Give War a Chance

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 1 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]488866[/snapback]</div>

I know a great many Republicans and I have NEVER heard anybody say this. Who are you hanging around with?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 31 2007, 03:00 AM) [snapback]487896[/snapback]</div>

Right all along? That's true as a pun but far from the literal truth.

Even if things turn out ok in Iraq, the ends don't justify the means. I hope that the country can be a success story but it was never right to invade the country based on a series of lies. Thus, whatever the outcome, it will never make Bush "right." Besides, it is ego and profiteering that persuade him to stick to his guns, not morality and vision.

 

So its September then, eh? Lets hope things work out. Lets hope that violence is at an all time low. Lets hope we know what to do with the country and its people after this 'surge' works. We defeated the military and political enemy once before (4 years ago) but then we failed miserably. A successful surge would get us back to 2003, right after the victory over Saddam. The real test is what happens after, what plans are in place to stabilize the region and how we can leave the country to its people and fledgling government. In my opinion neither the dems nor the cons have offered any plans on how to rebuild sense of a pride and ownership in a global era.

I am holding you to the September report! Make room for a mixed bag of news coming from that one. :blink: ... and still it probably won't sell this war to me as a good thing, which is incidentally beside the point.



Oh and you can stop your baiting. Let the article and its content stand on its own and that you have added to the discussion by sharing it. Trust that those of us worthy of participating in a discussion will understand the article the first time without repeating the same few lines ad nauseam.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 1 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]488866[/snapback]</div>

Clyburn is the third ranking Democrat in the House. I don't know of a single high ranking Republican who has ever said anything of the sort you cite. There are plenty of idiots in both parties, it just that the Dems have them at the top right now.

I have the full 8+ minute video at PoliteTalk, and the context of his statements is lost in the sound-bites we've been hearing.

In context, he is talking about the party's ability to hold together the somewhat-fragile coalitions that have been forged, where any single group such as the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus or the un-organized "blue dog Democrats" could splinter the working majority. He says the "blue dogs" would possibly break away if the report from Gen. Patreaus is positive, robbing the "withdraw no matter what" leadership their working majority. He is careful to qualify the comment later on, without any hint of looking like he knows he said something provocative ... and the journalists don't react to the statement either.

So its not as negative a statement as it first seems. He isn't hoping for defeat, as much as he is committed to withdrawing from Iraq even if it could be a success, even if millions of Iraqis are killed, even if America is humiliated. He sees positive news as a political problem for his party.

But, even with that caveat, it is stunning that the left is gearing up for the "bad news of the good news", first with the NutRoots sliming the reporters ("attack the messenger!") by lying and saying they were "cheerleaders" for the administration. They were no such thing, as mainstream New Yorker journalist George Packer notes in his Blog . Packer is still a critic of what they are saying ... he doubts they are right ... but he is at least responsible and sane, and not a damn liar about Pollack and O'Hanlon:

The hard-left anti-war crowd is against the war no matter what, in a stance they consider "principled", but is at its core childish. Most Americans are against the war if it is lost, or if its a waste of time, money and lives. But they are mostly for the war if it saves lives over the long run. The hard-left knows it can't fight that tide, so defeat in Iraq, or a hasty retreat before victory happens, provides them with sustenance for their "principled" stand.

 

This unfortunately is already the case which the hard-right will never accept. How does one win a war on terrorism? How does one define victory in Iraq? Combining the 2 issues together, how does victory in Iraq solve the terrorist problem?

If Iraq becomes a sustainable country where its citizens live in peace in harmony, what effect will that have on the fundamental hatred terrorists around the world have against the U.S.?

The only thing victory in Iraq leads to is a temporary stable oil supply (maybe).

Also, being against war period is not childish. Understandably, there are times when war might be necessary in order to defend oneself for example (which wasn't the case with this war). But it is the child whose initial reaction is to use force over reason.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 2 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]489196[/snapback]</div>

Except it was not Iraq where the most significant terrorist threats existed. Nor did they have any WMDs (very old news there). Also, it's arrogant to think that everyone in the world wants to live as we do.

Stating that this has nothing to do with oil is naïve imo. If it does not, then why did we choose to invade Iraq over say Darfur, N. Korea, or any other country that imposes a threat to us or its people?

I haven't read your other thread but I will take a look.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RAMbler @ Aug 2 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]489192[/snapback]</div>

You understand your rebuttal is self-nullifying, don't you?

The phrase "there are times when war might be necessary" invalidates what I was talking about, which is the childish notion that all wars are wrong all the time, as some in the very hard left hold. You obviously do not hold that view, as you have agreed with me that sometimes war is necessary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 3 2007, 01:58 AM) [snapback]489818[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I do not agree with you and I do believe war is wrong in all cases. But unfortunately, the rest of the world does not share that view and some will use war against us as a means of attack.

War is based on ego (primarily male) and primitive behaviors. Just because I believe in taking defensive actions to protect ourselves does not mean I agree with war. If nobody agreed with war, then there would never be the need to take defensive actions in the first place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Aug 1 2007, 07:50 PM) [snapback]488964[/snapback]</div>

"The new Arkansas Republican Party Chairman, Dennis Milligan, wants more 9/11-style attacks so Americans can truly appreciate how great of a president George W. Bush really is. Listen to this:

In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001],†Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.â€

Milligan also said in the interview that he is “150%†behind Bush with regard to Iraq. "
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/06/...ating-will-rise

He's not alone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 09:56 AM) [snapback]491190[/snapback]</div>

Hitler started the war (or was one of the driving factors anyway) and YES, I am against that! Thus, any actions by our allies and us thereafter were inherently defensive in nature, not warmongering. The necessity to protect oneself against extermination, death, etc. does not equate to being a proponent of war! Again, if there were no lunatics like Hitler to begin wars, then there would never be the need to take defensive actions in the first place.

Also note that I stated primarily male. I think if you do the math, you will find this to be true. You named 1 woman among thousands of men who have begun wars. Not much of a counter argument there. Even in her case, it was in the name of religion, which historically has served the interests of men (especially back then).

 

Man how quickly they overlook the fact that bush simpely finnished what clinton couldnt.. (that was a victory in its self).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 11:55 AM) [snapback]491261[/snapback]</div>

dbermanmd, I knew this was coming!

IMO, preemption is more akin to taking defensive actions if the threat is certain. If the threat is certain, then theoretically, somebody else has already started the war which circles back to my original points about protecting oneself from certain death or without such lunatics, such measures would be unnecessary.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RAMbler @ Aug 6 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]491258[/snapback]</div>

If Neville Chamberlain had not appeased Hitler WWII would not have happened.
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." Neville Chamberlain 10 Sep 1938 (The war started 11 months later.
Germany had very little in the way of military capability in 1938 and if England and France had stood up to Hitler he would have backed down and stopped trying to take his neighbors. We really should have stopped him when he took the Rheinland March 1936, this gave him the industrial capacity to rebuild his military.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]491357[/snapback]</div>

I'll go with the textbook definition of 100% positive. That should answer questions 1 and 2.

To answer your 3rd question which is likely something as follows: What if one is only 99% assured and does nothing about it b/c it has not met the "certainty" level but then that 1% probable outcome actually occurs?

Well, I still believe in casting out any level of doubt because similarly, what if we did strike using a 99% level of assurance and the 1% chance that it was not a threat occurs and we end up killing thousands of innocent people?

Also, when such a crisis is imminent and not 100% certain, diplomatic measures are still an option (i.e. the Cuban missile crisis). If we had bombed the crap out of Cuba and subsequently Russia when the level of assurance was very high, neither of us would likely be here today having this debate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Essayons @ Aug 6 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]491349[/snapback]</div>

Are you serious about this assertion?

Could you possibly oversimply the geopolitical issues of that era any more than you have?

Let me guess; Iraq is all about WMD's and "getting Osama" isn't it...?

Oh my.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 6 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]491579[/snapback]</div>

Hitler was not nearly as complex as that. The Whermacht had no interest in another war. The army had orders to withdraw if the Brits or the French resisted in the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. Austria was a near thing in 1938 and if several key Army officers in Austria had not assisted in the Anschluss it would not have happened. Now Hitler was emblodened to unite all 'German' peoples in his Reich. Next came the Germans in the Sudetenland. The French and Brits feared another WWI of mass casuality battles. So in order to appease Hitler they gave Sudetenland (a 10 mile zone in Czechoslovakia) to Germany without consulting the Czechoslovakian government. September 1938 the German Army entered the Sudetenland and were shocked that the Czechoslovakian Army was ready for the battle and the defences were very deep and prepaired for war. Well, they did not fight because the Allied powers abandoned them. Hitler now thought that the west was weak and in March 1939 he ordered the annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain and the French leader Édouard Daladier now knew that Hitler could not be trusted and both made pacts with Poland to assist militarily in May and Aug. Hitler didn't belive that they would do anything because they had backed down 4 times already. Needless to say Germany invaded 1 sept 1939 and England and France declared war a few days later.

I understand that the world is not a simple place, but I also understand that a dictator doesn't have to answer to public opinion and his decisions are based on his personal view not a way to get more votes. Did the Muinich Agreement avert war? Did letting Hitler take the 'German' nations help avert another mass slaughter akin to WWI? Did it contain facism?