Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
“Or for those determined Conservatives, who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.â€
How about those determined Conservatives that are working against the ignorant right wing ideology that does that same?
I have concerns about the Democrats in the House of Representatives. I have a very low opinion of what they are going to do for the next 2 years. However; I think it’s probably less costly to me and America than what the Republicans would have done…
“how about those folks that fight against both?â€
The fight will never end. However, we should be grateful that we live in American where we can voice our opinion.
That is one issue where President Bush “gets itâ€. Did you hear his speech from Indonesia? He gets it that free speech is important. (I had additional comments, but I self-edited)
I suppose it’s kind of like the exact opposite. I love the crack pipe. It helps me forget the 9 screaming crack babies that the Government has left me with…
Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
It’s the moderates and liberals in our midst who won’t lead us into WW III Robert.
We need be equally mindful of zealot Rightist ideology for anything in extremist form (as the attacks on the World Trade Center and this endless War on Iraq will attest) may prove our undoing.
Here, again, is to wishing everyone a good holiday without making the thread specific solely to those with whom you share a political stance.:wink:
shitto, Sounds like your sister is sane. What happened? You didn’t throw her on her head when she was an infant or such?
Note ot Eben and shitto, we are in WW3. Pretending it ain’t so, or not acknowledging it won’t make it go away. This wasn’t Bush’s fault, but the Islamofascists that have been attacking us since the 80s and before. You, and other, Defeatocrats may want to act like Clinton and put self gratification before your duty to your country, but not me.
Shitto, you don’t know Jack, you mentally ill misbegotten waste. You don’t even know what truth is. Truth to Power is nothing more than lipping off and demanding immunity from any retribution.
Here’s truth to power: Democrats, you are F’ing liars. You aren’t honest and doesn’t appear you ever want to be honest.
The examples are endless, starting with shitto and ending up with the impeached liar with his hand in Monica’s panties.
Shitto, stop creating strawmen. You don’t do it very well. The only FAILURE is YOU! You are an all around failure. You aren’t even man enough to admit it and to change. All you know is to play the juvenile jerk, and to arrogantly assume you’ve won some point when all you accomplished is to diminish yourself and destroy what little credibility you had.
Zealot ideology from both left and right are as equally dangerous. A zealot rightwing ideology would spring us head long into war, however a leftist one would certainly render us defenseless.
Both are equally as repugnenent, equally as dangerous.
Poor shiloh too ignorant to understand what gets reported. Henry Kissinger, said a “clear military victorY” is not possible there.
“I think we have to redefine the course, but I don’t believe the alternative is between military victory, as it has been defined previously, and total withdrawal,” he said.
Kissenger is inccorect- most experts agree that military victory is possible given the correct strategy is employed.
As for your “outline”- specious babble. We are not ar enough along the course of history to establish any as fact. None of those eassertions have come to fruitition, except for perhaps the capturing of bin Laden (of which there are still two years left in Bush’s administration). That would take invasion of Pakistan- I assume then you are for that?
As for the assertion “The country has come ‘round to Murtha’s point of view vis-a-vie Iraq.” that is also false- most of the country does not want to cut and run, they just want a change. Please provide evidence to support your assertion.
As for John Kerry- Wallace is completely within his right to hold Kerry accountable for his view that folks that currently enlist are uneducated or ignorant. This is a position that the elitist left (of which Kerry is a member of) typically hold. Indications are now that John Kerry also holds it.
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear3 military victory is possible.
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear military victory is possible.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
“i missed the ‘cut & run’ proposal that you insist he has put forth. please explain”
Well, right here, silly:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Those sections are not relevant- redeploying the forces means the forces are no longer in Iraq. When the forces leave Iraq before the mission is accomplished, that is the definition of “cut and run”. It is what happened in Viet nam, and what Murtha is proposing for Iraq. Our forces can not pursue security and stability in Iraq without actually being there to do so. It is physically impossiable to do so.
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull…! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan” are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull:! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan”are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
This certainly isn’t a response to the previous post, which seemed to have something to do with “exit strategy.”
Would someone like to spin Bush’s remarks on exit strategy to the order of: “Republicans good. Democrats Bad.”?
The fact that Bush was for a time table is irrelevant. Different situations call for different approaches.
For example, in The Gulf War Conflict objective was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. This takes an entirely different strategy, as ther were many other factor and reasonings involved.
The same can be applied to Kosovo.
But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.”
“But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.â€
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.â€
If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theory”- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.
Re 45:
we lied our way into Vietnam. we lied our way into Iraq.
things have a way of balancing themselves out.
the lessons of Vietnam seem lost to some.
Viet Nam and Iraq are two different conflicts, set in two different times, with two different objectives and with two different goals.
There are few valid comparisons, however if you wish to bring some up I will gladly address them (besides the one I already acknowledged above).
re 46: If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,” I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy” is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Y”), here applied to a specific case.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theoryâ€- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed.
By “Domino Theory,” I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
I agree with Shiloh that the lesson to be learned from Vietnam probably isn’t “stick around.”
“the Bush administration (& Ted) thinks the lesson from Vietnam was “don’t cut and run.”THAT’S the lesson for these guys?!!!
If we’d only stuck it out a little longer, we’d have won in Vietnam. Huh?”
Perhaps you should re-read my posts Shiloh, as this is not at all close to what I said. Quote where I said this.
Let me point out the relevant section for you:
“However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.”
“If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,”I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy”is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Yâ€), here applied to a specific case.”
This is incorrect. The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
However, nice attempt at a strawman argument.
By “Domino Theory,”I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
Your impression was incorrect, as it is also refered to in other topic.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
“for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
That is an accurate statement- it was a horrible blunder on America’s part. We should have stayed, and changed to a winning strategy just like we did in WWII (Yes, we were loosing it to until we re-examined our strategy there too.). The cold war would have shortened, millions of lives would have been saved.
Instead, we left. Millions died, the cold war was lengthened (thank God for Reagan, or we may still be fighting it) and our reputation as a country was irreparibly damaged.
Imagaine what would have happened if we withdrew from the Pacific during WWII?
The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunder”) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
I can also map this out to you if it isn’t clear. Let me.
If I say “fire” in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “comment”. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
Context is important. The context was Kosovo- thus it is relative.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
This is simple psychology- in order to rationalize a personal dislike for some one, you must place them under you in some way- in this case, intelligence.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
It is your assertion that we did- please prove your assertion. One can not prove a negative. It is like saying “prove God doesn’t exist”.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
I can agree with that- it is conjecture…just as it is conjecture that the DT wasn’t accurate. Communism would have had to won to prove the DT inaccurate.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunderâ€) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
Except the DT was to be a global event. Cambiodia did fall, but neither that nor your assertion proves anythng one way or another.
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
Actually, that isn’t completely accurate. We kept military bases there and throught all of Europe early in the cold war to keep Communism at bay however this also contributed to the build up. The USSR economic system greatly relied on absortion of the resources of other countries- you prevent that and you prevent them from growing.
I’m not specifically going to support or discredit anything that shiloh said; but the American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.
You can argue the points all day long, but President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have already done all they need to do to push Americans towards a stance similar to shiloh’s.
Actually Zelda, they are not. If I am to believe the polls, they want the war over, but they don’t want us to just up and leave today..so that is hardly saying the public favors shiloh’s stance. There is no Democratic solution in Iraq is a good read btw
“The American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.”
While Peejz may or may not have a point, perhaps they are. However like elctions, opinion tides turn just like they did twelve years ago. I suspect in twelve years or so, folks we be abandoning his opinion in droves also.
We’re probably getting away from the issue, but I’ll try again:
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
If I say “fire”in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “commentâ€. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
In this case, however, Bush didn’t say “we need an exit strategy in Kosovo,” he said “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” The context of the utterance is a discussion about Kosovo and, more specifically, a critique of Clinton’s Kosovo policy. What he’s saying, in effect, is that Clinton botched this specific engagement in Kosovo by ignoring what any military man knows: When you occupy a foreign country, one that doesn’t want you to be there, you should have a plan for getting out without leaving things in total disarray. The first half of the sentence is universalizing [X = Y]; the second half refers this universalizing sentiment to a specific case (where Clinton’s military activity falls under the heading [X = Y]).
More importantly, I think, can you explain why this statement is false for Iraq while remaining true for Kosovo? This is really what’s at issue and probably goes beyond what Bush said about Clinton (which was most likely the sort of slam from the sidelines that one would expect from the rival party).
First, do you mean that we should set up permanent bases in Iraq but shouldn’t have done so in Kosovo? If it’s good to keep bases in war torn regions (and I personally don’t think that this is incompatible with having an exit strategy), it would seem that there’s as much as argument for one as the other (excluding oil interests, of course).
Second, do we keep military bases in countries that clearly don’t want us there, so that attacks on the military flare up constantly resulting in numerous fatalities even after the (already highly questionable and likely disproven) notion that the country ever posed a military threat to the US has dissolved?
Third, is there an exit strategy that couldn’t be targeted as “cut and run,” if one wanted to do so?
Fourth, this all comes back to the question of our presence in the region. Is it a good thing for America, that is, does it make us safer? If our presence in the region makes America safer, perhaps it is a good thing. I’m not convinced:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and especially to our young men and women overseas who won’t get to be home with their families. We love ya. God Bless.
Thanks BonBon. You too.
It’s my favorite American holiday.
#1: Hear, hear!!! We wouldn’t be having Thanksgivings if it wasn’t for those who serve their Country!
nor for those who founded it…
Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
Amen to that Robert!!:razz:
“Or for those determined Conservatives, who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.â€
How about those determined Conservatives that are working against the ignorant right wing ideology that does that same?
“How about those determined Conservatives that are working against the ignorant right wing ideology that does that same?”
An excellent point Zelda, but how about those folks that fight against both?
One of my biggest problems with Iraq is that it increases the likelihood of failure in Afghanistan.
I have concerns about the Democrats in the House of Representatives. I have a very low opinion of what they are going to do for the next 2 years. However; I think it’s probably less costly to me and America than what the Republicans would have done…
“how about those folks that fight against both?â€
The fight will never end. However, we should be grateful that we live in American where we can voice our opinion.
That is one issue where President Bush “gets itâ€. Did you hear his speech from Indonesia? He gets it that free speech is important. (I had additional comments, but I self-edited)
(I had additional comments, but I self-edited) Is that anything like self medicating?:razz:
I suppose it’s kind of like the exact opposite. I love the crack pipe. It helps me forget the 9 screaming crack babies that the Government has left me with…
Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
It’s the moderates and liberals in our midst who won’t lead us into WW III Robert.
We need be equally mindful of zealot Rightist ideology for anything in extremist form (as the attacks on the World Trade Center and this endless War on Iraq will attest) may prove our undoing.
Here, again, is to wishing everyone a good holiday without making the thread specific solely to those with whom you share a political stance.:wink:
16- and even with a 14% increase, it didn’t meet Fox’s rerun numbers:lol::lol:
shitto, Sounds like your sister is sane. What happened? You didn’t throw her on her head when she was an infant or such?
Note ot Eben and shitto, we are in WW3. Pretending it ain’t so, or not acknowledging it won’t make it go away. This wasn’t Bush’s fault, but the Islamofascists that have been attacking us since the 80s and before. You, and other, Defeatocrats may want to act like Clinton and put self gratification before your duty to your country, but not me.
It’s the moderates and liberals in our midst who won’t lead us into WW III Robert.
No, they’ll lead us into defeat. That is the problem…
Careful there shiloh…Peejz doesn’t have to put up with that if she doesn’t want to…
Shitto, you don’t know Jack, you mentally ill misbegotten waste. You don’t even know what truth is. Truth to Power is nothing more than lipping off and demanding immunity from any retribution.
Here’s truth to power: Democrats, you are F’ing liars. You aren’t honest and doesn’t appear you ever want to be honest.
The examples are endless, starting with shitto and ending up with the impeached liar with his hand in Monica’s panties.
Shitto, stop creating strawmen. You don’t do it very well. The only FAILURE is YOU! You are an all around failure. You aren’t even man enough to admit it and to change. All you know is to play the juvenile jerk, and to arrogantly assume you’ve won some point when all you accomplished is to diminish yourself and destroy what little credibility you had.
You are the knee-jerk automation.
Zealot ideology from both left and right are as equally dangerous. A zealot rightwing ideology would spring us head long into war, however a leftist one would certainly render us defenseless.
Both are equally as repugnenent, equally as dangerous.
“that’s what robots do, dear boy. thanks for proving the point.”
Robot pot, robot kettle…
Poor shiloh too ignorant to understand what gets reported. Henry Kissinger, said a “clear military victorY” is not possible there.
“I think we have to redefine the course, but I don’t believe the alternative is between military victory, as it has been defined previously, and total withdrawal,” he said.
Dumbass..learn to read:roll:
Re 28:
Kissenger is inccorect- most experts agree that military victory is possible given the correct strategy is employed.
As for your “outline”- specious babble. We are not ar enough along the course of history to establish any as fact. None of those eassertions have come to fruitition, except for perhaps the capturing of bin Laden (of which there are still two years left in Bush’s administration). That would take invasion of Pakistan- I assume then you are for that?
As for the assertion “The country has come ‘round to Murtha’s point of view vis-a-vie Iraq.” that is also false- most of the country does not want to cut and run, they just want a change. Please provide evidence to support your assertion.
As for John Kerry- Wallace is completely within his right to hold Kerry accountable for his view that folks that currently enlist are uneducated or ignorant. This is a position that the elitist left (of which Kerry is a member of) typically hold. Indications are now that John Kerry also holds it.
It isn’t hard to figure out.
Re 29:
So what you are saying is the assumption I made that Shiloh could diseminate a factual quote is also false?
Then I retract my statement- what Kissenger said is true, and in line with most experts.
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear3 military victory is possible.
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear military victory is possible.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
“i missed the ‘cut & run’ proposal that you insist he has put forth. please explain”
Well, right here, silly:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Those sections are not relevant- redeploying the forces means the forces are no longer in Iraq. When the forces leave Iraq before the mission is accomplished, that is the definition of “cut and run”. It is what happened in Viet nam, and what Murtha is proposing for Iraq. Our forces can not pursue security and stability in Iraq without actually being there to do so. It is physically impossiable to do so.
39.
Shitto,
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull…! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan” are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull:! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan”are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
This certainly isn’t a response to the previous post, which seemed to have something to do with “exit strategy.”
Would someone like to spin Bush’s remarks on exit strategy to the order of: “Republicans good. Democrats Bad.”?
39.
The fact that Bush was for a time table is irrelevant. Different situations call for different approaches.
For example, in The Gulf War Conflict objective was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. This takes an entirely different strategy, as ther were many other factor and reasonings involved.
The same can be applied to Kosovo.
But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.”
“But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
re 44:
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.â€
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.â€
If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theory”- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.
Re 45:
we lied our way into Vietnam. we lied our way into Iraq.
things have a way of balancing themselves out.
the lessons of Vietnam seem lost to some.
Viet Nam and Iraq are two different conflicts, set in two different times, with two different objectives and with two different goals.
There are few valid comparisons, however if you wish to bring some up I will gladly address them (besides the one I already acknowledged above).
re 46:
If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,” I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy” is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Y”), here applied to a specific case.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theoryâ€- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed.
By “Domino Theory,” I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
I agree with Shiloh that the lesson to be learned from Vietnam probably isn’t “stick around.”
“the Bush administration (& Ted) thinks the lesson from Vietnam was “don’t cut and run.”THAT’S the lesson for these guys?!!!
If we’d only stuck it out a little longer, we’d have won in Vietnam. Huh?”
Perhaps you should re-read my posts Shiloh, as this is not at all close to what I said. Quote where I said this.
Let me point out the relevant section for you:
“However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.”
“If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,”I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy”is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Yâ€), here applied to a specific case.”
This is incorrect. The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
However, nice attempt at a strawman argument.
By “Domino Theory,”I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
Your impression was incorrect, as it is also refered to in other topic.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
shitto, enjoy your Rx’s. I’m sure the people at “happy acres” will make sure you have good socialist dreams.
“for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
That is an accurate statement- it was a horrible blunder on America’s part. We should have stayed, and changed to a winning strategy just like we did in WWII (Yes, we were loosing it to until we re-examined our strategy there too.). The cold war would have shortened, millions of lives would have been saved.
Instead, we left. Millions died, the cold war was lengthened (thank God for Reagan, or we may still be fighting it) and our reputation as a country was irreparibly damaged.
Imagaine what would have happened if we withdrew from the Pacific during WWII?
The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunder”) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
I can also map this out to you if it isn’t clear. Let me.
If I say “fire” in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “comment”. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
Context is important. The context was Kosovo- thus it is relative.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
This is simple psychology- in order to rationalize a personal dislike for some one, you must place them under you in some way- in this case, intelligence.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
It is your assertion that we did- please prove your assertion. One can not prove a negative. It is like saying “prove God doesn’t exist”.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
I can agree with that- it is conjecture…just as it is conjecture that the DT wasn’t accurate. Communism would have had to won to prove the DT inaccurate.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunderâ€) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
Except the DT was to be a global event. Cambiodia did fall, but neither that nor your assertion proves anythng one way or another.
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
Actually, that isn’t completely accurate. We kept military bases there and throught all of Europe early in the cold war to keep Communism at bay however this also contributed to the build up. The USSR economic system greatly relied on absortion of the resources of other countries- you prevent that and you prevent them from growing.
#54 Instead Americans listened to Walter Commiekite, Jane Fonda, the Hippies, and the Fifth Columnists.
Let’s not make that same mistake.
Now let’s see what several key Founding Fathers and American and other notables had to say about religiosity and intelligence.
KEEP SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE INTACT!
Age of Englightenment
This is some good stuff.
I’m not specifically going to support or discredit anything that shiloh said; but the American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.
You can argue the points all day long, but President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have already done all they need to do to push Americans towards a stance similar to shiloh’s.
You guys really need to wake up to reality.
Actually Zelda, they are not. If I am to believe the polls, they want the war over, but they don’t want us to just up and leave today..so that is hardly saying the public favors shiloh’s stance. There is no Democratic solution in Iraq is a good read btw
“The American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.”
While Peejz may or may not have a point, perhaps they are. However like elctions, opinion tides turn just like they did twelve years ago. I suspect in twelve years or so, folks we be abandoning his opinion in droves also.
We’re probably getting away from the issue, but I’ll try again:
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
If I say “fire”in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “commentâ€. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
In this case, however, Bush didn’t say “we need an exit strategy in Kosovo,” he said “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” The context of the utterance is a discussion about Kosovo and, more specifically, a critique of Clinton’s Kosovo policy. What he’s saying, in effect, is that Clinton botched this specific engagement in Kosovo by ignoring what any military man knows: When you occupy a foreign country, one that doesn’t want you to be there, you should have a plan for getting out without leaving things in total disarray. The first half of the sentence is universalizing [X = Y]; the second half refers this universalizing sentiment to a specific case (where Clinton’s military activity falls under the heading [X = Y]).
More importantly, I think, can you explain why this statement is false for Iraq while remaining true for Kosovo? This is really what’s at issue and probably goes beyond what Bush said about Clinton (which was most likely the sort of slam from the sidelines that one would expect from the rival party).
First, do you mean that we should set up permanent bases in Iraq but shouldn’t have done so in Kosovo? If it’s good to keep bases in war torn regions (and I personally don’t think that this is incompatible with having an exit strategy), it would seem that there’s as much as argument for one as the other (excluding oil interests, of course).
Second, do we keep military bases in countries that clearly don’t want us there, so that attacks on the military flare up constantly resulting in numerous fatalities even after the (already highly questionable and likely disproven) notion that the country ever posed a military threat to the US has dissolved?
Third, is there an exit strategy that couldn’t be targeted as “cut and run,” if one wanted to do so?
Fourth, this all comes back to the question of our presence in the region. Is it a good thing for America, that is, does it make us safer? If our presence in the region makes America safer, perhaps it is a good thing. I’m not convinced:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
“There is no Democratic solution in Iraq”
Agreed. Unfortunately the Republicans don’t either.
Solarc- I read your arguement and it was ridiculous from the first attepmt up until post 62.
Permanent bases? Call me crazy, but the ME is a cesspool and it would be in our strategic best interest to keep bases in the region.