Quote :

"lose the war? to who? we defeated the Iraqi army, and Saddam is dead... that sounds like a 'win' in most books....some of you have a very warped perspective of 'war'"

Von Clausewitz stated (roughly) that, "war is an extension of politics by other means." If this is the case than a tactical victory that fails to accomplish strategic political goals is a defeat. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Quote :

"if you didn't think we would just go in, topple saddam then leave?"

Nobody expected that, they just expected the post war situation to be handled more competently than it has. We're quite possibly approaching a point where withdrawing from Iraq won't be an option, but the only option.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ["]]

6/21/2007 2:26:11 PM

http://beta.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/25/iraq.main/index.html

The rival sect leaders can not even meet to talk about peace w/o some other crazy blowing themselves up. I originally thought even though i disagreed with the war that we needed to finish what we broke. lately though i am starting to reach the thought that we should just let all those crazies duke it out and let them kill each other off.

Has there ever been any kind of civil unrest/ guerilla war comparable to the situation in Iraq? Guerrilla war far has been around for millennium but all these guys are doing are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up at some predetermined spot.

6/25/2007 4:46:43 PM

GW used the term "suiciders" on the radio today.

^ This really isn't all that unusual when you think about it. The Japanese come to mind as a mid 19th century example. They weren't strapping vests on, no, but they did build piloted bombs that were designed to be dropped from larger aircraft and flown into US aircraft carriers. True, they were military targets, but I don't doubt they would have used them against the civilian population if they had the ability.



Some will tell you that the biggest difference is that these are "non-state" actors in this conflict . . . but that is only because they haven't been able to establish their state yet. The Khmer Rouge, Communist Party in Vietnam, Nazi Party, American Revolutionaries were all initially "non-state" actors.

6/25/2007 5:16:02 PM

Guess what Gen David Petraeus says?

Quote :

""Northern Ireland, I think, taught you that very well. My counterparts in your [British] forces really understand this kind of operation... It took a long time, decades," he said. "I don't know whether this will be decades, but the average counter insurgency is somewhere around a nine or a 10 year endeavour." "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6285156.stm
US Iraq chief warns of long war

7/9/2007 5:19:55 PM

Let's get something straight:

neoconservatism:

Quote :

"An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism [emphasis added] that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neoconservative

Well, two out of three ain't bad. The point: If you do not support "social conservatism," you are not a "neocon."

PS: The hyphen is unnecessary.

7/10/2007 12:32:24 AM