Priorities, Priorities - the Cindy Sheehan situation

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Mystikalilusion, Aug 10, 2005.

Page 13 of 19
  1. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    It sounds as though you completely agree with me.
     
    SabanFan, Aug 18, 2005
    #121
  2. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    ^^^Well, after I started typing about it I guess I pretty much ended up realizing it is much more direct than I originally thought. So, yes - I completely agree with you.
     
    CParso, Aug 18, 2005
    #122
  3. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Nice try, buddy. You originally were talking about the insurgency and you blamed its continued persistence on a lack of domestic unilateral support. Now you're trying to CheneyRumsfeld your way out of it by changing the subject after the fact. I am well aware that you said 'muslim extremists'. In fact, I even pointed that out to YOU, because you first said 'insurgency'. You oughta know by now that you can't duck out on me like that.

    I've asked you nicely to make sense, but I guess that wasn't enough for you. You are failing miserably to draw any real connection between the terrorists that attacked the United States and the insurgency. Thats Ok, it happens to everyone that gets brainwashed by Hannity and the Fox News team. Their constant fast-talking and conjecture lure their viewers into believing something that isn't true.

    No thanks, old fart. If being 'out of my league' means upsetting you because I have called you out on your bullsh!t that you simply cannot back up, then consider me a division rival. Further, I feel pretty confident that even you know that a comment like that won't get rid of me. So I'm left to believe that you are only trying to elicit further response.

    Let's review one more time, shall we?

    First, you said:
    Then, in response to claims regarding the cost of the war in Iraq (not the war on terror) you said:
    Best case scenario, you are confusing Al-Qaeda with the war in Iraq. Make that connection valid, and you should be appointed to some sort of superior official status. Even the highest of ranks haven't been able to pull that one off yet. Worst case scenario, you are using typical rhetoric to lump non-related issues together in an effort to fit your agenda.
     
    Contained Chaos, Aug 19, 2005
    #123
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    This particular anecdote (that political opposition in the US gives an enemy the will to fight) is repeated a lot, but it ignores the fact that they had plenty to fight about already. In Iraq, like Vietnam, the enemy's main motivation comes from the success he is having against a superpower opponent.

    The Vietnamese had already beaten the Japanese and the French in protracted guerrilla wars. They knew from the begining that sooner or later the Americans would leave because the place wasn't of any value to us. Long before American citizens started to realize this and forced their government to stop blindly pursuing failed policies. It wasn't just students and hippie peaceniks, by 1972 Joe Average recognized a disaster and was demanding a change.

    If it had been a war that was necessary and was fought efficiently and ended quickly and in our favor, there never would have been any dissent. But it was an unnecessary, ongoing, unwinnable guerrila war in which the people who we were supposed to be helping crapped all over us. And we never used our entire military strength against the enemy and got the job done. We just kept sending guys over there to fight the enemy's kind of war instead of the kind that we fight well. And we got bogged down for eight years, took home 50,000 killed and ended up just giving the place to them anyway, as they always knew we would.

    Does any of this sound familiar to you?
     
    red55, Aug 19, 2005
    #124
  5. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    No, should it? :hihi:

    In all seriousness, I really don't understand why so many rightwingers refuse to acknowledge the obvious similarities. Of course, I imagine a similar question was asked 30 something years ago too.
     
    NoLimitMD, Aug 19, 2005
    #125
  6. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Oh, don't worry, they are starting to come around:
     
    Contained Chaos, Aug 19, 2005
    #126
  7. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    It took you three days to come up with that ?
     
    SabanFan, Aug 19, 2005
    #127
  8. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    Giving the insurgents a reason to fight wasn't my only argument - I just meant to say that it provided extra incentive for them. There is no denying that if this war was 100% believed in by the people we would be using much more man power & thus could perform that much more efficiently. Also, with more support - there wouldn't need to be the balancing act that we sort of have going on now, where the president & his staff try to please both sides. With full support they could take the action necessary & get it over more quickly.

    I'm not saying we should all blindly support the decisions of our president & government, but rather that if the president were to make good decisions that everyone could back, we would be in a much better position. (except that would be pretty rare because the democrats will always scrutinize what a Republican leader does & vice-versa).


    Yes, it does have similarities to Vietnam. I would say that it seems the similarities are growing all the time, but it's not there yet. It probably will be pretty soon if something isn't done.
     
    CParso, Aug 19, 2005
    #128
  9. Contained Chaos

    Contained Chaos Don't we all?

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    9,467
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=29283&page=5

    And I suppose it will take you far less to conveniently ignore every bit of it. Don't worry, I'd do the same if I was making equally unsubstantiated claims.
     
    Contained Chaos, Aug 19, 2005
    #129
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I think it is deniable. There was nothing preventing Rumsfeld from going in with a bigger force, it was all at his disposal. He was correct in that a small force was all that was needed to defeat Iraq's standing army. It was a major blunder that he failed to realize that a prolonged occupation would require many more troops. It was a collossal blunder that he has never recognized his error and corrected it. Either put in the whole force and lock the country down or leave the place to the ragheads. This administration is incapable of admitting error and is bent on defending failed policies.

    So Bush can't make a presidential decision in the face of political opposition? That's probably true, and its pathetic. "The insurgency is in its final throes", says Dick Cheney. Bush thought it was "mission accompished" when he landed on the carrier in San Diego harbor several years ago. Denial of reality is endemic to this administration.

    Bush's job is to to do the right thing. And if he gets us into a war, it is his job to win it. If he failed to get the widespread popular support he desires before starting a war, it is his fault. If he's trying to "please both sides" and allows an unsatisfactory status quo to continue, he is incompetent at his job. If he failed to accomplish what he expected in Iraq, it is his responsibility to correct the problem, even if it means a reversal of a unsuccessful policy.

    It's the job of Congress to represent the will of the people. Bush is the Executive, his job is to do what is best for the United States of America. Not what is good for getting the Republican Party re-elected.
     
    red55, Aug 19, 2005
    #130
Page 13 of 19

Share This Page