• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A simple question for Bush supporters

R

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?

Edit: Link and exerpt added

Story that prompted the thought

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington. He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700. A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground -- there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time -- the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?
Click to expand...

When you control the press and events aren't exactly going your way, and you control all three branches of government so you can get away with anything, you use taxpayer dollars to promote your lies and have the media follow your "tour" and ignore everything else.

It didn't work with Social Security. I hope the American people are bright enough to see through this charade as well.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?
Click to expand...

Do you have the article? Is he going to go the state that he didn't win in? I know we particularly avioded states like California during his trip to promote his social security plan.
 
Because, to lay down a withdrawl schedule would give the opposition something to hold on for...

Hello. Vietnam should be a good lesson here. The Viet Cong were all but dead at the end of the war. According to their generals, they had less than six months before they would have to had surrendered. In comes the Paris Accord - out goes US troops - down goes Saigon a few months later. So essentially we let a defeated force walk in after we leave to take over.

History teaches many lessons, most of them repeat. Why would we do the same thing here?



Now, could you please give me one good reason to set an exit date? One that makes sense please as I recall Bush telling us and the press that this could take five to ten years. Of course the press quickly forgot that as they were calling for an exit a month after the initial assault.
 
And he packed audiences with supporters and had his thugs impersonate Secret Service agents to throw out anyone who had the nerve to express their opinion -- even if it was on a bumper sticker on their car out in the parking lot.

Staged media events passed off as news while the news is ignored. And all funded by us.

Land of the free?
:roll:
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Because, to lay down a withdrawl schedule would give the opposition something to hold on for...

Hello. Vietnam should be a good lesson here. The Viet Cong were all but dead at the end of the war. According to their generals, they had less than six months before they would have to had surrendered. In comes the Paris Accord - out goes US troops - down goes Saigon a few months later. So essentially we let a defeated force walk in after we leave to take over.

History teaches many lessons, most of them repeat. Why would we do the same thing here?



Now, could you please give me one good reason to set an exit date? One that makes sense please as I recall Bush telling us and the press that this could take five to ten years. Of course the press quickly forgot that as they were calling for an exit a month after the initial assault.
Click to expand...

I thought you Bushies believe there is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. 😕

But if you do, what about the lesson we learned in Vietnam about not making up lies to excuse illegal invasions of foreign countries? Or not having an exit strategy?

I realize "history teaches us many lessons" but why do you ingore the most important and wind up having to argue the fine points of troop withdrawal from nations you shouldn't have invaded in the first place -- over and over and over again?
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Because, to lay down a withdrawl schedule would give the opposition something to hold on for...

Hello. Vietnam should be a good lesson here. The Viet Cong were all but dead at the end of the war. According to their generals, they had less than six months before they would have to had surrendered. In comes the Paris Accord - out goes US troops - down goes Saigon a few months later. So essentially we let a defeated force walk in after we leave to take over.

History teaches many lessons, most of them repeat. Why would we do the same thing here?

Now, could you please give me one good reason to set an exit date? One that makes sense please as I recall Bush telling us and the press that this could take five to ten years. Of course the press quickly forgot that as they were calling for an exit a month after the initial assault.
Click to expand...

Where did I ask for a withdrawal date? I asked a two-fold question.

First part, why will this administration not even discuss an exit strategy?
Secondly, why will they not discuss a withdrawal timetable?

Neither of those question, in my mind, were a call for a total withdrawal. I, like any other rationally thinking person, knows that this administration has created a complete clusterf*ck of a mess and it needs to be addressed and finished. That being said, there can still be a withdrawal schedule along the lines of:

Once we get 100,000 Iraqi military personnel trained, we will begin to pull out two of our 8 brigades.

Please don't focus on the numbers that I used, they are purely there for the hypothetical plan that I have put forth. But why is that such an impossible thing for this administration to discuss?
 
But if you do, what about the lesson we learned in Vietnam about not making up lies to excuse illegal invasions of foreign countries? Or not having an exit strategy?
Click to expand...

Huh, you managed to avoid my answer and question. How witty. Now that you have clearly lost this argument - please leave - or at least answer it...

First part, why will this administration not even discuss an exit strategy?
Click to expand...

Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable. Furthermore, exit strategies are funny things as they never really exist in war. A war is done when the mission is accomplished - to be determined at a later date.

What was the exit strategy in WWII. We are still occupying parts of Germany and Japan - are we not? Where is the uproar about this? Can we bring these troops home as well.

Secondly, why will they not discuss a withdrawal timetable?
Click to expand...

Read my first post - it is pretty clear. The left would love to discuss a time table. It would allow them the chance to declare Iraq a loss and it would give the media renewed hope that their glory days are indeed still possible.

Sad when half of the US leadership ACTIVELY wants the US to lose in Iraq. Just for political gain.

Once we get 100,000 Iraqi military personnel trained, we will begin to pull out two of our 8 brigades.
Click to expand...

It is hard to quantify.

But to answer your question. This has already been done. I am sure that the Pentagon does have internal goals - but they must be flexible. Releasing these goals is basically like showing your game plan. A goal like yours above tells insurgents to not attack Iraqi military personnel to lull them into a false sense of security.



Giving away a plan of any sort is STUPID. Do I need to spell it out?
 
Originally posted by: irwincur


Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable.
Click to expand...

Exit strategy is Bushspeak from Gulf War I. Cheney. Colin Powell.

It's part of The Powell Doctrine.

Are they from the "fancy left"?
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?

Edit: Link and exerpt added

Story that prompted the thought

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington. He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700. A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground -- there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time -- the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I think the reason is obvious, the progress that is being made in Iraq isnt getting air time in our MSM. Only the negatives in the campaign are being shown on the nightly news. Bush could sit back and let the rest of America become cynical of the situation or he could go around and let the people know of the good we are doing over there.



 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?
Click to expand...

Telling the enemy if/when you plan to pull out of a war is just retarded.
 
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?
Click to expand...

Telling the enemy if/when you plan to pull out of a war is just retarded.
Click to expand...


So is going into a war under false pretenses.
 
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?
Click to expand...

Telling the enemy if/when you plan to pull out of a war is just retarded.
Click to expand...

Being uable to extricate yourself form unnecessary invasions is retarded.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was reading an article about how Bush is about to embark on a nationwide PR blitz of the progress being made in Iraq. I, personally, think that this is to try to detract from the negative attention that he is getting on a lot of other issues. However, the question that comes to my mind seems like a logical one that is not being asked and definately is not being voluntarily answered:

If progress is so rampant in Iraq and has been for the last year according to everyone within this administration, why is there still not even talk of an exit strategy or withdrawal time schedule?

Edit: Link and exerpt added

Story that prompted the thought

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington. He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700. A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said. "That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground -- there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time -- the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I think the reason is obvious, the progress that is being made in Iraq isnt getting air time in our MSM. Only the negatives in the campaign are being shown on the nightly news. Bush could sit back and let the rest of America become cynical of the situation or he could go around and let the people know of the good we are doing over there.
Click to expand...

Here's some of the progress being made...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1616997&enterthread=y

 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Because, to lay down a withdrawl schedule would give the opposition something to hold on for...

Hello. Vietnam should be a good lesson here. The Viet Cong were all but dead at the end of the war. According to their generals, they had less than six months before they would have to had surrendered. In comes the Paris Accord - out goes US troops - down goes Saigon a few months later. So essentially we let a defeated force walk in after we leave to take over.

History teaches many lessons, most of them repeat. Why would we do the same thing here?

Now, could you please give me one good reason to set an exit date? One that makes sense please as I recall Bush telling us and the press that this could take five to ten years. Of course the press quickly forgot that as they were calling for an exit a month after the initial assault.
Click to expand...

You got a link to that, because I never heard that before.

BTW, I thought the lesson of Vietnam was to always have an exit strategy. Bush didn't even have a strategy as to what to do after he declared "mission accomplished" unless you count letting the people loot the country as a strategy.
 
If you set a timetable and its gets missed (quite likely in an unpredictable place like Iraq), its not good for morale.
 
You got a link to that, because I never heard that before.
Click to expand...

It would take too long to look up - plus it is in a book written by the commander of the Vietcong near the end of the way. He clearly stated that it was just a matter of time before the North would be out of options. The war was wearing them to nothing and supplies were not forthcoming from the Soviet Union.

It was in this book that he clearly stated that Kerry was one of the single reasons they kept fighting.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Exit strategy is fancy left talk for timetable. Furthermore, exit strategies are funny things as they never really exist in war. A war is done when the mission is accomplished - to be determined at a later date.
Click to expand...

Normally, i dont feed trolls (of which you are a rather rare breed being so dense and all), but i seem to remember DumbYa on the deck of a freighter with a HUGE banner declaring mission accomplished in late October of 2003. Your logic, as usual, is horribly flawed chickenhawk.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Because, to lay down a withdrawl schedule would give the opposition something to hold on for...

Hello. Vietnam should be a good lesson here. The Viet Cong were all but dead at the end of the war. According to their generals, they had less than six months before they would have to had surrendered. In comes the Paris Accord - out goes US troops - down goes Saigon a few months later. So essentially we let a defeated force walk in after we leave to take over.

History teaches many lessons, most of them repeat. Why would we do the same thing here?

Now, could you please give me one good reason to set an exit date? One that makes sense please as I recall Bush telling us and the press that this could take five to ten years. Of course the press quickly forgot that as they were calling for an exit a month after the initial assault.
Click to expand...


Get your history straight - pay attention to the facts.
It was 2 years after the Paris accord - not 'a few months'.

TET offensive was in 1968
US Signed Peace Treaty in January 1973 (Paris Accords)
US Forces left Viet Nam in March 1973
The South Vienamese Army (ARVN) continued to combat the VC for another 2 years
US Congress cut off funding to Viet Nam in 1974
Siagon - & the rest of South Viet Nam fell to the Communists in 1975 -
Northern Offensive started in March 1975 & spread Southward until Saigon
itself fell in April of 1975 - it took 2 months for the ARVN to roll over.

The US didn't loose 'Nam - we had left them to their own devices.
The Rural Vietnamese did not trust the Corrupt City Based Polititians.
They lost thier own Civil War to themselves - a war that had began under
the French in the '50s under Eisenhower. We lost people there in 1954.

FACTS !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top