[speechlesstx]

Of course. But it's already proven to change with time.

Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.

[ETWolverine]

I'm sorry ..I can't resist

"Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "

Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's on a roll.

I love that film.

[BABRAM]

Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.

George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?



Bobby

[speechlesstx]

The Washington Compost printed an interesting article on the Democrat shifts today, Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains.

Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.

And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.

The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."...

For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.

For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) made a round of calls yesterday to freshman Democrats, some of whom recently returned from trips to Iraq and made news with their positive comments on military progress. "I'm not finding any wobbliness on the war -- at all," Emanuel said.

The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, pleading: "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."

"For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House press secretary who is helping to head Freedom's Watch.

GOP leaders have latched on to positive comments from Democrats -- often out of context -- to portray the congressional majority as splintering. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), an Armed Services Committee member who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said many of her colleagues learned a hard lesson from the Republican campaign.

"I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator John Edwards issued a scathing attack on Clinton's remark. But he said there has been "progress in Al-Anbar province."

"Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. "You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning."

There's enough there to chew on for a while.

[Dark_crow]

In a July 30 New York Times Op-Ed article, “A War We Just Might Win.”

As of late:
Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. “If anything, I’m more willing to find a way forward.”

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla. [the surge] “has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.”

Brian Baird, D-Wash. [he will no longer support measures to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, because] “We are making real and tangible progress on the ground.”

There does seem to be a Democrat “Surge” too.

[tomder55]

This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying.

First I'd like to thank them for their service and wish Staff Sergeant Murphy a speedy recovery .

If I'm not mistaken the 82nd Airborne ;as fine a unit as our military has ;is stationed in and around Sadr City presently . This may give them a limited view of a subsection of the battlefield in their ancedotal account ,but hardly a birds-eye view of the theater .Nor do I believe they have the expertise to judge the effectiveness of the surge beyond the neighborhood they occupy.In my post I clearly say that the areas controlled by al-Sadr have not been addressed as of yet but that I believe a time of reckoning is at hand .

They write about things that they would have no first hand experience or knowledge of, even to go as far as to criticize us for refugees still living outside the country's borders, which obviously they can't verify.

Certainly if I'm to listen to the opinion of the troops then I should take into account the opinions of all of the troops and not just this select few . Here are some vets of the war with opposing views to the one presented in the op-ed.

Print Article

Vets For Freedom



That being said they do make a couple of comments I agree with in the article and it was the main focus of my reply

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux...

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers.

Like I said ,the purpose of the surge is to give cover to the politicians so that a political settlement can be obtained. It certainly doesn't foster a stable environment when the politicians in Washington keep threatening to pull the rug out.

[speechlesstx]

George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

[BABRAM]

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.


Bobby

[ETWolverine]

Hello again:

Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

I quite agree. Then it's a good thing that Patreus isn't doing that anymore, isn't it.

So... if we were only "losing" because we were giving back what we took, and now we aren't doing that anymore, doesn't that mean we aren't losing anymore, even according to your definition?

You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

Excon

Only if we cut and run.

[NeedKarma]

speechlesstx agrees: That seems to be all these people can come up with. If I had a dollar for every time I heard or read "Bush lied"... I just googled Bush lied and got "about 2,330,000" hits.

That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

[ETWolverine]

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

There is no reason to believe that, if we are successful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

[url="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

It tells me that 2 million fools are parroting the "Bush Lied" line without knowing what they are talking about. They don't know what lies he's supposed to have told, much less whether they really were lies or not.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Wow, talk about living in a vacuum. :D

[excon]

Hello again, El:

I think we're talking about two different things... Not surprising, really.

There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think?? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him...

Remember when he said we won... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political... And it was wrong...

Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn't matter what Patraus is going to say. We've heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnam AFTER the war was lost. And it's going to matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

Is it a shame?? It is. Is it dangerous for us?? It is. Did Bush lose it? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.

Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:

Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.

Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.

[speechlesstx]

[URL="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

From the ones I've read it tells me there are an awful lot of deluded people out there that want us to believe "Bush lied" but they don't want to tell us exactly what those lies were.

[NeedKarma]

Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.

[Dark_crow]

Hello again, El:


There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. excon

Exactly: Which bears out my theory that foreign policy cannot persist against domestic policy in a free democracy. Viet nam clearly showed this, and Hitler noted this, and that is why he turned to fascism.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I think we're talking about two different things..... Not surprising, really.

There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think??? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him......

Remember when he said we won.... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political..... And it was wrong...

Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn’t matter what Patraus is gonna say. We’ve heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnat AFTER the war was lost. And it's gonna matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

Is it a shame??? It is. Is it dangerous for us??? It is. Did Bush lose it?? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

excon

I wonder if you would have felt the same way as you do now if we had won the war in Vietnam? If we had done the job as we should have... that is, taken and kept the land, killed the enemy, gone full out, beaten North Vietnam and the VC both politically and militarily, and had the support of Congress and the people back home... would you still feel the same as you do now about the war in Iraq? Would you still be advocating for a pullout, or would you instead be telling both parties in Congress to get behind the troops and support the war?

You are looking at Iraq through Vietnamese-colored lenses. I am looking at Iraq from the current strategic and tactical picture. And because of that, we naturally have different opinions.

Vietnam was decades ago, Excon. Things are different today. We have a better army, better training, better equipment, lower casualty rates, better support from the indiginous people, and we finally have a general who is kicking a$$ and not bothering to take names.

The only thing that is the same is the POLITICAL situation back home. Even you have stated that we are winning on the ground in Iraq. The only thing holding us back from victory, by your own admission, is the anti-war political faction back home. Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout. My solution is either defeat or convert that faction to my way of thinking and support the war and the troops. Yours is a defeatist stance that says "we can't win even if we win". Mine is an offensive position that promotes victory.

As Steve put it, your stance snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. He titled this question quite well.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

There is no reason to believe that, if we are sucessful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

Elliot

Elliot-


Thanks. Perhaps with the bases closing in Germany Dubya's idea is to move us permanently into the Mid-East region. You know my stand from way back. So just as reminder to the others: I thought we should had blasted the Saddam controlled Iraqi govt buildings, military installations, and a few mountains until we made parking lots. But not with A-bombs like we did in Japan. BTW our govt certainly had no problem dropping those Atomic bombs then. Now as with the continuance of the Iraqi war campaign I was just as satisfied that we toppled the then Saddam's govt control and brought him to justice. It would had suited me better to start re-deployment phases then. Personally I think Iraq was going to have civil upheaval despite our involvement and will continue after whenever we leave. The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.



Bobby