Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Who cares about that little footnote in history? .
We had the Spanish-American War and the Hunt of Pancho Via and not to mention the Storm Clouds of the First World War looming up ahead back then.

And the Iraq war will also be considered a footnote in history.

I don't see how that little backwater war in the Pacific had any similarly to the Unjust Iraq War of today. You forgot that back then we had an imperialistic mindset.

How was the Philippine War or the Spanish-American war any more justified than the Iraq war?

 

[GenMarshall]

And the Iraq war will also be considered a footnote in history.

A footnote in history as a failed war .

How was the Philippine War...

I dont know how an unknown war can be justified when were busy chasing Pancho Via, the Guilded Age, Bad Meat, building the Panama Canal, and Storm Clouds over Europe of an upcomming First World War .

or the Spanish-American war any more justified than the Iraq war?

Lets see, we acquired numerous territories as well as helped freed Cuba from the Spanish.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

A footnote in history as a failed war .

Perhaps.

I dont know how an unknown war can be justified when were busy chasing Pancho Via, the Guilded Age, Bad Meat, building the Panama Canal, and Storm Clouds over Europe of an upcomming First World War .

I am sorry but I don't understand what you are saying or how it justifies anything.

Lets see, we acquired numerous territories as well as helped freed Cuba from the Spanish.

Well we acquired numerous territories for military bases as well as helped freed Iraq from Saddam.

 

[Hygro]

I find this endlessly amusing. Why can't liberals make up their minds? Are Republicans stupid people who can't do anything right? Or are they devious masterminds controlling everything in our society? Earlier in this thread, Bozo, you said that the Republicans "couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag". (Or something to that effect) So which is it? Are they so deft that they can "play the media like a fiddle", but so stupid that they can't run a war?

Anyway....I don't think the Democrats are capitalizing on the average American's discontent like they could. But neither do I think the Republicans are "playing the media like a violin", either - on the contrary, I think for almost all of President Bush's administration, they've been extraordinarily inept at engaging the Democrats in the square of public opinion. They've just sort of gone ahead and done stuff, without really explaining why.

Someone who is really good at painting murals might suck at singing songs. Both are art, but require different skills and talents. Likewise, a political organization might be well suited to present itself favorably and sway oppinion, but might suck at building nations and setting up economies. Both are politics, but require different talents and skills.

That's friggen hilarious. The American media might be right-wing by European standards, but by American standards they are very liberal. Something like 90% of new journalists voted for Kerry in 2004. Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

That's a red herring. Journalists do not have editorial control. Journalists also strive to be impartial. The media is not controlled by the journalists, but the editors who decide which story, and which oppinion of the story, to receive coverage.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

That's a red herring. Journalists do not have editorial control.

But they do the writing.

Journalists also strive to be impartial. The media is not controlled by the journalists, but the editors who decide which story, and which oppinion of the story, to receive coverage.

It is impossible to be completely impartial even if you try to.

 

[MobBoss]

Who cares about that little footnote in history? .

CG, you are one of the few people I know that would laugh off his own utter and total ignorance of historical fact. Why do you even bother asking for factual proof from me, and then I provide it, and then you give an inane answer like this?

If you dont care about such things, dont ask me for proof. And then dont post meaningless crap like this when I DO give you factual proof. It just makes you look beyond silly.

I don't see how that little backwater war in the Pacific had any similarly to the Unjust Iraq War of today. You forgot that back then we had an imperialistic mindset.

Let me explain it to you. Slowly. Again.

1. Then, as now, we were fighting against muslim insurgents.
2. Then, as now, we were fighting a largely guerilla war against insurgents.
3. Then, as now, the insurgents couldnt hope to match us in direct battle.
4. Then, as now, the conflict spanned many years with no real success to speak of against the enemy.

As for your imperialist mindset....we didnt make the Phillipines a state now did we?

Who cares if he refers to us as weak. Who even cares what now a corpse in a cave has to say about us?

CG, my gosh...try to actually think for a change. A great many muslims DIRECTLY care about how he refers us as. And as for him being a corpse in a cave, perhaps you should stay up with your current events: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1093002 he allegedly orchestrated the attempt on Cheneys life.

Did Vietnamese/Cambodian genocide occured in my generation? No. Why should I give a care to an event that happened before I was even born?

Because those that dont learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Again, why do you brush off historical fact and proof when YOU ask me for it? Perhaps you should do both of us a favor and dont ask me to prove things you dont care about. Because its making you look really silly.

I care about the VT Murder and the Unjust Iraq War because it's occuring in my Generation and my lifetime.

You just said earlier you dont give a crap about the people in Iraq.

Why am I not supprised that youre trying to push Religion onto this issue and onto me.

Because frankly, the level of your callousness towards the victims of genocide is incredibly shocking for someone that claims to be a christian. Its by your own words shall you be judged, not anything that I 'push' on you and you full well know it. Ecclesiastes 7:5.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Fair enough, however, there were other generals more than willing to sign on for the operation as originally thought out as well. So feel free to make the distinction that 'some generals' in the military forsaw this, but not all. Possibly not even a majority. Perhaps the 'we can win it cheap' crowd of generals made a for a more convincing arguement at the time. /shrug.

Again, 20/20 hindsite is precisely accurate. The finger pointing does nothing to resolve where we are today.

But to state that there was never any plan is just a false statement, as I have pointed out.

YAY I got Mobboss to move slightly to the Left "Mission acommpolished" and all that.

Heres the otherside of the coin the we can win it cheap crowd.
This was the problem with the POST WAR PLAN. Seriously in fact I think that General Franks resignation very early on into the iraq postwar should signal something, along with Colin Powells. But maybe your right it might have been the media again up playing all those negative asspects and that the majority of people in there minds really did think Iraq would be a cakewalk. I certainly didnt and I suspect neither did you.

See below for Origin of the Iraq = cakewalk.



Adelman: Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk
Feb. 13, 2002
Ken Adelman
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” - Washington Post


Rumsfeld: Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer
Nov. 15, 2002
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that


Rumsfeld: I Doubt Six Months
Feb. 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy:


Perle: days or weeks -- this will be a short war
Mar. 25, 2003
Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board
I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by
historical standards, this will be a short war.


Bush: Some feel like they can attack us ... bring 'em on!
Jul. 2, 2003
George W. Bush
There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on! We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. <--------

The last throes of the insurgency
Jun. 29, 2005
Dick Cheney
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency

 

[MobBoss]

YAY I got Mobboss to move slightly to the Left "Mission acommpolished" and all that.

Heres the otherside of the coin the we can win it cheap crowd.
This was the problem with the POST WAR PLAN. Seriously in fact I think that General Franks resignation very early on into the iraq postwar should signal something, along with Colin Powells. But maybe your right it might have been the media again up playing all those negative asspects and that the majority of people in there minds really did think Iraq would be a cakewalk. I certainly didnt and I suspect neither did you.

See below for Origin of the Iraq = cakewalk.

/snip/

Now you are just beating a dead horse. Why continue? None of what you posted up gives any recourse, and the administration has already admitted the mistakes...so how do we fix the mistakes? I dont think the Harry Reid, "we have lost" move is the way to go. So, how do we fix those mistakes to give us a chance of success in Iraq and the ability to extract ourselves with some semblance of stability for the future there?

 

[mrt144]

http://objective.ytmnd.com/

this is why they shall not win.

 

[mrt144]

United States Casualties of War

Casualties have been light in the grand scheme of things. For instance the total number of American deaths due to the Iraq war is less than that of the Philippine War. I bet most people didn't even now we fought a war against the Philippines.

unfortunately americans dont have the stomach for war because theyre a bunch of *****mades. Americans have become too high and mighty get dirty for the betterment of the world, and themselves.

 

[MobBoss]

http://objective.ytmnd.com/

this is why they shall not win.

Now THAT is some funny, FUNNY stuff!!!

 

[sonorakitch]

FriendlyFire,

In all fairness, and with respect to accuracy, the quotes you mention are mostly correct. If one believes our escapade in Iraq transformed from an invasion to a occupier of a civil-war torn theatre, then in fact the said conflict only lasted a few weeks. And we certainly did demolish Saddam's military power.

If our stated primary goal in the mission was to remove Hussein the dictator, then we succeeded. If our stated primary goal was to build Iraq into a democracy, then we have failed. At this point, we all have to interpret what the intentions really were. I can remember both actually, but the overwhelming notion of Iraqi "disarmament" surely succeeded, even if there wasn't really anything to disarm. For me, I would say it is a win/lose scenario. The invasion went better then we thought, the aftermath certainly has not.

~Chris

 

[mrt144]

The problem is that trying to understand what it really going on in Iraq and what is its importance of sending our men and women over there is something to ask a complex set of questions of asking; what is the nature of the relationship of Russia and Iran;what are we achieving politically and militarilly against China and Russia and other nation-states that want to put their investment in a oil-wealth nation of Iraq;can this nation-state building project by means of US dollars in a place where other foreign interest are trying to subvert by terrorism and media distortions and other means by their dollars be won by any parties at all;and the lists go on and on and etc.etc.

The complex question can be asked more simply. Are we getting our money's worth in this? Are we?

 

[Hygro]

Yes, we won the Phillipine war, and yes it was a guerilla war. And yes, we could win this current war, probably the same way.

But would it be worth it? Was it worth winning the Phillipine War? We would destroy whole towns, dislocating whole peoples, and maintained the attitude, as the commanding general put it so eloquently, ~"it's worth killing half the population just to save the better half". Likewise, we could win the Iraq War. More troops, more time, and a willingness to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians who get in our way. A commitment to brutality and absolute win-at-any-cost drive. Yes, we can win. But America doesn't want to fight that war, nor do our friends, nor do the bystanders. So we have no business fighting that war.

 

[FriendlyFire]

FriendlyFire,

In all fairness, and with respect to accuracy, the quotes you mention are mostly correct. If one believes our escapade in Iraq transformed from an invasion to a occupier of a civil-war torn theatre, then in fact the said conflict only lasted a few weeks. And we certainly did demolish Saddam's military power.

If our stated primary goal in the mission was to remove Hussein the dictator, then we succeeded. If our stated primary goal was to build Iraq into a democracy, then we have failed. At this point, we all have to interpret what the intentions really were. I can remember both actually, but the overwhelming notion of Iraqi "disarmament" surely succeeded, even if there wasn't really anything to disarm. For me, I would say it is a win/lose scenario. The invasion went better then we thought, the aftermath certainly has not.

~Chris

True just covering all my bases with the otherside of the argument that the neocons and bush administration did indeed believe Iraq invasion, postwar would be a simple cake walk which is what they honestly believed in that the war would be quick, postwar easy and short. Having thus planned this they then failed miserably to adjust not even accepting the realities and denying anything was wrong until it was very serious.

I deferre to the baker reports suggestions:
GO LARGE
GO LONG
(or) GO HOME

Firstly I welcombe the removal of incompetent and corrupt officals including fieth, rumsfield and wolfweritz. Replacing them with competent officals, next the appointment and elevation of general such as Petraus and mcmasters. Whom are the outstanding generals. Listern to what can be archieved under them as realistic goals. including seeking a poltical solution (not many good options at this stage)

Emdemic corruption in Iraq must be stamped out
Halliburton which the US corps is dumping should be brought to account
Shortages for troops must be corrected inc equipment , tranning, translators and tour times
Realistic goals for security
Restoration of our tranished image including proprogander (must be handled like the brtish did in omen COIN)
Poltical solution for sectarian violence (it means speaking to Iran, Syria and other states)
Addressing the weakness of both our forces and the Iraqis

 

[GenMarshall]

I am sorry but I don't understand what you are saying or how it justifies anything.

The Spanish-American War was justified because the USS Maine exploded in the Cuban Harbor. End of Story. I dont care if anyone states that it's an unjustified war, it happened in the past.

Well we acquired numerous territories for military bases as well as helped freed Iraq from Saddam.

However, Iraq is an unjustified war because Iraq never has any desire to attack us. It all boils down to oil and attention that the Arab World wants.

CG, you are one of the few people I know that would laugh off his own utter and total ignorance of historical fact. Why do you even bother asking for factual proof from me, and then I provide it, and then you give an inane answer like this?

The proofs that you provided only links to small footnotes in history that people dont care about nor bother to have in mainstreem US History courses.

If you dont care about such things, dont ask me for proof. And then dont post meaningless crap like this when I DO give you factual proof. It just makes you look beyond silly.

Sorry, but the proofs that you just provided, as stated above, are meaninglis footnotes in history that no one cares about. Perhaps if you are on Jepordy then you would care.

Let me explain it to you. Slowly. Again.

Once again, Dont talk down to me like some person who does not understand. GOD this makes you annoying!

1. Then, as now, we were fighting against muslim insurgents.
2. Then, as now, we were fighting a largely guerilla war against insurgents.
3. Then, as now, the insurgents couldnt hope to match us in direct battle.
4. Then, as now, the conflict spanned many years with no real success to speak of against the enemy.

1. Dont care
2. Dont care
3. Dont care
4. Dont care

Your point on comparing the two wars from two different centuries? Nothing as the outcome of the Unjustified Iraq war is on it's spiraling downhill to being unscusseful.

As for your imperialist mindset....we didnt make the Phillipines a state now did we?

Have you forgotten that it was a United States Territory up untill after World War II?

CG, my gosh...try to actually think for a change. A great many muslims DIRECTLY care about how he refers us as.

I dont give a damn about what the Muslims think about us in the Arab world. If they think we are "weak" then so be it, no skin off my back.

And as for him being a corpse in a cave, perhaps you should stay up with your current events: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1093002 he allegedly orchestrated the attempt on Cheneys life.

*pfft* That doesnt not explain why we have not found him. I still believe that Osama is just a rotting corpse in some cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Also, I dont care about any attempts on Cheney's life

Because those that dont learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Again, why do you brush off historical fact and proof when YOU ask me for it? Perhaps you should do both of us a favor and dont ask me to prove things you dont care about. Because its making you look really silly.

Not my fault that you pull up insignificant pieces of history that no average Joe knows about. And sorry, I'm not going to stop asking for proofs. I dont care about what lessons history has, What happened in the past stays in the past.

You just said earlier you dont give a crap about the people in Iraq.

I only care about the troops over there and care that they come home ASAP. I dont give two piddles about the Iraqis.

Because frankly, the level of your callousness towards the victims of genocide is incredibly shocking for someone that claims to be a christian.

Are you saying that I am not a Christian. I'm sorry but I am indeed a Christian (specificaly a Roman Catholic). Christians are not a bunch of homogeneious group with a hive mindset where everyone thinks the same way.

Its by your own words shall you be judged, not anything that I 'push' on you and you full well know it. Ecclesiastes 7:5.

Enough with the scripture quotations, This is not a Bible debate. To be frank, I dont care what I am judged. I can always convert to a different religion in my elder years to avoid that "judgement".

 

[Hygro]

I dont give two piddles about the Iraqis.

[..]I'm sorry but I am indeed a Christian

Great juxtaposition.


BTW the Spanish American War being justified through the loss of that ship is like the Iraq War being justified by the loss of the WTC... oh wait An even more accurate analogy would be if an American plan malfunctioned over Iraq before the war and we invaded for that reason.

 

[GenMarshall]

Unlike the Unjustified Iraqi War, we won in the Spanish-American War.

 

[Hygro]

But spent 11 years (assuming Mobboss's number is accurate) winning the peace, which is the phase we are now in, in Iraq (won the war, not won the peace).

 

[downtown]

That's friggen hilarious. The American media might be right-wing by European standards, but by American standards they are very liberal. Something like 90&#37; of new journalists voted for Kerry in 2004. Regardless of what you think, the American media, by and large, is no friend of the Republican party in general, and President Bush in particular.

Okay, that stat is full of bullfeathers.

a) First, that number isnt anywhere close to 90. If you surveyed all print journalists, the number would roughly mirror that of the population at large, because of all the "conservative" local daily papers. Your major urban center might have a liberal leaning editorial board, because their readership base might be liberal...but you only need what, 25,000 people to support a daily newspaper?

b) The "Liberal" section of the news media is the Washington Press Corp, a group of journalists thats actually pretty small compared to journalists at large. Not every paper sends a journalist there (and use the AP instead), and even some of the newspapers covering some of the US's biggest cities, such as the Columbus Dispatch, only send 1 reporter. According to the two profs I had on political media (at AU, and OSU), the number of liberals in the press corp peaked in the 1970s...and now is around 60%

c) Journalist political leanings can be explained by institutional means

d) Journalists dont get to pick what gets in the paper. Editors do.

So...you're wrong.