Say Anything Blog

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean defeat.

If the other side hasn’t surrendered, it certainly is.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

That should be: “...in certainly does.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

It means unilateral, unconditional surrender to the enemy in the field. It is the same non-defeat - defeat they forced on us in Vietnam. It means we lost many fine young men and women, many Iraqi citizens only to leave them vulnerable to Al Queda and Iran to take over and kill more Iraqi’s, the ones they hate, in huge numbers.

If Obama gets elected and we pull out so close to a clear victory he is damnable traitor and coward and so are every one that supports our unilateral surrender.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Um, Watashiwa, withdrawing from the field DOES mean that the force most able to take the field by default wins.  If that should be the side of Al Qaida or Iran, are you willing to accept the blame for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on the losing side?

Are you willing for all Middle Eastern oil to be tied up by the most vicious of the mullahs?  One doesn’t have to like the original invasion (I didn’t) to realize that there is a lot at stake here.

whatashiwa,

I see you have not even studied at the trivial school of military affairs, and yet insist on opining.

At a tactical level, we set out to destroy the Iraq’s ability to wage war.  That was accomplished within a matter of days to weeks (depending on when you set start and end dates).

At the operational level, we had several goals:
1.  Remove Saddam Hussein as a source of funds and training for international terrorists (Accomplished).
2.  Remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath party from power in Iraq (Accomplished).
3.  Ensure our fight against the terrorists was as far away from our own shores as possible (Accomplished).

At the strategic level, we also had several goals:
1.  Establish a strategic foot hold in the area other than Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, and Bahrain (all of which have issues as U.S. bases).  Pulling out would obviously forfeit that strategic goal.
2.  Establish a stable representative government in the region (a first in the Dar al Islam).  That too would be forfeit upon a withdrawal at this point.

Thus it follows that leaving prematurely would forfeit the strategic goals and endanger the operational goals already achieved.  Such failure is known to most rational observers as defeat.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY FOR EARLY WITHDRAWAL

Applies to:

___ banking

___ dating

___ warfare

Have a nice day

...for great justice

Move_Zig:  Hahahahaha!  I know you didn’t just make that up....  did you?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

Akshully, that thought process has been developed by me after a long series of bouts with coeds, beerbongs and body shots.

Thanks fer askin

...for great justice

Well, it’s always nice when the children opine about complex issues that they couldn’t hope to understand. Watalatadingdong here responds to the military (they people they supposedly want to listen to) assertions that we need to stay by very loudly crying out “nuh uh”.

Thank God SOMEONE gave us such a detailed analysis.

Douchebag.

Your insipid gullibility is mindblowing! Everybody knows the real reason we invaded was for glory. Nothing more. Nothing less. Apparently, you can live with the dead and the dying. Face it. All you right wingers hate middle easterners and are just itching for a fight. You thrive on hate and fear.

Four out of five of the tiny little voices in his head tell watashiwa that he is right. The fifth one just tells him to steer clear of any facts that would contradict the other four!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

watashiwa obviously means ignorant petulant ass.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”