Who lost the war in Iraq?
Now that the war in Iraq has been lost, Republicans are preparing for the next war. That is the war to assign blame for the loss on the Democratic Congress and even powerless liberal specks like me.
Astounding, I know. I did not hatch the crackpot plan to invade a country that posed no threat to us. I did not ignore the long history we have regarding occuptions. I did not underman and under equip out troops to prove some new fangled theory about “modern” warefare. I did not staff the reconstruction efforts with Heritage foundation interns. I did not use the entire war as backdrop for a couple photo-ops.
And yet it was liberals like me who lost the war because we did not clap hard enough and Tinker Bell died. Go figure.
Did I miss something? I am checking CNN’s website and I am not seeing it. You would think it would be run in a headline font filling the entire screen. Did we sign the surrender papers? Are out soliders surrendering in droves? Have we waved the white flag, laid down our arms, and turned tail and run? Or is this just more wishful thinking from your warped brain again?
I know you and Harry Reid would love for it to happen….but last time I checked our soliders were still in their fighting.
If we lost, who won?
Actually, there’s more than a grain of truth in the post. Several of our esteemed Democrat federal legislators voted for the war for the reason, at least in my opinion, to get reelected. Democrat or not, my feeling is they have to go.
Chris, if the war is not lost, let us know how we will know when the war is won?
Disbelief is right. As I’ve said before, chastise Bushco. ad nauseum but at least they believe in what they’re doing (in Iraq), and be damned opinion polls. They’re sticking w/their principles, as wrong as they think they are.
The Dems are doing (did) just as Disbelief says. They go with the wind of public opinion and the public is well aware of that. This is why, despite the prodigious missteps of the GOP, that they still have a good chance of retaining the White House in ’08 which, IMO, is astonishing.
That wasn’t a blanket condemnation, Hube. Nor was it a defense of the idiot Bush getting us into the war in the first place. My only opinion is that ALL those who voted for a war on easily seen, false pretenses should be voted out of office. That includes Republicans who voted that way.
I didn’t intend to imply you defended Bush. That was my own point. Sorry about not being clear. And, again, I only “defend” him as sticking to his guns (pun intended), even though — as you — believe it to be totally wrong-headed.
“sticking to one’s guns” and “repeatedly banging head against wall” both describe Bush, but the latter phrase puts more accurate spin on the value of his Don Quixote-like quest.
chris,
I’m just curious in the event we do surrender, who do wend send the papers too?
I think traditional way is for the loser to present his side-arm to the victor. Somehow, a water pistol seems appropriate.
“I’m just curious in the event we do surrender, who do wend send the papers too?”
My point EXACTLY. Thanks donviti. It is nice to sometimes have you on my side. Restores my faith in you.
Many on the left (including many here) are busy declaring the war lost. Lost to whom? Just who exactly is “beating” us in your opinion. There is a HUGE difference between falling short of your goals and “losing” a war. Are we falling short of our goals? Yes, some of them. Things are not going as well as we would like. But we have hardly lost.
It amazes me that the left is more confident of our “loss” than al Jazeera is. Extreme fatalism fueled by political desire.
We won the war (battles, military intervention, blah, blah), and we’re currently “losing” control of the occupation.
There is a difference.
Imagine if Germans, Austrians, and Czechs began killing each other in 1946, and during this time occupying soldiers were targeted and killed as well. If the US govt pulled our military out of Europe because of the violence after the surrender, would that have meant we lost WWII?
Well, we lost half of Germany. Is that your point?
My point is that the war and the occupation are two separate things.
Are you trying to be funny or just dense?
WWII and the Soviet occupation of half of Germany were also two things. Even ‘separate’ things. Perhaps, one might say, even ‘different’ things.
Yes, I agree – they are different things, of course.
But we chose to give the Soviets Berlin, and therefore, Eastern Europe. That was Eisenhower’s decision to do so. Why? Because he didn’t want to have his troops unnecessarily killed due to politics….unlike you-know-who.
thank you
so who do we surrender too?
Iraq has a government do we surrender to them? We already won the war, so why is it called the war in Iraq, we can’t surrender there or anywhere Chrissy.
Nice try but you are way off, as a country we don’t get to decide where we want to wage a war especially against an enemy that has no state…one better especially in a country that never had the terrorist there to begin with.
But alas Chrissy, I don’t expect you to get that, you are caught in an ideological battle that leads you to believe we are better off as a country having our soldiers die in a foreign land instead of defending us at home…
Iraq has a government do we surrender to them? We already won the war, so why is it called the war in Iraq,
That begs the questions:
Why do you want to surrender?
Who is calling it the ‘War in Iraq?’
having our soldiers die in a foreign land instead of defending us at home…
Last time I checked, the military is forbidden from doing combat operations domestically…
See how easy it is for an overfed, under-read douche bags like Ryan to be flippant? They come by it naturally having never served the country (they claim to love) in any capacity.
Everything amounts to so much cartoony talking in Ryan’s world. The real world implications of his wingnuttery never touch him because his hands have never touch real work and his mind never touches on the work of critical thinking.
How can an army “surrender” a war which they already won?
And everyone calls it the “War in Iraq” because the Admin and the defrocked Rethug-controlled congress were allowed to define the message since the end of combat ops, due to the MSM sycophants. They’ve been conflating the two, separate actions.
The last time I checked, the National Guard (and the US Army) can defend us at home, given certain state of events, ie – national emergencies. Donviti made no such argument about “combat” operations.
“See how easy it is for an overfed, under-read douche bags like Ryan to be flippant? They come by it naturally having never served the country (they claim to love) in any capacity.”
I am aware of donviti’s service to this country, but I was unaware they took juvies into the service. In what capacity did you serve? I assume you must have if you felt confident enough to make such a bold statement. I would never accuse someone of not serving their country since I have never had that honor. donviti certainly earned the right to make the statement that you did, but I am not aware that you have that right.
“But alas Chrissy, I don’t expect you to get that, you are caught in an ideological battle that leads you to believe we are better off as a country having our soldiers die in a foreign land instead of defending us at home…”
Ah yes, and you are free of ideology. Must be a great place to live….tell Peter Pan I said hi.
But to discuss your comment in a rational manner. Let me ask you this? Taking Iraq out of the equation for the moment (since we will find no common ground there), are we in a war against radical islamic terrorists?
While I would hope you would answer yes to that question, I confess I am unsure what your response will be.
If your response is “No”, then we might was well end the debate here, since you will be disqualified from rational debate.
If it is indeed “Yes”, then how do you propose we fight this battle? We could hunt down OBL, but he is but a symptom in the war. If he dies, he is martyred and the fight continues on. So just how do we fight this war on terror against, as you put it, “an enemy that has no state”?
Chris, if the war is not lost, let us know how we will know when the war is won?
Still awaiting a responsse.
great britain has terrorists…maybe we should wage war over there
go ahead chrissy, come up with some great story why we had to lie to get into Iraq so we could fight terrorism over there.
Sure we are at war with radicals, but we are also at war with Illegal immigration, we have a war on drugs too
administrations make nice bumber stickers out of everything…
oooh look
a war on global warming
Chris, of course we’re trying to capture, arrest and or kill these so-called jihadists. I’ll agree with you on that. Where we part ways is on how to we accomplish this. Bombs and invading other sovereign nations is not the way to do it. Clandestine ops, law enforcement, and the courts is the way to go.
Now I know this isn’t the Glorious way of combating terrorism, but it works. Every so-called “foiled” terrorist plot has been though these means. The way Bu$hCo is going about the GWOT is dividing the world as an “us and them” paradigm and creating new America-haters by the minute.
If we lead by example (which we’re pretty good at since WWI, but not now) and give the rights to our enemies as we would want for ourselves, then, and only then, if and when we capture or kill Bin Laden, his “martyrdom” effect would be minimal.
The last time I checked, the National Guard (and the US Army) can defend us at home, given certain state of events, ie – national emergencies. Donviti made no such argument about “combat” operations. Fair point, Von Cracker.
See how easy it is for an overfed, under-read douche bags like Ryan to be flippant? They come by it naturally having never served the country (they claim to love) in any capacity.
Everything amounts to so much cartoony talking in Ryan’s world. The real world implications of his wingnuttery never touch him because his hands have never touch real work and his mind never touches on the work of critical thinking.
Relevant examples would be welcome. And I guarantee few things, but one of them is that I am well-read. And if I were opposed to the war, you would applause my ‘never serving.’
[donviti]Why do you want to surrender?
Still waiting on an answer.
Relevant examples would be welcome.
click here. Or just read as you type.
And I guarantee few things, but one of them is that I am well-read.
Harry Potter and Ann Coulter don’t count.
And if I were opposed to the war, you would applause my ‘never serving.’
bullshit.
“Chris, if the war is not lost, let us know how we will know when the war is won?
Still awaiting a responsse.”
I have answered this numerous times in other posts. When we are able to leave Iraq with a stable, effective, democracy, that is able to finish mopping up the remaining terrorist and insurgent issues. It is not really that far off. If you all worked as hard to support the effort as you do to tear it down, we could achieve “victory” in short order. I know you are going to point to the 50 year plan Bush mentioned. But we have American troops in dozens of countries and have for decades. Iraq would be one more.
“Clandestine ops, law enforcement, and the courts is the way to go.”
Oh this is rich. If Bush had ordered clandestine ops instead of the war, you would still be ripping him a new one at the first whisper of “unauthorized” action behind the lines of a sovereign nation. Cambodia ring a bell? And when we DO try to enforce existing laws on the border it is the left that SCREAMS it is inhumane and would should be understanding. As for the courts, you are all for them until they return a result you don’t like, then it is is “activist judges” and demands that Congress overrule the courts.
Spare me the words. I know you like to think that us conservatives are dumb…but sorry to disappoint you. We can see through your ploys.
Chris, this theory of putting troops in as many foreign countries as possible turned the British Empire, in the last half of the nineteenth century, into a third world country through bankruptcy. Didn’t work for them, won’t work for us. You can’t conquer through military means.
Even closer to your point, military conquests and outposts was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq quite some time ago. Alexander the Great found that they simply don’t want anyone there.
who am I surrenderring to Ryan? We set up a government in Iraq and like it or not Iraq now has a government, yet it is still called the Iraq War,
you are trying to change around the point of my question as if getting me to say something about surrendering.
We already won the war in Iraq, we set up a democracy so now we can leave and guess what it isn’t surrender.
I’m not sure what you are getting at, but quite frankly it is making you look foolish.
not as much as Chrissy, but foolish none the less.
this just in…
They found terrorist in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Albania, Spain….
I think in order to win this war we need to invade them too!
heeeehaaaaawwww
donviti, you said:
so who do we surrender too?
Iraq has a government do we surrender to them?
I just wanted to know why we would be surrendering. You brought it up, not me.
I just wanted to know why we would be surrendering. You brought it up, not me.
Clap louder Ry. Maybe you can revive Tinkerbell.
Nope, she’s dead and you killed her, Jase. Way to go.
“Oh this is rich. If Bush had ordered clandestine ops instead of the war, you would still be ripping him a new one at the first whisper of “unauthorized” action behind the lines of a sovereign nation. Cambodia ring a bell?”
Chris: You must be suffering from that dreaded “Pre-9/11 Mentality”!
The terrorists being caught over the last few years, are they walking out of their hiding places, arms raised, in response to a 1-ton bomb being dropped, or law enforcement and Special Forces agents capturing their sorry asses?
Cambodia? Man, you conflate! But I guess that’s all you got….
“Chris: You must be suffering from that dreaded “Pre-9/11 Mentality”!”
You didn’t really answer what was implicitly posed to you. What would your reaction be if instead of Iraq Bush was ordering clandestine ops in soverign nations and word started leaking out. Be honest…would you not still be demanding his head for conducting “illegal” operations?
“Cambodia? Man, you conflate! But I guess that’s all you got….”
Is there something wrong with that reference, or did it just make you realize I was right?
Looking for some intellectual honesty here.
Actually, clandestine ops on bad guys is fine. Clinton was certainly doing it. He had bin Laden in view with drones on a few occasions and was unable to get to him in time. That’s why those drones are now armed.
If we dropped a bomb on a house of a terrorist, only the Republicans that want to accuse a Democrat of “wagging the dog” would complain.
How about some intellectual honesty from you, Chris? Democrats are not anti-security. We are not pro-terrorist. We are pro-American and anti-idiot.
I concur with the Geek. Well said.
Cambodia was an attempt by Nixon to escalate the war, specifically, to use ground troops to attack N. Vietnamese sanctuaries and to eventually flank the North. Maybe Nixon only wanted to enter Cambodia so he could get a military advantage and then get out (I doubt it). But most Americans, as well as other S. Asia countries, China, and the Soviets saw the invasion as growing American imperialism. Either way, most outcomes would have fallen outside the scope of the war.
Now, comparing Cambodia to entering another country to hunt terrorists doesn’t work. If we, with the assistance of the nations involved, use clandestine ops to capture, disrupt, and kill terrorists, I’m wholeheartedly sure the American population would be saying: “Fuck yeah! Jack Bauer!”
It’s what should have been done in the first place.
“He had bin Laden in view with drones on a few occasions and was unable to get to him in time. That’s why those drones are now armed.”
By his own admission, Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter by the Sudanese. And he turned them down. So I am doubting he would have ever pulled the trigger even if the drones were armed.
“How about some intellectual honesty from you, Chris? Democrats are not anti-security.”
Oh really. So just what caused our military strength to go to hell under Clinton? Kept taking military money and putting it in pork barrel crap. So don’t tell me you are not anti-security.
“We are not pro-terrorist.”
I reference Madame Pellosi’s middle eastern trip.
“We are pro-American and anti-idiot.”
And yet you revere Michael Moore. Blows both points out of the water in one BIG GIANT shot.
Pelosi: There were Ruthugs congressmen with her. Take the blinders off. Plus, what about Newt in China?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/05/gingrich_china/index.html
And Michael Moore is more of a Patriot than you can possibly fathom. You just don’t like what he has to say because he shines the light on things which make your DADDIES look bad.
“Oh really. So just what caused our military strength to go to hell under Clinton? Kept taking military money and putting it in pork barrel crap. So don’t tell me you are not anti-security.”
And this is just monkey poo! Where’s the proof for this statement. I know for a fact that even when Clinton’s Penis was in office, our military spending was still more than the world combined, somewhere between $250-$300 billion. Just because the pentagon screams that their not getting enough money doesn’t mean that they’re under funded for the job they need to do. Sounds like a complaint you’d hear from a ballplayer’s wife!
Monkey Poo, indeed.
Chris, do you have any idea what the headline defense story was on September 11, 2001? The papers were printed and delivered before the twin towers were struck. The story was about how Don Rumsfeld was going to shrink the military. A lean, mean fighting machine. So, you don’t get a pass on this. Here’s a link for an August 2001 WSJ article on what Rummy wanted to do.