« Don't count him out yet... | Main | From the "when life hands you lemons" file... »

Democrats Won't "Stand" for Victory

My column is up at the Examiner today. In it I talk about my observations of the Democrats' reaction everytime victory was mentioned in the State of the Union speech.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Won't "Stand" for Victory:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with President Bush Faces State of the Union Challenges

Comments (98)

Lorie:Can you defi... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorie:

Can you define what "victory" would be. Certainly Bush never has.

Gee, Hugh, it's only been s... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Gee, Hugh, it's only been said about a million times by the president. Victory would mean secure representative government and a free and fair Iraq becoming a beacon of progress and freedom in the otherwise politically savage Middle East.

Use your brain a little more--it'll come to you. Like most on the Left, you're childish and petty.

That's a real concrete stan... (Below threshold)
hugh:

That's a real concrete standard. Guess we could be there for another couple hundred years. The Guard troops will love that.

Hugh,are you for t... (Below threshold)
jp:

Hugh,

are you for the immediate removal of US Troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany....its a long list, they've been there for a long time.

jpHow many of them... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jp

How many of them died this week policing a civil war?

Sphughing, not hewing, as u... (Below threshold)
epador:

Sphughing, not hewing, as usual.

While we're talking about I... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

While we're talking about Iraq, can I explain to you in clear English about liberals and "supporting the troops"?

We think that we support the troops because we want them to come home with all their limbs, alive and not in body bags. Now, I don't think that you want them to die, but the Bush "strategy" makes that result inevitable.

Bringing them home, instead of leaving them in the senseless, ongoing carnage created by Bush's war is, for us, unacceptable.

"Victory would mean secure ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"Victory would mean secure representative government and a free and fair Iraq becoming a beacon of progress and freedom in the otherwise politically savage Middle East."

How many of your children would you sacrifice for that? And how many of someone elses children?

its not a real civil war, a... (Below threshold)
jp:

its not a real civil war, a real civil war doesn't have foreign terrorist causing most of the conflicts. Terrorist from Iran and other countries, as well as al-qaeda. its also only in small portions of a very large city were the violence does take place.

jpYour ignorance a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

jp

Your ignorance about the facts in Iraq is astounding.

<a href="http://hotair.com/... (Below threshold)
jp:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/24/baghdad-report-reporting-in-iraq/


but yes, lets retreat and not fight al-qaeda and other terrorist anymore halfway around the world. that would be so smart.

So, let me get thi straight... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

So, let me get thi straight jp. You cite hotair.com as your authority for the proposition that we are not in the middle of a civil war in Iraq? This is what you rely on?

hotair has a report on how ... (Below threshold)
jp:

hotair has a report on how the violence is isolated to certain parts of the country, while majority of it is peaceful.

a civil war is citizens of a nation fighting each other, al-qaeda and other foreign terrorist fighting/bombing with the intention of making your TV screen b/c they know you are spineless and weak, does not = civil war. the facts are we are fighting extremist terrorist that won't to chop your head off and take over the world...how horrible.

Hugh:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh:


How many of them died this week policing a civil war?

Not nearly the number that died freeing Europe from the Germans per hour. Your point ?

Read the comments Mike. Eve... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Read the comments Mike. Even you can then figure it out.

Mike -I think you'... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mike -

I think you're smart enough to understand the point, even if you don't agree with it.

The civil war in Iraq was quite a different thing from the Nazi occupation of Europe.

The liberals like Hugh agai... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The liberals like Hugh again are displaying their defeatist attitude. The dems today are beyond contempt. They don't stand for victory. They are actively hoping and working for American defeat just to wound Bush. What a despicable party! They talked about Vietnamization and then cut-off the funding to hand Indochina to the communists with the ensuing genocide in Cambodia. They think of nothing about the genocite if Iraq with their defeatist attitude.

Hugh 's ignorance about the terroirsts is astounding. He simply tries to ignore it. It is no brainer that the former Baathists and the minority Sunni would try to regain their tyrannical power over the rest of country. Some Shiitte radical would try to inflame the country on behalf on Iran. Right here in this country, many liberals are working implicitly on behalf of the terrorists! The ignorance of these liberals is astounding while they pontificate about their sophistication.

Again, the Dems unfortunately have proven that they are not serious about protecting country.

Everyone is having trouble ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Everyone is having trouble typing this AM.

From self-congratulating folks full of BDS conceit to those attempting to challenge it.

However, Lorie, I'm impressed our Democratic legislators do not stoop to the normal "decorum" of the Houses of Lords or Commons. Lets be thankful the Cynthia McKinney's of the US legislative branch tend to hold their tongues during the speeches of their rivals.

Battles between rival gangs of thugs and terrorist actions do not a civil war make, nor do haughty comments made in a semi-literate fashion a valid argument make.

jp"al-qaeda and... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

jp

"al-qaeda and other foreign terrorist fighting/bombing with the intention of making your TV screen b/c they know you are spineless and weak, does not = civil war. the facts are we are fighting extremist terrorist "

Not even Cheney would claim that the war in Iraq is almost entirely being fought by "outsiders" or foreign agents.

Publicus and Mike:... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Publicus and Mike:

Thanks for the explanation to Mike. And Mike I apologize for being snarky. I am just so dumbfounded that jp thinks what he/she thinks.

Epador:I say this ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Epador:

I say this with all due respect and as, I hope, a friend. If you were about 95% as funny as you think you are, you'd be mildly amusing.

H

nope there are homegrown Ir... (Below threshold)
jp:

nope there are homegrown Iraqi terrorist, a minority of the population, committed to Jihad too

With friends like you, I do... (Below threshold)
epador:

With friends like you, I don't need a wife.

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

How many of your children would you sacrifice for that? And how many of someone elses children?

One more than the alternative would cost.

Hugh --Thanks! I a... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Hugh --

Thanks! I appreciate the civility! I think sincere people can disagree. I feel sure that you believe that your position is best, and that you want the best outcome. I don't question your patriotism or intelligence.

And, incidentally, I don't hate those who are less civil...these are important issues that people feel strongly about. Conservative or liberal, sometimes you are just going to get upset...

Mac Lorry --Good a... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry --

Good answer. We just disagree about the expected costs of different policies. (That's a BIG disagreement, but...hey...that's life).

I appreciate your comment.

BTW, I do find both Hugh an... (Below threshold)
epador:

BTW, I do find both Hugh and Publicus mildly amusing today as well. Kinda like the Denny Cranes of Trolldom.

From above comments:<... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

From above comments:

"Publicus,

How many of your children would you sacrifice for that? And how many of someone elses children?
One more than the alternative would cost."

"One more than the alternative would cost."

Posted by: Mac Lorry

Publicus, meet God!!!!!

Hugh and Pubicus, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hugh and Pubicus,
I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are fighting directly with Al Queda in Iraq, as well as a proxy war with Iran, but you can't expect the rest of us to pretend it is a civil war over there. It simply is not. You both do not have a solution to the situation either.

Well, let's see...we appear... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Well, let's see...we appear to be fighting Al Qaeda, Iranian terrorists, Mookie's lovely gang, and Baathist Nazis currently in Iraq. And breaking out a bunch of shiny new weapons to boot. If this is not the front of the GWOT, I don't know what is.

Who would rather fight these groups here?

nikkolai "Who woul... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

nikkolai

"Who would rather fight these groups here?"

That is really a tired refrain. The Iraq war has nothing to do w/ having to not fight them over here. Just what sort of simplistic justification can you dredge up to demonstrate that "fighting them over there" somehow precludes fighting them here?

When have you ever saw a co... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

When have you ever saw a coward that knows what victory means? You could not draw a picture and explain to poor old "hughie" (club member) what anything means. When he takes his shirt off there is a big old YELLOW stripe down his back.
"pubic hair" has been added to the "club" (those with shit for brains)
"puke face" gets dumber with each post.

Can you define what "vi... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Can you define what "victory" would be. Certainly Bush never has.

Posted by: Hugh at January 25, 2007 09:09 AM

Of course Hugh is lying here. Later he admits that Bush has indeed defined victory, but he doesn't like Bush's definition of victory.

They can't debate, can they?

"Just what sort of simpl... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Just what sort of simplistic justification can you dredge up to demonstrate that "fighting them over there" somehow precludes fighting them here?

September 11, 2001

We Democrats stood for vict... (Below threshold)
Lee:

We Democrats stood for victory when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and declared it was ours in May of 2003. Two weeks later Bush filed with the FEC as a candidate for President in the '04 election. In the years following his re-election we've learned that President Bush lied in 2003, and that the war in Iraq was far from over. Here we are 3 1/2 years later, and victory in Iraq is nowhere in sight.

Stand and cheer when President Bush mentions the word "victory"in a speech? What a joke. That's an absolutely meaningless gesture. The Democrats in the House and Senate did the absolutely correct thing by not suggesting to the American people that we Democrats are behind the President's interpretation of victory in Iraq.

Publicus,I'm encou... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

I'm encouraged that you "think sincere people can disagree", and I assume you mean while maintaining civility.

My point behind my prior post is that there are costs associated with every alternative, and it's those costs I believe many people posting comments ignore.

The real problem for any President is deciding which course of action has the highest probability of costing the least and making that decision based on the information at hand at some critical juncture.

While the U.S. military has superiority on the battlefield and overwhelming dominance in the air (the F-22 Raptor is now in service), it finds itself at a disadvantage when operating within the cities of Iraq, primarily because of the mission. That mission is one of law enforcement within a mostly hostile population that speaks a different language. To avoid the alternative costs of losing in Iraq, Bush has rightly understood that, given the mission, the best hope for success is more troops.

You can argue that not going in with more troops at the start was a mistake, and with the benefit of hindsight, I would agree. To be honest, however, you would have to agree that every ground war the U.S. has engaged in has cost the lives of our soldiers due to blunders and mistakes. Making war is not a proven science and I pray it never will be.

Wars like Iraq are won by troops on the ground, but their effectiveness depends to a large degree on their morale and the support of the American people. Those of us who support victory in Iraq get a bit peeved at those who constantly try to undermine that support. While I have respect for those who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, I have a good bit of distain for those who supported invading Iraq and then flip flopped when the going got tough. I wonder if they have any historical perspective or any rational thoughts on the cost of losing in Iraq.

How do the dhimmi's walk up... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

How do the dhimmi's walk upright without a backbone?

Publicus: If our ancestors had not been willing to sacrafice their children (a lot of our brothers and uncles) you would not be free to spew your garbage. If you are an indicatiion of the cowardance of your parents and grandparents then they would not have survived a takeover by the nazi's since they sent anyone they considered untrustworthy to the gas chamber, not to mention what the Japanese would have done to the worthless cowards if they had won WWII.

Fall on your knees and thank God for the young people of today who are willing to protect the freedom of the worthless cowards along with the partoitic Americans.

aRepukelican: You spew garbage also. 9-11 was planned long before President Bush came to D.C.
Today we hear that the sale of highly enriched weapons grade nuclear material to the terrorists has been stopped 'again'. Just where in the U.S. do you want this type of attack to to take place?

We are also learning that the Iraqi's are scared to stand up for themselves because they are convinced the U.S. (led by the dhimmi's) will do the same thing the dhimmi's did to the people of
Southeast Asia. Run and Hide in the U.S. and let millions of them be slaughtered. (then pretend it didn't happen) This time when you cut and run they will follow and the blood flowing in the streets will as likely be your as anyone's. Yep, this is turning into another Vietnam, cowards cut and run without regard to what happens to others. I don't ever want any of you spineless people living around me.

I certainly can't speak for... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I certainly can't speak for all "liberals", but I think that THIS war in Iraq was, itself, a mistake. Not just badly executed.

I am never excited or enthusiastic about war, but there are times when war is a grim necessity. World War II was one such occasion. Afghanistan was also such an occasion, though of smaller scale and significance than World War II.

Since war is such a terrible thing, we want to be circumspect about when and where we go to war. Our difference is this: you feel that Iraq is such an occasion and I do not.

BTW...if Mary Matalin and James Carville can be happily married, I'm sure that many of us ordinary folks with different opinions can get along!

Lee,We De... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

We Democrats stood for victory when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and declared it was ours in May of 2003... ...In the years following his re-election we've learned that President Bush lied in 2003, and that the war in Iraq was far from over.

I watched that event live and I wasn't the least bit confused by the Mission Accomplished" banner draped across the U.S.S. Lincoln as it returned from the longest carrier deployment in decades. One clue that the banner was for the Lincoln and not Iraq was what Bush said as he spoke from the deck of the Lincoln. Here's a part you must have missed.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave -- and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
"when President Bush sto... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"when President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and declared it was ours in May of 2003."

Many, many neo-coms like Lee love to repeat the common bald face lie but anyone who can read can see the truth for themselves.

Here's a few quotes from that speech:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country"

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.... We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people."

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

"Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed."

"The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."

That third quote also refutes the common neo-com lie that Bush has never defined victory or under what conditions we will leave. The truth is that is was defined from the start and never changed.

"Hugh and Pubicus,I ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

"Hugh and Pubicus,
I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are fighting directly with Al Queda in Iraq, as well as a proxy war with Iran, but you can't expect the rest of us to pretend it is a civil war over there. It simply is not. You both do not have a solution to the situation either.
Posted by: Brian"

Brian --

Al Queda and Iranians are two of many, many groups---including the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites--who are fighting. Sure, there are foreigners fighting there, too. I don't think that makes it NOT a civil war.

Of course, I don't have a "solution" in the sense of fixing things there. The situation is such a disaster that it can't be fixed. We need to chose from the "less bad" options. There's going to be a bloodbath whatever we do. The question is:

Do we want our sons and daughters sitting in the middle of the bloodbath, or do we want them home?

I favor the latter. I'm not happy about the reality of the situation, but that's just the best that can be done.

When Vietnam threatened th... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

When Vietnam threatened the nation, fearless Dick Cheney said he had "other priorities"...and Bush fought the Viet Cong from an air base in Texas..As for 9/11 where did President Bush fly first but to Nebraska? and much later when it was safe(for him) did he fly back to Washington giving him the appearance as you say that cowards cut and run without regard to what happens to others.

Since war is such ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Since war is such a terrible thing, we want to be circumspect about when and where we go to war. Our difference is this: you feel that Iraq is such an occasion and I do not.

I respect that. One question I have been pondering is "how can someone oppose a war without undermining the efforts of others to win that war?" I don't have an answer, but I would like to know in case I find myself opposing some future war.

I think at the very least t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I think at the very least the liberals do not the strategic thinking in the long war against terrorism. So I hope they would be honest enough not to talk about how sophisticated they are and how stupid Bush are because the ignorance of many liberal posters in this forum is astounding.

Copy from Ace at polipundit


Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious.
...
The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran.


"One clue that THE BANNER W... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"One clue that THE BANNER WAS FOR THE LINCOLN and not Iraq was what Bush said as he spoke from the deck of the Lincoln.".....Mac Lorry, if you're gonna try to bullshit someone, be non-specific. The navy doesn't hang prom posters to itself for doing its job! I READ that the WH advance team had that hung for Dear Leader.

I can respect the argument ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I can respect the argument that no American lives are worth the cost. I don't necessarily agree - with our global society, I don't know how we can ever go back to the absolute isolationism that policy implies.

What I haven't heard is a definition of when it is OK to spend those American lives in the eyes of those who oppose the war in Iraq.

Certainly not Bosnia - it was a real civil war. You would have to cross off most of the uses of the US military for the last couple of decades if that is the standard.

Is it when Canada gets invaded ... or Mexico or is Argenitina close enough?

I am not being snarky - it is a honest question.

Mac Lorry --Good q... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry --

Good question, but one that may turn out to be less of a problem than you anticipate. When there's a war that you oppose, the reasons that you oppose it are stronger than your desire for victory.

In other words, you'll think that more harm will come from supporting the war than from opposing it. So you won't consider "victory" to be either a sensible goal (if it seems unattainable), or a worthwhile goal (if the rewards of victory would exceed the costs).

The Iraq war isn't such a case for you, but such cases could...I believe...exist.

It seems to me that there are multiple factors to be considered, and they can be difficult to weigh:

1. The significance and value of the cause.
2. The probability of success.
3. The human cost in lives and injury.

We all try to make our best guesses about all three...and some are hard to predict. You might reasonably think that liberals are too pessimistic about Iraq and I might think that conservatives are overly optimistic. But, to my mind, in one way Rumsfeld had it right: you are dealing with many unknowns...

Ohiovoter--<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Ohiovoter--

I can respect the argument that no American lives are worth the cost. I don't necessarily agree - with our global society, I don't know how we can ever go back to the absolute isolationism that policy implies.

What I haven't heard is a definition of when it is OK to spend those American lives in the eyes of those who oppose the war in Iraq.

Certainly not Bosnia - it was a real civil war. You would have to cross off most of the uses of the US military for the last couple of decades if that is the standard.

Is it when Canada gets invaded ... or Mexico or is Argenitina close enough?

I am not being snarky - it is a honest question.

That IS a good question. And a hard one to answer. But I have a few thoughts...

First, I don't think opposition to the war in Iraq implies isolationism: many felt war with Afghanistan was necessary and Iraq was not. I agree with you that isolationism is a bad idea. Of course, not all disputes between nations need be decided wars, either. Some do.

The short answer to WHEN it is appropriate to put lives at risk for war is...it's not simple. You have to make an assessment based on incomplete information and guesses about the future. You are seeking a situation where, of course, the benefits exceed the costs.

If I believed, as you may believe, that Iraq is the central battlefield in a war against terrorism and that a victory there could be won at an acceptable cost, I would support it. And then, I might be thinking tactically: how can we best fight this war.

Both sides are getting wrapped up in the definition of a civil war, with the notion that IF it is a civil war, it's an unwinnable mess. I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Certainly, if there were a civil war in a very small country with obsolete weapons, it might be possible to stop it a little cost. (depending on the particulars).

To me it's clear that both domestic and foreign forces are fighting in Iraq. To me it doesn't matter whether we call it a civil war or not----but we really need to do our best to assess the actual situation there...

In any case, while we may not agree on conclusions, I think we can agree on the key question:

Can more good that bad come from this policy? Or, what's the best we can do given this difficult situation?

Publicus, I have po... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
I have posted numerous times on this basic point. The alternative to the Iraq war is to spend trillions of dollars to defend our open borders and every malls/schools (eg soft target) in this country. The terrorists only need to succeed once. 3000+ casualites on 11/9 will pale in comparison with the next attack given that Iran openly declared to wipe out Is and Us.

Iraq war is kind of a fly-paper strategy that attracts the terrorists to Iraq and fight them there. Also it is exposing the terrorists for who they really are. Their populartiy is plummetting in Iraq and most of the Arab world. Except in the west where the liberal is trying to make them into "freedom fighters".

That 's a snapshot of the alternative and how lacking in understanding and strategy the left has been. In fact, the only thing that the left seems to care now is the defeat of America.

Mac Lorry, No one is under... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Mac Lorry, No one is undermining any efforts to win the war which Bush said last night "is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us."
The left agrees with the goal Bush sets, but has fundamental differences with the wisdom and now the success of his strategy to win this war/ideological struggle: a strategy which is basically to go into their heartland and bury any upstart crappy Muslim country that gets in his way." I don't even believe Bush believes this is a coherent strategy (Cheney possibly)..Far from undermining America in this now protracted war, if it wasn't for the left's dissension and many in the right, Bush has finally reluctantly shaken his team in Iraq; otherwise our country would still be staying the course for an even harder landing than it is now receiving. This is a victory of sorts.

"The alternative to the ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The alternative to the Iraq war is to spend trillions of dollars to defend our open borders and every malls/schools (eg soft target) in this country."

More lunacy from the deranged, sick right. The Iraq war in no way whatsoever negates the need to defend open borders and protect soft targets.

Anyone who believes so is an idiot. Any thinking person who still says this is a liar.

bryanD,Th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

bryanD,

The navy doesn't hang prom posters to itself for doing its job! I READ that the WH advance team had that hung for Dear Leader.

You're right that the navy didn't hang the banner itself, just like someone having a birthday party doesn't hang their own banner. Nevertheless, the banner was for the crew of the USS Lincoln congratulating them on a "Mission Accomplished" as they returned from the longest deployment of a carrier in decades. It was Bush who sent the Lincoln on it's extended mission, and as commander in chief, he wanted to honor the crew for the sacrifice they made and what they accomplished. The bullshit you speak of is from those who would turn the obvious and stated meaning of the banner into something else simply for political gain.

LoveAmerica Immigrant--... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

LoveAmerica Immigrant--

I appreciate your explanation of why you support the war, and your view of the "flypaper" of Iraq. My assessment is different, but I appreciate your explanation of your point of view.

However, I also believe that you misunderstand the position of the left. We don't want the terrorists to win! I think it's almost kind of funny that people believe this. Nor do we see the terrorists as freedom fighters! They are bad people; we know this! After all, NYC isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism, and New Yorkers know first hand about terrorists...

The assessment of the situation and what to do about is...well, liberals like me see this very differently from you. I think that once you stop thinking of liberals as the enemy, and realize that they are Americans like you, then you'd be better able to understand our postions...a still disagree with us! But I think it's better for us to understand each other than to fight "straw men".

I don't like it when liberals or conservatives play "gotcha" games over language. We all want what's good for the country; verbal "victories" contribute nothing.

Anyhow, I hope I've helped clarify the liberal position some...

Mac Lorry---Regard... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry---

Regarding the "Mission Accomplished" poster...well, it's a small point. And, frankly, I don't think it reflects particularly badly on Bush...but I find it hard to believe that the president's team wasn't aware of the PR implications of that poster, or having the president land on an aircraft carrier, etc.

I mean, overall, its pretty clear that the conservatives have been portraying the war (until recently) as going pretty well, and the liberals have been portraying it as going badly. The conservatives, to varying degrees, are more optimistic about the war, and probably see talking about successes as helpful to the troops and promoting support for the policies.

In other words, I think that the liberals are right about the poster being a political thing for Bush...but I don't think that there's anything insidious about it...

LoveAmerica Immigrant ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmerica Immigrant

Your quote from polipundit is merely an opinion from someone of no particular stature as an expert.

It is meaningless unless you're already a part of the choir who is looking for an excuse to sing for what you have been programmed..

Publicus, You may b... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
You may be a small minority on the left. It is impossible to have 100% monolithic agreement on everything. I simply look at the actions taken by most liberals, esp those in position of power (in media or gov for example). And the facts on the ground clearly show that the democrats and the left in general do not want the US to win. I have been waiting to see the strong condemnation of the terrorists and at least the strong vocal committment to win. I have waited in vain. The left is much more vocal in condemnation of Bush and the US and in favor of cut and run.

Publicus,You poste... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

You posted some very impressive comments. Real food for thought.

I understand your point that if a person feels the cost of a war is not worth the victory then they should oppose the war. To probe a bit, what duty do citizens have to defer to elected authorities once the decision has been made to go to war and our troops are in harm's way?

Currently, to oppose the Iraq war it seems the strategy is to demoralize both the American people and the troops by any means. Some of the tactics employed to forward that strategy are truly despicable and will have a lasting effect on the unity of this nation. That's a cost few on either side of this issue have considered.

LoveAmerica Immigrant-... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

LoveAmerica Immigrant-

You may be correct; I may be a small minority on the left. However, if you are getting your info about the left from conservative websites, you may be getting only the most unflattering portrayal of the liberal view.

I certainly don't feel out-of-step with other liberals; I DO think that liberals talk about what America does wrong. But they do this because they want America to do better, not because they hate America (they don't) or love America's enemies (they don't).

The "flypaper" strategy is ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The "flypaper" strategy is diametrically opposed to the "spreading democracy" strategy. How can we possibly be saying "excuse us, but mind if we use your country to attract terrorists to battle for an indeterminate amount of years?" and "we will help you foster democracy" at the same time?

It's not about the Democrat... (Below threshold)
Chris:

It's not about the Democrats not wanting victory. It's about having no faith that the President will achieve a victory. He has screwed the pooch so badly that the best option is to determine the best way to leave Iraq. Bush has put us in the position of not being able to win. He doesn't deserve appaluse.

The whole thesis of this post is absurd. If Bill Clinton spoke glowingly about marital fidelity, would you expect the Republicans to give him a standing ovation? And if they didn't, would that mean they were opposed to fidelity? Or just opposed to the person mouthing platitudes about it?

To probe a bit, wh... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
To probe a bit, what duty do citizens have to defer to elected authorities once the decision has been made to go to war and our troops are in harm's way?

I really don't know, except to say that each person needs to follow his conscience.

Currently, to oppose the Iraq war it seems the strategy is to demoralize both the American people and the troops by any means.

I certainly oppose the idea of trying to demoralize either the American people or the troops. I think it is proper, however, for people with different viewpoint to discuss the war. This includes opponents of the war.

I also find it hard to believe that the troops are more demoralized by the fact that many Americans oppose the Iraq war and want to bring them home. Some (I don't know if it's most or few) strongly believe in this mission and want to complete it. And they may be worried that they'll be brought home too soon.

But I don't believe that brave soldiers who face death every day are a bunch of crybabies and fall into despair just because Americans disagree about the war. I think they are, by and large, smart and tough. And if they're fighting for democracy, free speech and open debate are a part of that.

Iraq is a good example for ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Iraq is a good example for US involvement:
(1) Clear violations of UN resolutions for more than 16 years (over 15 resolutions) - good legal basis for a military intervention
(2) An evil dictator who openly supported terrorism.
(3) A chance to free more than 30 millions people from the yoke and a chance to establish a democracy in the ME. Will any knowledgeable person expect the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran and Syria to lie low without doing their utmost to derail this effort? Why would any American want to help the enemies with propaganda in this case?
Hope that help you understand the case better Mantis. Spreading democracy is the only viable long term solution against terrorism. And we will expect the terrorists to fight against the stake at the heart of their evil ideology. This would take a long time. Unfortunately, the liberals either don't seem to understand or simply want to wound Bush regardless of the cost.

Publicus,
Not sure you understand the point completely yet. This is what I call the "perfection fallacy". The US is not perfect, so you can always find sth to criticize the US with the "pretention" to make it better. Yet it will never be perfect, so you will always have a reason to criticize it. In the real world, the US is doing far more good than bad. I don't see liberals standing up for America. I see liberals standing up for the terrorists and other enemies of America under the banner of tolerance and civil rights etc... Here is a simple test: if the liberals spent 1x of their energy to criticize the US and 10x of that energy to criticize the terrorists and the UN for example. Then I can believe your point. Unfortunately, the facts show that liberals don't love America (by their actions).

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

...but I find it hard to believe that the president's team wasn't aware of the PR implications of that poster, or having the president land on an aircraft carrier, etc.

Certainly Bush landing on the carrier and giving a speech from it's flight deck was a powerful PR event. One so powerful the Democrats and their friends in the media couldn't leave it unchallenged. That's why they claimed that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was really a message that the war in Iraq was finished even though Bush's speech fully dispels that idea.

The event was big time PR for sure, but the banner was referring to the Mission the crew of the Lincoln Accomplished and nothing more.

Presidents giving speeches on special occasions and in special places is commonplace in our history. I figure someone who was above taking such opportunities would never be President in the first place. Like it or not, Presidents of the 21st century are going to be politically savvy individuals. That is, unless we go to a lottery system of picking a president (it costs $100 to get out of the lottery).

Mac Lorry --Well, ... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry --

Well, anyone who really listened to the president's speech would probably agree with you; and those who just saw the picture in the paper would probably think that the war was over.

You know, I wouldn't criticize Lincoln for giving a speech at Gettyburg, and I won't criticize Bush for giving a speech on an aircraft carrier. It's part of the job.

Publicus,Well, anyon... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
Well, anyone who really listened to the president's speech would probably agree with you; and those who just saw the picture in the paper would probably think that the war was over.
------------------------------------------------
This is simply another example of the BDS syndrome of the liberal reporters. Bush has been talking about the long war from the beginning. These liberal reporters could have made it clear, but would rather twist it to attack Bush.

My simple metric: the terrorists and their sponsors, other communist dictators around the world, and the UN are far worse than America and Bush. I would expect the liberals spent 10x the energy to criticize or condemn the terrorists/UN compared to the effort they spent to condemn the US/Bush.

LoveAmerica Immigrant--... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

LoveAmerica Immigrant--

The US is not perfect, so you can always find sth to criticize the US with the "pretention" to make it better.

I think we're coming dangerously close to agreeing with each other. Except for the "pretention" part, we see it quite similarly. The left is looking to make America better. I would substitute the word "objective" for the word "pretention."

Seriously, you're just wrong when you challenge the motives of most liberals. I know my own motives. And, unless a lot of people are really good liars, most liberals I know really LOVE America.

Hope that help you under... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hope that help you understand the case better Mantis.

Ummm, no it doesn't. You didn't address my question, which was about the incompatibility of the "flypaper" strategy and the "spreading democracy" strategy.

Unless you are saying that the flypaper strategy is the short term, and democracy is the long term. But what I don't understand is how that is even conceivable. Don't you think that the Iraqis will be more than fed up with our presence after a decade or more of deliberately attracting fighters to their country for the purpose of destroying them, and the country in the process, and thus unwilling to let us direct some nascent democracy? Don't you think that after a decade or more of sectarian struggle, suicide bombings, roadside IEDs, coalition raids, the building of militias, intrusion of foreign terrorist groups and destruction of infrastructure that democracy would be the least likely thing to arise?

How, in reality, are the two strategies compatible?

Mantis, Simple: the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
Simple: the best strategy to defend America is to play offense against the terrorists. That 's what the Iraq war is all about: take the fight to them both short term and long term. Short term: destroy a terrorist haven and their sponsors in Iraq. Long term: a chance to establish a democracy in the ME. And we would expect them to fight us over there in Iraq and other places (Somalia for example) around the world instead of playing defense at home.
Hope it helps your understanding a little more.

Publicus, Just giv... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
Just give you another example. You can always spend all your times to criticize your wife and claim that you want to make her better. At the same time, you are ignoring and worse excusing far worse behaviors of the people who are trying to destroy your family.
I am encouraged that we seem close to an agreement that we expect better from the liberals in America but we don't given their actions. The facts show that most liberals don't want America to win. Love is more actions that words. Even the words from the liberals seem to show more hate towards America.

LoveAmerica Immigrant--... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

LoveAmerica Immigrant--

I think you are making a great point! The reason why liberals are often suspected of not loving America is because we don't talk about what we love about it.

I think that you're right, although sometimes when liberals DO talk about what's great about America, they're accused of being insincere.

At the risk of facing the same charge, here's a few things that I LOVE about America.

I love the founding fathers and both sides in the early debates: the Federalists AND the anti-Federalists argued at such a high level; they were brilliant! And both sides were clearly patriots.

I love the Declaration of Independence, especially the part about unalienable rights----our rights are NOT granted by the government and so no government can take them away. Brilliant and beautiful!

I love the Constitution. The Preamble is practically poetry! And the content: Separation of powers! A Congress divided into 2 houses! Limited government! I mean, wow.

I love the Statue of Liberty and that we are a nation of immigrants. We are all, almost literally, in the same boat!

I love the way America often meet a difficult challenge. The Liberty Ships of WWII. The moonlandings! I mean, how cool is that?!

I could go on, but I need to calm down now...(I am an excitable person, sometimes...)

Publicus, I grant t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
I grant that you are in a tiny minority among the liberals. I don't see that from the majority of the liberals esp those in power. That 's why I wonder why decent liberals like yourself would want to support the current Dem party and the left given their clear actions/words.

Publicus, BTW Liebe... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
BTW Lieberman is very much a liberal in his voting record. Yet on Iraq he clearly shows that he wants us to win there. But again the fact shows that he is a minority of 1 in the Senate. He was pushed out of the Dem party.

Hope it helps your under... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hope it helps your understanding a little more.

Once again, no. How does the strategy you described lead to the spread of democracy? Do you really believe that democracy spontaneously grows from a region experiencing unending violence, involving a foreign invader no less?

So far you keep dodging my question. I sincerely doubt you have an answer.

I'm watching politicians of... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I'm watching politicians of both parties. And, on each issue, I'll support the guys who agree with me.

I think that this is the same for conservatives, too. I mean, some conservatives are really happy with Lieberman over some issues; some liberals are pleased with some of Hagel's positions.

And, I think lack of unity within parties is good. And debates between the parties is good, too. Debates make people think.

"One clue that THE BANN... (Below threshold)
marc:

"One clue that THE BANNER WAS FOR THE LINCOLN and not Iraq was what Bush said as he spoke from the deck of the Lincoln.".....Mac Lorry, if you're gonna try to bullshit someone, be non-specific. The navy doesn't hang prom posters to itself for doing its job! I READ that the WH advance team had that hung for Dear Leader. by bryanD[enier] on January 25, 2007 1:16 PM

First of all provide the link to any story lending credence to the "WH advance team" assertion.

Secondly, How many ceremonies of returning U.S. Navy ships after months at sea have you attended or noted in the print or broadcast media?

I guess 1 (the Lincoln return you hang your moonbat chapeau on) in the first instance and 1 in the second (again Lincoln because it got widespread coverage because Bush was on board and the circumstances at the time).

I made 8 of those returns to home aboard U.S. Navy vessels I was stationed on.

In each case returning ships featured banners that proclaimed Mission Accomplished. In one case (the U.S.S. Halsey, 1995) specifically that and in all other cases variations of the same.

In addition, spending more than 20 years in and around U.,S. Navy bases both on the west coast and Japan I witnessed literally dozens of other instances n the same.

Go ahead, call me a liar ASSHAT, because that what you do, avoid, ignore, twist or otherwise disregard the truth.

marc--Thank you! I... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

marc--

Thank you! It's great that someone who has first hand knowledge of how Navy ships operate can settle this!

I'm not sure that the guys who were wrong about it were liars...those of us who haven't served aboard Navy ships have little way of knowing the things you do...

I hadn't heard this anywhere else...from any source regardless of their politics. Good to know!

Once again, no. How does th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Once again, no. How does the strategy you described lead to the spread of democracy? Do you really believe that democracy spontaneously grows from a region experiencing unending violence, involving a foreign invader no less?
------------------------------------------------
Mantis,
Most Iraqui people want the US presence there. Obviously, the bad guys like the Baathists, the terrorists, and their sponsors in Iran/Syria won't like it. If we help Iraq to be a stable and secure democracy, then withdraw our troops, what 's there to complain about except for the bad guys of course?
When we are determined, good results follow: look at South Korea for example. When we wavered (thanks to the liberals), atrocities followed (eg. Vietnam). Even Kurdistan should be an example for liberals to see. It is a democratic haven compared to other countries in the ME. They prosper under the US protection.
Mantis, I have given you the answer and a clear strategy with its rationale. I don't know whether you really don't understand or you don't want to understand. If you want a perfect guarantee of success as a justification for your arg, then I cannot find it in this world for you.

Publicus,And, I thin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
And, I think lack of unity within parties is good. And debates between the parties is good, too. Debates make people think.
------------------------------------------------
Spending all your time criticizing your wife no matter what is not debate. Just try to clarify.

Liberman is an example of a liberal who wants America to win. Hagel is an example of a liberal who doesn't want America to win.

During WW2, the Rep at least have the decency to unite with FDR and the dems in time of wars. The modern Dem doesn't have that decency anymore. That 's why it is beyond contempt for what they have done.

Props to Publicus for being... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Props to Publicus for being an honorable and intelligent ambassador for the left side.

Most Iraqui people want ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Most Iraqui people want the US presence there.

Care to back that up?

Obviously, the bad guys like the Baathists, the terrorists, and their sponsors in Iran/Syria won't like it.

I'm going to ignore the panoply of inconsistencies with this list, for now.

If we help Iraq to be a stable and secure democracy, then withdraw our troops, what 's there to complain about except for the bad guys of course?

I thought we were killing all the bad guys first, under your plan. Now you say we establish democracy and then leave? How do we "help Iraq to be a stable and secure democracy" with all those "bad guys" fighting all over the place?

When we are determined, good results follow: look at South Korea for example.

Ummm, ok. We reached a stalemate with the communists and have maintained a military presence there ever since to protect the South Koreans. Are we going to do such a thing in Iraq as well? How, considering most of the "enemies" in Iraq are Iraqis fighting each other? Who will we be protecting, and from whom, and where? There is no 38th parallel or similar line of demarcation in Iraq (unless we are just protecting the Kurds in the north from the rest of Iraq).

When we wavered (thanks to the liberals), atrocities followed (eg. Vietnam).

You don't consider North Korea under the communists to be an atrocity? Oh, by the way, long term, Vietnam is doing way better now than North Korea.

Even Kurdistan should be an example for liberals to see. It is a democratic haven compared to other countries in the ME. They prosper under the US protection.

Kurdistan is a country? Since when?

Mantis, I have given you the answer and a clear strategy with its rationale.

Hardly, you've given me a vague and contradictory rationale (create a battleground for endless fighting vs. establish democracy), and no real strategy except for "fight them there not here" and "democracy is good". Those are slogans, not strategy.

I don't know whether you really don't understand or you don't want to understand.

I'll make it extremely clear. You can ignore everything else I've said and answer this question: How do you establish a functional democracy in a land rife with violence, sectarian struggles, and terrorism?

If you want a perfect guarantee of success as a justification for your arg, then I cannot find it in this world for you.

I don't want a perfect guarantee, I want a reasonable expectation of success, and a clear strategy to reach clear goals. Slogans are useless.

nikkolai, same here... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

nikkolai,
same here. At least Publicus is among a small minority of decent liberals.

Mantis, Your post i... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
Your post is jumbo of incoherent points. I will grant you the advantage of offering no coherent plan and simply taking shots. Fine with me. I am trying to solve a real problem.

A few minor points first: if we are not determined in Korea, South Korea will be as bad as North Korea now. So you think it is better for the US to leave Korea and let the communists rule both the NOrth and the South as happened in VN? What happened in Indochina was good? (Cambodia genocide and 1 million people dead on the sea and labor camps in VN? You don't have a real arg here, just try to twist the facts. Any knowledgable people can see that without the US determination, democracy wouldn't spread throughout Asia. Even in Vietnam, the US stayed long enough to allow other countries like Thailand, Malaysia etc... to develop their democracies. That 's what spreading democracy is all about. How long have we been in Korea? (50 years).

The same can happen in Iraq if the liberals would get out of the way. The strategy has been working in front of your eyes: no attack on the homeland for the last 5 years! Do you think the terrorists don't want to blow us up again? They are busy fighting us over there in Iraq and fighting the democrarcy beachhead there. They are so desperate that they even blow up the Muslim women/children over there. Do you think that the terrorists are winning points with the majority of the Iraqui over there by blowing up their children?

Mantis, you are simply spouting out slogans. No real arg I see in your post.

Read the comments... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Read the comments Mike. Even you can then figure it out.

Didn't someone named Hugh post that they were no longer going to be making snide, personal attacks ? I can't say I'm surprised that you haven't been able to hold a civil discussion.

marc - you are absolutely c... (Below threshold)
Mike:

marc - you are absolutely correct. As a navy vietnam veteran when I saw and heard the president aboard the Lincoln and saw the banner I immediately thought it was there as a salute to the crew. I was proud to see him recognize them in this way for the world to see and thought it entirely appropriate. To twist the meaning around for political purposes is disgusting and an insult to the crew.

Publicus ...My hat... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Publicus ...

My hat is off to you. By my count, you are juggling at least a half dozen discussions in the air at the same time.

Now if you would only tell me how to quote something.... :-)

Certainly, if there were a civil war in a very small country with obsolete weapons, it might be possible to stop it a little cost. (depending on the particulars).

That's where I think the "theory" breaks down. Once you (generic you) start thinking that "little wars" might be worth stopping, then the decision to go to war becomes dependent on which particular person is in charge at the moment and less on an overall philosophy.

Given the lack of accountability of the United Nations, the US - in the eyes of some - gets the job by default. Given the craziness of the political structure in the US, you can end up with one party supporting intervention during one administration, but opposing nearly the same situation just 4 years later.

It's time we all stop pretending the UN works.

BTW, in answer to your unspoken question ... I did support Afghanistan but supported Iraq reluctantly. Make no mistake - I believe that intervention in Iraq was inevitable. We would have been drawn into a war there again. I just really did not want to see us go in so close to going into Afghanistan.

Awww Mike, my almost immedi... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Awww Mike, my almost immediate apology right after doesn't count? Even you could read that.

Whoops - sorry for any conf... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Whoops - sorry for any confusion, I joined this thread late. Mike at 6:06 PM is me. The rest are a different Mike. I will differentiate next time.

Your post is jumbo of in... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Your post is jumbo of incoherent points.

Incoherent, no. Jumble (jumbo?), yes, as it is a point-by-point response to your own ramblings.

I am trying to solve a real problem.

Which problem is that? That liberals and dissenters are free to speak in this country?

So you think it is better for the US to leave Korea and let the communists rule both the NOrth and the South as happened in VN?

That's not what I said, and no, I don't think it would be better for the US to leave Korea.

What happened in Indochina was good?

Never said anything close to that.

You don't have a real arg here, just try to twist the facts.

Which facts am I twisting, exactly?

Any knowledgable people can see that without the US determination, democracy wouldn't spread throughout Asia.

I don't deny that the US has been a force for good in Asia. I do deny that we ever could have finished the war in Vietnam.

Even in Vietnam, the US stayed long enough to allow other countries like Thailand, Malaysia etc... to develop their democracies.

So the war in Vietnam is the reason that Thailand and Malaysia developed democracies? Interesting theory. Care to back it up? (Bet you don't, since you have yet to back up any of your questionable assertions)

The same can happen in Iraq if the liberals would get out of the way.

And the question I have, which you still have yet to answer, despite my asking it multiple times, is how? How will democracy emerge out of Iraq?

The strategy has been working in front of your eyes: no attack on the homeland for the last 5 years!

So the strategy for installing democracy in Iraq is working because the US hasn't been attacked? What are you talking about?

Do you think the terrorists don't want to blow us up again?

What the hell does this have to do with Iraq?

They are busy fighting us over there in Iraq and fighting the democrarcy beachhead there.

So by your estimation all the terrorists in the world are somehow in Iraq, fighting us, and this will help democracy flourish there how, exactly?

They are so desperate that they even blow up the Muslim women/children over there. Do you think that the terrorists are winning points with the majority of the Iraqui over there by blowing up their children?

No probably not. I also don't think the Shia militias are winning points with the Sunnis, the leftover Baathists are winning any points with the Shia, either group is winning points with the Kurds, foreign Al Qaeda types are winning points with anyone except some of the Sunnis, and on and on. This is all good for democracy how?

Mantis, you are simply spouting out slogans. No real arg I see in your post.

I'm just pointing out your inconsistencies, and trying, fruitlessly to get you to answer one question. You continue to refuse. How will democracy come to Iraq? And sorry, "determination" is not a real answer. I'm determined to make a billion dollars. I still have to have a fucking plan to do it.

Mantis, I will igno... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Mantis,
I will ignore all your little cheap points to divert the attention. So I will go right to the main point to explain to you slowly again and hope that you will better understand it.

(1) Our strategy is working in Iraq: no attacks on the homeland for 6 years. You acknowledge that. It is good for you.

(2) Democracy has been working: Iraq had several elections where people risked their lives to do so. The tribal leaders now had a taste of the evil of the terrorists among their midst. So they even asked the US military to come and helped them clean out the terrorists. Obviously, the bad guys (the terrorists, the Bathaaists, the syrian and Iranian etc..) don't want this to work for sure. So what do they do? Stoke a civil war in Iraq by funding the bad factions among the Sunni and Shiite. This is doesn't take much brain to understand. The bad guys want to cause a civil in Iraq. Not a surprise. So what do you need to do? First need to take a strong measure against these bad guys: that 's the surge and agreement with the Iraqui gov of no protected zone in the Shiite militias anymore. I thought anyone with some understanding would be able to see that.

(3) How did democracy spread in Asia? By a straight line of progess? Even South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore had dictatorship for a while before democracy took roots. Iraq is going along much faster compared to these Asian countries given the odds they have to overcome.

So in Iraq, first take a strong military stand against these bad guys who have no interest in democracy. Look at Kurdistan as an example (it is a functional democracy under the Us/British no flyzone protection under Saddam and now. I simply ignored your cheap point about Kurdistan not being a real country - this is simply ignorant or dense).

The strategy of fighting the terrorists are showing results. We have some setbacks, but as shown in Asia and elsewhere, if we are determined it has a great chance of success compared to what we went through in Vietnam and Asia.

Mantis, I have presented a coherent strategy with rationale and clear results. Noone in their right mind would expect the bad guys simply lie down and let we do what we intend. That 's why we are in a war. And the liberals have no vision, no strategy, no understanding of this war. All they have is complain, nitpicking to justify cut-and-run. That 's the explanation again for you. IF you really do not understand, I will try again at some other time. If you are dense, then nothing I can do about it.

Oh, one more thing to help ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oh, one more thing to help you understand what "determination" means. In WW2, in one simple military exercise, the US lost several thousand troops. The prospect of winning WW2 was foggy at best in the first few years. But we were determined to win the war at any cost and we did.

Using the liberal standard of today, we should have cut and run after the first military exercise! Hope that helps. So long for now. If you don't understand, I hope someone else can explain more to you.

LoveAmerica Immigrant--... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

LoveAmerica Immigrant--

The president during WWII was the most liberal of all liberals, FDR. Liberals do what is necessary to meet the threat. The threat in Iraq was manufactured. They were one bad country among many.

Many conservatives may believe that western civilization is doomed if we "lose" in Iraq. Liberals don't agree with this assessment; if we did, we'd be off the keyboards and on the front lines.

I hadn't heard this any... (Below threshold)
marc:

I hadn't heard this anywhere else...from any source regardless of their politics. Good to know!
:: by Publicus on January 25, 2007 3:59 PM ::

Thanks.

I get so VERY tired of clueless buffoons like BryanD and others that hang their moonbat hats on the mission accomplished canard.

It obvious, even for people without Naval experience, and within the context of the Bush speech that day the banner was hung in honor and respect for those that returned after an extended deployment.

That speech highlighted the ships role in the removal of Saddam and noted the mission in Iraq and against militant islam was far from over.

The use of the incident does nothing for the poster except highlight he/she has no valid argument and in BryanD[elusional's] case that point is strengthened by his leaning on the idiots behind loose change for anything beyond a good chuckle mush as one would if watching an old Heckle and Jeckle cartoon.

The threat in Iraq was m... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

The threat in Iraq was manufactured.

The threat to whom was manufactured?

The US?

Maybe.

The threat to Israel? Not hardly.

Again, isolationism is a valid theory, but, if we going to sell our allies out in the process .....

And, if the standard is 'absolute certaintly' for deciding who is a threat, it is a given that we will be attacked again.

Ohiovoter--Where d... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Ohiovoter--

Where does this idea come from that either we fight in Iraq or we are isolationists? Isolationist means that we don't participate in foreign affairs, that we only look inward. It doesn't necessitate any particular war.

Also, this idea that 'absolute certainty' that we will be attacked again seems spurious. Who said that?

What we need to address is expected costs vs. expected benefits. Liberals would not be surprised if we get struck again. Al Queda itself seems to take many years between strikes, but they certainly could strike again. But we don't believe the war in Iraq in any way reduces the likelihood of a strike. Some say that the anger against the U.S. works to recruit more terrorists and may be counter-productive. Personally, I think it's hard to know.

It seems that war supporters believe that the war in Iraq has prevented us from being attacked again. I have never heard a convincing, or even plausible case for it. And to send our sons and daughters to die while defending us, we really should be pretty convinced that this is the effect of the war.

Publicus, Just like... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
Just like to point out a few inconsistencies of your arg:

(1) Reagan used to be an FDR Dem and Reagan said the Dem party left him. Lieberman is the modern liberal closest to an FDR type and he is forced out of the Dem. Zel Miller is an FDR dem and he is more conservative than even most Reps. Just show you what you call liberals in the 1940 are quite conservative compared to the liberals of today (more aptly radical leftists).

(2) Who said that Japan would attack us again? Besides, Germany didn't attack us? Why did we declare war on Germany?

(3) We didn't do anything after the first world trade center attack in 1993 and all other terrorist attacks upto 1999. Who would believe that 9/11 would happen? But it did. After 9/11, we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists are busy fighting us over there (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia et...) Even you acknowledge that we made the terrorists angry, so they went to Iraq to fight us. Again, your arg itself has proven my point that the strategy works at least up until now. We know that we have killed several thousands AlQ members already (this is their own admission). I assumed that if we didn't go to Iraq, these AlQ members wouldn't go home and do some other useful works.

The liberals can believe or don't believe what they want. But I have given you a clear strategy, the rationale, the results so far. The liberal strategy under Clinton during the 1990s have proven a failure. The liberal policies led to the disaster in Indochina with the Cambodian genocide and the boat people tragedy. Liberal policies helped put the current mullahs in power in Iran. The liberal policies in the cold war should be a shame to all decent liberals. That same policy or non-policy is being advocated today wrt Iraq and the general war on terror.

In conclusion, by their actions the liberal left and the Dems donot want the US to win. Vietnam was a lesson for the expected cost. The cost of abandoning VN is disastrous in terms of human tolls but it is at least outside of the US. This time, it is foolish not to expect further attacks on the US itself if the terrorists are emboldened.

Sorry the hard cold facts showed that the liberals haven't met the threat against America. Moerover, they have advocated appeasement or even surrendering to the communists and now the terrorists.

Marc, Asshat, I hate to cal... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Marc, Asshat, I hate to call a squid a liar, but if your captain was a Banner kinda guy, I'm sure he also ordered Village People records played as well. That WOULD complete the picture! ps: How DID F1 drivers manage prior to paddle shifters and traction control? And when WILL that Enzyte car get to Victory Row?

Where does this idea com... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Where does this idea come from that either we fight in Iraq or we are isolationists? Isolationist means that we don't participate in foreign affairs, that we only look inward. It doesn't necessitate any particular war.

Also, this idea that 'absolute certainty' that we will be attacked again seems spurious. Who said that?

Welcome to the slipperly slope, Publicus.

So you are fine with US lives being sacrificed in some wars as long as the cost-benfit ratio comes out ahead?

Just how do you do make that decision precisely and without any errors PRIOR to the beginning of hostilities? Remember, regardless of changing conditions, you would have to be able to deliver on that cost-benefit ratio NEVER changing to the negative.

If that's the standard President Bush is expected to meet, it is only fair that you should have to be able to deliver on the same standard.

Also, just because we have the 'might', are we morally justified in using it just because it would be an 'easy' victory?

As to "Who said that?" ... this is not the only place I hang out and, yes, I have had liberals make those arguments with me.

Isolationism ... First, I never said it was Iraq or isolationism. I said that I understood the sentiment behind the theory that US lives should not be sacrificed except in the case of US defense.

Second, it is rather naive to think that we are going to be a player in international affairs when we have announced that we will only use our military when it benefits us.

The last time the US was attacked by a country was 1941 according to my recollection and then, technically, it was an attack on our ships at sea and not on our country per se.

That makes every military involvement by the US military since then a matter of opinion as to whether the cost-benefit was "worth it".

Also, is saving 800,000 lives worth the sacrifice of ... say ... 50,000 American ones? We didn't thinks so in Rwanda. Are we comfortable with that decision on the relative worth of human beings? Believe me when I say the silence on Rwanda (and now Darfur and Zimbabwe) and the vocal opposition to the "worth" of the Iraqi conflict, but the relative consensus on the Bosnian civil war intervention, does make me wonder. (Please note - the last was not directed to you - it was a general comment.)

Cost-benefit is an ethical model of decision making but it has costs of its own.

Sure we have the ability to bomb the hell out of a place from long distances protecting American lives, but people are still dying there too. If we are willing to make no sacrifice, why are we fighting at all?

As to "absolute certainty" ...well, you are the one who said Iraq was a "manufactured threat". No, Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 - that doesn't make the threat "manufactured", however.

For you to see all the evidence and claim that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to consider Iraq under Sadaam Hussein a "threat" tells me that either you haven't been doing much reading on the subject (which I really don't believe to be true) or that you have an incredibly high standard to meet for what is considered a "threat".


"Brian" posted...... (Below threshold)
Brian:

"Brian" posted...
Hugh and Pubicus,
I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the fact that we are fighting directly with Al Queda in Iraq, as well as a proxy war with Iran, but you can't expect the rest of us to pretend it is a civil war over there. It simply is not. You both do not have a solution to the situation either.

For the record, this "Brian" is not I, who has been posting here for many months under this name. I request that this new "Brian" adopt a new moniker for himself to distinguish his views from mine, since we clearly have directly opposing positions.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy