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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've never heard of Richard Lugar? Seriously? He actually used to teach one of my high school civics classes for a while. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jah should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Rastafarianism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Does Mexico actually possess enough of a nationalistic drive to try to acquire territories that it sold off so long ago?
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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
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."
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
