On the Rhetoric of Defeat

[!Fluffy!]

I read a poster elsewhere who says we (the U.S.) did what we set out to do in Iraq and defeated Hussein:

"We won the war in Iraq. We toppled Saddam's regime and the task is finished.
We benefit now in controlling the turbulance that Saddam once kept in order. This was the Bush White house folly, in thinking that Iraqi's wanted freedom and peace.

By thier violent actions towards each other they most assuredly did not want peace, just a piece of the action, to carry on a racial war that Saddam would not allow and kept in check. Now we inherit these atrocities and act like we lost a war. The war was with Saddam, his people were against him, we were against him, and now he and his regime are done. We played into the hands of the Iraqi's who want to continue thier ancient civil war, so be it. Have at it. Bring the forces home in a victory cry and quit succumbing to the retirick(sic) of defeat when thier never was or is one. I can not actually beleive how many people feed the fire of decadence in our own media."

Source

What do you think?

 

[kai]

I think hes right but i also think it should be seen through to the end, the problem will be recognising when it is the end,

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We played into the hands of the Iraqi's who want to continue thier ancient civil war, so be it. Have at it. Bring the forces home in a victory cry and quit succumbing to the retirick(sic) of defeat when thier never was or is one. I can not actually beleive how many people feed the fire of decadence in our own media."

Source

What do you think?

We can't declare victory if we leave a nation in anarchy with the promise of continued violence and oppression.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I think hes right but i also think it should be seen through to the end, the problem will be recognising when it is the end,

This is the problem I have with our version of military intervention. I get the feeling the end will be whenever "we" (the TV pundits and celebs who drive public opinion, that is) decide it will be. And will have nothing to do with what's right for the Iraqi people.

I just got done watching "The Fall of Saigon" again, and it made me sick enough to want to denounce my citizenship and leave. (Don't ask me where I'll go -- maybe I'll post a poll laterha ha.

We (the U.S.) can no longer walk into a conflict like this without acknowledging how the political vagaries of this country override any previous commitments made.

We the People can't be trusted to follow through on anything.

As far as I'm concerned, no President with a conscience should commit troops anywhere without knowing for a certainty the conflict will be resolved, finalized and troops withdrawn within his four year term.

If we insist on Americanizing a place (like we did Saigon) how could we in good conscience pick up our skirts one day and waltz off, leaving the people we have affected to their fate? It's pitilessly cruel, and the same as mass murder in my view.

I can't stomach the idea of another "pullout" - scenes of Saigon - with mothers begging American soldiers to take their babies, thousands of people streaming out of the cities into the countryside hoping to hide from the coming genocide, people frantically painting over or burning every bit of evidence tying them to their affiliation with the U.S.

During the fall of Vietnam, the (south) Vietnamese Army used their weapons to shoot their way onto rescue planes meant for getting women and children out of harm's way. One plane took off out of Saigon with a woman still clinging to the door; she didn't fall until they reached 3000 ft.

No, if our country doesn't have the conscience or the guts to insure the continued safety and well-being of the people we rescue we have forfeited our right to intervention.

 

[egroen]

Great points.

This is one of the few areas I agree with Bush -- to leave now would be disastrous. I don't even want to think about what would happen if we pulled up stakes and just left, as all the protestors seem to want. Do they [the protestors] even think of the consequences of what they are asking for? The loss of human life would be staggering.

-Erin

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As far as I'm concerned, no President with a conscience should commit troops anywhere without knowing for a certainty the conflict will be resolved, finalized and troops withdrawn within his four year term.

This is both impossible and impractical.

 

[kai]

the greatest chink in the armour of a democracy involved in military action is the moral fortitude to see it through, the death of one, just one UK soldier is a tragedy carried on our news the day it happens, it immediately raises calls to leave Iraq. compare that to the fact that our enemies are willing to blow to smithereens dozens of Iraqi citizens every day with little or no conscience and you see the problem. Life to us is precious and life to them is a cheap throwaway commodity. they even have the propaganda machine thats powerful enough to make the world and people in our own countries to feel that its somehow our fault that they bomb innocent people.

 

[!Fluffy!]

This is both impossible and impractical.

Yes, that is my point.


I am now officially a vehement isolationist.

 

[michel]

I read a poster elsewhere who says we (the U.S.) did what we set out to do in Iraq and defeated Hussein:

"We won the war in Iraq. We toppled Saddam's regime and the task is finished.
We benefit now in controlling the turbulance that Saddam once kept in order. This was the Bush White house folly, in thinking that Iraqi's wanted freedom and peace.

By thier violent actions towards each other they most assuredly did not want peace, just a piece of the action, to carry on a racial war that Saddam would not allow and kept in check. Now we inherit these atrocities and act like we lost a war. The war was with Saddam, his people were against him, we were against him, and now he and his regime are done. We played into the hands of the Iraqi's who want to continue thier ancient civil war, so be it. Have at it. Bring the forces home in a victory cry and quit succumbing to the retirick(sic) of defeat when thier never was or is one. I can not actually beleive how many people feed the fire of decadence in our own media."

Source

What do you think?

The task hasn't been achieved; If (and that is disputable) the purpose was to "De-throne" Saddam Hussein in the belief that Iraq would become a peaceful and wonderful democracy, the task certainly hasn't been achied.

For us to leave Iraq now that there is a virtual civil war is a problem. Why ? Because it is we who have created the problem. I don't know what the solution is, and I doubt that anyone does, but, having created the mess we have created, we are duty bound to stay there and try to set the Iraquis on a path of hope and one where they can hopefully sustain themselves.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

It's called a lose-lose situation.

Leave now, and the country falls into the hands of Islamists who will claim victory against "The Empire" and Iran will greatly extend its own influence.

Stay and the country will fall into an ever increasing cycle of violence, the US will bleed more money and lives, the Islamists will gain more rhetorical fodder for their jihads elsewhere, and the end result will be exactly the same anyway.

The Iraq war was the single biggest strategic blunder ever made by the US. Oops!

 

[egroen]

I'd say Vietnam was a larger blunder.

-Erin

 

[kai]

how about leaving the british empire now that was a blunder you could be ruled by emporer Blair now

 

[Sunstone]

Before this war began, I recall talking with friends who accurately predicted the mess we're now in. At the same time, I recall listening to bimbo talk show hosts slander as "treasonous" anyone and everyone who opposed the coming war. In hindsight, we should have listened to the people who the bimbo talk show hosts called traitors.

 

[kai]

I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is the fact that wether they supported the coalition in the first place the time is now and the rest of europe and the UN could ,if they put their mind to it ,bring a success story to Iraq. if it fails the whole world will suffer for it sooner or later.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

I'd say Vietnam was a larger blunder.

-Erin

That was a blunder, too, but I think there was less at stake then. It was a small victory for the communists, but that was mitigated by plenty of small losses for them on other fronts. I think Iraq might end up being for the US what Afghanistan was for the Soviets.

how about leaving the british empire now that was a blunder you could be ruled by emporer Blair now

But if we had signed up with the French empire, at least we’d have some decent boulangeries over here, and the womenfolk would be a bit less prudish.

Before this war began, I recall talking with friends who accurately predicted the mess we're now in

My friend’s dad, who is a Sandhurst man and former chief of staff of the Guyanese army told me this the week the US went into Iraq. He said it would take weeks to defeat Saddam and that would be the easy part, then fighting off the insurgency would drag on for years. Amazing how he hit the nail on the head.

 

[kai]

That was a blunder, too, but I think there was less at stake then. It was a small victory for the communists, but that was mitigated by plenty of small losses for them on other fronts. I think Iraq might end up being for the US what Afghanistan was for the Soviets.

But if we had signed up with the French empire, at least we’d have some decent boulangeries over here, and the womenfolk would be a bit less prudish.

yes but you would have charles asnavour running for govorner of texas not arnold but i think you would have left those mon amis sooner than old blighty

My friend’s dad, who is a Sandhurst man and former chief of staff of the Guyanese army told me this the week the US went into Iraq. He said it would take weeks to defeat Saddam and that would be the easy part, then fighting off the insurgency would drag on for years. Amazing how he hit the nail on the head.

and i suppose you would be speaking the language of love instead of this gutteral anglo saxon

 

[Capt. Haddock]

and i suppose you would be speaking the language of love instead of this gutteral anglo saxon

Bonnet de douche, Rodney! Apres moi le deluge, innit?

 

[kai]

Bonnet de douche, Rodney! Apres moi le deluge, innit?

ha ha well done cap!

 

[!Fluffy!]

ce fil va aux grenouilles. Je suis hors d'ici!

 

[PureX]

This is the problem I have with our version of military intervention. I get the feeling the end will be whenever "we" (the TV pundits and celebs who drive public opinion, that is) decide it will be. And will have nothing to do with what's right for the Iraqi people.

I just got done watching "The Fall of Saigon" again, and it made me sick enough to want to denounce my citizenship and leave. (Don't ask me where I'll go -- maybe I'll post a poll laterha ha.

We (the U.S.) can no longer walk into a conflict like this without acknowledging how the political vagaries of this country override any previous commitments made.

We the People can't be trusted to follow through on anything.

As far as I'm concerned, no President with a conscience should commit troops anywhere without knowing for a certainty the conflict will be resolved, finalized and troops withdrawn within his four year term.

If we insist on Americanizing a place (like we did Saigon) how could we in good conscience pick up our skirts one day and waltz off, leaving the people we have affected to their fate? It's pitilessly cruel, and the same as mass murder in my view.

I can't stomach the idea of another "pullout" - scenes of Saigon - with mothers begging American soldiers to take their babies, thousands of people streaming out of the cities into the countryside hoping to hide from the coming genocide, people frantically painting over or burning every bit of evidence tying them to their affiliation with the U.S.

During the fall of Vietnam, the (south) Vietnamese Army used their weapons to shoot their way onto rescue planes meant for getting women and children out of harm's way. One plane took off out of Saigon with a woman still clinging to the door; she didn't fall until they reached 3000 ft.

No, if our country doesn't have the conscience or the guts to insure the continued safety and well-being of the people we rescue we have forfeited our right to intervention.

I think the real problem is that we don't seem to understand the real meaning and horror of "WAR". We keep imagining that we can start a WAR and then carry it out as if it were some sort of "police action". WAR is WAR. It's horrible, and murderous, and it destroys lives and cities and nations. It should NEVER be entered in just to impose our will on another nation. It should only be engaged in as a last desperate response to a mortal threat. WAR is NOT A POLITICAL TOOL. This is what America keeps missing over and over, and this is why we keep being defeated and humiliated by these other nations that we invade. THEY understand what WAR is. And they fight us like they're fighting a real war. While we keep trying to respond as if we are policemen and politicians, instead of soldiers. That's why we lose, and why we are humiliated, and why we bring such disaster to our allies in these other countries.

We need to learn to stay the hell out of other people's conflicts unless we intend to really make WAR, there. But we never seem to get this. We watched too many John Wayne movies where the good guys just point their guns at the bad guys, and the bad guys suddenly and reasonably do what the good guys say. In the real world it isn't like that. People are not reasonable and rational and will not do what we want them to just because we have a big gun. They will fight to the death in any way they can to decide for themselves how they want to live and die. And that is their right.

We just don't get it.