Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to "Democrats again call for immediate and unconditional surrender."

re: "Democrats again call for immediate and unconditional surrender."
azstrummer — (archived)

Let's look at that stupid term you keep bringing up of "surrender".

First Tom, who exactly are we fighting in Iraq? From what I remember of the the President's policies, it's not the Iraqi people that are our enemy but the the "insurgents" and "terrorists". If that's the case, the fight against them will still go on but by the people that really should be fighting them, the Iraqi security forces. Our withdrawal is from Iraq (who we're not fighting) and not the "War on Terror".

On the day shock and awe began we truly were fighting the army of Iraq so had we turned tail and run before the Pres stood under his "Mission Accomplished" banner, you'd have a valid point that we were surrendering except for one small point.

I think you're wrong about the definition at least as far as how I've always translated the word. You see, for a country or army to truly surrender, there is a formal ceding of territory and laying down of arms. I fail to see how removing occupation forces fits that definition. In no proposals I've seen from the evil Democrats has there ever been mention of disarming the United States or giving the enemy our territory.

Wait, maybe that's where you're getting your perception. I should have known. When we beat the Iraqi army by bringing a gun to a knife fight, we OWNED Iraq. So, in your mind, us removing ourselves is indeed ceding territory. Wow, how could I have been so clueless?

Art

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (126 posts)