We could, if need be, withdraw and establish a perimeter similar to that we held in Saddam with, and wait for the Iraqis to work it out, however they work it out, which is likely to be at gunpoint.

"I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than the reverse.

Thomas Dewey"

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Thursday that he supports Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's recent call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The presidential office said in a statement that Hashimi presented his demand during a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday in Baghdad when Bush paid a surprise visit to Iraq.

"Mr. Hashimi asked President Bush to put a timetable for the multi-national forces to withdraw from Iraq, and I supported his demand," the statement quoted Talabani, a Kurd, as saying.

It said that Bush, for his part, asserted that the Americans also wanted to withdraw their about 130,000 troops from the country, but this should occur when the Iraqi security forces be ready.

As for the ongoing security operation, the statement said that Talabani and Hashimi have some reservations about the operation, including that the operation should include all Baghdad districts, not only some of it.

"We want the security operation to include all Baghdad districts to let people realize that the operation is not against one party, but it is against all kinds of terrorists," the statement said.

It referred to that the operation is go wild only in the mainly Sunni districts, who widely believed to be the backbone of insurgency against the U.S. troops and U.S.-backed Iraq government....

Heh, so long as there is money to be made, the international community has an interest. With Iraq, altruism need not be the motive.

'Course, few will be willing to invest where chaos rules. But there is still all that oil. Oodles. There's the sugar.

Iraq isn't Somalia.

I think it makes perfect sense to back some warlords. The idea that the only useful tool to keep the peace is a guy with a badge and gun has never been my thinking.

I think Murtha is a coward. Plain and simple. And it has nothing to do with the military, as I could care less about his military experience. He wants nothing to happen that could possibly be blamed on him or his party. Risk averse to the point of uselessness.

I catagorically disagree w/your accessment of Murtha's motives and his courage. 180 reverse valuation of him.

I think it makes perfect sense to back some warlords. The idea that the only useful tool to keep the peace is a guy with a badge and gun has never been my thinking.

I think Murtha is a coward. Plain and simple. And it has nothing to do with the military, as I could care less about his military experience. He wants nothing to happen that could possibly be blamed on him or his party. Risk averse to the point of uselessness.

I think it makes perfect sense to back some warlords. The idea that the only useful tool to keep the peace is a guy with a badge and gun has never been my thinking.

I think Murtha is a coward. Plain and simple. And it has nothing to do with the military, as I could care less about his military experience. He wants nothing to happen that could possibly be blamed on him or his party. Risk averse to the point of uselessness.

In that vein, was Reagan a coward to w/draw from land placement of US troops in Lebanon? Risk averse to the point of uselessness? Or morelike realistic?

Cowardice has multiple definitions. To be risk averse can include not wanting to admit mistakes. To stay the course 'cuz otherwise would admit mistakes. Cowards never want to admit mistakes. And are willing to sacrifice others just to look right.

In that vein, was Reagan a coward to w/draw from land placement of US troops in Lebanon? Risk averse to the point of uselessness? Or morelike realistic?

Cowardice has multiple definitions. To be risk averse can include not wanting to admit mistakes. To stay the course 'cuz otherwise would admit mistakes. Cowards never want to admit mistakes. And are willing to sacrifice others just to look right.

I think Reagan lost his nerve and took the easy way out. I'm thankful he didn't lose his nerve on larger issues.

Admitting mistakes can cut several ways, therefore I see no real standard as to whether it's brave or cowardly to admit mistakes. Did Albert Speer admit his "mistakes" to save his life, or to truly attone for his sins?

Americans are usually cowards unless they have a dramatic advantage in armaments. The fact that Irakis have to fight them with homemade bombs is merely a signal as to how far the oppressed of the world are willing to go to to keep Americans in their own country.

Here I run off and invite more lefties to appease FJ, and you can't feed them? It's hard to get people to post. I can't count all the poeple I've invited from elsewhere that haven't joined, joined and didn't post, or posted once and not again. Maps, PDMike, Michael Willis, Polaron, Vatsyayana. It's hard to replace people who drift out or lose interest in the summer.

I've seen how desolate some boards get when there's no effort to get in fresh blood, regardless of it's variety.

I'm for all the posters we can get. Ifr Pravda really is from Russia, I'd like to hear more of his views.

~~~~
That shows your ignorance of Americans.

I guess he/she forgot to mention Murtha. The bravest American.

We could, if need be, withdraw and establish a perimeter similar to that we held in Saddam with, and wait for the Iraqis to work it out, however they work it out, which is likely to be at gunpoint.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]


Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.


Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Bui Tin received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Only the Bronze Star with Combat "V" for valor in combat, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Who are you to kibbitz?

You'd be impressed enough. (I only heard the stories from beasty's roommate Ray) Of course Johnson got a Silver Star for nothing, and officers have a great advantage. Giving each other medals for nothing.

So Murtha's medals mean nothing?

I didn't say anything about them. Hunin asked what gave beasty the right to kibbitz, and I know through a third party how much right he has. But it's not my place to say more than I know, and not his way to brag.

You did say that you think Murtha is a coward.

Seems to me those who have seen combat would be all the less likely to disrespect the service of others who have. And it shouldn't be a matter of whose is bigger.
.

And I said it had nothing to do with the military.
The left has put up a few veterans to speak for appeasement, retreat and surrender, and made their military service a shield. Can't disagree with Murtha, he was a Marine. "What gives you the right to kibbitz?".

Military service didn't help Bush 41. I watched lefties on C-Span boards say he KILLED HIS CO-PILOT. Sure as hell wasn't much defense for him there.

Based on pure danger, President of the US is about the most dangerous position in the military. Lincoln, Kennedy, McKinley, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry, but respect is a two-way street. "Swiftboating" became a verb in defense of Kerry, not in deference to the people that served longer and better than he did on the front line and came back to real jobs instead of rich heiresses and chauffered limos.

Based on pure danger, President of the US is about the most dangerous position in the military. Lincoln, Kennedy, McKinley, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt.

I say that Murtha is every bit as courageous in his present stand as he was on the battlefield... it's not a popular stand.