Org Mobile Site
Thread: Exit-with-honour... *rolls eyes*
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/
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
"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?
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 ...).
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 ...).
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat:
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?
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.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?
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.
Originally Posted by Padilla not enemy combatant thread:
Short term abuses do and will continue to happen in the American system of government - but eventually the government either self-corrects with the three branches providing the checks and balances - or we end up voting the controlling party out of the other two branches. This is what happened to the Democratic Party - and most likely will happen to the Republican Party - unless of course in the next 12 monthes they get their act together and begin to regain the authority which the Congress has abdicated to the President.
The downstream effects of this particular case will be interesting to see. I believe that the Supreme Court will be making additional rulings concerning some of the cases in Gitmo in the near future.
Are we seeing the beginning of the lame duck session of President Bush's presidency 3 year years before it should occur - or will he pull his adminstration together and overcome theseself-imposed hurrdles.
It seems more and more will be happening this year - since he campaigning starts in earnest in about 2 monthes.Short term abuses do and will continue to happen in the American system of government - but eventually the government either self-corrects with the three branches providing the checks and balances - or we end up voting the controlling party out of the other two branches. This is what happened to the Democratic Party - and most likely will happen to the Republican Party - unless of course in the next 12 monthes they get their act together and begin to regain the authority which the Congress has abdicated to the President.
The downstream effects of this particular case will be interesting to see. I believe that the Supreme Court will be making additional rulings concerning some of the cases in Gitmo in the near future.
Are we seeing the beginning of the lame duck session of President Bush's presidency 3 year years before it should occur - or will he pull his adminstration together and overcome theseself-imposed hurrdles.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat:
Redleg, I'm talking about the administration.
THen you should of clearly stated it - because the way it read - it states something else.Redleg, I'm talking about the administration.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Oh so you made it up then 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.
- not just paraphrasing. Since paraphrasing is just to change the meaning of the statement. 
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat:
Exiting with their tail between the legs would be the proper term.
[/I]
Exiting with their tail between the legs would be the proper term.
[/I]
GFY....
[i hope this is the first and last time i see something like this in here?] - solypsist
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
No thanks. My tail goes between somebody else's legs. Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Exiting with their tail between the legs would be the proper term.
GFY....Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Exiting with their tail between the legs would be the proper term.
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat:
No thanks. My tail goes between somebody else's legs.
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...No thanks. My tail goes between somebody else's legs.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
This is apparently the new Bushite buzz-phrase.
What crap.
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.This is apparently the new Bushite buzz-phrase.
What crap.
$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.
Originally Posted by AdrianII:
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.
$10 says they aren't.
I'll take that bet. 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.
$10 says they aren't.
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.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
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. Unless you're betting on Iraqis liking the idea...in which case, no bet.
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
ichi
Originally Posted by AdrianII:
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.
$10 says they aren't.
I expect him to say "we pull out because the job is done and we can leave now". I mean I morally expect that.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.
$10 says they aren't.
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"
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...
Hmmm, Blair...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO