Please! I beg of you. The world of commentary appears to be all but mute on the subject, as if people the States over are too jaded to bother even noting the failed or postponed expectations of the troop surge.
But I'm not content to leave it at that. I want substantive discussion. I'd really like to study the whys and hows of why the troop surge already appears to be failing. Here's what I've managed to dredge up so far, but I want you to add to it.
quote:Well, it pretty much goes against everything any expert has offered as a solution, so there's not much to debate to be honest. It's a horrible plan and I am pretty upset that the best our government can do to stop the Administration from implementing it is passing a NON-BINDING resolution in only one house.
Perhaps we can discuss what should have been done? There's plenty to debate there.
I will agree it is scary how little debate there is over this on the national level.
quote:I read an article in time magazine about a month ago on the subject. One of the generals that is currently in charge of the Iraq operation had great sucess in stablizing certian areas in Iraq shortly after the invasion. He had soldiers going door to door asking people what they thought needed to be done, got basic utilities back on, and restored order in the areas.
His take on the surge was that it was needed right after the invasion and Saddams government was gone. They needed more troops for the whole country, to do what his units did in those handful of areas.
As for the surge happening now, he feels it won't solve anything, and a surge would only help if the amount of troops being sent were in significantly larger numbers.
quote:Didn't we do pretty much the same thing, on a smaller scale, in Baghdad last August? I definitely seem to remember a redoubled focus on security in that city, and intensification of troop levels there, with the primary result being the bloodiest months of the war in terms of American casualties.
So when the President announced that he was ignoring the suggestions of just about everybody, including the Iraq Study Group, and doing this surge thing, and everybody complained that the surge was a bad idea, the Bush administration's apologists defended the surge on grounds that we couldn't know whether the plan would succeed or fail until we gave it a chance to work. And I thought, "We gave it a chance to work when we tried it last fall in Baghdad, and it failed spectacularly."
As for the part about the surge being far more expensive and lengthy than the administration predicted, I guess it matches everything else about the entire conflict.
quote:Don't forget, he's using thousands of more troops than he said he needed to!
quote:I was listening to an interview on CSPAN with a correspondent who had been reporting from all over Iraq for the past year or more. (I didn't catch her name, but based on a Google search, I think she was Pamela Hess.)
From having really been there, her take on the situation was very much removed from American politics. She was rife with information about the unique situation in each of the places she had been: in some places, we are pretty well hosed. In other places, the troops are making a real difference. Likewise, when she spoke with the troops to get their opinions, some echoed the military party line, while others freely voiced their views, pro or con.
Ok, that's all I've got so far. Surely, there's more. Discuss away!
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I stand by my statement in this rather vitriolic thread, seconding Adam's argument that the troop surge was insufficient (I think about double the number would be more appropriate, judging by comments made by military personnel). I also think that the surge is too concentrated on Baghdad; the operation isn't going to work for the rest of the desert, because hardly any troops have been assigned there.
That said, not all 'surge' troops have actually been deployed yet. It would be too early to pass judgement on how badly the operation will fail.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Personally, I think discussing how something will fail before it actually has, when that something is a military manueveur exceedingly important to the country in which you live, is defeatist. Mind you, I don't know whether or not those troops should actually be there. It's just that this thread strikes me as odd. Heck, I want our troops to succeed, not fail.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Especially when members of the newly elected majority party have already stated their plan is to not take the troop surge as a way to win, but to simply continue to limit president Bush's options and abilities until even he has to concede that the mission is doomed to fail.
So it seems their plan is ahead of schedule.
Whoopee.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Personally, I think discussing how something will fail before it actually has, when that something is a military manueveur exceedingly important to the country in which you live, is defeatist. Mind you, I don't know whether or not those troops should actually be there. It's just that this thread strikes me as odd. Heck, I want our troops to succeed, not fail.
I don't find it defeatist at all. In a representative democracy, we discuss government policies -- ALL government policies. It's rule by the people and if people don't talk then they don't get a voice.
That said, I find this discussion odd, too, but not for the "defeatist" reason. I took an interesting history course in college called "The American Military Experience" in which we discussed all the wars the U.S. had ever been involved in including strategies, goals, successes/failures, technology....
This is certainly not the first time that war has been portrayed on T.V. and that people have given voice against it. However, today's voices of descent are asking very different questions and making different demands than they typically have.
In this case, the biggest problems seem to be:
1. That we have a president who has consistently and flagrantly not listened to the advice of his generals.
2. That we have no clearly defined goal.
This latest troops surge isn't any different from anything that's come before and as I'm not a military strategist, I'm not going to debate the merits of this or any other specific plan. I am, however, very upset about the two things I have listed above.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that any kind of escalation will help in any long term way. It may help short term (too soon to tell).
I am encouraged by the progress (such as it is) in terms of diplomacy both with regional powers (Iran and Syria etc.) And with getting tough with the Iraqi government. The split in the Shiite party could be a good thing. I think that neither our administration or the Iraqi government would be making any progree without the US Congress applying pressure (finally). Sometime you need a "bad cop".
Twenty-seven of our soldiers were killed in Iraq this week.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-Me: they haven't stopped the troop surge, he continues to get the funding he asks for to prosecute the war, and there's been no binding bill restricting his freedom of action (which could probably only be done through a funding restriction, anyways).
If the troop surge doesn't work, Congress didn't cause it. Its an extreme stretch to blame a failure (if one does occur) on a group who have not limited the power of the President to conduct the war in Iraq from what it was before.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd really like to study the whys and hows of why the troop surge already appears to be failing.
So you're not actually interested in discussing whether it's failing? Too bad, I'm going to anyway:
quote:The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.
As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."
Too early to say the surge will definitely work. Deployment is behind schedule, for one thing.
But it's way, way too early to say it appears to be failing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Personally, I think discussing how something will fail before it actually has, when that something is a military manueveur exceedingly important to the country in which you live, is defeatist. Mind you, I don't know whether or not those troops should actually be there. It's just that this thread strikes me as odd. Heck, I want our troops to succeed, not fail.
So do I, but you'll notice that the original surge plan has already been turned on its head. We now need 8k more troops, more money, and more time.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
What I said Fugu, is that the democrat leaders have said it would be their strategy to slowly limit the president's actions until he (and consequently everyone else) thinks there is no course but to withdraw.
With people saying that the surge is failing so soon after it starts is, I take it, a sign that their plan is succeeding.
As I say. Whoopee.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rumor among most of the other bloggers working in Iraq -- and take this with a grain of salt, mind you -- is that "Iraq the Model," the blog for which the Fadhils write, is actually funded by the CIA. Since they're the primary source for this article, YMMV.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Wow a bunch of the ill informed and unqualified opinions about how we are going to fail in Iraq, and how that it is alright and patriotic to point out because that is what we are fighting for after all...
Must be Hatrack...
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I'm with Dag -- it's way too early to judge the effects of the surge. Even if troop deployments were on schedule, it's too soon.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: Wow a bunch of the ill informed and unqualified opinions about how we are going to fail in Iraq, and how that it is alright and patriotic to point out because that is what we are fighting for after all...
Must be Hatrack...
Or...you know...America.
And I must point out that the "ill informed and unqualified opinions" have a considerable better track record on predicting events in Iraq than, say, VP Cheney.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Yes VP Cheney, one of the most knowledgeable patriotic and productive men of our times has you to answer to. That is the problem with warm body over eighteen democracy. For every unpreventable idiot you lose the vote of one man of conscience intelligence and energy.
(you may now mock his marksmanship or some such or parrot noise about KBR)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes VP Cheney, one of the most knowledgeable patriotic and productive men of our times has you to answer to.
And here I was thinking that you didn't understand how America's political system works. Yes, you are correct, he does answer to us - and he has an awful lot to answer for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The surge is dead. It was, indeed, failing.
quote:Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a respected fixture of the Washington foreign policy establishment and generally a GOP loyalist. When he speaks, colleagues sit up straight and notice. And his words Monday evening in a floor speech to a largely empty Senate chamber spurred some to predict the tide had turned in Congress' standoff with Bush over pursuing the Iraq war.
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," the six-term senator said. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."
As ominous as Lugar's words were, the White House faced another key defection on Tuesday when Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he, too, felt it was time for the United States to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.
quote:Thirty percent of Americans polled say they favor the war, the lowest level of support on record. Two-thirds are opposed.
Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war.
Moreover, 63 percent of Americans are ready to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. Forty-two percent of Republicans agree.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is the end.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Now when you say, "The end" what exactly do you mean?
The end of our involvement in Iraq? The end of our involvment in the Middle East? The end of the war on terror?
The end of high prices?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Sam, what the polls show is what people think, which is almost certainly not what is really going on.
And here's something I'd like to know: What benchmarks, if/when achieved, would signify that the surge is succeeding? What should we be looking for? Is it decreased destruction of buildings and property? Is it less casualties? Is it better poll results?
Obviously, declaring victory is not a short-term goal, but I really don't have any idea what is. I don't study the war, but I keep up with the news when I can. And if nothing is achieved (as in none of the benchmarks are reached) in, say 3 months, is that a sign that the surge is failing?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When the surge fails to accomplish any of the stated goals of the New Way Forward, and when the cost of deployment does not come with the benefit that was the ostensible goal of the action, it means the surge has failed.
Also, seeing as this is a democratic process, a plan fails if it cannot keep itself politically viable. Polls -- and the desertion of core party support -- matter possibly more than anything else in terms of analyzing the success of a program.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Now when you say, "The end" what exactly do you mean?
I think the hole's too deep. Our problems will not be solved by the minds that created them, and I feel that this is the final irrevocable testament of that fact.
This is the end of Bush's Iraq.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote: Also, seeing as this is a democratic process, a plan fails if it cannot keep itself politically viable. Polls -- and the desertion of core party support -- matter possibly more than anything else in terms of analyzing the success of a program.
Wow. If this is how we are to judge how our military effectiveness is- no wonder we aren't doing all that spectacularly.
War is not a popular thing- nor is the way that war is won- but the effectiveness of a MILITARY program should be based on how well it achieves MILITARY goals. By no means should it be based on how politically viable it is.
Now whether or not the surge is in fact beneficial or detrimental to military goals is indeed an important question to ask- but an entirely different. But to claim that political viability determines whether or not a military program is successful is utterly ludicrous.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Shawshank, military operations don't occur in a vacuum but in a larger setting which includes politics. Even a dictator has to keep aware of a populace's views regarding wars. Many wars have changed course dramatically because the politics became more critical than plain tactical success or failure.
A majority of republicans in Congress have already telegraphed that they will give up in September, unless the surge produces astonishing results. It shows no signs of that.
This, to me, is some of the most disheartening recent news from Iraq:
quote:Iraq Bomb Kills U.S.-Allied Sheiks--Key Politician Also Killed By Suicide Bomber In Baghdad Hotel Lobby; Bombing Wave Rocks Iraq (CBS/AP) A stealthy suicide bomber slipped into a busy Baghdad hotel Monday and blew himself up in the midst of a gathering of U.S.-allied tribal sheiks, undermining efforts to forge a front against the extremists of al Qaeda in Iraq. Four of the tribal chiefs were among the 13 victims, police said.
The sheiks were associated with the Anbar Salvation Council, which had taken up arms to help drive extremists of al Qaeda in Iraq from the western province of Anbar.
Iraq's prime minister quickly vowed renewed support for Anbar province's tribal leaders after the noontime explosion, which also wounded 27 people and devastated the ground floor lobby of the high-rise Mansour Hotel. [cut parts] "It was a great breach of security because there are three checkpoints, one outside and two inside," said hotel worker Saif al-Rubaie, 28, who witnessed the blast and said all the casualties were Iraqis, most employees in the reception area.
4 key new Sunni allies in the "Anbar Salvation Council" are killed, along with Aziz al-Yasiri, a former general "leading a movement inside the Iraqi government to force Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki out of office."
Given that the hotel has tight security (it's in the green zone, I think I read there's a freaking embassy at the hotel, etc.) and that the bomber had to get through 3 checkpoints just at the hotel, it's almost certain that he had a powerful patron on the inside helping him. Given that Aziz was a victim, possibly it was PM Nouri himself, as a commenter speculates at the global guerrillas blog Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:War is not a popular thing- nor is the way that war is won- but the effectiveness of a MILITARY program should be based on how well it achieves MILITARY goals. By no means should it be based on how politically viable it is.
This is an idealistic concept which has no place in a system that ostensibly allows rule by the people.
Even if we discount the realities of federal republics and pretend that the war can exist in a vacuum, there's also the fact that public disapproval of the war is led by the fact that this war has been anything but effective or properly run. When a war ceases to seem viable at this point in the eyes of media experts, the inevitable public issue begins.
Low opinion numbers represent the military reality being understood. Low opinion of the war does not come in spite of the military facts, it comes because of them.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And these are the reasons I don't think the U.S. will ever win another war again (I don't believe we won the First Gulf War either. That wasn't a war). The military is too beholden to the will of the people, and too much freedom has been given to a media already against the President and the War. As much as today's liberals will reject the idea, all wars up to WWII were won with positive propaganda.
If I was a big country willing to fight, I would pick this time to take on America and defeat it.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: War is not a popular thing- nor is the way that war is won- but the effectiveness of a MILITARY program should be based on how well it achieves MILITARY goals. By no means should it be based on how politically viable it is.
I would love to judge the surge by whether or not it met its goals. What are those goals again?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar:
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: War is not a popular thing- nor is the way that war is won- but the effectiveness of a MILITARY program should be based on how well it achieves MILITARY goals. By no means should it be based on how politically viable it is.
I would love to judge the surge by whether or not it met its goals. What are those goals again?
I think this principle is the most glaring and true criticism I have heard about this conflict.
The administration has just not been very up front with the populace. Bush should have taken a page from LBJ's, "Things I Did Wrong" book and realized that Americans have become extremely disatisfied with vague and elusive answers to important questions like, "What short and long term goals do we have in Iraq?"
People laugh at Bush and his, "Mission Accomplished" banner because usually that phrase indicates all that needs to be accomplished has been accomplished. But we are still fighting and people just don't know what for. What are our goals? "X numbers of insurgent related fatalities/injuries in a month period?"
I don't assume the administration is trying to hide the truth from the American people, I think its very possible the administration itself is just not sure what *its'* goals are in Iraq.
I remember Roosevelt had his, "Fireside radio broadcasts to the nation" and people tuned in and listened to him talk to us, tell us what was going on and what he was trying to do for us. Bush needs to do something like that. Would a podcast really hurt Bush? Some sort of weekly report of what has gone right and what hasn't?
We can complain that the media does not present the positives in a situation but the government is not unable to provide that information for us. If the government really wants our cooperation they can cooperate with us and tell us what's going on.
Heck if the government wants to produce its own paper or its own television program, GO FOR IT! Sure people will call it propaganda, but people will read it, and decide for themselves if there is substance to what the government is reporting.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would like someone to define the surge FIRST before we determine if it has met its goals or if it has failed. From all indications the surge doesn't even exist yet in its full strength.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I've seen it, the administration has made ample announcements about how things are going in Iraq. The problem I've had with these announcements is that they avoided laying out future goals/expectations, were often vague as to the actual situation, and generally were at best dishonest and quite likely outright lies.
If there is good news to report, they've had ample opportunity to spread it. That they've used this opportunity in the manner that they have makes an even stronger case, to me, that things are going very poorly there.
I believe that accurate information is feared by this administration and that they are engaged in another poorly conceived and executed strategy that is going to be defended as going well up until they give it up as a failure. From what I can tell, they're playing for time and hoping that somehow, something they do or some external factor works.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I remember Roosevelt had his, "Fireside radio broadcasts to the nation" and people tuned in and listened to him talk to us, tell us what was going on and what he was trying to do for us. Bush needs to do something like that. Would a podcast really hurt Bush? Some sort of weekly report of what has gone right and what hasn't?"
I like this idea and think it would actually work. On the other hand, I can see a reason it isn't done. They consider any information as giving aid to the enemy. What the enemy doesn't know, they can't fight as easily against.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, The troop increase "surge" was complete as of June 15th. This aspect of troop deployment is very well defined. What they are supposed to be doing/accomplishing is much less so, but that's in large part what people are complaining about.
There's a scheduled review of progress set for September, which it seems no one right now thinks is likely to go well.
---
As has been noted by many experts on the situation, including the man in charge, General Patraeus, an effective strategy to handle insurgencies must put primary emphasis on non-aggressive, social and political strategies. This aspect has, again, been largely neglected or unemphasized in the current campaign. Also, the numbers set out in the manual for dealing with insurgency situations, which Gen. Petraeus was the main author of, are, in Iraq, at or below bare minimum levels in many important areas.
The Bush administration could score some pretty impressive points, both domestically and abroad, by laying out "Here's what we expect to happen by this point. Here is the progress that we believe we will have made." and then acheiving these goals. They have steadfastly refused to do so. When they have talked about progress in the region, their statements have largely been false or at best incomplete.
At some point, when even the leading members of the Republicans with the most experience and access to priviledged information are saying things are not working and not going to work, you've got to expect that stamping your feet and saying "But we're winning the war." isn't going to be enough.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Occasional: If I was a big country willing to fight, I would pick this time to take on America and defeat it.
You might even have a shot at it, since we have so much military capitol invested in the middle east right now.
Of course, an invading army on American soil would motivate even a liberal defeatist like me to enlist. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Of course, an invading army on American soil would motivate even a liberal defeatist like me to enlist."
I actually doubt this. In fact, I would even go on to say that many liberals would see it (depending on who, but I would say China and Iran) as a liberating force.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In fact, I would even go on to say that many liberals would see it (depending on who, but I would say China and Iran) as a liberating force.
This is idiotic. I know many, many liberals, and I can't think of one who would fit this criteria; most of them would find it patently offensive.
Even Blayne Bradley might object, albeit weakly, to an invasion of Canada by China.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Of course, an invading army on American soil would motivate even a liberal defeatist like me to enlist."
I actually doubt this. In fact, I would even go on to say that many liberals would see it (depending on who, but I would say China and Iran) as a liberating force.
I'm going to have to with Tom on this one. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum would positively freak out if China decided to invade. I think you would be hardpressed to find even 1% of the country saying that China is a liberating force.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD. then the liberals should start changing their rhetoric, because for me that is exactly how they sound; anti-American with nothing positive to say about the nation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, I don't think the problem there lies with the liberals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps the problem isn't their rhetoric, but the way you're listening...?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't agree. It is, for me, exactly what they are saying. If they don't say it differently there is no reason for me to change my opinion.
Either that or they should just shut their mouths. What they are mostly saying is vile, unpatriotic, and dangerous.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What rhetoric? I don't think there's been any real discussion of an invasion of the US by China.
Just because liberals are critical of this war, doesn't mean you can extrapolate beyond that. There were plenty of liberals who were pro-peacekeepers in Serbia, and currently Darfur is a hot issue among some of them.
I think your interpretation says more about you than them, in this instance.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Either that or they should just shut their mouths. What they are mostly saying is vile, unpatriotic, and dangerous.
I think that the vile, unpatriotic, and dangerous things may be coming more from you than from the liberals are saying.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You are all liberals, so of course it doesn't sound that way to you.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
There are a great many positive things I could say about this nation. The way we are currently behaving with respect to other nations, however, would not be high on the list.
I don't think that makes me anti-American, and I don't think expressing those opinions does either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Occ, Are you planning on addressing my comments about the surge?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Okay, how about this. In what way could "us liberals" change our rhetoric that would not have you simply dismiss it as "the same thing, with different words"?
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: And these are the reasons I don't think the U.S. will ever win another war again (I don't believe we won the First Gulf War either. That wasn't a war). The military is too beholden to the will of the people, and too much freedom has been given to a media already against the President and the War. As much as today's liberals will reject the idea, all wars up to WWII were won with positive propaganda.
If I was a big country willing to fight, I would pick this time to take on America and defeat it.
Yeah. That democracy thing really ties the army's hands. To whose will should the army be beholden?
If a war is worth fighting, we will certainlly have the will to fight it. It is only when we discover that our leaders have sold us a war that wasn't worth fighting that we realize (too late) that it isn't worth the price.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey there Occasional, how you doing?
As a liberal (eek! I've admitted it! Do I have a wear a scarlet L or a blue star on my jacket now?), I don't much want to be invaded by China, or Iran, or hell, as a Michigander, I don't really like the idea of Ohio's National Guard units coming here. I love my state, and my country, and I think right now we're being driven into the ground by a fanatical idealogue who is divorced from reality.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction. A lot of Conservatives are viewing this as the next cold war, and apparently are totally ignoring what we did right (arguably) in the last one. We built large multinational globe spanning coalitions and alliances, and were widely viewed as a force for freedom and democracy around the world.
Now we break alliances and polarize the world against us. We create chaos and destablization whereever we go. We tell Palestine that if they want our help, they'd better have free and clear elections, which they do, then we tell them we don't much like the democratic choices they made so we are going to starve them into submission until they give in to our demands. Yeah, that builds peace, love and goodwill wherever you go. We talk about the crisis in Iraq and call upon the world to join us basically in cleaning up a mess we made, while hundreds of thousands are being butchered to death in Darfur, a solution we could solve with a fraction of the strength we are expending in Iraq. And you think NOT helping in Darfur DOESN'T matter? It matters greatly in the court of world opinion, and if Conservatives think that that doesn't matter, then I think they are as divorced from reality as the leader of their party is. Conservatives want to cut foreign aid, when foreign aid is the only thing funding schools and food programs that keep people in third world countries in a pro-US mindset and stop them from going to fundamentalist madrassas that teach them to hate and kill Westerners.
You people (by which I mean Conservatives, by a large, generally, but not all of you), don't get it. You think you can solve every problem with the finesse of smashing a clay pot with a hammer. You blow the hell out of Iraq and then spend years trying to fix something you never had to break to begin with, and when your poorly attempted reconstruction comes under fire from liberals, you tell us all to shut up and go home? Why the hell should we? We think YOU are DESTROYING AMERICA, and that pisses us off, maybe even a little bit more than the vague nameless threats you keep tossing at us in your attempt to cow us into submission.
I REFUSE to be afraid of them, and I REFUSE to be afraid of your vile, invective laden attempts to scare me into being quiet. I am an American, and a liberal, and when I see my country in danger, from a terror foreign or DOMESTIC, it is my friggin duty to stand up and say something about it. I won't be muzzled by you, by Conservatives, by the president, or anyone else. Maybe if you had listened to us from the start, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
But it's too late for that. We're already almost a trillion dollars in the hole, with a failed school system, failed healthcare system, crumbling armed forces, shattered world opinion, alliances falling apart left and right, and somehow the idea that 20,000 more guys are going to Baghdad is supposed to make me really feel good about everything that is going wrong in this country?
I think the relationship between the President and the people of this country is akin to a battered wife and her abuser. He constantly beats her, then he apologizes and SWEARS that this time things will be different, he can change, and everything will be alright, until the next beating comes. Well there comes a time when you just kick his ass to the curb, and I'm well beyond that point.
The nerve of someone telling ME to shut up, when they support what is going on in this country right now is apalling. You guys (again, Conservatives who support our general course of action in Iraq and the war on terror) have no friggin clue as to what you are doing, and until I see this country headed in a better direction, I'll be shouting from the rooftops at you.
Don't tread on ME either.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
*Applauds Lyrhawn*
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I see someone's off their meds again.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'll not have some of whatever he's not having.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: And these are the reasons I don't think the U.S. will ever win another war again (I don't believe we won the First Gulf War either. That wasn't a war). The military is too beholden to the will of the people, and too much freedom has been given to a media already against the President and the War. As much as today's liberals will reject the idea, all wars up to WWII were won with positive propaganda.
If I was a big country willing to fight, I would pick this time to take on America and defeat it.
Dood, but that's what this country is supposed to be about, freedom. The freedom to have diffrent opinions instead of a government imposed opinion. America was so much more "innocent" back then and I'm not sure if I'd want to go back to that. I don't think the problem is the military, and it's not exactly polite to them to state that. The problem is this war.... I don't have to be a liberal to think it's not really working...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I don't agree. It is, for me, exactly what they are saying. If they don't say it differently there is no reason for me to change my opinion.
Either that or they should just shut their mouths. What they are mostly saying is vile, unpatriotic, and dangerous.
Again, that's kind of contrary to the spirit of America. The Whigs come to mind. Don't question Britain, just shut your mouth and don't criticize. You wouldn't even have an America with that attitude. Criticising the government, telling it like it is is NOT unpatriotic. Should people just be silent when they don't agree with something they think is wrong? You might as well silence conservatives then when they are frustrated about gay rights or abortion. American equals the right to express your opinion otherwise we might as well be China or Iran or something, that doesn't allow people to criticize the government without violent consequences.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Synesthesia, I don't consider matters of war as part of democracy. Once war becomes democratic, it loses all power that it has in achieving its goals. You might say that war is what happens when democracy isn't an option.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't sound like you have much faith in democracy. If the goal is to preserve democracy, losing our own democracy in the process is a lousy way to achieve it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know. So many people insist that war is about fighting for freedom. It seems ironic that some people want to take away the freedom to disagree with that. Throwing people in jail for dissenting, anyone? War should be considered an outmoded useless solution to bigger problems that need to be addressed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
We may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
As a number of people have suggested- including generals Casey and Abizaid- the problem is that no amount of American troops can bring permanent stablility to Iraq; only Iraqis can bring stability to Iraq.
If another 20-plus thousand troops doesn't begin a concrete path to bringing that stability, it would be nice to have some notion that there's an alternative in store. This administration does the old straw about "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results" one better- it does the same thing, only more so.
Four years, millions of refugees, tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, over thirty-five hundred troop deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars later, asking "maybe this isn't working?" isn't unpatriotic. Failing to do so is insane.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: You are all liberals, so of course it doesn't sound that way to you.
If I was a big country willing to fight, I would pick this time to take on America and defeat it.
You're forgetting that America -- when its will is roused -- is one of the mightest powerhouses ever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... As much as today's liberals will reject the idea, all wars up to WWII were won with positive propaganda.
Can we have a bit more elaboration on this idea?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think Occasional's point about us liberals being un-American, resolves around some conservative's definition of "American" being what agrees with them. Disagree with the President's plans, that's Un-American. Like Gay Marriage, that's Un-American. Worried about the immigrants instead of immigration? That's Un-American. (I knew one pain who argued, Not a Protestant Christian? That's Un-American since America was built on Christian values.)
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm going to write in my diary tonight about the most viscous thread ever.
quote: What they are mostly saying is vile, unpatriotic, and dangerous.
I'm trying to understand what you want. Would you rather that the government during war time not be held accountable to it's citizens? What's stopping them from going too far, in that case?
I had dinner with one of my professors the other night, and he asked us all at the table if we though that the military could take over the government, and then the nation. My first thought was "PSSH! Of course not! That's ridiculous! No one would sit idly by if that happened!"
But now, hearing your thoughts, I'm realizing that people will sit by while their government, claiming to be doing what it is doing in the name of safety and freedom, chips away at our freedom until there's nothing left.
And Dan_raven is right. If you put being patriotic above the values for which your country represents, and then your country starts to undermine those very values and begin to represent the opposite, isn't being patriotic the vile thing? If you believe that your country is destroying the very values that it was built upon, but as a child you were always taught to be patriotic, which do you chose?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Hey there Occasional, how you doing?
As a liberal (eek! I've admitted it! Do I have a wear a scarlet L or a blue star on my jacket now?), I don't much want to be invaded by China, or Iran, or hell, as a Michigander, I don't really like the idea of Ohio's National Guard units coming here. I love my state, and my country, and I think right now we're being driven into the ground by a fanatical idealogue who is divorced from reality.
I think we're headed in the wrong direction. A lot of Conservatives are viewing this as the next cold war, and apparently are totally ignoring what we did right (arguably) in the last one. We built large multinational globe spanning coalitions and alliances, and were widely viewed as a force for freedom and democracy around the world.
Now we break alliances and polarize the world against us. We create chaos and destablization whereever we go. We tell Palestine that if they want our help, they'd better have free and clear elections, which they do, then we tell them we don't much like the democratic choices they made so we are going to starve them into submission until they give in to our demands. Yeah, that builds peace, love and goodwill wherever you go. We talk about the crisis in Iraq and call upon the world to join us basically in cleaning up a mess we made, while hundreds of thousands are being butchered to death in Darfur, a solution we could solve with a fraction of the strength we are expending in Iraq. And you think NOT helping in Darfur DOESN'T matter? It matters greatly in the court of world opinion, and if Conservatives think that that doesn't matter, then I think they are as divorced from reality as the leader of their party is. Conservatives want to cut foreign aid, when foreign aid is the only thing funding schools and food programs that keep people in third world countries in a pro-US mindset and stop them from going to fundamentalist madrassas that teach them to hate and kill Westerners.
You people (by which I mean Conservatives, by a large, generally, but not all of you), don't get it. You think you can solve every problem with the finesse of smashing a clay pot with a hammer. You blow the hell out of Iraq and then spend years trying to fix something you never had to break to begin with, and when your poorly attempted reconstruction comes under fire from liberals, you tell us all to shut up and go home? Why the hell should we? We think YOU are DESTROYING AMERICA, and that pisses us off, maybe even a little bit more than the vague nameless threats you keep tossing at us in your attempt to cow us into submission.
I REFUSE to be afraid of them, and I REFUSE to be afraid of your vile, invective laden attempts to scare me into being quiet. I am an American, and a liberal, and when I see my country in danger, from a terror foreign or DOMESTIC, it is my friggin duty to stand up and say something about it. I won't be muzzled by you, by Conservatives, by the president, or anyone else. Maybe if you had listened to us from the start, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
But it's too late for that. We're already almost a trillion dollars in the hole, with a failed school system, failed healthcare system, crumbling armed forces, shattered world opinion, alliances falling apart left and right, and somehow the idea that 20,000 more guys are going to Baghdad is supposed to make me really feel good about everything that is going wrong in this country?
I think the relationship between the President and the people of this country is akin to a battered wife and her abuser. He constantly beats her, then he apologizes and SWEARS that this time things will be different, he can change, and everything will be alright, until the next beating comes. Well there comes a time when you just kick his ass to the curb, and I'm well beyond that point.
The nerve of someone telling ME to shut up, when they support what is going on in this country right now is apalling. You guys (again, Conservatives who support our general course of action in Iraq and the war on terror) have no friggin clue as to what you are doing, and until I see this country headed in a better direction, I'll be shouting from the rooftops at you.
Don't tread on ME either.
A post this impassioned and heartfelt doesn't deserve to be lost on the bottom of the page.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I've not read this thread at all, so I don't know if the point made in this blog post is relevant, but seeing this post, reminded me of this thread title that I scanned in passing, so. . I'm tossing it into the mix.
Money quote:
quote:But the surge is only just now beginning.
Two weeks ago Dave Kilcullen, Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor to General Petraeus, said the following to Austin Bay:
I know some people in the media are already starting to sort of write off the “surge” and say ‘Hey, hang on: we’ve been going since January, we haven’t seen a massive turnaround; it mustn’t be working’. What we’ve been doing to date is putting forces into position. We haven’t actually started what I would call the “surge” yet. All we’ve been doing is building up forces and trying to secure the population. And what I would say to people who say that it’s already failed is “watch this space”. Because you’re going to see, in fairly short order, some changes in the way we’re operating that will make what’s been happening over the past few months look like what it is—just a preliminary build up.
That was two weeks ago. Between then and now, the surge finally started. Only just now has it finally started. It can’t yet have failed. . . .
American public opinion is not at all likely to tolerate any further adventures if this doesn’t work. But the war isn’t over until it is over, and it’s probably best not to say the surge failed when it only just started a week ago.
This isn't TV, folks. It can't and won't be solved in 43 minutes plus commercials. Patience is the watchword.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Magson you are right. This war won't be solved in an hour, or a week, or a month. Even a full scale "Get the troops out" would take years.
The question is, how long do we sit by and watch the casualties before we decide if its a failure or not? President Bush promised us that we would know by September. Now we are being told that it will take longer than that.
The backers of the war say, "Trust us. We know what we are doing." Yet they have done much to dissolve our trust in them.
How many deaths, how many billions, how much time before we can call it a failure or a success?
I will wait until September before I decide what is and isn't successful. However when the most powerful Republican on the foreign affairs committee says its a failure, he may know more than me.
However that is not my main point. What I think my main point is, is quite simple. There is a common almost universal belief that is American.
Some Americans are Pro-War. Some Americans are Anti-War.
But the true American is always against a war waged badly.
The truly Un-American is the one that says, "What is the harm in a war fought wrong."
The US Troops have waged this war with honor, bravery, and intelligence.
Its a shame that their civilian commanders have not done the same.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Patience is the watchword.
I've heard that tune for the past 4 years, as the White House pursued patently stupid/insuffient strategies that even I, with my limitesd knowledge and experience in these matters, knew weren't going to work. My predictions have come true, whereas the people who told me to just wait a little more and I'd see how things were actually succeeding have all been wrong. I've been there through the dozens of corners we've turned. I was there when the mission was accomplished, when there was no insurgency, when the insurgency was in its last throes. And yet, it keeps getting worse.
I've provided specific criticisms (not an exhaustive listing of them by any means). If you want to address these criticisms (and possibly the various other criticisms provided by people more knowledgible than I or why we're not following the plans laid out by say the Iraq Study group), I'm all ears. But telling me "Just shut up and wait." doesn't seem all that convincing to me.
---
I think this is especially true in the face of the White House's constant attempts to label the only viable strategy that their bungling seems to have left (redeployment) as a failure - making it so that what could have been seen as a prudent move to not be fighting the Iraqis civil war, into what, because they keep calling it this, will be seen as a failure - for, from what I can see are only selfish political motives.
[ June 28, 2007, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a respected fixture of the Washington foreign policy establishment and generally a GOP loyalist. When he speaks, colleagues sit up straight and notice.
I'm glad this quote tells me how important this man I've never heard of actually is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You've never heard of Richard Lugar? Seriously? He actually used to teach one of my high school civics classes for a while. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
pooka, If you've never heard of Richard Lugar, former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I imagine you don't spend a lot of time looking at what our government does in terms of foreign relations or the workings of the Senate. He's one of the biggest wheels in the Senate and the main Republican foreign relations guy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It did remind me of one of those old stock broker commercials. Though I can't remember if it was Charles Schwab or E.F. Hutton.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think that Occasional is being extreme (obviously). But some elements of what he has said ring true to me.
In WW2, we suffered some pretty staggering mishaps. An article I read recently (which seemed pretty nonpartisan to me, but I haven't done any serious fact checking on this either, so maybe it's wrong) detailed a few of them... the one that sticks out in my mind the most is a friendly fire incident where we accidentally killed a couple thousand of our own men.
But during WW2 media coverage was much more limited. Part of this might be because of our government trying to control the propaganda, but another part of it is the fact that in the modern age it's simply a thousand times easier to get out information quickly. Even assuming there was no controlling of the media during WW2, it would take a while for information about our individual hardships and setbacks to trickle down to the average American. But today, we get that information almost instantaneously.
I think this does tend to create a much more defeatist and pessimistic attitude. Instead of getting much more vague and general updates ("We won X Battle"), every loss and every mistake is brought under a great deal of scrutiny.
So while I agree with some of Occasional's observations about the defeatist way we conduct our wars these days, I don't blame liberals.
I blame the information age.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It's really difficult to make many meaningful comparisons between WWII and our current situation in Iraq. The former was a true world war, with obvious and necessary goals. The latter is a nebulous mess of civil war/occupation/regime change with no clear goals, no obvious necessity, and many times no obvious enemy.
It's obvious to anyone what would have happened had Hitler not been stopped. It's unclear what if anything will happen if various random pockets of insurgents are not stopped from insurging.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I love how the word liberal is used, like it's this grand McGuffin that shound explain everything but just makes you seem foolish.
Questioning the government and opening the floor to debate is one of THE most american things a human being can do.
The founding fathers would roll in their graves if they thought your idea of flag-waving and never voicing any descent was what was considered patriotic today.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I blame the information age.
I blame the incredibly poor and dishonest conduct during the lead up and prosecution of this war by the Bush administration.
There are quite a few people in our country who will be against war almost no matter what. There are some who will view any casualties as too much.
But they are vastly outnumbered by people who will support a war that appears to them to be for a good and import purpose, is being carried out in a competent and responsible manner, and is actually serving American interests. A large majority of the popualtion can stomache telling kids their dad isn't coming home if the reason they can give is noble and heroic.
Right now, none of that is true.
(Consider the overwhelming support that the country showed for the Afghanistan campaign - until the people in charge royally screwed it up. That was in the same media atmosphere that you are laying the blame on. Why didn't it effect that support?)
I started out supporting this war and I'm still sympathetic to the neo-con idea of spreading democracy as a means of making the world better/more stable. But it's not a game to me or some sort of status contest. I actually care about the reality of the situation and about how this affects America and Americans (and the rest of the world of course). I've got friends and family members over in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, man, would I like to belive that this is going to end well for us.
But, the only way I see it even ending not awfully is if I and many, many other people force the Bush administration to take some responsiblity for their poor performance, their dishonesty, and their incompetence. That involves, for me, opposing their stupid plan du jour for gaining time in the hopes that something will change. It involves pushing for some sort of guide or timetable or benchmarks to measure what they expect to happen against.
If you've got reasons and specifics to discuss, by all means do so. I'm certainly open to them. But I've seen where your blind optimism and denial of reality and of your own responsibility for the mess we are in have gotten us. So if you want to come to me with only that and tell me to be quiet or to accuse me of not being patriotic (for being upset at people doing serious damage to my country) or that I don't support the troops (for trying to demand that the people who put them in harms way only do so responsibily, with accountibility, and with a reasonable expectation of it being good for the country), don't expect me to take you seriously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Patience is the watchword.
I heard that in 2004. We give them five years. Open budget, total control. There has to be a reasonable limit to our capacity to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt when they do nothing but hack everything up with evident incompetence.
quote:I actually doubt this. In fact, I would even go on to say that many liberals would see it (depending on who, but I would say China and Iran) as a liberating force.
Then you have no idea what a liberal is, and only imagine you understand them based upon a hackneyed caricature of the people who happened to be right about this war all along.
In all seriousness, I have heard few things that were more off the mark about liberals that were not coming out of the mouths of people like Reshpectobiggle. Your statement is absurd!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
For the record, of all the armies I'd like to see invade American territory, China and Iran are pretty far down on the list. In fact, spots 1-37 include only a single terrestrial army. Because really, who couldn't smile (or grin vacantly) at a Jamaican Invasion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Jah should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Rastafarianism.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even Blayne Bradley might object, albeit weakly, to an invasion of Canada by China.
This really, really made me smile. Thanks Tom.
Also to note, I do not think that there is single nation that has the capability or the actual territorial claims in which to invade the US of A. Japan I think might have claims on Guam and its former naval base Saipan was it? Canada I think claims a bit of Alaska but I am unaware of a single nation that would under any circumstance invade the US.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even Blayne Bradley might object, albeit weakly, to an invasion of Canada by China.
This really, really made me smile. Thanks Tom.
Also to note, I do not think that there is single nation that has the capability or the actual territorial claims in which to invade the US of A. Japan I think might have claims on Guam and its former naval base Saipan was it? Canada I think claims a bit of Alaska but I am unaware of a single nation that would under any circumstance invade the US.
A Mexico that wakes up to find it has a modern army and several trillion dollars of surplus money.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Does Mexico actually possess enough of a nationalistic drive to try to acquire territories that it sold off so long ago?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
From the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, a crazy senator warns about China:
quote:Although it will not happen in my lifetime, or perhaps that of anyone in this room, sooner or later when a country's population soars toward 2 billion people, several hundred million people will come to Canada. They will establish themselves here and grow.
That will happen much quicker than people who dare to speculate about this think. I think it will happen in this century. I am afraid that we are not doing very much to prepare ourselves for that mentally in the sense of being told that we must do this by tomorrow or suffer certain consequences. I do not think we are doing enough to prepare ourselves that way with respect to defence and defence posturing...
Do you think we can get ourselves mentally prepared for that which is bound to happen in the next 20 or 30 years by beginning to do something now? We are enjoying the last of this great nation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
yeah, he's crazy. Thats the kind of talk that the yellow peril bs comes from.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Probably drunk too. I left out his ramblings about Barbados. Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Does Mexico actually possess enough of a nationalistic drive to try to acquire territories that it sold off so long ago?
Mexico lost much of its land by losing the Mexican-American War. I know there are people who want it back, and claim to be actively working on it. Whether anyone in power has those kinds of ambitions, I don't know.
--Mel
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
quote:Although it will not happen in my lifetime, or perhaps that of anyone in this room, sooner or later when a country's population soars toward 2 billion people, several hundred million people will come to Canada.
quote: Indeed, by UN population analysis and by U.S. Census Bureau calculations, the U.S. (projected population: 350 million) will deliver more babies into the world - in absolute numbers, not in percentages - than China (projected population: 1.5 billion) by 2025.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm confused as to why anyone would think that liberals would want to be invaded by China. Most liberals tend to be extremely critical of China's human rights record and oppressive government. I'm not sure that liberals would even be all that tolerant of invasion by countries they like more, like Canada. After all, invasions are violent and they cause a lot of death and destruction. Things would have to be much, much worse before most US liberals would want to be "liberated."
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A Mexico that wakes up to find it has a modern army and several trillion dollars of surplus money.
I don't think they'd invade. They might be more able to sway the U.S. government on some issues though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Mighty Cow, that's totally fair. The author of the article aknowledged that the wars were very different with regards to their goal, justification, etc. Nevertheless, I still think its worth assessing the stark contrast in the coverage of the two wars.
Squicky, I'm not sure if that whole post is aimed at me or not, but you quoted me so I'm assuming so.
If that's the case, wow. I admit I can be a bit of an optimist, but I didn't call you or anyone else unpatriotic. I didn't criticize you for not supporting the troops. I really don't have any vitriol for anyone in this debate at all. While I'll admit I still support the war, I don't think all that much less of people who don't. Every single member of my family and close friend I have disagree with me on it. Part of being a civil, decent human being is showing respect to people even when you disagree.
I have to go to work, but I'll probably return to this later.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A Mexico that wakes up to find it has a modern army and several trillion dollars of surplus money.
I don't think they'd invade. They might be more able to sway the U.S. government on some issues though.
Maybe maybe not, I'd bet our immigration problems would disappear though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)