Not with 100% being killed each month. - not only a tough sell but there are none alive to do the recruiting. Thanks - I am glad you can at least recognize logical argument when it is presented to you.
Have you ever heard of "days"? If they recruit enough over each day, then the coalition could keep killing 2000 insurgents a month and the number of insurgents could remain the same or even grow! You don't think about things much before you post, do you. Baron Max
I did not say the insurgents were killed only at the end of each month. they are killed every day, every hour etc - any time period you wish to name - it all comes down to same thing - if all get killed in the chosen time period, k, there are not any left in k to do the recruiting and it really is a tough job. What actually happens , I think, is that at least 8 of every 10 the US forces kills is not an insurgent*, but of these 8 dead Iraqi, the are 80 close relatives (Iraq is not really a country as we know it in the West, but a set of large extended family caused by the normal practice of marrying a second cousin). Perhaps 25% of these 80 close relatives are very close, brothers, fathers, sons, etc. and 10% are so angry that the decide to get even by becoming true insurgents. - Thus, every time US forces kill and "insurgent" two or three previously non-insurgents become an insurgent. This is how US lost the battle for "hearts and minds" in Viet Nam and how it is losing it in Iraq today. When Saddam's Statue fell, 90% of the people were happy with the US help, now 90% want US out ASAP, so we will stop killing their brothers, husbands, etc. - forget about winning their hearts and minds - that opportunity is long gone. ------------------------------ *Some may have been firing at US forces when they were killed and still not be true "insurgents." - The US forces were firing at them, or may have done some intolerable thing (from their POV) like search their wife, speak to their daughter. etc. Some thing so serious (from their POV) that only death of the offending US man can bring justice.
We aren't the ones killing the Iraqi people ....it's the Iraqi people who are killing the Iraqi people! Where the hell have you been??? And we didn't "lose" the Vietnam War, the wimpy, lily-livered liberals of this great nation decided that we should tuck our tails and run like a bunch of whipped puppies! We weren't even allowed to bomb Hanoi or Haiphong harbor, for god's sake. How can anyone win a war if you're not permitted to fight it? Baron Max
So Nixon and Kissenger are "lily-livered liberals"? Why don't you read Christopher Hitchen's book about Kissenger's war crimes? About how they could have ended the war sooner on the same terms it finally ended, but they chose not to.
No, Spider! The lily-livered liberals were the idiotic peace demonstrators and the news media who finally ended the fight. They didn't want us to win, they didn't want people dying, etc. So we pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnamese moved in and began to systematically killed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese people. Remember the "boat people"?? So the liberals forced the withdrawal to lessen the killing, yet made it even worse than it was before! See? It wasn't about the deaths, was it! And the same is happening in Iraqi war ...they'll soon force us to withdraw, then the Muslims will be killing Muslims by the hundreds of thousands. And y'all will be perfectly happy ....'cause the media won't show any of it! Baron Max PS - that little shaded box is just one person's opinion, nothing more. You can believe it if you want to.
You don't know??? Protecting the South Vietnamese people from being taken over by Ho Chi Minh and his "almost communist" insurgents (or whatever the hell we choose to call 'em). We promised the South Vietnamese people we'd protect them ...then we reneged on that promise! The greatest, most powerful nation on Earth told them, "Sorry, but we don't want to help our friends no more ...bye!" It's not much different to what's going on now in Iraq ....do we protect the Iraqi people as much as possible, or do we pull out and let the radical, violent militant groups and the terrorist insurgents take over the nation? It'll be just like Vietnam if we pull out ....hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be killed, and the nation will be taken over by a Muslim dictatorship with Sharia(?) laws, etc. Baron Max
They died for nothing ONLY because they weren't allowed to win the fight/war! We were told to tuck our tails between our legs and run away from our friends and our promises to the South Vietnamese people. And we're going to end up doing the same thing in Iraq ...because the military is not being given the chance to win the war. We won World War II because the soldiers all fought a war, and fought to win. In Iraq, it's just a political fuckin' game to the politicians as well as the American people. Baron Max
John99, only if we run and give up do those lives become wasted, the liberals did to us in Vietnam, and they are trying to do the same thing today with their cut and run policies.
I regret this fact also, but Unlike Buffalo & Barron Max, I understand that Iraq never was a real country, and will not be one for many generations. Iraq was an artificial construct of the English, intentionally putting three mutually hostile groups into one "country" so they could play one off against the other two and control its oil more easily. Incidentally, what is now Kuwait was originally part of Iraq, but when the full oil reserve in that greater Iraq became known, the English split part off, called it Kuwait, and greatly reducing the Iraq coastline so only one English gun boat could control the oil flow from the smaller Iraq. Also this was done so Kuwait could be played off against Iraq, keeping oil cheaper for the English (all of the West) Saddam's was trying to be the "Lincoln of Iraq" and re-unite his country when he invaded the new state of Kuwait. The basic reason why Iraq is not a "real country" is even deeper than this English "country-building" history. The people living there almost always marry a second cousin - have done so for nearly 1000 years. This makes for great extended families or "tribes." Everyone's loyalty is to their tribe, not some English construct called a "Iraq.". That is why, despite dozens of people knowing where Saddam was hiding during the many months after he was deposed, not one turned him in. To do so would be like turning in your own father to be shot. This tribal structure is re-enforced by the religious differences. It is so deep and basic that only someone as ignorant of history as Bush government could possible imagine that he could impose a democratic country on these people. Thus, even if US were willing to send 30,000 of its finest young men to there deaths there, the Neo-conservative plan would fail. I do not want to see any more US troops killed in the effort to do the impossible and deeply regret the 3,000 that have already died in vain because of the arrogance and ignorance of the Neo-conservatives, especially GWB and Rumsfield.
It's amazing what you have to believe to be a Republican. It seems to be mostly that government is too important to leave in the hands of the people.
You surprise me, Spider! Just how many of "the people" actually know or care what the fuck is going on in the world? And even those who do, how many of them would know what to do about it? Spider, you give "the people" much too much credit. But since you do, let me ask you this ...what would you say if "the people" duly elected a warmongering president and congress? Would you then say that leaving the government in the hands of the people is the right thing to do????? See? Only when "the people" do what YOU want, is when you like it. Baron Max
But the Republicans did not leave the election in the hands of the people, not even in the hands of the State of Florida. They did there best to prevent people from voting, and they were not fairly elected. The people didn't want Bush.
He was duly elected in accordance with the laws and rules, and by the vote of the electoral college. You can say anything you want, Spider, but it don't change nothin' ...he was elected by the people of the USA in accordance with all of the laws. If you can prove otherwise, then you're obligated to bring it to court. Baron Max
That's irrelevent, the process, however legal, did not represent the will of the people. The process is broken, and that's one thing the Democrats will address.
You sure have a lot of faith in the democrats!! And if you recall, many of those same democrats went along with the results of the election without ever making a stink about it. Also, most of those democrats also voted to go to war in Iraq. And please don't give me the bullshit about the evidence ....they could have asked for more or better, but they didn't ....they voted to go to war. Fix the electoral college? No, Spider, many, if not most, of the politicians in congress feel that it's a good system and they don't want "popular vote". So .....what now? Baron Max
Spider I hope all is going ok with you the last democratic President, the big bill Clinton was a sexed crazed terrorist.. With one strike the fucker took out half the pharmacetuical manufacturing capacity of Sudan and the only factory which produce anti-malaria medicines. Mind you Big bill was a genius where as bush is just like a comedy act were it that he is not in charge of the most powerful armed forces in the world. ~~~~~~~~~~ take care zak
