Why Democrats can't end the war

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

UPDATE AT BOTTOM.

If there is one thing the Democrat's leadership can all agree on it's that they want to "end" the war, maybe by redeploying to Okinawa, maybe just packing up and leaving the Iraqis to slaughter each other, but end it they will.

I hate to butt in on the political posturing and feeling each other's pain, but I have a news flash for all you folks who are ready to hit the off switch on this war and MoveOn.

You can't end a war, you can only win it or lose it. Movies end, meetings end, wars are won or lost and the cost associated makes that a vital distinction. So if you want to end this war that is causing you so much angst and anguish then grow a pair and vote to lose it now. Rescind the President's authority to conduct the war and shut off the funding immediately.

If not, then STFU and stay out of the godamn way! We are trying to end it too, just by winning.

MM is tracking Hilly and Byrd's war-ending efforts

I have not been diligent in adding the We win, they lose folks to this site or post but game on folks! I just signed and you should too.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/18214242

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Democrats can't end the war:

» Web Reconnaissance for 05/04/2007 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention. [Read More]

Comments

[Old Tanker]

If the Dems wanted to "end the war" they could, just turn off the money. We know they won't because they want the issue too bad which should be apparent to all, hell the moonbats that are protesting the Dems for NOT shutting off the money have even figured that out.

Like my Drill Sergeant used to say. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!

[jordan]

A sunset clause? On a war? Gee. Can I get a sunset clause on menopause?

The Dems don't want the war to end. It's proven to be a rich source of targets for them. If the war ends, they have nothing. Case in point, this morning, CNN dwelled on troop mental health results of a recent study that included "ethics and moral behavior". The results, they say, were "disturbing" Less than half of the troops polled would not report unethical behavior by others. Many said torture was justified if it saved the life of a U.S. soldier.

Now, why in God's name would somebody ask questions like that? What does it tell you about a soldier's mental health to ask if he thinks torture in a hypothetical situation is justified?

These were political questions, asked to provide fodder for the anti-military contingent. The results also provide excellent evidence for starting up ethics and morals training, says CNN. All the better to paint a picture of soldiers as crazed, immoral, rule-breakers.

What's going on here? I applaud efforts to address the post-combat trauma problem. But the Pentagon has to be very careful not to allow those efforts to be used by others to degrade or taint all returning soldiers.

Soldiers in Iraq have done more to further human rights than Amnesty Int'l and HRW combined. They've given Afghan women a new chance to increase their status from that of a sheep to at least a camel. The average Corporal could teach CNN and the MSM a thing or two about ethics and morals.

[@thepointyend]

I think I have to agree with jordan on this one. The Dems say they want the war to end, but what they really want is to continue arguing about ending the war as a way to keep beating the electorate over the head with their Bush-hating rhetoric in the run up to the elections. It is politics as usual.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/04/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[haystack]

key phrase unclejimbo:
stfu...
sigh, if only they COULD-their mouths start moving before they even wake up.
They don't have the stones to do their losing the legal way...de-funding...so they just run their heads at a microphone and a tv camera...
I have a piece up at another site (no shameless promo here) that says I double dog dare the dems to end the funds, now, today, immediately...
they apparently don't want to take me up on that-they'd rather lose sometime around the election...odd coincidence dontcha think?

[Old Tanker]

Like a comment I read from a soldier currently in Iraq (heck, I may have read it here, I forget) paraphrasing; "if the war is lost, why wait until October to bring us home? If it's not worth it, bring us home today"

I thought it was a great point. But the war is worth it as an issue to the Dems, heck listen to them in the primaries, they're STILL running against President Bush.....

[casey]

I have become a steady visitor to this site, this post is the perfect example why I come here. I hate the fact that the Democrats keep saying they are acting on the behalf of the American people. They do not represent the American people. I am thankful for our troops and government and the freedoms that they GIVE us. Look any where else in the world today, people get killed for speaking out against their leaders. The likes of Pelosi, Clinton, Gore, Reid and the rest of these hypocrites abuse our freedoms on a daily basis. Sorry, got a little emotional there.

[Seth Russell]

If i am fighting you and i just walk away, i have neither won nor lost. You've locked us into a zero sum game here. I've illustrated it better on my blog today. The human race should alway try for the win-win!

[Old Tanker]

Let's see, If I'm in a fight with someone and they walkaway, what happens when I kick them in the ass??

[Stormin]

I would love to see the President grow a pair and tell the Demonrats in Congress, that if they want to run the war, pass a Constitutional amendment to put the power to conduct any wars in the hands of Congress; till then have a nice tall glass of STFU juice. If they don't like it, they can do one of two things, impeach him or wait until 2009 for someone else to do the job. But they do not get to tell him how to prosecute the war! That is is job under the Constitution, which is not a living document as they constantly seem to think it is.

[davod]

Not the old win-win again. Don't you realise that as a negotiating techique it is utterly worthless. If the opposition's end game is to destroy your culture and kill you and yours, where do you suggest we meet.

[Uncle Jimbo]

On the descrated carcass of Western civilization if we walk away. That's where we can meet.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[bthun]

"If i am fighting you and i just walk away, i have neither won nor lost"

As Old Tanker mentioned, what if the enemy on whom you've turned your back does not consider the fight to be ended?

Turn off the re-runs of Kung Fu and wake up.

[Mike]

Well, for Seth and the rest who can't seem to wrap their melon around just what is involved as far as the Harry Reid surrender brigade and the effect it has on our troops, go over to COB and read my synopsis (and see a really scary picture of Nancy Pelosi in the thread above it).

[Rooti]

Send those two surrender-monkies the letter and a white feather pix attached to it. What a set of culls.

[Kougar]

Sorry guys, the war's been lost for a long time. If we really wanted to "win", we'd reinstitute the draft, send 500000 troops over there, spend trillions more, and basically lay waste to Iraq. Does anyone in here think that's really a good idea? You can't act like Atilla the Hun anymore. That's why there are limits on what the military can do. That's why this "surge" is a joke. 20000 troops contradict what even Gen Petraeus' own counterinsurgency manual dicates, 25 soldiers per 1000 residents would require at least 125000 in Baghdad alone. Get real guys, there's no way we'er going to win this without completely mobilziing the American public and reversing the tax cuts to fund everything. No one really wants any of this, probably including most of the wingnuts who frequent this blog.

[wignut]

Why do we need a draft to win? That argument is bunk.

We need trained committed pros. We just need Congress (o help us God) to re-do what Clinton (granted not the only prez to think without foresight or was he pre-occupied at the time ...hmmm) did in the 90s by slashing the size of military (and denying me any more benefits).

Where is the $ going? To Global Warming defense? I keep on getting taxed out of my a** in this blue state and nothing improves.

I prefer to get taxed for my freedom ... not for pork programs

[Old Tanker]

Kougar

c'mon man, you can think up new talking points can't you?? The treasury is raking in more money than ever and the only people that want a draft are the same people that are going to run to Canada and burn their draft cards. If your idea of winning is laying waste to Iraq let's just nuke the place. You talk about getting the American public mobilized??? It's people like you who are turning them off. In short, if you want the public mobilzed then

STFU...

[bthun]

wingnuts, neocons, draft, kill em all, blah, blah, blah, blah...

[Lands’nGrooves (aka tim)]

... blah, blah, blah, blah, kill ‘em all, draft, neocons, wingnuts.

Kougar

[charron]

nuts, nuts, nuts, nuts, blah, blah, blah, pus-nuts, nuts, nuts......

[liontooth]

That's why this "surge" is a joke. 20000 troops contradict what even Gen Petraeus' own counterinsurgency manual dicates, 25 soldiers per 1000 residents would require at least 125000 in Baghdad alone.

WRONG.

Field Manual
No. 3-24
COUNTERINSURGENCY

LIMITED SUPPORT
5-88. Not all COIN efforts require large combat formations. In many cases, U.S. support is limited, fo-cused
on missions like advising security forces and providing fire support or sustainment. The longstand-ing
U.S. support to the Philippines is an example of such limited support. The limited support approach fo-cuses
on building HN capability and capacity. Under this approach, HN security forces are expected to
conduct combat operations, including any clearing and holding missions.
PATTERN OF TRANSITION
5-89. COIN efforts may require Soldiers and Marines to create the initial secure environment for the popu-lace.
Ideally HN forces hold cleared areas. As HN military and civil capabilities are further strengthened,
U.S. military activity may shift toward combined action and limited support. As HN forces assume internal
and external security requirements, U.S. forces can redeploy to support bases, reduce force strength, and
eventually withdraw. Special operations forces and conventional forces continue to provide support as
needed to achieve internal defense and development objectives.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

[@thepointyend]

Koug - You talk a lot, but I'm not hearing anything rational. So we need 25 to 1000 of counter-insurgents.

First of all, that is just a planning factor, and is also mentioned in Galula's book on counterinsurgency. Planning figure - not an absolute.

Second, counter-insurgent forces include ours, the Iraqi Army, the national police, cooperating militias, etc. Okay, their effectives are not as effective as our effectives, but they still count.

However, I'll grant your point as to the American public. If they don't get behind this thing, it will be very hard to win. That may be a long journey, but they all begin with the first step, right?

How 'bout you take the first step and get on board?

The bottom line is in this war, for which there is no purely military solution, our elected leaders are helping us to lose the (Iraqi) political victory that is also required - as noted in Kondracke's piece in Roll Call interviewing Amb Crocker.

[Kougar]

Liontooth:

Nice try, but cherry picking won't work: COIN 1-10
"A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN operations; however as with any fixed ratio, such calculations remain very dependent upon the situation." Iraq has 26.7 million people, 2% of that would be 534,000 counterinsurgency troops (rather similar to General Shinseki's original estimate, huh?). Baghdad alone (pop. 6 mil) would require 120,000 troops to meet the rule of thumb minimum force. If we go for 25/1000 then it'd need 150,000 troops. In otherwords to do this right, according to the Army Counterinsurgency Manual, we'd need our entire in country force just for Baghdad. We'd need another 350,000 or so troops for the rest of Iraq as well. Sorry to school you in front of everybody, but you wingnuts need to quit cherry picking!

[bthun]

heheh,

I take it that it's not just me that is tired of those who toss out neocon, wingnut, etc. and then scold others for name calling. What a hoot.

All I can muster in response is blah, blah, blah... Anything else is a waste of time.

[Lands’nGrooves (aka tim)]

Blah, blah, blah, the war is lost, more troops are needed, the surge is a joke, wingnuts, wingnuts, wingnuts, blah, blah, blah...

[liontooth]

Kougar,

Did you actually read what you quoted?

the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants.

US forces aren't being deployed to reach the 25/1000 ratio, they're there for the specific support I had quoted.

[Old Tanker]

Kougar

pointyend brought a, well, point. Do Iraqi forces count? Brits? Aussies? Are you cherry picking who counts here?

[Kougar]

Liontooth,

See, again you're being disingenuous. We have 300000 Iraqis with guns, and they're pretty much worthless. Supporting who, the Shia death squads? I saw what you wrote, and it you're actually interested in the truth, you'd concede that the Iraqi police and military are worthless. If we want to "win" in Iraq, we're going to have to do it ourselves, not rely on Shia death squads masquerading as army units. If you can't concede this, your head is as much in the clouds as Cindy Sheehan's

[liontooth]

And Kougar, your number are off. The entire population of Iraq doesn't need COIN. The Kurdish areas in the North are pacified, so that lowers the population to around 20 million

[liontooth]

We have 300000 Iraqis with guns, and they're pretty much worthless

They obviously are not up to US standards. But worthless? Based on what? Petraeus has said this?

[Kougar]

Old Tanker,

You need to poke your head out of the tank and actually look at the landscape. The Aussies contribute less than 1000 service member, most of them support troops. The Brits, yeah, they're in the south and they will be pulling out of there shortly. Oh, but this is a sign of success according to Dick Cheney. Do you guys actually read the news? The Brits and Aussies! The Iraqi Army?!!! Come on, I know you want to believe things are going great, but at least acknowledge the facts!

[Kougar]

Liontooth,
You sound like a reasonable guy, but applying more and more lipstick to this pig only makes you look desperate. The bottom line is, we either go big, way big now in Iraq or we leave. You know what's going to happen.

[liontooth]

I know you want to believe things are going great

Kougar,

Has anyone in this thread said things are going great? You seem to be looking at this in extremes. I don't believe the above nor 'it's already lost'

[Kougar]

Liontooth,
Not in this thread, but people in here seem to believe that "stay the course" is strategy for success. They give way too much credence to the Bush admin, and are not skeptical enough about the real chances for military victory in Iraq. For most ordinary Americans, this was is an abstraction they occasionally see on TV. We are not and have not been on a war footing from the get go. This is why we failed.

[LisaV (aka "Talismen" - Lady Crusader against jihad)]

Signed....proudly, and posted at my forums.

[Old Tanker]

So let's make sure I understand then.....none of them count.....how many of our troops actually "count" then, we have lots of support troops there too......

And you speaking in past tense that we have "failed" Is Saddam out of power? Are the Baathists out of power? does Iraq have a democratically elected government? Are the terrorists gone?

Of all those questions you can only answer NO to 1. That tells me we're not done but that sure as hell doesn't constitute failure.

[liontooth]

here seem to believe that "stay the course" is strategy for success. They give way too much credence to the Bush admin, and are not skeptical enough about the real chances for military victory in Iraq.

This has been the Army's mentality and problem up until now. This can't be won in a conventional military way.

You can't blame Rumsfeld and Bush for following their advice. But they can be blamed for not asking is there another, better way of doing this.

Petraeus 'gets it'.
He just needs time to do it. Hopefully he'll get the time.

[rick]

War is lost huh?

Alright,

First the insurgents and terrorists try to attack U.S. troops. That fails.

So, next they attack the Iraqi Army and start getting beat there too. So that fails.

Next they go after the Iraqi Police, but now with an improved (and it is improved, not great but improved) IA supporting the Police, they begin to fail at that too. They used to just wipe out police stations and they stayed abandoned. Not so common anymore.

Soooo, they shift tactics again. Now they attack civilians in marketplaces. That's what they have resorted to. Sorry to break it to you Kougar, but that is what the losing side does.

Classic counter insurgency: peel back the layers of support until you have the core of loonies left that can be isolated and wiped out. We can argue about numbers and manuals all day, but that's what it boils down too.

Concentrate on Baghdad and they run to Diyala where even the Sunni tribes are pissed and turning against them.

It's taken several years to get to this point and we will continue the pressure until there is nowhere left to run. At that point the war is won.

I'm not a nutter and I beleive we still have a long way to go; but losing, c'mon man. America is too wrapped up in 30 min sit-coms and instant gratification. Step back and look at the larger picture. War takes time to win, and what has been accomplished in a few years is actually quite remarkable.

Before you start posting about the multitude of horrendous attacks, death squads, corruption and steps backward occuring over the course of this war; realize that I concede they occurred. I am not saying this is easy, nor am I saying this is over. I am simply saying that with time, the path we are on will lead to victory. Simply give the men in the field the money and support they need to win. You seem passionate and genuine. Put some of that passion into truly supporting the troops. Tell your Congressmen to stop playing political games, fund the troops for at least the next year and a half and this just might work.

Cheers.

/end rant

[Vondutch]

I like to think that I know most of the basics about how the US federal government is maintained and operated.

What I cannot seem to find is if a sitting US President can dissolve congress. Anyone know?

[Kougar]

Lot of you guys have this false confidence in the Maliki led Iraq Security Forces. Here's a little gem to show how misplaced your confidence really is
"A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad."
So basically, Maliki is getting rid of all the top commanders in the Army who are Sunni, consolidating the grip of the Shia majority over all the organs of government. So we're "supporting" an Army whose allegiance is to Iran! Hooray, freedom!

[@thepointyend]

Koug - that is quite a leap from removal of "some" senior officers to our blanket statement that he is getting rid of "all" Sunni top commanders.

And how is it a stay the course strategy when we shift from clear and leave, to clear, hold, and build??

[bnelson44]

Don't forget about the Appeal for Courage created by active duty military for active duty military to sign who support the mission:

http://www.appealforcourage.org

[Kougar]

pointyend,
I thought all you conservatives were supposed to be "realists"? I think it's deeply disturbing when Maliki kicks Sunni commanders out of the Army. You guys always complain, well at least it's not ALL the commanders...Get real. As for clear and leave? Yeah, send in 500K troops and we can build, but that's never going to happen and you know it.

[@thepointyend]

Koug - I think I'll reserve my concern until I see what was meant by "too aggressive". Perhaps those boys were ordering something tantamount to reprisals as opposed to enforcing law and order.

As to clear, hold and build, uh, we're doing that. That is the whole point of the troop surge. Get troops into an area, clear it, and stay so that rebuilding can take place. Before it was clear, go back to the FOB, come back tomorrow (or next week) and clear again. There seems to be a clear difference to me in the two approaches.

[Kougar]

Yeah, hold for a couple of months with 21000 troops in a city of 6 mil, then let the death squads take over once everything is "stable" Come on, you can't really believe this BS?

[@thepointyend]

Well, it is not just 20000, now is it? The ones who were there before, or who have been moved from other areas make that number a bit larger.

No. I don't really believe your BS. But I do believe in giving GEN Petraeus a chance to execute the plan.

[arch]

Kougar:

The war is not going big, it's going long. It's not lost.

Frankly, I'm not too excited about Maliki and his friends, but they were elected in a free and open election that the Sunnis decided to boycott. The next election needs to get rid of Maliki and Al Sadr to limit Iran's influence. It will take time.

Al Qaeda's terror strategy fractured their alliance with the Sunnis, especially those in Al Anbar. As they buy into the government, their tribal leaders are sending their men to join the local police and they are turning on Al Qaeda. Building trust between Sunnis and Shiites will take time.

The Kurds have pacified their territory and are biding their time until they can establish an autonomous state. That will require US support to protect them from the Turks, Iraqis and Iranians.

The Democrats have the same decision to make they had in Vietnam - fund or not fund. Sunsetting the authority to use force will not work. The President has already been given that authority. Bush is the commander in chief and he calls the shots.

One very interesting scenario would be if Hillary becomes President while the war is still being fought.

[Kougar]

Arch,
You're an eternal optimist aren't you? You really believe that after 1000 years of conflict and horrible violence in these last few years that the SUnnis and Shias will just patch things up and sing Kumbaya? It's sad to hear "realist" conservatives descend to such Pollyanna depths. I feel for you guys. This Iraq thing better go off without a hitch, or you guys will be in the political desert for the next few decades. I shed tears as I write this.......Sike!

[@thepointyend]

Koug - C'mon now. Everyone knows I am the eternal optimist in this bunch. But I don't care about anyone singing Kumbaya. They can dislike each other all they want, under the RULE OF LAW, just like so many here in the states.

[Greg]

We don't need more Army. What we need is a different kind of army: an army of Bureaucratic Commandos who would go in and do the nation-building part. The Army is for killing the enemy, not building nations. While the Army is hunting down the insurgents, the Bureacratic Commandos would re-build the roads, schools, power stations, dams, oil pipelines, etc. And they would do it themselves because Arab contractors screw things up. They would also train the new Iraqi Army and law enforcement officers by partnering with the shiekhs and their militias (i.e. capitalize on the chain of command already in place).

Up until now, our Armed Forces have been struggling to do all of this while the United Dictatorships --- whoops, sorry --- United Nations sits around on their mangy asses passing resolutions against Israel. And Europe can't help because it's already overrun with jihadis.

We have security and construction contractors. Why not nation-building contractors?

[arch]

Kougar,

Kumbaya. Wasn't that a Joan Baez song? Did you know that in 1972 she want to Hanoi to spend Christmas with the POWs. No interrogations, no criticism, just "Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya..."

When the staunchly anti war Ms Baez finally got out of Hanoi, she went straight to the DoD with dozens of POW names we were still carrying as MIA. It is possible to oppose a war and not condemn your country. I disagree with her stand on war, but I respect her as a person. Also, I love her voice.

As for Sunni & Shiites as acid and base, I do not buy it. The people of Iraq have been through 35 years of hell and 4 years of war. As the Beatles would say, "give peace a chance."

If we leave now before a viable government is in place, the entire region will descend into war. Ask the Cambodians.

[arch]

Sorry. I meant, "She went to Hanoi..."

Also, do you know why Joan's visit was extended? Because the USAF sent in waves of B52 (100 to 150 per night) to carpet bomb Hanoi and Haiphong, US Navy mined the port of Haiphong, USAF and USN TAC air destroyed their airfields, railroads, rolling stock, infrastructure, communications, power generation systems, steel mill, bridges and the entire North Vietnamese Air Force.

When the POWs heard the 108 MK82s per BUF detonate, they went absolutely wild, while their brave NVA guards were terrified.

[bthun]

As Arch points out, Linebacker II was a come to Jesus moment for the North Vietnamese.

Fight not flight(as in flee) won that moment.

[OldSoldier54]

"America is too wrapped up in 30 min sit-coms and instant gratification."

That is the Lion's share of the problem, IMO. If it can't be explained in a five minute sound bite that a six year old can understand (thanks for dumbing down America NEA), most of John Q Public will continue as clueless and misled.

One thing though. I was always puzzled about why POTUS didn't take the country to an official war footing. I think that may have been his most serious mistake, but as I recall, the back halls of many foreign governments were full of freaked out discussions of "a rampaging giant, talking about ending nations." So maybe he had to go easy as a placating move to whomever, to build a coalition ... who knows, hindsight clarity is, ah ... really clear.

[OldSoldier54]

And UJ, signed and delivered to friends.

[Geo(AeroEng)]

Don't feed the troll(s). We've proven that (s)he/they has/have a severe case of BDS, and a severe lack of grounding of education (in various forms).

Jimbo is right, it is a zero-sum game when it comes to international relations, especially in warfare. The purpose is to make the enemy bow to our political will. In this case, it will take either years or mass extermination. As I am a humanist, I prefer the long hall road. Yes it will cost. Losing will cost us far more, both economically, but prestige wise as well.

[davec]

Hey Kougar,
Are all Shia's loyal to Iran? I seem to remember this little spat that lasted eight years called the Iran-Iraq war, where 350,000 Iraqi's were killed or wounded fighting Iran, you might remember it? I wonder why they didn't fight Saddam instead, These Iraqi Shia aka Iran Loyalists?
Might be because they have a national identity that doesn't give loyalty to Iran because they're fellow Shia, but hey put whatever spin you want on it.

[OldSoldier54]

Arch:

"When the staunchly anti war Ms Baez finally got out of Hanoi, she went straight to the DoD with dozens of POW names we were still carrying as MIA. It is possible to oppose a war and not condemn your country. I disagree with her stand on war, but I respect her as a person."

Really? I never heard about the POW names thing, but I do recall that she was the ONLY Vietnam War protester to speak up and condemn the slaughter that happened after the fall of Saigon. I liked her voice also.

[Ymarsakar]

Kou is like a parasite, he won't stop spam posting until we're all dead.

[Ymarsakar]

Analyzing Kou's strategy, it seems to be that he wishes to steal as much attention away from Jim and Co, as well as the Democrats and the Left, as much as possible. To redivert it to about Kou, of course. Thus the multiple third degree interrogations he puts to everyone that passes him by on the street, ranting and raving. Crazy guy on the streets, could be trouble.

Seeing the Democrats attacked must hurt him psychologically. So he goes for a two fer. Get a shot of narcissism attention whore mongering, combined with less pain.

[Old Tanker]

Ymarsakar

Your basic point being, don't feed the trolls.....

Good advice for this thread, Kougar has done enough here already....

BTW Interesting stuff about Joan Baez if true..

[san diego]

NEWSFLASH: A occupational power cannot "win" a civil war - no matter how tough or strong, It's impossible.

The only way to take the land is to go out and commit genocide (by killing everyone)
AND THEN WHAT?
We'll be the new Nazis. Standing alone with Israel against the whole freaking world.
THAT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE.

We *could have* gone in there to begin with and controlled the nation right from the very start.
but we didn't... the White House wanted to "do it on the cheap".
We didn't bring or use enough troops, They weren't prepared or properly supplied, We allowed the looting, disbanded the iraqi military vs hiring them & used them to rebuild (cheap), Replaced reconstruction expert Jay Garner with "Bushes boy" Paul Bremer, Banned the baath party members - forcing the iraqi elite's to side against the USA or "starve" (STUPID), stopped all the pension payments for the elderly that would have won public support. Basically we didn't have a freaking clue or plan after going in there.. We couldn't have done worse even if we tried raping 14 year old girls for fun.
ALL of that rests squarely on the BUSH ADMIN...

All the above F-ups are machiavellian invasion basics... (read "The Prince" for the A,B,C's)

The fact that nobody has a clue from the very onset of this whole politically & economically motivated invasion shouldn't inspire any confidence in anyone for any future plan that the white house comes up with.
It's a matter of simple incompetence from the top down -at the very best.

Come on... Honestly can anyone NAME A WORSE INVASION ?
SERIOUSLY.

All that staying in Iraq is going to accomplish is:
Bankrupting THE USA nation
Loss of US troops and assets.
Alienate the USA & make us the BAD GUY.
Empower and validate Al Qaeda's teachings that the west is Evil.
Serve as a spawning ground for Al Qaeda members (Just like afghanistan produced Osama's boys)
Unite all the arab / Islamic people under some religious sect or Anti-American leadership (Iran?)
Perhaps Align the Iraqi groups with Iran for protection... then we'll have a HUGE PROBLEM.

Getting our butts out of there now, sitting quiet and let the rest of the arab world realize that it's a civil war in Iraq that we aren't responsible for
by allowing them to kill each other off. will make many forget about us altogether and they can start point fingers at each other.

That way, we can avoid the blowback and start smelling like rose again.
IF we stay there... we'll be screwing ourselves because right now everyone can blame us..
and they'll be right... because we'll be there meddling in a CIVIL WAR where all sides are pissed off and shooting at us.
let them fight each other.

[Kougar]

Amen

[Beth]

If i am fighting you and i just walk away, i have neither won nor lost. You've locked us into a zero sum game here.

Old comment, but I'm answering it anyway because it applies to the other defeatists here.

By that logic, the police should just abandon violent, crime-ridden neighborhoods, FEMA/the cops/the National Guard should have (all) just said f*ck it and left when things got bad in New Orleans post-Katrina, and we might as well give up on trying to make things like public schools and health care better in this country (among other things!). You know, 'cause things aren't going so great? Think of all the money and lives lost trying to fix those things!

That is defeatism, just like the "timetable" and "withdrawal" defeatism. Either that or nihilism, take your pick.

[Ymarsakar]

Your basic point being, don't feed the trolls.....

I think essentially, it is "don't feed the trolls all at the same time from 10 people". He is going to esplode.

[Ymarsakar]

When a troll esplodes, you basically need a nuclear quarantine on the sector.

[arch]

Old Soldier 54:

I flew F4Es out of DaNang in 1971-1972. Many of my friends were shot down and wound up in Hanoi. One of them told me about Baez' and her entourage memorizing names and home towns in case the North Vietnamese searched their bags. After the war, I was stationed at Luke AFB, a training base where many of the long time POWs got checked out in the F4 or requalified. They also consider Joan Baez in much different light than the other anti-war protesters.

Baez went to Cambodia after Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge government began their genocide. When she went public, there was a big dust up between her and Jane Fonda whose agenda was (and still is) very different.

Sandiego (aka kougar)

If it is impossible to win a civil war, please tell Washington to get their federal government out of the Confederate States of America and stop withholding income tax and social security from our wages.

[liontooth]

You really believe that after 1000 years of conflict and horrible violence in these last few years that the SUnnis and Shias will just patch things up

Go back 60 years ago and substitute French and Germans. The same was happening between them. And it ended

[referman]

It dosen't matter who's to blame,let the historians figure it out after.We are here and now.The dems and reps will both go down in the history books about how they fu the whole damn thing.Our soldiers are in the chit and need the vehicles,armor and weapons to finish this mess!They need the freaking money and General "P" has the plan!The undo stress this arguing is putting on our soldiers is the point and the problem!It's impossible to compare or set the standards to fight this war from our past.This can be won and it is not lost but we can only win by growing a pair and standing with our troops and sending the clear message screw politics we are going to stand firm with our brothers in harms way!Kou until you have served and done something positive for your freedoms STFU!THANK YOU arch,54 and the rest of my brother VETS for your service to this country.Politicians are an unfortunte by product of a democratic society which they seem to forget was paid for by the blood,sweat and sacrafices of our military and their families!So kou take your troll droppings and go back to your closet! Semper Fi

[knud]

You can't end a war, you can only win it or lose it.

Maybe it is not about winning or losing. Maybe it's about should we even be there? (hint: no)

[thundering herd]

Doing anything but winning means we only bought the property for Iran, and a damn high price. Not enough people are making this clear to the nitwits.

[Beth]

Maybe it's about should we even be there? (hint: no)

Posted by: knud | May 5, 2007 12:23:15 PM

OK, let's take your assertion. I'll play. "We shouldn't be there." SO F'N WHAT? WE ARE THERE. So we have to punish the military and the Iraqis that will be left behind (and God only knows who else, considering the country WILL be overtaken and run by the worst segments of Islam)? 'Cause really, that's what you all are asking for. We shouldn't be there, so we must pay with more lives (and so should the *peaceful* Iraqi people).

"Hint: no" doesn't mean shit.

[Beth]

AND I really would like for one of the defeatists to answer my comment above:

By that logic, the police should just abandon violent, crime-ridden neighborhoods, FEMA/the cops/the National Guard should have (all) just said f*ck it and left when things got bad in New Orleans post-Katrina, and we might as well give up on trying to make things like public schools and health care better in this country (among other things!). You know, 'cause things aren't going so great? Think of all the money and lives lost trying to fix those things!

That is defeatism, just like the "timetable" and "withdrawal" defeatism.

It's difficult (a "long slog"), so f*ck it? Is that how you believe all problems should be solved, and if not, why THIS?
(I believe it's mindless knee-jerk opposition, and you've convinced yourselves now without thinking of/not caring about the implications.)

[kougar]

Beth,
Typical straw man argument used by you righties who have never seen the carnage of war. You know why we never gave up in New Orleans or any other city? Take a guess. BECAUSE IT'S AMERICA IDIOT!! The whole point of the argument is that we are wasting lives and dollars on people in a country where 70% of the people think it's okay to blow away OUR SOLDIERS. Got it? Iraq is not the 51st state, dummy. We fight when it's our national interest to do so. These silly right wing comparisons to what is going on Iraq to the New Orleans is sheer idiocy. Although judging from the right wing reaction to Katrina, it wouldn't surprise me if you could care less about New Orleans or its inhabitants.

[LittleRed1]

Vondutch,
The President cannot dismiss Congress, nor can he/she call for new elections. Although I'm sure several presidents have wished they could!

[OldSoldier54]

"Typical straw man argument used by you righties who have never seen the carnage of war."

Ok, is it still a strawman when the vast majority of troops(all branches) in theater think and say the same thing? Or does their being in the midst of that carnage you mention make their words weighty to you? No way to know for sure, I'll just assume your personal integrity, but have you served, seen the carnage?
Lefties like to take the moral high ground, so lets talk about humanitarian work. Ever done any? And I don't mean showing up like a movie star or politician for a photo op.
Just askin' ...

[Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper]

"K" is just pissed off because all the Democratic "suits" in the House and Senate have pretty much bailed on people like him & his crowd. Made all sorts of noise, but when it came down to it, they ran and hid, because they know full well that if they got their way and US started withdrawing troops, the ME could easily turn into a much worse situation (on several orders of magnitude) from where it is today.

Chairperson Nancy (and part of her team) & Harry & his team have both gotten quite an education over the past 3-4 weeks, and most of that education didn't come from the Administration, it actually came from a number of other sources.

The really fun part is comming up next - explaining to all the netroots crazies that their cause can't be the Democratic priority (#1 on the list, and probably not even #2), because it's just killing the mainstream Democratic party.

There was an news article today in the WP about the Democrat's momentum slowing (actually, it's done been stopped) that's the opening shot from the rest of the mainstream Democratic party to the netroots crazies on the antiwar left, and it's a serious message. But not to worry - the netroots crazies on the antiwar left are too deluded to get the message.

[Kougar]

Oldsoldier:
With all due respect, just what makes you think the "vast majority" of troops in theater think and say the same thing? Believe me, they don't. Look at all the polling done by the Military Times, and you'll see what I'm talking about. As for their words being weighty, they is actually me. I'm a active duty service member who served in OIF 2. I'm a health professional, and I've seen more death than I want to ever see again. Although I'm a leftie, I definitely have the credentials to talk about this with some authority. I know you guys hate "Hollywood liberals", but they are also a convenient distraction. This country has woken up after being frightened into submission, and they don't like what they see.

[Kougar]

Ghost:
Nice try, but we know what you're up to. I think the Democratic leadership is doing the best that they can. You guys lost bad in Nov, and if this Iraq thing doesn't wrap up here shortly, you won't have a chance to gloat for several decades. People are sick and tired of the corruption, hypocrisy, screw everyone else attitude of our current administration. What you guys desperately hope is that the Moveon crowd will split the party. Sorry, but that's just wishful thinking. Be prepared to be in the minority for a long time, son.

[OldSoldier54]

I get that opinion from reading the comments of men and women who were or are in theater, on this and other Milblogs. The ratio is very high, for belief that victory is still possible, IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC (and that includes you, friend) will just be patient and not turn on them, relative to folks like you.
Nobody here that I've read, doesn't understand that some serious mistakes have been made, but the one sure way for America to lose in a major way is to abandon all those people with the purple stained fingers to the throat cutters. I see no other option that is honorable. Staying the course doesn't mean braindead plodding along until death, it means persevering until the goal is reached, never giving up; adapt, improvise and overcome!
As far as corruption, hypocrisy and screwing everybody's wife and daughter that he thought he could get away with, you want to hear some things about the two terms of the previous administration?
By the way, thank you for your service to the American people. I believe you.

[Peg C.]

Rush made crystal clear in Wednesday's show that the Dems will own defeat no matter what happens. If we leave before the 2008 elections, Dems will own defeat. If we leave after the 2008 elections and a Dem is president, Dems will own defeat. W is not leaving before, and no Republican elected president will betray the Iraqis and the entire Middle East by pulling out en masse. They want to force defeat and to make W own it but that will not happen.

This is all about politics and power to the defeat-owning Dems; troops' and Iraqis' lives are meaningless fodder to them except as a means to an end. The Dems praise genocidal dictators and brown-nose nuke-seeking, terror-propagating madmen while denigrating and betraying their own country.

The Dems find themselves where they are because they decided long ago that they had to oppose W in every way, shape and form. This has put them in league with our enemies against us, and that is irrefutable. Democrat talking points, since before the 2004 election, come out of the mouths of dictators, terrorists and lunatics who have sworn to destroy the U.S. and everyone in it. The Dems are now rhetorically indistinguishable from our enemies. They can't not know this. No wonder they are crazy-insane with BDS and hatred.

[bthun]

"Be prepared to be in the minority for a long time"

Kougar,

Speaking for no one other than myself, I'd rather run with the minority while holding to what I feel to be right, than abandon that for the comfort of the majority.

Thanks for serving.

[Kougar]

Peg C.
So it's the Dems who suck up to dicators?
Au contraire, mon frere
http://tinyurl.com/nf9o

[Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper]

"What you guys desperately hope is that the Moveon crowd will split the party. Sorry, but that's just wishful thinking. Be prepared to be in the minority for a long time, son."

"K", unlike you, I have got a whole lot better pol contacts than you have, and they're on both sides. You need to understand it's a whole lot easier on the Hill to play defense than it is to play offense. And it's takes a special talent to sell ideas.

Neither Nancy or Harry has that ability. Both Mitch and Trent do have that ability. The results show, even if you don't want to admit it. Btw, you want to talk "corruption"? - that's the new nickname for Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Wait for it.

I'll Play These.

[Kougar]

Ghost:

Sorry bud, nice try. I don't need politcal connections to know that it's the GOP who has a corruption problem...uhhhh, Libby, Foley, Abramoff, Delay, Renzi, Cunningham, Gonzales, Goodling, Wolfowitz, "Atta Boy" Brownie, Larry "Here's come classified info Israelis!" Franklin, Safavian, I mean the list goes on and on and on and on. This is just a sample. Your retort? Feinstein. Look, this is a very unevenly matched contest, so don't even try. As for McConnell and Lott? In terms of Lott, you guys kicked him out of his leadership position, and he's known for this gem "Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.“ And this is the guy you want running congress? You guys can barely scrounge up anyone who can put a sentence together. Yahtzee!!!

[Ymarsakar]

You don't even know what entropy is Kou, you of all people should be careful who you try to blow up in that department.

As for their words being weighty, they is actually me.

I think you saw too many commercials about the one man army.

[liontooth]

People are sick and tired of the corruption, hypocrisy, screw everyone else attitude of our current administration.

You guys lost bad in Nov, and if this Iraq thing doesn't wrap up here shortly, you won't have a chance to gloat for several decades.

You keep making statements that aren't grounded in reality. The 'people' did NOT come out in droves after Bush vetoed the Bill and it hardly made a ripple outside the beltway. The funding bill was clear. Either we plan on leaving in the fall (wrapping it up shortly) vs. it will go on indefinitely.

What the country witnessed was that when the democrats didn't win the fight they challenged Bush to, they simply surrendered.

The best that they can do is surrender when the going gets a little rough.

[Coach Mark]

The bigger argument is not that the Democrats won in the last Congressional election. The bigger issue here is that it was not a landslide, as many on the left would have people believe. The GOP victory in '94 had a much higher margin of change. Bush made the claim of having a "mandate" when he was elected for a second term, but the true numbers showed only a narrow margin. The left wants to make the claim for a "mandate", but in fact the numbers just don't show it exists anymore than it did for Bush. What does exist is growing public dissatisfaction with things in Iraq. This is, in my opinion, fueled by constant negative press (coupled with constant claims with out refutation of the non-existent Democratic "mandate"), and bad management by the GOP/Bush. Unfortunately, the second just gives greater credence to the first.

The fight at home is over who will have more influence over public opinion--the right or the left. The left has a semi-united front (aka Daily Kos, Moveon.org, etc.). The right does not. We are a lot of voices, but no unified forum of expression. without that unified expression, I do not believe the right can win the public relations war. And, that will give Reid/Pelosi/et al their victory as sure as anything else.

Oh, and for the record, given time, I think Petraeus's plans can bring a stable situation. However, the end result is ultimately up to the Iraqis.

[arch]

Kougar:

To Democrats crime is Okay. Here are a few of their criminals-

Alce Hastings - Bribery impeachment
Barney Frank - Homosexual sex ring from his DC office
Gary Studds - child molestation
William Jefferson - Bribery $90K in his freezer
John Murtha - Abscam, scam Johnstown Defense fair
Harry Reid - Nevada Land Deal
Barrak Obama - Illinois Land Deal
Bill Clinton - Whitewater, rape, perjury, sexual harrassment
Hillary Clinton - Whitewater, obstruction of justice, travelgate
Diane Fienstein - $1.4 B mil construction
Robert Byrd - KKK grand wizard
Sandy Berger - theft of classified documents
Nancy Pelosi - Logan Act Violation
Tom Lantos - Logan Act Violation
Al Sharpton - Tawana Brawley scam
Marion Berry - bought crack from the FBI

You must be so proud.

[referman]

Arguing politics as in religon,everybody believes their way is right and any other is wrong.But as we ponder the right way and wrong who is paying the price?Our soldiers!We should ask,how many brothers have paid the ultimate sacrafice because they didn't have the proper gear,ammo or vehicles.We should ask our politicians to explain to the families that their loved one could have been saved but because the money wasn't there!I want to ask the Dems and reps alike,sitting there today in their easy chairs,going to church, believing their way is the best way for this great country, to ask the question,who at this moment is paying.Before we all start our sunday morning ranting,sitting here in the safety of our homes,in our little corner of the world we should take a minute of our time and give thanks to those who are paying the price.God bless our soldiers and their families all around the world for your sacrafices.THANK YOU Semper Fi

[Kougar]

Arch:
LMFAO!!!! That is a weak and outdated list with people who were for the most part cleared of wrongdoing. Sorry bud, you lost that one. I'll give you happy face sticker for the effort though! Love ya. Koug

[Rich Casebolt]

Kougar -- weak?

Hastings -- impeached
Studds -- censured
Murtha -- named an unindicted co-conspirator; caught on tape willing to deal
Berry -- convicted and jailed
Berger - convicted and fined
Bill Clinton -- unindicted co-conspirator, disbarred, fined -- and impeached, for more than a BJ.

The fact that all (except Berger) enjoyed further political success after their troubles started is a sign of weakness, all right ... a weakness in the moral fiber of those who supported them, like you.

And ... outdated? In addition to Berger ...

Jefferson -- cold cash found in 2005
Harry Reid -- deal came to national light in 2006
Barrak Obama - deal came to national light in 2006
Diane Fienstein - conflict of interest, 2001-2005

None of the above have been cleared of wrongdoing ... and neither have these; their wrongdoing simply hasn't been pursued through the justice system ...

Hillary Clinton - travelgate, 800 FBI files
Al Sharpton - Tawana Brawley scam

... and those who haven't been pursued yet, due to politics ...

Nancy Pelosi - Logan Act Violation
Tom Lantos - Logan Act Violation

And then you have those whose failings fall outside the justice system:

Robert Byrd - KKK grand wizard

Barney Frank - who yes, was cleared of running a Homosexual sex ring from his DC office. His partner ran it, instead, from his home, IIRC.

Looks like a list as "strong" or stronger, as the one, derived from standard moonbat talking points, you threw up here.

Of course, to people like you, only the rich can be immoral.

[CitSAR]

Are Democrats Traitors, I dunnano...

But, it is time to call the Democrats what they are. They are people who in the face of danger and possible personal demise have decided it is easier to back what they perceive as the eventual winner than fight on for their countries benefit or anyone elses for that matter.

This the definition of a TURNCOAT. It exactly fits the situation and it is below contempt.

[knud]

To Beth:

So we have to punish the military and the Iraqis that will be left behind...

Occupying powers have no rights, only responsibilites. One of them is to listen to the people of, in this case, Iraq. Here is a poll conducted in february-march 2007. 22% (strongly or somewhat) support the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 78% (strongly or somewhat) oppose. In fact only 6% strongly support their presence while 46% strongly oppose. Here is another:

Overall, do you think the presence of US forces in Iraq is making security better, worse, or having no effect on the security situation?
21% better, 69% worse, 10% no effect.

If you want the US forces to stay, it's certainly not because you care for democracy or the iraqis.

[Ymarsakar]

Rich, beating Kou over the head with the facts isn't gallant of you.

[Ymarsakar]

One of them is to listen to the people of, in this case, Iraq.

And why should someone with no rights listen to others with no rights? There isn't a social contract going on here. Or do you think occupations are welfare systems with a duty to provide for you and your clique while you give nothing back?

If you want the US forces to stay, it's certainly not because you care for democracy or the iraqis.

Let me clue you in on something. Just because the American people have almost zero approval of Congress and to a lesser extent lawyers, doesn't mean America wants to overthrow Congress and kill all the lawyers.

[Kougar]

Ymar aka JRR Tolkien

All tuckered out there, are we? Apparently you can't confront me anymore since all you can come up with are half baked retorts plaigirized from Lord of the Rings! I know, once you hit the reality wall, alls you can do is cheerlead.....Here's my favorite from 'ol Ymar aka JRR "Bleach animation with streams of blood coming out.So many axes flash, with a cavalry charge riding Kou down, that it is entertaining." Problem is, you actually live in this fantasy world, where there are unicorns and knights and wizards. You're not one of those Dungeons and Dragons people, are you? You make me laugh, Servant of Enthalpy!

Cordially yours,
Servant of Entropy

PS. How many laws of nature can incorporate into our next comment? See you there, JRR!

[Rich Casebolt]

Knud -- want to provide a link to that poll? Most poll questions that deal with that subject include significant qualifiers -- as in after the foreign fighters are destroyed/security situation is stable, etc.

And, Ymar is right ... since when does an occupier HAVE to submit to the will of those within an occupied nation? Whether it is PRUDENT or not to listen to them, is another matter entirely.

The Iraqis have a responsibility here ... one that their nation was clearly ignoring under Saddam ... a responsibility to not aid/abet/impose totalitarian rule through violence upon others, inside or outside its borders.

We are there, to make sure they are capable of living up to that responsibility in the future. When they can do so, we can and will leave.

I find it ironic that you say we don't care about democracy in Iraq, when we facilitated the first truly free-and-fair elections there in decades ... and those elections were supported by the Iraqi people in proportions that put our own people to shame by comparsion ... another reason I seriously question your interpretation of the applicable polls.

Of course, democracy to you apparently means only having representation/a voice ... do not forget that democracy alone is insufficient to protect life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Only when democracy is combined with structual protections that apply to majority and minority alike -- security/law enforcement mechanisms to protect against physical violence, lawmaking mechanisms to assure that those rights are protected, and checks-and-balances to prevent the abuse of all this by a capricious regime or the mob rule of an unchecked/unbalanced democracy -- does a nation gain the sustainable resistance necessary to prevent its hijacking by totalitarians.

We know what works, in terms of keeping nations free, prosperous, strong ... and yet, non-threatening to world peace. Nations who implement the rights-respecting governance described above ARE NO THREAT to us.

The worship of "self-determination" to such a degree that we leave an obviously-dysfunctional nation to their own devices until they get things right, is no longer prudent in an age when thugs and fanatics can -- under the cover of soverignty -- quickly combine their resources and infrastructure with 21st Century technology with 7th Century brutality to impose their will upon others.

That worship -- a form of 1960's stupidity -- has gotten a lot of people killed -- most before 11 Sept 2001. The events of that day woke us up to the problem.

Credible/timely/resolute/decisive confrontation of these enemies is the solution ... and until someone else with equal (or more) determination to do so can be put in his position -- regardless of party affiliation -- our current President has my support.

We won't be fooled again ...

[Ymarsakar]

You make me laugh, Servant of Enthalpy!

Enthalpy... hilarious.

en·thal·py /ˈɛnθælpi, ɛnˈθæl-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-thal-pee, en-thal-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -pies. Thermodynamics.
a quantity associated with a thermodynamic system, expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process. Symbol: H
Also called heat content, total heat.

One of the reasons why you don't see folks like you using dictionary.com is because you think you know it all. So you have no doubt. And when you have no doubt, you are unable to progress, learn, and improve.

Your quintessential essence is weak and lacking in fiber.

Cordially yours,
Servant of Entropy

There you go, have you finally accepted your place in the Celestial Hierarchy, Kou? Have you chosen to redeem yourself yet?

Of course, democracy to you apparently means only having representation/a voice ... do not forget that democracy alone is insufficient to protect life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Democracy to them means that they get represented, fauk everybody else. Simple and efficient, if not all that ethical.

The worship of "self-determination"

The Left has never believed in self-determination, Rich. Did they believe in self-determination in the days of Robert Byrd's KKK lynch fests? In the days of the Copperhead Democrats in the North and the Southern pro-Plantation system Democrats? No.

They believe that they determine how you will act, and they have decided, Rich, how the Iraqis will act. Just cause they're wrong, doesn't mean much of anything to them.

[Kougar]

Mr.Tolkien,

Glad you liked the "Servant of Enthalpy". Maybe we can talk more thermodynamics at the next Dungeons and Dragons convention while we pretend to be wizards!

Yours cordially,
Servant of Entropy

[Ymarsakar]

First you got to reply to my previous comments.

[Kougar]

Mr.Tolkien aka Ymar

I'll pass. You realize that even your fellow wingnuts are laughing at you, right? Look, I don't believe in being cruel, so I'm actually going to take a nap, maybe take a few days off. I'll be dreaming of unicorns and wizards increasing the entropy of closed systems while I slumber.

Toodaloo,
Kou

[Ymarsakar]

All tuckered out there, are we?-Kou

I can't be annoyed by people like you. Because you are not an equal, on a human or sentient standard.

Look, I don't believe in being cruel, so I'm actually going to take a nap, maybe take a few days off.

If you're tuckered out, then you can leave. It makes little difference to me. You are not the light of my life, Kou, regardless of your narcissistic perception of yourself.

[Ymarsakar]

Don't you get it Ko, I want you to stop talking here, I want you to disappear, I want you to Null function. It will give many people a clearer and more focused mind than if you were to just keep yapping and admiring yourself in the computer screen.

Take a break from entropy's pull, why don't you. Not everybody exists for you to pull an Iago on.

[John Ryan]

The strategy of the Democrats will be to force the Republicans to continue to vote yes in support of the war. This is a big loser in 08.
As for the "surge" the tide turned against the USA a long time back. Real hard to stop the tide, real hard.

[Rich Casebolt]

John -- as I said to some others on another thread here, you need to keep in mind these words as you express your confidence in a Democratic Party victory as a result of this war:

George McGovern, 1972

Not to mention, you need to google:

Anbar Rising nytimes

Living here on Long Island, I do know that the tide comes in, and goes out, and comes in, and goes out ... and while you need to keep the tide in mind, you can work around it when needed.

[Rich Casebolt]

Kougar -- re: sucking up to dictators?

You know why we did that back then?

Because people like you stridently demanded that our leaders not unleash American forces to directly and decisively deal with our enemies in those times.

Had y'all advocated decisive action, we wouldn't have resorted to proxy warfare, in an attempt to deal with problems that did not respond to your renditions of "Kumbiyah".

Instead, though, y'all advocated INACTION ... and our leaders listened in many cases. In those cases, our enemies grew stronger and bolder ...

... one, in particular, supporting any terrorist that would work with him, including the provision of safe haven to at least one who tried to collapse certain buildings in Lower Manhatttan in 1993 ...

... another, engaging in independent efforts, that led to the conversion of those same buildings to a place now known as Ground Zero.

In other cases, however, where our leaders confronted our enemies in a credible/timely/resolute/decisive manner, millions of people were liberated ... nuclear-arms stockpiles were reduced ... and international tensions were eased to a great degree.

And, we didn't have to scorch the earth to do so.

Keep undermining the war effort, and the next time we might not have that luxury ... for from what I have seen, this enemy will not stop expanding totalitarian rule on its own. Someone ... probably America, again ... will have to stop them.

Right now, they can be stopped with a relatively-low loss of life and economic impact ... if we engage them with decisive, precision-guided ruthlessness that lives up to the dictum "no better friend - no worse enemy"; something both our leaders and our warfighters are getting better at.

Undermine the war effort, and that low-cost, precision course may become unsustainable. We will be compelled to either surrender, or fight our enemies the old-fashioned way, which will kill millions ...

... and you and your fellow-travelers will have unwittingly facilitated that outcome, by putting our backs against the wall with the combined idiocy of Leftism/Utopian idealism/realpolitik.

Where's the compassion in that?

[Skycaptain]

If you just walk away and you enemy kills your friends after you leave then that is a "LOSE"

[Ymarsakar]

The Left have no friends, only servants, slaves, and tools.

[Djuha]

I am continually amazed by the perverse codependency shown by members of the military towards Bush. Dumping more good lives and money into the inferno that is Iraq because you don't want to admit defeat is childish vanity and just plain retarded. This is another Somme or Verdun, a monumental and complete waste for no practical purpose.

I also condemn many congressional Democrats, but in the sense that *any* member of congress who wants America's failed occupation to continue for even one more day is a fool or a coward or both.

[Rich Casebolt]

Djuha -- it is not a case of admitting defeat.

Actually, it is a case of saving thousands ... and potentially, millions ... of innocent lives, by doing whatever it takes to immunize one nation from further totalitarian hijacking.

A VERY practical purpose.

The non-confrontational alternatives to the actions taken by this Administration, OTOH, did NOTHING to put a stop to the oppression of these dictators ... despite many YEARS of their application.

Now, there was a waste of time for you ... but because you didn't have to get your hands dirty, you're just fine with it.

The idea that we are somehow beyond the need for violent action to protect life and liberty is what's retarded ... but it is not childish vanity.

It is the vanity of the smugly arrogant, who believe that just because they have an elaborate education, they are also wise ... when in fact they are the embodiment of Romans 1:22.

One expression of that vanity is to view our support for the Battle of Iraq as coming from a basis of simple political support for a man.

It is the other way around ... those who are wise are supporting a Man, because he is wise enough to understand that confrontation was, and is still, required to end the threat Iraq posed ...

... and still could become, if we heed your words and stop our efforts there.

[Ymarsakar]

I'll sum up D's beliefs since D is too afraid to say it.

Folks who continue to support the war are fools and cowards. While those not in Congress, in the war, fighting the war, who continue to support the war, are childish.

It's got to be said, since D won't.

Djuha is indeed the fool and the coward. Only a fool thinks he can call others cowards after saying those fighting a life and death struggle are children. And only a coward believes that he isn't a fool for calling folks who take on unpopular positions, "cowards".

[arch]

Djuha:

I will gladly accept your surrender so the rest of us can get on with the war.