Senators-in-Chief

Remember, the neocons promised that once we removed Saddam, the Iraqis would be grateful and happy, and form a western-style democracy.

The war was going to pay for itself, they said. And there would be a ripple effect that would overthrow other tyrants in the Middle East.

Ooops.

 

Exactly right, Hillclimber!

Exactly right, Hillclimber!

We know that Iran and Syria are already meddling in Iraq. If we cut and run, those two thug nations would overrun Iraq and put pressure on Saudia Arabia. If we cut and run, Islam would move to deny us oil from the Middle East and Hugo Chavez and China would move to deny us oil from South America. We would be finished economically and militarily in short order and Islam would be a step closer to world domination. To cut and run as the Democrats and some Republicans want, is really to call for our defeat.

This resolution will harm American efforts on all fronts and will discourage our troops in war. It is ill-advised and the Republicans who join the Democrats on this point should be driven out of the Republican Party.

 

Amen Cmg!!!

 

Instead of a powerful and secular Baathist state, we now have an Iraq leaning ever farther toward Iran. Thanks to Bush, we now have the choice of bleeding ever greater numbers of American dead, and untold billions of dollars, (and further radicalizing the Islamic world) or of retreating and letting Iran become the dominant power in the area.

Thanks to Bush. Everything we do from here on out, will be a disaster, even if we do nothing.

The March of Folly, as the historian Barbara Tuchmann said:
To qualify as folly for this book, Tuchman explains, acts have to be clearly contrary to the self-interest of the organization or group pursuing them; conducted over a period of time, not just in a single burst of irrational behavior; conducted by a number of individuals, not just one deranged maniac; and, importantly, there have to be people alive at the time who pointed out correctly why the act in question was folly (no 20/20 hindsight allowed).

Did she have Dubya and company pegged, or what?

 

Hmm ... these points seem like a good fit to those of antiwar position to me.

 

In history, you don't see many instances where someone stupidly blundered into a peace.

 

In history, we have seen that the enemies of peace are constantly at work and when nations are not fully committed to win against those enemies by whatever it takes, including war, then they eventually loose to those enemies whether by loosing wars or loosing peace. It is very sad to see a nation so blessed as ours have so many among us that seem so committed to beat ourselves into defeat. Interestingly, those we send to fight actually keep the will to do so long after those of the antiwar thinking give up.

 

Summary: "War is Peace."

I don't think so. When we do something stupid, as we did in Iraq, and then compound it by policies sure to anger the Iraqis and instigate civil war, there isn't much to do but learn from the experience. The notion that we messed up, but messing up a little harder will make it all right, is intellectually bankrupt.

And exactly what Tuchman was writing about. You can see the same thinking, the same arguments, and the same self-destructive acts we saw during the Vietnam war.

 

There are some similarities between the antiwar messages of the Viet Nam war and those of today. In fact, some of the same players have come out again spewing their same foolishness. The "stupid" thing we did then, and shouldn't do again, was to not pursue will all our might and then to quit when it became difficult and, in the process, abandon those we'd promised to help. The "self-destructive" acts were those fostered by the antiwar movement of the times who sought to discredit the basis of the war, every action of the war, and everyone who participated in it. The whole world took note of that and our reputation suffered greatly because of it. What we should have already learned for past history is that war can be very unpredictable, complicated, tragic, trying, painful, full of mistakes, full of suffering, etc. and yet, if we've come to it, we must preserver in it to the absolute end else our enemy wins either by our defaulting or by their outright victory. What's "bankrupt" is the moral character of many of America's citizens who can not muster the courage to put aside their dislike of one political party or another and do, or at least support doing, what has to be done. We, as a nation, need to be absolutely committed to complete victory literally to the last man standing else we loose. The war in Iraq is just one battle in a long struggle that's going to expand with time. There will be no peace by quitting. Quitting, no matter how it's done, will bring victory for the enemies of America everywhere. Praise God for those who have the wisdom to rightly lead our nation and those who must carry out the duty put upon them by their nation.

 

I don't think Americans are going to be receptive to you spending the "last man" of their children on a war that was of no value to the United States.

For the same reasons we lost in Vietnam, we have lost in Iraq. We have blundered and repeatedly failed, all the while the bunglers were assuring us that the "insurgency is in its last throes."

And now American no longer trusts these clowns to govern, and certainly not to conduct this war.

There was an opportunity to win, several opportunities. But greed and incompetence prevented Bush & Co. from doing the necessary thing at the necessary time.

And now there is no opportunity. Only the question of how many more lives and how many more billions squandered to assuage the egos of the men who put us in this mess.

 

Freedom and security was worth it before and it still is. Many people just don't understand that yet. When it gets closer to home they might but then it will be too late. Then there will be panic along with the pain. Then people will demand that everyone fight the enemy and those that don't will be labeled as cowards or collaborators. Right now they're convinced war must be painless and without loss of life or limb. They will think of the warriors as "their" children. Later they will demand to be saved at any cost. I can almost hear their screams right now. Then they will want every "man" and, maybe, everyone "woman" to fight for their freedom and security.

We lost the peace in Viet Nam - not the war. We won the tactical war. We just permitted our enemy to disregard the treaty we forced our ally to sign. The pain our allies suffered afterwards didn't bother the anti-war crowd of that era one little bit. Jane Fonda's - an icon of stupidity in matters of war - finger to the mouth gesture of silence confirms that.
I didn't get the announcement on loosing in Iraq! That must have come out on CNN or from one of the political candidates feeding the popularity polls. From what I've seen progress is still being made and, even if it's not or it's going very slow, we should and must preserver. Progress may be a measure of success but not of commitment. Commitment is easy when things are progressing very well.

I am, however, convinced we could loose if we yield to the anti-war crowd. They've already agreed to hand the enemy a victory and they're not even demanding a "peace" treaty. What happens in Iraq isn't of any concern to them so long as "Bush & Co." is discredited. That's what it's about for them.

That sounds like blaming and quitting to me and that's one point I'm making. The anti-war crowd wants us to fail so their blame can be justified. It's all about "proving" the alleged incompetence of "Bush & Co." rather than any constructive support focused towards complete victory.

Forgotten is the tactical victory achieved quickly and decisively. Ignored are the positive results attained by the continued hard work on the ground and ever increasing commitment Iraqis are giving to their own nation's success. Accentuated is every attack - of no tactical significance - inflicted by an enemy struggling to convince the world they're winning when, in reality, they're failing to convince anyone but themselves they have the right answer. Forgotten is all the initial support - votes of confidence and approval and demands for action - from many of today's critics regarding the course taken in Iraq. Unacknowledged is the difficult and complex challenges of total success in such a dynamic and volatile situation. Instant success is demanded! Intermediate failures are extrapolated to collapsed hope of any success. Suddenly all the "experts" have appeared with plenty of criticism, plenty of blam, but no proved solutions, no accountability.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
I don't think Americans are going to be receptive to you spending the "last man" of their children on a war that was of no value to the United States.

[quoteFreedom and security was worth it before and it still is.[/quote]

Aren't many people still gullible enough to believe that the invasion of Iraq had anything at all to do with freedom or security. Bush's own people have since admitted that it actually made us more vulnerable.


Barbarian observes:
For the same reasons we lost in Vietnam, we have lost in Iraq. We have blundered and repeatedly failed, all the while the bunglers were assuring us that the "insurgency is in its last throes."

But we lost the war. They won. Get used to it. We won every battle. The British won most of the battles in the American Revolution, too. It was beside the point.

The clowns running this war have made it politically impossible, and militarily undoable. There was a time when we could have won, but let it pass.


Barbarian observes:
And now American no longer trusts these clowns to govern, and certainly not to conduct this war.
There was an opportunity to win, several opportunities. But greed and incompetence prevented Bush & Co. from doing the necessary thing at the necessary time.
And now there is no opportunity. Only the question of how many more lives and how many more billions squandered to assuage the egos of the men who put us in this mess.

Darn right. When even his own intelligence people say that the war make us more vulnerable to terrorism, is it any surprise the American people blame him?

Americans would love to see a victory. But they no longer have any confidence in Bush to obtain one. They want out. And it is a disaster, one that Bush will have much to answer for.

And squandered by stupidity and corruption afterwards.

The American people vividly remember their support, and they remember why they gave it. They remember the false association of Saddam with terrorists, the WMD that didn't exist and all the rest.

It's why they are so adamant against the war now. Bush brought this on himself, but America will pay the price. Why do you think people despise him so?

There have been too many promises of instant success. People no longer believe him. Bush now hopes to escape accountability by demanding that his critics take responsibility for what he has done.

No one seems interested. Dubya is finally in a mess from which Daddy can't bail him out.

 

Britain was defeated at Yorktown and surrendered to the Americans. Britain lost the war. France was defeated at Dien Bien Phu and surrendered to the North Vietnamese. France lost the war. South Viet Nam was defeated and surrendered in Sai Gon to the North Vietnamese. South Viet Nam lost the war. When someone uses the term "lost" relative to war it normally means a surrender because of a military defeat.

Many people alive today have seen one to many Pulitzer Prize photos, watched one to many television documentary film, or listened to one to many liberal college professor's lectures. They've connect the withdrawal of the US Embassy's military and civilian staff in April 1975 to be a military "defeat" in Viet Nam. Some people have the idea we were driven into the sea by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. We did not loose the war in that sense and to warriors who fought in that war that's a very important point.

We had forced the Communists to the table in 1972 by heavy bombing of North Viet Nam and the South Vietnamese military, with some support from us, had enjoyed important victories. We negotiated a "peace" treaty and forced South Viet Nam to agree to it as a way to withdraw from Viet Nam and obtain the release of our men being held as prisoners of war. We, unfortunately, negotiated with people who had no intention of keeping their part of the agreement. We completed an orderly withdrawal of our military forces by 1973 in accordance with the treaty. We stopped providing any meaningful support to our allies but North Viet Nam's allies did not. They, in fact, increased their support and their troop count in South Viet Nam against the terms of the treaties. In 1975 - two years after we left - South Viet Nam was not able to hold off the continued aggression for an assortment of reasons. South Viet Nam fought very hard in the last months but they were defeated. Many died fighting to the last man. They surrendered when they no longer had the means to fight. Sadly, they lost the war. Tragically for hundreds of thousands, they lost the war.

It was in those last times that we did nothing to back up the terms of the treaty of which we were a part. The consequences of this were personally disastrous for many Vietnamese who'd been our friends. That's something I'll never "get used to" or write off as acceptable conduct on our part. I know too many of them to let that be forgotten.

What we lost was the peace we'd negotiated. What we lost was international respect - and considerable self respect as well - a small measure of which was regained by our first war with Iraq in 1990.

Now, again, where at a cross roads where we can repeat the loss of credibility or back up or words with our actions. Enemies respect resolve, commitment, unity, tenacity, strength, and power. They understand words backed up by force. Enemies laugh at the lack of these qualities and use the weapon of time and weariness to gain what they want. I'm for not giving them one bit of advantage over us.
[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]

 

The invasion of Iraq had much to do with freedom and security for the United States as does the situation in Iran and elsewhere. The United States had a responsibility to act, if for no other reason, to enforce the UN orders which Iraq refused to obey for a decade. We, and a few other nations, decided to take on the former Iraqi government to end the threat it posed. Iraq had already proved what it could and would do.

Germany didn't directly threaten the United States - excepting the attacks of shipping in international waters - but we decided to take them on as our enemy because we rightly judged they were a serious threat to freedom and security. We concluded that what they were doing in Europe could some day come to our land as well. We expended a tremendous amount of resources and lost a lot of lives and limbs fighting them until they surrendered.

There are so many second guessers around on what should have been done when. Many of them couldn't even lead a squad on a simple reconnaissance patrol much less command the total war effort involved in Iraq at the strategic or tactical level. They can't even be consistent in their objections to the actions taken. First they're for it, then against, and then for it again. In all cases there's a virtual void of any meaningful constructive ideas to be applied in lieu of what's criticized. It's nothing short of disgusting!

This is called "quitting"! The presumption is made that everything is so bad that we must stop in order to "stop the bleeding". The thinking is that our "children" are dying so we must stop fighting.

What we need to do is to turn off the television and stop swallowing every report of a terrorist bomb as an indication of gloom and doom. We need to understand the seriousness of war and accept that there will be loss of life and limb. Interestingly, those actually engaged in it seem to understand and accept this so much better than those at home. We need to see the progress that has been made, adjust our strategy and tactics as necessary, leverage off the good steps and learn from the bad ones, and keep moving forward. We need to project to our enemy and the whole world that this war can be and will be won to our full and complete satisfaction no matter what we must. We need to project absolute resolve and absolute strength. Our enemy needs to know in their hearts they have no chance to win. They need to know that no publicity will sway America's resolve. That is still possible.

There are different opinions. Even among one's own advisers there are dissenters and person's with other perspectives. That's not bad and it doesn't mean the decisions made are bad. I like people that tell me what they think and not what I want to hear.

By no means, are we more vulnerable than we would have been had we, for instance, done nothing in response to the attacks of 2001 or confined ourselves to Afghanistan! We've drawn out a lot of terrorists - some internal and some external to Iraq - and we've destroyed a whole lot of them. That's a good thing from my perspective. We haven't had to travel very far to find them! Let them keep popping up in Iraq where we have forces to deal with them. The next step is to chase them wherever else they may be including next door to Iraq.

Many Americans would like to have a victory. Some want a real victory. Many realize it may be a long time coming. Others might be happy with something less than complete victory. They think we can negotiate with this enemy or leave them to their own ways. Unfortunately, some Americans - the anti-war crowd - want out with or without a victory. Some others, I fear, want us to be defeated. Their words sure reflect that sentiment. They just don't care what happens in Iraq. Some Americans are adamant against the war now. They've bought in to the idea that the war is hopeless and lost. That's just exactly what our enemies hope the rest of us will do.

The intelligence collected and analyzed at the time concluded that Iraq was developing WMD. Iraq's leader implied this in his own public statements. Nearly every responsible leader accepted the validity of this information and dared not act upon it. Again, Iraq had, just a decade before, proved what it could and would do. America wanted action and we took it.

Who knows why some people despise President Bush so much? Many don't! Perhaps it's because he won the last election! Most people don't despise him but many are confused and uncertain about what we, as a nation, should do. There's not any particular "love" for those of the opposite viewpoints either. Many people are "followers" and they make their decisions based upon the tone of the news reports they hear and they desperately want to be counted with the masses. Others just resent the power vested in him. Some members of Congress want to be President. Reality for many Americans is the latest American Idol episode. Who cares? Fortunately we live in a republic and don't have a system that makes every decision based upon the latest poll as reported by the news media.

 

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.

It damages your complete tirade when you begin by showing you don't know much about the Second World War.

 

The point made wasn't that they did or didn't declare war upon us or vice versa. The point made was that to many people they didn't pose a direct threat to us - the same arguement used about Iraq - since they were on the other side of the world invading their neighbors in Europe. The arguement was made then that it wasn't our fight because our national interests weren't at stake. The reality was that, indeed, we were at risk from this enemy just as we were from Iraq.

Thanks you for kind comment.

 

You're asking for "God to bless Bush" for waging an unjust war which he could never seem to find a reason for? Why? Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers." Do you believe Christ or George Bush?

 

Your welcome.

Just how was Iraq a threat to the U.S.?

 

See the Congressional resolution on Iraq passed by the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in October 2002.

It summarizes the reasons why we went to war against Iraq.

 

As you know, even Bush now admits that the information he gave Congress, to justify his war, was false.

You fear Iran. Justly so. But you support the fools who took out the one counterbalance to Iran in the region. Like youir mistaken notion that we initiated war against Germany, your errors depend on not knowing the facts.

BTW, I don't buy your argument that the UN has the authority to declare war for us, nor do I think they can obligate us to enforce their decisions.