Ready for change!!!???

[sportsfan41]

You jumped on my post, and you apparently never noticed that I said we were losing. You made an assumption....an unfair one, IMO.

 

I don't think we're winning. But, I don't think we're losing. It's a push right now, and it's a fragile positon that we're in.

 

Your earlier post showed more favor towards a stance of we're winning, but you act like you don't like to admit it. Do you despise this war that much that you can't accept success. I know many others that do the same.

[sportsfan41]

That's what happens when the president before you puts you a little over $9 trillion in the hole...

 

I love how one man gets the blame dumped soley on him, for the disparity placed on the entire country by a complex government consisting of many different parts, composed to make sure that one such man can never be the source of all of the countries alleged problems. It's really interesting.

[rockmom]

Your earlier post showed more favor towards a stance of we're winning, but you act like you don't like to admit it. Do you despise this war that much that you can't accept success. I know many others that do the same.

 

 

No. I have been against this war since before we went to Iraq. It was the wrong thing to do. What we're doing now can't be called winning a "war", it's trying to rebuild a country that we destroyed. And, again, we're not even close to being able to call it a success. There are successful aspects, ie rebuilding schools and infrastructure that we destroyed. But, there are other parts of Iraq, Bagdhad for instance, that have a long way to go. To say you're winning the war means that you've made such progress as to have ensured peace for it's people, a road to economic progress, a return of the country to it's home rule. Tell me that is the prevelant situation in Iraq.

 

I do not think we're "losing" the war either. I think, as I said clearly earlier, that we're holding our own, tenuously.

[halfback20]

What change from the new President is going to lower gas prices?

Glad to see you have so much faith in our troops, btw.

 

Not sure if that post meant that the troops can not win a war.

 

The "War on Terrorism" is a difficult war to win in the battlefield. It will be very difficult for any country or group of countries to kill all terrorists. The key to defeating terrorism isn't just shooting at them, it all starts with education IMO.

[halfback20]

None that's the point, I think it's all a joke, but yet "change" is what the democratic party is going to use as their campaign slogan. I just think it's funny that so many voters will buy into it.

 

And many people will buy into what John McCain says as well. Is everything he or the conservatives say, true?

[Cdirty107]

I love how one man gets the blame dumped soley on him, for the disparity placed on the entire country by a complex government consisting of many different parts, composed to make sure that one such man can never be the source of all of the countries alleged problems. It's really interesting.

 

Who should get the blame then? He's the "decider", remember?

[John Anthony]

Clearly after the last 8 years this country needs change. Almost everyone will tell you that.

[John Anthony]

And many people will buy into what John McCain says as well. Is everything he or the conservatives say, true?

 

I can't say i'm buying the "100 more years in Iraq if necessary."

[H]

What change from the new President is going to lower gas prices?

Glad to see you have so much faith in our troops, btw.

 

 

It has nothing to do with "faith in our troops" or any other rah rah platitude. Our troops have been given a ridiculous mission--police force and nation-building in an inherently unstable country. These are both things that the Republican Party of the past absolutely railed against, and rightly so. If the GOP and its "leaders" had any integrity, they would truly support the troops and bring an end to this fiasco. Instead, they accuse opponents of defective patriotism, and give a patronizing atta boy to the 1/20th of 1 percent of Americans making a sacrifice in Iraq. All to avoid the political fallout of admitting a mistake. Pathetic.

 

I've been a registered Republican for 19 years, but the conduct of the party these last five years has made me sick. In a way I'm glad they're going to get their butts kicked this fall. Maybe that'll knock some sense into 'em.

[mcpapa]

It has nothing to do with "faith in our troops" or any other rah rah platitude. Our troops have been given a ridiculous mission--police force and nation-building in an inherently unstable country. These are both things that the Republican Party of the past absolutely railed against, and rightly so. If the GOP and its "leaders" had any integrity, they would truly support the troops and bring an end to this fiasco. Instead, they accuse opponents of defective patriotism, and give a patronizing atta boy to the 1/20th of 1 percent of Americans making a sacrifice in Iraq. All to avoid the political fallout of admitting a mistake. Pathetic.

 

I've been a registered Republican for 19 years, but the conduct of the party these last five years has made me sick. In a way I'm glad they're going to get their butts kicked this fall. Maybe that'll knock some sense into 'em.

 

http://zfacts.com/p/136.html

[H]

http://zfacts.com/p/136.html

 

 

Yep. It used to be fashionable for Republicans to say, "we can't be the world's policeman" and "we shouldn't be in the business of nation-building" but that's just what we've been doing in Iraq for the past 5 years. The mission the military was designed for--crushing a uniformed opposing force--was achieved within weeks of the invasion. We've been doing exactly what the Republicans of old said we shouldn't be involved with ever since.

[Run To State]

Not sure if that post meant that the troops can not win a war.

 

The "War on Terrorism" is a difficult war to win in the battlefield. It will be very difficult for any country or group of countries to kill all terrorists. The key to defeating terrorism isn't just shooting at them, it all starts with education IMO.

I agree with that.

[Hatz]

What battle of attrition? The number of Americans KIA last month was the lowest since the war began. Comparing the Vietnam War to the Iraq War is ridiculous. Despite some problems, this war has been waged much more effectively than the one that Democrats managed in the 60's and early 70's.

 

 

Let's see. "We are fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here."

 

"We are winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese (Iraqi's)"

 

"We need to escalate to bring about victory."

 

 

There are comparisons. They are not exact by any means but they are there. As to the prosecution of this war, the "push" took place years after it would have been more effective. How often did the military tell the current administration more troops were needed and the call was not heeded?

 

As to assigning Party blame, the Democrats were in that war for the first heavy buildup and five years. Mr. Nixon prosecuted the war for the last 4 years. How did that go?

[shooter]

Let's see. "We are fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here."

 

"We are winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese (Iraqi's)"

 

"We need to escalate to bring about victory."

 

 

There are comparisons. They are not exact by any means but they are there. As to the prosecution of this war, the "push" took place years after it would have been more effective. How often did the military tell the current administration more troops were needed and the call was not heeded?

 

As to assigning Party blame, the Democrats were in that war for the first heavy buildup and five years. Mr. Nixon prosecuted the war for the last 4 years. How did that go?

 

Well....One of his 1968 campaign promises was to get us out of the war. He started reducing the number of troops the very first year he took office. The troop reductions continued at a steady pace and seemed unaffected by the situation on the ground. He used bombings to attack targets because it put fewer troops in harms way during battle and the troops could be located farther away from the field of battle. He said that the South Vietnamese needed to take greater responsibility. He tried to negotiate with the North Vietnamese but they held firm in their demands because they could see the troop reductions. The US involvement in the war ended when he negotiated a peace treaty with North Vietnam that gave the North almost everything they wanted. A year or two latter the North defeated the South.

[AcesFull]

Let's see. "We are fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here."

No terror attacks in this country since 9/11/2001. Thousands of terrorists dead and captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. I acknowledge that we also have not had to fight communists on our streets, so maybe the Vietnam War was more successful than generally believed. Was this same reasoning not employed as a justification for involving our troops in World War 1 and World War 2?

 

"We are winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese (Iraqi's)"

So are you saying that the current Iraqi government is no improvement over the previous one or that the opposition to the current government is on the same scale as the Viet Cong campaign against the South Vietnamese government?

 

"We need to escalate to bring about victory."

Escalation has been effective in Iraq. I assume that you believe that it was ineffective in Vietnam. So, what is your point?

 

There are comparisons. They are not exact by any means but they are there.

Why do Democrats almost universally choose to compare the Iraq War to the unsuccessful Vietnam war, when many similar comparisons can be drawn to World War 1, World War 2, or the Korean War?

As to the prosecution of this war, the "push" took place years after it would have been more effective. How often did the military tell the current administration more troops were needed and the call was not heeded?

 

As to assigning Party blame, the Democrats were in that war for the first heavy buildup and five years. Mr. Nixon prosecuted the war for the last 4 years. How did that go?

Nixon's "Peace with Honor" program left millions dead in Southeast Asia and our abandonment of our allies was anything but honorable. I will not defend Nixon or Kissinger. In fact, I disagree with those who credit Nixon for being a great foreign policy president. The Nixon presidency was a train wreck from start to finish, IMO.

 

However, LBJ lost the war because he failed to allow the military to wage a full scale, sustained war against North Vietnam. There was no honor in the way that we exited the war, but the die was cast before Nixon was elected.