Jump to content

Defeatocratic Highlights


Guest BushBacker

Recommended Posts

Guest a proud american
Question of the day.........When the defeatocrats took over the congress they 

    promised us lower gas prices. (I guess they're still working on that).

   

    Quote of the day from Harry Reid....... "The war has been lost".  (Thanks

  Harry, the bad guys needed a morale boost).

      Still waiting for the Defeatocrats to provide funding for the troops without a

    surrender date.

      Thank God we have a Republican  president.

Could you please tell me which Democrat said that they would lower gas prices if they were in the majority. And while you're at it, could you please tell me what war you served in. If I am correct you were in the air force in the 80's. So what war was it. The battle in Granada, Lebanon? And while you're at it, how many of your family members are currently serving in Iraq or have served in Iraq.

And while we're talking about making comments about losing the war, what were those 11 Republican Congressman telling the President on tuesday?

These are simple questions that do not require watching Fox Noise Channel.

How about us doing two things. 1. lets bring back the draft with no exemptions and we'll set the maximum age at 30. And 2. Lets have a war tax. If you feel that strongly about it then we should be paying as we go and not borrowing the money.

This way we can have a shared sacrifice. However, watch how quickly I get criticized. Thank god we have a republican president? If I were you I wouldn't be thanking anyone. 26% approval rating? Lower than Carter? This clown can't even welcome the Queen of England without screwing up. Thank god allright. Thank him for the fact we only have a year and a half to go until this fool is out of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
Well, this sums up the defeatocrats logic, "If it's true, it's only by accident" !!

  You must be one of the 30% of Defeatocrats that believe Bush caused 9/11.

  Would you like a "citation" that two 767's  flew into the towers also.

  Lay off the Kool-aid.

Do right wingers take stupid lessons, or does it just come naturally? William was saying that their failure to support their claims strongly suggests that the right-wingers are making them up.

But why should this time be any different than any other? The right always makes things up, from WMDs to lies about decorated war veterans (who committed the sin of running as Democrats) to denial of global warming . . . the list goes on endlessly. It's what they do. It's how they operate.

This is what the right wing calls faith-based reality. I don't think that's the best way of looking at faith, but if that is faith, they should keep it far away from those of us who want to live decent lives in the world we actually inhabit. Running a country isn't a game or a sport. It's serious business about real people's lives. It can't be done for long by insisting that fantasies are reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When frat boy was running for president, he consistently lectured Gore on the criteria for taking a country into war: (1) the mission must be clear, (2) it must be achievable and (3) there must be an exit strategy.

The US military won the military venture in Iraq in a few weeks. The problem that has us mired in what is now an Iraqi civil war is that we cannot force the peace or a stable democracy.

We can--we just don't have the political will to do it.

So, applying Bush's own criteria: (1) the mission was not clear, because the administration was either oblivious to or dishonest about what it would require, (2) it was not achievable, a lesson we should have learned from Vietnam, and (3) there was no exit strategy, as evidenced by the fact that no one has a clue how to get us out of this mess. No Republican, no Democrat, no one has the slightest idea how to leave there without leaving chaos behind and thousands of lives wasted.

1) The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate).

2) The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis. LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam. Vietnam was winnable. The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite). Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.

3) Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win. Will that happen? Probably not. The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.

The only thing Bush has to offer is to stay there until it's the next president's problem, never mind that a real Christian would consider it a sin to sacrifice the lives of brave and yet innocent men and women to serve his own ego.

:)

Didn't you already admit that leaving may well make things worse? And Bush can't possible be taking that into consideration.

When the next president somehow gets us out of there, which the American people will demand, the Bushies will blame the defeat on him or her. This is cynical politics at the level of criminality.

How do you figure? You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion. That's simply false. Iraq could definitely be stabilized. Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.

The disgraceful politics comes from opportunists willing to throw away a critical victory for the sake of political gain. In contrast, conservatives supporting the war take a political risk. Will it be satisfying blaming the next president while out of office and out of power?

All of that leaves completely aside the damage this misadventure has done to our standing in the world, the distraction it has been from a real fight against terroism, the huge amounts money spent and of course all the lives lost. This will go down in history as the worst foreign policy blunder in our history.

But it never matters to the sloganeers on the right. The truth rarely does matter to them. They're right, and the world must revolve around that illusion. They are the sun, the moon and the stars, and if you disagree with them, you're not patriotic. Along with millions of other Americans, I am sick of their way of thinking and their way of treating people who disagree with them.

Yeah! 'Cause they always generalize about the other side, don't they!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
We can--we just don't have the political will to do it.

1)  The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate).

2)  The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis.  LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam.  Vietnam was winnable.  The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite).  Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.

3)  Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win.  Will that happen?  Probably not.  The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.

:)

Didn't you already admit that leaving may well make things worse?  And Bush can't possible be taking that into consideration.

How do you figure?  You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion.  That's simply false.  Iraq could definitely be stabilized.  Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.

The disgraceful politics comes from opportunists willing to throw away a critical victory for the sake of political gain.  In contrast, conservatives supporting the war take a political risk.  Will it be satisfying blaming the next president while out of office and out of power?

All of that leaves completely aside the damage this misadventure has done to our standing in the world, the distraction it has been from a real fight against terroism, the huge amounts money spent and of course all the lives lost. This will go down in history as the worst foreign policy blunder in our history.

Yeah!  'Cause they always generalize about the other side, don't they!?!

Insanity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing over and over, even after it is clear that it doesn't work. Bryan can claim that we could have won in Vietnam, but there is no evidence that we could. I'd be interested in looking at the Angola example, so if anyone can cite me to a good book or other detailed writing on the subject by a non-right-winger who is credible, I'd be interested in studying it further. I doubt that it will change my mind on the futility of the current misadventure in Iraq, but I would read it with an open mind and specifically on that point.

Completely aside from the tremendous cost of staying there for ten years, and all the associated costs inherent in that, there is a reason why I don't believe this venture will succeed in establishing a stable Iraqi democracy. Democracy is a system that relies on the will of the people. Outsiders cannot force that, and the more anyone tries to force it, the more the people will resist. So in the end, I believe, our misadventure in Iraq will make the attainment of democracy there harder instead of easier.

The way to bring nations to democracy is to make sure that they have a stake in the developed world's economy. Make them our allies in one way, then we have a better chance to make them allies in other ways. As long as they see themselves outside the economic system, they will continue to reject its institutions, and they will continue to believe that violence against those whom they see as responsible for their living conditions is justified. This has to be about changing the minds of the Iraqi people, because that is what an Iraqi democracy must be about. That's so obvious that it surprises me that so many people overlook it. What we have done has made them even more angry at us than they were before, fueled their radical elements; most Iraqis want us to leave. That is not a formula for a good result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Could you please tell me which Democrat said that they would lower gas prices if they were in the majority. And while you're at it, could you please tell me what war you served in. If I am correct you were in the air force in the 80's. So what war was it. The battle in Granada, Lebanon? And while you're at it, how many of your family members are currently serving in Iraq or have served in Iraq.

And while we're talking about making comments about losing the war, what were those 11 Republican Congressman telling the President on tuesday?

These are simple questions that do not require watching Fox Noise Channel.

How about us doing two things. 1. lets bring back the draft with no exemptions and we'll set the maximum age at 30. And 2. Lets have a war tax. If you feel that strongly about it then we should be paying as we go and not borrowing the money.

This way we can have a shared sacrifice. However, watch how quickly I get criticized. Thank god we have a republican president? If I were you I wouldn't be thanking anyone. 26% approval rating? Lower than Carter? This clown can't even welcome the Queen of England without screwing up. Thank god allright. Thank him for the fact we only have a year and a half to go until this fool is out of office.

Misreading 1776 for 1976 is "screwing up" ?? What would you call Obama saying 10,000 people just died in Kansas from the tornado ?? Sounds like more than misreading, wouldn't you think ? But he's a defeatocrat, so he gets a pass from the Kool-aiders. ( By the way, Fox News has more viewers than CNN & MSNBC put together, AND they're closing in on NBC in the ratings. I think there are a lot of Kool-aiders that are closet Fox fans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Do right wingers take stupid lessons, or does it just come naturally? William was saying that their failure to support their claims strongly suggests that the right-wingers are making them up.

But why should this time be any different than any other? The right always makes things up, from WMDs to lies about decorated war veterans (who committed the sin of running as Democrats) to denial of global warming . . . the list goes on endlessly. It's what they do. It's how they operate.

This is what the right wing calls faith-based reality. I don't think that's the best way of looking at faith, but if that is faith, they should keep it far away from those of us who want to live decent lives in the world we actually inhabit. Running a country isn't a game or a sport. It's serious business about real people's lives. It can't be done for long by insisting that fantasies are reality.

Lets talk about the 30% of defeatocrats that believe Bush planned 9/11. Let's hear some of those Kool-aid dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It was a poll from December 2006.

The terms of engagement have changed so that they are more favorable for our troops, now.

But that will make them less likely to support the war, you think?

That poll is from 2006.  :)

Early 2006, that is.  Mine's more recent than yours by close to a year.  ;)

That's one of the polls that resulted in a bit of a hit to Zogby's credibility, since the poll was commissioned by an antiwar set of deep pockets and Zogby would not divulge the methodology.

Here's a review of the Zogby poll by (left-leaning but fair) Mark Blumenthal of Polster.com (formerly "Mystery Pollster"):

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/0...ogby_poll_.html

If you want to believe a poll taken by a military newspaper that has an interest in the poll results coming out just the way they did ... well, you just go right ahead and believe them. However, with the 'Catch 22' situation regarding longer tours, my bet is that the discontent among the troops is a bit higher than 13%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can--we just don't have the political will to do it.

1)  The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate).

2)  The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis.  LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam.  Vietnam was winnable.  The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite).  Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.

3)  Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win.  Will that happen?  Probably not.  The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.

:)

Didn't you already admit that leaving may well make things worse?  And Bush can't possible be taking that into consideration.

How do you figure?  You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion.  That's simply false.  Iraq could definitely be stabilized.  Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.

The disgraceful politics comes from opportunists willing to throw away a critical victory for the sake of political gain.  In contrast, conservatives supporting the war take a political risk.  Will it be satisfying blaming the next president while out of office and out of power?

All of that leaves completely aside the damage this misadventure has done to our standing in the world, the distraction it has been from a real fight against terroism, the huge amounts money spent and of course all the lives lost. This will go down in history as the worst foreign policy blunder in our history.

Yeah!  'Cause they always generalize about the other side, don't they!?!

You forgot that we really have no right to be there at all. Tell me again what substantiated justifications we had for invading in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Radagast

Bryan ->> We can--we just don't have the political will to do it.<<

The political will of the United States won't change the situation on the ground in Iraq.

>>1) The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate<<

Now that's a stretch. At least a few of the 'planners' were heard to say that our troops would be greeted a liberators as in France in WWll. Are you saying that was not the prevailing mindset? The mission was to topple Saddam and all the other problems were suppose to take care of themselves with a little help from us.

>>2) The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis. LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam. Vietnam was winnable. The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite). Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.<<

Then as now, the only folks that are happy we are there are those in the unstable and unpopular government who we are protecting. Most of the people want us out. Regardless of the results of the Tet Offensive, the United States could not win in Vietnam. Then as now, we were unwelcome foreigners in someone else's country.

>>3) Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win. Will that happen? Probably not. The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.<<

The fact that most Americans favor a timetable for getting us out seems to be the 500lb gorrila that you are ignoring. the 'Petraeus Stratagy' as you call it, has not really achieved much even in Baghdad. There are fewer 'death squads' but the weapon of choice is now the car bomb that is killing just as many people. At the same time, killing in the rest of the country has increased. The United States simply does not have the resourses, military or otherwise, to extend this questionable stratagy throughout all of Iraq. Unless of course you want to reinstitute the military draft.... now that would be interesting.

>>How do you figure? You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion. That's simply false. Iraq could definitely be stabilized. Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.<<

You just gave yourself the best reason why the Iraq War can't be won, 10 years? The Amaerican public will not sit still for that and you know it.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that there was no way we could have 'won' this war in 2003 and there is still no way that we can win it now. The Iraqis have to win 'peace' for themselves. The United States cannot do it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to believe a poll taken by a military newspaper that has an interest in the poll results coming out just the way they did ... well, you just go right ahead and believe them. However, with the 'Catch 22' situation regarding longer tours, my bet is that the discontent among the troops is a bit higher than 13%.

The Military Times used a broader base, and most importantly did not keep its methodology a secret.

If you want to trust a poll with secret methodology, that's up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insanity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing over and over, even after it is clear that it doesn't work. Bryan can claim that we could have won in Vietnam, but there is no evidence that we could.

Baloney. General Giap admitted afterward that the communist forces were on the verge of collapse following the Tet offensive. Review the history and take note of the losses they suffered and you'll get an idea why. We didn't know this at the time, or even during the 1970s, but much more information has since come to light (information=evidence).

Just because Paul isn't aware of the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

See especially the middle paragraph.

There are five principal lessons that come out of Giap's memoirs. The first is the importance of understanding an insurgent adversary's history, geography, and culture. The second is to not underestimate any asymmetric enemy. The third is that the use of military force is but one component of a successful campaign strategy. The fourth is the criticality of ideology and the charismatic energy injected into that ideology. And the fifth is that the people and the governing institutions of North Vietnam were prepared to endure longer than were the people and government of the United States.

The last message comes forth throughout the text. From the outset, as Giap reflects, there was never any thought other than continuing the fight until the United States tired of its involvement in Vietnam. This important lesson--that conflicts couched in the rhetoric of peoples' wars can continue for many years and even decades--is one of the most significant from the Vietnam War and, certainly, an extremely relevant message of this book.

What Giap does not divulge, however, is the enormous strategic leverage of a controlled and astutely manipulated population. He also does not discuss the large-scale military and economic aid the Soviet Union or China provided to the North, or the eventual extinguishing of military aid from the United States to the South.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-132053836.html

But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Vietcong troops in South Vietnam. Yet that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other media around the world. It was television's first war. And some 50 million Americans at home saw the carnage of dead bodies in the rubble, and dazed Americans running around.

As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a week or two later from RAND Corp. interrogations of prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done. Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete. Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed accordingly.

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20...06-032203-3282r

Yes, Virginia, media reports plus population response can lead to defeat in war for a Republic. The key is to keep the war going until the population tires of it. The communists in Vietnam had this in mind, and so do radical Islamists.

I'd be interested in looking at the Angola example, so if anyone can cite me to a good book or other detailed writing on the subject by a non-right-winger who is credible, I'd be interested in studying it further.

Meanwhile, the Portuguese deployed large numbers of troops, set up strategic hamlets (forced settlements of rural Angolans), and, by encouraging Portuguese peasants to immigrate to Angola, raised the white population to about 330,000 by 1974. At the same time, they tried to "win hearts and minds" by abolishing forced cultivation, forced labor, and the stringent tests to gain "assimilated" status. They also stepped up the provision of education, health, and social welfare services and protected peasants from land alienation. The economy entered into a period of sustained boom, marked by rapid industrialization and the growth of oil production, and urban workers and many rural producers enjoyed rising standards of living. In addition, the divisions between and within the FNLA, MPLA and UNITA movements, which at times degenerated into armed conflict, allowed the Portuguese to gain the upper hand by the early 1970s. When a military coup in Portugal overthrew that country's dictatorship in April 1974, all three guerrilla movements had been almost entirely expelled from Angolan soil.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/angola1961.htm

Probably just a bunch of right-wingers. :)

I doubt that it will change my mind on the futility of the current misadventure in Iraq, but I would read it with an open mind and specifically on that point.

Interesting that you say you'll read it with an open mind while at the same time saying you doubt it will change your mind.

Completely aside from the tremendous cost of staying there for ten years, and all the associated costs inherent in that, there is a reason why I don't believe this venture will succeed in establishing a stable Iraqi democracy. Democracy is a system that relies on the will of the people. Outsiders cannot force that, and the more anyone tries to force it, the more the people will resist. So in the end, I believe, our misadventure in Iraq will make the attainment of democracy there harder instead of easier.

It was a minority in the United States that led the revolution. English sympathies abounded.

Yet the dangers were very real and great. The country was still in the gristle; the thews had not hardened. There had been much lawlessness, in one quarter and another, already; and the long struggle of the Revolution produced hideous disorganization. It is impossible to paint in too dark colors the ferocity of the struggle between the Whigs and Tories; and the patriot mobs, either of their own accord or instigated by the Sons of Liberty and kindred bodies, often took part in proceedings which were thoroughly disgraceful. New York had her full share of these mob-outbreaks during the summer of 1775.

http://www.bartleby.com/171/10.html

The way to bring nations to democracy is to make sure that they have a stake in the developed world's economy. Make them our allies in one way, then we have a better chance to make them allies in other ways. As long as they see themselves outside the economic system, they will continue to reject its institutions, and they will continue to believe that violence against those whom they see as responsible for their living conditions is justified. This has to be about changing the minds of the Iraqi people, because that is what an Iraqi democracy must be about. That's so obvious that it surprises me that so many people overlook it. What we have done has made them even more angry at us than they were before, fueled their radical elements; most Iraqis want us to leave. That is not a formula for a good result.

Iraq is ready for trade. The problem is the violence and lawlessness produced by the insurgency. Having bombs blow up in markets discourages trade. You've noticed that the insurgents attack civilians, right? Economic misery allows them to expand their numbers because desperate people do desperate things.

If you want to establish a democracy in Iraq, you provide security and the Iraqi people will do the rest.

The thorny problem for the Iraqis is the balance of power between the major provinces. That's why dividing oil revenue is such a key issue.

In the United States, Paul should recall, it took in the neighborhood of 10 years to establish our current constitutional framework--and we had less division in our population than does Iraq. And fewer next-door neighbors plotting our downfall.

That doesn't make the Iraqi situation impossible, and most importantly the long-term consequences need to be considered rather than just the drawbacks of continued involvement.

A different option isn't always better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud ameerican
Bryan ->> We can--we just don't have the political will to do it.<<

The political will of the United States won't change the situation on the ground in Iraq.

>>1)  The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate<<

Now that's a stretch. At least a few of the 'planners' were heard to say that our troops would be greeted a liberators as in France in WWll. Are you saying that was not the prevailing mindset? The mission was to topple Saddam and all the other problems were suppose to take care of themselves with a little help from us.

>>2)  The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis.  LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam.  Vietnam was winnable.  The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite).  Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.<<

Then as now, the only folks that are happy we are there are those in the unstable and unpopular government who we are protecting. Most of the people want us out. Regardless of the results of the Tet Offensive, the United States could not win in Vietnam. Then as now, we were unwelcome foreigners in someone else's country.

>>3)  Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win.  Will that happen?  Probably not.  The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.<<

The fact that most Americans favor a timetable for getting us out seems to be the 500lb gorrila that you are ignoring. the 'Petraeus Stratagy' as you call it, has not really achieved much even in Baghdad. There are fewer 'death squads' but the weapon of choice is now the car bomb that is killing just as many people. At the same time, killing in the rest of the country has increased. The United States simply does not have the resourses, military or otherwise, to extend this questionable stratagy throughout all of Iraq. Unless of course you want to reinstitute the military draft.... now that would be interesting.

>>How do you figure?  You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion.  That's simply false.  Iraq could definitely be stabilized.  Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.<<

You just gave yourself the best reason why the Iraq War can't be won, 10 years? The Amaerican public will not sit still for that and you know it.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that there was no way we could have 'won' this war in 2003 and there is still no way that we can win it now. The Iraqis have to win 'peace' for themselves. The United States cannot do it for them.

Bushbacker, I am still waiting for an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot that we really have no right to be there at all.

Is that your way of making the claim that the war is illegal and then giving me the burden of proof for showing otherwise?

Tell me again what substantiated justifications we had for invading in the first place.

Iraq violated a ceasefire agreement, thus in legal terms the invasion of Iraq was a continuation of the war started by Saddam Hussein in 1989.

That won't stop crazies like you and anti-Americans from all over claiming that the war was illegal, of course.

It's enough if it gets you to take up your burden of proof, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The political will of the United States won't change the situation on the ground in Iraq.

The situation on the ground in Iraq permits victory to a nation with the political will to pursue victory.

>>1)  The mission was clear but complex enough to resist a pre-planned solution (normal in war, which largely consists of mistakes by however many sides participate<<

Now that's a stretch. At least a few of the 'planners' were heard to say that our troops would be greeted a liberators as in France in WWll. Are you saying that was not the prevailing mindset? The mission was to topple Saddam and all the other problems were suppose to take care of themselves with a little help from us.

U.S. troops were greeted as liberators as in France in WWII. Mostly by the Kurds and the Shiites, however. The Sunnis reacted a little bit more like the Nazis in France during the invasion of France.

This underscores my point about the complexity of the problem. If you want to argue that none of the problems were foreseen prior to the war, the feel free to try to prove your point. I wasn't a military leader at the time, and I knew that a civil war was possible as the eventual outcome of the invasion.

I think you'll find that eyes were open--but war isn't always predictable.

>>2)  The mission is probably achievable--the caveat comes because the ultimate fulfillment is in the hands of the Iraqis.  LaClair takes the wrong lesson from Vietnam.  Vietnam was winnable.  The communists were decimated after the Tet Offensive, but the media gave the communists a political victory by proclaiming the Tet offensive a U.S. loss (Thank you Walter Cronkite).  Then, as now, the enemy realized that the key to beating the United States is to win the war over public opinion in the United States.<<

Then as now, the only folks that are happy we are there are those in the unstable and unpopular government who we are protecting. Most of the people want us out. Regardless of the results of the Tet Offensive, the United States could not win in Vietnam. Then as now, we were unwelcome foreigners in someone else's country.

Tell that to the English vis-a-vis Scotland.

It doesn't really matter if absolutely everyone in the nation hates our guts (which isn't the case). Bring sufficient power to bear and a strategy that keeps the people from undue restlessness and the war is won.

It's great to see a Defeatocrat living up to the name, however. :lol:

>>3)  Send more troops and use the Petraeus strategy throughout Iraq for another five years and we almost certainly win.  Will that happen?  Probably not.  The Democrats smell political hay in a military defeat, and likewise many Republicans fear that they cannot remain in office while supporting the war.<<

The fact that most Americans favor a timetable for getting us out seems to be the 500lb gorrila that you are ignoring. the 'Petraeus Stratagy' as you call it, has not really achieved much even in Baghdad. There are fewer 'death squads' but the weapon of choice is now the car bomb that is killing just as many people. At the same time, killing in the rest of the country has increased. The United States simply does not have the resourses, military or otherwise, to extend this questionable stratagy throughout all of Iraq. Unless of course you want to reinstitute the military draft.... now that would be interesting.

I'm not ignoring any gorilla. You simply ignored my plain statement that victory probably will not happen because of the political realities.

Baghdad is where the strategy has been the least effective, so your "even in Baghdad" was a very pungent red herring. The strategy has worked well in Anbar province and has Sunnis siding with the U.S. against al Qaeda--just the sort of thing we should want. Killing persists in Baghdad because the Sadr militia has pulled out of the government and moved to resist the coalition. There's good and bad in that, since the Sadr faction within the government may have never allowed a unified government that would accept the Sunnis. His faction has probably been responsible for much of the sectarian violence. It actually looks like Sadr's a bit of a pawn to the Iranians, for that matter.

Having the Sadr faction gives U.S. troops the green light to militarily eliminate some exceptionally naughty troublemakers who were previously being sheltered by al-Maliki.

>>How do you figure?  You'd have to start with the presupposition that the war cannot be won to get to that conclusion.  That's simply false.  Iraq could definitely be stabilized.  Tactics such as those used by the Portuguese in Angola during the late 60s and early 70s would win the day within about 10 years.<<

You just gave yourself the best reason why the Iraq War can't be won, 10 years? The Amaerican public will not sit still for that and you know it.

That's not a reason why the war can't be won, it is a reason why the war won't be won.

But despite the fact that you're pretty much admitting that the lack of political will determines the outcome (see gorilla), it will probably never occur to you that you share some responsibility if millions die in a full-fledged Iraqi civil war.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that there was no way we could have 'won' this war in 2003 and there is still no way that we can win it now. The Iraqis have to win 'peace' for themselves. The United States cannot do it for them.

The view expressed above doesn't make sense.

Why can't the Iraqis win the peace with outside assistance up through the point where they are able to do it themselves?

Must be that genius of a 500 lb gorilla getting in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets talk about the 30% of defeatocrats that believe Bush planned 9/11.

Yes, let's. Is this the poll you're referring to?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...acks_in_advance

It's the only one I could find that says anything like what you're claiming, and it seems to be a hot topic on lots of right-wing web sites, so I suspect it is.

If so, I have to ask by what strange magic you were able to transform "believe Bush knew about 9/11 attacks in advance" into "believe Bush planned 9/11". Granted, the former is still pretty deserving of ridicule, but it is a far cry from the latter.

Is it some other poll you're talking about (if so, link please), or did you just go blathering accusations without checking your facts first?

More important than the answer to that, though, is to realize that poll results like this shouldn't be very surprising, and collectively say more about the sad state of reasoning skills of the population in general than about any particular political party. Incredulity knows no political boundaries. According to another poll from 03/06, 13% of Republicans believe that Iraq was "directly involved in 9/11", and 50% believe that Iraq "gave al Qeada substantial support". The 50% may not be made up entirely of idiots, as the words "substantial support" do leave quite a lot of room for interpretation. But the 13%? Feel free to point and laugh. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party may attract different sorts of idiots, but neither has a shortage. Each has a contingent that the more intelligent among them wish would just shut up. The minor parties have this problem too. A few even appear to be made up entirely of loonies. Plenty of nuts to go around.

Reference:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...nt=186&lb=hmpg2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul
Why can't the Iraqis win the peace with outside assistance up through the point where they are able to do it themselves?

Because we're talking about trying to bring democracy to a country that has been divided for centuries along religious lines. The struggle is internal. It has to be. Until the Iraqi people want a stable democracy and are passionately committed to fighting for and holding it on their own, it can't exist. An outside force like the United States can prop up the appearance, but as soon as we left, forces from within would tear it down again.

Imagine, for example, that the majority of Americans had been strict, old-line Roman Catholics (the religion of my youth) who believed in the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church, and that for the past 200+ years we had lived under a Constitutional monarchy established along the Vatican model. Now imagine that there were smaller groups in the USA who disagreed: more liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, let's say Protestants, who didn't believe in the Vatican model, but they only represented about 30% of the country, and had never been able to make any inroads or hold any real power for long. Do you really think ten years of occupation from an outside force would change that? Do you really think that having a 30% minority means that "all you need" for peace and stability under a democracy is another 21%? If you really think that, what are you smoking? Think about it. We can't engraft our history and our assumptions on a nation with that kind of a history. Think for a change, Bryan.

Do you really think "democracy" would be real if a nation had to have another nation constantly present militarily to prop it up? Just how malleable do you think those religious affiliations are? Think about what you're actually saying for a change. Ten years, you say. Just what do you think is going to change in ten years? The minds of the people? Their minds will change, all right. They'll be more disgusted with the United States after ten years of occupation than they are now, and so will the rest of the world. Where did you get that number? Pull it out of your ear? We can't reinvent the world to our liking just because we're the only superpower. In fact, our power is exactly what the rest of the world fears and is prepared to resist, and rightly so. You keep challenging people to prove the most obvious points, well your claim that "all we need" is ten years to transform Iraq into a stable and functioning democracy isn't obvious at all. So hold yourself to the standard you demand of others for a change and prove it.

Meanwhile, we'll have our entire military completely occupied in Iraq. What if during those ten years something happens in the world that really requires our military presence? Then what do we do? The neocon blockheads haven't been right about a single thing so far. Why on earth should we continue to listen to them?

Democracy is a little like love. It relies on the human will. If you don't win it for yourself, it's not yours, and it won't hold. Think about what this means to real people for a change. You may be impressed with your own words, but they don't mean a thing unless they reflect how the people in Iraq actually think, feel and act. Instead of reflexively rejecting what you're being told because it isn't what you already believe, think about it for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reguardless of your point of view or party you support. We are screwed. It's time to realize we are all in great danger. This bull shit going on in Washington won't solve anything. We have no leaders. Like I said, we are screwed. God bless and protect us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Reguardless of your point of view or party you support. We are screwed. It's time to realize we are all in great danger. This bull shit going on in Washington won't solve anything. We have no leaders. Like I said, we are screwed. God bless and protect us all.

Thank you, former President Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party may attract different sorts of idiots, but neither has a shortage. Each has a contingent that the more intelligent among them wish would just shut up. The minor parties have this problem too. A few even appear to be made up entirely of loonies. Plenty of nuts to go around.

This reminds me of a bit by Lewis Black where he says that the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas, while the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Because we're talking about trying to bring democracy to a country that has been divided for centuries along religious lines. The struggle is internal. It has to be. Until the Iraqi people want a stable democracy and are passionately committed to fighting for and holding it on their own, it can't exist. An outside force like the United States can prop up the appearance, but as soon as we left, forces from within would tear it down again.

Imagine, for example, that the majority of Americans had been strict, old-line Roman Catholics (the religion of my youth) who believed in the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church, and that for the past 200+ years we had lived under a Constitutional monarchy established along the Vatican model. Now imagine that there were smaller groups in the USA who disagreed: more liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, let's say Protestants, who didn't believe in the Vatican model, but they only represented about 30% of the country, and had never been able to make any inroads or hold any real power for long. Do you really think ten years of occupation from an outside force would change that? Do you really think that having a 30% minority means that "all you need" for peace and stability under a democracy is another 21%? If you really think that, what are you smoking? Think about it. We can't engraft our history and our assumptions on a nation with that kind of a history. Think for a change, Bryan.

Do you really think "democracy" would be real if a nation had to have another nation constantly present militarily to prop it up? Just how malleable do you think those religious affiliations are? Think about what you're actually saying for a change. Ten years, you say. Just what do you think is going to change in ten years? The minds of the people? Their minds will change, all right. They'll be more disgusted with the United States after ten years of occupation than they are now, and so will the rest of the world. Where did you get that number? Pull it out of your ear? We can't reinvent the world to our liking just because we're the only superpower. In fact, our power is exactly what the rest of the world fears and is prepared to resist, and rightly so. You keep challenging people to prove the most obvious points, well your claim that "all we need" is ten years to transform Iraq into a stable and functioning democracy isn't obvious at all. So hold yourself to the standard you demand of others for a change and prove it.

Meanwhile, we'll have our entire military completely occupied in Iraq. What if during those ten years something happens in the world that really requires our military presence? Then what do we do? The neocon blockheads haven't been right about a single thing so far. Why on earth should we continue to listen to them?

Democracy is a little like love. It relies on the human will. If you don't win it for yourself, it's not yours, and it won't hold. Think about what this means to real people for a change. You may be impressed with your own words, but they don't mean a thing unless they reflect how the people in Iraq actually think, feel and act. Instead of reflexively rejecting what you're being told because it isn't what you already believe, think about it for once.

BORINGGGGGGG !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line, as I see it, is that there was no way we could have 'won' this war in 2003 and there is still no way that we can win it now. The Iraqis have to win 'peace' for themselves. The United States cannot do it for them.

The view expressed above doesn't make sense.

Why can't the Iraqis win the peace with outside assistance up through the point where they are able to do it themselves?

Because we're talking about trying to bring democracy to a country that has been divided for centuries along religious lines.

(Logic: if a nation has been divided for centuries along religious lines then there is no way to win a war/peace in that country?)

The struggle is internal. It has to be. Until the Iraqi people want a stable democracy and are passionately committed to fighting for and holding it on their own, it can't exist. An outside force like the United States can prop up the appearance, but as soon as we left, forces from within would tear it down again.

Apparently LaClair has determined that it would be impossible for the Iraqi government to provide the type of security (or better) that U.S. forces currently provide.

How did Hussein do it? Did he accomplish the impossible?

Imagine, for example, that the majority of Americans had been strict, old-line Roman Catholics (the religion of my youth) who believed in the political structure of the Roman Catholic Church, and that for the past 200+ years we had lived under a Constitutional monarchy established along the Vatican model. Now imagine that there were smaller groups in the USA who disagreed: more liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, let's say Protestants, who didn't believe in the Vatican model, but they only represented about 30% of the country, and had never been able to make any inroads or hold any real power for long. Do you really think ten years of occupation from an outside force would change that?

The religious differences do not need to change, Paul. You haven't suggested that there is violence between the two factions--am I supposed to assume it without your stipulation?

Sunnis and Shiites live side-by-side in peace throughout much of the Middle East and elsewhere. It's where radicals (such as al Qaida adherents regard Shia as lower than an infidel that the problem crops up (in combination with the teaching that killing infidels or the like secures a place in heaven). Good luck finding a (reasonable) Christian parallel.

Do you really think that having a 30% minority means that "all you need" for peace and stability under a democracy is another 21%?

No. If your 30% is the active 30% then you don't need any more than 30%.

I'm not sure what argument you're trying to treat here, BTW. I don't see how it relates to the one line you quoted.

If you really think that, what are you smoking? Think about it. We can't engraft our history and our assumptions on a nation with that kind of a history. Think for a change, Bryan.

I wonder what argument you've made up on my behalf to account for your response above.

Do you really think "democracy" would be real if a nation had to have another nation constantly present militarily to prop it up?

You mean like when the United States received substantial assistance from France?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the...volutionary_War

Or Germany following WW2? Or Japan during the same time period (still under U.S. military protection)?

Are you historically illiterate or what?

What fools we were for thinking the Japanese could accept democracy.

Just how malleable do you think those religious affiliations are?

I don't think that religious affiliation is the primary cause for conflict. Policies that avoid (seriously) exploiting one group at the expense of the other tend to defuse violence. The appeals of extremists work best where economic conditions are poor (hence the diabolical wisdom of attacking the infrastructure that would provide economic stability).

It is Sunni fear of reprisal and receiving an empty economic cup that primarily fuels the native Sunni side of the insurgency.

Think about what you're actually saying for a change.

I fit a whole lot into 22 words, apparently. :D

Ten years, you say. Just what do you think is going to change in ten years?

I expect the Iraqi government to provide an acceptable level of security to Iraqis, and I hope/expect the government to tweak its constitution enough to reasonably placate Sunni concerns.

If the Sunnis are not satisfied to some degree, Saudi Arabia will arm them to defend themselves against the Shiites. If the Shiites don't have enough arms now, they'll be able to obtain more from Iran (which wouldn't mind a Shiite-ruled neighbor).

You can explain to me your version of the Golden Rule after the hostilities escalate into a genocide costing possibly millions of lives.

The minds of the people? Their minds will change, all right. They'll be more disgusted with the United States after ten years of occupation than they are now, and so will the rest of the world. Where did you get that number? Pull it out of your ear?

That's the amount of time it typically takes to put down a strong insurgency, where the insurgency gets put down. It comes from history, in other words. Perhaps you should consider history.

We can't reinvent the world to our liking just because we're the only superpower. In fact, our power is exactly what the rest of the world fears and is prepared to resist, and rightly so. You keep challenging people to prove the most obvious points, well your claim that "all we need" is ten years to transform Iraq into a stable and functioning democracy isn't obvious at all. So hold yourself to the standard you demand of others for a change and prove it.

The "all we need" quotation appears to be LaClair's invention.

Ten years, historically, is about what it takes to put down an insurgency (where the alternative of giving up is not taken).

Naturally it can take longer if poor strategies are employed.

There is no way to predict the life expectancy of the Iraqi insurgency. There are simply too many variables that bear on the outcome of the fight. During the 20th century, the average duration of an insurgency -- and there have been over 50 of note -- has been about 10 years. Some insurgencies are striking in their brevity. The 1920 rebellion in Iraq was suppressed in less than a year. By contrast, the insurgency in Northern Ireland has been ongoing since 1968 -- that's 38 years. Colombia has been fighting the FARC rebels for over 40 years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/can/

Hammes contends that we have now entered into the age of Fourth Generation Warfare, which he brands “netwar.” (The term is a bit confusing given the better-known “network-centric operations” terminology.7) Fourth Generation Warfare “uses all available networks—political, economic, social, and military—to convince the enemy’s political decisionmakers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency.”8 Fourth Generation Warfare argues that the enemy’s target becomes the political establishment and the policymakers of his adversary, not the adversary’s armed forces or tactical formations. The enemy achieves victory by putting intense, unremitting pressure on adversary decisionmakers, causing them to eventually capitulate, independent of military success or failure on the battlefield. Fourth Generation Warfare deserves to be studied closely by the military, primarily because it outlines a compellingly logical way to look at asymmetrical warfare, a challenging topic for Western militaries.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Paramet...ummer/barno.htm

Meanwhile, we'll have our entire military completely occupied in Iraq. What if during those ten years something happens in the world that really requires our military presence? Then what do we do?

Surrender. The Democrats will be in control, remember.

;)

I can't think of any plausible scenario that would require a substantial U.S. military presence, certainly not one that would outweigh the strategic importance of Iraq. North Korea and Iran would be the most likely offenders, I'd suppose. The deployment in Iraq provides a natural check on Iran, and we've already got quite a few troops stationed in Japan (about 50,000) and South Korea (over 30,000) (pretty good numbers for a military "completely occupied in Iraq").

The neocon blockheads haven't been right about a single thing so far. Why on earth should we continue to listen to them?

Because the Democrats will get us killed.

Democracy is a little like love. It relies on the human will. If you don't win it for yourself, it's not yours, and it won't hold.

I guess we're doomed, then. The French screwed us over just as we did the Germans and the Japanese.

Think about what this means to real people for a change.

You're not talking about the untold thousands who will die in Iraq if the security situation degrades as far as it might, I assume?

You may be impressed with your own words, but they don't mean a thing unless they reflect how the people in Iraq actually think, feel and act. Instead of reflexively rejecting what you're being told because it isn't what you already believe, think about it for once.

Notice how you kept the "think about it for once" theme running throughout your reply? Remember how I commented how you appear to have difficulty arguing minus the fallacies of distraction?

I pay attention to polls of Iraqis. I look at how the poll was taken and I take the time to look at the questions that were asked. Do you do that?

I doubt it. I think you probably trust some journalist to figure it out for you.

Most Iraqis, as of the turn of the year, still felt that they were better off being rid of Hussein. The Kurds, understandably, lead the way in expressing that opinion. Security in the Kurdish north is good and they don't have Uncle Saddam gassing them/relocating them/torturing them. The Shiites are more evenly divided since they have been the primary victims of the insurgents. The Sunnis were the in Hussein's hip pocket, so they tend to be against the war. That's one reason why the success of General Petraeus' strategy in the Anbar province is significant. The Sunnis there have allied with the U.S. to fight the insurgency.

But don't believe me. Just believe whatever the New York Times tells you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, let's. Is this the poll you're referring to?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...acks_in_advance

It's the only one I could find that says anything like what you're claiming, and it seems to be a hot topic on lots of right-wing web sites, so I suspect it is.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaida five years ago.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279...piracy02ww.html

If you like, I'll explain to you how you can tell that PIPA has an axe to grind and how they allow it to affect their polling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...