Forums | MacLife

Actually, I agree with the quote from Gingrich.
We do need that public debate about what to do, when and why. What do we want Americas role in the world to be and what will we pay to have that role.

"Capn, we're coming up on some dangerous shoals."

"Stay the course, boy. Stay the course".

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

....that part's kinda overshadowed by talk of "insurgencies" and coming home to "hide."

Accurate in my opinion.

Care to elaborate?

Oh no, seems like some of our Generals want to "come home and hide!"

WASHINGTON - Calling conditions in Iraq "an absolute replay of Vietnam," Sen. Chuck Hagel said Friday that the Pentagon is making a mistake by beefing up American forces in Iraq.

U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald.

He said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were "beside themselves" over the Pentagon's reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.

Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.

"That isn't going to do any good. It's going to have a worse effect," Hagel said. "They're destroying the United States Army."

Link (reg. req'd).

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Ohhhhh....Mod fight!

Thank you for adding to the conversation.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

A very large contingent is calling for troop withdrawal, that's it, just troop withdrawal.
Nothing about what the consequences for bring them back will be.
Nothing about what to do next or instead.

As if it's required that we're doing 'something.'

So "insurgency" is the correct word then, in your opinion?  With all the recent use that the word has gotten in regards to Iraq, you believe Gingrich was spot on in calling it an "insurgency?"

Not the correct word but no more inflammatory than others and the words they choose.
Face it, people are rebelling at the actions and direction of their govt (something I don't disapprove of btw), Neut isn't stretching the definition any more than the "Bush is a murderer" folks.

edit- and yeah, doing nothing has consequences. You are required to make choices.

bedstuy wrote:

Considering that there's no way to know what these nefarious consequences "will be" until they arrive it's all guess work.  Troop withdrawl, or rather redeployment to the perimeters, which is what Dems have called for, doesn't mean we won't be able to go back in.  There is no reason for US troops to fight in a civil war.

Anyway, Newt's crazy.  I mean the man served divorced papers to his ex-wife while she was in the hospital with cancer.

Yes, no one knows the future for sure, we can make educated guesses on likely outcomes though based on past experiences. There usually is a group of possibilities with some likelihood of probability attached to each.

Keeping our troops in Iraq is becoming akin to the Dutch Boy keeping the sea from spilling over the dyke with his thumb. Iraq is going to fall into a state of civil war, regardless of what we choose to do. Everyone knew this before we invaded, but we did it anyway. We wouldn't be coming home to hide -- we'd be getting off a sinking ship.

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Considering that there's no way to know what these nefarious consequences "will be" until they arrive it's all guess work.  Troop withdrawl, or rather redeployment to the perimeters, which is what Dems have called for, doesn't mean we won't be able to go back in.  There is no reason for US troops to fight in a civil war.

Anyway, Newt's crazy.  I mean the man served divorced papers to his ex-wife while she was in the hospital with cancer.

Yes, no one knows the future for sure, we can make educated guesses on likely outcomes though based on past experiences. There usually is a group of possibilities with some likelihood of probability attached to each.

So remind me of a foreign military adventure in the past that evolved into a civil war and where it was to our advantage to remain involved.

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

kev is right. Prior to invasion.

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yes, no one knows the future for sure, we can make educated guesses on likely outcomes though based on past experiences. There usually is a group of possibilities with some likelihood of probability attached to each.

So remind me of a foreign military adventure in the past that evolved into a civil war and where it was to our advantage to remain involved.

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

i can't possibly imagine that we have any say in that matter.

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yes, no one knows the future for sure, we can make educated guesses on likely outcomes though based on past experiences. There usually is a group of possibilities with some likelihood of probability attached to each.

So remind me of a foreign military adventure in the past that evolved into a civil war and where it was to our advantage to remain involved.

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

-------
Like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642/
..."The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war.""
-------
well?