Subscribe: Comments on: CAN WE JUST WALK AWAY FROM IRAQ?
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
administration  dale rick  dale  eventually spit  facts  fighting  iraq  iraqi  military  performance  rick  walk iraq  walk  war  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: CAN WE JUST WALK AWAY FROM IRAQ?


Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.

Published: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:14:01 +0000


By: Thomas Jackson

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:28:54 +0000

Prior to May 1940 no one would have bet on a German vctory in the West considering the vaunted French Army and the combined armies of the West. After June this changed. Happily Churchill wasn't by Mr. Moran's definition a sane individual whose beliefs were determined by every stiff breeze. Had he subscribed to such a philosophy no sane individual fighting alone against the might of the Nazis would have turned down the Nazi peace offer and risked fighting alone against overwhelming odds. Fortunately, history demonstrates time after time that free men fighting for a just cause will triumph. It does require stout men and men who have clear visions and are not plagued with self doubts. Hopefully we will have more Churchills and fewer individuals who revise their views due to the change in fortunes or the direction of the wind.

By: Neo

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:07:31 +0000

It appears you may need to take yet another look, as the "facts" seems to keep changing and new developments make old assumptions obsolete.

By: Bookworm Room » Another week of quality Watcher posts

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:09:04 +0000

[...] Can We Just Walk Away From Iraq? Right Wing Nut House [...]

By: GW

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:17:04 +0000

Hello Rick: I think that there are some facts that invalidate some of your assumptions and I deem this topic sufficiently important that I posted a response far too lengthy to include as a comment. If you are interested: I have finally finished the response I wanted to make to your post and Rick’s post. What it boils down to is that I think there are additional facts that lead me to believe that your assessment and Rick’s assessment are flawed. This is not intended as any sort of personal criticism. I post my response only because this is a critical topic worthy of discussion. That said, I welcome your thoughts, criticisms and analysis.

By: Dale in Atlanta

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:26:56 +0000

Nor can we in 500 years. Islamic militants and the overall deep division between the Sunni and the Shia will never be placated by the actions of the U. S. military. Dale, you, like Rick, will eventually have to spit out the neo-con Kool-Aid that promotes any idea of “victory” in Iraq. It won’t happen. I really wouldn't expect any other type of reply from an Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftist Democrat Liberal Nutbag! You're hoisted on your own treasonous petard!

By: Thoughtful Liberal

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:39:34 +0000

"And guess what Rick, 60 YEARS LATER, we’re still there, and in Germany, and in Italy, and in Holland and in Belgium and in the UK for gosh’s sake!" Ahem. And WHY are we still there? To keep German, Italian, Dutch, and Belgian forces from killing each other? No. We are there to protect our friends in those countries from aggressive forces and to protect our interests(remember the Cold War?). If there were still hot wars going on in any of those places, do you think the U.S. citizens would allow our soldiers to be continually killed for 60 years? If you believe this, I can get you one hell of a deal on the Brooklyn Bridge. And "We can’t solve 1400 years worth of Ethnic, Religious, Tribe, Clan and other problems in Iraq, in Five years!" Nor can we in 500 years. Islamic militants and the overall deep division between the Sunni and the Shia will never be placated by the actions of the U. S. military. Dale, you, like Rick, will eventually have to spit out the neo-con Kool-Aid that promotes any idea of "victory" in Iraq. It won't happen.

By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:27:08 +0000

[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Can We Just Walk Away From Iraq?” [...]

By: busboy33

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:45:58 +0000

@MooseHa: "Hi Rick. Plese explain the apparant confusion between these two statements you made: 1)US military could do everything that was asked of it and more and still come up short thanks to the balking politicians in Iraq 2)Administration failures to implement a strategy that would win the war" Don't mean to speak for Rick, but the statements made sense to me by distinguishing between "US Military" and "Administration". The Military is not the Administration -- they are the soldiers that perform and accomplish military objectives. Since the Administration has no strategy for winning (aside from just hoping everything gets better), the military can be ordered to fight enemy X, take control of location Y, train people Z . . . and while they may successfully accomplish those tasks, none of those tasks will cause the Iraqi politicians to get their act together. The military wil win the battles, but the war will be lost because the Iraqi politicians aren't coming together like the Administration just assumed they would. No Iraqi political progress, no end to the war, and the military "wins" but the Admin loses. @ Syn: "How come so many Americans FORGOT what happened on 9/11/2001?" I sure haven't forgot. Not really sure what that has to do with the war in Iraq . . . since Hussein and "freeing the oppressed Iraqis" had/have absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 strike. Remember AQ? Bin Laden? Y'know . . . the people that actually committed the crime? Or did you FORGET what happened on 9/11/2001?

By: bobwire

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:31:43 +0000

If we look at it this way...Iraq has a Shiite majority regarding population. They are likely to control the government via democracy. Iran is Shia dominated and in power. They have elections of some kind where the opposition is hamstrung to the point of being at least disenfranchised, but still in control. We can then expect Iraq and Iran to become cozy. Who then becomes our ally against terrorism? I suggest that these people transcend the borders that have been foisted upon them. And these borders have not much history. Move the goalposts all you want, and still find yourself with the short end of the stick. An inflated view of the Monroe Doctrine, hubris with a capital H. It's not easy being a superpower.

By: Chris

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:07:02 +0000

I have to agree with Dale somewhat, Rick. You may be invested in your own analysis. When you describe Maliki above, you could have been talking about Abraham Lincoln. It's a little early to declare Maliki a complete failure. I would think that it may be a good thing that the national leader can't solve all Iraq's problems. Not everyone gets a George Washington right off the bat. I'm not all that concerned about the Iraqi Army's lack of heavy weapons either. They need to learn to walk before they run. Read accounts of our performance in Africa in 1942. We didn't dazzle anyone with our combined arms operations. It's taken us more than 60 years to reach the levels of military proficiency we enjoy today. Let's give the Iraqis a little time, shall we? As far as the IA's performance, as far as I can tell, the action in Basra is theirs all the way. If they aren't quite up to snuff, well, at least they aren't getting their capital burnt like we did in 1812. Again, look at our performance early in WWII. We were incompetent. We got better, though it cost us dearly. We took our lumps and learned from our mistakes. Let's give them the same chance. I've read that it takes ten years to train your noncommissioned officers to the point where they are the backbone that you need for a modern army. The Iraqis have had five. Maybe we're expecting too much, too fast.