Republican Logic Stupid

[erpowers]

I contend the Republican logic on Iraq is just plain stupid. Republicans say that if Americans announce a date to leave Iraq the insurgents can just hideout and wait for the Americans to leave. I say they can do the same thing if the American troops stay. The insurgents can just blow up one car bomb a day and continue to knock-off one or two soldiers a day into infinity. The insurgents do not seem to be having a problem finding people to blow themselves up. In addition, American troops have been their four years and the insurgents have not stopped yet. So, the questions are: How many soldiers will be lost before Bush pulls the troops out? Also, how long does he plan to stay in Iraq?

Now some Republicans are saying that there are signs that the surge is working in Iraq. They are saying that the leaders on the ground are saying they are seeing a 25% decrease in the violence in Baghdad. First, 25% can be a very small decrease. That could mean one less attack a day. Second, while the violence in Iraq may have seemed to decrease the violence in other areas seems to be going up. It was reported yesterday on the CBS Eveing News that a city that Bush last year called a model of progress has seen a major increase in violence. Beyond that I think there have been other stories that have pointed out that violence has increased in other areas. So, you have a 25% decrease in violence, but at the same time you have at least a 25% increase in violence in another city and at least a 25% increase in violence in other areas. Therefore, you have about at least a net 25% increase in violence as a whole in Iraq. This is supported by the military and other departments who have said that violence continues to increase in Iraq.

[Cabcere]

1. I have found that quite a bit of so-called Republican "logic"

is idiotic at best, and dangerous at worst. Classic example: "They hate us for our freedoms" - so let's just take away those freedoms, and then they won't hate us anymore!!!11!!1! Problem solved. :eyes:

[unpossibles]

3. yes, I was going to say, that I agree and go one further that their so-called logic is flawed

in almost everything they say, not just Iraq.

[Cabcere]

4. Pretty much, yeah.

I like your username, by the way. :hi: I think it's quite appropriate for this topic, lol.

[unpossibles]

6. hahaha! thanks

Me fail logic?

[Fresh_Start]

2. If insurgents can wait out timeline, they can wait out surge

use their logic against them

[BOSSHOG]

5. The Surge is a brilliant success

The insurgents moved out of Baghdad to a different region north of the city to where the Americans had given the responsibility to the Iraqi Army. The result, mass murder of Iraqis with no deterrent by the Iraqi Army. Brilliant.

[Dhalgren]

7. The insurgents have the initiative. They are not obliged to react or respond

to the US military, at all. They often do react, but it is on their terms. If the US military had the initiative at any point, they lost it way back in '03 and have never regained it - as a matter of fact, they cannot regain it. Any move the US military makes, the number one option of the insurgents is, "do nothing".

Right now, with the "surge" in process, the attacks on the "Green Zone" have increased markedly. A missile attack on the GZ in the past day or so killed a US soldier and wounded a couple more. How is the situation in Baghdad "improving" when the GZ is no longer "safe"? The US does not have the troop strength (period) nor the will (period) to defeat the insurgency. And in the process of all this idiocy, the US appears to not have the skill or the ability to do anything but get its own soldiers killed and wounded. The longer we stay in Iraq the bigger we lose. It is like the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad - at some point the losses have to be cut in order to avoid a total catastrophe. Hitler's pride would not allow him to avoid that end; it appears Bush's will lead to the same outcome...