Time to get out.

[Annie]

What the hell does that mean?

You judge, I think I was just flamed?

 

[Bonnie]

What the hell does that mean?

That would be T-Bor walking home with his hand between his legs.............

 

[MtnBiker]

You judge, I think I was just flamed?

We will see if he explains such a foolish comment.

 

[onedomino]

You judge, I think I was just flamed?

You were flamed with really disgusting innuendo. What a weakling.

 

[1549]

I can hardly add to what CSM and 90K have already said, except I do SO despise cowardice. We started it ... we are honor-bound to finish it. Simple as that.

Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor. The only reason we need to keep troops in Iraq is that if we left now, the country would be in danger of falling to groups far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

Our troops fought with all of their hearts, but they were betrayed by a government that knew the war would be hell. The previous Bush administration offered a million analogies to describe the perils of an invasion of Iraq. "Dinosaur in the mud", "everlasting war in baghdad". This administration did not heed these warnings. Ambition blinded our leaders, and our troops suffered for that. Lets stabalize the new government and leave Iraq forever.

 

[Annie]

You were flamed with really disgusting innuendo. What a weakling.

I think so, but I'll let other mods decide and whether or not to issue warning.

 

[manu1959]

I think so, but I'll let other mods decide and whether or not to issue warning.

i think he was flirting with you.....:kiss2:

 

[Annie]

i think he was flirting with you.....:kiss2:

So many do!

 

[Annie]

Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor. The only reason we need to keep troops in Iraq is that if we left now, the country would be in danger of falling to groups far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein.

Our troops fought with all of their hearts, but they were betrayed by a government that knew the war would be hell. The previous Bush administration offered a million analogies to describe the perils of an invasion of Iraq. "Dinosaur in the mud", "everlasting war in baghdad". This administration did not heed these warnings. Ambition blinded our leaders, and our troops suffered for that. Lets stabalize the new government and leave Iraq forever.

Ok so bright 19 year old, what war wasn't hell? Name it.

 

[onedomino]

Screw honor

Honor is not important to you? What a sad, impoverished life you must lead. Few things are as important as honor. "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Churchill. Do you have these things? Because to truly possess one, requires all.

 

[Stephanie]

Honor is not important to you? What a sad, impoverished life you must lead. Few things are as important as honor. "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Churchill. Do you have these things? Because to truly possess one, requires all.

 

[1549]

Ok so bright 19 year old, what war wasn't hell? Name it.

I should have been more clear. They knew the war would be extremely difficult, they were aware our forces would be under constant harassment from guerrilla forces, they had been told a timely victory was impossible, and they probably foresaw the ethnic strife as well.

Honor is not important to you? What a sad, impoverished life you must lead. Few things are as important as honor. "All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." - Churchill. Do you have these things? Because to truly possess one, requires all.

I think honor is very important...as is context, something you failed to take note of.

Gunny: "we are honor-bound to finish it."
1549: "Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor."

Honor is associated with character, integrity, and dignity. Something the Presidential brain trust so sorely lacks. The White House has been stripped of its honor, as has every decision to come out of it. Not just by George W. Bush, but by a lineage of President stretching back to John F. Kennedy.

Gunny seems to imply that our presence in Iraq and seeing the war through to the end is honorable. However, we are merely a magnet for tension and conflict in the country. The honorable thing to do would be to get Iraq's forces strong as quickly as possible, and then bail, no permanent presence. The plans for permanent bases have to be scrapped, those bases would polarize the Iraqi people, and our troops would be a lightning rod for attacks. Leaving quickly without jeapordizing the stability of Iraq's government would be the best thing for the Iraqi people, and the best thing for our troops.

 

[Annie]

I should have been more clear. They knew the war would be extremely difficult, they were aware our forces would be under constant harassment from guerrilla forces, they had been told a timely victory was impossible, and they probably foresaw the ethnic strife as well.



I think honor is very important...as is context, something you failed to take note of.

Gunny: "we are honor-bound to finish it."
1549: "Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor."

Honor is associated with character, integrity, and dignity. Something the Presidential brain trust so sorely lacks. The White House has been stripped of its honor, as has every decision to come out of it. Not just by George W. Bush, but by a lineage of President stretching back to John F. Kennedy.

Gunny seems to imply that our presence in Iraq and seeing the war through to the end is honorable. However, we are merely a magnet for tension and conflict in the country. The honorable thing to do would be to get Iraq's forces strong as quickly as possible, and then bail. That would be the best thing for the Iraqi people, and the best thing for our troops.

Actually, I'm still waiting for the answer of what war was 'less than hell?' Seems to me, that with the advent of 'war' hell is not far behind.

 

[1549]

Actually, I'm still waiting for the answer of what war was 'less than hell?' Seems to me, that with the advent of 'war' hell is not far behind.

I am sure all wars are hell, I admitted I should have been more clear, I threw in a metaphor that did not properly convey my point. What did you think of my clarification?

 

[Annie]

I am sure all wars are hell, I admitted I should have been more clear, I threw in a metaphor that did not properly convey my point. What did you think of my clarification?

Pretty weak,

They knew the war would be extremely difficult, they were aware our forces would be under constant harassment from guerrilla forces, they had been told a timely victory was impossible, and they probably foresaw the ethnic strife as well.

 

[1549]

Pretty weak,

Our arguments are coming from two very different notions of war.

My metaphor was weak because war, no matter how difficult it is relative to other wars, is still hell. I meant mostly to say that the previous administration warned that this war may be difficult to the point that it is not worth fighting.

Your notion of war is similar to the article you posted recently. The difficulty of a war shall not deter the public, battle of the bulge, yada yada yada. I had an argument similar to this with my conservative brother just after the death toll in Iraq reached 1,000. His point was: historically speaking, this war is not so bloody. To which I responded with the grotesque Stalin quote: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Your argument is similar to my brothers in that you see this war as a battle that should be fought until we have won, regardless of the trials we must face.

There is another way to look at this though. Considering the war in Iraq is a "preemptive" war, it should not be viewed in the same light as World War II and the Civil War. This does not have to be a fight to the death. The stake is the pride of our president, not the fate of the world (or the union). Lets be blatantly honest: if George Bush thought terrorism was going to bring America to its knees, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. In 2003, Saudi Arabia was the biggest terror threat to America, yet Iraq was chosen as a target instead. Why? WMD's? If these WMD's are such a great threat, why are we not swarming the globe trying to find the weaponry that forced us to invade a nation. There is no mention of trying to hunt down dangerous missing WMD's...probably because they never existed.

So if the Administration was fully aware that this war was going to be as difficult as major wars of the past...was it worth fighting? No. There was no obligation to invade. You can flush that article you posted down the toilet, because the public has every right to be down about the problems in Iraq. WWII was a fight against a threat to humanity as a whole...the public has to suck it up. Iraq was a preemptive strike against a country that was not our biggest terror threat (and that is not hindsight speaking, it was well known), and the country was not a WMD threat. When a country is "sort of a threat"--like Iraq was--a war against that country better be quick and painless (as war can possibly be), or the public will feel betrayed.

This administration was warned by their fathers (literally, in fact) that Iraq would not be quick and painless.

 

[Annie]

Our arguments are coming from two very different notions of war.

My metaphor was weak because war, no matter how difficult it is relative to other wars, is still hell. I meant mostly to say that the previous administration warned that this war may be difficult to the point that it is not worth fighting.

Your notion of war is similar to the article you posted recently. The difficulty of a war shall not deter the public, battle of the bulge, yada yada yada. I had an argument similar to this with my conservative brother just after the death toll in Iraq reached 1,000. His point was: historically speaking, this war is not so bloody. To which I responded with the grotesque Stalin quote: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Your argument is similar to my brothers in that you see this war as a battle that should be fought until we have won, regardless of the trials we must face.

There is another way to look at this though. Considering the war in Iraq is a "preemptive" war, it should not be viewed in the same light as World War II and the Civil War. This does not have to be a fight to the death. The stake is the pride of our president, not the fate of the world (or the union). Lets be blatantly honest: if George Bush thought terrorism was going to bring America to its knees, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. In 2003, Saudi Arabia was the biggest terror threat to America, yet Iraq was chosen as a target instead. Why? WMD's? If these WMD's are such a great threat, why are we not swarming the globe trying to find the weaponry that forced us to invade a nation. There is no mention of trying to hunt down dangerous missing WMD's...probably because they never existed.

So if the Administration was fully aware that this war was going to be as difficult as major wars of the past...was it worth fighting? No. There was no obligation to invade. You can flush that article you posted down the toilet, because the public has every right to be down about the problems in Iraq. WWII was a fight against a threat to humanity as a whole...the public has to suck it up. Iraq was a preemptive strike against a country that was not our biggest terror threat (and that is not hindsight speaking, it was well known), and the country was not a WMD threat. When a country is "sort of a threat"--like Iraq was--a war against that country better be quick and painless (as war can possibly be), or the public will feel betrayed.

This administration was warned by their fathers (literally, in fact) that Iraq would not be quick and painless.

There is no way that I would try to 'convince' you. Your argument is that of not appeasement, rather surrender. Of the repercussions of such, I'll assume you haven't a clue.

As for the real war, Iraq is logically perfect for a Middle East base, something very much needed by the West. Our problem, there is no "West', other than us.

 

[1549]

There is no way that I would try to 'convince' you. Your argument is that of not appeasement, rather surrender. Of the repercussions of such, I'll assume you haven't a clue.

As for the real war, Iraq is logically perfect for a Middle East base, something very much needed by the West. Our problem, there is no "West', other than us.

Surrender? My argument was that Iraq was not threatening enough to warrant this war, thus there would be no reason for surrender. I posted earlier in this thread that since we are in the war, we can not withdraw until Iraq is somewhat stable. Real world or hypothetical, your analysis of my argument is wrong.

Iraq is not a logical place for a Middle East base. It would be far too easy for foreign terrorists to permeate Iraq's porous borders with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to attack our bases. Geographically, Iraq is a good central spot for bases, but in reality it would invite attacks.

 

[onedomino]

Our problem, there is no "West', other than us

Perceptive remark. Ironically, what remains of the West is in the East: Australia and Japan. The UK is lost the moment Blair goes.

 

[CSM]

I should have been more clear. They knew the war would be extremely difficult, they were aware our forces would be under constant harassment from guerrilla forces, they had been told a timely victory was impossible, and they probably foresaw the ethnic strife as well.

Because something is difficult, dangerous and risky does not mean it is not worth doing...though I can see how libs prefer to do nothing rather than put ANYTHING of their own on the line in ANY endeavor,,,nevermind war.

I think honor is very important...as is context, something you failed to take note of.

Gunny: "we are honor-bound to finish it."
1549: "Screw honor, this war was not fought for honor."

Honor is associated with character, integrity, and dignity. Something the Presidential brain trust so sorely lacks. While that may be your assertion, it is wrong. The White House has been stripped of its honor, as has every decision to come out of it. Pure bullshit; I am sure in your vast experience of 19 years of providing leadership ...oh wait...never mind. Your opinion is yours but it still isn't correct. Not just by George W. Bush, but by a lineage of President stretching back to John F. Kennedy. Aw cmon, you can come out and say it...you know you want to..."It's all Bush's fault!"

Gunny seems to imply that our presence in Iraq and seeing the war through to the end is honorable. It is indeed. However, we are merely a magnet for tension and conflict in the country. Guess what, we are a magnet for tension in conflict in this country too! Or did you think 9/11 was not full of tension and conflict? I guess the USS Cole was a tea party of sorts. I suppose the first attempt at the World Trade Center was just a "meet and greet"... The honorable thing to do would be to get Iraq's forces strong as quickly as possible, and then bail, no permanent presence. Sez you...again I am sure your vast experience in doing the honorable thing qualifies you as the ultimate expert on performing honorable acts. The plans for permanent bases have to be scrapped, those bases would polarize the Iraqi people, and our troops would be a lightning rod for attacks. Sheesh, a military tactician too. Heaven forbid that the Iraqii people should be polarized! we sure don't want that,,,after all look what polarization has done for the US! And the troops...Sure don't want the troops to be lightning rods! Leaving quickly without jeapordizing the stability of Iraq's government would be the best thing for the Iraqi people, and the best thing for our troops. Pure genius!

While I respect your right to have an opinion; I do wish you would put a little more effort into formulating that opinion. I presume you recognize my right to believe your opinion is a lot of crap!