Is the desire for the US to lose in Iraq representative of American Liberals?

[BRUCE]

From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of  left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.

Haha, bravo!  Although, to clarify, I don't think Ribonucleic is a 'kook'.

[OzmO]

I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!

WHoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


RE-read it.  He admits his mistake.

And who's defending him?

[ribonucleic]

From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of  left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.

4 out of 7.

Not bad. 

[BRUCE]

4 out of 7.

Not bad. 

See - I said you're not a 'kook'.

[dizzleman06]

The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.

That's my idea of avoiding harm.

so what do we do then go slunking back home?  then in 2 years when aqieda has had plenty of time to train and gather resources we fight this battle all over agian, but not there....HERE.  in our own countries, millions will be lost... hope this helps

[ieffinhatecardio]

so what do we do then go slunking back home?  then in 2 years when aqieda has had plenty of time to train and gather resources we fight this battle all over agian, but not there....HERE.  in our own countries, millions will be lost... hope this helps

Hyperbole, it's your friend.

[dizzleman06]

is it not true?

[ieffinhatecardio]

Yes, in my opinion it's not true. I don't believe "millions will be lost". I doubt you believe millions will be killed either.

[Camel Jockey]

I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!

  Oh brother..

[dizzleman06]

Yes, in my opinion it's not true. I don't believe "millions will be lost". I doubt you believe millions will be killed either.

so if terrorists got a hold of WMD and used them on us, don't you think they would pick a highly populated area?  thus leading to millions of deaths.  hope this helps!

[ieffinhatecardio]

so if terrorists got a hold of WMD and used them on us, don't you think they would pick a highly populated area?  thus leading to millions of deaths.  hope this helps!

I'll say it again, hyperbole is your friend.

Hope this helps.

[240 is Back]

It is neither a victory or defeat yet.

How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?

Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years.  It's time to leave"?

[BRUCE]

How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?

Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years.  It's time to leave"?

Have you ever considered that making it blatantly apparent to the enemy exactly how much fighting we deem to be too much might actually give them purpose to continue fighting?  For this reason, such questions are best left unanswered.

[240 is Back]

Have you ever considered that making it blatantly apparent to the enemy exactly how much fighting we deem to be too much might actually give them purpose to continue fighting?  For this reason, such questions are best left unanswered.

Would you say that at the end of year 20?

[BRUCE]

Would you say that at the end of year 20?

Look, obviously there are limits to how much you can lose in a war before it becomes unacceptable.  If Iraq was no better than today in 20 years than today then you would have good grounds to justify a withdrawal.  However, to present such a limit to your enemys is to encourage them that victory is within their sites.  The coalition needs to behave like a force that will never retreat, or surrender, even if this is a distinct possibility.

[240 is Back]

Look, obviously there are limits to how much you can lose in a war before it becomes unacceptable.  If Iraq was no better than today in 20 years than today then you would have good grounds to justify a withdrawal.  However, to present such a limit to your enemys is to encourage them that victory is within their sites.  The coalition needs to behave like a force that will never retreat, or surrender, even if this is a distinct possibility.

Okay.  So you feel that 4 years of war to a draw is fine.  But after 20 we'd leave.

1) Why 20 and not 40?  Why 20 and not 10?  What is YOUR number when we'd leave, and why.

2) How many americna lives do you think would be lost in those 20 years?

[BRUCE]

Okay.  So you feel that 4 years of war to a draw is fine.  But after 20 we'd leave.

1) Why 20 and not 40?  Why 20 and not 10?  What is YOUR number when we'd leave, and why.

2) How many americna lives do you think would be lost in those 20 years?

1) I don't have one; if we were a day from victory, but had said 5,000 deaths is too many and 4,999 had died, retreat would be foolish.  Wars aren't as simple as a timeframe, unfortunately, and to indulge in such prediction is to give your enemy an advantage.

2) I have no idea and I don't expect America to be militarily involved in Iraq for that long.

[24KT]

I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!

He never said he hates the US. He said he feels the US are the bad guys in world affairs and he condemns the role the American military continues to play. That's NOT saying he hates the US. There is a distinction you'd be best to figure out.

[militarymuscle69]

How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?

Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years.  It's time to leave"?

My answer is we will probably always be there in some role. I, like you, want Iraq to take over for itself. And alot of reports say Maliki and his government are getting better. I don't have a set date I want or anything but yeah I would guess that 100% of the americans have a breaking point. I agree with bruce that setting a date empowers the insurgents. But then again so does our bickering constantly in Washington.

[240 is Back]

My answer is we will probably always be there in some role. I, like you, want Iraq to take over for itself. And alot of reports say Maliki and his government are getting better. I don't have a set date I want or anything but yeah I would guess that 100% of the americans have a breaking point. I agree with bruce that setting a date empowers the insurgents. But then again so does our bickering constantly in Washington.

IMO a "date" should only be for when we let the iraqi army start doing their job.  and since they know the people, language, and the turf and won't have a CNN embed everywhere they go, they might be more effective than we are. 

We're gonna be guarding the 14 to 19 permanent US bases forever.  We're guarding OUR oil pipeline forever.  I accept that, it's how it has to be to keep the oil we arrived for.

THe fact Bush will put no timeline, and no defineable goals on a war that's 4 years old- that's dangerous.  Suddenly it's 8 and 12 years into the war- 10k US soldiers dead - and the line is still "we can't tell them when we're leaving".

There comes a point you have to get out of the cities and let them fix their own shit.

[militarymuscle69]

IMO a "date" should only be for when we let the iraqi army start doing their job.  and since they know the people, language, and the turf and won't have a CNN embed everywhere they go, they might be more effective than we are. 

We're gonna be guarding the 14 to 19 permanent US bases forever.  We're guarding OUR oil pipeline forever.  I accept that, it's how it has to be to keep the oil we arrived for.

THe fact Bush will put no timeline, and no defineable goals on a war that's 4 years old- that's dangerous.  Suddenly it's 8 and 12 years into the war- 10k US soldiers dead - and the line is still "we can't tell them when we're leaving".

There comes a point you have to get out of the cities and let them fix their own shit.

I owuld be fine for a date that iraqi army needs to take over, but if they aren't ready for it and Americans are still there at our bases, we will lose more life than today.