I am actually not against the strategic use of retreat in war, but what is being proposed is not retreat, but surrender.
Geeze you know a truce works real good if your talking to the leader of something !! Bin Laden is no more in control of this thing than I am of the American Armed forces. But you know If It could get him out in the open where he could be painted with pig blood and beheaded then at least it would be worth few minutes of our time to consider it !! Rick
How about this: public statement: If there is a 0 death count in Iraq for one month we will talk. Use that month to do special ops and recon. DUH!
That is the beauty of it. If they are going to engage in terrorist activity during a truce it puts the black hat on them and we win hearts and minds in Iraq.
Quote: Originally Posted by craigG Thank heaven there weren't many liberals around during world war II or we might have lost. He has been reformed by history into a far right conservative apparently:rolling: Roosevelt used to tell people he was just slightly left of centre. By my estimation that would make him a liberal.
Roosevelt was definitely a liberal. The welfare programs he instituted could only have been created by a socialist liberal type president.
FDR was definitely socially left yes, but at least he fought and supported the troops. He didn't make a case NOT to go to war against Germany by saying, "The Japs attacked us on December 7th, not Hitler!!" And don't give me that Germany declared war on us after we declared war on the Japs...so we HAD to go fight Germany. FDR did the right thing by fighting Hitler because he was a threat to everything America represented. Don't you think islamic terrorists have declared war on the West? Maybe there was no formal declaration via the U.N., but when your whole existance is to kill Jews, destroy and insight terror into western culture...I call that a declaration! Of course since Danr is high on his Kool Aid, he has nothing left but more name calling by trying to compare Hitler to George Bush's actions. Typical liberal argument...
He paled in comparison to someone like Huey P. Long, Senator and ex-Governor of Louisiana. Huey Long was touted as a possible Presidential contender for the 1936 election, but he was despatched from lively existence at the hands of an anarchist in 1935. Believe me, there are still people in the Banana Republic of Lousyiana that revere him.
Seems strange for someone with the name of Krasnaya Vityaz, and listing her location as some God forsaken place in Asia, to be speaking of one of the states here in the USA as if it were in her own back yard. If you'r going ot make fun of the place, at least spell the name right, please!
I really do not see any reasonable thoughts here. Is there a reason that you oppose strategic retreat? Every capable military leader has it in their playbook. And to call strategic retreat liberal is so far beyond surreal that I am (and you will be glad to hear this) speechless.
No. It is Lousyiana. Not Louisiana, Lousyiana. If you lived there or have been there you would know. Let your eyes burn from the chemical and petroleum plants there and you will know what I mean. It was a bit like being in communist Romania during the Ceauscescu regime with factories belching out toxic fumes with no regulation.
Finally! Someone very accurately and concisely describes this entire thread and all of the pronouncements by the armchair generals in one simple declarative sentence! Good work Danr!!!
Yah, I've heard that one before. Promises, promises, and nothing more, but then that is all you can expect from a bleading heart, treasonus foul mouthed liberal know-it-all.encil:
Hey, cloudy! Just why do you spend so much time reading something you seem to have so little use for. Are you afraid you will miss something or do you find that its just possible you are learning a thing or two. Your time could be better spent. here is an idea: Did you know that banging your head up against a brick walls burns 150 calories per hour? So go burn off a few hundred and then see if this old world looks different to you.:secret:
Getting back to bin Laden's offer, as a political scientist (one who strives for neutrality in his arguments, at least right now), I have to say in defense of those thinking of taking up the "offer" of a "truce" by bin Laden that since he has made no conditions for his truce, that getting out of Iraq via strategic retreat or "redeployment" has it's merits, since bin Laden is not in Iraq. Does this mean I think we should? No. Absolutely not. But to be fair, I can see why people would consider the option.
Bin Laden is failing for one simple reason. Look at the Middle East before and after 9/11. The U.S. military was confined to relatively few bases in a couple of countries in the entire region. They had a low profile and very little influence in the Arab world. Now look at the military. The U.S. owns Afghanistan and Iraq whole sale. There are more U.S. troops in the Middle East now then at anytime since probably WWII. More Muslims have died as a result and the entire region is far less stable. What has Bin Laden really done for his fellow Muslims except bring more misery and hardship into their lives? He has failed utterly in his effort to do anything other than a few well placed explosives in western cities. Only the desperate fanatics in the Muslim community follow his orders and do his bidding. If one of them actually looked at all he has accomplished, they'd put a gun to his head and end his megalomaniac existence. His is their problem not their solution.
