guardian.co.uk— New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday.
Aug 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
@ queenstarsha. I couldn't agree with you more, but you shouldn't allow party lines to blind you to good republican candidates. Ron Paul actually voted against the war from the start and continues to declare it unconstitutional. In fact he votes against anything unconstitutional (aka anything against our freedoms).
It's an occupation, not a war. You can't win an occupation through military force. It is impossible. Sooner or later, you either be kicked out, or the effort will bleed your treasury until you have nothing left. Every great power in the world has had to learn this the hard way.
It's only natural that a surge in numbers would help.eg: 1 soldier deployed == little ability to fight a war.100,000,000 soldiers deployed == automatic and instant victory.This mathmatical rule to be applied with some number between the 2 extremes, giving an end result depending on the number they wish (or are able) to use. Simple.What does she mean by 'tactics'? Either more troops, suddenly happy and delighted Iraqis, or a new secret weapon sent by the space aliens??? Who knows !!!
you do know we have soldiers still in Japan and the Phillipines and Bill Clinton left some in Bosnia.Now what smaart, grown-up thing do you have to say??
This makes alot of sense. Now I truly understand why the liberals want us out of Iraq even if it means we lose and the country goes into civil war. If we are still in Iraq at election time they are afraid the American people won't want to have the "other party" be responsible for the troops. It's all about votes for the Democrats, America be damned. Makes perfect sense.
Dewhead, actually the "surge" is not working, will not work and cannot work over any considerable amount of time. There is an enmity that exists between different groups in Mesopotamia that is entrenched and unbelievably violent. The hatred has been exacerbated during this war and the "surge" is building on those hatreds to work. We are arming the Sunni tribes to fight Al Qaeda. They accept the arms and attack Al Qaeda so that they can consolidate their positions and then go kill Shiites. The Shiite controlled army and police go along with us and use our intelligence to later send in squads at night to kill Sunnis. I don't think that is what we had in mindAfter WWI, in the idiot armistice of Versailles, a line was drawn around most of the Balkans, someone wrote Yugoslavia inside the line and presto-changeo a country came into being. It was a country made up of different peoples with different religions and cultures who have hated each other and have been killing each other for hundreds of years. The experiment with multiculturalism in the Balkans doesn't seem to have worked out real well. There is no more Yugoslavia, and there are a lot of dead people.At another (and secret) conference that took place at the same time as the Versailles Armistice, the British and the French sat down to divvy up the Ottoman Empire's dependencies in the Mideast. They did their line-drawing again, only this time they took no consideration at all of nationalities or even geographic features. Look at a map of Iraq, Jordan, Syria. See all those straight lines? That was the work of avaricious French and British diplomats.Iraq is an artificial multicultural construct that ignores history and custom. In a democracy whatever group comes out on top will abuse the groups below. Our democratic tradition of rights and protection of minorties will NEVER be understood in Mesopotamia.The only way that Yugoslavia was held together was as a Communist dictatorship under a vary powerful, ruthless, yet inspiring man, Tito.The only way Iraq ever held together was as a dictatorship under ruthless men.The "surge" is a waste of human lives. It is BS that is being tried to justify future wars.The "surge" cannot change what drives Iraqis, we will never ever get them to live in one country in peace in a democracy. The very idea is absurd and shows an ignorance of culture and history that is frightening.
queso74 wants to bury this piece as being "inaccurate". gueso says; "I'm not a Hillary fan, but she was talking about "tactics" working, not the surge as a whole. Did you even read the article?"Well, I read the article and here are the facts gueso...THE TACTICS ARE NOT WORKING! Jeeeeeeez! Just how friggen stupid can people get???? Wake up and smell the coffee people!!! Hillary is NOT the answer for the little Iraqi quagmire we have gotten ourselves into. Neither are any of the so-called "top tier candidates" from either Party. So who's the man who can fix the problem? RON PAUL
aznmoronAug 22, 2007
@ queenstarsha. I couldn't agree with you more, but you shouldn't allow party lines to blind you to good republican candidates. Ron Paul actually voted against the war from the start and continues to declare it unconstitutional. In fact he votes against anything unconstitutional (aka anything against our freedoms).
stormfluxAug 22, 2007
It's an occupation, not a war. You can't win an occupation through military force. It is impossible. Sooner or later, you either be kicked out, or the effort will bleed your treasury until you have nothing left. Every great power in the world has had to learn this the hard way.
bincoderAug 22, 2007
It's only natural that a surge in numbers would help.eg: 1 soldier deployed == little ability to fight a war.100,000,000 soldiers deployed == automatic and instant victory.This mathmatical rule to be applied with some number between the 2 extremes, giving an end result depending on the number they wish (or are able) to use. Simple.What does she mean by 'tactics'? Either more troops, suddenly happy and delighted Iraqis, or a new secret weapon sent by the space aliens??? Who knows !!!
hittnrunAug 23, 2007
you do know we have soldiers still in Japan and the Phillipines and Bill Clinton left some in Bosnia.Now what smaart, grown-up thing do you have to say??
hittnrunAug 23, 2007
This makes alot of sense. Now I truly understand why the liberals want us out of Iraq even if it means we lose and the country goes into civil war. If we are still in Iraq at election time they are afraid the American people won't want to have the "other party" be responsible for the troops. It's all about votes for the Democrats, America be damned. Makes perfect sense.
caferrellAug 24, 2007
Dewhead, actually the "surge" is not working, will not work and cannot work over any considerable amount of time. There is an enmity that exists between different groups in Mesopotamia that is entrenched and unbelievably violent. The hatred has been exacerbated during this war and the "surge" is building on those hatreds to work. We are arming the Sunni tribes to fight Al Qaeda. They accept the arms and attack Al Qaeda so that they can consolidate their positions and then go kill Shiites. The Shiite controlled army and police go along with us and use our intelligence to later send in squads at night to kill Sunnis. I don't think that is what we had in mindAfter WWI, in the idiot armistice of Versailles, a line was drawn around most of the Balkans, someone wrote Yugoslavia inside the line and presto-changeo a country came into being. It was a country made up of different peoples with different religions and cultures who have hated each other and have been killing each other for hundreds of years. The experiment with multiculturalism in the Balkans doesn't seem to have worked out real well. There is no more Yugoslavia, and there are a lot of dead people.At another (and secret) conference that took place at the same time as the Versailles Armistice, the British and the French sat down to divvy up the Ottoman Empire's dependencies in the Mideast. They did their line-drawing again, only this time they took no consideration at all of nationalities or even geographic features. Look at a map of Iraq, Jordan, Syria. See all those straight lines? That was the work of avaricious French and British diplomats.Iraq is an artificial multicultural construct that ignores history and custom. In a democracy whatever group comes out on top will abuse the groups below. Our democratic tradition of rights and protection of minorties will NEVER be understood in Mesopotamia.The only way that Yugoslavia was held together was as a Communist dictatorship under a vary powerful, ruthless, yet inspiring man, Tito.The only way Iraq ever held together was as a dictatorship under ruthless men.The "surge" is a waste of human lives. It is BS that is being tried to justify future wars.The "surge" cannot change what drives Iraqis, we will never ever get them to live in one country in peace in a democracy. The very idea is absurd and shows an ignorance of culture and history that is frightening.
uglyamerican1Aug 28, 2007
queso74 wants to bury this piece as being "inaccurate". gueso says; "I'm not a Hillary fan, but she was talking about "tactics" working, not the surge as a whole. Did you even read the article?"Well, I read the article and here are the facts gueso...THE TACTICS ARE NOT WORKING! Jeeeeeeez! Just how friggen stupid can people get???? Wake up and smell the coffee people!!! Hillary is NOT the answer for the little Iraqi quagmire we have gotten ourselves into. Neither are any of the so-called "top tier candidates" from either Party. So who's the man who can fix the problem? RON PAUL