|
|
|
|
OT the Coward-in-Chief
On 25 Aug 2003 08:46:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:
From Harley Sorenson:
Most of diatribe snipped.
The Republican Guard in Iraq was no match for our airplanes and bombs
and rockets, so, in a trick right out of Joe Stalin's playbook, it
melted away in civilian clothes to fight another day. Now it's picking
off our troops one by one, reinforced by volunteers from neighboring
nations who knew exactly what to do when our president said, "Bring
'em on."
And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let humanitarian
considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind the Republican Guard, et
al, and waste their young asses when they turned to run.
[A bunch more snipped]
Rumsfeld's dream team in Iraq is in over its head, so now the talk is
of sending in more troops, or, as the Iraqis call them, targets.
And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than the generals
on the ground. More troops does mean more targets. Rumsfeld isn't asking for
more troops.
Can you say "Vietnam," boys and girls? When do we start engraving
names into a stark black wall?
This war and Vietnam have almost nothing, other than the use of American
soldiers, in common.
The war is unwinnable. As in Vietnam, we are the invaders, invaders of
a country that presented no threat to us. As with Vietnam, we lied to
the world as to our motives. We said we wanted to destroy Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction (done) and get rid of Saddam (done).
So why are will still there?
Because the job isn't finished. Iraq does not yet have a government able to
manage the country.
Besides stealing Iraqi oil, our politicians want to save face. If they
pull our troops out now, they reason, the rest of the world will laugh
at them. "Ha-ha-ha," the world will say. "Silly Americans."
Ah, the 'oil stealing' ploy. Do you honestly believe that all the other nations
in the world, the United Nations, and even the smartest people in the world
(Democrats) would be so blind as to not catch the USofA stealing oil from the
Iraqi's?
Can't have that. Better to continue repressing the 25 million people
of Iraq, who will continue to respond by picking off our troops, one
by one.
It's not the 25 million Iraqi's doing the picking off. It's those Republican
Guards who got away. ( Don't you remember your own damn argument above?)
[Even more snipped]
But admitting our mistake and leaving Iraq is not likely to happen.
Even if we elect a new president next year, we voters can't win. The
new guy, whoever he is, will be afraid to pull out of Iraq for fear
the opposition party will label him "soft on terrorism" or "weak on
national defense."
The above makes absolutely no sense. If we should not be there, then we should
pull out. If the new guy, whoever he is, is 'afraid to pull out for fear the
opposition party will label him', then the new guy shouldn't have been there in
the first place. He will have been without principles.
[Only a couple paragraphs snipped here]
The solution to the Iraq problem is to get out. Now. Today. Let the
Iraqis rule themselves. Meanwhile, go to the U.N. and offer as much
assistance as humanly possible to help the Iraqis rebuild their
country.
The Iraqis would not rebuild their country. The Baath party would resume
operations. Millions more would die, and the country would very soon be under
the control of Saddam Hussein again.
Bush and his minions used to tell us that we had no quarrel with the
Iraqi people, that it was Saddam we were after.
Well, Saddam has vanished. Who is our enemy now?
Saddam and his loyalists.
If this was your thinking, basskisser, then I can understand the comments some
have made about you. I won't.
If you just cut'n'pasted it, like jps, and it's not your thinking, then why did
you paste this tripe?
Have a great day!
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
|