What Surrender Means

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jul 12, 2007.

  1. Annie

    Annie Diamond Member

    Nov 22, 2003
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    In my mode this evening, let's look at the all too likely scenario that will play out:

    Thursday July 12, 2007
    Don Surber: Byrd and Clinton want to surrender

    I will not mince words. The call to bring our troops home from Iraq is nothing short of a surrender that will move the theater of war from Baghdad to the streets of the United States.
    Unlike Vietnam, the enemy will follow our soldiers home.

    On Sunday, the New York Times called for a surrender in Iraq. In so doing, the newspaper abandoned any pretense of liberalism, of decency and of compassion for one's fellow man.

    Consider this passage in its lengthy editorial: "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs."

    Got that?

    The editors of the New York Times think it is OK to slaughter anyone in Iraq who worked with Americans and gives the approval to "even genocide" in its call for the immediate withdrawal of American forces as soon as the Pentagon can distribute the white flags to its soldiers.

    I have never heard of a legitimate American newspaper advising a course of action it believes will leads to genocide.

    To those of us who point out the surrender of Vietnam led to the killing fields of Cambodia and the slaughter of 2 million people, the editors at the Times are saying, well, genocide happens.

    The Times is still arguing over whether we should go.

    Give me a break. That debate ended. We went.

    Americans must deal with the reality that if we leave, massacres will happen.

    Daft newspapers do not bother me.

    The real power is still in Washington. This week, President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton and Robert C. Byrd, 89, president pro tempore of the Senate (and third in line for the presidency) outlined their plans to surrender in Iraq.

    In a column in Newsday, Byrd and Clinton wrote that they want to renege on congressional authorization of the war. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

    Even worse, it is suicidal.

    "The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq," Byrd and Clinton wrote. "They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future."

    Really? The war lasted three weeks. The occupation is in its fourth year.

    So what? The North occupied the South for 12 years, and had it hung on a few more years, civil rights would have arrived for black Americans about 80 years sooner.

    American troops are still in Germany. It took 10 years just to calm West Germany down and begin its "economic miracle," i.e. Americans bought what West Germany produced, no matter how awful it may have been.

    American troops are still in South Korea. It took a good 20 years to establish a democracy there. My brother-in-law still recalls the deprivations he faced when he served in Korea.

    That was in the 1970s.

    American troops are still in Kosovo, helping prevent the very genocide that the editors of the New York Times suggest is OK in Iraq.

    American troops are still in Afghanistan.

    I won't go into how long we occupied Italy and Japan. My point is made.

    No thinking person likes war. But remember, President Bush did not start this war. It began with the Munich Olympics in 1972. Among the 11 Israeli athletes slaughtered by Arab terrorists was a young man born in Cleveland.

    Sept. 11, 2001, was simply the date the United States officially recognized the terror we face.

    Bringing our troops home will not end the war. The jihadists will follow our soldiers home.

    Byrd prides himself on his knowledge of Roman history. I suggest he re-read the parts about the fall of Rome.​
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. actsnoblemartin

    actsnoblemartin I love Andrea & April

    Mar 7, 2007
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    La Mesa, CA
    I have to agree, because, emboldening the terrorists there, will give them the idea, to go after america, if they defeated us in iraq, why cant they do it everywhere else in the world.

    it would leave a power vacuum, that could become a huge war within iraq, you could have iran, syria, and others having a full out war for control within iraq. Then there is iran, how do we stop them from getting a nuke?, taking out israel, and then all the moderate muslim regimes, and taking over the entire middle east.

    It may make some feel better short term, but i cannot support it, we can cry over spilled milk, with the mistakes of the past, or we can focus on the future, I am sorry to my liberal friends, or those who want to leave iraq, but i cannot support it.

    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. red states rule

    red states rule Senior Member

    May 30, 2006
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Deserting Petraeus
    By Charles Krauthammer

    "The key to turning [Anbar] around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run."

    -- The New York Times, July 8

    Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an " astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

    It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.

    The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province -- just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar -- where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades has turned against al-Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.

    We don't yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said -- although it is now heard daily in Washington -- is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug.

    It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe and Warner may no longer trust President Bush's judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81 to 0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy.

    A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.

    for the complete article


Share This Page