"Fight Al Quaeda in Iraq..OR they'll follow us home"???

[Jack Kelly]

Listening to these halfwit Republican Senators on C-Span, I just can't suppress my shock and awe that so many unthinking Republicans are duped by Karl Rove's rhetorical "talking points". None of them will stand the logical scrutiny of your average [non-Republican] eighth grader.

"Fight THEM there OR fight them here?" "If we leave, THEY'LL follow us home?"

First Rove wheels out a smirking Bush to hang out his latest obfuscating rhetorical shingle. If it seems to throw anyone (e.g., media toadies, see Judy Miller) off-balance, it's immediately circulated to members of Congress as the Talking Point du jour.

Does anyone imagine that we're fighting a few dozen Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq, and that as long as we keep them "fully engaged", well, darn, they'll all just have to stay there to fight us, and none can be spared to try to infiltrate the U.S.?

Oh, and if we withdraw troops from Iraq, those self-same few dozen folks, rather than luxuriate in having gained themselves a country (courtesy of Bush) in which to train, recruit and proliferate, will hop on the next 747 and "carry the fight" to our shores?

"Points" such as this, which cleverly sometimes seem to have a kernel of "truth" to them, are not aimed at befuddling Democrats or other thinking persons. They're cynically concocted to be parroted by Dummy Republicans. And, even after over four years of abject failure in Iraq, we still hear them. It's all the Dummies have left.

[eagle33199]

If you ask me, the only reason they're keeping up with it is because it plays on the traditional implementation of war. Like we saw in WWII and back, there were basically skirmish lines, where you controlled one side, they controlled the other and the fighting was done in the middle. If you "retreat" or go home, then the enemy overruns your position and follows you.

The war in Iraq isn't like that at all. It's guerrilla warfare, and as any expert will tell you, the side that is more mobile, less encumbered by big numbers and infrastructure has the advantage. There's nothing stopping them from just picking up and moving to the next area, regardless if it's down the street, across the country, or across the world.

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 12 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]477691[/snapback]</div>

Listening to these halfwit Republican Senators on C-Span, I just can't suppress my shock and awe that so many unthinking Republicans are duped by Karl Rove's rhetorical "talking points". None of them will stand the logical scrutiny of your average [non-Republican] eighth grader.

"Fight THEM there OR fight them here?" "If we leave, THEY'LL follow us home?"

First Rove wheels out a smirking Bush to hang out his latest obfuscating rhetorical shingle. If it seems to throw anyone (e.g., media toadies, see Judy Miller) off-balance, it's immediately circulated to members of Congress as the Talking Point du jour.

Does anyone imagine that we're fighting a few dozen Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq, and that as long as we keep them "fully engaged", well, darn, they'll all just have to stay there to fight us, and none can be spared to try to infiltrate the U.S.?

Oh, and if we withdraw troops from Iraq, those self-same few dozen folks, rather than luxuriate in having gained themselves a country (courtesy of Bush) in which to train, recruit and proliferate, will hop on the next 747 and "carry the fight" to our shores?

"Points" such as this, which cleverly sometimes seem to have a kernel of "truth" to them, are not aimed at befuddling Democrats or other thinking persons. They're cynically concocted to be parroted by Dummy Republicans. And, even after over four years of abject failure in Iraq, we still hear them. It's all the Dummies have left.
[/b]

I'll bet you if we fought the terrorists here, we might have a few casualties, but we would kick the crap out of the SOBs with homecourt advantage.

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 12 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]477703[/snapback]</div>

If you ask me, the only reason they're keeping up with it is because it plays on the traditional implementation of war. Like we saw in WWII and back, there were basically skirmish lines, where you controlled one side, they controlled the other and the fighting was done in the middle. If you "retreat" or go home, then the enemy overruns your position and follows you.

The war in Iraq isn't like that at all. It's guerrilla warfare, and as any expert will tell you, the side that is more mobile, less encumbered by big numbers and infrastructure has the advantage. There's nothing stopping them from just picking up and moving to the next area, regardless if it's down the street, across the country, or across the world.
[/b]

I agree; nicely put.

I think the whole geographical take on the war is pure BS. It also speaks, I'll bet, to some older Hawks...to whom this line of reasoning probably makes perfect sense.

We have the vulnerable infrastructure to defend; 'they' don't. I'd suggest that this dynamic will *always* put us on the defensive in conflicts of this nature. A few other points which come to mind:

*To function, our society depends on the free and rapid transportation of things and ideas. 'Theirs' doesn't.
*Our society is highly specialized, and relies on many different skillsets coming together to make it all work. 'Theirs' doesn't, certainly not to this extent.
*'They' are, as individuals, I'd suggest, far more self-sufficient than we are, and have come to depend less on 'just in time' delivery of goods, etc. than 'we' do to survive.
*Their overall 'needs' are also fewer than ours, which I'd think makes us more vulnerable...since we depend on the availability of so many more things than they do to live the 'lifestyle' that's demanded by our society in the first place (dry cleaning, hair styling, disposable medical supplies, automobiles, cell phones, ATM cards, etc.) 'Their' society can (and does) still function without that stuff...ours, probably not nearly as well.

For these and so many other reasons, I find it difficult to believe that we could ever secure a situation that confines 'them' to 'over there' and 'us' to 'here.'

[EricGo]

The rightards are in dire need of a geography lesson:

The Al-Qaeda build-up is along the pakistani-afghan border. That is not in Iraq. Close yes (over thar), but not the same.

However, the Al-Qaeda presence *will* grow in Iraq daily, in opposition to the invasion. I suppose that is what rightards want, in order to justify their neo-conism. As if it mattered -- Al Qaeda is a sunni organization, that will be wiped out in due time NOT by the US, but by the Iraq Shii/Iranian force when the US leaves. Way to go rightards !!

To be clear: the *only* thing that the US invasion will accomplish is to bring Iraq under Iran's influence, if not direct control. The US has destroyed Iraq, and Iran is laughing all the way to the bank.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 12 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]477691[/snapback]</div>

Listening to these halfwit Republican Senators on C-Span, I just can't suppress my shock and awe that so many unthinking Republicans are duped by Karl Rove's rhetorical "talking points". None of them will stand the logical scrutiny of your average [non-Republican] eighth grader.

"Fight THEM there OR fight them here?" "If we leave, THEY'LL follow us home?"

First Rove wheels out a smirking Bush to hang out his latest obfuscating rhetorical shingle. If it seems to throw anyone (e.g., media toadies, see Judy Miller) off-balance, it's immediately circulated to members of Congress as the Talking Point du jour.

Does anyone imagine that we're fighting a few dozen Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq, and that as long as we keep them "fully engaged", well, darn, they'll all just have to stay there to fight us, and none can be spared to try to infiltrate the U.S.?

Oh, and if we withdraw troops from Iraq, those self-same few dozen folks, rather than luxuriate in having gained themselves a country (courtesy of Bush) in which to train, recruit and proliferate, will hop on the next 747 and "carry the fight" to our shores?

"Points" such as this, which cleverly sometimes seem to have a kernel of "truth" to them, are not aimed at befuddling Democrats or other thinking persons. They're cynically concocted to be parroted by Dummy Republicans. And, even after over four years of abject failure in Iraq, we still hear them. It's all the Dummies have left.
[/b]

I will respectfully disagree with you.

We are fighting a world wide war already on multiple fronts including iraq, asia, europe (as you witnessed two weeks ago), etc.

they (the bad guys) do not have many true bases of operation where they are free to live and multiple and plot and plan without fear or worry. they had afghanistan - for the most part it is now not a true base - they are constantly under close scrutiny with harm and death never more than a few minutes or hour away. it should be our goal to deny them bases of operation - a simple view of what a base means is... "ownership of a country or sovereign state" - the same way hitler used germany to do evil, and the taliban used afghanistan - it should be our goal to prevent that from happening again --. iraq was a base for terror - whether or not they were involved in 9/11 - iraq was a huge sponsor of terror. our current headache now is iran (another topic). it is difficult to name outside of iran another base of operation for terrorists - yes they have smaller enclaves, but they do not have the power of a state to increase the amount of evil they can and will do.

in terms of following us home - they are already here - and in pretty large numbers. by keeping them on the defensive we divert their energies from plotting and planning and growing to surviving. they understand this - this is why such a large % of bad guys in iraq are not iraqi's but foreign fighters from all over - this battle for iraq is their clarion call. we give up and move out - they will move in and use the power of the state to magnify their evil intentions.

it is my current understanding that not even harry reid and the dems want to pull all the troops out of iraq in any event - but perhaps leave tens of thousands there. this may not be a bad idea if it comes down to it - and i would leave that decision to the military and native iraqi's who seem to be joining with us against al-qaeda (witness the current fighting and results in the al anbar province - a huge accomplishment for us). we should always keep forces forward there and assets to destroy evil at a moments notice.

i think the enemy understands us better than we think. they are using north vietnamese political tactics (arafat spent time there early in his career to learn directly from them how they defeated the US while they lost the military portion of the conflict) brilliantly. it is important for our leadership to understand this and protect us. there are huge difference betwen the vietcong and islamoterrorists - the least of which is a willingness to kill themselves for their cause. i truly fear for us and our safety at this point. if i were choosing sides to take as if this were a chess game, i would take the islamic terrorists side without any hesitiation over taking the US side. i think they have superior tactical and politcal advantages and the definitions of victory and defeat play towards them and against the US. My odds of this conflict going their way is now 51-49 their advantage; if we withdraw from iraq i up the odds to 60-40 for them.

[Darwood]

"i would take the islamic terrorists side without any hesitiation"
Are you becoming a defeatist Dr. B?
You must want America to lose! JK

I just want the Republicans to be honest with why they feel we need to be there instead of the boogeyman of terrorism following us home. It's all about keeping the oils shipping routes secure and ensuring future increases in Iraqi exports to the US instead of China. If you can't tell this to the public, we have no business being there. And you yourself Dr. B agreed in a previous thread that oil security IS a big reason we need to be there and not let Iran walk in and take over. (Despite your constant denial that the war was NOT over oil.)

[daronspicher]

We're going to get to see this one in a real dark day for America.

I know it's coming, ya'll may be too stupid to see it coming, or you enjoy living in denial... but in any case, we will be hit by islamic terrorism again in this country.

My sincere hope is that it can be delayed until fall of 2009 or after and that my family and I happen to not be in the target zone.

When that happens, I'll be right here telling all of you idiots how right Bush was...

Until then, enjoy your pie in the sky 'bring the troops home' unthinking rhetoric.

Is PC mirrored? I don't want the server ruined in the attack.

[Darwood]

"living in denial"
"ya'll may be too stupid"
"you idiots"
"pie in the sky...unthinking rhetoric"

Nice. What sound informative arguments you have there. Your posts are growing more trollish every day.
Are you trying to pick up the slack from Dr. B? His discussions have been growing more civil with less name spewing (except when he gets a chance to bash islamics) and are even interesting to read now. Way to pick up the slack.

[Alric]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 13 2007, 09:34 AM) [snapback]478078[/snapback]</div>

When that happens, I'll be right here telling all of you idiots how right Bush was...

[/b]

You mean how incompetent he was for diverting resources that could be used to protect us into unnecessary wars.