Comments on: Defeatists Always Whine http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/ Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:56:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Mike Schroepfer http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3205 Mike Schroepfer Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:28:29 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3205 We can't stay, we can't leave. By coutinueing the occupation and imposing "democacry" on to infidels is a fool's errant. Arab liberation isn't worth one drop of American blood. On the other hand, withdrawing from Iraq will leave a tremendous power vacume and our enemy will have tasted blood. We cannot let this happon, nor can we abandon the oil fields to the enemy. Perhaps we can withdraw to the Kurdish areas and occupy the oil fields and let the Shiets and Sunies have at it. Or flip a coin to choose which side we'd back. Then we can dis-invite muslims from settling in our country. They have no interest into assumelating into American society. We can’t stay, we can’t leave. By coutinueing the occupation and imposing “democacry” on to infidels is a fool’s errant. Arab liberation isn’t worth one drop of American blood.
On the other hand, withdrawing from Iraq will leave a tremendous power vacume and our enemy will have tasted blood. We cannot let this happon, nor can we abandon the oil fields to the enemy.
Perhaps we can withdraw to the Kurdish areas and occupy the oil fields and let the Shiets and Sunies have at it. Or flip a coin to choose which side we’d back.
Then we can dis-invite muslims from settling in our country.
They have no interest into assumelating into American society.

]]> By: Mike http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3204 Mike Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:44:13 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3204 Yeah, you outdid yourself Curt. I've been meaning to catch up with this issue and post but now what can I say that you haven't already covered perfectly? Oh, and that new Motionbox thing is great. I'm going to have to try that out. It says you can edit the clips too. Yeah, you outdid yourself Curt. I’ve been meaning to catch up with this issue and post but now what can I say that you haven’t already covered perfectly?

Oh, and that new Motionbox thing is great. I’m going to have to try that out. It says you can edit the clips too.

]]> By: Dee http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3203 Dee Sat, 21 Apr 2007 05:39:18 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3203 Excellent, excellent post!! Excellent, excellent post!!

]]> By: Scott Malensek http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3202 Scott Malensek Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:32:35 +0000 http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/20/defeatists-always-whine/#comment-3202 Perhaps if we gave him some front row seats to a boxing match he'd change his mind and support the war? Maybe? I like Krauthammer's view yesterday on Brit Hume. He said, Sen Reid is telling us that the plan to fight the war is a plan to lose, but the plan to retreat from the war, abandon the fight, and be defeated in the eyes of our enemies and of the world is Sen Reid's plan for success. I submit that Harry Reid is correct. The war in Iraq is lost. However, one must understand that Sen Reid's goal re the Iraq war is different than the President's, and both of theirs is different from the goal/objective of the American people. Reid's goal for the Iraq War is to be able to: 1) pull out US forces completely 2) blame defeat on the President 3) cause a warm and fuzzy moment in the hearts of terrorist suicide bombers, snipers, child killers, dictators, and terrorist leaders all around the world as instigated by the benevolence of American abandonment of Iraq. This warm and fuzzy evocation would then compell the racist and bigoted head-sawer-offers to end their Holy War, and take over the United State's role as builder of schools, protector of human rights and liberties, and so forth in Iraq and around the world. This of course would be followed by gumdrop trees sprouting from the ground. The Tigris and Euphrates would turn to chocolate, and rainbows would replace the smoke of truck bombs laced with chlorine gas. Senator Reid seems to now recognize that...it-ain't-gonna-happen. For whatever reason, the effort to get the US out of Iraq and to force a defeat that can be blamed on the President and Republicans for leftist political gain...has failed. All three major DNC Presidentical candidates recognize that they will have to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. ie, the anti-war movement to withdraw troops completely is now moot. Further, while Sen Reid and other Democrats who get their intel from Moveon.org instead of the DNI and/or DoD all claim that the strategy of sending more troops to Iraq has been tried and failed, what they won't tell remind us of (maybe because they forgot) is that every time more troops were sent the violence DID fall, and it was only when efforts to appease the Democrats by reducing troop numbers was made, only after troops were pulled OUT did violence return. Thus, it's not sending more troops in that causes violence...it's pulling them out. It's not the fall, it's the landing (cement, or an airbag-dems choose cement). President Bush's objective in Iraq (interestingly enough, one held on/off by all three major DNC Presidential candidates) is that US forces should stay in Iraq until it is a secure and stable place-even an ally in the fight against AQ. Put simply: the US stays until it doesn't have to invade a 3rd time. Americans' objective? Get the killing off the tv's, bring the troops home, but not until we don't have to send a 3rd generation into a 3rd invasion of Iraq; particularly since each invasion is several fold more deadly than the last. rehash or revision, you can decide <a href="http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/16/americas-three-objectives-in-i/" rel="nofollow">http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/16/americas-three-objectives-in-i/</a> Perhaps if we gave him some front row seats to a boxing match he’d change his mind and support the war? Maybe?

I like Krauthammer’s view yesterday on Brit Hume. He said, Sen Reid is telling us that the plan to fight the war is a plan to lose, but the plan to retreat from the war, abandon the fight, and be defeated in the eyes of our enemies and of the world is Sen Reid’s plan for success.

I submit that Harry Reid is correct. The war in Iraq is lost. However, one must understand that Sen Reid’s goal re the Iraq war is different than the President’s, and both of theirs is different from the goal/objective of the American people.

Reid’s goal for the Iraq War is to be able to:
1) pull out US forces completely
2) blame defeat on the President
3) cause a warm and fuzzy moment in the hearts of terrorist suicide bombers, snipers, child killers, dictators, and terrorist leaders all around the world as instigated by the benevolence of American abandonment of Iraq. This warm and fuzzy evocation would then compell the racist and bigoted head-sawer-offers to end their Holy War, and take over the United State’s role as builder of schools, protector of human rights and liberties, and so forth in Iraq and around the world. This of course would be followed by gumdrop trees sprouting from the ground. The Tigris and Euphrates would turn to chocolate, and rainbows would replace the smoke of truck bombs laced with chlorine gas.

Senator Reid seems to now recognize that…it-ain’t-gonna-happen. For whatever reason, the effort to get the US out of Iraq and to force a defeat that can be blamed on the President and Republicans for leftist political gain…has failed. All three major DNC Presidentical candidates recognize that they will have to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. ie, the anti-war movement to withdraw troops completely is now moot.

Further, while Sen Reid and other Democrats who get their intel from Moveon.org instead of the DNI and/or DoD all claim that the strategy of sending more troops to Iraq has been tried and failed, what they won’t tell remind us of (maybe because they forgot) is that every time more troops were sent the violence DID fall, and it was only when efforts to appease the Democrats by reducing troop numbers was made, only after troops were pulled OUT did violence return. Thus, it’s not sending more troops in that causes violence…it’s pulling them out. It’s not the fall, it’s the landing (cement, or an airbag-dems choose cement).

President Bush’s objective in Iraq (interestingly enough, one held on/off by all three major DNC Presidential candidates) is that US forces should stay in Iraq until it is a secure and stable place-even an ally in the fight against AQ. Put simply: the US stays until it doesn’t have to invade a 3rd time.

Americans’ objective?
Get the killing off the tv’s, bring the troops home, but not until we don’t have to send a 3rd generation into a 3rd invasion of Iraq; particularly since each invasion is several fold more deadly than the last.

rehash or revision, you can decide
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/16/americas-three-objectives-in-i/

]]>