Quick exit from Iraq is likely

[Technosoul]

Today in his speech to the United Nations Bush re-confirmed that the United States will stand firm in Iraq until the torrorism is overcome and the country has established a democratic government designed to advocate liberty and freedom for all it's people.

I did not hear anything in his speech that would suggest a fast withdraw from Iraq based on kind of easy-way-out shift of direction.

Technosoul.

[Sonart]

Quick exit from Iraq is likely Rainbow -- Unless something beyond any expectations happens, it will never take place.

Everything after 'Mission Accomplished' has been beyond Bush's expectations, usually the exact opposite. You were expecting that to change?

A long, dribble of men and casualties resulted, with no clear directive. And ended suddenly with more genocide and chaos as the result of 'cut and run'.

Woulda happened in Vietnam whether we left sooner or later, rcne. And notice they're our buddies now and coming around to a more liberal, market-driven society, just like China, and all on their own.

Harsh, indeed. Sometimes overwhelming force is the best persuader - aka Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan.

Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler. And they were all defeated in the end because the folks they conquered eventually fought back.

Besides, I thought America didn't do that, rcne... y'know, going around the world persuading nations by force because we didn't like the cut of their jib. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

Exactly what hopefully we learned - if you're going to do it - do it, finish it without remorse. The ongoing limited force campaign is unsuited to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq, Afghanistan.

Didn't work for us in Nam, where we killed 1.1 million of them to our 50,000 dead. It didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan, who killed another million to their 15,000. And it won't work for us in Iraq. Whadda you recommend? Carpet bombing Fallujah? Nuking the Ali Mosque?

We were not allowed to win because a devastating military blow to the North might have brought China into the situation.

Indeed. Plus, even if we had defeated the North, they simply would have gone underground and become a nation of Viet Cong, and we'd still be fighting them today. They were fighting for the homeland, we weren't.

[Sonart]

Today in his speech to the United Nations Bush re-confirmed that the United States will stand firm in Iraq until the torrorism is overcome and the country has established a democratic government designed to advocate liberty and freedom for all it's people.

...and it rains snowballs in hell.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, I would trust the motives of the EU countries before I trust those of our own government.

Harharhar. Oh my side hurts. The EU has made tomatoes illegal.

"Yes indeedy, our Lords and Masters are so solicitous of our health and wealth that they have provided us with a criminal law system which defines not only what is and is not an acceptable tomato as to rotteness, but also as to breed and size. You might blanch at calling it criminal law, but to breach these regulations is a criminal, not civil offense. The idea that consumers and producers might take part in voluntary exchange seems not to occur to them.
It should also be noted that this regulation is an alteration to an earlier one. Because first time round they had forgotten to include cherry tomatoes."

You can have my grape tomatoes, when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!! You DAMN DIRTY APES!!

[RickSp]

Vietnam was a corporate war(actually a conflict), where the Americans for some unknown reason bailed France out (again), then were not allowed to win. A long, dribble of men and casualties resulted, with no clear directive. And ended suddenly with more genocide and chaos as the result of 'cut and run'.

You sir, do not have the first clue about what happened in Vietnam, at least based on your statement above.

Vietnam was a campaign to fight "international communism" where we committed troops to a nationalistic country, were fought to a stand-still by a nationalist insurgency and ultimately ejected by it.

The "not allowed to win" canard as silly as it is commonly repeated. The world's mightiest army cannot defeat insurgents with local support, short of killing a vast majority of the population. The British discovered this in its rebellious American colonies just as Westmoreland discovered it in Vietnam, the Russians learned it in Afghanistan and we are being reminded daily of it in Iraq. It is not that we "are not being allowed to win", it is that we have no chance of winning.

In Iraq we are fighting "international terrorism", or so Bush claims, in a country where a nationalist insurgency is progressively gaining ground and will eject us if we do not leave first.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, I would trust the motives of the EU countries before I trust those of our own government.

Harharhar. Oh my side hurts. The EU has made tomatoes illegal.

"Yes indeedy, our Lords and Masters are so solicitous of our health and wealth that they have provided us with a criminal law system which defines not only what is and is not an acceptable tomato as to rotteness, but also as to breed and size. You might blanch at calling it criminal law, but to breach these regulations is a criminal, not civil offense. The idea that consumers and producers might take part in voluntary exchange seems not to occur to them.
It should also be noted that this regulation is an alteration to an earlier one. Because first time round they had forgotten to include cherry tomatoes."

You can have my grape tomatoes, when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!! You DAMN DIRTY APES!![/b][/quote]

First of all, what does the quote from my post have to do with tomatoes? Second, what does your post have to do with a pullout in Iraq? Third, (are you reading this Mr. Vicchio?) This is from a BLOG! Are you presenting this (in the wrong thread) as a source?

I'm assuming this was misposted on this thread (there seems to be a lot of that lately), or am I missing something?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>First ... Second[/b]

Um, nothing. It had to do with the EU.

<!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1,
Third... This is from a BLOG![/quote]
So? He's directly quoted and linked the specific regulations and PDF publications which make tomatoes illegal.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Sonart, Everything after 'Mission Accomplished' has been beyond Bush's expectations, usually the exact opposite. You were expecting that to change?

Iraq is an empty field for economy, market, financial enterprise, ect.
One of the most important objectives are : intelligence and military.

Intelligence has a "life-time" option to penetrate Arabic and Islamic "environments". Such opportunity may never appear, again.
Military bases, are extremely "supportive gear" for the Middle-East region's stabilization.

I do not think ANY country would let it go away.
Bush has not much in common with it. It could be another politician, and it would go for that as well.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sonart, Everything after 'Mission Accomplished' has been beyond Bush's expectations, usually the exact opposite. You were expecting that to change?

Iraq is an empty field for economy, market, financial enterprise, ect.
One of the most important objectives are : intelligence and military.

Intelligence has a "life-time" option to penetrate Arabic and Islamic "environments". Such opportunity may never appear, again.
Military bases, are extremely "supportive gear" for the Middle-East region's stabilization.

I do not think ANY country would let it go away.
Bush has not much in common with it. It could be another politician, and it would go for that as well.[/b][/quote]

That's easy for you to say....

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Scribbler1,@ First ... Second Um, nothing. It had to do with the EU. <!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler1, Third... This is from a BLOG!

So? He's directly quoted and linked the specific regulations and PDF publications which make tomatoes illegal.[/b][/quote]

I know, but I will admit a personal bias toward blogs for reasons of credibility in general. I've been around long enough to see the National Enquirer go from blatantly made up trash to being quoted on the network news (and actually breaking a few real stories). But the Enquirer is STILL full of made up trash but because of the few homers they've hit people are believing the whole mag.
Blogs are the same thing IMO, and the risk is yet again they will start to be a "source" of "news" yet filled with more bias than Fox News. ABC says more people get their news from them than any other place. If blogs start to be taken without the requisite pound of salt the sheep will be even LESS informed than they are now. It's not the occasional gold nugget I object to, its the mountain of useless rock that goes with it.

It IS a personal bias, I admit, but it's based on observing the mass audiences for decades that worries me.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, That's easy for you to say....

These main objectives are not going to be accomplished easily, especially since in order to comply with it a completely new approach is required in fields like : security.

[Ken Carman]

You know I've been thinking about this topic ever since I heard this trial balloon floated, and I've come the conclusion that that is just what it is. We've heard that he may do Iran next. I've heard they'll go to Korea, once the North has been lulled into thinking "we won't interfer" and less troops means they can do to the South what Saddam did during the early 90's. I've also heard about them intensifying the Iraq effort afterward.

I believe these are mostly election year trial ballons. The idea is to encourage those on the fence to fall into the Bush camp. Will it work? Maybe. Most likely a tiny bit: but not much. Of course if the current pollster's polls aren't plopping out of their posteriors and they're right about it being a close one, just a few votes might mean a lot as Florida semi-proved.

Personally, I don't think the "pulling out" balloon is anything but a balloon.

[PatrickHenry]

I have thought about it a little more and I realized: Consider the source. Bob effen Novak. Media spinner for Republican Administrations. Not exactly an unbiased source is he??

I still think I feel a slight draft here...