Has Dems made us weak against Iran.

[MarcBulger]

Seeing how the left has done nothing but hammer and hammer the war in Iraq using Teachers to the left leaning press to slam the President and the Iraq war. Has this made us weaker vs. Iran. One thing Iraq showed the World was we can and will take over your country, we had fear on our side. Now with Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid hammering our leader every chance they get has this shown Iran that they can get away with whatever they want. America has no longer have a stomach for war....Do I think Bush has handled everything 100% correct, hell no but he has faced two things that no other President has faced and instead of doing whats best for the OCuntry the left just wants their power back and they will cut off our nose in spite of our face.....Sad but true....

If the left had gotten behind Bush in Iraq and decided hey its us or them then I do not beleive Iran would make any noise, however since our leaders have been attacked attacked, Bush and the United States looks a lot weaker. Thanks Harry and Nancy....

[banyon]

Oh yeah...now I remember why righties don't start threads.

Thanks for the reminder MarcBulger! :thumb:

[Amnorix]

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[JBucc]

I'm sure that makes so much sense my feeble mind can't even begin to comprehend it. Yeah that's it.

[Adept Havelock]

he has faced two things that no other President has faced

I'll likely regret this, but I can't resist asking what those two things are. :hmmm:

If you are talking about an attack on the US itself, check 1812 and 1941.
If you are talking about the threat of attack by WMD's, check every president between 1945-Current day.

If you are talking about attacks on US citizens, there are plenty of instances over our 200 years of existence.

Marc, Lithium is your friend. Try to remember that.

[MarcBulger]

No we just keep winning elections.....No

[MarcBulger]

No we just keep winning elections.....No President faced 3000 murders of civilians at one time no other Pres faced

[MarcBulger]

No we just keep winning elections.....No President faced 3000 murders of civilians at one time no other Pres faced a tidal wave destroying a city. Please Hillary in 08

[Ugly Duck]

Just back away from the keyboard, Marc. Sit down on the couch, relax.... maybe take in a little more television....

http://www.topplebush.com/humor/sheeple.jpg

[penchief]

Seeing how the left has done nothing but hammer and hammer the war in Iraq using Teachers to the left leaning press to slam the President and the Iraq war.


Oh yeah........thanks for reminding of this administration's latest political straw man; the liberal teacher.

Yeah, that's why people are sick of Bush.......it's the liberal conspiracy's fault.

[patteeu]

Seeing how the left has done nothing but hammer and hammer the war in Iraq using Teachers to the left leaning press to slam the President and the Iraq war. Has this made us weaker vs. Iran. One thing Iraq showed the World was we can and will take over your country, we had fear on our side. Now with Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid hammering our leader every chance they get has this shown Iran that they can get away with whatever they want. America has no longer have a stomach for war....Do I think Bush has handled everything 100% correct, hell no but he has faced two things that no other President has faced and instead of doing whats best for the OCuntry the left just wants their power back and they will cut off our nose in spite of our face.....Sad but true....

If the left had gotten behind Bush in Iraq and decided hey its us or them then I do not beleive Iran would make any noise, however since our leaders have been attacked attacked, Bush and the United States looks a lot weaker. Thanks Harry and Nancy....

I think the conclusions you draw are right on the money. This is the best MarcBulger post I've ever read. As you said, sad but true.

[Nightwish]

Please tell me you're not dumb enough to believe that the criticisms of the left are responsible for the messy response to 9/11, the bungled war in Iraq, and the failures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina! Every President has had his successes and failures (though I'm straining to think of what Bush can really call a "success," other than removing Saddam). So I'm going to give you a choice: 1) Bush's failures are really the fault of the libs and their everpresent voices of dissent and refusal to support his policies, and the same holds true for Clinton's failures, which were really the fault of the conservatives and their everpresent voices of dissent and refusal to support his policies; or 2) Bush's failures are his own, just as Clinton's were his own. Please choose intelligently, if that's possible.

[jAZ]

Has Dems made us weak against Iran.
Has education failed Cons in the U.S.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Yup, it's the Dems fault. Hell, everything is. Seriously, your car breaks down, it was probably a Democrat oil-change-guy who new you were a Republican. Mark, they're everywhere and they're looking for YOU!!eleven!1!!

[jAZ]

If the left had gotten behind Bush in Iraq...
I've become fond of saying this, but "screw Godwin".

"If the Jews had gotten behind Hitler..."

In case I have to spell it out the point is... some ideas deserve opposition.

[jAZ]

Yup, it's the Dems fault. Hell, everything is. Seriously, your car breaks down, it was probably a Democrat oil-change-guy who new you were a Republican. Mark, they're everywhere and they're looking for YOU!!eleven!1!!
Da dems is da debil!

(isn't that how it goes go bo?)

[jAZ]

Has education failed Cons in the U.S.
I'll let you judge...
No we just keep winning elections.....No
No we just keep winning elections.....No President faced 3000 murders of civilians at one time no other Pres faced
No we just keep winning elections.....No President faced 3000 murders of civilians at one time no other Pres faced a tidal wave destroying a city. Please Hillary in 08

[the Talking Can]

yes, the party not in power is responsible....



we need a new word...something that means "beyond incredibly ****ing stupid"...something that means "so dumb he should have been aborted"....something that rhymes with "kotter"....

[Taco John]

I agree with MarcBulger. America doesn't have the stomach for war. I think America has the stomach for justice. But for war? Nope. I think those days died with WWII. And even then America wanted no part of it until the Japanese brought it to our soil...

I think the Bush admin assumed that Americans would react the same way they did to Pearl Harbor and just give him a blank check to do whatever the hell his benefactors were paying him to do in full support of him. But guess what? They didn't.

Some will read this as a sign of weakness. The only weakness I see is the weakness of the Bush Administration to properly sell the war to the American people in a meaningful way that kept the nation focused on winning it. If this war is so damned important, then why the weak sell? You'd think an important war would be an easy sell.

[jettio]

The two things B*sh is facing that never occurred before is:

1. He has no idea wtf he is doing.

2. He is the first president that is subordinate to the vice president, and that vp does not know wtf he is doing either.

It is the democrats fault for not doing everything they could to stop the idiots from getting their way.

B*sh and his boss Cheney got everything they asked for, they have nobody to blame, but in our democracy, the oppossing party and the electorate also bears some responsibility for allowing incompetence and stupidity to prevail.

To B*sh's and Cheney's credit, they are doing everything possible to make sure that the American people realize the dangers of electing two morons whose primary goal is to make their rich friends richer.

[MarcBulger]

I love it when libs call you stupid cause they can't respond. The Dems hammering in my opinion has gone overboard on the War....Not Katrina, nothing but the War....Ya Bush has had no success lets see he took over and economy that was in reccesion,and now its growing 4.7% unemployment, Dows over 11,000 yea no success, and he did not have a computer boom to fall back on.....Keep trying.

[Sully]

It is the Dems fault.
If they had found a better candidate. One who could make his points succinctly, and without rambling. One who was more telegenic. One who came across a little better to those folks who vote (stupidly) based on the "I'd have a beer with him" factor, then we'd be in a completely different situation.
So... I agree... it's the Dem's fault. They has made us weaker.

[jAZ]

It is the Dems fault.
If they had found a better candidate. One who could make his points succinctly, and without rambling. One who was more telegenic. One who came across a little better to those folks who vote (stupidly) based on the "I'd have a beer with him" factor, then we'd be in a completely different situation.
So... I agree... it's the Dem's fault. They has made us weaker.
da dems is da debil!

(just following the standard set by the conz)

[Sully]

da dems is da debil!

(just following the standard set by the conz)
Just to be clear, I am probably one of the more liberal posters here, so what I was saying was a sort of self-criticism of the party I am forced to side with.

[patteeu]

I agree with MarcBulger. America doesn't have the stomach for war. I think America has the stomach for justice. But for war? Nope. I think those days died with WWII. And even then America wanted no part of it until the Japanese brought it to our soil...

I think the Bush admin assumed that Americans would react the same way they did to Pearl Harbor and just give him a blank check to do whatever the hell his benefactors were paying him to do in full support of him. But guess what? They didn't.

Some will read this as a sign of weakness. The only weakness I see is the weakness of the Bush Administration to properly sell the war to the American people in a meaningful way that kept the nation focused on winning it. If this war is so damned important, then why the weak sell? You'd think an important war would be an easy sell.

Yep, that's right. America doesn't have the stomach for a war unless it is lightning quick, casualty free, and praised by the UN (or at least by the majority of the countries we normally consider allies).

I do see it as a sign of weakness. More than a sign of weakness, an actual weakness. The Iranians sure see it as a weakness. And the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq see it as a weakness which they are trying to leverage into a victory for themselves.

I disagree with the part about this being a weakness in terms of properly selling the war. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that most Americans aren't buying the idea that we could possibly have interests that far from our territory regardless of the sales job. Americans will only support bully wars like the ones we participated in in the Balkans where they can pretend that we are doing God's work (because we don't have any actual interests of our own involved) and where they can be confident that it won't be very painful in terms of casualties.

[banyon]

I disagree with the part about this being a weakness in terms of properly selling the war. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that most Americans aren't buying the idea that we could possibly have interests that far from our territory regardless of the sales job.

:BS:

Everyone supported Afghanistan.

[Ugly Duck]

I love it when libs call you stupid
Happens a lot, does it?

[Bowser]

Oh, for ****s sake.

[patteeu]

:BS:

Everyone supported Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was the kind of quicky war that I said Americans will support (although if we continue to have a troop presence there and if casualties and violence mount, we may see erosion in that support too). Support was widespread, but it wasn't universal. There were plenty of voices cautioning against the quagmire a groundwar would become based on the experiences of the British and the Russians. Of course, after the quick and painless success, most of those naysayers disappeared and in many cases I'm sure they claim to have been for Afghanistan all along.

Instead of "interests that far from our territory," I should have said "interests worth waging a war that might take a while and lead to significant US casualties that far from our territory."

[Ugly Duck]

I think the Bush admin assumed that Americans would react the same way they did to Pearl Harbor and just give him a blank check to do whatever the hell his benefactors were paying him to do in full support of him. But guess what? They didn't.We did go Pearl Harbor reaction at first. BushCo had a blank check from us, near unamimous support from the other branches of government, and an unprecedented tsunami of support from most of the rest of the world. Then came the details of deception to sell a war against the wrong country. Sweetheart deals to Halliburton and subsequent theft of our money. Republicans going to prison for war-related corruption. Ballooning the national debt to have others pay off our bill to make it more palatable that we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Staggering ineptness and incompetence in handling the "peace" after Mission was Accomplished. Billions of dollars going into corporate accounts for "rebuilding" that is not happening. The tsunami of unprecedented foreign support has turned into unprecedented distain and great waves of hate. America's image took such a blow from BushCo buffoonery that it is at an all-time low. They took our blank check and embarked on a fuggup of galactic scale. Subsequently, neocon poll numbers are in the gutter in backlash against their massive failure.

[banyon]

Afghanistan was the kind of quicky war that I said Americans will support (although if we continue to have a troop presence there and if casualties and violence mount, we may see erosion in that support too). Support was widespread, but it wasn't universal. There were plenty of voices cautioning against the quagmire a groundwar would become based on the experiences of the British and the Russians. Of course, after the quick and painless success, most of those naysayers disappeared and in many cases I'm sure they claim to have been for Afghanistan all along.

Instead of "interests that far from our territory," I should have said "interests worth waging a war that might take a while and lead to significant US casualties that far from our territory."

Afghanistan was a "quicky" war, because Bush made it that way, by diverting our troop strength to Iraq. Maybe I was being hyperbolic in saying "everyone", but I think that even if Ralph Nader had been President he would've bombed Afghanistan.

Some of the latest from Afghanistan:

In fact, four years after the Taliban were ousted from power by the American military, their presence is bigger and more menacing than ever, say police and government officials, village elders, farmers and aid workers across southern Afghanistan.

American and Afghan officials have said for months that the Taliban are no longer capable of fighting large battles, and in their weakness have changed tactics to roadside bombings or attacking soft targets, like harassing villagers, killing teachers and burning schools.

Yet despite its evident military supremacy, the American-led alliance has not been able to root out the insurgency. And the Taliban's tactics have succeeded in sowing fear, nearly all here agree.

The militants have closed down some 200 schools through threats and burnings across the south of Afghanistan, and killed dozens of government officials, tribal elders and civilians over the last year. Commerce has sharply declined in Kandahar, largely because of the rash of suicide bombings in the last few months.

http://www.nytimes.com/ (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/international/02taliban.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&ei=5094&en=a51daaa42ae5180a&hp&ex=1141362000&partner=homepage)

I think that even if we were still heavily involved in Afghanistan, Most Americans would still support it, because there was a just reason to bomb the s*** out of them that most everyone could agree on.

[Taco John]

Yep, that's right. America doesn't have the stomach for a war unless it is lightning quick, casualty free, and praised by the UN (or at least by the majority of the countries we normally consider allies).

I do see it as a sign of weakness. More than a sign of weakness, an actual weakness. The Iranians sure see it as a weakness. And the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq see it as a weakness which they are trying to leverage into a victory for themselves.

I disagree with the part about this being a weakness in terms of properly selling the war. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that most Americans aren't buying the idea that we could possibly have interests that far from our territory regardless of the sales job. Americans will only support bully wars like the ones we participated in in the Balkans where they can pretend that we are doing God's work (because we don't have any actual interests of our own involved) and where they can be confident that it won't be very painful in terms of casualties.



I agree that America doesn't have the stomach for war. I disagree that it couldn't be sold to them. I think if the war is important enough, it would be an easy sell to the American people. Americans will get behind a war that they believe in. Nobody really believes in this Iraq war, except a small minority.

I find the Iraq war a waste of time and lives. I'm not sold that it's crucial to American Freedom to "liberate" Iraq. I appreciate the soldiers who are there, but I wish that we were making better use of their sacrifice... For instance, on something that really mattered to the American people, like Homeland security.

I don't think you can just "go to war," in a liberal Democracy. I think you have to first make the case that your people will get behind. Otherwise, you're doomed to failure, because the people will lose taste for it, and support will wane. In the end, America will look weak, not because America *is* weak, but because of a weak leader who didn't make the case to begin with.

If you want to criticize America for their reaction to this useless war, but ignore the top, the people making the decisions, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[jettio]

I agree that America doesn't have the stomach for war. I disagree that it couldn't be sold to them. I think if the war is important enough, it would be an easy sell to the American people. Americans will get behind a war that they believe in. Nobody really believes in this Iraq war, except a small minority.

I find the Iraq war a waste of time and lives. I'm not sold that it's crucial to American Freedom to "liberate" Iraq. I appreciate the soldiers who are there, but I wish that we were making better use of their sacrifice... For instance, on something that really mattered to the American people, like Homeland security.

I don't think you can just "go to war," in a liberal Democracy. I think you have to first make the case that your people will get behind. Otherwise, you're doomed to failure, because the people will lose taste for it, and support will wane. In the end, America will look weak, not because America *is* weak, but because of a weak leader who didn't make the case to begin with.

If you want to criticize America for their reaction to this useless war, but ignore the top, the people making the decisions, you're barking up the wrong tree.

If everybody in America was gung ho all the way for the war in Iraq, B*sh Cheney Rumsfeld would still screw it up.

Anybody that thinks american public opinion has played any role in the fact that Iraq is a collossal clusterf*ck needs to explain why they think that.

[Taco John]

If everybody in America was gung ho all the way for the war in Iraq, B*sh Cheney Rumsfeld would still screw it up.

Anybody that thinks american public opinion has played any role in the fact that Iraq is a collossal clusterf*ck needs to explain why they think that.



I think it hurts troop confidence. But aside from that, I agree that the strategic blunders made far outweigh the fact that the majority of Americans don't see the point of the war.

[Nightwish]

I love it when libs call you stupid cause they can't respond. The Dems hammering in my opinion has gone overboard on the War....Not Katrina, nothing but the War....
You must be young, having no memory or knowledge of the degree to which previous wars were protested.

Ya Bush has had no success lets see he took over and economy that was in reccesion,and now its growing 4.7% unemployment,
He took over an economy that was trending toward a very slight recession and plunged it to a record low, and what "successes" he's had with the economy have still not brought it back to anywhere near where it was when he took over. It'll probably take many years, short of a miracle, to climb out of the hole he dug us into.

and he did not have a computer boom to fall back on.....Keep trying.
Ah, the dot-com boom, the old favorite rightie comeback. That's one's so tired it's gotta be snoring by now.

[WoodDraw]

I'm just glad we had a President smart enough to get 2,300 US citizens killed to get "fear on our side". That's a hell of an accomplishment.

Seriously though, this county was about as far behind Bush as was possible considering what he wanted to do. Congress was, and for the most part still is, loyal to Bush and the war. He's always had enough money. The only thing he didn't have was a war plan and that's what cost him. The majority of people were behind the war until Bush's own failures exposed the war for what it was - unneeded. Pelosi and Reid have been maddeningly irrelevant in this whole debate. So next time you get angry that your Republican majority is shitting away their agenda, maybe you should hold them accountable. The buck stops, uh, somewhere over there. Nice job.

[stevieray]

funny how people only bring up troops when they want to castigate Bush.

Which is it? trying to compound blame on one person, or dishonoring the oath SOLDIERS take upon enlistment?

[the Talking Can]

funny how people only bring up troops when they want to castigate Bush.

Which is it? trying to compound blame on one person, or dishonoring the oath SOLDIERS take upon enlistment?

c) what the **** is your point?....wait, I mean POINT....

[Adept Havelock]

funny how people only bring up troops when they want to castigate Bush.

Which is it? trying to compound blame on one person, or dishonoring the oath SOLDIERS take upon enlistment?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Please cite exactly which part of the above oaths people are dishonoring by bringing up the fact that the CINC went to war without 1)The number of troops requested by the Commander on the ground, 2)Sufficent support from our allies, and most importantly, 3)a realistic plan to deal with the post-war environment, including a growing insurgency that military analysts were ringing the alarm bell about in 2003?

[stevieray]

c) what the **** is your point?....wait, I mean POINT....

like your post has one?

[stevieray]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)


Please cite exactly which part of the above oaths people are dishonoring by bringing up the fact that the CINC went to war without 1)The number of troops requested by the Commander on the ground, 2)Sufficent support from our allies, and most importantly, 3)a plan to deal with the post-war environment, including a growing insurgency that military analysts were ringing the alarm bell about in 2003?

Nice monday morning QB'ing.

I think it interesting when people act so offended when soldiers die, something they know is possible when volunteering for service to their country. Of course some need to save everyone from themselves, even those called to duty.

[Adept Havelock]

Nice monday morning QB'ing.

I think it interesting when people act so offended when soldiers die, something they know is possible when volunteering for service to their country. Of course some need to save everyone from themselves, even those called to duty.


Hmmm. So you can't cite a single instance of how those oaths are dishonored by people engaging in legitimate protest of a government action? Your statement was mere hyperbole?

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that there are two kinds of people who love their country.

Those that love it in a mature, adult, fashion. Criticizing it when it acts in inappropriate ways, as you would a loved one who acts in a self-destructive manner.

Then there are those that love it like a little kid loves their mommy. "Anyone who says that mommy is doing something wrong must be a horrible person."

I for one see nothing dishonorable in pointing out that our troops were sent to do a job, and not given the tools and plans needed to be successful. I also see nothing wrong with holding an administration that acts in such a mannner accountable. If you do, it's your problem. FTR, I'd be just as outraged if a Dem admin. had comitted these blunders. Can you say the same?

[CRONUS]

I think the conclusions you draw are right on the money. This is the best MarcBulger post I've ever read. As you said, sad but true.
What the hell has happened to you? That post was a jumble of thoughts that made almost no sense at all. You want to continue to defend this administration, fine, I don't understand it, but it is your right. Defending idiots like Bulger and recxjake however is causing you credibility problems.

[stevieray]

Hmmm. So you can't cite a single instance of how those oaths are dishonored by people engaging in legitimate protest of a government action? Your statement was mere hyperbole?

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that there are two kinds of people who love their country.

Those that love it in a mature, adult, fashion. Criticizing it when it acts in inappropriate ways, as you would a loved one who acts in a self-destructive manner.

Then there are those that love it like a five year old loves their mommy. "Anyone who says that mommy is doing something wrong must be a horrible person."

I for one see nothing dishonorable in pointing out that our troops were sent to do a job, and not given the tools and plans needed to be successful. I also see nothing wrong with holding an administration that acts in such a mannner accountable. If you do, it's your problem. FTR, I'd be just as outraged if a Dem admin. had comitted these blunders. Can you say the same?


Victim much? You have every right to say or disagree all you want, funny how your two examples are hyperbole. what a surprise (what a boring game.)

soldiers commitment and service tt their country is honorable, no matter the conditions.

As for your question, I've already stated that I would support a President form either party under the same circumstances. How many that oppose the War could say the same? you say you would..

This forum isn't moving forward, only in circles. The conversations are just being rehashed. We are back to page one, pretending that Congress doesn't exist in the SOP of going to War., and placing blame on one person.

[stevieray]

What the hell has happened to you? That post was a jumble of thoughts that made almost no sense at all. You want to continue to defend this administration, fine, I don't understand it, but it is your right. Defending idiots like Bulger and recxjake however is causing you credibility problems.


I think we should call this forum "this adminstration".

[Adept Havelock]

Victim much? You have every right to say or disagree all you want, funny how your two examples are hyperbole. what a surprise (what a boring game.)

soldiers commitment and service tt their country is honorable, no matter the conditions.

As for your question, I've already stated that I would support a President form either party under the same circumstances. How many that oppose the War could say the same? you say you would..

This forum isn't moving forward, only in circles. The conversations are just being rehashed. We are back to page one, pretending that Congress doesn't exist in the SOP of going to War., and placing blame on one person.

No, I blame the congresscritters as well for the idiotic resolution they passed, which is their responsibility to bear. I blame the administration for the ham-handed execution of the war, which is their responsibility. I can see how the subtlety of that point might be lost on you. :rolleyes:

Then again, I'm a believer in the military tradition that you hold the commander responsible for actions committed on his watch. Bush is the CinC, so....

What exactly is your point about "Victim much"? I've not claimed to be a victim anywhere in this post. Then again, I guess it was just a handy piece of invective to spew.

I do have to ask, regarding this statement:

soldiers commitment and service tt their country is honorable, no matter the conditions.

How does the above statement apply to the military service rendered by Lt. James Cally, or the idiots in the Abu Gharib incidents?

[CRONUS]

Yep, that's right. America doesn't have the stomach for a war unless it is lightning quick, casualty free, and praised by the UN (or at least by the majority of the countries we normally consider allies).

I do see it as a sign of weakness. More than a sign of weakness, an actual weakness. The Iranians sure see it as a weakness. And the insurgents/terrorists in Iraq see it as a weakness which they are trying to leverage into a victory for themselves.

I disagree with the part about this being a weakness in terms of properly selling the war. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that most Americans aren't buying the idea that we could possibly have interests that far from our territory regardless of the sales job. Americans will only support bully wars like the ones we participated in in the Balkans where they can pretend that we are doing God's work (because we don't have any actual interests of our own involved) and where they can be confident that it won't be very painful in terms of casualties.

I think much of what both you and TJ have said is true. American's love for our children and our fellow countrymen and women only allow two types of war. Quick and decisive or one that is very well justified where the people understand the cause we are fighting for in such a war.

I don't know why we are in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and we should have left a small presence to help them train people. We should not be there to build a democracy. We should have let them decide what they wanted to do with their country.

[stevieray]

. I can see how the subtlety of that point might be lost on you. :rolleyes:

Then again, I guess it was just a handy piece of invective to spew.


Judging what you see in yourself?

Please don't waste you time thinking your opinion of me carries any weight. after all, all any of us post is just that, opinions.

There is no victory to be found here.

[Adept Havelock]

I don't know why we are in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and we should have left a small presence to help them train people. We should not be there to build a democracy. We should have let them decide what they wanted to do with their country.

:clap:

[Adept Havelock]

There is no victory to be found here.

Sadly, this forum does have that in common with Iraq. The real tragedy is it didn't have to be that way. Both the Executive and Legislative branches failed us.

[CRONUS]

I think we should call this forum "this adminstration".What do you think this forum would talk about since it was formed to banish politics from the Lounge?

[stevieray]

I don't know why we are in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and we should have left a small presence to help them train people. We should not be there to build a democracy. We should have let them decide what they wanted to do with their country.

They have decided. They aren't sitting on their hands.

[Pitt Gorilla]

They have decided. They aren't sitting on their hands.Have they decided that they want us out?

[stevieray]

Sadly, this forum does have that in common with Iraq. The real tragedy is it didn't have to be that way

ROFL

[Adept Havelock]

There is no victory to be found here.

Sadly, this forum does have that in common with Iraq. The real tragedy is it didn't have to be that way. Both the Executive and Legislative branches failed us.
ROFL :rolleyes: Nice to know someone thinks it's funny there is no victory to be found in Iraq.

[stevieray]

How does the above statement apply to the military service rendered by Lt. James Cally, or the idiots in the Abu Gharib incidents?

I was referring to external circumstances, not illegal individual choices made in the field. Weren't those involved prosecuted?

[stevieray]

:rolleyes: Nice to know someone thinks it's funny there is no victory to be found in Iraq.

condescending much? save us from ourselves!

I think it's funny you compare a football BB to the War, and use your assumed failure as the reason.

[CRONUS]

They have decided. They aren't sitting on their hands.They have been coerced down a path that has led to Civil War. If that is what you meant when saying they have decided, OK.:shake:

[stevieray]

They have been coerced down a path that has led to Civil War. If that is what you meant when saying they have decided, OK.:shake:

coerced by insurgents. IIRC, they had an election, and have been taking over more responsibility as the procedure dictates.

Let's just be honest, bringing down Bush is more important than the people of Iraq.

[CRONUS]

coerced by insurgents.Well actually since we were not invited in, and we overthrew a UN recognized government with apparently no threat to our direct interests. Yes, I suppose we are insurgents.

[Adept Havelock]

I was referring to external circumstances, not illegal individual choices made in the field. Weren't those involved prosecuted?

Indeed they were. My question was if you found "All" service honorable, regardless of circumstances, as you previously stated. I was merely pointing out that not "all" service is honorable, using an admittedly egregious example. Thank you for clarifying your statement.

condescending much? save us from ourselves!

I think it's funny you compare a football BB to the War, and use your assumed failure as the reason.

I've been condescending for decades, and have no plans to change now. Too damn old and stubborn.

As for the "comparing a football BB to the war" statement, it's only as far as the statement "there is no victory to be found here". Any other inference is merely your own projections and assumptions.

I've said for some time that Iraq is now "unwinnable" in the sense of the objectives that were declared before the war. JMO.

[stevieray]

. Yes, I suppose we are insurgents.

ROFL

[Frankie]

The two things B*sh is facing that never occurred before is:

1. He has no idea wtf he is doing.

2. He is the first president that is subordinate to the vice president, and that vp does not know wtf he is doing either.

It is the democrats fault for not doing everything they could to stop the idiots from getting their way.

B*sh and his boss Cheney got everything they asked for, they have nobody to blame, but in our democracy, the oppossing party and the electorate also bears some responsibility for allowing incompetence and stupidity to prevail.

To B*sh's and Cheney's credit, they are doing everything possible to make sure that the American people realize the dangers of electing two morons whose primary goal is to make their rich friends richer.
GRRRREAT POST! :clap: But what makes it rep-worthy is #2.

[Chiefs Express]

GRRRREAT POST! :clap: But what makes it rep-worthy is #2.:shake:

[Frankie]

:shake:
Can't handle the truth?

[Chiefs Express]

Can't handle the truth?

:rolleyes:

[Frankie]

:rolleyes:
Obviously not.

Oh, well.

[Taco John]

I think he honestly believes that George Bush is his own man.

I sure don't believe that.

[Ugly Duck]

Nancy Palosi and Harry Reid hammering our leader every chance they get...Dude... wake up. They're not hammering our leader - they're hammering Bush.

[Chiefs Express]

Twisted minds say stupid things

Insecure Minds send you PMs demanding that your respect their make-believe authority

Incredibly Weak minds look you up on the Internet and send you threatening anonymous emails using your wife's name.


I think he honestly believes that George Bush is his own man.

I sure don't believe that.
Sig line: :rolleyes:

Comment: :shake:

Forgot to mention: Taco John = Small minds **** Reference his sig line!!!

[gblowfish]

Just kind of doing the speed reading through this thread, a few general observations:

"Americans have no stomach for war."
Really?
WWI
WWII
Korean Conflict
Vietnam
Grenada-Panama
Gulf War
Bosnia
Iraq-Afganistan

That's 8 conflicts in 100 years. So we've had almost as much "war time" as "peace time" in the last century.

You can draw a parallel between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. In both cases, America was clearly attacked. Here's the difference: Pearl Harbor was caused by Japan. We attacked Japan. 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda. We attacked Iraq. Japan definitely had weapons of mass destruction (in WWII terms). Iraq? Not so much.

Clinton left America with a record budget surplus. BushCo has run up a record deficit.

I believe more than 3,000 American civilians died in the Civil War and in WWII, so although it was the greatest terror act on American soil in the last 50 years, 9/11 was not the worst case of civilian death in American history.

Originally, when we attacked Iraq (which was, btw, the first time America had attacked another nation without first declaring war) Bush and Secy Rumsfeld said the conflict would last maybe six months. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" photo op on the aircraft carrier? More than 2,000 US troops and many thousands more Iraqi civilians have died since that day. When I saw Rumsfeld speak at the Truman Library last Thursday, he's now saying the war in Iraq will be like the cold war. It may take 40 years to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East, if ever. If civil religious war breaks out, we're going to have the potential for a WWIII scenario involving all the fundamentalist-leaning muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan) vs. Israel, UK and the US. And it could go nuclear or biological, with an act of nuclear or biological terrorism in the US or Israel.

Happy happy joy joy.

[|Zach|]

Judging what you see in yourself?


You play this card a lot...and it just never seems valid. In the least.

[|Zach|]

Has repubs made us strong?

[patteeu]

I agree that America doesn't have the stomach for war. I disagree that it couldn't be sold to them. I think if the war is important enough, it would be an easy sell to the American people. Americans will get behind a war that they believe in. Nobody really believes in this Iraq war, except a small minority.

I find the Iraq war a waste of time and lives. I'm not sold that it's crucial to American Freedom to "liberate" Iraq. I appreciate the soldiers who are there, but I wish that we were making better use of their sacrifice... For instance, on something that really mattered to the American people, like Homeland security.

I don't think you can just "go to war," in a liberal Democracy. I think you have to first make the case that your people will get behind. Otherwise, you're doomed to failure, because the people will lose taste for it, and support will wane. In the end, America will look weak, not because America *is* weak, but because of a weak leader who didn't make the case to begin with.

If you want to criticize America for their reaction to this useless war, but ignore the top, the people making the decisions, you're barking up the wrong tree.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

A long, difficult war can't be sold to the American people because there is almost nothing short of continuing attacks against our homeland that will make people "believe in" it.

If a long term strategy is involved, whether that strategy is to stop the advance of an ideology that is antithetical to our own, to protect our access to oil, to isolate a near-nuclear rogue nation like Iran, to "drain the terrorist swamp" or anything else, American's cannot be sold on any kind of war that will cost the loss of even a relatively small number of US lives (compare US casualties in Iraq to those from previous wars, for example).

[patteeu]

If everybody in America was gung ho all the way for the war in Iraq, B*sh Cheney Rumsfeld would still screw it up.

Anybody that thinks american public opinion has played any role in the fact that Iraq is a collossal clusterf*ck needs to explain why they think that.

If there were no pressure on the current administration to cut and run, there would be no question about whether or not we would succeed in Iraq The only way we fail is if public opinion forces us to concede defeat. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to explain how a bunch of irregulars with RPGs and IEDs are going to drive us out of Iraq as long as support remains strong on the home front.

[patteeu]

Ah, the dot-com boom, the old favorite rightie comeback. That's one's so tired it's gotta be snoring by now.

Dismissing it out of hand without even the slightest argument? Maybe it's a tired favorite, but I've NEVER seen anyone argue convincingly that the stock boom of the 90's didn't involve at least some irrational exuberance (especially in the internet sector) or that the Y2K IT boom didn't have any impact on the post-millennial economy.

[patteeu]

What the hell has happened to you? That post was a jumble of thoughts that made almost no sense at all. You want to continue to defend this administration, fine, I don't understand it, but it is your right. Defending idiots like Bulger and recxjake however is causing you credibility problems.

What credibility problems? I don't ask people to take my word for very much. I try to link to authority where possible and build logical arguments from facts. You can criticize my logic or try to debunk the facts I cite, but I don't see my credibility as being much of a factor. AFAIC, no anonymous poster on the internet has much credibility.

And what's wrong with you? Instead of engaging me on my agreement with MarcBulger's "conclusions" (as others have done) you criticize me for "defending idiots like Bulger?" If MarcBulger had said that raping children is wrong, should I refrain from agreeing with him because it might impact my credibility to be seen as siding with him on any point? I try not to permanently condemn posters to the ridicule pile where they are no longer treated based on the contents of their posts but instead on the basis of their usernames and their prior reputations (sometimes deserved and sometimes not so much). I recognize that reputations are earned and that they shouldn't be completely disregarded, but they shouldn't be the exclusive measure of a specific post's value.

[patteeu]

I think much of what both you and TJ have said is true. American's love for our children and our fellow countrymen and women only allow two types of war. Quick and decisive or one that is very well justified where the people understand the cause we are fighting for in such a war.

I don't know why we are in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and we should have left a small presence to help them train people. We should not be there to build a democracy. We should have let them decide what they wanted to do with their country.

Fair enough. I think it would have been nice if we'd done that. At this point though, having made the commitment to stick it out until their government is on it's feet, I think we have an interest in seeing it through even if there aren't other reasons for being there (which I believe there are). I think it will be incredibly damaging for us to leave if the appearance is that we have been driven out.

[patteeu]

Just kind of doing the speed reading through this thread, a few general observations:

"Americans have no stomach for war."
Really?
WWI
WWII
Korean Conflict
Vietnam
Grenada-Panama
Gulf War
Bosnia
Iraq-Afganistan

That's 8 conflicts in 100 years. So we've had almost as much "war time" as "peace time" in the last century.

You can draw a parallel between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. In both cases, America was clearly attacked. Here's the difference: Pearl Harbor was caused by Japan. We attacked Japan. 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda. We attacked Iraq. Japan definitely had weapons of mass destruction (in WWII terms). Iraq? Not so much.

Clinton left America with a record budget surplus. BushCo has run up a record deficit.

I believe more than 3,000 American civilians died in the Civil War and in WWII, so although it was the greatest terror act on American soil in the last 50 years, 9/11 was not the worst case of civilian death in American history.

Originally, when we attacked Iraq (which was, btw, the first time America had attacked another nation without first declaring war) Bush and Secy Rumsfeld said the conflict would last maybe six months. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" photo op on the aircraft carrier? More than 2,000 US troops and many thousands more Iraqi civilians have died since that day. When I saw Rumsfeld speak at the Truman Library last Thursday, he's now saying the war in Iraq will be like the cold war. It may take 40 years to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East, if ever. If civil religious war breaks out, we're going to have the potential for a WWIII scenario involving all the fundamentalist-leaning muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan) vs. Israel, UK and the US. And it could go nuclear or biological, with an act of nuclear or biological terrorism in the US or Israel.

Happy happy joy joy.


Vietnam was the tipping point after which America has not shown that we have a stomach for war. None of your post-Vietnam wars (except Iraq) has been the type of war that isn't fairly bloodless and quick. American's have a stomach for a videogame war where it's over in one sitting and no Americans get hurt. They don't have the stomach for the tough wars that require some stamina and resolve anymore.

BTW, Clinton left America on a collision course with huge deficits stemming from a clash between demographics and entitlement programs. BushCo raised the alarm, but has not been able to change the country's course.

[Bowser]

Patteeu, are you saying because of Clinton we went from having billions in surplus to having trillions in debt?

[stevieray]

You play this card a lot...and it just never seems valid. In the least.

thanks for sharing...or baiting..whichever it is.

Besides, it was a question, not a statement.

[stevieray]

Patteeu, are you saying because of Clinton we went from having billions in surplus to having trillions in debt?

When did the citizens of this country start going into debt?

[banyon]

When did the citizens of this country start going into debt?

go ahead, pick a debt, any debt...

[patteeu]

Patteeu, are you saying because of Clinton we went from having billions in surplus to having trillions in debt?

Not at all. I'm saying that the so-called(1) surpluses of the late Clinton years(2) were never evidence that our country had turned the corner on the national debt.

It was well known, even at the time, that growing entitlement commitments like Social Security and Medicare would swamp the fiscal progress that had been made at the time and that deficits would come roaring back unless something was done to contain them.

I'm certainly not blaming Clinton for the budgetary results of Bush policies (including the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars), but I'm rejecting any implication that Clinton would have been able to maintain "surplus" budgets if he had remained in office through the post-millennial recession and the response to 9/11 (even if he hadn't taken us to war in Iraq).



-----------------
(1) I say "so-called" because our national debt continued to increase during each of the years that we had a so-called surplus.

(2) Clinton was the President, but until he had a Republican Congress, his deficits were always in excess of $200 billion. After the Republicans took over the House, the deficit decreased steadily and late in his term turned into what we've called a surplus.

[Nightwish]

If there were no pressure on the current administration to cut and run, there would be no question about whether or not we would succeed in Iraq

Uh huh. So the reasons we lost in WWI, WWII, Granada, the Balkans, etc. was because of the pressure on the gubment to withdraw, get out, cut and run? Oh, wait ... we didn't lose, did we? So, despite the everpresent pressure in those wars to get out and get our soldiers home, we still won. Why? Could it possibly be because the planning was good?

The only way we fail is if public opinion forces us to concede defeat.
Whatever.

Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to explain how a bunch of irregulars with RPGs and IEDs are going to drive us out of Iraq as long as support remains strong on the home front.
I dunno, ask the British. They managed to have it done to them twice, once here and once in Africa!

[Adept Havelock]

I dunno, ask the British. They managed to have it done to them twice, once here and once in Africa!

Heck, they got driven out of the crown jewel of their empire by non-violent tactics. The Mahatma and his followers didn't need IED's or RPG's.

[patteeu]

Uh huh. So the reasons we lost in WWI, WWII, Granada, the Balkans, etc. was because of the pressure on the gubment to withdraw, get out, cut and run? Oh, wait ... we didn't lose, did we? So, despite the everpresent pressure in those wars to get out and get our soldiers home, we still won. Why? Could it possibly be because the planning was good?

WWI and WWII were pre-Vietnam, and Grenada and the Balkans were both the kind of quick, painless (for the US) conflicts that I specifically said Americans would tolerate.

Whatever.

I dunno, ask the British. They managed to have it done to them twice, once here and once in Africa!

Heck, they got driven out of the crown jewel of their empire by non-violent tactics. The Mahatma and his followers didn't need IED's or RPG's.

While the British had a distinct military advantage over the American colonists, they didn't have nearly the military advantage that we have over Iraqi insurgents/terrorists. More importantly, they had other preoccupations in their global empire and the French were working against them.

Similarly, India was promised it's independence when Britain was faced with an existential threat from Germany during WWII.

I'll grant you both that if China goes to war with us or if Russia and Iran start actively opposing us on a large scale in Iraq we could be forced to withdraw from Iraq even with unanimous public support at home, but without something like that (i.e. under the present circumstances), we can't be driven out as long as the public supports the war effort.

[go bowe]

If there were no pressure on the current administration to cut and run, there would be no question about whether or not we would succeed in Iraq The only way we fail is if public opinion forces us to concede defeat. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to explain how a bunch of irregulars with RPGs and IEDs are going to drive us out of Iraq as long as support remains strong on the home front.i think you're right about the influence of public opinion/public support on the outcome of a war (obvious example being vietnam)...

no war can be sustained in the information age without public support...

but in the case of iraq, full scale civil war can also force a defeat on our plans for establishing a democracy in any form, regardless of public support...

so far, i don't think you can call the various reprisals by both sides a civil war...

when the government breaks down or the military disorganizes to their respective militias, then i would say civil war has broken out...

and when it does, it's going to make the first israeli war look like a picnic...

instead of hundreds of thousands of refugees, there will be millions as people are forced to relocate to the "own" areas or be killed...

anybody remember when they partitioned pakistan and india? Iraq could be almost as bad...

[CRONUS]

What credibility problems? I don't ask people to take my word for very much. I try to link to authority where possible and build logical arguments from facts. You can criticize my logic or try to debunk the facts I cite, but I don't see my credibility as being much of a factor. AFAIC, no anonymous poster on the internet has much credibility.

And what's wrong with you? Instead of engaging me on my agreement with MarcBulger's "conclusions" (as others have done) you criticize me for "defending idiots like Bulger?" If MarcBulger had said that raping children is wrong, should I refrain from agreeing with him because it might impact my credibility to be seen as siding with him on any point? I try not to permanently condemn posters to the ridicule pile where they are no longer treated based on the contents of their posts but instead on the basis of their usernames and their prior reputations (sometimes deserved and sometimes not so much). I recognize that reputations are earned and that they shouldn't be completely disregarded, but they shouldn't be the exclusive measure of a specific post's value.

I won't apologize because that post of Bulger's was a shitty post, a hodge podge of dissociative thought and incomplete concepts. You saying it was a good post was shocking. Now had you said I agree with (then listed the concepts you picked out of his jumbled mess) I would not have felt the way I do. You have become one of the most partisan posters on this BB and when you start praising Bulger and recxjake it has never been more apparent. Personally I found not a single thought expressed by Bulger understandable they were expressed so poorly. That made it impossible for me to debate your point as you did not express what you were agreeing with other than his post.

[Adept Havelock]

While the British had a distinct military advantage over the American colonists, they didn't have nearly the military advantage that we have over Iraqi insurgents/terrorists.


:hmmm: The worlds leading military superpower, with a global reach vs. a bunch of local insurgents getting covert support from other nations?

Sounds quite similar to me.

If your observation pertains to the difference in effectiveness between 18th century and 21st century weapons... :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

i think you're right about the influence of public opinion/public support on the outcome of a war (obvious example being vietnam)...

no war can be sustained in the information age without public support...

but in the case of iraq, full scale civil war can also force a defeat on our plans for establishing a democracy in any form, regardless of public support...

so far, i don't think you can call the various reprisals by both sides a civil war...

when the government breaks down or the military disorganizes to their respective militias, then i would say civil war has broken out...

and when it does, it's going to make the first israeli war look like a picnic...

instead of hundreds of thousands of refugees, there will be millions as people are forced to relocate to the "own" areas or be killed...

anybody remember when they partitioned pakistan and india? Iraq could be almost as bad...

I agree with all of this. But even if the current government was destroyed by a descent into civil war and our plans for establishing democracy were defeated, we could choose a faction to support and insure that faction was victorious so long as (1) the US public supported it and (2) outside powers stayed out of it. I'm not saying this would be a good idea or that it could happen given the current realities (US public opinion in particular) though.

[Frankie]

I agree with all of this. But even if the current government was destroyed by a descent into civil war and our plans for establishing democracy were defeated, we could choose a faction to support and insure that faction was victorious so long as (1) the US public supported it and (2) outside powers stayed out of it. I'm not saying this would be a good idea or that it could happen given the current realities (US public opinion in particular) though.
Taliban part deuax?

[patteeu]

Taliban part deuax?

What do you mean? Did the US military install the Taliban?

[Taco John]

I agree with all of this. But even if the current government was destroyed by a descent into civil war and our plans for establishing democracy were defeated, we could choose a faction to support and insure that faction was victorious so long as (1) the US public supported it and (2) outside powers stayed out of it. I'm not saying this would be a good idea or that it could happen given the current realities (US public opinion in particular) though.



You are asking a lot when you expect that American's should be on board with selecting a faction of another nation's civil war and support their victory based on our National desires. That kind of imperialism is always going to find resistance.

There's no way in the world I would expect Americans to get behind something like this.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's one thng to be critcal of our leaders and another to overly critcal in a world view. Not only does the constant media barrage from in our own country make us look weak it does make our enemies bolder. It's down right unpatriotic for the spin and garbage people spew on TV and in print...9 times out of ten they're half truths and outright lies.

[patteeu]

You are asking a lot...

If by "you" you mean me, let me direct your attention to this part of my post:

I'm not saying this would be a good idea... though.

[banyon]

What do you mean? Did the US military install the Taliban?

not officially.

But we did train them (or at least the CIA did) and make them heroes for repelling the Soviets.

[patteeu]

not officially.

But we did train them (or at least the CIA did) and make them heroes for repelling the Soviets.

We supported the Mujahadeen which later splintered into several factions, one of which eventually became the Taliban. We didn't support the Taliban's rise to power over these other factions. In fact, our support pretty much ended when the Soviets left. That Taliban were born and took power with the help of the Pakistanis not the US.

[banyon]

We supported the Mujahadeen which later splintered into several factions, one of which eventually became the Taliban. We didn't support the Taliban's rise to power over these other factions. In fact, our support pretty much ended when the Soviets left. That Taliban were born and took power with the help of the Pakistanis not the US.

Right, the Taliban were a subset of the forces we trained and made heroes.

[patteeu]

Right, the Taliban were a subset of the forces we trained and made heroes.

As were the warlords of the Northern Alliance. I still don't understand Frankie's point.

[Amnorix]

not officially.

But we did train them (or at least the CIA did) and make them heroes for repelling the Soviets.


As clarified in later posts, the US supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviet incursion.

Would you have ignored the Soviet invasion, or would you have supported anybody willing to take arms against the Soviets? If the former, then you're insane. If the latter, then what is your complaint?

[Amnorix]

Taliban part deuax?


No. We did not support the Taliban over other factions after the Soviets withdrew.

[Amnorix]

Vietnam was the tipping point after which America has not shown that we have a stomach for war. None of your post-Vietnam wars (except Iraq) has been the type of war that isn't fairly bloodless and quick. American's have a stomach for a videogame war where it's over in one sitting and no Americans get hurt. They don't have the stomach for the tough wars that require some stamina and resolve anymore.

This is very misleading. Vietnam was idiocy. Prior to Vietnam, the LONGEST war the US was ever engaged in (other than the Revolution) was about 5 years. Not many countries have shown much stomach for wars, excepting those for independence, which are special, that last more than 5 years. We're no different than the rest of the world.

Frankly, very few wars, outside those for your very survival, are going to be worth 5 years of effort. The manpower, social, industrial and economic costs are too damn high.

It's not THIS generation of Americans. It's human nature, by and large. Look at the totalitarian Soviets, who were overthrown in part due to fighting an unwinnable war that dragged on for too long (Afghanistan).

BTW, Clinton left America on a collision course with huge deficits stemming from a clash between demographics and entitlement programs. BushCo raised the alarm, but has not been able to change the country's course.

Really? Was it Clinton who created tremendous deficit spending? err...no. Was it Clinton who radically redesigned entitlement programs such that their costs escalated tremendously? err...no. Did Clinton create Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or a runaway military budget? No. Did Clinton create the tremendous national debt the interest payments for which sap something like 17 cents of every tax dollar collected by the federal government? NO.

So get a grip on your anti-Clintonism and stop making statements that are completely unsupported and unsupportable.

[Amnorix]

If there were no pressure on the current administration to cut and run, there would be no question about whether or not we would succeed in Iraq The only way we fail is if public opinion forces us to concede defeat. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to explain how a bunch of irregulars with RPGs and IEDs are going to drive us out of Iraq as long as support remains strong on the home front.


Explain, if you will, how we won the American revolution? Or how we lost Vietnam?

You need to realize that miitary superiority doesn't automatically equal victory on the battlefield. Sometimes, wars are "worth" alot more to one side than the other.

I've been convinced for a LONG time that Iraq was a strategic blunder on a grandiose scale, partly becuase the whole damn country is WORTH more to Iraqis, Islamic militants, Iran, and god knows who else than it is to us.

Of course, we could just nuke the **** out of the whole Middle East, but like I just said, miltiary superiority doesn't mean victory...

[patteeu]

This is very misleading. Vietnam was idiocy. Prior to Vietnam, the LONGEST war the US was ever engaged in (other than the Revolution) was about 5 years. Not many countries have shown much stomach for wars, excepting those for independence, which are special, that last more than 5 years. We're no different than the rest of the world.

Frankly, very few wars, outside those for your very survival, are going to be worth 5 years of effort. The manpower, social, industrial and economic costs are too damn high.

It's not THIS generation of Americans. It's human nature, by and large. Look at the totalitarian Soviets, who were overthrown in part due to fighting an unwinnable war that dragged on for too long (Afghanistan).

Iraq hasn't been 5 years yet and while it has been fairly costly in terms of dollars (I'm not sure how it compares to historic wars though so it might not be all that costly), it sure hasn't been costly in terms of US blood on the scale of those previous wars. Even if there were good human nature reasons for the nation to grow weary of Vietnam, we don't seem to have the same stamina now that we had then.

Really? Was it Clinton who created tremendous deficit spending? err...no. Was it Clinton who radically redesigned entitlement programs such that their costs escalated tremendously? err...no. Did Clinton create Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or a runaway military budget? No. Did Clinton create the tremendous national debt the interest payments for which sap something like 17 cents of every tax dollar collected by the federal government? NO.

So get a grip on your anti-Clintonism and stop making statements that are completely unsupported and unsupportable.

Your need to defend Clinton is bizarre and the way you are going about it is absurd. When criticizing my posts, I'd appreciate it if you criticize what I actually say instead of making up arguments that I haven't presented. I didn't say Clinton created the entitlements or the budgetary problems that they are projected to create. I said that he didn't address them. Everything I said about Clinton, his so-called surpluses, and the looming entitlement deficits as of the end of his term in office in this thread is true.

[Frankie]

Iraq hasn't been 5 years yet and while it has been fairly costly in terms of dollars ...
"FAIRLY?!!" ----> http://costofwar.com/index.html

Your need to defend Clinton is bizarre and the way you are going about it is absurd.So, my friend, is your need to attack Clinton.

[banyon]

Iraq hasn't been 5 years yet and while it has been fairly costly in terms of dollars (I'm not sure how it compares to historic wars though so it might not be all that costly), it sure hasn't been costly in terms of US blood on the scale of those previous wars. Even if there were good human nature reasons for the nation to grow weary of Vietnam, we don't seem to have the same stamina now that we had then.

addressing your parenthetical:

The latest war request would push the total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other efforts since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to $277 billion, according to the CBO. That figure well exceeds the inflation-adjusted $200 billion cost of World War I and is approaching the $350 billion cost of the Korean War, according to Commerce Department figures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html

http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/53.gif

[Amnorix]

Iraq hasn't been 5 years yet and while it has been fairly costly in terms of dollars (I'm not sure how it compares to historic wars though so it might not be all that costly), it sure hasn't been costly in terms of US blood on the scale of those previous wars. Even if there were good human nature reasons for the nation to grow weary of Vietnam, we don't seem to have the same stamina now that we had then.

The nation's tolerance for deaths is proportional to two different things, IMHO:

1. general expectations as to how deadly wars are for that civilization up against the enemy we're talking about; and

2. the perception of the need for war.

With World War II, the enemy was a couple of totalitarian dictatorships that were hell bent on conquering the world, and were already engaged in wars with every major democracy in the world other than ours. One of them had performed a deadly sneak attack on our home soil.

Korea and Vietnam were framed in the context of the Cold War.

Serious questions about the necessity of the Iraq have been around since Day 1. Additionally, Americans have grown used to sanitized warfare in the later 20th and early 21st century. Iraq I, Panama, etc. have made us think that 100 deaths is quite alot.

Your need to defend Clinton is bizarre and the way you are going about it is absurd. When criticizing my posts, I'd appreciate it if you criticize what I actually say instead of making up arguments that I haven't presented. I didn't say Clinton created the entitlements or the budgetary problems that they are projected to create. I said that he didn't address them. Everything I said about Clinton, his so-called surpluses, and the looming entitlement deficits as of the end of his term in office in this thread is true.

I don't understand what you mean by Clinton "not addressing" them:

1. He helped to balance the budget, and pay down debt, for the first time in like 2 decades.

2. He had a Republican Congress to contend with, which did everything in its power to make him a lame duck.

3. Bush has had FIVE YEARS and total control of Congress to do whatever the hell he wants with. How the f**k you can blame Clinton at this point while exonerating Bush is completely and utterly beyond me.

Nor, it seems to me, did Clinton do any better or worse than "addressing" entitlements than Reagan or Bush 1. Reagan did do a decent job of revamping Social Security, but over the last 26 years, we've had a Democrat as President for precisely 8 and Republicans for 18. How in the world you manage to pick the one Democrat to blame, when he did better than anybody else at controlling the deficit, is quite beyond me.

[MarcBulger]

WOW all the left wingers stated that this was a stupid post yet look at all the debate the post created. Ernie I mean MarcBulger winning again.

[patteeu]

"FAIRLY?!!" ----> http://costofwar.com/index.html

So, my friend, is your need to attack Clinton.

I didn't bring Clinton into this conversation. I just countered the misleading praise that was thrown his way with facts that help paint a broader picture.

[patteeu]

addressing your parenthetical:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html

http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/53.gif

Thanks banyon. I wonder how these numbers look when we look at them in terms of percent of GDP. I suspect the current expense doesn't look quite as bad in that light.

Using rough estimates of the timeframes for WWI (1918) and the current GWoT (2001-2004), I get GDP of $609 billion during the course of WWI compared to a GDP of nearly $41,000 billion during the GWoT (both in terms of year 2000 dollars). Using these numbers for GDP and using your numbers for the cost of the respective wars for an approximation would lead us to relative GDP fractions of 32.8% for WWI and 0.6% for the GWoT. I realize that my GDP estimates are just crude approximations and I also realize that my GDP numbers are in 2000 dollars while your numbers are probably in 2004 dollars, but the difference in cost as a fraction of GDP is enormous and I'm sure that if we worked harder to get better approximations and consistent dollars we would find a similar difference of magnitude.

Here is the GDP calculator (http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/) that I used to come up with these estimates.

[|Zach|]

WOW all the left wingers stated that this was a stupid post yet look at all the debate the post created. Ernie I mean MarcBulger winning again.
It takes something very special to create debate on a political board.

Be sure to update your resume.

[patteeu]

The nation's tolerance for deaths is proportional to two different things, IMHO:

1. general expectations as to how deadly wars are for that civilization up against the enemy we're talking about; and

2. the perception of the need for war.

With World War II, the enemy was a couple of totalitarian dictatorships that were hell bent on conquering the world, and were already engaged in wars with every major democracy in the world other than ours. One of them had performed a deadly sneak attack on our home soil.

Korea and Vietnam were framed in the context of the Cold War.

Serious questions about the necessity of the Iraq have been around since Day 1. Additionally, Americans have grown used to sanitized warfare in the later 20th and early 21st century. Iraq I, Panama, etc. have made us think that 100 deaths is quite alot.

I agree with all of that.



I don't understand what you mean by Clinton "not addressing" them:

1. He helped to balance the budget, and pay down debt, for the first time in like 2 decades.

2. He had a Republican Congress to contend with, which did everything in its power to make him a lame duck.

3. Bush has had FIVE YEARS and total control of Congress to do whatever the hell he wants with. How the f**k you can blame Clinton at this point while exonerating Bush is completely and utterly beyond me.

Nor, it seems to me, did Clinton do any better or worse than "addressing" entitlements than Reagan or Bush 1. Reagan did do a decent job of revamping Social Security, but over the last 26 years, we've had a Democrat as President for precisely 8 and Republicans for 18. How in the world you manage to pick the one Democrat to blame, when he did better than anybody else at controlling the deficit, is quite beyond me.

1. He did help to balance the budget. I agree with that. But I think if you check into the numbers you will find that the national debt actually increased during every year of his term (even though the budget was supposedly in surplus).

2. The Republican Congress was an equal partner in Clinton's fiscal success. We'll never know of course, but it's my opinion that he wouldn't have been able to do it without them. The Republican's have gone a long way to demonstrate that they can't do it on their own either.

3. I think you've misread this thread. I never exonerated Bush for his budget deficits. I do think he's had some mitigating factors (e.g. 9/11), but those factors don't in any way make up for the extraordinary spending, the growth of government, and the prescription drug entitlement for which Bush and the Republican Congress must take responsibility.

What I did was respond to gblowfish's black and white one-liner in post #77 with a little of the nuance that was left out:

Clinton left America with a record budget surplus. BushCo has run up a record deficit.

FWIW, I agree that there is plenty of blame to spread around to previous administrations (both Republican and democrat) for the entitlement challenges that we face. I think Clinton and the Republican Congress did do a better job than most administrations but they had a lot going for them not the least of which was the lull between the Cold War and the GWoT.

[Amnorix]

WOW all the left wingers stated that this was a stupid post yet look at all the debate the post created. Ernie I mean MarcBulger winning again.


The survival of this thread is directly related to the fact that the topic of conversation is no longer the one you led it off with.

[Amnorix]

1. He did help to balance the budget. I agree with that. But I think if you check into the numbers you will find that the national debt actually increased during every year of his term (even though the budget was supposedly in surplus).

I think, IIRC, that it depends on how you count. If you include SS receipts (which we shouldn't, but do), then the overall federal take was positive, and thus we were paying down the debt. If you exclude them, then we weren't (and that means that the fed was continuing to book a debt to the social security administration even though it will never be paid).

So, ultimately, it depends on which way you look at it. Having Social Security on-budget was Reagan's manuever, I believe, so... :p

2. The Republican Congress was an equal partner in Clinton's fiscal success. We'll never know of course, but it's my opinion that he wouldn't have been able to do it without them. The Republican's have gone a long way to demonstrate that they can't do it on their own either.

I think gridlock politics (split WH and Congress) is probably better for balancing the budget than one party control, regardless of which party it is. I do agree with this.

3. I think you've misread this thread. I never exonerated Bush for his budget deficits. I do think he's had some mitigating factors (e.g. 9/11), but those factors don't in any way make up for the extraordinary spending, the growth of government, and the prescription drug entitlement for which Bush and the Republican Congress must take responsibility.

Fair enough. I haven't read this entire thread, so... I was just focused on your one fusillade against Clinton. :)