Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[Desmond Hawkins]

Yes, he is and he has admitted that mistakes have been made.

Yet, he apparently isn't responsible for the mistakes he made as The Decider. He instead uses a passive third person voice.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, he is and he has admitted that mistakes have been made.

Please show me where he admitted mistakes have been made. More specific Himself in first person that he admitted his mistake.

Sigh. Again, apparently another person who thinks we cannot win wars unless there is no opposition what-so-ever. You dont lose a war simply because there are insurgents, CG.

Umm, yes you do. If more men are being killed and the stresses are to overbearing. Thats factors in losing a war.

Errr, yeah...there is. As you are so fond of using the Vietnam war as an example, what happened there after we pulled out? Honest answer please.

South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam and your point?

We had no buissness being in Vietnam in the first place much like we had no buissness being in Iraq. The difference between the two wars was that the Vietnam War was originaly a French conflict against the Vietnamese in Indochina. We were dragged into that war because of promises made to BOTH Ho Chi Min and the French during World War II.

All wars are unpopular as no one likes war.

How do you explain other Wars like World War II? That was certanly a popular war because we were fighting a group of agressive nations and people and had a clear focus in that war. Toppeling Hitler and Musollini in the European Theater and Suppress the Japanese high command and Tojo in the Pacific Theater (Emperor Showa was not toppled BTW)

 

[ParkCungHee]

Errr, yeah...there is. As you are so fond of using the Vietnam war as an example, what happened there after we pulled out? Honest answer please.

Communism gained control of a ****-stain of a country and things went on as normal.

You dont lose a war simply because there are insurgents, CG.

Right, you loose the war because you can't afford to keep wasting lives and money on them.

 

[thenooblet22]

You know those soldiers are people, dont you? And that those that theyre killing are people too, right? So what exactly are you talking about, besides nonsense?

Because they signed up and trained for combat. The risks are known especially with the media blasting in our ears these days. Losing life is truely tragic, but you shouldn't expect a war without casualties. Using death counts for your own political agenda is the real horrific thing.

 

[MobBoss]

Please show me where he admitted mistakes have been made. More specific Himself in first person that he admitted his mistake.

Here is at least one story...there are plenty more on it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400850.html And I could give a crap about that 'first person' nonsense.

Umm, yes you do.

Ummm, no you dont. There have been plenty of conflicts won that involved insurgent activity. Do your research.

If more men are being killed and the stresses are to overbearing. Thats factors in losing a war.

Errr. Historically, the casualties we have experienced in Iraq are one of the lowest ratios we have ever had for such a conflict, if not THE lowest.

South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam and your point?

Apparently you are ignorant of what happened after our withdrawal. Hundreds of thousands were imprisoned and its estimated that 1.5 to 2 million were killed in the following genocides in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Do you think that acceptable in Iraq if we cut and run? Because its highly likely that the same exact thing would happen there.

 

[MobBoss]

Communism gained control of a ****-stain of a country and things went on as normal.

DING. Wrong! Would you care to try 'historical facts for 500'?

Right, you loose the war because you can't afford to keep wasting lives and money on them.

Well, thats kind of my point exactly....the USA CAN afford to keep its men and money working on victory in Iraq. Thats not the issue. The issue is a matter of will....not of men or material.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They did have a coherent plan prior to the war. You can disagree all you want, but you are wrong to state it as fact. Parts of it failed. Parts of it suceeded. This is true of pretty much all military plans. The old adage "no plan survives contact with the enemy intact' holds true today as it has all throughout history. There are no crystal balls.

They DID ????


Casey was screaming, "'Where is our Phase 4 plan?'
Director of the Joint Staff, Army Gen. George Casey

"Our working budgetary assumption was that 90 days after completion of the operation, we would withdraw the first 50,000 and then every 30 days we'd take out another 50,000 until everybody was back. ( Planning for Postwar Iraq as ordered by Rumsfield)
Thomas E. White - Former secretary of the Army

"At a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility. At worst, lying, incompetence and corruption It should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up"
"These guys don't have a clue."
- General Anthony Zinni - Former central command chief

[Rumsfeld] “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid.


---------------------


‘The Implication That There Was Something Wrong with the War Plan is Amusing ’ - April 20, 2006
Rumsfeid US Secretary of Defence 13/11/04 <--------------- ROFLMAO

 

[FriendlyFire]

Errr. Historically, the casualties we have experienced in Iraq are one of the lowest ratios we have ever had for such a conflict, if not *THE lowest.

Let me fix that up a bit for you

*
Kosovo
Somalia
Gulf 1

NOT INCLUDED.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I'm an American talking about the American media. I'm going to use American standards. I'm sorry if you have to remember that our definitions aren't always the same as yours. I hope that isn't an undue burden upon your brain.

There we go, doing exactly what I said - putting American defintions above world defititions. Your not even paying any attention to all the localised conservative media that has a big impact on voters either.

One day you might realise America isn't the only place in the world and American standards aren't the only standards you should judge by.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

People keep talking about how we 'lost the war'. Everything is focused on our troops. Its all up to them.

For the gazillionth time: We won the war. We lost the peace. Our military is the best the world has ever seen, but its being directed by the worst Commander in Chief in recent American history. The military won WW2, but if it wasnt for the competent leadership in Washington and London and elsewhere, the peace that followed the war could have been almost as horrific as the war itself.

 

[MobBoss]

Let me fix that up a bit for you

*
Kosovo
Somalia
Gulf 1

NOT INCLUDED.

I will give you Kosovo, but Somalia and Gulf 1 are not really comparable due to the length. Gulf 1 was only 100 hours.

So thanks to you we have established that Iraq is indeed one of the lowest casualty conflicts we have ever had. Thanks!

 

[MobBoss]

People keep talking about how we 'lost the war'. Everything is focused on our troops. Its all up to them.

For the gazillionth time: We won the war. We lost the peace. Our military is the best the world has ever seen, but its being directed by the worst Commander in Chief in recent American history. The military won WW2, but if it wasnt for the competent leadership in Washington and London and elsewhere, the peace that followed the war could have been almost as horrific as the war itself.

Bozo, you are now experiencing what I call the flight from Logic. Not by you, I happen to agree with you on a few points (yes on best military, no on worst Commander in Chief). But its precisely the ones that oppose the war and it is precisely what I bring up earlier in this thread.

It doesnt matter how well our troops do....if you have democratic leadership saying 'we lost the war' then you will have the left leaning koolaid drinkers repeating it like the zombies chanting 'IM-HO-TEP' in 'The Mummy'.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I will give you Kosovo, but Somalia and Gulf 1 are not really comparable due to the length. Gulf 1 was only 100 hours.

So thanks to you we have established that Iraq is indeed one of the lowest casualty conflicts we have ever had. Thanks!

But MB, if 3000 dead Americans isnt such a big deal, why did we go apesh__ over 9/11?

 

[MobBoss]

But MB, if 3000 dead Americans isnt such a big deal, why did we go apesh__ over 9/11?

Because it was not soldiers that died in 9/11. Those people inside didnt volunteer to fight and die for their country and didnt expect to. It was also considered a sneak attack....something that pretty much every american is loath about ever since Pearl Harbor.

Bottom line, our success or failure shouldnt be calculated as part of a body count; but thats precisely what is occurring. If we didnt lose soldiers in Iraq, people would think it a success, even if we had only accomplished what we have so far.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo, you are now experiencing what I call the flight from Logic. Not by you, I happen to agree with you on a few points (yes on best military, no on worst Commander in Chief). But its precisely the ones that oppose the war and it is precisely what I bring up earlier in this thread.

It doesnt matter how well our troops do....if you have democratic leadership saying 'we lost the war' then you will have the left leaning koolaid drinkers repeating it like the zombies chanting 'IM-HO-TEP' in 'The Mummy'.

You mean like Reid? His statement was so stupid, from so many different angles, that I dont even want to think about it.

How would this sit with you: We failed to achieve our objective in Iraq.

(Pick one in the series of objectives the administration came up with, as they failed one after another. Im thinking of the current objective, which is preventing Sunnis and Shias from killing each other.)

 

[MobBoss]

You mean like Reid? His statement was so stupid, from so many different angles, that I dont even want to think about it.

How would this sit with you: We failed to achieve our objective in Iraq.

(Pick one in the series of objectives the administration came up with, as they failed one after another. Im thinking of the current objective, which is preventing Sunnis and Shias from killing each other.)

I think thats fair, if you in turn acknowledge that we have met other objectives successfully; like the elections, constitution and government, and removing Saddam from power.

As I said earlier, sure mistakes get made and not all your goals get realized. But that happens in every war, win or lose. Just because you havent reached 'goal X' yet, is not a reason to take your toys and go home.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

But MobBoss, what if the failure of subsequent objectives (stopping the Shia/Sunni from killing the Shia/Sunni) is so enormous that it deems nearly irrelevant the success of the earlier objectives?

 

[CartesianFart]

Do you think that acceptable in Iraq if we cut and run? Because its highly likely that the same exact thing would happen there.

Not only that is true but also that our influences in that given region (Middle East) will be subjugated by our competitors such as the likes of Iran,Russia and China.

I am sure that the many Iraqi who have alot of stake on United States attempt to provide security and freedom will not want these other alternate overlords to provide protection to whatever future tyrant if we leave.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think thats fair, if you in turn acknowledge that we have met other objectives successfully; like the elections, constitution and government, and removing Saddam from power.

Elections and Constitutions arent good things in themselves, they have to lead to something positive in order to be characterized as a success. If Bagdhad is a charnel house, and the situation is so bad that the military wants to build walls between Sunnis and Shias, then the elections were just a bunch of people staining their fingers purple, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Removing Saddam was the easy part, because it was strictly a military matter.

As I said earlier, sure mistakes get made and not all your goals get realized. But that happens in every war, win or lose. Just because you havent reached 'goal X' yet, is not a reason to take your toys and go home.

What negative things would you have to see happening in Iraq for you to conclude that its time to go home because theres no point in staying any longer?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

For the gazillionth time: We won the war. We lost the peace.

Looks like a gained a convert.

Our military is the best the world has ever seen, but its being directed by the worst Commander in Chief in recent American history. The military won WW2, but if it wasnt for the competent leadership in Washington and London and elsewhere, the peace that followed the war could have been almost as horrific as the war itself.

The problem with Iraq is the factionalism. Japan and Germany were strongly united nations so there were fewer post-war problems. The very same nationalism that made the War so bloody, kept the peace afterwards.

The other problem is the lack of political will to solve problems. The President and member of both parties in congress would rather due what is politically expedient than actually do anything.