Secdef Robert Gates joins the crowd of idiots characterizing homegrown disagreement as terrorist sympathy. In the past it upset me, but the 30% crew is an ever shrinking portion of American society in their last throes. You know who’s helping the enemy? George Bush. He does everything to make their life easier.
Maybe you would even be less upset if you knew what he said:
“It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries,”
Now I don’t quite see where he calls home grown disagreement ‘terrorist sympathy’. I think what he says is true. The terrorists and insurgents are emboldened by criticism of the war from the left or the right, especially when such criticism may be the prelude to our surrender. If you are going to argue for defeat, be big enough to accept the baggage that goes with that. Don’t pretend its wihtout serious consequences and that the terrorists don’t like it.
My only sympathy for the terrorists is that they are led by righteous morons into spreading hate and fear in their name.
I understand that, viscerally
Dugger, winning IS defeat in this battle.
We can’t win for losing, all we get out of the deal is more enemies who are more motivated, experienced, and organized than when we started.
yay us,
now it is time to chomp down on the idea that we are a fallible people, capable of failure, and let new people try new ideas.
Or, in other words – the persians have been at this 4,000 years and just keep on not losing….
i say we call it a draw, and have a drink.
yo no creo en las encuestas…en la hora de la verdad el promedio estadounidense vota por el hombre- macho.
Yes, to “win” by our measure would be losing. Classic counter insurgency demands you undercut the insurgents by maximizing the quality of life of the local populace.
We dont care about that. We have tunnel vision on killing the “bad guys.”
Not even a chance of victory here. We need to leave now or
get a realistic strategy one that does not involve body counts of insurgents while neglecting the fact that Iraq has 70% unemployment and the people are starving in the dark while smelling broken sewage systems….
We really fucked this up.
If you are going to argue for defeat, be big enough to accept the baggage that goes with that. Don’t pretend its wihtout serious consequences and that the terrorists don’t like it.
What “the terrorists” like or don’t like isn’t relevant. The question is, are we doing what’s best for us? Just going along quietly won’t help get to the right answer.
You know what the terrorists like?
They like it when you chase them to Tora Bora, and then prove yourself to be too incompetent, stupid and lazy to, you know, guard the Paki border.
They like it when you call them the “Axis of Evil.” A perfect pretext to a weapons buildup.
They like it when you say stupid-ass stuff like “Mission Accomplished,” “Bring It On,” and that old favorite “Last Throes.”
They like it when you go to war with the army you have, as opposed to the army you would have, if you didn’t bully all your supposed allies.
They like it when you invade and attempt to pacify a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
But what they like best of all is the ability to use American troops as cover when they feel like it, and as target practice when they don’t. All while they conduct a slaughter of the people who don’t believe the same religious hoodoo, that they do.
I hear they also have a fondness for the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. Motto: “First to Fap.”
Idiots like Dugger constantly spout about how we must win the war in Iraq and that failure there would be catastrophic, and somehow they always pair that with their unconditional support for George W Bush, the boob who has fucked the war up so bad we can’t win. Just doesn’t make any kind of sense.
Unfortunately you simply cannot discuss Iraq with leftists, because all rationality goes away.
The leftists in this country CANNOT tolerate a win. A win in Iraq means they lose the white house next time around. Literally, all their eggs are in the “lose Iraq” basket. Anything the democrat party or leftists say regarding Iraq should be simply disregarded as purely ideologic pap based on their own selfish interests in gaining political power.
“A win in Iraq means they lose the white house next time around.”
That’s hilarious especially since it was the Bush’s “Plan for Victory” that was soundly rejected by a majority of the American people in November. His escalation plan is even more unpopular. I guess the majority of Americans want us to lose in Iraq, as well.
What an idiot.
“…somehow they always pair that with their unconditional support for George W Bush.”
Wanna know why? Because anything conservatives say regarding Iraq should be simply disregarded as purely ideologic pap based on their own selfish interests in gaining political power.
Now that they realize political power can’t be gained through escalation and pursuing Bush’s failed policies the rats are heading over the side …
Simply put, Bush doesn’t have a plan for victory. He only has a plan for more war.
The 1,000,000th person to ask “What exactly the fuck CONSTITUTES a win in Iraq?” and not be answered wins a free small soda.
“What “the terrorists” like or don’t like isn’t relevant.”
Is it? Is the morale and fighting spirit of people, the larger set of whom, murdered 3,000 of our countrymen on our home soil not relevant? They attacked before Iraq because they sure as hell fundamentally did not like us. That motivation was there before Iraq and will be there after. Further weakness or perceived weakness would seem to invite further attack.
And the funny thing is all I’m saying is assess the consequences of unilateral withdrawal/defeat carefully. There will be a price to pay. I don’t think it is, but it could be the right answer. As I have said – absoutely no easy answers here. None without pain.
Is the morale and fighting spirit of people, the larger set of whom, murdered 3,000 of our countrymen on our home soil not relevant?
It isn’t relevant.
We might choose the very best course for ourselves–and they could like it too. We could choose the worst course and they might hate it.
What they think of our choice has no bearing on the outcome.
Last I checked, Dugger, those terrorists didn’t come from Iraq. No matter how many times you say it, they still will not have come from Iraq.
You say those terrorists (the ones who weren’t Iraqis) did not like us, so then invading an entire country and making large segments of the population not like us, and large segments of the population of the region not like us for that invasion makes sense.
There is a continuing price to pay in staying. Think about it, the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq with more being flushed down the toilet every day could have been/be used to combat actual terrorism instead of creating more. Radical, I know.
How many more “just six more months” do we have to sit through when at the end of every six months the situation is worse in Iraq?
And again, if winning is so important in Iraq, why do you support the schmuck who has created the current clusterfuck?
If my choices are blindly supporting the policies of an administration that has brought us nothing but disaster and allowing the bad guys to feel emboldened, I’ll choose the latter, thank you.
If we start following sensible policies it won’t matter how emboldened the bastards are.
Besides, Dugger, do you really think our enemies are emboldened more by a) something some senator says or b) the all-around incompetence of the Bush-leaguers?
Dugger: Is it the morale and fighting spirit of people…??
—————————–
Yes dugger,
Its called doctrine read it. The Iraqi populace did not drop 9/11 on us. Make them happy and the insurgency gets undermined. It is that simple really.
We are talking Iraqis not Saudi terrorists. And in case you didnt know Saudis and Iraqis are not the same.
I really should charge you for all this education I am giving you. hehe…
Make them happy and the insurgency gets undermined. It is that simple really.
Dugger, why do you think Hezbollah was so successful in Lebanon? They would give old ladies rides to the market and such; civil projects, building frikkin’ playgrounds for the kids.
Really, it is that simple.
If we keep blowing up the market, or shooting at people who shop there, doesn’t exactly foster good will for our side, now does it?
and you said: That motivation was there before Iraq and will be there after.
In spades. And that much harder to undermine.
And I ask again, what constitutes a win? How will we know when the job is done?
I say we quit dicking around and get the lights turned on, fachrisssakes.
Gates was referring to Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who was confirmed by the full Senate on Friday to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq. Petraeus has said he needs all 21,500 extra troops that Bush has ordered to Iraq in order to quell the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad.
So his is the democrat idea of “supporting the troops”, referring to the commanding general’s request for more men an “idiot”?
Is Bush’s (and pedro’s) idea of supporting the troops scapegoating the previous generals for Bush’s crappy decisions?
I have not said and the Admin has not said Iraq did 9/11. That is your straw man to avoid dealing with the issue. I do say there are terrorists in Iraq and AQ is in Iraq. I do say that terrorists view the Iraq war as part of their war against the hated US. Our defeat is their victory. They are motivated. They recruit more and big bucks pour in. You can chase straw men all you want, but if you are honest you will acknowledge my point and Gates’: the enemy and terrorists are emboldened by the Congress’ focus on surrender.
Lets put it this way. If you must surrender, don’t play politics with it. Don’t give count;ess interviews to fawning Big Media *ssholes.
DO your dirty work and have enough respect for the troops to quit teh self serving advertising.
Our actions in Iraq = Uncle Sam Poster in Arabic “I want YOU to eat shit”
“the enemy and terrorists are emboldened by the Congress’ focus on surrender”
The ‘enemy’ is emboldened when ‘the enemies’ older brother, sister, father, mother comes home dead for no reason.
we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them, and turning corners fast enough to roll this ship of state.
and you don;t like it. c’est la vie. take to the streets.
but don’t compound being wrong with being obstinate – consider you may just be wrong.
what would you do in ‘the enemies’ shoes? eat shit? or pick up a rifle?
Most of them can be shown other options, the few ‘dead-enders’ are mostly harmless without the mob.
It should be easy to put yourself in those shoes. Let us show you the way forward.
As long as you use the word “surrender”, nothing in your argument can be taken seriously.
That is your straw man to avoid dealing with the issue. I do say there are terrorists in Iraq and AQ is in Iraq
——————————-
Dugger, if you really think that the majority of our casualties are coming from Al Qaeda in Iraq then you HAVE TO BE dumber than a bag of hammers. Honestly, are you that retarded?
Bush injected Al Qaeda into Iraq. But even so, the majority of the instability is from civil war.
Get a clue please, or let the adults sort this out while trying to save the lives of the troops Bush continues to sacrifice to save his own sorry white ass.
nightfox…how many attacks have there been in the US since the Bush declared war on terror and “injected al qaeda into Iraq” ?
None?
’nuff said
None?
’nuff said
——————————–
Short sided thinking at its greatest. Fuck attacks how about US dead you SOB. Try 3000+ How many would have died if we would have simply kept the no fly zones? Zero.
“’nuff said ” what is that some kind of redneck english?
Retards like you kill people.
Our defeat is their victory. They are motivated. They recruit more and big bucks pour in.
Don’t you get it? Our continued presence and violent actions also motivates them. They recruit more and the big bucks pour in.
So, if we leave they are emboldened.
And if we stay, they are emboldened.
Thanks, George. Thanks a lot.
nightfox…how many attacks have there been in the US since the Bush declared war on terror and “injected al qaeda into Iraq” ?
Not counting the anthrax terrorists (if you’ve forgotten them, don’t worry – so has the government)?
How many have there been in Canada? Sweden? For that matter…France?
Maybe “not pissing the world off” is a strategy worth looking into as much as “clusterfucking an at-best-tangentially-related country” in the War on Terror.
If the world is so pissed off at us, why are the bombing england, france, spain etc?
We lost 3000 men in the first twenty minutes on Iwo Jima in WWII.
I know nightfox doesn’t care much about the brown people inhabiting Iraq, but remember a couple of guys name Hussein? You should google child torture hussein, or maybe industrial shredder hussein just for giggles as to what was going on while we were enforcing the “no-fly zones” and UN diplomats (and French and German and Russian) were getting rich on Iraqi graft.
Hey, while you’re on Google, can you find out who supplied Saddam with the weapons he used to do those unspeakable things? Let us know what you find.
We lost 3000 men in the first twenty minutes on Iwo Jima in WWII
——————————–
WWII was in our national interest to win. The stakes were much higher asshat. And no I dont care and neither do Americans of Iraq’s humanitarian issues. Countries go to war over national interest.
You need to go back to school you retard. Fuggabush went to war over oil and revenge.
Stop justifying all wars using
old Grandpa Simpson style WWII analogies. They are old and crusty much like yourself.
duros
We are already there, so the argument re the wisdom of being there is a little dated.
And lets face it, all the arguments about creating more terrorists is merely speculation. Nobody knows how many have been created – if any. Who did the count? You want it to be true, so you state it as fact.
I notice no one really argued gates’ point – which is the enmy is emboldened by surrender, non-support talk. So since we are there, we have pretty much acknowledged surrender will make the Ts stronger, right? You just have your unverified straw man that by being there (we are already there – anyway – so thats done) we are creating more Ts.
Anybody with the intellect to challenge Gates. Or me on this? Do I reign supreme yet again??
Cool (OW leftist poster certified) Iron Dugger
Fox your argument doesn’t even make sense.
“Fuggabush went to war over oil and revenge.”
Ok lets assume you are right. Where is the oil?
If it was revenge, I guess you mean against saddam right?
Why doens’t bush just pack up and go now, saddam is dead….revenge taken right? Lots of national polls say Bush would be much better off just packing it in…revenge taken, might as well come home right?
You kids have overactive imaginations, and under-active common sense…
Under the ground, where do you think it is?
I notice no one really argued gates’ point – which is the enmy is emboldened by surrender, non-support talk.
1. Use of the term “surrender” here is inaccurate and inflammatory. By its use you reveal yourself as arguing in bad faith.
2. The enemy may well be emboldened by lots of things, but neither I nor Gates can prove which policy under discussion will “embolden” them more. My question is what sort of difference this “emboldening” is supposed to make. Are you under the impression that currently our enemy suffers from a deficit of boldness?
3. Corollary to 2: saying that such-and-such an act will “embolden” the enemy is not a military statement, it is a political statement designed to demonize your political opposition.
4. When Gates, or anybody, makes the argument that ‘you have to agree with the president, no matter how wrong he is, otherwise you’ll make us look weak/embolden the enemy/embarrass us’ all it says to me is that he has no rational justification for whatever he’s arguing for.
5. Corollary to 4: the fact that Joe Lie-berman is one of the ones making this argument is further proof that he needs to be invited to join the GOP immediately, even if it means losing control of the senate.
6. Most congressional democrats voted to support Bush’s plans for war in 2002, in part from the very fear that you express: that not presenting a unified front would “embolden” our enemies. Later, republicans used that vote against the democrats to paint them as equally responsible for the mess that ensued. If the democrats heed the call this time to avoid “emboldening” the enemy, will the republicans refrain from trying to blame them when this big surge fails too?
Do I reign supreme yet again??
When have you “reigned supreme”? Mostly what I see is you getting your ass handed to you in thread after thread.
You just have your unverified straw man that by being there (we are already there – anyway – so thats done) we are creating more Ts.
Okay then, stop saying that if we leave, terrorists will attack us here. That is also speculation.
all the arguments about creating more terrorists is merely speculation.
Ditto.
And I’m still waiting for you to answer when will we know when the job is done?
Every time the right says “OK, what’s your plan, then?” it just confirms to me that they don’t have a fucking clue themselves.
Do I reign supreme yet again??
Only in your head, big guy.
Duros
Danger is the nosy next-door neighbor of Security.
Wilbur and Nimmer,
Then lets agree on this: you don’t think leaving the battlefield to the enemy is surrender and I do. I also contend that our military fighting there will see it as surrender and that the enemy (Baathists, terrorists, whatever else), there and worldwide, will see it as surrender.
Wilbur, I’m not sure I’ve seen anybody mainstream say Dems and Reps are equally responsible. I will concede Bush is msotly repsonsible. I do note that he had Democratic support when the war was ‘popular’, and that those supportive Dems have left the ship now that its unpopular. I would charge both parties with going to war too frivolously. War is war. Gonna do it, then do it all out or don’t do it. Soldiers lives are worth more than that. So is national honor.
(And actually I believe most Democrats voted aginst the war.)
lwgkmef dfxnjma wqiasl xztldr frizlnde xnipcder tjwy