Printable View
This is apparently the new Bushite buzz-phrase.
What crap.
The troops will be "exiting with honour" no matter when they leave, even if it was tomorrow; they have fought bravely and well.
But this administration lost its chance to "exit with honour" the moment they sent American boys and girls to die in Iraq.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/
Deja vu.
"Peace with Honor" was Nixon's description of our exit from 'Nam.
http://www.watergate.info/nixon/73-01-23_vietnam.shtml
Exiting with their tail between the legs would be the proper term.
Then again, to paraphrase a quote from that link: In 20 years when an Iraqi asks France, what did you do to help my county? All we will have to say is nothing. Just like Rwanda and the Sudan we will sit on the sidelines, claim the moral high ground, shake our fingers and watch as the carnage unfolds.
Whether the attack on Iraq was right or wrong do we not have an obligation as member of the international community to help them get on their feet and provide them with a brighter future?
I think for individuals, "honor" depends on the soldier and his or her conduct during the conflict. I think observing bystanders would do well not to judge them to any great degree, as we were not there. "Honor" in regard to a nation's conduct (more specifically, the conduct of leaders and leading factions, but not excluding media and activist citizens) is another matter. I think it is important to distinguish between these when passing judgment.
I am more comfortable judging others' "honor" based on what they say (or in this case, write) in regard to the "honor" of others ... .
Frankly, I think the whole notion of "honor" is so nebulous and subjective that it is a waste of time to banter about it (so I'm done bantering ... next ...).
Look, you can hardly expect the president of the United States to say: 'Run guys, it was all a big mistake!' The troops will have to be withdrawn sooner or later anyway. The next issue for Washington will be whether the U.S. wants to leave military bases behind and whether the Shiites-that-be are going to like the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
$10 says they aren't.
Honour is objective. Just kill a lot of enemies, preferbly not while they run, get 9 honour and chop even more down.
:bow:
so we'll pull out just in time for the presidential election.
whatever the decision, you can bet the process will be more beneficial to republicans' careers over the soldiers this is touted to "honor"
I hope America doesn't pull out too soon. I doubt we'll be leaving if the entire place is going to fall apart as the last soldier walks out, be complete political suicide for whoever ordered it.
Hmmm, Blair...
I'll take that bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
There will be US bases in Iraq, after the withdrawal. Having a forward-deployed position in the middle-east was/is, I've suspected for a long time, one of the major undeclared reasons for going there in the first place.
Unless you're betting on Iraqis liking the idea...in which case, no bet.
That is what I meant: the Shiite government is not going to like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
They may go along with it in return for American guarantees of protection in case of 'foreign agression or infiltration'. It'll be a tenuous arrangement at best, but let us hope that it will help stabilise the region. Relative peace, stability, growth and diplomacy seem to be the best vehicles for the region's long-term reform.
Yes, I know that sounds as if I am talking out of my rectum. It is just that I wouldn't know a better solution to the problems that are accumulating there.
It will be a remarkable coincidence how the withdrawal or drawdown or exit or whatever will be carefully timed to occur just prior to the 2006 elections in the US. Late Spetember, early October, we will heroically achieve our objectives.
ichi:bow:
Your confusing the adminstration with the troops - oh well the vement anti-americanism has to be spout to counter the french bash in the link I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Politics as usual - election cycle is in full swing. Just wait more rethoric and backpeddling from many within the Administration - so that the Republicans in Congress can maintain thier postions.
As stated in another thread.
It seems more and more will be happening this year - since he campaigning starts in earnest in about 2 monthes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Padilla not enemy combatant thread
I expect him to say "we pull out because the job is done and we can leave now". I mean I morally expect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Redleg, I'm talking about the administration.
There was no French-bashing in that link. It was mine. Meaning that however much my primeval instincts tells me to have a good laugh at Bush' folly, we can hardly claim the moral high ground when we can all see the carnage in Iraq coming and will do nothing to stop it.
THen you should of clearly stated it - because the way it read - it states something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Oh so you made it up then ~:eek: - not just paraphrasing. Since paraphrasing is just to change the meaning of the statement. ~DQuote:
There was no French-bashing in that link. It was mine. Meaning that however much my primeval instincts tells me to have a good laugh at Bush' folly, we can hardly claim the moral high ground when we can all see the carnage in Iraq coming and will do nothing to stop it.
Don't withdraw in time and you will have to look after the kid... ~;)
I expect him to say "we pull out because the job is done and we can leave now". I mean I morally expect that.
How about having him standing in a market square in the middle of Baghdad under a big banner saying "mission accomplished" .~:joker:
This Bush charcter is starting to erk me
This Bush charcter is starting to erk me
Did you miss a letter J out of that ~D ~D ~D
Are you trying to get expelled from the Conservative club ? ~:cheers:
That perhaps depends a good deal on what you expect it to state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
No, with paraphrasing you change the wording but not the meaning. Introduced by me was the French 'bashing', it was done by paraphrasing the statement. All I had to do was swap 'Canada' for 'France'.Quote:
Oh so you made it up then ~:eek: - not just paraphrasing. Since paraphrasing is just to change the meaning of the statement. ~D
The original sentence was from a Canadian expressing my sentiment. Shame that link is now expired. You may have been surprised by reading the full post where my quote came from. It was a comment on the main article by some Canadian army guy. It is, well, not pro-war or pro-American, but highly critical of the nations that didn't go to war in Iraq. He goes on to say that, (and I'm paraphrasing again as I can not quote from the link) that whatever you may think of the Iraq war, it doesn't suit us to criticize the nations that did go to war. He says how hypocritical it is when we have never done anything for the Iraqi people, how we do nothing now, how we will still not do anything when civil war breaks out.
It is far removed from some 'vehement anti-americanism that has to be spout' - it is a call for modesty and introspection by Canada, and extended to France by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
GFY....
[i hope this is the first and last time i see something like this in here?] - solypsist
No thanks. My tail goes between somebody else's legs. ~;p ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
What the hell is the matter with you lately? I had no problem understanding what LTF meant. It was a very evenhanded statement that quite clearly got across the idea that those of us who are doing nothing have no real right to sit around criticizing those who are at least trying to do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You are just picking fights for the sake of picking fights.
RELAX! Good God, man! Eat some turkey and pumpkin pie, watch some football, and enjoy your family...
~:grouphug:
The Administration will be the one exiting with their tails between their legs, not the U.S. military. Our troops have performed well. It was the occupation plan that was lacking.
And I still believe the best thing to do now is to put this on the Iraqi's shoulders. They need to step up and take control. If they can't do that in a year, then they aren't going to, period. All this does is bring things to a conclusion sooner.
This will also give the Sunni's a stake in actually improving stability and getting involved ASAP. If they don't then they run the risk of having the Shiites run roughshod over them without anyone to intervene. That would be poetic justice. :devil:
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind
them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their
children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die
well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their
argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it
will be a black matter for the king that led them to
it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
subjection.
KING HENRY V
Does the term take a flying leap of a cliff have any meaning to you. The statement read exactly the way I stated it did to me - If you think that was hostile and picking a fight then you haven't been paying attention to when I am looking for one - kind of like now - Louis did not make it clear that it was the administration he was refering to. Maybe you should think on that for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Pot calling the kettle black..... ~:eek:Quote:
You are just picking fights for the sake of picking fights.
Quote:
RELAX! Good God, man! Eat some turkey and pumpkin pie, watch some football, and enjoy your family...
~:grouphug:
Kiss off big boy......~;p
Good point and also since your a Frenchman I guess your tail is permanently tucked because of genetic makeup of cowardice exibited by your country. So I guess it would be impossible for you to... well you know. And actually, the more I think about it, you don't need to go #### yourself since you have a bunch of teenagers destroying your country and you and your fellow citizens are so pussified that you can't even handle that. My only question is, who are you guys going to surrender to? What a dilemma it must be for your and your countrymen. Have a nice Thanksgiving, hope you keep warm, I'm sure you will with all those cars burning and stuff...:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
No noun to identify the subject - on a thread about the exit of soldiers from Iraq. Nice try big boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Then again - its made up now isn't?Quote:
No, with paraphrasing you change the wording but not the meaning. Introduced by me was the French 'bashing', it was done by paraphrasing the statement. All I had to do was swap 'Canada' for 'France'.
And what he states is his opinion - is that a bad thing?Quote:
The original sentence was from a Canadian expressing my sentiment. Shame that link is now expired. You may have been surprised by reading the full post where my quote came from. It was a comment on the main article by some Canadian army guy. It is, well, not pro-war or pro-American, but highly critical of the nations that didn't go to war in Iraq. He goes on to say that, (and I'm paraphrasing again as I can not quote from the link) that whatever you may think of the Iraq war, it doesn't suit us to criticize the nations that did go to war. He says how hypocritical it is when we have never done anything for the Iraqi people, how we do nothing now, how we will still not do anything when civil war breaks out.
That is fine and dandy - now all you have to do is apply introspection to all the rest of Europe. ~:joker:Quote:
It is far removed from some 'vehement anti-americanism that has to be spout' - it is a call for modesty and introspection by Canada, and extended to France by me.
My jaw just fell off from laughing Dave ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I guess your tail is permanently tucked because of genetic makeup of cowardice exibited by your country.
Some people really shouldn't talk about Nations in that way should they , it might bring up suggestions of Vietnam Korea Somalia or Lebanon , hey give it a while and you can add Iraq to the list .
Now I wonder which of the Allies managed to break the german line in Italy after the others had pussied out . hmmmmm would it be the same ally who were completely successful in a day when the British took 6 months to fail in all of their objectives .
[i hope this is the first and last time i see something like this in here?] - solypsist
He meant "Good For You " Dave would never be so infantile as to resort to petty foul mouthed insults , because he is so adept at putting forward clear and concise factual replies to get his ever so valid and unbigoted views across , and he certainly wouldn't use foul language in an attempt to close threads where he cannot make a worthwhile contribution to back up his unbigotted views .
I don't know about the genetic make-up of Americans, I am obviously far less of an expert in that field than Devastating Dave. But is it historically true what they say, President Tribesman, that Americans only won battles when they had hugely superior numbers, firepower, etcetera?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:charge:
What a disgusting thread. Pretty much thanks to all of you.
Right! :bow: Prol, what is your 'Good news from Iraq' thread doing?
It is very bad, even for this place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
I will not say some Thing about Adrian talking out of rectum may be sounding about the same as speaking Dutch usual way, because Thread is already very nasty.~:eek: ~;p ~:rolleyes: ~:mecry:
I gave up when that thread devolved.
Chrenkoff had much more patience than me.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/0...-one-spot.html
Also, http://goodnewsfromthefront.com/
Thank you!
https://img485.imageshack.us/img485/...44873cn4ca.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Bartix
Thx Bartix. That made my day.
~:cheers:
I think it's about time to put a...
DevastatinDave,
https://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3894/leon9aw2ql.gif
Oh, and before the topic is closed, may I write something about the genetical stupidity, bigotery, lack of common sense and the overall level of backwardness (is that a word anyway?) exhibited by your country, and some americans in general ?
I guess that's a no-no, cause...
https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a...acist/dasd.gif
Oh, and since I really want to use a bit more gif, here's one that would describe pretty well the content of your post :
https://img202.imageshack.us/img202/...inghead5aj.gif
And I'm tempted to say
http://www.kekvitirae.com/readtherules.png
As one fairly patriotic American who works in close proximity to maimed US soldiers returning from Iraq, I'd like to say there's absolutely nothing wrong with Louis' post. It was actually pretty thoughtful. Not that DD or Redleg's posts were the only ones that were way out of line here.
Oops, just read all the others posts...Maybe not the best place to be glib, so this edit is to delete my post content.
Nice one. You'dve had the high ground here too, until you said this. You think adding qualifiers like 'some' really soften insults like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Maybe you're the one who should read the rules a little more carefully.
What is going on here ~:pissed:
Exit with honour is just a support the soldiers type thing. Has nothing to do with policy.
The US will need to stick around a few years until the Iraqi forces have enough well disciplined and capable soldiers to take over. There were mistakes made in not starting massive training programs earlier, but lots of progress has been made in that area and will continue so.
The US doesn't need many bases there..They already have in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Quatar. I fthey do put one in Iraq, it should be deep in the Kurdish area so there's plenty of local support, it will also be a nice asset to have incase one day down the line, turkey decides to start genociding them (not a stretch, theyre pretty bad with their minority kurd population across the border).
I see no insult. I see a comment along the lines of "touche". Whats good for the goose etc etc. Fair enough considering recent discussions in the Watchtower, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Some posters here seem to be especially touchy and argumentative recently and the quality of discussion is spiralling downwards. This thread is an extreme example. The original topic was fairly neutral, as was Louis' post and it is a shame to see the thread degrade.
Most here seem to agree that the "exit with honour" thing is mere rhetoric designed to make the administration look better as they start up their election campaign. Most also seem to agree that the idea actually confers no honour upon the administration at all.
This is an argument I heard quite often; but I don't understand it. If memory serves Saddam had an army of maybe 500,000 soldiers. Even though many of them are dead there must be a lot left. Take all those away who did crimes or are fanatics then there should still be enough. Why do you have to train so many new soldiers. It's like saying we could not leave Germany after WW2 because there are not enough trained soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
Isn't it more about idiology training, organisation and equipment?
no:knight: not to mention we got what we needed to get done in korea and in the others polotics at home hamperd any sort of true clear cut victoryQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
What exactly is wrong with "Exit-with-honour"? It might not be entirely appropriate, but how else would you expect any government to phrase it? First people want the US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq, and then start they complain about the phrasing thereof? It's the policy behind the words that matters, not the name of the policy.
I think Louis IV the Fat means quite the opposite: he agreed with the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Given the context of the original post by Goofball, Louis IV the Fat's opening sentence could fairly easily be considered directed at US troops rather than the administration. That said, he did state this was not the case and the rest of his post was well put, and certainly not anti-US.
Some people really need to calm down a little. The prevaling attitude is rather belligerent around here lately, often for no worthwhile reason.
Wow - I am surprised by the immaturity shown by some posters in this thread. :stare:
My thanks to those who tried to keep this one civil, but I think that this thread isn't going somewhere useful anymore.
Closed