Top Dem Announces "This War is Lost"

[Sisyphus]

Heh. Equating saying that things are not going well with treason is a little too Cultural Revolution for my taste. Poor Rush - what would he do if he found out he was a Communist?

[Pangloss]

The pigs are definitely upright and walking on the EIB network.

[Haezed]

Well, this is funny. Rush is calling him a traitor for declaring defeat. He's calling him Benedict Reid, or something like that. He wants him brought up on charges, since that's the left's tactic used against conservatives now - apparently referring to calls for Bush's impeachment and etc.

 

But, even stretching it, could you really be a traitor for declaring defeat? He's not in a position for it to have any value is he?

 

Rush's blatherings aside do not forgive Reid who is actually an elected official. Two wrongs...

[jackson33]

Reid, has in effect told the radical factions or those that oppose actions made by the US, that they have won. anyway you look at that its an incorrect and libelous attack on the policies which are not of his making, nor was he elected to make such decisions.

 

the president has stated the commanders on the field, have his authority to make ground decisions, which he in effect assumes responsibility. congress has only the right to with hold funds, which Reid nor any member of congress would allow to happen. even in votes toward such actions, the voters are politically motivated and aware prior to the vote it will not pass.

[Haezed]

Why don't the dems simply make their points for the historical record and accept that they are going to have to win the Presidency in 2008 to run foreign policy?

[Sisyphus]

Rush's blatherings aside do not forgive Reid who is actually an elected official. Two wrongs...

 

So you're asserting that Reid doesn't believe the war is lost?

[geoguy]

Don't you know Rei suppose to lie to the American people instead? Confirm all the great 'progress' that's being made and how, according to Bush, he'd invade all over again.

 

the depth's of loyalty to Bush the Moron among some is pathetic...ignore the reality and support lies...'the war is not lost'...'the war is not lost'...'there is a Santa Claus'....'the war is not lost'...'Leprechaun's have pots of gold'...

 

9 more troops killed yesterday in Bush's truth quest.

[Saryctos]

The real problem? This ain't no war. We let the big dogs go play in the yard, then put the leash back on. We need to stop ***** footing it and kick some more ass rather than be lead around by the politicians.

[Pangloss]

True enough. Even setting aside emo'ing about civilians caught in the crossfire, we tie our hands with a million relatively trivial details, like how many hours per day Iraqis are without electricity, what the current unemployment rate is, or whether school's open in Ramala. We're actually running opinion polls on Iraqis to find out what they think about the WAY the job is being done. I don't know about you all, but any time I hear the words "the WAY in which it was done" I just know I'm in for an earful of immature/irrelevent drama.

 

But those are the constraints that we put on our government and our military. We're responsible for demanding that things be done a certain way. We express that demand through the media, and we show no sign of changing our minds about this.

 

Catch-22.

[Rasori]

But, our preemptive strike was about snatching WMD's in self defense. That's how it was sold.

 

One note here: we never claimed Iraq could attack us with the WMDs. We claimed Iraq could attack other parts of the Middle East.

 

The real problem? This ain't no war. We let the big dogs go play in the yard, then put the leash back on. We need to stop ***** footing it and kick some more ass rather than be lead around by the politicians.

 

This is the most true statement I've seen in this thread thus far. Heck, even the ancient Chinese knew the government had no right controlling military leaders (see: Sun Tzu's "Art of War")--you'd think that knowledge would have lasted and been expanded on, but I'm afraid not.

[ParanoiA]

One note here: we never claimed Iraq could attack us with the WMDs. We claimed Iraq could attack other parts of the Middle East.

 

You know, that's true, yet our justification for invasion without UN consent was that we had a right to defend ourselves. That implies we did expect to be attacked.

[john5746]

The real problem? This ain't no war. We let the big dogs go play in the yard, then put the leash back on. We need to stop ***** footing it and kick some more ass rather than be lead around by the politicians.

 

Correct! IT IS NOT A WAR. It is a peace-keeping, nation building mission. Darfur would be similar, except that it is already a big mess.

[jackson33]

Why don't the dems simply make their points for the historical record and accept that they are going to have to win the Presidency in 2008 to run foreign policy?

 

IMO; no candidate expressing immediate withdrawal for the Mid-East, will win the election in 2008, regardless of party. the idea of some form of retreating or backing out to a location, not in Iraq, would not fly as no Nation would want this war to follow into theirs, so total involvement or withdrawal the only options.

 

if by chance a pro-isolationist were to win the election, with elections 4 years away, would change nothing. politically speaking, terror is still the object, which needs attention. the only solution is to continue the rebuilding of Iraq, which a great deal of untold progress has and continues to be the rule.

[ParanoiA]

if by chance a pro-isolationist were to win the election, with elections 4 years away, would change nothing. politically speaking, terror is still the object, which needs attention. the only solution is to continue the rebuilding of Iraq, which a great deal of untold progress has and continues to be the rule.

 

I sincerely hope a pro-isolationist wins. I would like to see us rebuild Iraq and set things as right as we can, all things considered. Then I'd like to see us get out of that region of the world and let them fend for themselves.

[jackson33]

I sincerely hope a pro-isolationist wins. I would like to see us rebuild Iraq and set things as right as we can, all things considered. Then I'd like to see us get out of that region of the world and let them fend for themselves.

 

that attitude is common, makes sense and for us in the US would be just fine. our problem is *World Commitments*, on political, security and economical issues. it may be this isolationist principle, which was in the fiber of US policy, until the early 20th century could no longer work. an example would be; our interest are now worldwide, even our people. these same groups that fight against human rights, influence of the US or declare the rights of other nations (as Israel) will not just go away.

 

the same is true for the opposing philosophy. militant Islamic elements, are in the mode, which lost them their power in total by the same early 20th century and the dominate power for much of the mid-evil period. there would be no reason to attempting to explain each, but the two are currently on a collision course. solve it now, by any means. to put it off and leave it for the next generation, by each is no longer an option.

[ParanoiA]

that attitude is common, makes sense and for us in the US would be just fine. our problem is *World Commitments*, on political, security and economical issues. it may be this isolationist principle, which was in the fiber of US policy, until the early 20th century could no longer work. an example would be; our interest are now worldwide, even our people. these same groups that fight against human rights, influence of the US or declare the rights of other nations (as Israel) will not just go away.

 

These interests need to be dissolved. Before WWII we were despised, characterized as spoiled and uninterested in what's going on in the world. Now that we care and are deeply involved - we are hated. I'll stick with despised, thank you.

 

The world wants its cake and eat it too. They want us to care and get involved, but not expect anything in return. They want us to commit resources and trade, but not gain anything in return. They don't want a two way street - rather just want us to give.

 

I say neither. The "evil rich" america should basically say - **** you then. We're not coming to your aid when you start having problems. We're not sending ships, food and medical aid when your country gets struck by a tsunami or an earthquake levels some city. Iran gets nukes? Good luck with that. Syria gets nukes? Good luck with that too. We have a defense system, so we really don't care.

 

I'm just ready to put my money where their mouth is. I'd rather be isolationist anyway, so why not embrace it fully and let them get their wish? All of their arguments will fall to pieces - replaced by new ones no doubt, but they won't involve perceived imperialism. When they attack us, there will be no justifiable provocation. Unless ignoring someone is a justifiable provocation.

 

I understand existing "agreements" so I would certainly prefer to do the bare minimum in compliance. We can still protect Israel long distance.

[waitforufo]

So yesterday (4/25) Senator Reid was told that General Petraeus was in town and would be addressing congress regarding the war in Iraq. Senator Reid was told the General Petraeus would explain during his visit how progress is currently being made in Iraq. He was then asked if he would believe General Petraeus. Answer, No. So, in effect Senator Reid believes General Petraeus to be a liar. Didn’t Senator Reid vote to approve General Petraeus in his current command position? If he considers General Petraeus to be a liar, why doesn’t the Honorable Senator request General Petraeus be removed from command? Shouldn’t the Honorable Senator request that General Petraeus resign his commission?

 

First he tells the troops they are fighting a lost war, and then he tells them their commander is a liar. At what point are such statements providing aid and comfort to our enemies?

 

There are those who believe we should withdraw from this war. Are there however people at war with us? Will they remain at war with us if we withdraw?

 

Finally, there is a popular notion that the war in Iraq is going poorly. What evidence is there for this belief? Some mention the time involved. If WWII would have been twice as long with half the casualties and with the same victors would WWII been a worse war? Allied casualties, each of which is tragic, have been very low in Iraq compared to other wars. I just don’t see how or where we are losing. Perhaps not winning at the rate we would like but that hardly seems like a good reason to quit. Our enemies most effective weapon, suicide solders. To what army in history has that tactic brought victory?

[Haezed]

So yesterday (4/25) Senator Reid was told that General Petraeus was in town and would be addressing congress regarding the war in Iraq. Senator Reid was told the General Petraeus would explain during his visit how progress is currently being made in Iraq. He was then asked if he would believe General Petraeus. Answer, No. So, in effect Senator Reid believes General Petraeus to be a liar. Didn’t Senator Reid vote to approve General Petraeus in his current command position? If he considers General Petraeus to be a liar, why doesn’t the Honorable Senator request General Petraeus be removed from command? Shouldn’t the Honorable Senator request that General Petraeus resign his commission?

 

First he tells the troops they are fighting a lost war, and then he tells them their commander is a liar. At what point are such statements providing aid and comfort to our enemies?

 

There are those who believe we should withdraw from this war. Are there however people at war with us? Will they remain at war with us if we withdraw?

 

Finally, there is a popular notion that the war in Iraq is going poorly. What evidence is there for this belief? Some mention the time involved. If WWII would have been twice as long with half the casualties and with the same victors would WWII been a worse war? Allied casualties, each of which is tragic, have been very low in Iraq compared to other wars. I just don’t see how or where we are losing. Perhaps not winning at the rate we would like but that hardly seems like a good reason to quit. Our enemies most effective weapon, suicide solders. To what army in history has that tactic brought victory?

 

 

An interesting, perhaps prescient, article regarding the parallels between post war Germany and Iraq:

 

Those who are pessimistic about a successful democratization of Iraq today should recall that optimism about Germany inside and outside Germany was in short supply, even given awareness of the Germany's previously defeated democratic and liberal traditions. Many doubted that the Germans were capable of elementary decency, not to mention supporting a stable democracy which could keep its armies from attacking its neighbors. Without economic recovery made possible in part by the Marshall Plan, German democratization would not have taken place. Finding the balance between repression of the Nazi past and implementation of policies aimed at economic recovery was time consuming and controversial

 

Following a very long and very terrible war, the Germans in 1945 were in no mood to continue their lost cause. Following the very short and nowhere near as terrible Iraq war of spring 2003, it is not surprising that a small minority of Iraqis and foreign terrorists are attacking the occupation.

[geoguy]

. I'd rather be isolationist anyway, so why not embrace it fully and let them get their wish?

 

 

Then GET OUT of Iraq. Glad you support getting out. Took you a while to see the light. Bush is a fool and only bigger fools support him.

[ParanoiA]

Then GET OUT of Iraq. Glad you support getting out. Took you a while to see the light. Bush is a fool and only bigger fools support him.

 

No. I don't believe in shucking responsibility. We're there and need to finish. My comments are about after Iraq. It's also my preferred method of dealing with middle east ever since 9/11. The middle east deserves to be shunned. Let them prove some value and worth to the world before anyone associates themselves with them.

 

Their governments say one thing - with their hands out - and their citizens say another. Then their governments lie and distort reality and their citizens become a pool to recruite resistance - resistance that has been "redirected" toward America.

 

So, until they can get control of themselves and their government, we have no interest there. Kind of like doing business with a child...

[Haezed]

No. I don't believe in shucking responsibility. We're there and need to finish. My comments are about after Iraq. It's also my preferred method of dealing with middle east ever since 9/11. The middle east deserves to be shunned. Let them prove some value and worth to the world before anyone associates themselves with them.

 

Their governments say one thing - with their hands out - and their citizens say another. Then their governments lie and distort reality and their citizens become a pool to recruite resistance - resistance that has been "redirected" toward America.

 

So, until they can get control of themselves and their government, we have no interest there. Kind of like doing business with a child...

 

I thought you supported the Afghan and Gulf War I actions?

[ParanoiA]

I thought you supported the Afghan and Gulf War I actions?

 

I do support Afghanistan and Gulf War actions in the context of accepting that we are not isolationist. Even as an isolationist, I still support Afghanistan. But my ideas about isolationism came directly from 9/11 and its aftermath.

 

Admittedly, it's more of a temper tantrum on my part. I get so fed up with the one way finger pointing. People judging America out of context.

 

I was watching a program last night on North Korea. They went over the concentration camps that have been up and running for decades. The fear instilled in those people is creepy. Over and over again, they all said the same thing "Our dear leader", "Our great general" - straight up "god" worship. The humanitarian issues their are ridiculously bad.

 

But, we're hated. Gitmo is a bigger deal to people than what is going on in N. Korea. I know it's been an issue in the past, and I'm sure it's brought up from time to time - but Gitmo is portrayed as the same thing. Folks, it's not even close. Where's all the outrage on N. Korea? China?

 

Terrorists actually kill in the name of god. No dots to connect. No intellectual explanation to connect everything together - they straight up, no bones about it, kill and rule for god. Proudly.

 

But our own people criticize us about religion and war - having to stretch imaginations and make an intellectual case to support it, and take up for those who actually DO kill for god. It blows my mind.

 

How can people be so knit picky about our "christian" heritage that barely makes a dent in our laws in the least - but take sides with those who use god to rule and manipulate innocent people (poisoning the minds of little kids) to kill for them? I really don't get it.

 

So, I would really like to see my country take the hint and grant them their wish. They bitched when we weren't involved. They bitch when we are involved - and step it up to hate and add dozens of countries to the list. Hell, let's just go back to letting them bitch - only. What's the point? They just concentrate on the bad, and don't give any recognition for the good.

 

They're so smart. Let them deal with it. We're so stupid, so why try?

 

Like I said...a temper tantrum.

[Sisyphus]

 

So, until they can get control of themselves and their government, we have no interest there. Kind of like doing business with a child...

 

Where's "there?" What's "interest?" Who's "we?"

 

(These are oil-related questions...)

[ParanoiA]

Screw their oil. Why not build something and contribute to the human race like the rest of us, instead of selling something already in the ground to make a living - and then turn around and kill us for it? If we only get 30% of our oil from there, and we're already on a sprint for alternative fuels, why empower them by buying their oil? I'd love to look at them say, "sorry, we're not interested".

 

The "we" is our private sector that has no patriotism. They sell out our jobs overseas, they sell out any chance of moral high ground - they just get real patriotic when they're trying to get my kid to sign up to die for them. That will continue to happen until we, the people, hold them accountable. And so far, we're all too wrapped up in American Idol and our nifty camera phones to give a shit how it's obtained.

 

I don't feel bad for doing business and outperforming others. But if you can't do business with someone - and clearly that's the case in the middle east - then we shouldn't. They have no business growing and prospering under their current mindset. We're empowering this unhealthy attitude and approach to trade by going along with it. This is like rewarding your child for bad behavior, with a cookie. The fact we keep doing business with them - status quo - only validates their behavior.

[Haezed]

I do support Afghanistan and Gulf War actions in the context of accepting that we are not isolationist. Even as an isolationist, I still support Afghanistan. But my ideas about isolationism came directly from 9/11 and its aftermath.

 

Admittedly, it's more of a temper tantrum on my part. I get so fed up with the one way finger pointing. People judging America out of context.

 

I was watching a program last night on North Korea. They went over the concentration camps that have been up and running for decades. The fear instilled in those people is creepy. Over and over again, they all said the same thing "Our dear leader", "Our great general" - straight up "god" worship. The humanitarian issues their are ridiculously bad.

 

But, we're hated. Gitmo is a bigger deal to people than what is going on in N. Korea. I know it's been an issue in the past, and I'm sure it's brought up from time to time - but Gitmo is portrayed as the same thing. Folks, it's not even close. Where's all the outrage on N. Korea? China?

 

Terrorists actually kill in the name of god. No dots to connect. No intellectual explanation to connect everything together - they straight up, no bones about it, kill and rule for god. Proudly.

 

But our own people criticize us about religion and war - having to stretch imaginations and make an intellectual case to support it, and take up for those who actually DO kill for god. It blows my mind.

 

How can people be so knit picky about our "christian" heritage that barely makes a dent in our laws in the least - but take sides with those who use god to rule and manipulate innocent people (poisoning the minds of little kids) to kill for them? I really don't get it.

 

So, I would really like to see my country take the hint and grant them their wish. They bitched when we weren't involved. They bitch when we are involved - and step it up to hate and add dozens of countries to the list. Hell, let's just go back to letting them bitch - only. What's the point? They just concentrate on the bad, and don't give any recognition for the good.

 

They're so smart. Let them deal with it. We're so stupid, so why try?

 

Like I said...a temper tantrum.

 

You have encapsulated my frustrations as well. You have china and russia thrwarting a solution to genocide in Darfur so they can cozy up to oil-rich Sudan and we are the bad guys?? NPR had an episode a few days ago about forced abortions in China yet it makes a blip on the radar while Gitmo is all anyone can see.

 

I agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard but I don't give the rest of the world the right to be hypocrits. I really wish we could safely disengage from a world gone mad but that's not possible.