Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Oct 13, 2008.
Despite the best efforts of Obama and his fellow democrats, we are winning the war in Iraq.
Define winning. Does that mean we can leave soon and allow the Iraqis to govern themselves without have an occupying army iin their country. How would you like it if another country were occupying America right now?
BB, suppose you are the coach of the Dallas Cowboys, and you are playing the Washington Redskins for the NFC championship. The 3rd quarter has just ended. Your Cowboys are ahead (winning) by a score of 36-20. Do you take the entire team and leave, do you leave the punting special team and take all the other players to the locker room, do you let the 4th string finish the game while the first string goes in the stands to sign autographs; OR DO YOU LEAVE THE FIRST STRING IN AND OBTAIN A TOTAL VICTORY.
I realize that this is a bad analogy as many Americans believe that the NFL is more important than our military.
[/quote]How would you like it if another country were occupying America right now? [/quote]
Do you consider the French as an occupying force when they fought with us against the English from 1776-1787?
Guess I am somewhat confused. It seems like four years ago our Commander-in-Chief strutted on one of our aircraft carriers, and said mission accomplished.
Why is this news four years later? Did something go wrong along the way?
Getting to the point that the War in Iraq is not a campaign issue means we are winning.
Despite all efforts of democrats to sabotage the efforts of our armed forces, they have stayed the course and are winning.
How would you like it if another country were occupying America right now? [/quote]
Do you consider the French as an occupying force when they fought with us against the English from 1776-1787?[/QUOTE]
The football analogy doesn't work for me at least. The Cowboys and Redskins didn't have the option of not playing the game. We did. People generally don't die by the thousands on the field or in the stands during a football game. The coach of the Cowboys generally doesn't have the option and objective to let a team formed from the fans take over.
Pro-war types like to ask the question:
Given that we invaded Iraq for no good reason do we want to lose this war.
I say the real question is:
Why did we invade Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan where the terrorists were and still are. We're now losing in Afghanistan because we pulled large numbers of troops out of there to invade Iraq.
I suppose in your analogy, that would be like the Cowboys sending their first string to play the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC title game only finding out that that wasn't the right game.
Let's do what is necessary to complete this victory and bring our troops home.
Right you are dragonfly. Our military serving in Iraq shouldn't be used a political tool to attain leverage. But the best news of all is our boys over there were never losing in the first place. Shame on the person who thought they were losing.
I agree! The lack of positive media coverage of our troops deeply saddens me as an American. The relentless spewing of the left is very tiring.
Too bad things like this only make the new headlines when things are going bad. In some ways we have no one to blame but ourselves. We all seem to crave "bad news" whether it is at work, on television, or when we discuss things with people we meet.
Lately, many people have discussed how bad the economy is doing, yet a year or two ago, it was hardly mentioned. No one slows down to admire how well the oncoming traffic is flowing, but let someone have a wreck and it gridlock!
That's the idea.
Defeatists like Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha and Pelosi have been encouraging the enemy , but they are defeated as well.
Been very quiet on the subject lately, haven't they?
The mission WAS accomplished. The mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and it was accomplished. Then a new mission started, to defeat those who wanted to destroy what was left of Iraq from within. At the same time, there started yet another mission: to create and stabilize a new government that the U.S. government found acceptable. Then it became to pay for a whole new nation. Then to find a way to leave without the nation falling apart. Then to find a way to justify the American sacrifices in treasure and blood. Then to find a way to escape the continual media-powered bandwagon of criticism, low morale, and regret.
"We’re not gonna let them get defeated. We’re not gonna have them surrender. And they’re gonna win. And by golly, they are winning, my friends. They are winning. They are winning."
"I believe ... that this war is lost..."
I was thinking the same thing when I saw this thread, I figured our troops would be home for Christmas.
Just an FYI... The surge is now being challenged as the success in Iraq, it appears McCain failed to give credit to the Sunni Awakening.
What I find interesting is liberals can no longer wait a reasonable length of time to begin their revisionism. They now jump into it full hilt right away.
Realizing they have lost in their efforts to ensure our defeat, they will now try to shape the the reasons for our victory to discredit the efforts of our armed forces and their commanders.
The reasons we are winning don't matter nearly as much as the results.
Just because it matters.
Carpro, I gotta hand it to ya bro you sure can catapult the propaganda over and over. :laugh:
You have like a private hotline to the Pentagon's roving message force multipliers or what?
According to polling cited in a recent UPI analysis, 70 percent of Iraqi women say they are being targeted and nearly 60 percent say girls’ ability to go to school has “gotten worse since the US invasion.”
The real low-down dirty shame is that it wasn’t supposed to be this way. The one noble case made to the American people for the invasion of Iraq was that we were to be agents of liberation, not escorts back to the dark ages.
I remember now how right wing proponents of regime change, who had for decades mocked lefty causes like international women’s rights, became champions of the cause after 9/11. In fact, if you didn’t support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, you didn’t care about women at all.
Turns out neither did they. Once it was clear that Sharia law would be guaranteed by the new Iraqi Constitution, once it was clear that militias were forcing women and girls to cover up at the butt of a gun, once it was clear that the war policy was failing to come through on the very things it promised, all bets were off and the “message force multipliers” and their friends went into high gear – often in shocking defiance of reality — to ensure the stories became “non-news” in the mainstream. Remember, the first priority is to sell the war. Protect the policy.
There is no better way to gauge their insincerity than to look at their selective outrage for Muslim women victimized by honor killings, torture and shame throughout the rest of the world. In fact, I argue that the pro-war wing of the Republican Party seems to engage the issue now only as a stalking horse for their own crusade against the “Islamization” of the western world and for taking out the current regime in Iran.
SOURCE...The American Conservative.