Senators-in-Chief

Maybe the caller has no point, Ken.

Churchill retreated at Dunkirk because the British were defeated; they left behind their weapon, armor, and supplies but saved most of their men. It was not cut and run because Churchill did not abandon the war, only that particular battle.

As for Hitler, he consistently ordered his men to fight to the death because he valued land more than men. I don't think that we can admire Hitler for ordering his men into a suicidal situation at Stalingrad and elsewhere. Hitler's war also had the objective of conquering the world for Germany and the extermination of the Jews. In that respect, I think that Hitler would best be compared to Islam in that Islam is a nazi-like religion.

Actually, I think the caller must have been hung over to even try such a poor point, Ken. :laugh:

 

The plans were. His plans were approved by his commander. This, you argued was "cutting and running." I don't see how.

McArthur was a brilliant man, but often a poor soldier. He was occasionally insubordinate or dishonest, and he was relieved by Truman for cause. He later admitted that he thought that the President did not have any power over him as commander of a theater of operations.

McArthur was only able to do them, at the direction of his commander. Truman.

So did Eisenhower. You think Eisenhower "cut and ran" now?

Ah, so escalation is "cut and run?" You're the grand lama of revisionists, mouse.

[quote[By the time that Nixon was elected, one could say that the war was 14 years old. Once again, Nixon never had a Republican Congress and the Democrats were calling Viet Nam a quagmire.[/quote]

So he was justified in "cutting and running?" How so?

As you know, Nixon brokered the agreement with the Communists that the US would withdraw, a decision that made a communist victory inevitable. This comes closest to your idea of "cut and run." But as you just learned, Nixon was not a democrat.

Sorry. They lied. The only difference is in the consequences of the two lies.

Hey, that's a good one. "Dad, I didn't lie to you, I simply made an error based upon poor information." I don't think it would fly with my Dad. It sure didn't fly with the American people.

Bottom line? Both in Korea and Vietnam, the presidents who withdrew troops and negotiated a ceasefire, rather than a victory were republicans. The democrat presidents, rather than cutting and running, continued the fighting.

You can argue that continuing to seek a victory was foolish, but no sane person would call that "cut and run."

 

Cut and run, it was. Sometimes it's better to retreat and regroup.

Military historians have argued that Hitler, by refusing to let the German army retreat from Stalingrad, prevented a general collapse entire front that would have resulted in a much greater disaster and a swifter defeat.

Didn't cut and run, though...

 

He who runs away lives to fight another day.

 

Admitting that we have done what we can for the Iraqis is not abandoning the war with al Qaeda.

 

What you and Galatian seem to be arguing for is to cut and run from Iraq as the Democrats did in Korea and Viet Nam. The majority of Democrats were against both wars and probably the majority of Democrats are against the war in Iraq and want to cut and run, just as you suggest. The Democrats were in power during Korea and they were in power during Viet Nam and afterwards. Nixon never had a GOP congress. Ike came to power long after Truman had fired MacArthur in April 1951--Ike was not inaugrated until January 1953. Truman and the Democrats had already set the policy to cut and run from Korea. Ike was the first Republican President since Herbert Hoover and had very little mandate from the public used to Democrat rules all of their lives.

As for the idea that a retreat on the field is the same as cut and run, that is nonsense on stilts. Dunkirk was a defeat, not a retreat in a pure sense, other than it was not cut and run in any sense because the war continued after the defeat of Dunkirk. That point is very poorly taken and really falls of its own weight.

As for the German-Russian war, some have said that Hitler's constant suicidal orders to hold ground and fight till the death saved the German army for the time being during the first year of the war. However, 36,000,000 people died in the German-Russian war, and only a handful of Germans ever returned from Russia. To consider a warped monster like Hitler as an example of military thinking shows how low the Democrats have sunk. Hitler was fighting an immoral war for "living space" for the German empire and a war of aggression. The only analogy between the German-Russian war and the war in Iraq is that Islamofascism resembles nazism.

I am tired of having a sentence taken out of context and quoted as having been my entire point without even showing that the sentence was lifted from the post. That is a type of intellectual dishonesty. If you want to lift a sentence, Ken and Galatian, at least have the manners to show with elliptical markings that you have lifted the text from its context. Galatian, as a schoolteacher do you teach your students to debate the way that you do, or do you show them the proper way?

Finally, there really is no way to cut and run in Iraq although the Democrats might be able to capitalize on the American cultural refusal to fight through to victory. If the Democrats cut and run in Iraq, then Iran will have a clear field to deploy atomic weapons and that will force Saudia Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan to follow suit, as all have indicated that they will do. Furthermore, China has shown that it can destroy US satellites in space and with a nuclear partner in North Korea, China can ally themselves with Islamofascism and began a nuclear war in the orient.

If we cut and run without victory, we are stupid.

 

Dunkirk was retaken.

To show how silly it is to say that the defeat of Dunkirk caused the British to withdraw from the war or to cut and run, we only need to look at the speech of Sir Winston Churchill given after Dunkirk--which speech ended with his famous words of resolve to never surrender:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.[/FONT]

 

But Mouse, you just learned that Eisenhower and Nixon (the two presidents who withdrew from these wars) were republicans. Their successors (democrats) continued fighting these wars, seeking a victory.

I'd say evacuating in the face of an advancing enemy constitutes a retreat. So would any other sane person.

I teach them to research facts first, and then form opinions. Unfortunately, you didn't have such a teacher when you were in school.

 

IMHO, and I've held this opinion for many years now, the liberals, which includes about 98% of the Dem leadership, seek power and power only and will say or do whatever it takes to secure that power. If they have a sincere conviction other than selfishness, I have never seen evidence of it. As it concerns this present war, this means they will say or do whatever it takes to get them in power and they could care less the damage it does to our military or America or any other lives on the planet--except theirs of course. I can't imagine a born again individual being able to support the liberals without completely violating what he says he believes. God bless Bush for actually having right convictions and sticking to them even if it does give him poor polling numbers -- at this time. At least he has convictions he believes in and is not just a power craving political opportunist as 98% of the Dem party leaders most definitely are. God forgive the moral confusion of too much of the Church for allowing so many godless people to gain power in America.

 

But, since they do have that power today, hopefully the Congress will use this power to get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. This Bush ineptness needs to be stopped, and the only way to do so is in the Congress.

 

God is not the Republican party. Pray for those who think so. They need it.

 

US Senator Richar Lugar, R-Indiana, explained why he is against the resolution. He says that the resolution "isn't helpful" because it shows "disarray over Iraq." Lugar made his remarks on ABC. This report is from Bloomberg News as printed in the Indianapolis newspaper today, Monday, January 29.

Lugar, an expert in foreign policy, said that "there's movement" on security and diplomatic fronts that the resolution might stop. Lugar said that lawmakers should not try to usurp the president's authority as commander-in-chief.

US Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., says that the resolution "will discourage our troops."

Congress seems to want to wash their hands for political purposes. If they want to stop the war, they only need to vote against the funding, etc. If they want to wash their hands, they cannot do it by a resolution because everyone can see that they cannot undo their acts supporting the war.

The supporters of the resolution make me sick but a lot of them like Brownback are just too green to know what they are doing.

 

If you think that's new, you haven't been watching the way the clowns in the White House have been handling it. "Disarray" would be a substantial improvement over what's happened in the past.

Yeah, "I can't tell you why, but if you don't do what I say, it will be bad." Not very original, Dick.

But they should remember their responsibilities to govern. The president is not the dictator.

Bush has discouraged the troops. They no longer believe in the war, and they know it's pointless.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”​

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

They aren't going to tie the president's hands, but a sense of Congress resolution does let him know that he's on his own, if he wants to continue his failed policies in the war.

 

The disarray over Iraq is shown by the attempt of the Congress to vote for the war and then try to pass a resolution against the war. The whole world can see that we are speaking with a forked tongue. It is the military on the front lines that will pay the price for this disarray and this resolution.

If Lugar revealed state secrets and told of the military movements and diplomatic movements, then he would be guilty of treason. To say that such things are not taking place because they are secret is beyond the pale of logic.

As for the president's being a dictator, no one has said that President Bush has exceeded his legal authority as commander in chief. If the liberal Democrats think that President Bush has acted illegally, then they should use their authority and responsibility to impeach the President and to cut and run in Iraq, which is the Democrat Party's intention in my opinion.

The military supports the commander in chief. Senator Lieberman is correct that the resolution will discourage the troops at war.

The resolution is unnecessary to send a message to the President because the whole world knows where the Democrat Party stands. The Democrats want to vote for the war and resolve against it in order to say that they are not responsible for what they have done.

The resolution really shows how inept the Democrat Party is at either waging war or trying for peace. The Democrats look like political novices. There was no such resolution in the 20th century, the most war-torn century in the history of the world. This small war in Iraq certainly does not merit the overkill and the destruction of this Democrat-sponsered resolution. It mostly shows the weakness of the Democrat position behind Hillary in 2008. It shows the Democrats headed for another loss and speaking to their left-wing in an incomprehensible message.

 

I would hope that the Congress would first withdraw our troops from Iraq, and then concentrate on the conduct of this Bush Administration to see if they have committed any impeachable offences.

 

You know, when the leftist/democrats succeed in withdrawing us, we will be attacked again, and who do you think will get the blame?

 

Since invading Iraq had nothing to do with our war with al Qaeda I don't see a problem with admitting that we have done what we can for the Iraqis and bringing our troops home. We removed Saddam Hussein for them and established a representative democracy for them. What they do with it is up to them.

It's time to remove our troops from Iraq and concentrate on the war with al Qaeda - as we should have been doing all along. Just imagine what we could have accomplished if we had sent 150,000 troops into Afghanistan instead of Iraq. We would have wiped out al Qaeda and their Taliban allies and Osama bin Laden would be either dead or captured.

 

To withdraw, from the region now would be a death sentence to Iraq, it's innocent (for lack of a word) citizens, and would open the door to Iran intervention, and an enormous victory for terrorism. But that is the demand from the liberal Democrats, that denounce any semblance of victory, as a matter of policy for America.

 

Afghanistan is in that region and that is where our focus should be. If we hadn't removed Saddam Hussein then an opening wouldn't have been created for Iran. We would have either a strong Iraq to keep Iran in check or we would have a struggling Iraq and a strengthened Iran. Once we invaded Iraq we chose the latter outcome.

Apparently, whoever ran the simulations for the Bush administration either did a very poor job or the Bush administration chose to ignore the results of the simulations.