“There is no question the war in Iraq — like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history — costs money,†Sens. John Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote in a commentary in the Wall Street Journal. “But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.â€
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Webpage Templates Design Your Own Kitchen Kitchen Island Design on Kansas should listen to Hansen
- tshvpbgq apbtvijrq on Rove’s cheap populism is ugly, fake
- Rage on Open thread 7/3
- Chas on Open thread 7/3
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 7/3
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 7/3
- alesse estradiol on Kansas should listen to Hansen
- BlueJay on Open thread 7/3
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 7/3
- Sedu Beauty Tips Skin Care Womens Perfume on Kansas should listen to Hansen
101 Comments
“…with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. ”
NOT gonna happen. No matter HOW long we stay in Iraq or how much money we pay Halliburton while we stay there.
But while we ARE there?
Why isn’t gasoline about 30 cents a gallon?
We have all the liabilities of empire and none of the benefits.
Question: Is the Middle East more stable than it was 5 years ago?
How is this making America more secure?
http://gorillasguides.com/2008/04/09/iraq-dozens-of-families-flee-clashes-in-sadr-city/#more-3368
Since 25 March, the suburbs of Sadr City and Shula have been the scene of fierce fighting, prompting the authorities to impose tight security measures, including a ban on cars.
Despite an order on 5 April by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to ease security restrictions in the two Shia militia strongholds, doctors and medical staff are still unable to operate normally in these suburbs.
“We are fed up with the fighting and deteriorated public services since 25 March. There is no water, no electricity, and food and vegetables are hard to get, while prices are soaring,” said Jamal Hussein Nasser, a Sadr City resident who fled with his 15-member family to nearby Shaab area.
“There are almost round-the-clock shootings, mortar rounds, explosions and sniper-fire from both sides. We were happy when Saddam Hussein was toppled and thought our life would get better but unfortunately Saddam was better,” Nasser said.
The clashes in Sadr City on 8 April left 15 civilians injured when government forces tried to re-enter the suburb, a police officer said on condition of anonymity.
What exactly is “losing”? What are we trying to “win”?
Such terminology is stupid to apply to this situation. If “winning” means anything, it means determining the least bad option.
And continuing to pretend we can shoot our way out of the mess is not facing reality.
I will forego saying why we must win in Iraq again, that eight hundred pound Gorilla had been named once by me and no one likes to hear its name. Though they claim that it is a part of their faith. That part of the world finds our form of Democracy unintelligent, there for if the hope it for that to occur it will not.
The Senator I got this from will go un-named, but he did have a valid point. What is the extent that has to be archived in order to call it a win? If the goals are too high we will never reach them. The slogans and catch-phrases are too high to obtain because they are hollow and meaningless. We must let the Iraqis be Iraqis and not try to form them into Americans. Quit trying to have them think as we do and act as we do, in that we are not even acting like Americans or think as such.
Rage - don’t you remember all those Viet Cong who immediately tried to invade the USA after the fall of Saigon? It’s a good thing we had GWB bravely defending Alabama from them of they would have overrun the world!
http://thebivouac.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/rep-ron-paul-gen-petraeus-iraq-surge-hearing/
*
Rep. Ron Paul questions General Petraeus on the state of Iraq and Iran.
Paraphrasing from my above link since most of you won’t watch it. The gentleman from tejas asked the General if the current battle plans allowed for the military to bomb Iran w/o congressional approval. The General responded that his scope was Iraq and could not answer the question.
The point is the current view of operations. It is unconstitutional to initiate a war without congressional approval. But the good General hadn’t even considered this. Welcome to our military state.
Does anyone have any proof that we are safer now that the majority of the world has abandoned us? Now that we have created a new breed of al-qeada? That we have strengthened the bond between Iraq and Iran? That we have propped up a religious and political Iraqi leader with very strong ties to Iran? That our military is so stretched to the limit we would have a hard time defending ourselves from a Mexican invasion? That we are almost 10 trillion dollars in debt? That our dollar is so weak?
I sure don’t feel any safer. Do you?
Yep, love them headlines declaring the surge a major triumph. No chaos in Iraq now, is there? Go Joe!
Did PNAC ghost write that editorial for him?
The above post brought to you by the Democratic Party of Perpetual Pessimists and Hate America Union.
For more information go to:
no-hope.com
we-only-like-bad-news.net
and
whine-of-the-day.org
Sens. John Lieberman, I-Conn.
Bullshit. Lieberman isn’t an independent and he sure as hell was never a Democrat.
Now he is co authoring with Lindsey Graham?
Put the R behind your name Joe. You sell out.
Ron Paul did dress them boys down!
The above post brought to you by Big Oil and halibertan First. Damn the dead soldiers and 10 trillion in debt. We need wars. Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t enough. We need to fight Iran too. Damn congressional authorization, we are the NeoCon party. We don’t need no stinkin authorization!!!
For more information go to:
Blindly-following-the party.com
Can’t-see-reality.org
And
This-is-what-they-told-me-to-think.biz
No original thoughts eh Sol? You’re getting as bad as Clark.
We have a better shot of cleaning up all the gangs in America, than we do in achieving Nirvana in Iraq!
That Never Surrender carnard is idiotic, who the hell would we be surrendering to?
Here’s an idea, when they come to sign the surrender agreement, we ambush them!
Seems to me I have a few pointed questions and statements above yours. What I see from you ‘reg’ is regurgitated neocon meme. How original of you.
Why doesn’t Congress demand a definition of attainable ‘success’ in Iraq. The current goals are unattainable and unrealistic. I don’t like Obama much, but I do think he made some valid points.
Bitter are we Sol?
Take that bitterness with a glass of water and call me in the morning.
“If we were able to have the status quo in Iraq right now without US troops, would that be a sufficient definition of success? It’s obviously not perfect. There’s still violence. There’s still some traces of al-Qaeda. Iran has influence more than we would like. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough, and we’d have to devote even more resources to it? ”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/9/as_petraeus_urges_delay_of_troop
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Does the administration plan to submit this agreement to our congress?
AMBASSADOR RYAN CROCKER: At this point, Senator, we do not anticipate that the agreements will have within them any elements that would require the advise-and-consent procedure. We intend to negotiate this as an executive agreement.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees whom you rightly referenced and thanked, as well as billions of dollars of additional taxpayer dollars, if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement that the United States Congress would not.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/9/as_petraeus_urges_delay_of_troop
*
*
Did I mention military state before?
Military State, as in Petraeus call the shots on our Foreign Policy wr to Iraq, and bush goes into his cheerleader role?
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, “enough to kill several million people,” according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 500 tons, which equals 1,000,000 pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these agents.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of several mobile biological weapons labs.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was operating an “advanced” nuclear weapons program.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq had been seeking “significant quantities” of uranium from Africa for use in this “advanced” nuclear weapons program.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes “suitable for nuclear weapons.”
They lied.
They claimed America needed to invade, overthrow and occupy Iraq in order to remove this menace from our world. “It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country,” went the White House line, “to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”
They lied.
“Simply stated,” said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Liar.
“Right now,” said George W. Bush in September of 2002, “Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of nuclear weapons.”
Liar.
“We know for a fact,” said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January of 2003, “that there are weapons there.”
Liar.
“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction,” said Colin Powell in February of 2003, “is determined to make more.”
Liar.
“We know where they are,” said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003. “They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south, west and north somewhat.”
Liar.
“The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about,” said Paul Wolfowitz in March of 2003. “Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.”
Liar.
“No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were,” said Condoleezza Rice in June of 2003, “where they were stored.”
Liar.
“I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country,” said Gen. Tommy Franks in April of 2003. “Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ‘Oh, well, there’s actually another site,’ and we’ll find it there, I’m not sure.”
Wrong.
“Before the war,” said Gen. Michael Hagee in May of 2003, “there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.”
Wrong.
“Given time,” said Gen. Richard Myers in May of 2003, “given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.”
Wrong.
“Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do,” said Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton in May of 2003, “because I think there’s a lot of information out there.”
Wrong.
Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, is about to give testimony before the Senate regarding the current state of affairs in that battle-savaged country. He is a political general, one of many America has seen and heard over the last five years, one who would leap nude from the Capitol dome before telling the real truth about matters in Iraq … or who would speak using words fed to him by liars, and thus be wrong.
Remember: they lie. They all lie, from the top man down to the bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding. If they say water is wet, get into the shower to make sure.
They lie.
Period.
End of file.
Sol - welcome also to the Imperial Presidency (unitary executive) that Bush espouses.
The above Libs posts illustrate reason# 15,361 why you will lose in November. The American people, while stupid, are not that stupid to elect someone who would withdraw like Barak and Hillary say they will.
Opps: forgot the link: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/437
Ah, that unbiased source, the Democratic Union Vomitorium.
jm walkers stolen post is all over all the Libs sites. Why do they hate America so?
Re: Regular (and Fleetwood)
DNFTT
“Why do they hate America so?”
Yes, why DO all thsoe liars listed on JMWalkers link hate America so?
So Ben and J M Walker, get your Democratic Party Congress Representatives and Senators to vote for impeachment.
And don’t give me that they don’t have 67 vote thing either.
Either you believe what you’re saying or you’re just word smithing, cheap shot artists.
Time to put up or shut up.
Impeach Bush or stay at home and count your cry blankets.
#
Regular
Posted April 10, 2008 at 9:36 am | Permalink
So Ben and J M Walker, get your Democratic Party Congress Representatives and Senators to vote for impeachment.
And don’t give me that they don’t have 67 vote thing either.
Either you believe what you’re saying or you’re just word smithing, cheap shot artists.
Time to put up or shut up.
Impeach Bush or stay at home and count your cry blankets.
==============================================
. . . and reg can stay home and count body bags.
That’s all you got J M Walker?
As I said, cheap shot artists.
Have your Democratic Congress do something about it,
but for God’s sake - stop the incessant whining.
No one likes whiners that refuse to take action.
If you havent been to the rude pundit lately, you should go there. Bad language, yadda yadda yadda.
But he has some good posts about the war, congress and the general, etc.
So funny ya wanna cry…
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
“As I said, cheap shot artists.”
Yea, like “don’t give me that they don’t have 67 vote thing either”
However, as I have said, I’d like to see the House vote Articles and force the Senate to go on record.
Well Ben, as they say, either sh*t, or get off the pot - but do stop the whining.
“They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, “enough to kill several million people,” according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.
They lied.”
————–
This kind of disingenuous crap is all over. Let’s examine it. In this case, authorities had cause to believe that there were these amounts of lethal material in Iraq. If it turns out there isn’t, that is a mistake, not a lie.
We know that these materials were never found. But do you realize how hard to find they would be? 26,000 liters of anthrax sounds like a lot, right? Not really.
A liter is a cubic decimeter (.1 meter) a cubic meter equals 1,000 cubic decimeters (liters) So a 3 meter cubic area is 27 cubic meters, or 27,000 cubic decimeters (liters). So an are three meters by three meters by three meters could hold it all. About the size of your bathroom. Talk about a needle in a haystack!
So when you read disingenuous simplistic crap like…:
“They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.
They lied.”
You’ll know it for what it is.
How long can we afford not to win?
Outlander,
We are dealing with people who don’t understand the meaning of the word lie. To them it has turned into nothing more than a slogan without regard for the truth.
Ben,
I do remember all those countries which were falling to communism with the help of the Soviet Union.
I’m not sure about the Viet Cong, but I know that the North Vietnamese Army was rolling south in a well equiped army fresh from the Soviet Union as opposed to the South Vietnamese who the Democrats blocked our equiping any more.
I agree Nathan - that whole list on JMWalkers link only know how to lie - 100% of the time!
Nathan - a lot of my friends were over there - each and every one of them told me the ARVN would fold because they had no faith in the saigon regime. Even with the NVA (VietNam is one country BTW) the million-man ARVN outnumbered them manyfold. As for their being fresh from Soviet Union that claim is bunk.
a slogan without regard for the truth
Yup, that is the Iraqi war. And the current administration.
Ben,
Vietnam was not one country. There was North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Now it is one country, but not then.
The North Vietnamese had just as large a military and better equipped as well.
After the North sighned the peace treaty we stopped helping the South and the Soviet Union continued to help the North.
I have read first hand accounts from those that served hand and hand with the ARVN and they say differently than your friends.
Isn’t anecdotal evidence wonderful?
South Vietnam was a puppet gov’t propped up by the United States.
As soon as we pulled out, it collapsed because the South Vietnamese gov’t had no legitimacy . . . same as in Iraq.
It didn’t help after the United States knocked off the somewhat legitamite leader in the South, Diem.
We are repeating the exact mistakes we made in Vietnam, insisting on control rather than letting Iraqis decide their own fate.
As a result, failure is a foregone conclusion.
We are repeating the exact mistakes we made in Vietnam
Yes we are repeating the exact mistakes - Elected Politicians sticking their nose into how to control a military situation and those Politicians who have no training in ‘affairs of State’ trying to control how the State Department does it job.
“As a result, failure is a foregone conclusion.”
OMG! Did the sun just fall out of the sky? For the first time ever I have to agree with him.
Regular never met a war he didn’t like, assuming it was started by a RepubliCON.
He gets to puff out his chest and pretend he has something to do with the war effort, when in fact as a gov’t pensioner, he actually siphons money away from the war effort.
Keep living your pathetic fantasies, Regular.
Apparently, it beats actually working for a living like the rest of us . . .
CapnAmerica,
South Vietnam fell because they were invaded!
I suppose France was just a puppet government in WWII and thankfully those Germans came in and helped them!?
Petraeus and Crocker don’t even understand that they need congressional approval before they bomb Iran.
Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft all got their hands dirty authorizing torture.
It is about time congress stands up and reigns in this military state and starts conducting business as America has promised her people.
And the alternative to having “elected officials” running the war is to have the military running the government.
What do they call that?
Ruling military junta.
Yeah, not good . . .
Look, Nathan, if you think South Vietnam could have been “saved,” you’re welcome to start your own ex-pat army to go back and liberate it.
When we pulled out of Vietnam, you couldn’t find two people in the whole country who thought South Vietnam would last without us or that it was worth saving.
All the smart money in South Vietnam had bugged out years ago and a lot of the money that funded them was US taxpayer funded.
Now, forty years later, you want to tell me — who lived through the whole debacle watching it every night on the damn news — that we all were wrong.
I was there. I saw it.
You weren’t.
CapnAmerica,
I am speaking with facts, you not so much.
South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam with a Soviet backed military.
Those are facts. Your living through it and not seeming to know that only speaks against you, not me.
Congress has the power of the purse and oversight powers. It means exactly that. If they don’t like the war in Iraq being funded they can stop it.
If they feel an issue needs oversight by law, they can do it.
However, they don’t get to run the functions of the Executive Branch no matter how much they whine.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Ambassador Crocker, it seems odd, I think, to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees whom you rightly referenced and thanked, as well as billions of dollars of additional taxpayer dollars, if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement that the United States Congress would not.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/9/as_petraeus_urges_delay_of_troop
I thought we had one the war. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier off the coast of California to announce our huge victory.
Does this mean if we ever close our bases in Japan that we lost WW2?
Yup, Nathan, that’s exactly right.
I don’t dispute that.
What I dispute is that without the US army, the South had any chance.
They didn’t run out of bullets. They ran out of will to fight. If there had been a real political organization to oppose the north, they could have fought for years as an underground, guerrila force, just like the Viet Cong had.
There was none.
The people with money ran like rabbits. The puppet gov’t had no legitimacy and practically before the shots were fired.
The North was shocked by the lack of resistance by the South. There was no resistance because there was no political leadership or will (after decades of foreign domination) to resist with.
Y’all bringing Vietnam up made me remember something. I have a WHOLE crate of ARVN riffles. From the war. Never been fired and only dropped once.
When you fight for the freedom of a people that don’t want to fight, you will never ‘succeed’. How many thousands of Iraqi soldiers refused to fight in Sadr City?
Yeah right CapnAmerica…
What I dispute is that without the US army, the French had any chance.
They didn’t run out of bullets. They ran out of will to fight. If there had been a real political organization to oppose the Germans, they could have fought for years as an underground, guerrila force, just like the Soviets had.
There was none.
The people with money ran like rabbits. The puppet gov’t had no legitimacy and practically before the shots were fired.
The Germans were shocked by the lack of resistance by the French. There was no resistance because there was no political leadership or will (after decades of foreign domination) to resist with.
At 6:43 a.m. Sol posted a link to a YouTube video of all the questions Rep. Ron Paul asked - NONE of which were answered, all of which should be before this war continues.
To be fair Linda, Dr. Paul started his time stating that there would not be enough time to answer most of his questions, but he wanted them on the congressional record.
The most telling question that he did want answered was whether the military’s operations allowed for the bombing of Iran. Both the general and the ambassador replied that Iran was outside their scope.
They both completely ignored the fact that starting a war required congressional approval. We are in a military state.
As to the other questions Dr. Paul asked, yes, indeed, those need to be answered. Answered by the president, the joint chiefs, and those supporting continuing the war.
Give it up, Linda. Clinton got us into this war by getting a knobber, and no matter how hard George tries, he just can’t correct Clinton’s SNAFU.
Maybe we’ll be lucky and this ‘Punic’ war will only last 120 years too. At 51 years of age, I doubt I’ll see the end of it. But, dang, look how well the bullet and mercenary stocks are doing. Go America!
Add to that:
“the administration has announced that it will negotiate an agreement with the government of Iraq by the end of July that would provide the legal authorities for US troops to continue to conduct operations in Iraq.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/9/as_petraeus_urges_delay_of_troop
That will be presented to the Iraqi parliament but not to our own congress.
Right, the south viet nam leadership after the french left, was about as corrupt as it gets. And it was recognized by the USA. I worked with a woman whose husband and sons were executed in front of her for working for the french. That’s another war that should never have happened.
Sorry I am done with mindless debates, time to crawl up some political ass and become a major pain in the butt.
” 6:43 a.m. Sol posted a link to a YouTube video of all the questions Rep. Ron Paul asked - NONE of which were answered, all of which should be before this war continues.”
Time for non stop phone calls emails and videos of fighting and day to attrocities on youtube or the outlet of your choice. Time for this bullshit to stop. Damn I’m mad as hell and won’t take it anymore…….
But whichever politician(s) ends this atrocity will be blamed for losing. There really are people stupid enough to think there is something other than losing going on right now.
Nathan: If you can, read “The Decline and Fall of the 5th Republic”. It goes into the total collapse of any national/political cohesion in France before WW2 and why. From the Facists to the Communists, with the Catholic Church playing both sides against the middle, there was no will to ever repeat the horrors of WW1 again. France had a larger armoured force than the Heer, and the Maginot Line, a very strong defensive installation but like the Brits never figured on the Belgians surrerending so abrupty with no advance notice to the Allies, opening the northeren/left flank and leaving the Allies in a transistional phase, deadly in warfare. The French and Brits had tried to close the door but the Belgians left their window open. The Von Schleefin plan worked like a charm which in essence said the last German soldier on the right must brush his sleeve against the Channel. Left vs. right vs. church and distrust, the usual mix for defeatism.
Hey Nathan, do you know who Ho Chi Minh asked to help him before he went to the Soviets? Yep, you guessed it, he asked the United States for help getting France out of Vietnam.
You are correct, Daves.
He assumed that the United States, a paragon of helping colonists fight off colonial powers, would help him against the French.
Wrong. The CONs in FDR’s cabinent shut him down cold. In fact, after WW2, the US re-armed the JAPS in Indo-China and used them as police until the French could get back and take over.
Old Ho had no alternative but to go to the commies for help.
and - Ho Chi Minh had been allied with the USA against Japan prior to that.
Nathan’s comparison of the Nazi invasion of France to the North’s invasion of South Vietnam is idiotic, particularly since I assume you must have taken some course-work in military history.
Nathan attempts to parody my words with The French didn’t run out of bullets. They ran out of will to fight. If there had been a real political organization to oppose the Germans, they could have fought for years as an underground, guerrila force, just like the Soviets had.
There was none.
Hey, Jeenyous, you never heard of the French Resistance? You never heard of Gen. Charles De Gaulle?
Jeez, there’s just no fixing stupid.
How about all those North United States soldiers who go into the South United States? Does that constitute an invasion?
When we started standing down in 72, the North steadily advanced with little to no resistance, in fact the ARVN’s graciously left their equipment in their haste to follow us South.
It’s like the Son’s of Iraq, their allegiance is only as good as the cash flow.
If they were really committed, don’t you think some of the ARVN’s would have splintered into the jungles and adopted the VC’s tactics?
phanton - they did. Unfortunately for us they did so for the VC/NVA.
Phantom,
The VC was equiped, funded, trained, and backed by the North Vietnamese.
Without that support the VC would have failed miserably.
Actually, most of the VC had been killed in the failed Tet offensive.
As the war progressed the numbers of VC went down as the numbers of NVA regulars went up.
With no one to support the ARVN, exactly what kind of fighting did you expect them to do?
Besides, when the ARVN collapsed those that survived rushed to help get their families to safety.
The North Vietnamese killed and executed nearly all government officials and anyone that could have posed a threat.
When your entire leadership is killed and you have no support what kind of jungle war are you supposed to fight?
It absolutely amazes me how ignorant people like you, Ben, and CapnAmerica are when it comes to the Vietnam war.
I see duh Libs are trying to bring back Nam. Kind of stupid of them to do that, because it was their Politicians and Policies that interfered with the military that screwed every thing up.
Don’t trust me? Trust Schwarztkopf, when he asked for no interference and went in and kicked butt.
Now that we have the Iraq conflict, politicians, liberal news media and rag waving protestors are once again sticking their noses in and it is total chaos.
Duh Libs never learn - they just make matters worse.
“Trust Schwarztkopf, when he asked for no interference and went in and kicked butt.”
Yeah, and that war was over in what - ten minutes? Did we try to occupy Iraq the first time around? Did we have a clear exit strategy? Did we have a clear mission? Did we have the support of the international community?
The similarities to Iraq now and Viet Nam then is that we have/had none of the above.
Yeah, and that war was over in what - ten minutes?
Exactly
“Exactly.”
Why didn’t Viet Nam end in “ten minutes?”
“Did we try to occupy Iraq the first time around? Did we have a clear exit strategy? Did we have a clear mission? Did we have the support of the international community?”
This is why.
“Duh Libs never learn - they just make matters worse.”
Yeah, like that flaming liberal Richard M Nixon who ran for president in ‘68 on a “secret plan to end the war.”
His secret plan was to expand the war beyond what even that idiot LBJ did.
Oh, and before you scream that LBJ was a Democrat - we disowned him 40 plus years ago.
“Did we have a clear exit strategy?”
Sure did. We had to get out before the Kurds got gased.
“Sure did. We had to get out before the Kurds got gased.”
The Kurdish village in Northern Iraq was gassed, with gas we sold Hussein, in the Eighties.
Did we have the support of the international community?”
The international community was too busy lining their pockets with Saddam’s “Oil for food” money for their secret weapons and supplies deals. They didn’t want to participate or collaborate with the United States, they were already in bed with Hussein.
“They didn’t want to participate or collaborate with the United States, they were already in bed with Hussein.”
Yeah, that was a blueprint for success - see the Colin Powell doctrine.
And, by the way, read the Lieberman/Graham editorial - it could have been written last year or the year before or the year before that.
WS Clark,
Last I checked, Nixon did end the Vietnam War. He brought North Vietnam and South to the Peace accords and when we had withdrawn they were no longer at war.
“Last I checked, Nixon did end the Vietnam War.”
In 1973 - five years after he was elected.
Hardly a plan to end the war.
WS Clark,
How is a plan to end the war, which ended the war… not a plan to end the war?
This is why you are little more than a partisan hack.
“This is why you are little more than a partisan hack.”
Were you around in ‘68 Price? Were you involved with the election campaign? Were you actively involved in the anti-war movement?
In ‘68, the American people had enough of Viet Nam - they wanted out.
After Bobby Kennedy’s death, the Democratic Party hijacked the convention and nominated LBJ’s VP, the hapless Happy Warrior Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon tried to capture the anti-war vote with his “secret plan” meme - many bought it - enough that Nixon barely won the presidency.
At the time, it was CLEAR that Nixon’s plan was to end the war immediately, as Bobby Kennedy and Eugene McCarty had proposed.
Nixon lied.
If the cost of dems. not uniting is a victory for Mccain, it is a cost America will continue to pay (charge) on generations to come.
Check this out, the Clash, and the government:
http://www.sacbee.com/babin/image_media/851326.html
“But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East.”
Does anyone believe this crap at this point?
Iraq WAS stable, abet under a brutal dictator - but at least they were a secular nation.
Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist nation under a brutal monarchy, yet Bush holds hands with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and lauds our relationship with them.
They give women lashes because they were RAPED!
We must be crazy or stupid or both.
Iraq will never be a functioning democracy. They will never be stable, neither will the Middle East.
The blood in the sands of the Middle East runs too deep and there is nothing that America can do about it.
Damn.
Can anyone identify where the lines form this song came from? “We dont know how to mind our own buisness,because the whole world has to be just like us.” That is the Cons foreign policy in a nutshell
“There is no question the war in Iraq — like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history — costs money,” Sens. John Lieberman, I-Conn
what a bush dumbass suckup
“Can anyone identify where the lines form this song came from? “We dont know how to mind our own buisness,because the whole world has to be just like us.” That is the Cons foreign policy in a nutshell”
Oh,yea. Monster, by Steppinwolf. Killer album too.
after Dubya has accomplished his goals of creating another Shiite state and increasing the profits of the oil companies, we should get out.
Next stanza:
“Now we are fighting a war over there/
No matter’s who’s the winner, we can’t pay the cost!”
One Trackback
[…] WE Blog wrote an interesting post today on Cost of losing is even higher, senators sayHere’s a quick excerpt“There is no question the war in Iraq — like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history — costs money,” Sens. John Lieberman, I-Conn…. […]