Comments on: Petraeus Defiant in Senate Testimony

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:02:12 +0000

Actually Bit, the relevant portion of Roman history when one considers our war in Iraq involves Crassus and his attempt to become a conquerer in Parthia. You can't really thing about little George and Iraq without it coming to mind...

Anyway, look it up on Google so you can sound informed when you get back to me.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:12:25 +0000

I remember the Democrats complaining about the quagmire we found ourselves in during the Afghanistan war. I would also note that Bush's buddy in Pakistan was previously Clinton's buddy.

The success or failure of presumed ops within Pakistan would be do to local reasons or conditions. There is a significant, some would say too significant Command & Control structure there in Afghanistan controling our forces. The DOD has explicitly stated Afghanistan is the economy of force mission.

Again, the reasons put forth to withdrawal from Iraq will be the very same reasons that will be put forth to leave Afghanistan if we left Iraq tomorrow.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:50:28 +0000

No, I simply made note of the relevant part to the conversation, and ignored the rest.
Since you insist, however, perhaps you should study the matter more closely before yo try drawing such comparions:

Did you really think Alaric's victory in Rome depended at all on the aid of those lands that Rome had conquered? Or did he simply conquer them, as well?

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:11:27 +0000

I notice you ducked the Rome/Parthia issue there dude... what a surprise.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:37:38 +0000

Well, the problem with the "Palistinians" is that we keep trying to drag them to the peace table instead of defeating them. Work the rest out for yourself.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:55:32 +0000

Bit...

How well has the other side quitting thing worked out for Israel? Against the Palestinians, they have the advantages overwhelming firepower, a superb military, the worlds military and economic superpower supporting them... yet the other side just won't quit fighting. They even got a nasty surprise during the last round, sort of like we got in Iraq.

But hey Bit, keep talking tough. After all, you are not the one getting shot at.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:29:30 +0000

Bithead,

Ask the Romans how much luck they had getting folks to stop fighting in that part of the world...

You did have history classes in school, right?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:53:05 +0000

Bithead - just what do you consider "winning"?

Generally, that's when the other side stops fighting.

They DID teach you this in school, right?

Oh, Sorry. Government school?

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:46:36 +0000

The brilliance of the anti-war types here is baffling. Obviously second guessing the commander on the ground makes who wish defeat at any cost better about demeaning someone who is doing his duty has he swore to do. I am so tired of you lefties. You want to disarm us so we will not hurt ourselves or others and you will not fight to defend us in any situation. Politically, you lie to get your way even if it endangers the nation which you are ill prepared to run. There are bricks in my yard that are more intelligent than most of you.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:37:18 +0000

on Iran, a nation that did not threaten us

meant Iraq, but Iran may apply as well...

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:23:57 +0000

Name one person that has advocated with drawl from Afghanistan... maybe the GOP is ready to bail out there, but Democrats want to destroy the Taliban in reality, not in a fantasy like Bush did.

Bush's pal Musharif has provided cover for AQ in Pakistan for years. Perhaps with a new government this will change.

What about Pakistan's nukes? We have had ops in Pakistan without consent, they have just not been very effective. Could it be because we are focused on Iran, a nation that did not threaten us?

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:12:08 +0000

Funny, I didn't suggest we stop the mission in Afghanistan. Just pointed out that the very same reasons for withdrawal voiced by opponents of Iraq mission will be the reasons that will soon be used to justify a subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan.

As AQ or Bin Laden are located somewhere in Pakistan then our running around in Afghanistan helps how? It draws the Taliban in but they didn't fly the planes. And does not fact that Pakistan possesses a nuke complicate planning and conduct of cross-border ops?

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:43:44 +0000

Your right Bob, lets just give up on getting the people who really matter in AQ, or that Bin Laden dude. Who cares about justice for 3000 murdered Americans anyway?

It's too hard. Let's just give up and kill some people in Iraq. Then we can at least feel like we have done something.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:02:55 +0000

Just how do we think we will finish off AQ in Afghanistan? The base for AQ is in Pakistan and I'm not seeing them give us a blanket OK to perform search and destroy missions within Pakistan. I know the new Democratic meme is we just shift forces to Afghanistan and all becomes right with GWOT. I remain much more skeptical. I also fail to see how deploying to Afghanistan is any less stressful or wears the force down less than same time in Iraq. Someone please explain this to me.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:02:50 +0000

[UPDATE: It turns out that I’ve been had and this is just a wishful thinking piece on the part of Jimbo Goodness, I am a more acute reader than I had realized.