Surge is a Success!!

[full time]

Instead of the Reich, if it was said that the goal was to "defeat and dismantle" the dictator Saddam and his henchmen and support the beginnings of an elected government in Iraq, would that objective be less worthy in your mind? I'm curious, if Iraq in the next decade, becomes a stable, democratic, beacon of light in the middle east, will you and St Joe disavow your peacenik rants?

 

[jimmyp5]

yes, even if i believed that was the reason we invaded iraq, i believe that objective would be less worthy. several other threads have addressed the reasons for starting this war; don't need to rehash it all here, but they didn't attack us directly, nor any of our allies. they didn't pose a threat to us here on our shores. they didn't carry out the 9/11 attacks.

and i'll gladly be called a peacenik any day. peace may be bad for business, but it's good for life.

 

[full time]

Neither did the Reich. But you're fine with bombing Austria and Germany back to the stone age during WWII. Proclaiming yourself Jimmy the liberal while working for St Joe, the publicly traded largest developer in Florida is pretty twisted, don't you think? Why don't you give us your opinion on your employer's airport and the lawsuit against it by your pals in New York.

 

[jimmyp5]

Neither did the Reich. But you're fine with bombing Austria and Germany back to the stone age during WWII.

By the time we declared war in 1941, Germany had quite convincingly attacked England, and had attacked and occupied France, two of our closest allies at the time. Germany also officially allied itself with Japan, who did directly attack US territory.

Austria, unfortunately, and the von Trapp family notwithstanding, had overwhelmingly voted to support & join Hitler, and by late in the war when the most bombing damage was done to Austria was one of the remaining centers of wartime production.

 

[John R]

how does st. joe and the proposed airport figure into this discussion?

 

[Jdarg]

how does st. joe and the proposed airport figure into this discussion?

Oh you know, the usual political discussion around here. It is like watching tennis and horse racing at the same time, with a little figure skating thrown in to dress it up.:roll:

 

[Miss Kitty]

how does st. joe and the proposed airport figure into this discussion?

I hear the von Trapps will be singing at the grand opening.

 

[6thGen]

And yes, your characterizing my comments as "defeatist" are as perceptive as you've been on this board. Websters defines it as 'accepting of or resigned to defeat' and I honestly can't imagine any other outcome from what we're doing there ... what would a 'victory' look like to you, and how shall it be acheived?

I'm not being facetious here -- how would you define, measure and acheive victory here? Several of my father's close friends died that day you refer to in Normandy, or in the ensuing months. Their hard-won victory was to defeat & dismantle the Reich. To me, 'bringing freedom' to the middle east is a much more vaporous, if not nonsensical, goal. If the goal is to control their energy reserves, at least cop to that & thereby tell these kids what they're getting blown up for.

Full time nailed what constitutes a victory. As for the peacenik thing, I think I've posted it before but bears repeating.

Jonah Goldberg

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDc4MWMyOGI5ZjgxMDNiY2I3NzQ1ZmUyZjhmZTc0M2M=

Saying we need a political solution is as helpful as saying ?give peace a chance.? Peace requires more than pie-eyed verbiage. In the real world, peace has no chance until the people who want to give death squads another shot have been dispatched from the scene.

and another -

"Violence never solves anything." At best this is the triumph of hope over reason. At worse this is simply knee-jerk stupidity. Either way, violence has solved all sorts of things. Violence ? judiciously applied by police or armed citizens ? often solves the problem of madmen on killing sprees. Indeed, if violence never solved anything, police would never have guns in the first place. Violence used by "peacekeepers" must solve something, otherwise so many people who so often say "violence never solves anything" wouldn't love them so much.

 

[Jdarg]

I hear the von Trapps will be singing at the grand opening.

Oohhh I am going to that opening!

Will post the highlights of my Austrian Sound of Music tour later. One of the great days in my life.

 

[John R]

isn't it a sad testament that your statements are true? we must have violence to make peace look like a good, sappy thing. violence(war) saves economies(at least american economies). violence sells. violence is about all that's reported on the news. violence is inescapeable on TV or the movies, or cartoons, or... violence is a way of life, and that sucks. i for one, would be happy with no violence.