too, Bmoe.
Fucker!
Harry said it, emmadine believes it, that settles it.
Well, then. Any idea how we’re going to make this one fast and wonderful, or when we’re going to get started? Because this is starting to look like the best civil war ever, if we can get in there and clean it up after only a couple of million people are dead.
A nice quick, clean victory will do us a world of good. I can’t wait to see how we win the peace in Sudan. I’m sure we can trust in our allies to keep Iran in check after we’ve left Iraq for North Africa.
I’ll be singing New Model Army’s “I Love the World.â€Â
No, you won’t.
You’ll be bleeding.
And crying.
And looking for someone else to blame.
Want me to tell you who that someone will be?
You’ll blame Bush. Why? Because you’re so locked into your silly worldview by BDS that you’re incapable of getting beyond your hatred. You’ll blame Bush and cheer the opportunists in the dem party while they try to build political power on the corpses of your neighbors.
Truly sad.
Emma, honey, the vast majority of the folks serving in Iraq believe in the mission SO MUCH that they keep re-upping: 3, 4, 5 times. Even after they’ve had a leg blown off, they try to find ways to go back.
If the people who are paying the highest price think that the price is worth it, then who are you to say that it isn’t? And if they think that victory is possible, who is Harry Reid to say otherwise?
Those whose “analysis” of the war consists of a gut reaction every time they hear about a bomb on the nightly news are not worth listening to. They need to listen to Petreaus and people on the ground, both US military and Iraqis.
Read this guy and these guys and this guy and this guy for starters.
Then come back and tell me how we’re losing.
If Reid knows who Sayeed Qutb is, I’ll eat my hat. Shoot, I’ll eat your hat if he can tell the difference between a Shia and a Sunni.
“It’s that kind of can-do American optimism that’s made the Democratic Party what it is today.”
I do think a war czar can totally fix it! Thats an idea i’m totally supporting. I really want to hear a lot more about our search for a war czar. Maybe we can get paula abdul in on it.
“Harry said it, emmadine believes it, that settles it.”
I knew from the beggining this was a dumb idea carried out by idiots. I don’t need harry to tell me that 4 years after the fact.
“You’ll blame Bush.”
I’ll blame the lack of a war czar. Specially if simon cowell torpedoes the one i’m voting for.
“Shoot, I’ll eat your hat if he can tell the difference between a Shia and a Sunni.”
Like theologically? Or just that it exists? Like which one is generally pro-iran? which one pro-baath? which one is al-qaeda? Which one gets to be a part of the supreme council for islamic revolution in iraq and still visits the white house? What sorts of differences should I “tell.”?
Reid’s right about one thing : the war is FUBAR’d. Is he wrong? Tell me, when was the last time a foreign power crushed a civil war with a force level of 6 troops per 1000 civilians? Look real hard.
The place has spun out of control and will only get worse, surge or no surge. We have a few options in the next few years : our troops can be sitting on the sidelines protecting the Iraqi borders or at home. I don’t have a problem with either scenario. If you honestly believe 150,000 troops can stop a civil war in a country of 25+ million then you need a history lesson.
Petraeus is in an awful position and even he says the surge has met with “modest progress”. Gates himself told congress if the surge fails then he will begin to move troops out. He helped write the ISG recommendations for a phased withdrawal, after all.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. We don’t have the ability to order up the half million troops needed to fix this cock-up. We’ll leave the cities and the place will turn into all out war. We’ll have nothing to do but try and prevent it from spreading too badly
The region is going to be radicalized, economically repressed, and a hotbed for new terrorist activity for years to come. Many of those new terrorsits are going to have a serious beef with the US and will likely try to kill us at home. All thanks to Bush and the gang who couldn’t plan right.
dicentra:
Let’s give Harry a pop quiz; identify the following people, Senator!
Sayib Qutb
ibn Tayamiyya
ibn Wahab
Hindustanis
Rashid Rida
Hasan al Banna
I’ll bet that he doesn’t get one.
How about you, emmadine? Care to take a shot?
NO GOOGLING! You’re on the honor system!
Oh, and this guy, who specifically addresses Reid.
TW: Amazing how Reid can smell defeat from such a distance15. Rotting meat smells awful to us, to a maggot…?
Have a cite for that? Cause I found this :
“How about you, emmadine? Care to take a shot?”
I’ve heard some of those names before. I don’t think they were iraqi, or in iraq. But like our AG, I don’t recall.
Out of curiosity I googled ‘hindustanis’ and I must admit I am completely baffled as to why you bring them up. I read about blogs, H1-B’s and central india. So now i’m quite curious.
heet:
First, why should I trust a Houston Chronicle editorial?
In spite of the hardships, and the fact that for the first time, a majority of troops disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the war…
The emphasis (mine) is a meme, not a fact. We’ve been hearing that the majority of the US population “dispproves” of the war but they don’t say what kind of disapproval that is. Did they ask people if we should get out now or did they just register all different kinds of disquiet (not fighting hard enough, not fighting smart enough, not enough troops, want to get out, want to win sooner, etc.) in one tidy package?
Second, even if the nameless editorialist is right, the two can both be true at the same time. Some desert, some re-up. Which number is larger? We’ll never know, because the Houston Chronicle doesn’t bother to link to these vaunted, unnamed “Newly released Army records.”
Desertion rates went up during a war?
OMG!
Next you will be telling us the soldiers are unhappy with their food!
I don’t know if Reid is “right” or not, but he is asinine for making such an ignorant remark. He insinuated himself into the conduct of this conflict, which rests solely with the Commander in Chief. None of these congresspeople are making a useful contribution with offhand pronouncements and dramatic but futile gestures. They need to get back to producing meaningful legislation. Actually, they need to start producing some.
This lovely little war belongs to the administration, and that’s who makes the win or lose call.
Does that include Erbil? How about Suleimaniya?
Because the parts I quoted are facts.
The Army Times a good enough source?:
Surely you understand that desertion indicates unhappiness with the war.
“Does that include Erbil? How about Suleimaniya? “
And tal afar! and baghdad and mosul and basra!
Why would any sane person desert the military in the absense of war?
I mean, I know it happens occasionally. But is it at all remarkable that people desert when the shooting starts?
uh, about the desertion rate:
nope.
How many foreign troops does it take to stop a civil war, heet? How many did it take to stop ours? You’ve got historical precedents to support your claim, I’m sure.
* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are neededâ€Â
* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
Here’s the link: http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
I know my brother-in-law who just returned from Iraq 2 months ago has indicated he’s thinking of leaving the Service, because the pace of deployment is too high. He’s close to having 20 years, so he would rather retire. He also loves the Navy, but he has two small children and a wife who needs him.
But, four and five times with stop-loss? That is a miracle.
Hey, BJ, here’s a question for you. How many dead Iraqis and Americans are you willing to tolerate? You are quite the questioner lately. I’m impressed. If only you could provide answers
There is a lot of from-the-horse’s-mouth stuff here that explicates those quotation marks a bit, but I won’t be able to get around to distilling it. And I’m not buying the transcript. But Moyers is feeling cocky these days, and the mask slips more than a few times and not very subtly…
As if on cue, Pablo answers a question with a question. Well done, counselor.
sorry, I botched the link…. try this. and we’ve been all over the Military Times poll here before.
heet:
The Army Times:
Facts, I say! Heh.
Since you quoted the Army Times…. tell me who owns and who writes it?
Then please provide context for the desertion rate rise.
Why don’t you Google “reenlistment”?
heet, that’s a statement above my question, not a question. Pay attention, would you? And try answering the question that your insulting proclamation produced instead of snarking lamely around it.
How many foreign troops does it take to win a civil war, Mr. History Lesson?
Alright, morons. If you have a point, make it. I don’t do google work for free. That goes doubly for Pablo’s snivelling ass.
Besides, nobody has bothered to comment on my point. Iraq IS lost. Thanks to Bush and his sycophants. That means you guys.
Pablo, it is incumbent on you to show when a civil war has been stopped with a force ratio like the one we have in Iraq. I can’t do all you work for you. Plus, what kind of idiot actually brings out OUR civil war as a defense? Does that mean we can leave and when the Iraqi Abraham Lincoln is spotted? Will he have a stovepipe hat?
I’ve asked you to expand on it twice now, and you reply that you don’t Google for free. You’re pathetic, buddy.
You’ve also seen your Army Times point tag teamed and demolished, and you didn’t even notice it happening? You’ve got serious problems, heet.
OK
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/04/18/shipp_news/news21.txt
Our civil war was stopped with no foreign troops. If my math is correct, none is even less than 6:1000. I also believe that I alluded to that in an earlier question right here., So I guess I’ve addressed your point, oh, three times now. As have others.
Quid pro quo, Clarice.
You tell me Mr. History Lesson.
Pablo, you are an idiot. I asked a straightforward question in my original post. Feel free to answer it instead of asking questions like an ADD addled kid. Again, I won’t do your work for you. That’s the third time, fuckwit.
Steve, anecdotes are cute. My good friend is a Marine officer who got out as soon as he could because he thinks the Iraq war is an “abomination”.
So you are for leaving Iraq, Pablo? They don’t need ANY troops whatsoever, eh?
That’s a funny retort to the force ratio question. Funny yet wholly dishonest and utterly inane.
heet, you’re so cute when you’re angry.
You care to explain why that is with historical example, or are you just going to continue stomping your feet and insisting?
Oh, and please stop putting idiotic statements in my mouth, heet. Those little gems of idiocy are yours, buddy. Cherish them. They may be all you’ve got.
okay, see Pablo, heet just knows stuff. eat it neocon!
Pablo, you know for a fact that Patreus’s own calculations requires a ratio of one soldier/Marine per 50 civilians. We are maxed out on our troop levels and we can place no more than 150,000 in Iraq. It is not enough.
Only here, where, as always, it’s still 2003, is that rationale rejected.
I still miss the one guy who said we should stay in Iraq for 50 years. I miss that combination of whiskey, idiocy, and callous disregard for the American soldier and Iraqi civilian.
Shorter heet: “Pick a civil war, any civil war.”
…
“NOT THAT ONE, GODDAMN YOU!!! YEARRRRGH!”
I would like to submit a modest proposal. That, given the assertion that we started a Civil War in Iraq, that as the primary cause of the violence, then we have, in effect, taken ownership of that Civil War, and bear as much moral obligation to the people of Iraq as we did to any party during the Civil War.
As such, we sustained, what, 600,000 dead in the Civil War. I think we could consider our obligation to the Iraqi people filled, and then pull out accordingly, when US KIA in Iraq reach 600,000.
Timster –
In the callous disregard category, I note that you assert that there is insufficient troop strength to bring peace, yet I have yet to hear you suggest that we increase the size of the armed forces.
Quit much?
BRD
Immediate reaction to post without reading comments yet :
“Its not JUST george bush’s war you traitorous spineless scumbag”
Ok, back to read the comments.
I would support a troop increase to the numbers needed if it were possible. We don’t have the soldiers nor do we have the political will to enforce a draft. You are left with half measures like the surge.
Yeah, BRD, how do you suggest we get to the troop levels?
Draft? The Pentagon is not interested.
Expanded military? According to the Pentagon types, it takes two to three years to get those new troops on the line. The Armed Forces are already growing in size, but next time, before you guys want an never-ending commitment to an open sore, could you give the military some lead time, so they can get more folks?
If you honestly believe 150,000 troops can stop a civil war in a country of 25+ million then you need a history lesson.
Um. First, it isn’t a civil war, it’s more like gang warfare with al Qaeda and Iran arming everyone they can and egging everyone on.
Second, the vast majority of Iraqis aren’t combatants. The Kurds, for example, are at peace. This isn’t the Congo.
So you need to compare our 150,000 troops to however many people are actually fighting. Somewhere far south of 25+ million, I’d wager.
Furthermore, you should know better than to cite a survey that was based on forms that were voluntarily mailed back. The malcontents are always more likely to respond. So all we have is a survey of the people who (a) got a survey (b) took time to fill it out and mail it in and (c) had strong enough feelings (and enough free time) to do it in the first place.
Lies, damned lies…
How about getting Iraqi troops to fill the gap?
Ah.
When I find something (in about a minute of my spare time) it gets belittled as a “cute anecdote”.
Fuck. You.
Anyway, the original claim was that the “vast majority” of people in Iraq believe in the mission enough to re-up 4-5 times.
I’ll go on record as saying that particular claim in all it’s detail is more than a bit of a reach.
Instead of “vast majority” lets change it to: A surpising amout of men and women have reenlisted for active duty in Iraq… some are on their 4-5th deployment.
Reenlistment rates seem to be much higher than desertion rates and answering an overstated claim (vast majority in Iraq reenlist multiple times) with misleading claims using statistically negligible amounts (number of desertions vs. numbers of men and women in Armed services incliuding Reserves and National Guard)
is disingenuous.
Intentionally misleading.