I’m a ’she’ and not a ‘he’ :)

Gotcha ;) … I have a hard time telling sometimes.

Now if these guys would just give us an edit function!

thirteen28, you obviously are a more calm and clear thinker; thank you for observing the rant over ficticious items/times. I’m a ‘she’ and not a ‘he’ :)

This is simply a way to make ourselves feel better and forgive ourselves our failures. It’s not that we have bollocked everything, it’s that things are just harder than ever before. Again, BS.

The only BS here is your insinuation that he said things were harder than ever before – which he didn’t.

Compare today to say 1940. Country entering a 2 front full fledged war, Pacific fleet decimated, military far below needed levels of troops/ equipment/expertise, economy still shaky, having to deal with allies like Stalin and de Gaulle, Republican animus toward the president etc etc.

Where did this going back to 1940 stuff come from?

P.S. you lose extra points for failing to acknowledge that Republican animus towards FDR stopped at waters edge.

I am not saying we are not in a difficult situation, but telling ourselves that this is the worse ever

He never said anything about this being the worst ever, did he? No – that was your invention.

Three straw men in one post. Easily identifiable.

Give me 5 examples why I should trust your party wishing to be in charge of HS and the WoT (or whatever it s/b called).

Give my 5 examples why I should trust your party! You see where this goes…

I disagree with you on one other point:

Back then we didn’t face such enormous challenges.

This is a refrain I hear often now, as in, well we have to torture/conduct warrantless taps/give the exec more powers/squash any criticism, because this is a much more frightening, dangerous etc time than any time before. To which I reply: BS.

This is simply a way to make ourselves feel better and forgive ourselves our failures. It’s not that we have bollocked everything, it’s that things are just harder than ever before. Again, BS.

Compare today to say 1940. Country entering a 2 front full fledged war, Pacific fleet decimated, military far below needed levels of troops/ equipment/expertise, economy still shaky, having to deal with allies like Stalin and de Gaulle, Republican animus toward the president etc etc.

I am not saying we are not in a difficult situation, but telling ourselves that this is the worse ever, well we are coddling and deluding ourselves.

Absolutely. When you are the party in power, you’re the one with the horses, so blaming the other side is an admission of your inability to lead. Have the Dems done the same when they were in power? Of course. It was smarmy and counter productive then, it’s smarmy and counter productive now.

honora on September 13, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Back then we didn’t face such enormous challenges. Can’t we use both horses (or as it is the elephants and the donkeys) to pull on the same wagon, just now and then, on the big issues, instead of harping, harping, harping, with no solutions suggested? Since when is the “loyal opposition” the “enemy”? It is our country and we are contributing to its demise with this nonsense, instead of fighting the real enemy. And please don’t come back with “RWs are ‘blamers’”.

From what I’ve seen since 2000, no matter what the conservatives do, your camp criticizes, even if it’s your idea/s being implemented, or the 180 degree from before.

Your party has decided not to help, and only hark, and that’s the cold truth.

Give me 5 examples why I should trust your party wishing to be in charge of HS and the WoT (or whatever it s/b called).

This one is not perfect but on these issues I feel more secure than the ones not revealed by your camp as of yet.

I really am running out of patience.

Boo-hoo. Heat. Kitchen. You know the rest.

I clearly stated all the Japanese were our enemies. A tiny bit of critical thinking tells you I am comparing to Iraq where NOT ALL are our enemies.

And a tiny bit of critical thinking would tell you that all residents of Fallujah (a Sunni, insurgent stronghold where terrorists violently opposing the American presence had widespread support, both material and moral) were our enemies just as much as all Japanese were, and thus should have been crushed quickly and unmercifully. Instead we sent a bunch of troops in there to get killed, pulled them back so that Fallujah could be a base of operations against us for another six months, and then finally sent more troops in there to get butchered before we finally got the situation slightly under control.

If you don’t see how this is different, where the majority of Iraqis are not our enemies–remember it’s the admin position that we rescued the Iraqis from Saddam and we are aiding them in putting together a democracy–well, I am perplexed.

See above – key words/phrases “residents of Fallujah”, “sunni”, “insurgent”, “stronghold”, “support”.

As far as the administration’s position, I’ll leave it to them – I’m arguing my own position.

You want to concentrate on the minority who are our enemies and not concern yourself with killing/hurting/alienating the majority who aren’t, fine.

You have the first half of that sentence entirely correct. The difference being that I don’t consider those who offer support, aid, comfort, or refuge to the Zarqawis and his ilk to be innocent, and nor do I concern myself with the fact that war is cruel and some innocents will get killed. As I’ve explained elsewhere, winning is what counts and all other concerns are subordinate to that.

But for the love of God, recognize it’s not the same as your WWII or Roman examples.

Oh, but all of these things have their counterpart in the ancient world. You are just too distracted by the clutter to see it – assuming you’d even be willing to in the first place.

So, you mean everyone in Iraq that opposes us by violence as well as those that aid and abet them are somehow not our enemies?

Sheesh, and you wonder why we don’t trust you guys on issues of war and national security?!?

thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 1:22 PM

I really am running out of patience. READ! I clearly stated all the Japanese were our enemies. A tiny bit of critical thinking tells you I am comparing to Iraq where NOT ALL are our enemies.

If you don’t see how this is different, where the majority of Iraqis are not our enemies–remember it’s the admin position that we rescued the Iraqis from Saddam and we are aiding them in putting together a democracy–well, I am perplexed.

You want to concentrate on the minority who are our enemies and not concern yourself with killing/hurting/alienating the majority who aren’t, fine. But for the love of God, recognize it’s not the same as your WWII or Roman examples.

(your statement before you start with that sophomoric straw man thing)

What do you expect when you keep erecting straw men like the “blame” argument you came up with in order to avoid taking on a real argument or offering substantive counter-proposals on how to prosecute this war?

And flattening Fallujah … would have made us many more enemies within Iraq.

I submit that the number of people pacified by such a response would have been far, far greater than the number of those who decided to take up arms against us in its wake.

” … but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

See this is the difference: all the Japanese were already our enemies (ditto Carthage/Rome; Germany/UK) so driving them into the arms of the enemy wasn’t an issue.

So, you mean everyone in Iraq that opposes us by violence as well as those that aid and abet them are somehow not our enemies?

Sheesh, and you wonder why we don’t trust you guys on issues of war and national security?!?

We were at war with the insurgents, and Fallujah was an insurgent city.

And flattening Fallujah (your statement before you start with that sophomoric straw man thing) would have made us many more enemies within Iraq. See this is the difference: all the Japanese were already our enemies (ditto Carthage/Rome; Germany/UK) so driving them into the arms of the enemy wasn’t an issue.

Remember that song from Sesame Street–One of These Things is Not Like the Others?

The point was that you lefties/dems had no more foresight than W. or the administration on how things would play out in Iraq and that all your armchair QB’ing now is just hindsight, comprende?

thirteen28 on September 13, 2006 at 12:28 PM

The buck stops where????

Actually, a lot of people, including me, predicted that Iraq would result in a civil war or a Islamic extremist state. We were mostly ridiculed. Plus la change…

Well see, here’s the difference. Rome was at war with Carthage, UK was at war with Germany, US was at war with Japan. Are we at war with Iraq???

We were at war with the insurgents, and Fallujah was an insurgent city.

And, on cue, it’s always someone else’s fault.

The point was that you lefties/dems had no more foresight than W. or the administration on how things would play out in Iraq and that all your armchair QB’ing now is just hindsight, comprende?

But once again, I congratulate you – you’ve kicked another straw man’s a–. You’s a bad mofo.

Every single word you wrote about the ‘blame’ and every example you enumerated, could be countered with myriads of such from the other side. It must be human nature and politics…

can we at least agree on that?

Entelechy on September 13, 2006 at 12:24 PM

Absolutely. When you are the party in power, you’re the one with the horses, so blaming the other side is an admission of your inability to lead. Have the Dems done the same when they were in power? Of course. It was smarmy and counter productive then, it’s smarmy and counter productive now.

…This is the single most unattractive quality of some RWs–everything is always someone else’s fault.

North Korea more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, China’s fault; Iran more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, Clinton’s fault; SS still a mess? Uh, Democrats fault. Immigration still a mess? Uh, RINOs fault. Iraq slipping away? See above. US reputation in the world at an all time low? Uh, the rest of the world’s fault…

honora on September 13, 2006 at 10:49 AM

This is the single most unattractive quality of all LWs–everything is always President Bush’s and the RWs’ fault.

When your party becomes a paragon of vision, participation in solving the huge challenges of this time, and accountability, and when your good sense of objectivity, of which you are fully capable of, kicks in, we’ll listen.

Every single word you wrote about the ‘blame’ and every example you enumerated, could be countered with myriads of such from the other side. It must be human nature and politics…can we at least agree on that?

In communities like Fallujah, the guerilla’s didn’t merely blend, but were part of the community to begin with and had the full support thereof. As such, the supporting community bears a lot of guilt for aiding and abetting the terrorists who actually carried out the acts.

And I flatly reject your premise that flattening a place like Fallujah after their uprising would have created more guerillas. How many guerillas did Rome create after they razed Carthage to the ground? Were any German guerillas created when Dresden was turned into rubble? What about Japanese guerillas in the wake of numerous firebombings and two nukings?

Well see, here’s the difference. Rome was at war with Carthage, UK was at war with Germany, US was at war with Japan. Are we at war with Iraq???

Yes, and gee, I just recall the chorus of Democrats and left-wingers suggesting this very thing before the fact, with all of your perfect, crystal clear foresight.

And, on cue, it’s always someone else’s fault.

Well first, comparing to Dresden to Iraq is just goofy. We are up against guerillas who are embedded in the communities. You go after the guerillas and kill a lot of innocent people in the process, you have created more guerillas. I think I’ve seen this movie before.

In communities like Fallujah, the guerilla’s didn’t merely blend, but were part of the community to begin with and had the full support thereof. As such, the supporting community bears a lot of guilt for aiding and abetting the terrorists who actually carried out the acts.

And I flatly reject your premise that flattening a place like Fallujah after their uprising would have created more guerillas. How many guerillas did Rome create after they razed Carthage to the ground? Were any German guerillas created when Dresden was turned into rubble? What about Japanese guerillas in the wake of numerous firebombings and two nukings?

I really think this is an overwrought POV. I think we have executed our occupation poorly because no one thought there would be an occupation–to whit, disbanding the entire Iraqi army, allowing looting and general chaos to ensue after Saddam’s defeat, not enough troops with not the right training–basically an ad hoc approach. Odd and ineffective.

Yes, and gee, I just recall the chorus of Democrats and left-wingers suggesting this very thing before the fact, with all of your perfect, crystal clear foresight.

Water under the bridge I guess. I have the sneaking suspicion that this is the excuse in waiting if things turn out (more) badly in Iraq–”oh we could have won but those nasty liberals and MSM and courts wouldn’t let us fight the way we wanted to”. Bullshit. This is the single most unattractive quality of some RWs–everything is always someone else’s fault.

Man, in a fight between you and a straw man, I’ll bet on you every time. You go on with your bad self.

Honora, I just KNOW you’re kidding, right? I know you can’t possibly be suggesting that our intention in Iraq was to act big, mean and tough! PA-LEASE! Hilarious. We have been pussy-footing around, ever so sensitive, disciplining troopers for showing our flag, putting them at higher risk at every step, threatening court martial for a mistake in judgement, examining and questioning every decision under fire like they were city cops, sparing mosques filled with terrorists and munitions, not shooting back to avoid civilian casualties..all so the world will think we’re “nice”.

We’ve forced our Marines to behave like friendly neighborhood policemen who need to get a permission slip to shoot anybody, fer Chrissakes.

Just for comparison purposes: Dresden

(Caveat: I’m not supporting carpet bombing…I’m just sayin’”

the-gunslinger on September 12, 2006 at 5:42 PM

Well first, comparing to Dresden to Iraq is just goofy. We are up against guerillas who are embedded in the communities. You go after the guerillas and kill a lot of innocent people in the process, you have created more guerillas. I think I’ve seen this movie before.

Second, if all you state above is true, Rumsfeld is a big old pussy and should be removed immediately. Are you under the impression that the military in past wars was not subject to censure and criticism? Come on.

Third, our troops have always been held to a high, in most cases, higher standard than other military forces. Which is why we are a great country.

Have we tried to prove that point in Iraq? The answer is a pretty resounding ‘no’, and if anything, we’ve prioritized the prevention of civilian casualties over winning, much to our detriment (and especially to our troops detriment).

thirteen28 on September 12, 2006 at 3:32 PM

I really think this is an overwrought POV. I think we have executed our occupation poorly because no one thought there would be an occupation–to whit, disbanding the entire Iraqi army, allowing looting and general chaos to ensue after Saddam’s defeat, not enough troops with not the right training–basically an ad hoc approach. Odd and ineffective.

Water under the bridge I guess. I have the sneaking suspicion that this is the excuse in waiting if things turn out (more) badly in Iraq–”oh we could have won but those nasty liberals and MSM and courts wouldn’t let us fight the way we wanted to”. Bullshit. This is the single most unattractive quality of some RWs–everything is always someone else’s fault.

North Korea more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, China’s fault; Iran more dangerous now than in 2000? Uh, Clinton’s fault; SS still a mess? Uh, Democrats fault. Immigration still a mess? Uh, RINOs fault. Iraq slipping away? See above. US reputation in the world at an all time low? Uh, the rest of the world’s fault.

Message to RW: you elected your guy, you got control of Congress, you have had 17 of the last 23 years to appoint Republican/conservative judges: it ain’t gonna get any better than this, this is your hand, good or bad so stop your whining and get it done.

And tell me, exactly what is winning in Iraq? The Iraqis are fighting each other, which should make it as plain as the nose on your face that the issue here is political, not military, shortcoming.

Dave, this is perilously close to “root causes”. Don’t go wobbly … Labwr may have been engaging in a little hyperbole, but he’s got the right instincts, I think. Whether we like it or not, we have to understand the culture of the enemy.

It has always been about root causes. The only reason that the phrase “root cause” bothers you is because you usually hear it used by leftists when they are blaming the U.S. In reality, the root causes are oppressive regimes that are motivated or aided in some way by Islamic fundamentalism. Bush’s whole approach with Iraq–the central strategic reason for being there–is to eliminate that “root cause” by encouraging the spread of free governments in that region of the world.

And even if the suggestion to drop 85 nukes on Saudi Arabia was “hyperbole”, it was still offensive and more suited to Daily Kos or DU, where mindless emotional prattle is encouraged.

I agree with you that overwhelming military force is an absolutely necessary component, but it must be accompanied by a focus of scope that itself is indicative of military superiority (and therefore strength, by logical entension). We do not wipe Mosul off the map… we go in in systematically eliminate the bad guys in a way that only the U.S. military can.

The “REALLY bad” Muslims understand only ONE thing: POWER.
We have that power, but refuse to use it, thinking our “thoughtful” policies will eventually win the hearts and minds of the “good” Muslims, who will in-turn start outing the bad ones in droves.

NOPE.
It doesn’t work like that.

Not when the retribution for outing bad Muslims is having your throat slit. Most Muslims will be silent and wait to see who ends up with the power before doing anything (and I don’t blame them).

The thing that keeps coming to mind is that each suicide attack ends in the death of an extremist.

Maybe if we DID carpet bomb Mecca the extremists would end up blowing themselves up until few enough are left to scare the good Muslims into silence. No doubt the costs would be unfathomably terrible, but how terrible would it be if we were taken over by these jerks?

Honora, I just KNOW you’re kidding, right? I know you can’t possibly be suggesting that our intention in Iraq was to act big, mean and tough! PA-LEASE! Hilarious. We have been pussy-footing around, ever so sensitive, disciplining troopers for showing our flag, putting them at higher risk at every step, threatening court martial for a mistake in judgement, examining and questioning every decision under fire like they were city cops, sparing mosques filled with terrorists and munitions, not shooting back to avoid civilian casualties..all so the world will think we’re “nice”.

We’ve forced our Marines to behave like friendly neighborhood policemen who need to get a permission slip to shoot anybody, fer Chrissakes.

Just for comparison purposes: Dresden

(Caveat: I’m not supporting carpet bombing…I’m just sayin’”

Clinton’s War Against Islamic Terrorism = W.A.I.T.
Bush’s Attacking Terrorist Cells = A.C.T.
My preference is for us to Destroy Extremist Islamists = D.I.E.

honora, you should try building a house. Then you would understand why all of the thinking in the World doesn’t prevent problems from occuring. The latest [and recurring] idea that democrats propose is to replace those in charge of our efforts. That is as silly foolish as replacing a building contractor in the middle of a project.

The President is repeating himself because facts are facts, and those don’t change as do opinions, or rhetoric. We are at war, and must get real. Kill, or be killed are the options terrorists offer us today.

And are pussies, dicks and assholes the only options? I think the only policy that has a chance is one that combines toughness and thoughtfulness. Too much of either renders us ineffective. I get a kick out the bravado posture–we are the biggest, meanest, toughest and we’ll blow up anyone who doesn’t agree with us.

The flaw in your argument is that “toughness” and “thoughtfulness” are mutually exclusive until combined. Maybe you could get a time machine and go back and discuss that with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thucydides, Clausewitz, etc. Maybe then you’ll figure out that toughness is the most thoughtful approach there is.

I get a kick out the bravado posture–we are the biggest, meanest, toughest and we’ll blow up anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Well first, we certainly aren’t proving that point in Iraq

Have we tried to prove that point in Iraq? The answer is a pretty resounding ‘no’, and if anything, we’ve prioritized the prevention of civilian casualties over winning, much to our detriment (and especially to our troops detriment).

Via Fox News: Democrats are blasting President Bush for giving what they call a political prime-time speech on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. In his address Monday from the Oval Office, Bush tied the anniversary……

And are pussies, dicks and assholes the only options? I think the only policy that has a chance is one that combines toughness and thoughtfulness. Too much of either renders us ineffective. I get a kick out the bravado posture–we are the biggest, meanest, toughest and we’ll blow up anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Well first, we certainly aren’t proving that point in Iraq, and second, the idea that it is our best interest to take on 1.2 billion Muslims is insane.

Of course we don’t need affirmation, but the rest of the world does need to be reminded that the Americans still stand for everything that stirs jealousy in pretty much anyone who isn’t an American.

We shouldn’t be pussies about it, but we don’t need to be dicks, either – and certainly not assholes (all hail Trey and Matt).

Given the choice of the 3, I’d prefer to be dicks. But either way, I don’t care how we are perceived, and worrying about such a thing amounts to prioritizing our own vanity over the one thing that matters in this war to the exclusion of all else – winning.

As soon as you put any conditions on winning (e.g., not being a dick about it), you’ve subordinated it to other priorities. I couldn’t possibly care any less about reminding the world of what we stand for or any other fluff.