Religions > Bible > Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jerry Okamura" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2007 07:17:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the American
people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that, we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
<Mobius_A_Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167786897.182854.38940@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes
01 January 2007
Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.
"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."
It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.
With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.
CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
.
|
|
| User: "Russell McDade donteventhinkaboutit@all" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
03 Jan 2007 10:19:39 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:459c559b$0$18062$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst
thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the
American
people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we
did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a
more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict
enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and
we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that,
we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
Besides getting control of Iraqi oil what is America doing there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
04 Jan 2007 12:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:19:39 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:459c559b$0$18062$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst
thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the
American
people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we
did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a
more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict
enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and
we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that,
we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
If only there had been half as much thought into the reasons for going
in, as there has been for excuses to continue the mistake . . .
-----
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Trucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
05 Jan 2007 04:31:37 PM |
|
|
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pf7pp2h62utkskk5pfir9lp2f88jmul79n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:19:39 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:459c559b$0$18062$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst
thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the
American
people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we
did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a
more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict
enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and
we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that,
we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
If only there had been half as much thought into the reasons for going
in, as there has been for excuses to continue the mistake . . .
There is but one reason for the Iraq war then and now: The Republican
Order is set on bankrupting the American nation so as to rebuild it as
a plutocracy. The end of democracy in this nation is the true aim
of the Republicans. It has always been thus. The nobility and the
church rule hand in hand in the Republican utopia.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eich" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
08 Jan 2007 03:58:07 AM |
|
|
wrote...
<retrogrouch@comcast.net> wrote in message
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:19:39 +1100, "Russell McDade"
<donteventhinkaboutit@all> wrote:
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst
thing we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with
the idea that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the
American people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe
that idea may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where
we did effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases,
we did eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a
more powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict
enough pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and
we will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that,
we are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
If only there had been half as much thought into the reasons for going
in, as there has been for excuses to continue the mistake . . .
There is but one reason for the Iraq war then and now: The Republican
Order is set on bankrupting the American nation so as to rebuild it as
a plutocracy. The end of democracy in this nation is the true aim
of the Republicans. It has always been thus. The nobility and the
church rule hand in hand in the Republican utopia.
I don't know if it's Republicans per se who want this, but you do
seem to be describing the people Grover Norquist shills for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ccr" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
04 Jan 2007 03:49:46 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:459c559b$0$18062$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst
thing we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with
the idea that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough,
the American people would not have the stomach to support the war.
If you begin your argument with such a naive and ignorant assertion, you
don't have much hope of convincing anyone. The idea of the weaker side
stretching out a conflict until the stronger enemy eventually tires of the
effort is as old as organized armies.
People always tire of dragged out warfare without tangible hope for success.
That's a historical fact. That isn't the problem. The problem is fools who
continue to prosecute a war that has little hope of success. They always end
up with no credibility and a lot of lost treasure and blood on their hands.
I believe that idea may have had its roots from what happened in the
Korean War, where we did effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to
end. In both cases, we did eventually throw in the towel. Since then,
our adversaries have seen more proof that the idea works. We cut our
loses in Lebanon, when the Marine barracks were bombed. We cut our loses
in Somalia. All, of these have supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had,
and that is you can defeat a more powerful enemy simply by outlasting
them.
More foolishness. Ho Chi Minh merely saw the historical facts--facts that
exist from the times of the ancient Greeks and ancient China. He also saw
how the French were defeated in Viet Nam just before the Americans stepped
in. He saw how Mao defeated the Kuomintang. It didn't happen as a result of
the Korean War.
It could be the lesson that the insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that
if they can simply inflict enough pain long enough, the Americans will
leave.
Every insurgency everywhere has that goal. Get a clue.
And people like Murtha, are only giving the insurgency hope that their
strategy might just work, and certainly does not do the opposite, i.e.
tell the insurgency that their strategy will not work.
Every insurgency everywhere has that hope. This case is no different. And
"telling them the strategy won't work" is *****. Historically it has
worked. That has more impact than some country saying it won't work. The
Russians told the Afghani's that the strategy wouldn't work. Yet even they
eventually saw the writing on the wall and left.
And every time we do cut and run, it just reinforces the message to the
next insurgency, that the way to beat the Americans is simply to inflict
enough pain for a long period of time, and we will cut our loses and run.
Again you historical illiterate, this is not peculiar to the US. Every
country battling an insurgency has this problem and they almost always
eventually throw in the towel. Finally, common sense takes over and people
realize what is to be gained is far less than what it is costing.
When we do that, it also gives the insurgency hope and more American will
die as a result.
This is a dumb comment. If our troops leave, they won't be dying there. If
we stay, despite the folly of it, many more will die.
And every time we do that, we are basically telling those who fight on
our behalf, that there is a good chance that they will have given their
life in vain, because this country, does not have the will to stay the
course. They are more than wiling to sacrifice your life, but not to win
the conflict that you lost your life fighting.
This is so ignorant on so many levels as to be preposterous. Every country
in a war loses soldiers. Some win the war, some don't. "Stay the course" is
the mantra of idiots. You respond to the situation at hand. You don't let
more soldiers die in a cause that has no real chance of success, no matter
how many have already been killed. Please spend less time writing clueless
***** and read something about sunk costs.
The message we need to send to the Iraqi's--not the insurgents--is that we
are leaving and they had better get their act together before we go. By
doing the idiotic "stay the course" policy, we are telling the Iraqi leaders
and most of the population that they don't have to lift a finger to create a
stable society, they can do all the infighting they want, because our
soldiers will be there doing the dying to preserve what little order there
is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Eich" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
04 Jan 2007 09:15:30 AM |
|
|
wrote...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the American
people would not have the stomach to support the war.
Don't fixate on the "American" aspect of it, as if you're addressing
or invoking the national ego. It's not just an American thing.
Russia and Afghanistan come to mind, and that's just an easy example
from recent history. Heck, in the Revolutionary War the US didn't
militarily defeat England. We wore them out, much like we're being
worn out now.
The strategy being deployed against the US in Iraq is the only
strategy a lesser military force can apply: If you can't win, at
least don't lose. It works against the US because the moral cost of
doing what it would take to win is too high. The US and Britian
moderate their militaries and the level of brutality they can apply.
To unambiguously defeat the Iraqi insurgents, the US would have to
destroy most if not all of the civilian population as well. Since we
aren't going to do that -- and I'm not arguing for it, either -- they
survive, and we play into the strategy. It's just a matter of time
before we pull out and they win. We can't sustain this forever, and
it's not a statement of national will. It's that the cost-vs-benefit
analysis we run in our heads just becomes badly unbalanced, and we
see a situation as a losing proposition.
Patton used to call it "holding them by the nose and kicking them in
the *****." Our nose is the moral threshold we won't exceed, and our
***** being kicked is the slow trickle of US troop loses and financial
drain.
I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that, we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
<Mobius_A_Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167786897.182854.38940@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes
01 January 2007
Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.
"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."
It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.
With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.
CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
04 Jan 2007 05:04:31 PM |
|
|
Richard Eich wrote:
okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com wrote...
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the American
people would not have the stomach to support the war.
Don't fixate on the "American" aspect of it, as if you're addressing
or invoking the national ego. It's not just an American thing.
Russia and Afghanistan come to mind, and that's just an easy example
from recent history. Heck, in the Revolutionary War the US didn't
militarily defeat England. We wore them out, much like we're being
worn out now.
The strategy being deployed against the US in Iraq is the only
strategy a lesser military force can apply: If you can't win, at
least don't lose. It works against the US because the moral cost of
doing what it would take to win is too high. The US and Britian
moderate their militaries and the level of brutality they can apply.
To unambiguously defeat the Iraqi insurgents, the US would have to
destroy most if not all of the civilian population as well.
even that will not work. look to russia and germany on the eastern
front. even with rumania, hungry, italy, and finland helping the
germans, they could not kill the russians fast enough in a all out no
holds barred war. it was total war. iraqi citizens would just flee to
neighboring countries, and we would have expand the war to get them.
pretty soon we would find ourselves in the same predicament that the
germans and their allies were in as the russians fled ahead of the
advancing axis line stretching the line to the limits, then getting
counter attacked.
but i understand what you mean.
Since we
aren't going to do that -- and I'm not arguing for it, either -- they
survive, and we play into the strategy. It's just a matter of time
before we pull out and they win. We can't sustain this forever, and
it's not a statement of national will. It's that the cost-vs-benefit
analysis we run in our heads just becomes badly unbalanced, and we
see a situation as a losing proposition.
Patton used to call it "holding them by the nose and kicking them in
the *****." Our nose is the moral threshold we won't exceed, and our
***** being kicked is the slow trickle of US troop loses and financial
drain.
I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that, we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
<Mobius_A_Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167786897.182854.38940@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes
01 January 2007
Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.
"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."
It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.
With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.
CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
03 Jan 2007 09:33:59 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the worst thing
we can do. I believe it was Ho Chin Minh, who first came up with the idea
that if they could stretch the war in Vietnam out long enough, the American
people would not have the stomach to support the war. I believe that idea
may have had its roots from what happened in the Korean War, where we did
effectively cut our loses and wanted the war to end. In both cases, we did
eventually throw in the towel. Since then, our adversaries have seen more
proof that the idea works. We cut our loses in Lebanon, when the Marine
barracks were bombed. We cut our loses in Somalia. All, of these have
supported the idea that Ho Chin Minh had, and that is you can defeat a more
powerful enemy simply by outlasting them. It could be the lesson that the
insurgency in Iraq has also learned, that if they can simply inflict enough
pain long enough, the Americans will leave. And people like Murtha, are
only giving the insurgency hope that their strategy might just work, and
certainly does not do the opposite, i.e. tell the insurgency that their
strategy will not work. And every time we do cut and run, it just
reinforces the message to the next insurgency, that the way to beat the
Americans is simply to inflict enough pain for a long period of time, and we
will cut our loses and run. When we do that, it also gives the insurgency
hope and more American will die as a result. And every time we do that, we
are basically telling those who fight on our behalf, that there is a good
chance that they will have given their life in vain, because this country,
does not have the will to stay the course. They are more than wiling to
sacrifice your life, but not to win the conflict that you lost your life
fighting.
the real story, over half a million deserters because the soldiers
found out they were lied to. the history of illegal conquests,
occupations, and intervention in the internal affairs of a country in
modern times has almost always provoked a insurgency that never ends
well for the occupying power.
http://www.sirnosir.com/home_about_film.html
<Mobius_A_Pretzel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167786897.182854.38940@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes
01 January 2007
Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.
"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."
It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.
With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.
CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER *****-UP |
04 Jan 2007 12:39:13 PM |
|
|
Re: "Let me try to make the argument, that cutting and running is the
worst thing
we can do."
Let me try to make the argument that cutting and running is the BEST
thing that we can do. Yes, the very best thing.
And, I argue, that in fact "losing" in Vietnam (we did rather well,
considering that it was the SOUTH Vietnamese who really lost that war)
and quitting fighting to leave at best a stalemate in Korea was what
really defeated the Soviet Union. Yes, I believe the two loses were
what led to the overall victory.
Remember the end of the Cold War? The Soviets were never defeated
militarily. We defeated them economically.
We (not just the USA, but all the anticommunist nations) outspent the
Soviets on arms and produced wonderful consumer societies. Do you think
we could have done that if we had kept on fighting for another 30 years
in Vietnam and 50 years in Korea? And yes, I think it is highly likely
that the Vietnamese would have continued to fight for another 30 years,
and the North Koreans and Chinese, too. In any case, we would have had
to spend money that we in fact used on education and a
higher-technology military on those two wars. Instead of "cutting and
running" we made prudent and ultimately successful investment
decisions.
The Russians and others in Eastern Europe perceived the West as
peaceful and prosperous, and they wanted to join us. Would that have
been the case if we had kept on bombing North Vietnam?
Now, consider the mess in Iraq. It seems to me that the Iraqis will
fight us and fight each other for another decade at least. We (just the
USA) are spending $2 billion a week or so, and with inflation and troop
surges, maybe that will increase to $3 billion a week this year. Ten
years is 520 weeks.
That means another TRILLION dollars to 1.5 trillion spent merely to not
seem to be "cutting and running." To be sure, we MIGHT defeat the
insurgency and stop the civil conflict in only a year or two, but the
odds of that seem to be very low.
I've head it said that if we quit, we encourage the insurgents. Sure,
but they are already pretty encouraged. If we quit, the insurgents can
claim "we defeated the Americans." But, if we stay, they get the
equal satisfaction of saying "we made the Americans spend a trillion
or so," just as they are already saying "we made them spend $300
and something billion (which is what we have spent already." So, not
spending another trillion or $300 billion or even $2 billion a week,
can be considered a real victory for us.
I have heard it said that if we leave Iraq, that creates a country
where there is a potential for terrorist training and terrorist bases.
Big problem? No, IF that happens, we merely come back and blow up the
bases and kill the terrorists. But maybe it won't happen in Iraq.
Iraq's civil war makes it difficult for even terrorists to develop
bases, since these would be perceived as aiding one side or the other
in the civil war. So, it is likely that terrorists would develop their
bases in other countries. So, it would be fine to be out of Iraq, and
ready to attack those bases in other countries.
Over time, when we are faced with future Al Queda strongholds, as is
highly likely, we should not go into that country or region and try to
clear, hold and rebuild. That just exposes us to guerilla war. We
should go in, kill as many terrorists as possible, destroy the
terrorist bases, leave misery behind, wait for them to rebuild, and
then go in and do it all over again. We should do that while
concentrating on our economy, internal defense, internal cooperation
between Democrats and Republicans, less corruption, better education,
Etc.
If we do that for 50 or 100 years, the terrorists will get tired and
look for work, and we will have won. We must remember that even
terrorists have mothers, wives, and girlfriends, who are writing them
letters, "honey come home and get a job."
And during this period, we will, indeed must, prepare for other
military problems, such as the possibility of wars with Russia or
China. And getting out of Iraq saves our money and our well trained
military. Currently we are wasting both resources.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
