Defeatocratic Debate

[Guest Guest]

Bryan, maybe a better way of looking at the situation in Iraq would be to use theory and reality.

In theory, the decision to invade Iraq or atleast we were told was that Sadaam had weapons of mass desttruction, was trying to purchase uranium and was preparing to build a nuclear bomb.  The reality was that if we had listened to the inspectors, especially Scott Ritter and Hans Blix we would have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction and it was known before the invasion.

In theory, the world believed as we were told that all evidence pointed to him having these weapons. In reality, the intelligence was so faulty and out of date that it could not be deemed reliable.

In theory, General Shinsecki told the White House that we would need in excess of 500,000 troops to do the job correctly. In reality, he was shown the door to retirement and we went in with less than the amount necessary.

In theory, 04 brought us the Decider landing on a carrier addressing the sailors in front of the "mission accomplished" sign. In reality, the war was just beginning.

In theory, when retired general Jay Garner met with the Kurd, Sunni and Shiite leaders, they advised him to keep the Iraqi Army and Government intact. Root out the top teir generals and government officials and keep the rest since they would need to use them to rebuild Iraq. ALso, the cost to do this was estimated to be in the 1 billion dollar range. In reality, when Garner was releived and Bremmer took over, he disbanded both the Army and Government.

In theory the three tribes warned the general as to what would happen if they were not paid. In reality six months after Bremmer took over some of the former millitary demanded to be paid or else there would be hell to pay. There was and still is.

In theory once the iraqi government was in place, they would form their own constitution and we would then be able to train their soldiers. Standing down when they stood up. In reality as of today, even though our government claims that we haver trained over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, at any given time half don't show up for duty. 

In theory, by putting 30,000 more troops in iraq would stabilize Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the reality is the surge has had little effect by even the militarys own admission.

In theory calling those who disagree defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers, the relality is that it shows just how deluded people really are. Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence that 1. the iraqi government has no desire to change their status quo and 2. seem to be more resentful of us would we want to sacrifice one more soldier in a war we cannot win.

In theory, this is not what people who support the war want to hear. They want us to believe that we are somehow winning this battle. The reality is that the overwhelming majority or both democrats and republicans want us out and out now. However, rather than listen to the majority, this president is listening to the minority who share his views.

We are hearing that come september there is going to be a change in strategy in Washington, DC. That there are going to more republicans senators calling for us to withdraw. That means for the next three months we will continue to suffer casualties so that the politicians can game plan their next move. How sad is that and what does that say to the soldiers going and already there.

SO for those who want to call us defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers thats fine. However using theory and reality sometimes gives you a different perspective. I don't ask you to agree just read and apply the two. Maybe it will change some minds but probably not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a refreshing display of intelligence and thoughtfulness this is, especially considering what it is responding to.

[Guest Paul]

Wasn't the Defeatocratic debate a real snoozer !!  The Iron Matron was the clear winner and I don't see anyone catching her.  Soros and the ultra-left is not supporting her because of her stance on the war. It's going to be a nasty dog fight for the defeatocratic nomination.

  The good news is, it all doesn't matter, Rudy is the next president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Today, Richard Lugar, long-time Republican Senator from Indiana, came out against Bush's troop surge and said it's time to start reducing the number of troops in Iraq. Does that make him a defeatist too?

Circle the wagons all you like. Your goose is about cooked.

[Guest Patriot]

Bryan, maybe a better way of looking at the situation in Iraq would be to use theory and reality.

In theory, the decision to invade Iraq or atleast we were told was that Sadaam had weapons of mass desttruction, was trying to purchase uranium and was preparing to build a nuclear bomb.  The reality was that if we had listened to the inspectors, especially Scott Ritter and Hans Blix we would have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction and it was known before the invasion.

In theory, the world believed as we were told that all evidence pointed to him having these weapons. In reality, the intelligence was so faulty and out of date that it could not be deemed reliable.

In theory, General Shinsecki told the White House that we would need in excess of 500,000 troops to do the job correctly. In reality, he was shown the door to retirement and we went in with less than the amount necessary.

In theory, 04 brought us the Decider landing on a carrier addressing the sailors in front of the "mission accomplished" sign. In reality, the war was just beginning.

In theory, when retired general Jay Garner met with the Kurd, Sunni and Shiite leaders, they advised him to keep the Iraqi Army and Government intact. Root out the top teir generals and government officials and keep the rest since they would need to use them to rebuild Iraq. ALso, the cost to do this was estimated to be in the 1 billion dollar range. In reality, when Garner was releived and Bremmer took over, he disbanded both the Army and Government.

In theory the three tribes warned the general as to what would happen if they were not paid. In reality six months after Bremmer took over some of the former millitary demanded to be paid or else there would be hell to pay. There was and still is.

In theory once the iraqi government was in place, they would form their own constitution and we would then be able to train their soldiers. Standing down when they stood up. In reality as of today, even though our government claims that we haver trained over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, at any given time half don't show up for duty. 

In theory, by putting 30,000 more troops in iraq would stabilize Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the reality is the surge has had little effect by even the militarys own admission.

In theory calling those who disagree defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers, the relality is that it shows just how deluded people really are. Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence that 1. the iraqi government has no desire to change their status quo and 2. seem to be more resentful of us would we want to sacrifice one more soldier in a war we cannot win.

In theory, this is not what people who support the war want to hear. They want us to believe that we are somehow winning this battle. The reality is that the overwhelming majority or both democrats and republicans want us out and out now. However, rather than listen to the majority, this president is listening to the minority who share his views.

We are hearing that come september there is going to be a change in strategy in Washington, DC. That there are going to more republicans senators calling for us to withdraw. That means for the next three months we will continue to suffer casualties so that the politicians can game plan their next move. How sad is that and what does that say to the soldiers going and already there.

SO for those who want to call us defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers thats fine. However using theory and reality sometimes gives you a different perspective. I don't ask you to agree just read and apply the two. Maybe it will change some minds but probably not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with this long-winded dissertation is that it's the theory and reality of a defeatocrat. Kind of like what we're hearing from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry and Reid, you know, the real americans in the John Wayne mold.

[Strife767]

The problem with this long-winded dissertation is that it's the theory and reality of a defeatocrat. Kind of like what we're hearing from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry and Reid, you know, the real americans in the John Wayne mold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=58502

[Guest Guest]

The problem with this long-winded dissertation is that it's the theory and reality of a defeatocrat. Kind of like what we're hearing from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry and Reid, you know, the real americans in the John Wayne mold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking of the John Wayne mold you missed the greatest example, Ronnie RayGun, who was a great president in the same way John Wayne was a war hero, a role he played.

[Guest a proud american]

The problem with this long-winded dissertation is that it's the theory and reality of a defeatocrat. Kind of like what we're hearing from Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry and Reid, you know, the real americans in the John Wayne mold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At-least you aren't disagreeing with the facts. Long winded yes. The truth absolutely. And while we're at it, add Senator Hagel, to the list along with Lugar.

[Guest bewildered]

Could someone explain what a "win" in Iraq would look like?

[Bryan]

Bryan, maybe a better way of looking at the situation in Iraq would be to use theory and reality.

We can do that, but the subject wasn't really Iraq but the defeatist policies of the Democrats.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57482

So let's see how far off-topic you want to go, shall we?

In theory, the decision to invade Iraq or atleast we were told was that Sadaam had weapons of mass desttruction, was trying to purchase uranium and was preparing to build a nuclear bomb.  The reality was that if we had listened to the inspectors, especially Scott Ritter and Hans Blix we would have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction and it was known before the invasion.

This nonsense again?

Bush made a comprehensive case for the war from the beginning (WMD, humanitarian concerns, protection of U.S. interests).

Ritter has no credibility. He started out claiming that Iraq's programs had not been dismantled and then changed his tune.

Blix wanted more time for inspections rather than war, but he wasn't paying the costs of forward deployment. The U.S. had a window of opportunity and it was about to close for a period of months. Blix's final report indicated that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspections, and UN inspectors did find a missile program that Iraq had deliberately been hiding in the runup to the war.

I love the way you liberals love to replay the same nonsense you've been hearing in your echo chambers over and over again.

In theory, the world believed as we were told that all evidence pointed to him having these weapons. In reality, the intelligence was so faulty and out of date that it could not be deemed reliable.

If it could not be deemed reliable, the why did the intelligence agencies of all of our relevant allies (that is, those who had intelligence on Iraq) believe that Iraq had WMDs?

Your claim is incoherent--not exactly atypical for a Dem/liberal/progressive (however you wish to label yourself)

In theory, General Shinsecki told the White House that we would need in excess of 500,000 troops to do the job correctly. In reality, he was shown the door to retirement and we went in with less than the amount necessary.

Shinsecki was already scheduled for retirement, and that action was not accelerated by the rejection of his war plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/distortions_galor...ial_debate.html

Scroll down about 1/3.

The great thing is that you're recycling falsehoods from years ago that still haven't been corrected sufficiently in the public mind.

In theory, 04 brought us the Decider landing on a carrier addressing the sailors in front of the "mission accomplished" sign. In reality, the war was just beginning.

Paul LaClair claims that the mission was accomplished at that point. Just ask him.

The reality, BTW, is that the mission for that battle group was accomplished. Bush's speech at that time did announce that major battle operations had concluded, and he also said that much work remained to be done to bring peace and a stable democracy to Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

In theory, when retired general Jay Garner met with the Kurd, Sunni and Shiite leaders, they advised him to keep the Iraqi Army and Government intact. Root out the top teir generals and government officials and keep the rest since they would need to use them to rebuild Iraq. ALso, the cost to do this was estimated to be in the 1 billion dollar range. In reality, when Garner was releived and Bremmer took over, he disbanded both the Army and Government.

Yep, that turned out to be a mistake, in hindsight. I guess we better pack it in and come home, right?

Good thing we never made any mistakes in other wars.

In theory the three tribes warned the general as to what would happen if they were not paid. In reality six months after Bremmer took over some of the former millitary demanded to be paid or else there would be hell to pay. There was and still is.

You forgot your citation.

In theory once the iraqi government was in place, they would form their own constitution and we would then be able to train their soldiers. Standing down when they stood up. In reality as of today, even though our government claims that we haver trained over 300,000 iraqi soldiers, at any given time half don't show up for duty.

You forgot your citation again.

Experience is one of the keys to improving Iraqi security forces. The surge strategy of General Petraeus provides the type of support that gives Iraqi forces experience while offering a failsafe.

In theory, by putting 30,000 more troops in iraq would stabilize Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the reality is the surge has had little effect by even the militarys own admission.

You forgot your citation again.

Anbar province, once given up for lost (a redundancy for Democrats, I know) has become very unfriendly for Al Qaida, and the U.S. has secured an alliance with Sunni tribes. Baghdad is tougher because of the Sunnis and Shiites living in mixed areas, but even there the surge strategy is starting to work even though the troop increase has only begun.

A very successful operation is currently underway in Baqubah

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/surrender-or-die.htm

Maybe if you hurry you can run over and wave the white flag so that our soldiers can surrender to Al Qaida before it's too late.

In theory calling those who disagree defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers, the relality is that it shows just how deluded people really are. Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence that 1. the iraqi government has no desire to change their status quo and 2. seem to be more resentful of us would we want to sacrifice one more soldier in a war we cannot win.

Have you considered that maybe the Iraqis don't see any point in trying to get their government up and running when the Democrats are about to pull the carpet out from under them?

Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute or two. You think they'll have a grand old time with a radical new regime if it is remembered that they cooperated with the Americans?

In theory, this is not what people who support the war want to hear.

Not surprising, since it was liberally (pun intended) peppered with lies that should have been exposed as false long ago so that thousands on thousands of liberals wouldn't run around spouting false statements like yours.

They want us to believe that we are somehow winning this battle. The reality is that the overwhelming majority or both democrats and republicans want us out and out now. However, rather than listen to the majority, this president is listening to the minority who share his views.

We are winning the battle. Who controls Baghdad? The government with which we are allied--that's who. Not Iran. Not al Qaida.

We haven't lost any ground, and the enemy usually attacks civilians instead of armed units (because they cannot hope to win in open combat). The enemy goes where coalition forces are not. You want to make sure that they can keep right on doing that, in effect.

Lincoln also ignored the majority who called for him to end the war against the Confederacy. What an inhuman despot, that Lincoln.

Right?

We are hearing that come september there is going to be a change in strategy in Washington, DC. That there are going to more republicans senators calling for us to withdraw. That means for the next three months we will continue to suffer casualties so that the politicians can game plan their next move. How sad is that and what does that say to the soldiers going and already there.

You know why more Republicans are down on the war? It's mostly because they don't think they can be re-elected otherwise. Some stand on principle, eh?

There is the real problem of the current Iraqi government working very ineffectually to correct problems that help sustain the insurgency--but that government is under terrific strain right now (they're more likely to be assassinated than are your representatives, for one thing), and it's true that if that government doesn't get its act together that the situation will drag on.

Maybe we should just let al Qaida have 'em? Or maybe Iran--you know, as a reward for defying the UN on its nuclear program and for cracking down on men who dare to wear soccer jerseys in public?

SO for those who want to call us defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers thats fine. However using theory and reality sometimes gives you a different perspective. I don't ask you to agree just read and apply the two. Maybe it will change some minds but probably not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your reality was filled with falsehoods.

Once you correct them and still call for withdrawal, it seems like you'd have earned that favorite nickname, don't you think?

[Bryan]

Could someone explain what a "win" in Iraq would look like?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course.

It would look like a stable constitutional republic in Iraq allied with the United States in trying to crush terrorist groups.

[Guest a proud american]

We can do that, but the subject wasn't really Iraq but the defeatist policies of the Democrats.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57482

So let's see how far off-topic you want to go, shall we?

This nonsense again?

Bush made a comprehensive case for the war from the beginning (WMD, humanitarian concerns, protection of U.S. interests).

Ritter has no credibility.  He started out claiming that Iraq's programs had not been dismantled and then changed his tune.

Blix wanted more time for inspections rather than war, but he wasn't paying the costs of forward deployment.  The U.S. had a window of opportunity and it was about to close for a period of months.  Blix's final report indicated that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspections, and UN inspectors did find a missile program that Iraq had deliberately been hiding in the runup to the war.

I love the way you liberals love to replay the same nonsense you've been hearing in your echo chambers over and over again.

If it could not be deemed reliable, the why did the intelligence agencies of all of our relevant allies (that is, those who had intelligence on Iraq) believe that Iraq had WMDs?

Your claim is incoherent--not exactly atypical for a Dem/liberal/progressive (however you wish to label yourself)

Shinsecki was already scheduled for retirement, and that action was not accelerated by the rejection of his war plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/distortions_galor...ial_debate.html

Scroll down about 1/3.

The great thing is that you're recycling falsehoods from years ago that still haven't been corrected sufficiently in the public mind.

Paul LaClair claims that the mission was accomplished at that point.  Just ask him.

The reality, BTW, is that the mission for that battle group was accomplished.  Bush's speech at that time did announce that major battle operations had concluded, and he also said that much work remained to be done to bring peace and a stable democracy to Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030501-15.html

Yep, that turned out to be a mistake, in hindsight.  I guess we better pack it in and come home, right?

Good thing we never made any mistakes in other wars.

You forgot your citation.

You forgot your citation again.

Experience is one of the keys to improving Iraqi security forces.  The surge strategy of General Petraeus provides the type of support that gives Iraqi forces experience while offering a failsafe. 

In theory, by putting 30,000 more troops in iraq would stabilize Baghdad and the surrounding areas, the reality is the surge has had little effect by even the militarys own admission.

You forgot your citation again.

Anbar province, once given up for lost (a redundancy for Democrats, I know) has become very unfriendly for Al Qaida, and the U.S. has secured an alliance with Sunni tribes.  Baghdad is tougher because of the Sunnis and Shiites living in mixed areas, but even there the surge strategy is starting to work even though the troop increase has only begun.

A very successful operation is currently underway in Baqubah

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/surrender-or-die.htm

Maybe if you hurry you can run over and wave the white flag so that our soldiers can surrender to Al Qaida before it's too late.

In theory calling those who disagree defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers, the relality is that it shows just how deluded people really are. Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence that 1. the iraqi government has no desire to change their status quo and 2. seem to be more resentful of us would we want to sacrifice one more soldier in a war we cannot win.

Have you considered that maybe the Iraqis don't see any point in trying to get their government up and running when the Democrats are about to pull the carpet out from under them?

Put yourself in their shoes for just a minute or two.  You think they'll have a grand old time with a radical new regime if it is remembered that they cooperated with the Americans?

In theory, this is not what people who support the war want to hear.

Not surprising, since it was liberally (pun intended) peppered with lies that should have been exposed as false long ago so that thousands on thousands of liberals wouldn't run around spouting false statements like yours.

They want us to believe that we are somehow winning this battle. The reality is that the overwhelming majority or both democrats and republicans want us out and out now. However, rather than listen to the majority, this president is listening to the minority who share his views.

We are winning the battle.  Who controls Baghdad?  The government with which we are allied--that's who.  Not Iran.  Not al Qaida.

We haven't lost any ground, and the enemy usually attacks civilians instead of armed units (because they cannot hope to win in open combat).  The enemy goes where coalition forces are not.  You want to make sure that they can keep right on doing that, in effect.

Lincoln also ignored the majority who called for him to end the war against the Confederacy.  What an inhuman despot, that Lincoln.

Right?

We are hearing that come september there is going to be a change in strategy in Washington, DC. That there are going to more republicans senators calling for us to withdraw. That means for the next three months we will continue to suffer casualties so that the politicians can game plan their next move. How sad is that and what does that say to the soldiers going and already there.

You know why more Republicans are down on the war?  It's mostly because they don't think they can be re-elected otherwise.  Some stand on principle, eh?

There is the real problem of the current Iraqi government working very ineffectually to correct problems that help sustain the insurgency--but that government is under terrific strain right now (they're more likely to be assassinated than are your representatives, for one thing), and it's true that if that government doesn't get its act  together that the situation will drag on.

Maybe we should just let al Qaida have 'em?  Or maybe Iran--you know, as a reward for defying the UN on its nuclear program and for cracking down on men who dare to wear soccer jerseys in public?

SO for those who want to call us defeatacrats and kool-aide drinkers thats fine. However using theory and reality sometimes gives you a different perspective. I don't ask you to agree just read and apply the two. Maybe it will change some minds but probably not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your reality was filled with falsehoods. 

Once you correct them and still call for withdrawal, it seems like you'd have earned that favorite nickname, don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, nothing I have said is off target. Bush made a comprehensive case for the war from the beginning? His comprehensive case has changed more than the weather. I find completely laughable your comment about protecting american interests. What interests? The oil interests? Unless you forgot, there was a trade embargo with Iraq. With regards to Scott Ritter whether or not you agree with his assesment, he happened to be right. With regards to the intelligence, as I stated, most of the intelligence was pre 1991 and there was no hard evidence. However, within the CIA which has been discussed many times, there was a lot of cherry picking of information to fit the Bush scenario. I forgot to mention one more inspector, David Kay, who also said there were no weapons of mass destruction that would be found and shortly after the invasion he was sent into Iraq with a group to examine some 198 alleged weapons sites. After having gone to some of the sites they decided it was a waste of time and concentrated on likely sites as opposed to possible sites. And again, as he already knew they found nothing. I guess the best way to sum it up is, after all the "intelligence" all the Nation's claimed to have, atleast three inspectors got it right. Or do have any additional information that proves otherwise. It seems fairly coherent to me wouldn't you think?

And yes, Shisecki was scheduled to retire. However, was he wrong in his assessment?

With regards to the mission accomplished banner, Bush's white house through their spokesman Dan Bartlett said on national tv (Fox probably missed that one) that it was one of the most singularly stupid (sic) thing they did.

With regard to the meeting between Garner and the tribal leader's thats the best you can come up with? a mistake in hindsight? Please. That was only the beginning of what has turned into a contnuous series of mistakes. But you're right. We did make mistakes in other wars. What makes this different is that we continue to make the same mistakes.

With regards to the amount of trained Iraqi troops and our standing down when they stand up, the citation comes from the Department of Defense. They are the ones claiming there are 300,000 trained Iraqi troops. At-least thats what they have been telling the Congressional and Senate Committees. Are you saying that they aren't being honest?

And while you talk about how the surge is starting to work, didn't a mosque get blown up in baghdad last week. And haven't they been under curfew that has since been lifted. 20 killed in car bomb. What we're doing is akin to sticking a finger in a dike.

And no, I haven't considered that the Iraqis don't see any point in trying to get their government up and running. And no one with any amount of intelligence would either. They have had three years to get their government running and since we do the heavy lifting they have no incentive to do anything. And as far as a radical new regime taking over, thats going to happen anyway which is the part that you on the right can't seem to grasp. Do you honestly think that a country where there are two major groups killing each other in the name of religion are just going to shake hands and become friends?

The iraqi government is under stress. Yea, trying to decide whether to take two months off or not is probably very stressful. If you want them to start doing their jobs, start pulling out the troops and see how fast they get serious. And with regards to the republican senators, why, if according to you the war is going so well should they be scared to take a stand and continue to support the President. By backing away, doesn't that only prove that you have been wrong all along? Some of them should be worried because unless they're from the south they have a lot to be worried about. When 70% of the citizens want this war to end that should be a wake up call don't you think? Imagine the majority of americans are defeatists.

Now there is theory and reality. In this case everything I have written is correct. Most of the information comes from the government and the defense department. If you think that i'm wrong than your arguement is with them and not me. I know that the truth is a hard thing to believe. So Bryan, if you disagree with me try doing it with facts not name calling. And when you talk about facts, I don't mean from web sites that aren't identifiable or the Heritage Foundation who wouldn't know the truth if they fell over it. And just for information purposes another 100 soldiers lost their lives this month. See if you can find out how many Iraqi soldiers lost theirs.