(PV) McCain on Iraq to the French Surrender Monkeys

[Judge]

Outstanding.

<

Let us keep in the front of our minds the likely consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the withdrawal amendment we are currently debating become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose.
***
Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
***
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But our own military commanders say that this approach will not succeed, and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the past three and a half years.
***
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war.
***
Mr. President, right now, as we continue our debate on the war in Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Americans who fought in France’s hedgerow country; those who bled in the sands and jungles of Pacific islands, who braved the onslaught of the Chinese Army in the frozen terrain of Korea, and who fought a desperate battle to retake Hue from the enemy during the Tet Offensive and against numerically superior forces in an isolated Marine base at Khe San will recognize and honor the sacrifice of Americans who now fight with such valor, determination and skill to defend the security interests and the honor of our country in desperate battles in Iraq.
The hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical and desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history’s judgment about the long catalogue of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and the sacrifice of those Americans, who despite the mistakes and failures of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked everything – everything – so that the country they love so well might not suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat.
***
We, too, Mr. President, we members of Congress, must face our responsibilities honestly and bravely. What is asked of us is so less onerous than what we have asked from our servicemen and women, but no less consequential. We need not risk our lives, nor our health, but only our political advantages so that General Petraeus has the time and resources he has asked for to follow up on his recent successes and help save Iraq and America from the catastrophe that would be an American defeat. That is not much to risk, Mr. President, compared to the sacrifices made by Americans fighting in Iraq or the terrible consequences of our defeat. For if we withdraw from Iraq, if we choose to lose there, there is no doubt in my mind, no doubt at all, that we will be back – in Iraq and elsewhere -- in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure.
Little is asked of us to help prevent this catastrophe, but so much depends on our willingness to do so, on the sincerity of our pledge to serve America’s interests before our own.

>

[eric_t12]

it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement

the forces unleashed by our disengagement were present in part before we got there, (radical muslims of which there will always be a few SOMEWHERE), and a majority AFTER we invaded (all of the 'al qaeda' we have been killing there, and the iranian military we all know have been in engagements with us already.)

Edited to add - what is a surrender monkey?

[IHasanXD]

Plainly put you can not win a political or idealogical war. The only way to win a war is utter and complete domination of the enemy. Total war. Especially in the sh!t storm we are in over there. There is only one way to weed out the terrorists and show any other would be advisary that we aren't joking around. Smart bombs are cool toys, but we need to go back to the days of fleets of bombers saturation bombing I think was the term and just utterly decimate cities. It worked in WW2 and we gave up on the tactic. Nam had strikes by b-52's but nowhere near on the scale of WW2. The strikes in Nam were isolated and usually directed by ground forces.
In war there are 2 types of people. Us and them. Who is more important to stay alive?? Us.
I would feel somewhat sorry for the good people that were killed, but it is partly their fault for not standing up and opposing the idiots who are fueling the fire over there.

[bigun]

Originally Posted by IHasanXD

Plainly put you can not win a political or idealogical war. The only way to win a war is utter and complete domination of the enemy. Total war. Especially in the sh!t storm we are in over there. There is only one way to weed out the terrorists and show any other would be advisary that we aren't joking around. Smart bombs are cool toys, but we need to go back to the days of fleets of bombers saturation bombing I think was the term and just utterly decimate cities. It worked in WW2 and we gave up on the tactic. Nam had strikes by b-52's but nowhere near on the scale of WW2. The strikes in Nam were isolated and usually directed by ground forces.
In war there are 2 types of people. Us and them. Who is more important to stay alive?? Us.
I would feel somewhat sorry for the good people that were killed, but it is partly their fault for not standing up and opposing the idiots who are fueling the fire over there.

Actually we dropped more tonnage of bombs in Vietnam than we did in WW2, however as in our current engagement the idiots in charge seem to think that we can run a kinder gentler war. Last time I heard the whole process of war was invented to kill people you consider your enemy weather they are hiding in a Mosque or in the open. Giving no shoot areas to the enemy is rediculous.

[xd4life]

I can't wait till you post something gun related....

[billbrasky]

Originally Posted by bigun

Actually we dropped more tonnage of bombs in Vietnam than we did in WW2, however as in our current engagement the idiots in charge seem to think that we can run a kinder gentler war. Last time I heard the whole process of war was invented to kill people you consider your enemy weather they are hiding in a Mosque or in the open. Giving no shoot areas to the enemy is rediculous.

forced by modern media, weak stomached soccer moms and liberal sissies, hippies, and the no war at all ever at any cost crowd. The leaders know what it takes to win, its not a lack of knowledge or a lack of tools to do it. Its a lack of the populace to stomach what it takes for a win. A large part of the population was screaming for us to pull out when we lost a total of a few hundred servicemen (god bless them and rest in peace). We are at 3,000 something lost soldiers now. We lost that much in a day in WWII. In a war 3.000 over a few years is nothing, we as a people have lost all sense of what it takes to win, and i wonder why were lives so worthless in nam', WWII,WWI, and the civil war. We are not facing any less of a threat with radical islam.

The korean war was about 3 years i believe we lost high 30,000.

WWII was 300,000 -400,000 depends if you want to count died in battle field or died of wounds later. Thats in 4 short years.

Vietnam war was about 58,000 in 8 years.

were lives in the 1940s worth approximately 1/100 th of what an american life is worth today?

Is our freedom worth less?

Or jsut tolerance for us being abused is higher and tolernace for death in uniform is low (we can lose thoudands in an unprovoked attack(s)of 9-11, and thats ok, thousands in war is unnacceptable)

[Powerman]

What is real funny is that Mc Cain is all but done in this election. You can talk all you want about how we need to stay the course, and tow the Bush line, but I will wager what ever you want that the next President of the United States will not get there by staying the course. Many say the very reason McCain is doing so poorly now is because of his alligence to Bush on this matter.

I don't care if you don't like it. I don't care if you disagree, or if you are even right. Anyone that stays the course in '08 will loose in a landslide. Do you not remember November 06?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by billbrasky

forced by modern media, weak stomached soccer moms and liberal sissies, hippies, and the no war at all ever at any cost crowd. The leaders know what it takes to win, its not a lack of knowledge or a lack of tools to do it. Its a lack of the populace to stomach what it takes for a win. A large part of the population was screaming for us to pull out when we lost a total of a few hundred servicemen (god bless them and rest in peace). We are at 3,000 something lost soldiers now. We lost that much in a day in WWII. In a war 3.000 over a few years is nothing, we as a people have lost all sense of what it takes to win, and i wonder why were lives so worthless in nam', WWII,WWI, and the civil war. We are not facing any less of a threat with radical islam.

It isn't the body count that America can't stand. It is the mismanagement and lack of progress. Body count is just as you say, incredibly low for such a sustained engagement. However, depending on the numbers you want to believe, we are not making progress.

Our all vollunteer force is streched. Even Bush says we can't sustain surge numbers long term. In Iraq, some estimates put enemy casualties at 10 to 1 with us. Yet intelligence says that we are creating more than we are killing. That is not progress.

I will never get tired of killing Al Qaeda. I will never get tired of killing enemies of my state. I won't tolerate for long mismanagement and poor execution of the war with our enemies. I won't stand for a wasted soldiers life over one man's ego.

[Judge]

the defeat in 06 had nothing to do with 'stay the course'. It had everything to do with repubs staying at home b/c they were disgusted with their reps.

As far as 'stay the course' - we're not. We have a new command and strategy - unlike camelhumper, you can google it and find it. Bush gets low marks b/c he doesn't defend himself or the policies. He's given his enemies, and the enemies of this country, free reign.

This post wasn't about McCain or anyone else winning. It's about doing the right thing at the right time. Most people have forgotten that as well.

Originally Posted by Powerman

What is real funny is that Mc Cain is all but done in this election. You can talk all you want about how we need to stay the course, and tow the Bush line, but I will wager what ever you want that the next President of the United States will not get there by staying the course. Many say the very reason McCain is doing so poorly now is because of his alligence to Bush on this matter.

I don't care if you don't like it. I don't care if you disagree, or if you are even right. Anyone that stays the course in '08 will loose in a landslide. Do you not remember November 06?

[ArmyGuy45]

Originally Posted by Judge

the defeat in 06 had nothing to do with 'stay the course'. It had everything to do with repubs staying at home b/c they were disgusted with their reps.

As far as 'stay the course' - we're not. We have a new command and strategy - unlike camelhumper, you can google it and find it. Bush gets low marks b/c he doesn't defend himself or the policies. He's given his enemies, and the enemies of this country, free reign.

This post wasn't about McCain or anyone else winning. It's about doing the right thing at the right time. Most people have forgotten that as well.

i just know that i better start buying hi cap mags now.. cause in 2 years.. i wont be able to