Surrender
 

I found the following article to be clearly define the biggest problem we have in the current situation in Iraq. What do you think?

SURRENDER BY ANY OTHER NAME ...
December 13, 2006

How did we go from winning the war in Iraq to losing overnight? Was this decided by the same committee that changed "Peking" to "Beijing"?

These word changes are a fortiori evidence that liberals are part of a conspiracy. On what date did "horrible" and "actress" vanish from the English language to be replaced with "horrific" and "actor"? Who decided that? (Meanwhile, I'm still writing "Puff Daddy" in my nightly dream journal when everybody else has started calling him "Diddy.")

When did "B.C." (before Christ) and "A.D." (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord") get replaced with "BCE" (before the common era) and "CE" (common era)? "Withdrawal" is "redeployment," "liberal" is "progressive," and "traitorous" is "patriotic."

These new linguistic conventions — like going from "winning" to "losing" in Iraq — simply spread like an invisible bacterial invasion.

To be sure, last month the Democrats did win a narrow majority in Congress for the first time in more than a decade. And it cannot be denied that for the past 50 years, Democrats have orchestrated humiliating foreign policy defeats for America. So it is understandable that some might interpret their midterm gains as a mandate for another humiliating defeat.

But that's not what the Democrats told Americans when they were running for office. To the contrary, they claimed to be gun-totin' hawks. A shockingly high number of Democratic candidates this year actually fought in wars. And not just the war on poverty, either — real wars, against men with guns.

It was a specific plan of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel to fake out the voters by recruiting anti-war veterans to run against Republicans. (And when did "chairman" become "chair"?)

To the credit of the voters — especially the American Legion and VFW — the Democrats didn't fool enough Americans to even match the average midterm gains for the party out of power.

But the point is: You can't run as a phony patriot and then claim your victory is a mandate for surrender. That would be like awarding yourself undeserved Purple Hearts and then pretending to throw them over the White House wall in protest. No, that's not fair — nothing could be as contemptible as throwing someone else's medals on the ground in protest.

Is it the report of the "Iraq Surrender Group" that suddenly caused everyone to say we're losing?

The ISG report was about what you'd expect if the ladies from "The View" were asked to come up with a victory plan for Iraq. We need to ask Syria to tell Hamas to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Duh! "Dear Hamas, Do you like killing Jews, or do you LIKE killing Jews? Check yes or no."

Most of the esteemed members of the ISG were last seen on the "Dead or Alive?" Web site. Vernon Jordan's most recent claim to fame was getting Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon when she was threatening Bill Clinton with the truth. He's going to figure out an honorable way to get out of Iraq?

We're still trying to figure out a six-part test from some decision Sandra Day O'Connor wrote back in 1984, but now she's going to tell us what to do in Iraq.

Have things changed on the ground in Iraq? Are our troops being routed? Hardly. The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year. If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years.

Admittedly, it would be a little easier to track our progress in Iraq if the Pentagon would tell us how many of them we're killing, but apparently our Pentagon is too spooked by the insurgents posing as civilians to mention the deaths of our enemies.

Moreover, it might seem churlish to mention the number of Islamic lunatics we've killed during the holy month of Ramadan. Half the time we do anything to them, it's "the holy month of Ramadan." It's always Ramadan. When on Earth is Ramadan over?

It's true that no one anticipated that al-Qaida sympathizers would stream into Iraq to fight the Great Satan after Saddam fled to a spider hole, but that's because everyone expected al-Qaida to be fighting us here.

Like "Peking," that's something else we can't say anymore: the amazing absence of another 9/11-style terrorist attack in the past five years. The heart of the insurgency in Iraq is, by definition, composed of Islamic terrorists who hate the Great Satan, own an overnight bag and are willing to travel to kill Americans. But don't worry: The Iraq Surrender Group feels sure they won't come here if we pull out of Iraq.

If absolutely nothing changed in Iraq over the next few years — if it didn't continue to get better and if the savages never lost heart (I'm assuming they subscribe to "TimesSelect") — by 2010, 6,000 brave American troops will have died to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil for a decade.

If that's a war Americans think we're "losing," Osama bin Laden was right: We are a paper tiger.
Ann Coulter

Does any of this surprise you? Frankly, America is a paper tiger. Americans want all of the benefits of being a superpower without any of the responsibilities.

I was listening to Rep Trent Lott on the TV recently and I agreed with what he had to say. He said America had a RESPONSIBILITY to make sure Iraq became a peaceful and democratic state. He said when we made the decision to "pull the trigger" and start a war, it was a binding commitment that can't be ignored - regardless of the price. Once the deed is done, there is no turning back. And sadly, I must also agree with FastPat. Bush and Company are classic liberals. True conservatives believe in taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the consequences of your behavior. Liberals like to have everything given to them for free and never accept responsibility for anything. And from Day 1, the Bush Administration has tried to win this war essentially for free and blame everyone but themselves for the outcomes.

But the sad truth is that we took on the RESPONSIBILITY for Iraq the day we invaded. And coming through on that responsibility was always going to require the sacrifice of many American lives. The Dems and the American people are having sticker shock at the price and want to run away. But the die has already been cast. It was cast the day we invaded. And if it takes the lives of every American between 18 and 24 plus many thousands more, then so be it. "We broke it, we bought it." as Colin Powell famously said. The time to think about the cost was three years ago. Not today.

But suddenly everyone has an excuse for why it isn't our responsibility. They blame the Iraqi government. They blame the Iraqi people. They blame Iran. But frankly, it doesn't matter who is to blame. We are still responsible no matter what. And for that, we have no-one to blame. We ASKED for this responsibility. And leaving Iraq with anything less than a peaceful and stable democratic government is morally wrong.

Many say it is impossible to succeed in Iraq. But they are incorrect. It is possible if we commit...say...a million or two million or more troops. Maybe five million troops. Whatever the number is, I am sure it is possible. But that would require a military draft and the deaths of many thousands of young Americans in an America obsessed with protecting its children. Well, I'm sorry to say this but we committed those kid's lives three years ago when we decided to invade Iraq. If sending our kids to war was a problem, then the time to speak up was 2003. Now it is waaaay too late.

So it isn't that we can't win the war in Iraq. It's that we won't. And it makes me sad to live in a country with such a short memory and so little integrity and sense of responsibility. It looks like America is planning to run away now that the milk has been spilled. And in doing so, we will send an entire nation spiraling into the abyss. We will have invaded a country and then traded their sons lives for ours. And if we do that, then heaven help each American when he/she has to face his/her Maker.

Very well said and true.

What Do You Mean "We", Kemosabe???

He means people who support the American way of life, those who have defended this country or helped those who have, not the pussies who put this country 2nd.

so invading Iraq was to defend this country? that's laughable...

securing the Mexican border, now that would be defending this country.

No. I meant every American citizen. I was against the war from the start and I still think it was a horrible mistake. But unless I am willing to renounce my citizenship, I have to accept just as much responsibility as everyone else. We can't pick and choose when we are Americans and when we aren't.

Its about time somebody got my message...

Lets try 500,000 troops, 10 years, thousands more Body Bags and to be Brutal when the need arises...Thats what it is going to take. (Zbignew Brzezinskis numbers)

Cut and Blame is just a "gimmick" for Cut and Run...it just amounts to the same thing.

Lets just face the facts, Americans aren't willing to do it..Osma was right about Americans and America doesn't have the Treasury we once had to do it. So why waste anymore time lets do what Americans do best...cut and run.

As far as the ramifications of a larger Arab vs Persian war. Let the chips fall where they may.

One bogus thing, the Bushists always touted the Al Qaeda bogeyman in Iraq...if truth be told they were never a major factor on the ground. Finally the Sunnis themselves ratted Al Zaqwari out. How do U think we got him, US intelligence?

So what would "success" look like? How would you know when you have won?

I mean what is the objective?

And please don't say "When we've Balkanized the place".

Dot the whole ME and Cental Asia is the "Global Balkans" according to Zbignew Brzezinski.

Have you ever spend time with anyone who has been there, and I don't mean protesting them either.

Having to deal with social policy when a democracy is at war is a fact of life.

Either you believe we are at war or you don't.

2nd guessing the Pentagon on war policy is politics.


What's important now is to prevent Russia or Iran from marching in to Iraq. I think that if Israel is forced to take out Iran the mid east gangsters will see their support diminished for at least 10 years? An economically functioning Iraq is the end game.


The Dem's have to make a choice. Will the US support democracy worldwide as always or turn to isolation?

Janus, I got and get my info from people who have been there, have been involved from the start (you meet these types of people when you life in a military town) and one thing, these guys keep saying, is that this had to happen, Saddam was shopping for nukes, he kept defying the ceasefire from Desert Storm (and the guy I listened to the most, was a 30+ vet who served in both Nam & Desert Storm, an enlisted who worked his way up to officer with among his many achievements, a Bronzes Star, I also listen to a former Army Pentagon Col. just the same 2 have way more incite than most of this board, but when you add the fighter pilots & Marines that spend time at my clients businesses, as well as enlisted, I get a pretty good view, and one thing that every single career guy has said is that we had to go in, we really didn't have a choice, as Saddam was funding every anti-American (like the aclu and many liberals) group, was willing to arm them. So, if people who chose to defend this country, educated people, are sure we did the right thing, why would anyone listen to some A-hole who hadn't been there or understands why we are there???

We can't do that, the dems want to keep us dependant on ME oil, why else would the keep us from drilling from oil in our own back yardhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/nono.gif

The Iraq Study Group calls the situation "Grave, and Deteriorating". I trust their evaluation much more than Coulter's. Colin Powell said this morning that we are losing. I trust his evaluation more than hers or yours. I agree it's a mess that we are now all responsible for. We need a better plan than the current Admin will deliver for sure.

A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujiah when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent, badly injured and unconscious.

On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent.

We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road. I yelled to him, "Saddam Hussein is a miserable, lowlife scumbag", and he yelled back, "Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left wing liberal drunk." So I said, "Osama Bin Ladin dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian!" He retaliated by yelling, "Oh yeah? Well, so does Hillary Clinton!"

And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us".

You can't just throw something like that in without backing it up, hopefully with at least some semi-legitimate source, and I don't mean more Coulter-blather. Show me a source that Hussein was funding the ACLU please.

Thanks, JanusCole. I share both your sadness and sense of responsibility. And I believe what George Bush has done is criminal -- commit our troops without the commitment and political courage on his own to lead them and us through the pain to the right end. Did he really think it wouldn't be painful? Did we? He will sell them out and sell out the Iraqis under the cover of some temporized and fraudulent "victory", because he is a weak and shallow fake, in the words of CS Lewis, another "chestless" man, a walking symptom of our post-modern era. But they all are, aren't they? Who is not?

[coulter]blah blah blah democrats evil blah blah blah everyone else's fault blah blah blah I do nothing but write stuff to sell papers blah blah blah I don't really give a crap about this country I just like to incite and insult blah blah blah[/coulter]

that should just about cover it...

It is great to talk about "national responsibility." It would have been nice if that had been considered *before* we entered. But at some point you have to cut your losses. Only a fool never raises his head from the grindstone to look around and see what's going on. Is now the time? Maybe, maybe not. But I personally do not think there is a "win" in this one. Some battles cannot be won.

There's the rub, the nexus.

That is funny coming from someone who just posted:

Why would one even consider the "study" of a group of political operatives that was too scared to leave the green zone and have less combined military experience than Patsy. At least Coulter cites numbers and facts.

It was considered...but just who would have thought the American people had become such a bunch of weak pantywaists who would want to surrender after losing a few thousand troops. Based on that logic, we should have withdrawn from every war we ever fought...and "cut our losses" as soon as things got tough.

Fint says: "Why would one even consider the "study" of a group of political operatives that was too scared to leave the green zone and have less combined military experience than Patsy. At least Coulter cites numbers and facts."

What facts is she citeing? Last I checked, she has never been near either the green zone or anyplace in the middle east. Coulter is good for entertainment. She is catering to an audience that wants to beleive that we are actually winning this war. The fact is, Rumsfeld himself has made grim assesments of the situation. He has been quick to find ways to deflect responsibility for it. There is no question that it is going badly. It doesn't matter what metric you use to measure it with. I was against this action from the begining as founded on weak assumptions. So far every reason for going into Iraq has turned into a fiction. This isn't an issue of not having the guts to handle the troop losses, its just a stupid situation. We should never have gone in, the war was executed poorly (after the intial take over), and this administration has refused to even acknowledge the reality on the ground let alone adjust tactics to do anything about it. From wah I can see, we have polititions telling the military what the reality is instead of letting them do what makes sense. I am glad that Rumsfield is out, but I doubt that there is much we can do with this situation. We replaced a nasty dictator (which we proped up to counter the Irannian threat in the past) with a quagmire. The fact that Bush isn't interested in finding a new approach isn't surprising. Its not like he has any real credentials. Maybe the problem is that he listens to idiots like Coulter.

Loks like facts to me.
Coulter: "Have things changed on the ground in Iraq? Are our troops being routed? Hardly. The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year. If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years. "

Good thing we did not have a "Study Group" after the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

It is what rrpjr allowed: Bush is a "chestless" man. If he sells out the Iraqi's our future will be an endless stream of "chestless" men (my opinion, not rrpjr's).

All battles can be won, depends on leadership.

the neo-con's are winning in iraq [the islamo facists]
the cristo facist are loseing here at home

personal I would redeploy the troops to afgan and hunt the tali-ban and al-kiddies there, at least the guys who attacked us were there
maybe look in northern pack tooo as most feel thats where they went

never did see a real need to be in iraq, as they had minimal part in 9-11 if at all
now the saudi's did have a BIG PART IN 9-11 both in people and funding and attacking them is not a real bad idea except they are bushies buddies
winning the war is less important if it is the wrong war

The difference is the Afgan and Iraqi governments openly supported terrorists/terrorism. If we want to stop terrorism...that is as good a place as any. If we don't draw the line here...we never will.

The new refined look of the NY Times is anti-war without Bush hating.

The NYT is the best mass media machine/world. An isssue becomes an issue Only if the NYT acknowledges it. If not, it's not an issue. All newspaper groups subscribe to the NYT. It's political power is enormous. US newspapers profile their p1 on what the T writes on that day. Publishers and writers live off feeding on the T. Every day. All year.


Kinda similar to this profile of the current state of what journalism today is all about. Following the T is where the money is.
Remember it's played to music.


Obsessive Compulsive Disorder:
..... la la laaa
Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle,Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle


The Big Chief at the NYT was arrested 2x for anti-war protesting in the late 1960s.


The world consists of NYT followers and those who are not imo.


The NYT's position should be a pretext before making an opinion around here.

15 of 19 men in the 9-11 attack were saudi's
as was the leader mr ben forgotten
and the funding came from saudi tooo

now when the japs bombed pearl harbor
we didnot declare war on peru
we did declare war on them that did attack us

they were based in afgan and protected by the tali-ban
so that was a JUST war but under funded, never given the needed manpower or planing, to get the bad guys

but just why we attacked goddamm insane in iraq
AND NOT THE SAUDI's I still donot understand
except one bushie hated and the other he loves
that has not a thing to do with the supportors of terror or their backers who made the attack possable with funding
as the saudi's are a worse threat, with less freedom and more cash to back the terror

if we wanted to draw the terrorests into a fight
fine afgan was a good a places as any to do that
instead we under maned that effort,
let the bad guys get away,
with poor planing and rushed off to invade iraq
and still have not done the job in afgan
or done spit to the real backers of the 9-11 terror
the saudi

let the cults in iraq kill of eachother
and if and only if
another terrorest takes over
bomb them back into the stone age

Re: Surrender
 

Ann Coulter is nothing but a female chickenhawk; her day in the sun is over.

Unless Bill Clinton is elected president again.

Re: Re: Surrender
 

"Speak into the microphone"


Seriously though. All this talk of failure by those Democrat pantywaists, tsk, tsk.
It seems like everything is going just fine over there.

Heck, and now the max enlistment age has been raised (is it 46?) to accomidate those who really want to help the cause........

Would it be gauche of me to repeat the questions I asked upthread?

viz.,

So what would "success" in Iraq look like? How would you know when you have won?

I mean what is actually the objective?

duh, because the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan both openly supported terrorists (hence War Against Terror). The Saudi government did not and is our ally. That would be like attacking North Carolina because the fellow that planted a bomb at the 1996 Olympic Games was born there.

Re: Re: Re: Surrender
 

Yes, and if you have prior service, you add those years to age 46, so say if Joeaksa served 3 years in the army, he could still reenlist at age 49. Of course, you have to sign a paper stating that you understand that you won't be able to get a retirement since the retirement ages still apply.

I'll play. The answer is that Iraq needs to become a stable, peaceful democracy. After invading a sovereign nation and plunging it into the horror of civil war, the only honorable outcome is for us to leave Iraq significantly better than we found it. And that means we need to ensure that the Iraqi people are glad we invaded before we pull out our troops. If that seems like a steep order, then I agree. But it is way too late to worry about that. The time to evaluate the cost of bringing about that outcome was three years ago. Not today. As it stands, the only acceptable outcome is to leave Iraq stable, prosperous, and happy. Anything less is morally unacceptable.

Now as for Coulter, she is just an idiot. I generally take it as a matter of faith that most Americans debate the issues with the nation's interest at heart. But I don't feel the same way about Coulter. Every time she opens her mouth I am more convinced that she is only interested in her own fame and book sales. She reminds of the way Al Sharpton used to behave back when he was not-so-secretly lampooned in "Bonfires Of The Vanities." Just lowlifes using the nation's wounds to their own selfish advantage.

Nearly everyone agrees that Saddam was a bad guy who wanted to do as much harm to us as possible with whatever weapons he could get. So I doubt many Americans, left or right, would disagree with your military friends. The crux of the argument was whether or not Saddam could be contained. After all, containment is a tried and true method of dealing with America's adversaries - most notably the Soviet Union. America has a lot of experience dealing with and managing bad people. And lots of smart and patriotic people (like Colin Powell) argued in favor of using those tactics in dealing with Saddam.

But frankly, it doesn't matter how we got into Iraq. You and I can disagree whether Iraq could or should have been contained instead of invaded. But unless we suddenly become psychic, it is simply an unanswerable question. We will never know. We can never know. And arguing about it only distracts from the more pressing issues at hand. We are in Iraq now. And the course we take will determine what kind of nation we are.

The elephant in the room is the fact that our departure from Iraq will create a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. We will have knowingly created the Darfur of the Middle East - except Darfur has just 7.4 million people and Iraq has 28 million. If America invades a sovereign nation without having been attacked and then allows the place to become a humanitarian catastrophe before walking away to "cut our losses", then how is that not a war crime? How is that not a crime against humanity? How is that so different from what Stalin did in the Ukraine? Frankly, it doesn't matter what the cost is in American lives and treasure. We have a moral obligation to make Iraq a peaceful and stable place to live. "We broke it, we bought it." If America decides it's okay to invade a country and then condemn a generation or more of that country's citizen's to a bloody civil war - just so we won't have to be inconvenienced by a draft and the loss of our own sons and daughters, then, honestly, America is no longer a country worth fighting for. We might as well return the keys to the "City on the Hill" back to Great Britain and admit that the great experiment in democracy was a failure. If we can condemn an entire nation to the abyss and then walk away without a hint of shame, then the only thing we will have accomplished in the last 230-odd years was to create a nation ruled by 300 million tyrants instead of just one.

key word is OPENLY
now what they say and what they do
are two very different things for the saudi

and while iraq and goddamm insane
paid the bombers familys after attacks in the holyland
there was no or very little ties to 9-11 or al-kiddies
and very little other open support

and are they our ally???
or stabbing us in the back
when they were under threat from iraq in the gulf war
they were on our side and did support the war
but the money given to ben forgotten
and the whole Wahhabism movement
is the root of the terrorest movement
it is very hard to see how the two are different

Revisionist history and not revisioniet current events.

Can ANYONE actually take someone like Ann seriously? Either as a source or anti-source. She is, in the end, like all lovers of publicity, irrelevant.

I too, ask the question of how we define success in understandable terms, not a etherial concept, but something with some meat on the bones. Are there those who STILL believe that the Administration has handled the situation brilliantly? If so, I would LOVE to hear specifics beginning from day one as to how the decisions made have resulted in a more secure America both at home or abroad. And, PLEASE....avoid the unprovable like "We haven't been attacked since...." That argument is a strawman argument since a negative cannot be proven. And just who was in charge when the attacks happened? And why is the fact that the attackers were Saudi dismissed with the comment that Saudi Arabia is our ally? THe Wahabi movement is bankrolled by the Royal Family. In their minds, it makes sense because otherwise there might be more internal acts of revolution against the absolutist regime of the Saudi family.

Nations are only allies when it is in their best interests to do so.

Surrender? I do not think so. Change tactics and become more like the enemy? Now there is a good idea....More actions to which the public is not privy. I am in favor of that if it gets results and emasculates the "terrorist" leadership. Call in the corporate internationals and get some industry in the more settled parts of Afghanistan and Iraq? Now there is an idea....If a man has a job, he may not be so interested in tying explosives around his waist.