Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 35 of 35

Thread: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

  1. #26

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    There's certainly been some improvement in the areas of the troop surge, but nothing is being done to seal the borders to keep foreign fighters from turning Iraq into an international battlefield.

    Vietnam had good days, too.

  2. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's certainly been some improvement in the areas of the troop surge, but nothing is being done to seal the borders to keep foreign fighters from turning Iraq into an international battlefield.
    How do you know this? "Insurgents" from outside Iraq -- from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. -- having been coming across borders to fight in Iraq for 5 years, and there has been much commentary and much attention paid to that phenomenon both by the military and the media. Yet you think "nothing is being done to seal the borders"? What makes you think the problem is lack of effort or concern, rather than, as reported, the highly porous nature of those borders, and the difficulties in spreading enough troops over hundreds of miles to interdict foreign fighters intent on getting in?

    Vietnam had good days, too.
    Indeed. And then as now, the predominently left wing media is refusing to report on those good days. We know that in Vietnam, CBS news anchor Walter Chronkite took it upon himself one night after an overwhelming, smashing American victory in the Tet Offensive, to falsely report it as a defeat, and moreover proof that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The effect of this lie was to undermine support for that effort among gullible, trusting Americans, who could not conceive that their media institutions would lie to them. Yet lie they did, then as now. The difference is that the lefties no longer have a monopoly in news reporting, and Americans who want to know the truth are able to learn it from alternative sources. Check some of them out sometime, E. For what is really going on in Iraq, I recommend this on-the-ground reporter, Michael Yon, who unlike lots of so-called Main Stream Media types does not hang out in the echo chamber saloon at the Baghdad Hilton, and instead writes about what he witnesses: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...rt-i-of-ii.htm

  3. #28
    Member McClintic Sphere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    2,776

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    What a complete load of BS that post was Bat. If anything it was the so-called "left leaning media" that helped enable this war more than anyone. Judy Miller at the NY Times was the gullible tool who spread the WMD line of lies fed to her by the Bush admin., Thomas Friedman, probably the best known of the NY Times editorialists was on board for the invasion from the outset as well as just about the entirety of the Washington Post op-ed crew.
    Viet Nam was sold time and time again as the duckboard against the "domino theory" that if America didn't stop communism there, all of SE Asia and then the world would fall to communism. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AFTER WE LEFT. That famous surrenderist William F.Buckley has stated that we likely wouldn't have won the cold war had we continued on in Viet Nam.

    The successes in "the surge" are a whitewash. We have cut a deal with the devil and made the Sunni Militias our best buddies and built them up and their primary goal is to destroy the predominantly Shiite and Kurdish government we have built as a represention of democracy, significantly reducing their willingness to engage in political reconciliation as evidenced by their withdrawal from the goverment this week.

    The whole thing is just an effort by Bushco to kick the can down the curb to a Democratic administration because they don't have the guts to admit they made a colossal mistake with the invasion just like they didn't have the guts to join the military when it was their turn to serve
    Here's a quote from Michael Ware who has been in Iraq since the beginning of the war and didn't just do a drive by like the authors of the oped:

    ...there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.

    The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.

    And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...d_b_58769.html

  4. #29

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Bat Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How do you know this? "Insurgents" from outside Iraq -- from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. -- having been coming across borders to fight in Iraq for 5 years, and there has been much commentary and much attention paid to that phenomenon both by the military and the media. Yet you think "nothing is being done to seal the borders"? What makes you think the problem is lack of effort or concern, rather than, as reported, the highly porous nature of those borders, and the difficulties in spreading enough troops over hundreds of miles to interdict foreign fighters intent on getting in?

    Indeed. And then as now, the predominently left wing media is refusing to report on those good days. We know that in Vietnam, CBS news anchor Walter Chronkite took it upon himself one night after an overwhelming, smashing American victory in the Tet Offensive, to falsely report it as a defeat, and moreover proof that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The effect of this lie was to undermine support for that effort among gullible, trusting Americans, who could not conceive that their media institutions would lie to them. Yet lie they did, then as now. The difference is that the lefties no longer have a monopoly in news reporting, and Americans who want to know the truth are able to learn it from alternative sources. Check some of them out sometime, E. For what is really going on in Iraq, I recommend this on-the-ground reporter, Michael Yon, who unlike lots of so-called Main Stream Media types does not hang out in the echo chamber saloon at the Baghdad Hilton, and instead writes about what he witnesses: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/...rt-i-of-ii.htm
    You're taking my meaning out of context. I'm not saying absolutely nothing is being done. I'm saying that if there's going to be a "troop surge", it should be at the borders, not in Baghdad. Conservatives are very keen on saying "we fight over there, so we don't have to fight here". Well, why are we fighting in Baghdad when we could be fighting in the desert? We're not extending the same courtesy to Iraqi citizens as we do to ourselves. Face facts, we CANNOT have peace as long as the borders are open enough for Saudis to come fight for Al Quaeda in Iraq and as long as Iranian EFPs are being trucked in daily.

    And don't tell me "Iraq has too much border". Install a "death zone" at the border if you have to, and fly sorties, and destroy anything moving in that zone, no questions asked. If that's too bloody for you, then it's time to ask other countries, beg them even, for help supplying the manpower neccessary to completely seal the borders. This isn't Vietnam. We have the ability, in theory, to keep most of the people who want to fight from being able to fight. But just like Vietnam, we're unwilling to take the neccessary steps in the beginning to ensure victory.

    Until that border is akin to a leaky dike as opposed to a sieve, we can not and will not "win" the peace.

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    nothing is being done to seal the borders
    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You're taking my meaning out of context. I'm not saying absolutely nothing is being done.
    E, it is apparent that we actually do not disagree all that much here. The problems with policing the borders in Iraq are serious, we agree on that. But you either own your own words or you don't -- I quoted you, and I did not distort your words. Either be more precise in your statements or don't get so irritated when your quotes are questioned. I do think you are trying to be intellectually honest here but were a little imprecise in making your point.

    MS, on the other hand, would have us believe that he is somehow rebutting my claim that the media is biased, often dishonest, by asserting that the NYT was biased and dishonest in the run up to the Iraq War. At least we can both agree that the media is often biased and dishonest in its reporting.

    MS ignores the point I actually made, namely, that Walter Cronkite falsely reported to the American people the outcome of an overwhelming American victory in the Tet Offensive. And, the effect of that false reporting was to turn the American people against supporting that very noble effort by thousands of American troops in Vietnam.

    MS then actually invokes the very same "it didn't happen" argument as John Kerry was caught lying about this past week. As MS puts it:

    Viet Nam was sold time and time again as the duckboard against the "domino theory" that if America didn't stop communism there, all of SE Asia and then the world would fall to communism. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN AFTER WE LEFT
    "It didn't happen after we left?" I guess it all depends on the meaning of "it." If by "it" you mean the domino theory, whereby all of SE Asia would fall to communism if we were not successful in drawing the line in Vietnam, then indeed "it" didn't happen. But if "it" means that no SE Asian countries would fall if American troops withdrew, then MS is spectacularly wrong.

    Here is what did happen:

    In 1973, the U.S. withdrew its troops from Vietnam, as Mr. Kerry had urged. In December 1974, the Democratic Congress ended military aid to South Vietnam. In April 1975, Saigon fell.

    According to a 2001 investigation by the Orange County Register, Hanoi's communist regime imprisoned a million Vietnamese without charge in "re-education" camps, where an estimated 165,000 perished. "Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed," the Register reported.

    Laos and Cambodia also fell to communists in 1975. Time magazine reported in 1978 that some 40,000 Laotians had been imprisoned in re-education camps: "The regime's figures do not include 12,000 unfortunates who have been packed off to Phong Saly. There, no pretense at re-education is made. As one high Pathet Lao official told Australian journalist John Everingham, who himself spent eight days in a Lao prison last year, 'No one ever returns.' "

    The postwar horrors of Vietnam and Laos paled next to the "killing fields" of Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge undertook an especially vicious revolution. During that regime's 3 1/2-year rule, at least a million Cambodians, and perhaps as many as two million, died from starvation, disease, overwork or murder. The Vietnamese invaders who toppled the Khmer Rouge in 1979 were liberators, albeit only by comparison.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010382

    So, to recap, and contrary to what MS would have you believe, not only did Vietnam fall to the Communists following the American troop withdrawal, but neighboring countries of Laos and Cambodia fell (to the Communist Khmer Rouge) too, and in the next few years. No, not all of SE Asia fell to the Communists, only the vast majority of it, and to this very date, 30 years later, Laos and Vietnam, as well as North Korea and China in the same region, remain Communist. But, to take MS's argument, because only 3 countries fell to the Communists in SE Asia, resulting in millions of murders, then the domino theory is somehow discredited, or worthy of his ridicule.

    The Communists takeover -- which American troops had successfully resisted until the Democrats in Congress forced a withdrawal and abandonment of the people in that region -- resulted, contrary to the great John Kerry's confident prediction on the Dick Cavitt show in 1971 (2 years before the Dems succeeded in the very same argument they are now making in Iraq) in the deaths of MILLIONs.

    The Dems' game plan in Iraq is the identical game plan they followed successfully in Vietnam -- undermine public support for the war, use their allies in the left wing media to distort the true picture of what is occurring there (Scott Beauchamp, anyone?) and then take NO RESPONSIBILITY for the carnage that follows.

    MS, we disagree about the wisdom and morality of the war in Iraq, but if you are going to make the same claims about what we ought to do in Iraq as were made by the Left during Vietnam you'll need to start talking honestly about what happened there. And while not every SE Asian nation fell to Communism, several did. The domino theory was hardly deserving of the scorn you would bestow on it, and, after all, it is no small or good thing that millions were murdered following America's abandonment of the region, and if you want to persuade lots of Americans that we should abandon the Iraqis you might do better to honestly differentiate what happened in Vietnam than simply to pretend the predictions made then as now by the likes of John Kerry bear any resemblance to history.

  6. #31
    Member McClintic Sphere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Purgatory
    Posts
    2,776

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Bat, it was Republican President Richard Milhouse Nixon who ran his campaign for president on withdrawal from Vietnam and then completed that strategy in 1973, not John Kerry. By your rational we should have engaged US forces wherever their have been large losses of life around the globe. Why didn't we prevent the slaughter of millions in Russia after WW2? Why haven't we prevented millions from dying in Africa in all the wars that have occurred there? We are not capable of being the world's policeman.

    Yes, when competent people are in charge and we can coordinate with the international community, like we did in Kosovo, without the loss of one single US soldier, then by all means we should do so. I just don't know why all these gung-ho, stay-the-course Republicans didn't raise hell with Bush during his campaign for president when he claimed his foreign policy credo was "No Nation Building" if that is what they are so enthusiastic for, at the expense of government services stateside.

    As former Republican President Ronald Reagan said after withdrawing US troops from Lebanon following the deaths of 241 US marines:

    "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."
    It wasn't John Kerry or Jane Fonda that ordered these retreats from Vietnam and Lebanon Bat, it was Republicans.

  7. #32

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    I guess I should say that context can't be conveyed via text. I'm sure someone is looking at the border, just like someone is looking at the Mexican border. But a blind man can see that the border is as much or more of a problem than the sectarian violence, especially in terms of U.S. troop safety, and yet we do a troop surge in Baghdad.

  8. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,085

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bat, it was Republican President Richard Milhouse Nixon who ran his campaign for president on withdrawal from Vietnam and then completed that strategy in 1973, not John Kerry.
    You're right MS, as always. The end of the Vietnam War was simply the culmination of a Nixon campaign promise fulfilled. It had nothing to do, nothing at all, with the Democrat controlled Congress ending funding.

    By your rational we should have engaged US forces wherever their have been large losses of life around the globe. Why didn't we prevent the slaughter of millions in Russia after WW2? Why haven't we prevented millions from dying in Africa in all the wars that have occurred there? We are not capable of being the world's policeman.
    Are you simply incapable of responding to my arguments? Must you always resort to the "by your rationale ..." straw man argument?

    Yes, when competent people are in charge and we can coordinate with the international community, like we did in Kosovo, without the loss of one single US soldier, then by all means we should do so.
    In your prior sentence you claim we are not capable of being the world's policeman, an argument no one, certainly not me, has made. But we certainly do have American security interests in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, whether you wish to acknowledge that fact or not. Your "policeman" remark is all the more amusing when you follow it with a reference to the air bombing campaign conducted by Clinton over Kosovo. That was a classic "policeman" action, conducted in a region where there were zero American interests, and conducted without the authorization of Congress. Yet libs love to cite it as a success story. Iraq, on the other hand, unquestionably involves serious American security interests, was initiated with the overwhemingly bipartisan support of Congress, but you disparage it as nothing more than our acting like policemen. It has by no means been without problems, but it has been infinitely more difficult than ordering bombings from the air. Whenever Bush acts like Clinton did during Kosovo, you accuse him of breaking the law and violating the constitution.

    It wasn't John Kerry or Jane Fonda that ordered these retreats from Vietnam and Lebanon Bat, it was Republicans.
    MS, for all your provocative and aggressive posting, your unwillingness to deal with your political party's dominant role in the debacle that was the end of the Vietnam War is remarkable. I don't blame you for wanting to distance yourself from the party whose legislative de-funding of the Vietnam War resulted directly in the takeover of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia by Communist thugs who promptly murdered millions, but it was not the Republicans who were responsible for ending support for the war and forcing the withdrawal of troops, it was your party, many of whom are still in Congress today and who apparently learned nothing from their mistakes. And yes, John Kerry bears his share of the blame. Although not yet elected to office, he was the anti-war gadfly who smeared his fellow soldiers as barbarous and he directly advocated the withdrawals that left those people defenseless. To this day he lies about what happened. Again, in your hatred for Republicans I understand your trying to shift the blame, but we both know what really happened back then, right?

  9. #34
    Windy City Flyer City of Big Sholdas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I suggest either reading comprehension courses, or just for you to quit putting words in my mouth.
    Actually he put it quite well!

  10. #35
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,867

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: I really think The Surge is working in Iraq

    Well considering he hasn't shown where I've suggested it was a battle to end all battles, maybe you will have more luck. Happy hunting.

    If not, maybe you both can enroll together.

Similar Threads

  1. 2nd-half surge subdues Raptors
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2007, 08:30 AM
  2. Pacers Win Third in Row Behind Second-Half Surge
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2007, 12:20 AM
  3. Pacers, O'Neal surge into playoffs
    By able in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-20-2006, 06:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •