Flame — HabitableZone

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

More lipstick, same pig
TB — (archived)

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.

Every war with foreign powers that the United States has fought in the past century was on someone else's territory, controlled or threatened by an enemy force.

Had we pulled out of France during WWII, in the face of the German Army, taking all our arms and personnel with us, ceding no U.S. territory at all, never to return, what would you have called that?

Rest assured, if the U.S. leaves Iraq while the battles are still going on, Iran, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgents, and the rest of our enemies in that part of the world will not apply nearly as much nuance to a humiliating defeat for the Coalition as you do.

The Democrats know damn well what "redeployment" means in this context. I'm just not letting them get away with it.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (126 posts)