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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (70319)	6/2/2008 10:26:49 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541743

>>Wanting to lose now has got nothing to do with the lives of the troops. It only has to do with gaining political power. Now Iraq is a potential problem for the Dems - when they thought it was an asset. Imagine - an American defeat as an asset!<< Bob - You are criticizing Democrats for thinking something that you have decided they think. I don't think Iraq is going to be a problem for Democrats either way. If the situation there magically transforms itself into a "victory" in the next five months, that will be fine with everybody. And Obama will still kick McCain's butt. - Allen

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (70319)	6/3/2008 1:12:31 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541743

Bob, re: "Wanting to lose now has got nothing to do with the lives of the troops. It only has to do with gaining political power. Now Iraq is a potential problem for the Dems - when they thought it was an asset. Imagine - an American defeat as an asset!" Two points. First, losing the Iraqi war has everything to do with the lives of our troops. If we're losing lives attempting something fruitless then the sooner we stop the silliness, the less lives we'll lose. Second, pointing out that any declarations of impending victory are based on tactical gains that do not portend strategic success and gaining political capital in the process serves two purposes. It educates the public to the fact that our grand strategy is fatally flawed and it helps the Democrats gain the political power necessary to change that strategy. You can demonize those who disagree with you by interpreting the passion with which that argument is presented as indicating a "wanting to lose," but it's a lot more complex than that. The ugly truth is that touting effective tactics in a war that's grounded on a defective strategy is like trying to cure cancer by treating any open lesions and declaring that you're "winning" if the lesions respond to treatment. "We're winning" talk is simply Pollyanna speak while our soldiers are dying and the sooner we stop that talk, look at the grim realities and get out, the better for our nation and for our troops. So sometimes losing is winning in the sense that "losing" quickly is better than the stubborn, bloody losing we did in Vietnam, the French did in Indochina and the Russians did in Afghanistan. A nation that wishes to endure and thrive should have a foreign policy that looks to the long term, not short term "winning" tactics in a strategically flawed war. Ed