Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (201515)	9/6/2006 1:07:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"I would agree that many of the insurgents in Iraq DEFINITELY hope that US support for remaining in Iraq will wane” That goes without saying, but is worth repeating. "utterly irresponsible for the Democrats to continue undermining the mission of the US forces in Iraq, by providing psychological "aid and comfort" to our enemies." Perhaps some day these people too can become US Senators. Then after an undistinguished career they can run and fail in running for President. History repeats itself. "I would submit that had this nation remained absolutely steadfast and united about both the overthrow of Saddam, and the will to demand democratic reform in Iraq, this insurgency might have tapered off by now." A declaration of war would have given the President much broader powers than an authorization for the use of force did. Many of these people willing to undermine our country's interests for their perceived short term interests would have been treated differently under a declaration of war. "But the more the liberals attempt to undermine the current US strategy in Iraq, WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE OF THEIR OWN to achieve the goal; it convinces the insurgents that it's only a matter of time before the Americans will tire of Iraq and leave." It is the Vietnam mold being sized for the Middle East. There is an attempt by Democrats and their liberally biased media allies to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Other states like the idea of knocking the US down a few pegs to give us our comeuppance.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (201515)	9/6/2006 2:22:18 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Without wishing to stereotype all opponents to the war in Iraq as traitors (though I would submit we have a few of them out here on this thread), I would agree that many of the insurgents in Iraq DEFINITELY hope that US support for remaining in Iraq will wane and give them the chance they are seeking to make their move and kick up the tempo of the insurgency." You should have thought of this back when you were so gung ho for starting something that the American people would never stand to finish. US support for remaining in Iraq has been steadily waning for 3 years. Re: "Which is why I just find it utterly irresponsible for the Democrats to continue undermining the mission of the US forces in Iraq, by providing psychological "aid and comfort" to our enemies." Do you really think that if the Democrats hadn't made any comments that the American people would continue to follow the administration into this swamp? That a war could be bought and sold like laundry soap? That it's just a matter of getting together around the campfire and singing patriotic songs? It wasn't the Democrats who gave aid and comfort to the other side. It was the idiots who got us into an unwinnable war who made it obvious to all how weak we are. Gosh, think we could scare Iran into not developing nuclear weapons now? It wasn't that long ago that you were crowing over Libya giving up the bomb and saying that the others would knuckle under soon. But with a full scale ongoing demonstration of the ineffectiveness of America's (and Israel's) armed forces at controlling territory you can't suppose that the threat of military force means quite what it did in 2002. Re: "I would submit that had this nation remained absolutely steadfast and united ..." I'm sure that Hitler could not have said it better in that bunker of his back in the spring of 1945. You're operating in dreamland now, a place where beggars ride horses and the peaceful United States has the military instincts of ancient Sparta. Re: "... about both the overthrow of Saddam, ..." Could have done this from 30,000 feet if we'd waited. Or not gotten involved at all and let time play its hand. Instead, you and yours made us get up and make fools and weaklings out of ourselves. It's like watching children put on a play. Re: "... and the will to demand democratic reform in Iraq, ..." Again, wishing for something that we do not have the tools to provide. Re: "... this insurgency might have tapered off by now." What's this? Let me look for the posts back from the summer of 2003. You were quite sure that the situation was like the occupation of Germany and Japan. A few stragglers still putting up a fight. Hope is not a plan. Re: "But no. The Democrats had to sow self-doubt ..." Obviously you've got self-doubt and IEDs confused. Let me set you straight. You and yours never had any self-doubts about this from the very beginning and it didn't do us a damned bit of good. It's not that my only complaint is that your policy sacrificed 3000 US soldiers for nothing. It's that you sacrificed all those lives for less than nothing. Our problems in the war were caused by the enemy, not by the people who, guess what, you never really managed to sell the war to back at the beginning. Let me remind you of something I told you before we went in. When the question came up of would Bilow patriotically support the war after hostilities began, I told you no. That the war was doomed, and the sooner the American public was convinced to get out of it, the better. I told you that it would take years, and that thousands of our soldiers would die. And now you've got the guts to come back and imply that the reason those soldiers died in vain is because the American public wouldn't support your insane foreign policy? I told you that they wouldn't over and over. The same American public who didn't support the wasteful war in Vietnam wasn't going to support a wasteful war in Iraq. I told you that Iraq had borders longer than Vietnam and that their people would be quite hostile to us, and that our country had enemies along those borders. I told you that they would snipe at us and sabotage oil production, and that our allies would abandon us (just like they did in Vietnam) as the cause slowly became more obviously hopeless. And now, after we have been beaten, "fair and square" on the battle field (i.e. by any means possible), you've got the guts to come back here and blame your loss on the civilians at home? No way, dude, blame the loss on the enemy. Or yourself. You wanted this war bad, you got it bad. Re: "... and Vietnam analogies that aren't even relevant and become useful idiots to the enemy's propaganda efforts." Accusing Americans of traitorous behavior is hardly going to win this war. Most of the killing over there appears to be guerillas shooting civilians so I doubt that they care in the least about what goes on in the US opinion polls. During the first year or so of the war the Administration was riding high. The best version of events were being sold to the public on Fox news but it didn't help the fighting. What lost us the war was the actions of the enemy, not the (very predictable) fact that the American public wasn't going to sign up for a steady attrition to our military and an incredible drain on the treasury. Re: "Furthermore, if Dems are willing to undermine US resolve, it makes it pretty damn easy for our "allies" to doubt our resolve." None of these countries had the enthusiasm that the US had for this fiasco. If anything, the infection went the other way. Re: "The more the liberals attempt to undermine the current US strategy in Iraq, WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE OF THEIR OWN ..." You're basically too stupid to hold more than one thought in your head at a time so you were unable to notice that there were alternatives provided. Re: "... to achieve the goal, ..." It was your goal to get us into a bloody war. The only real problem you have is that the American people don't want to fight it. What our goal should be is to interact with the other nations of the world on a business level only so that in the future, when we are no longer the sole superpower we can hope that they treat us as well. But that kind of a goal wasn't good enough for you, you had to rule the world. So sorry, the US just isn't into that kind of game. Re: "... it convinces the insurgents that it's only a matter of time before the Americans will tire of Iraq and leave." Almost everyone is already convinced of this now. The only difference is that some admit it and some don't. Eventually the time will come to pull the plug, probably during the next administration. -- Carl