Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RedTop on February 23, 2007, 06:50:11 PM
-
The Dems have control of things , why not just Cut it. Why not just grow the Balls and cut funding and end it. Up or down vote. Show the conviction of their words. Instead they try to back door it.
The latest political feud came on the heels of reports that Senate Democrats were seeking to introduce legislation that would force Bush to seek Congress' approval for further military actions. Democrats say the president has overstepped authority granted to him by Congress in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
What exactly is overstepping authority?
White House Says It Will Oppose Efforts to Limit Iraq Authority
Friday, February 23, 2007
WASHINGTON — The White House and allied congressional Republicans sought Friday to fight off new plans by Democrats to limit the president's authority to wage war, including policies that would rein in President Bush's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
The latest political feud came on the heels of reports that Senate Democrats were seeking to introduce legislation that would force Bush to seek Congress' approval for further military actions. Democrats say the president has overstepped authority granted to him by Congress in 2002 in the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
One draft of the Senate Democrats' bill would limit troops efforts in Iraq to fighting Al Qaeda, training Iraq security forces and border enforcement with a goal toward withdrawal.
Last month, the president called for the troop buildup, saying it was the best plan available to try to bring the political stability to Iraq needed for the country to take over security operations.
On Friday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters that the administration will oppose legislation that would rewrite the 2002 authorizing bill.
Asked if the White House would oppose any effort to revoke the 2002 authorization, Fratto responded: "Of course we would."
"The plan that we're in right now, and we're going forward on, is to carry out the president's proposal to bring security to Baghdad," Fratto said.
Fratto also said the administration has authority to remain in Iraq under U.N. Resolution 1723. The resolution says the president is "authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to defend the national security of the United States against the continued threat posed by Iraq," Fratto said.
He added: "Now, I'm not sure if the Democrats are contemplating that the United States should not enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions. If that's something that they're contemplating, I think that would be interesting to some people, to say the least."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday said the Democrats' latest plans amount to "what would best best be described as a Goldie Locks solution. One that is hot enough for the radical left wing, but cool enough for party leaders who claim that they are for the troops."
But McConnell said the latest would-be offering along with a number of others from the other side of the aisle do not cut to the real debate: whether or not to fund the mission in Iraq.
"That's our constitutional role. We shouldn't drag this into a morass of Democratic presidential primary politics," McConnell said in a telephone conference.
Saying he agreed with columnist Charles Krauthammer, McConnell said that if the Senate Democrats' proposal succeeded, it would only mean the Gen. David Petraeus -- the top U.S. military commander in Iraq -- would have to surround himself with lawyers to decide whether he was ordering a legal combat mission.
McConnell did not specify what Republicans would do should that plan come forward in the form of a bill, but he indicated that anything that comes to the Senate needs to pass the 60-vote threshold to break a bill-killing filibuster. Republicans, although now in the minority, hold 49 votes in the 100-member chamber.
He also repeatedly said Senate Republicans will use every opportunity they get to bring a resolution to the floor where senators will have to vote on whether or not they want to continue to fund the Iraq war -- a method he said was the only fair way to debate the war.
And House Minority Leader John Boehner said he saw the reports as partial vindication against another Democratic plan led by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. That plan aims to limit the number of troops that would go to Iraq by requiring at least one year's rest before redeployment. Murtha's plan also would specify training and equipment requirements.
"I'm pleased that more and more Democrats are acknowledging from the Murtha slow-bleed strategy to cut off funding for American troops in harm's way and deny them reinforcements was the wrong approach," said Boehner, R-Ohio. "It's time for Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, Leader [Steny] Hoyer, and other leaders of their party to disavow the Murtha slow-bleed strategy and give our men and women the full support and resources they need to complete their mission."
The Democratic proposals follow action last week in the House, which approved a nonbinding resolution rebuking the president's plans to send another 21,500 troops into Iraq — which Bush says is the best plan to try to stabilize the country. Blocked by Republicans, the resolution failed in the Senate.
The new effort is being pushed chiefly by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Biden of Delaware, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and would target the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq. That authorization, Democrats say, is no longer relevent because it specifically mentions weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein.
The Senate Democrats' plans, however, is a separate issue from what Murtha proposed last week.
The Senate plan could come up for debate as soon as next week when the Senate is scheduled to debate a bill aimed at completing the Sept. 11 commission recommendations, which the House passed earlier this year.
Levin told FOX News last weekend that modifying the 2002 authorization would be the best approach to begin withdrawing troops.
"That was a wide-open authorization which allowed him to do just about anything and put us now deep into combat in Iraq. ... We, I think, will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission," he said.
Levin said that the plan woudl not cut off money from troops.
"We're going to support our troops. And one way to support them is to find a way out of Iraq earlier rather than later," Levin added.
Democratic officials said Thursday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to present the proposal to fellow Democrats early next week for their consideration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley would not discuss the deliberations Thursday and said, "No final decisions have been made on how to proceed."
Any attempt to limit Bush's powers as commander in chief would likely face strong opposition from Republican allies of the administration in the Senate and could also face a veto threat.
The decision to try and limit the military mission marks the next move in what Reid and other Senate war critics have said will be a multistep effort to try to force a change in Bush's strategy and eventually force an end to U.S. participation in the war.
Privately, some Senate Democrats have been critical of Murtha's approach, saying it would have virtually no chance of passing and could easily backfire in the face of Republican arguments that it would deny reinforcements to troops already in the war zone.
Several Senate Democrats have called in recent days for revoking the original authorization that Bush sought and won from Congress in the months before the U.S.-led invasion that overthrew Saddam.
That measure authorized the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate ... to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to enforce relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.
At the time the United Nations had passed resolutions regarding Iraq's presumed effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In a speech last week, Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I am working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq."
He said Congress should make clear what the mission of the U.S. troops is: to draw down responsibly, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies.
"We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war," said Biden, a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate
-
what ever happened to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?
-
So....if I understand this correctly, congressional democrats are attempting to bypass the commander-in-chief in order to micro-manage the war themselves.
Oh great....535 supreme commanders attempting to conduct a war and set military policy.
-
Redtop the bottom line here is that the Dems aren't going to do a damned thing about the war. There is some political risk for cutting funding, just as there is risk(in Dem eyes) for not cutting funding. Since the Dems are poll sniffers, they will gripe about the war but will not actually do anything about it. It's too risky for them, they could wind up on the wrong side... as usual.
However, if they do nothing, and the war goes badly, they can say they tried to get us out. If the war goes well, they can say they supported it and didn't interfere.
-
The only funding that could save the U.S. Army would be 100 billion spent on counter-insurgency training facilities here stateside. Fighting this war with our current military is like trying to cure someone of cancer with over-the-counter drugs.
-
Steve,
I disagree. I feel there are many in American Al Quaida (democratic party) that are frothing at the mouth right now just to get the chance to pull our troops back. Reason being is that it would be a boon to their polls with a public disillusioned with the war by inaccurate reporting and outright lies by others within their party that know nothing about military ops. Furthermore, I honestly believe people like Feinstein and Pelosi would willingly sabotage our efforts in Iraq just to gain more power for themselves.
The bottom line here is that congress authorised force in Iraq. They authorised our president to conduct the war. They have no right to manage it in any way whether it be micro or macro management. If they do not like what is going on, then a stand up vote to end it entirely or allow it to be prosecuted is required.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
The only funding that could save the U.S. Army would be 100 billion spent on counter-insurgency training facilities here stateside. Fighting this war with our current military is like trying to cure someone of cancer with over-the-counter drugs.
Provide a link to that figure please.
OR, are you just spouting out inaccurate facts as usual?
-
Provide a link to that figure? That reply was my opinion, not a research paper.
Now if you want links or sources of books that state that the U.S. military is ill-prepared to fight a counter-insurgency war, I can provide that.
-
Well, you can spout a figure all you like, but I do know that US Special Warfare Group training specifically targets that in their training syllabus. The main Army also addresses it, but, is not able to specifically dwell on it. That is why US Spec Ops are tasked with the issue.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Provide a link to that figure? That reply was my opinion, not a research paper.
Now if you want links or sources of books that state that the U.S. military is ill-prepared to fight a counter-insurgency war, I can provide that.
So we should just pack up and leave? Will we at least tell the people that want to murder us that they don't play fair so we are going home?
-
There is only one person in this dilemma that does not have the benefit of of hindsight. Bush made the decision that he thought was the best for the country and is sticking to it. Changes? yes adapt to the situations that arise, Rumsfeld is gone, Petreus is in, mission is the same WIN.
It makes me sick the people who VOTED for action in the war and are now threatening to take away funds. SICK ....Treasonous.
You all know if we would have done nothing in Iraq, they would be all over him for not taking care of Sadam Hussein.
It will be interesting to see what the Dem's do actually do, and how history looks back on this whole ordeal.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
So we should just pack up and leave? Will we at least tell the people that want to murder us that they don't play fair so we are going home?
Heres our choices.
(1) Adopt new tactics that will allows us to win
(2) Throw more money at the situation
(3) Withdraw
From the papers I've read, the majority of the people we are fighting continue to be ex-Iraqi army soldiers. Al Queada has become an uncomfortable ally to these people.
Al Queada can be held in check outside of Iraq by intelligence, special forces, and airstrikes.
-
I bet the Dems wish they could use the Brady Bill on our soldiers. That would end the war quick.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Steve,
I disagree. I feel there are many in American Al Quaida (democratic party) that are frothing at the mouth right now just to get the chance to pull our troops back. Reason being is that it would be a boon to their polls with a public disillusioned with the war by inaccurate reporting and outright lies by others within their party that know nothing about military ops. Furthermore, I honestly believe people like Feinstein and Pelosi would willingly sabotage our efforts in Iraq just to gain more power for themselves.
The bottom line here is that congress authorised force in Iraq. They authorised our president to conduct the war. They have no right to manage it in any way whether it be micro or macro management. If they do not like what is going on, then a stand up vote to end it entirely or allow it to be prosecuted is required.
AMEN! :aok
Could not have even come close to saying it better myself.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Heres our choices.
(1) Adopt new tactics that will allows us to win
(2) Throw more money at the situation
(3) Withdraw
Exactly right. Bush is trying to do number 2 while ignoring 1. Personally I'm glad Congress is trying to affect some kind of change of course. More of the same is failure.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Exactly right. Bush is trying to do number 2 while ignoring 1.
That is a silly thing to say keiren. Plus... it's a silly choice of options.
Of course bush hasn't adopted the tactics that allow us to win, since we haven't won. The statement is the same as saying you refuse to make wise investment choices because you're not a millionare yet.
-
Hasnt anyone learned from the eras of Lyndon Johnson and Mr MacNamera?
Let the commanders on the ground handle the execution of the war. Have the President listen to them....not the politicians.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
That is a silly thing to say keiren. Plus... it's a silly choice of options.
Of course bush hasn't adopted the tactics that allow us to win, since we haven't won. The statement is the same as saying you refuse to make wise investment choices because you're not a millionare yet.
Semantic argument. That one won't win a war, either.
-
Do you think bush would ignore tactics that he thinks would "win the war"? It's not symantics to point out you said he'd ignore them.
-
Yes, I do think Bush has largely ignored his generals. Bush isolated himself with a very small ring of his trusted advisors. His demeanor didn't change until the Dems won control of Congress.
You're not really saying he didn't... are you?
Sure, I think Bush wants to win. I don't believe he's capable of it.
But just so I know what we're debating, are you arguing the point I can't definitively state Bush ignores winning tactics, or are you arguing Bush is on a winning path?
I mean, if it's the former, whatever, you understand the point. If it's the latter, what are the other options? Seems pretty simple to me.
-
They want to reverse the 2002 vote on going to war.
It's a political mulligan. They are playing to The Mob. The same Mob that was in support of the call to go to war, at the time, but whom now conveniently forget now that they supported the war then.
"We were misled" "We were lied to".
The Mob wanted to be misled, they wanted to believe, they still wanted revenge. The Mob wanted to hurt someone for what was done and be made to feel safe. Little Joey Goebbels may have been a monster, but he had the mob figured long ago. The Leadership saw what it wanted to see. The Mob saw what it wanted to see.
We went to war.
We won the war.
We screwed up the Peace..... which is getting habit-forming for US.
We failed to acknowledge we were screwing up the peace..... for a long time.....(still, for some folks).
All which has led to reaping political hay.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Hasnt anyone learned from the eras of Lyndon Johnson and Mr MacNamera?
Let the commanders on the ground handle the execution of the war. Have the President listen to them....not the politicians.
Unfortunately, the highest military leadership (and in the intelligence community) are often political hacks themselves, like the idiots who put them in those positions. Yes Men. Tell the Boss what the Boss wants to hear. These folks are in turn backed by a well entrenched bureaucracy whose goal is to keep their comfy positions safe.
Then, military operations are highly reported upon, especially when things go wrong.... which, oddly enough, happens in combat....
These news reports get the public up in arms, who turn on the politicians, which go into full Governor William J. Le Petomane mode: "We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen! " ala Mel Brooks 1974 "Blazing Saddles" and start to try and do ANYTHING to make it look like they are doing SOMETHING. Usually, it turns out to be a bad thing, a wrong thing, or a very stupid thing.
Here, the mistakes started early. Over confidence on high tech toys to deliver in a low tech, urban battle zone, which led to low-balling numbers of needed troops on the ground to hold that ground once the battle was over. Insistence on keeping numbers of deployed troops low, to appease Congress and the Public. Continuing failed policies long after they became clear they were ineffective, due to an institutional inability to admit to being wrong. Ever. About anything.
Also not looking at the evidence.
We were to believe that highly secular Iraqi government was cooperating with religiously fanatical Al Queda and Taliban? Al Queda has made attacks in Saudi Arabia, which is not religiously strict enough to suit them..... Iraq? Nonsense, but that was part of the justification. 1 terrorist camp in the whole country, that I knew of, in the NE along Iran border to train Iranian dissidents just so Saddam could tweek the nose of his age old enemies by sending trouble makers over.
We chased the Taliban and Al Queda out of Afghanistan. They fled to Indonesia, to the Philippines, to Pakistan, to Iran, to the lower 'Stans.... and we pursued them to .... Iraq. Someone forget to buy a map or globe?
Historians are gonna have a BALL with this one years down the road.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Yes, I do think Bush has largely ignored his generals. Bush isolated himself with a very small ring of his trusted advisors. His demeanor didn't change until the Dems won control of Congress.
You're not really saying he didn't... are you?
I'd tend to think he listened to both. But then, I wasn't there. I guess I'm just kinda amazed at how many people seemingly were.Sure, I think Bush wants to win. I don't believe he's capable of it.
But just so I know what we're debating, are you arguing the point I can't definitively state Bush ignores winning tactics, or are you arguing Bush is on a winning path?
I mean, if it's the former, whatever, you understand the point. If it's the latter, what are the other options? Seems pretty simple to me.
The former. You can't say it. You have nothing to base it on. You're only real go-to is "we haven't won yet, so he must."
There is no winning tactics in a tribal nation. Any general that says otherwise is trying to sell a book.
-
BTW,
Right now I think the Dems would do anything in their power to stretch this war out at least two more years. Nobody really cares about the war, they only care that there is one and as long as that is the case, they will have political ammunition. What a wonderful distraction.
The republicans aren't much better here. They'll continue try to push through spending bills that will effectively force the dems to vote no. Of course a no vote says the dems aren't really willing to support the troops.
Right now, both parties are trying to gain as much momentum with innaction and finger pointing as possible.
But back in Iraq, we have a military presence. Believe it or not, this is run by generals, not GWB. Most of the problems can be layed right on the shoulders of poor tactics. I'm not saying I could come up with better ones... but I am saying that field tactics are not based on president bush's scrutiny unless somethign actually becomes an issue (meaning that the tactics got out of hand way before he got involved).
The war went pretty much like I thought it would. The peace is going pretty much like I thought it would too. Eventually we'll pull out and things will go to crap until there's a bloody massacre and a dictator rises to squash everyone else. Meanwhile, 6 other countries look at the ruin that is Iraq and have to wonder if it could happen to them.
I know this war was OK'd by everyone with the same information Bill Clinton had introduced a few years earlier. I just get the feeling that everyone saw it as some kind of opportunity (little of it having to do with terrorism).
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Historians are gonna have a BALL with this one years down the road.
My bet if the current situation of politcal disengagement continues and wins in congress is the historians are going to say that America threw away another chance to stop global terrorism.
Sadly, most supposedly educated people do not realise it. They are so blinded by a biased media and hate for Bush that they will see anything but the path to the victory being provided.
But, hey, we have done it before when the liberals whined and moaned. Sadly we are going to do it again.
Maybe the next attack on this country that kills 100's of thousands may finally get the point across... Sorry to be pessimistic, but I think that is gonna be lost on liberal America as well. :mad:
-
Revisionist history is already occuring.
There were LARGE portions of the American public that were against this war from the beginning. I was not one of them, but I saw it with my own eyes.
There were many Democrats who were very cautious about the idea of the war, but didn't have the guts to stand against Bush politically. Now they are paying the price, as are we.
I'd agree about winning the "war" per se, but I distinctly remember many folks speaking about the coming "peace", and how many, MANY more troops on the ground were needed to keep it. They also discussed how the American soldiers were fighters, not policemen. Oh yes, I remember it well.
I remember Bush ignoring that point. I didn't have to be in the room, I watched it on the news every night. I still am.
It came down to "If we take THIS rebel stronghold city, we'll have 'em on the ropes!" Sound familiar? Like the current push? More of the same. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Sooner or later we're going to realize we're gonna have to walk out of the place, either by saying "Long enough, take care of yourselves" or after we have ethnically cleansed an untidy faction of people. We might have been able to establish a peace, *might* have early on after the war, but we didn't (for whatever reason), and now the tide has turned.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The war went pretty much like I thought it would. The peace is going pretty much like I thought it would too. Eventually we'll pull out and things will go to crap until there's a bloody massacre and a dictator rises to squash everyone else. Meanwhile, 6 other countries look at the ruin that is Iraq and have to wonder if it could happen to them.
Originally posted by Mini D There is no winning tactics in a tribal nation. Any general that says otherwise is trying to sell a book.
Just to be clear, MiniD, are you saying Iraq is unwinnable?
Given things went like you thought they would, and there's a very good chance you're correct about how they will play out in the future, what's your opinion on the war's cost and effectiveness in achieving our foreign policy goals? ($500+ billion estimated).
Do you think somewhere there could be 6 dictators-in-waiting hoping for a U.S. attack to destabilize their country so they can eventually win out and take control?
-
Originally posted by tapakeg
There is only one person in this dilemma that does not have the benefit of of hindsight. Bush made the decision that he thought was the best for the country and is sticking to it. Changes? yes adapt to the situations that arise, Rumsfeld is gone, Petreus is in, mission is the same WIN.
It makes me sick the people who VOTED for action in the war and are now threatening to take away funds. SICK ....Treasonous.
You all know if we would have done nothing in Iraq, they would be all over him for not taking care of Sadam Hussein.
:aok Standing applause. Give the man a ceeeeeegar.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Just to be clear, MiniD, are you saying Iraq is unwinnable?
I'm saying we already won when we wiped out their military, drove through their country unabated and removed saddam from power.
The new victory, where we help Iraq form some kind of governement where everyone is happy and all of the tribes sing lullabies together as the sway back and forth is not possible. Any tribal nation with a history of waring will always be unstable.
-
Then it sounds to me like you are saying that the attempt to install an America-friendly, western-style democracy in Iraq was a fool's errand.
In other words, there was never a chance the U.S. could succeed in its ultimate goal for Iraq (related goals notwithstanding, like the removal of Hussein and the finding/incapacitation of WMDs)?
-
Originally posted by oboe
In other words, there was never a chance the U.S. could succeed in its ultimate goal for Iraq
there you go again with the negative thoughts.
-
the attempt to install an America-friendly, western-style democracy in Iraq was a fool's errand.
But it worked so well in South East Asia forty years ago...
-
We need a new strategy.
Think happy thoughts.
Yeah, that'll do it.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Then it sounds to me like you are saying that the attempt to install an America-friendly, western-style democracy in Iraq was a fool's errand.
In other words, there was never a chance the U.S. could succeed in its ultimate goal for Iraq (related goals notwithstanding, like the removal of Hussein and the finding/incapacitation of WMDs)?
It's ultimate goal was achieved. This is where the misconception seems to be coming in.
The "installing an American-friendly, western-style democracy" was not even in the top 10 until things started winding down.
The generals that say it was foolish to go in without an exit strategy would have been happy if the exit strategy were: Go in, kill saddam, leave. They aren't politicians.
All of this talk about intimidation and fearing bush to get a 100% vote on the Iraqi war is a bunch of crap. There was no downside for the Democrats. Absolutely none. They had convenient excuses and a convenient scapegoat. It's been in their best interest to undermine and identify everything as a short-coming since the war started. It will continue to be that way until a Dem is in the whitehouse. Then they will fail miserably and blame the previous occupant and accuse the republicans of trying to undermine all of their efforts to make real solutions (because that's what the republicans will be doing). The desire to undermine in order to make the other party look worse has become more popular than making your own party look better.
-
Sorry, what ultimate goal has been achieved? And if the ultimate goal has been achieved, why are our soldiers still fighting in Iraq?
Please be as forthcoming and specific as possible - I'm not trying to "trap" you - I'm looking for common ground.
Getting pretty sick of the political posturing on both sides myself. Should be used to it by now though, its always been that way and will probably never change.
-
Oboe, it hasn't always been that way. The bitterness that divides us as a people and keeps our two major parties at each others' throats has been growing like a cancer for some time now.
It began to grow more bitter during the Clinton administration as a direct result of the impeachment proceedings. Whether or not one believes that the attempted removal of that controversial president was justified or not, one cannot deny that it opened a permanent rift between Republicans and Democrats.
That rift grew wider, and relations between the two parties more acrimonious, during the presidential election of 2000. It would have been better if one or the other of the two candidates involved in the vitriolic recount controversy in Florida had followed the example of Richard Nixon, who refused to drag the country through a divisive recount in the election of 1960, and simply stepped down. Gracefully. Al Gore will go down in history as the only presidential candidate in U.S. history to ever retract a concession.
His refusal to concede is emblematic of the widening rift mentioned above. NEITHER side was willing to yield, preferring to drag the country through a bloody legal battle instead....regardless of the implications. As a result, during the last 6 years we have seen the voting population of our country becoming increasingly Balkanized.
That Balkanization continues to grow, despite the relatively brief period of patriotism that blazed out after 9/11. The nation hasn't been this divided since 1969. The divisive "spirit of party" that Washington warned the nation of in his farewell address has come to full fruition.
We see evidence of it right here on these boards. Neither side feels it can concede a point. Members of the opposition are demonized and their every motive suspect.
We refuse to learn from our mistakes. If we are to succeed on the international stage we, as a people, need to be single-minded in purpose. We haven't BEEN that for some considerable time now. We would rather cut our own throats than those of the enemy.
The Iraqi "insurgents" know this. They've known it all along. It's no secret. They know the modern history of America and its military endeavors at least as well as we do.
They know us. Having read and studied our history THEY have learned from our mistakes. These muslim fanatics are smarter than we are. They've known from the very beginning that they didn't have to beat our military.
All they had to do to win was beat US...the civilian population. It was easy to do, because we were already sniping at each other even before Saddam's statue fell in Baghdad. By refusing to give up, by giving our media enough fodder to "shock" the American populace with how bad the war was going, they knew we would implode.
They were right. We have beaten ourselves.
-
Bull**** Shuckins. The country has ALWAYS been divided. It is foolish and childish to think otherwise or to think we were ever "one people."
Every single thing that ever happened in our entire history has divided us.
-
A Dem victory can only be achieved with a defeat... Political ammo for the next generation is the defeat in Iraq which will be echoed every election in the next 20 years, "remember when the republicans lost the war in Iraq" Forget the fact it will be orchestrated by Democrats...
It is unpatriotic to cheer and vote on defeat...
The same group who will cheer on Hiillaries call for socialised medicine as our great savior without explaining that the side goal is free health care for illegal aliens on my %70 tax rate...
Enjoy the current times because right now is the lowest tax rates you will ever see in your lifetime and maybe your kids... We hope I am wrong!
-
BS yourself.
I never said we were EVER completely unified. We've had our divisive arguments in the past, which is true of the populations of every nation that has ever existed.
Either you didn't get my point, or you wilfully misconstrued it.
It is my contention that our divisions are becoming progressively worse.
There's certainly plenty of evidence to support that statement.
It is also my belief that this is atypical. There have been plenty of periods in our history when, in many things, we were of one mind. Franklin Roosevelt, after the watershed election that placed him in control of the government, employed both Democrats AND Republicans in the construction of the New Deal. That same cooperation was also evident during the Second World War.
There was a considerable spirit of cooperation and respect during Eisenhower's administration....as well as that of Kennedy. Much of Johnson's Great Society legislation was passed with Republican support.
I've been a citizen of the United States for 53 years and I can honestly say that I have seldom seen the people of the country more divided than they are today. The blame can be shared by both Republicans and Democrats, and can also be said to result from our tendency to want instant results, which keeps us from being to stick to stick to our guns in any protracted conflict.
Also, to a great extent, the conflict between Americans is not so much a political one as it is cultural in nature; conservative/rural versus liberal/urban. The split between the two is wide and continues to grow.
-
Shuckins,
I tend to agree with your premise but feel you didn't go back far enough. The vitriol started hot and heavy during the Nixon years when somehow he gets blamed for the war started years earlier by lbj. Nice bit of blame shifting down there. He did enough stuff on his own to be criticized for but Nam wasn't one of them. From there it went even farther down hill. IMO it was a case of the best defense is a good offense and the dem's went offensive big time. It was a great way to shift blame for the, up til then, most divisive conflict in our history.
Using clinton later on was a big chance for pay back. It's still tit for tat hammer and tongs right now.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Then it sounds to me like you are saying that the attempt to install an America-friendly, western-style democracy in Iraq was a fool's errand.
In other words, there was never a chance the U.S. could succeed in its ultimate goal for Iraq (related goals notwithstanding, like the removal of Hussein and the finding/incapacitation of WMDs)?
It worked real great with the Shaw of Iran, we all remember what a huge success that was.
When the repub / dem idiots talk to us Americans about western democracy in Iraq.. what could sound better?, to us anyway, we're arrogant enough to think the whole world desires to be "free" like us. This does not apply to the tribal hyper religious mid east.
The war has become a political football for the DC crime families to kick around while they accomplish the only thing they are actually good at; bickering like useless children. They have party agendas to push forward, never-mind whats good for the country.
We NEED a handful of Independents and Libertariens in congress to play referee and add new ideas / voices to the debate... repubs & dems have demonstrated quite clearly they cant play nice when left alone, and fail when left in power.