Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --This is the U.S.'s first preemptive war, which means there had to be a beginning, middle and end planned before the first plane was sent aloft.-- We attacked Hitler in a preemptive mannor before he ever attacked us. We had plans for that war that changed the second combat started. All wars have a basic warplan that gets tossed the moment the war starts. Just talk to anyone in the Militray about this for confirmation. Iraq is no different. You seem to think we can't win and we are in a quagmire. I can only imagine what you would have thought about WWII after we lost thousands of troops in one day when the plan was totally scrapped. Singleparkpassholder ask yourself, if in five years sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased to a negligible level; refugees have returned; a second democratic election has been conducted, leading to a peaceable transition of power; and Iraq functions at a normal third-world state level (similar to Honduras, for example), would this be considered a “failure†to you? A vicious, expansionistic (and in light of the facts, plainly Islamist) dictatorship would have been replaced with a much more “normal†country. Yes, there would be great cost in lives in achieving this—but it would be an achievement nonetheless. If such a thing occurs, no one could possibly describe the Iraq war as a “failure.â€
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I'm sure there are some "democrats" who want us to lose. Sure, but to say that many of us do, and imply that most of us do is just plain wrong. It's sad that you seem to spend more time putting down people you THINK you understand instead of just defending your own beliefs. Unless "Dems Is Bad" is your only belief...which could quite possibly be true since that's what the theme of all of your WE posts have been. Plus, you need to know that we've had a few truly obnoxious posters here who pretty much exhausted our abilities to hear someone talking only about how wrong Democrats are. You may or not be one of the former posters (I think maybe not) but that's why you're getting an instant reaction. If you think your side is doing so well try talking about that more instead of just talking about how bad the other side is. Just a thought.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line Hi mele, I never said ALL democrats want us to lose. I said many however do and I gave the exact reasons why. If you can give me a few Democrats on the national scene that have come up with a good plan to WIN the war in Iraq ( where I have a cousin serving right now )then please tell me who they are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Since it was a republican administration that started this war, wouldn't you expect them to have a plan to "win" it? Will you at least acknowledge that this administration has failed in their efforts in iraq? And now you expect the dems to ride to the rescue, or even to support the bush white house in their efforts to escalate the war after almost four years of ineptitude. Why would they? The iraq war is a failure. And it's a failure that's owned lock stock and barrel by bush. You don't like that fact, but there it is. It does no good to try and project the responsibility onto anyone else. Own it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <A vicious, expansionistic (and in light of the facts, plainly Islamist) dictatorship> Actually, the facts are that Saddam was not an Islamist at all. Despite paying lip service to Islam occasionally, he was one of the most secular leaders in the region. He feared actual Islamists as a threat to his own power. This sentence alone tells me you don't really understand Iraq. And #20 only revealed that YOU tend to see the world in starkly partisan Republican/Democrat terms (as your other posts have also shown), and you're projecting that on to Democrats, assuming they must view the world similarly, or as the other side of your coin. But it ain't so.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line -- Since it was a republican administration that started this war, wouldn't you expect them to have a plan to "win" it? Will you at least acknowledge that this administration has failed in their efforts in iraq? -- Hi gadzuux. What is a gadzuux anyway? Disney character?? (< No I will not acknowledge this administration has failed in Iraq. Like I said in an earlier post, this is THE most important thing the Democrats and people on the left want to hear. If they can get America to go along with this defeatest thinking, they have a better chance to win the next election. The reason I reject the leftist line that we are losing is the following. If we have failed in Iraq as you say, then the enemy in Iraq has been victorious. So what has he achieved? Has he stopped Iraq from adopting democratic institutions? No. Has he stopped the Iraqis from electing their own government? No. Does he hold any village, town, or city in Iraq? No. Has he goaded the Iraqi government into taking draconian measures that alienate the public? No. Has he prevented the Iraqi economy from growing at the fastest rate in the world? No. Has he steadily increased the rate at which he kills our troops? No. Has he prevented the Iraqi military from learning how to plan and execute its own missions? No. An American defeat and a terrorist victory exists only in the minds of people who look to Ted Kennedy as an example of moral, credible leadership. Those of us who retain the ability to engage in critical thinking realize that we are not only not defeated in Iraq, we are closer than ever to victory. And that’s what hurts you, isn’t it? That’s your nightmare scenario, that we’ll actually win in Iraq. But I won’t question your patriotism.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I can only imagine what you would have thought about WWII after we lost thousands of troops in one day when the plan was totally scrapped." And this is a valid comparison in what sense? "Singleparkpassholder ask yourself, if in five years sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased to a negligible level; refugees have returned; a second democratic election has been conducted, leading to a peaceable transition of power; and Iraq functions at a normal third-world state level (similar to Honduras, for example), would this be considered a “failure†to you? A vicious, expansionistic (and in light of the facts, plainly Islamist) dictatorship would have been replaced with a much more “normal†country. Yes, there would be great cost in lives in achieving this—but it would be an achievement nonetheless. If such a thing occurs, no one could possibly describe the Iraq war as a “failure.†I'll ask you again, what part of 1500 years of sectarian violence don't you get? No amount of our involvement is going to bring this down to a "negligible level". Our presence the last four years has borne that out. You HAVE been paying attention, I would assume. Your cousin should be pissed at his commander in chief right about now.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If we have failed in Iraq as you say, then the enemy in Iraq has been victorious." Do you even know who the enemy is?? Saddam's dead. They have a new government? Who's the enemy that would be victorious? "An American defeat and a terrorist victory exists only in the minds of people who look to Ted Kennedy as an example of moral, credible leadership. Those of us who retain the ability to engage in critical thinking realize that we are not only not defeated in Iraq, we are closer than ever to victory." When you want a serious response, write something accordingly. This previous paragraph is nothing but drivel. "And that’s what hurts you, isn’t it? That’s your nightmare scenario, that we’ll actually win in Iraq." See above.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Actually, the facts are that Saddam was not an Islamist at all. Despite paying lip service to Islam occasionally, he was one of the most secular leaders in the region. He feared actual Islamists as a threat to his own power. This sentence alone tells me you don't really understand Iraq.-- Saddam took a Koran to the gallows, he was a Muslim. Not a very good Muslim who followed the rules of Islam all the time, but he was an Islamic terrorist all the same. According to the Duelfer Report that came out a few years back, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the USA and the rest of the world. Were we just supposed to leave him alone until he pulled off an attack? You are arguing that Saddam was best left in power killing hundreds of thousands of his own people and he should have been able to continue to be a menace to the world. Why?
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<"An American defeat and a terrorist victory exists only in the minds of people who look to Ted Kennedy as an example of moral, credible leadership.>> That's the problem...Bush couldn't fathom that we could lose and so didn't plan accordingly. He thought we'd be greated as liberators and didn't plan for any other scenarious, even with 1500 years of violent history to draw from. You can't fix a problem if you won't even admit that it exists. Stubbornness helps no one.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --I'll ask you again, what part of 1500 years of sectarian violence don't you get? No amount of our involvement is going to bring this down to a "negligible level". Our presence the last four years has borne that out. You HAVE been paying attention, I would assume.-- I personally think that if the insurgents that are responsible for the bombings and the killings can be taken care of, which is happening as we speak with the new surge, Iraq can have peace. You think the situation is hopeless. I can respect that. I would like to know what you think happens if we get out and lose in Iraq? Speaking of my cousin, he tells all of us in our family that the average Iraqi just wants to live in peace so they can raise their family. With Saddam gone they now have a chance. They all want the terroism to be stopped, which is what we are starting to really do this last week. About time!
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Saddam took a Koran to the gallows, he was a Muslim. >> That was brilliant of him. What a great way to fire up extremists!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You are arguing that Saddam was best left in power killing hundreds of thousands of his own people and he should have been able to continue to be a menace to the world. Why?" That's the problem with being an anachronism. You assume things and put words in people's mouths to suit yur own purpose. If you don't have anything new to add, don't expect much by way of a serious response any more. All your lines and talking points were exhausted by last year and with good reason.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Do you even know who the enemy is?? Saddam's dead. They have a new government? Who's the enemy that would be victorious?-- Al Quaida, Iran and Sryia, all who have insurgents in Iraq killing our troops. --- When you want a serious response, write something accordingly. This previous paragraph is nothing but drivel. --- The fact that you can't even admit many Democrats are pushing for a loss because it benefits them politically makes me wonder if you understand politics at all. Why else do the Democrats change their position based on what Bush does as the original post points out so well. You think the Democrats who are power crazed want Bush and the Republicans to win the war in Iraq with an election coming up? OK, show me a few examples of Democrats doing things that will win the war in Iraq. If you say getting out before the job is done is winning then I know your not serious about any of this. PS. The job is done when Iraq can stand on it's own and the country is not a haven for terrorists. The recent surge in troops is designed to make this happen at an accelerated pace. Yet your average Democrat is AGAINST this for some reason.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Because it's just more of the same thing. We don't want more soldiers dead when we think that, in the end, it's just the same plan all over again. Ever heard of Einstein's famouse quote about insanity? "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." That's what this feels like. Sure, I guess that sounds like plain ol' negativity to some.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The fact that you can't even admit many Democrats are pushing for a loss because it benefits them politically makes me wonder if you understand politics at all." Name one Democrat who has come out and expressly said "I want us to lose this war". One. Name one. This is the problem with people like you, as I said earlier. You put words and thoughts in the mouths of others and then argue against yourself. It's dishonest. "You think the Democrats who are power crazed want Bush and the Republicans to win the war in Iraq with an election coming up?" Power crazed? LOL. Who controlled all three branches of government the last six years and byopassed the Constitution? Sure wasn't the Democrats. And check your calendar. There just was an election, You lost, and it was because of the war. The public has had it with the war. Wake up. "The recent surge in troops-" I'm going to stop you right there. This troop addition Bush wants to have happen still won't bring the number of troops to previous high levels. And those levels back then weren't enough. So stop with that kind of nonsense.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --If you don't have anything new to add, don't expect much by way of a serious response any more. All your lines and talking points were exhausted by last year and with good reason. -- When people say things like this during an honest discussion it means they are running out of solid arguments. When someone tells me that Saddam was not really into Islam and he was secular and that he held the region together we all can see that that means Saddam should have been left in power. For you to play dumb or act like you don't get this makes me wonder why you are even talking about this stuff.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "For you to play dumb or act like you don't get this makes me wonder why you are even talking about this stuff." Right back at ya.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Name one Democrat who has come out and expressly said "I want us to lose this war". One. Name one.-- LOL! You think they are going to come out and say "We want to lose the war so it hurts Bush and the GOP!" In the real world we judge people by their actions. The actions of the Democrats, is to leave Iraq ASAP and blame Bush for getting us into a " quagmire " all while claiming a massive defeat. There is no talk about winning, there is no talk about what happens if we lose, there is no talk about how we are going to defeat Islamic terrorism. What we do get is plans to quit and then talk to those who want to kill us. I have asked you 3 times to give me an example of Democrats doing things to support our troops and Bush in a way where we win the war. You then start with childish insults. Point made. --The public has had it with the war. Wake up.-- OK, your right, time to quit and concede defeat because the public has had it with the war. That is leadership at it's best! I will ask you again. What happens if we lose in Iraq? -- I'm going to stop you right there. This troop addition Bush wants to have happen still won't bring the number of troops to previous high levels. And those levels back then weren't enough. So stop with that kind of nonsense. -- I think you need to learn more about the new addition of troops and how they are going to operate this time around before you insist we are going to fail and that our troops can't pull this off.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>give me an example of Democrats doing things to support our troops and Bush in a way where we win the war<< They've not cut nor blocked funding on one thing in this expensive enterprise, for starters. That's billions of things right there.
