Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

**JAD_333** · 25 Aug 08,, 03:48

Originally Posted by astralis

..you know, i see a major point that would argue against the idea that democrats are inflexibly unpatriotic. consider this: in the 1950s and 1960s, the democratic party was so afraid of being tarred as communists that they often tried to veer to the right of the republicans in national security- see kennedy's ill-considered Bay of Pigs intervention and LBJ pushing the vietnam war.

We might see history a little differently. Kennedy inherited the Bay of Bigs from Ike. He allowed it to go forward and then refused to send in air support when it was needed. Those are just the bare facts.

In 1965, when US casualties in Vietnam were just 400 of the 50K+ that would eventually come about, LBJ stated gave two main reasons for US to be in Vietnam: 1) was to come to the rescue of an ally, S. Vietnam, which was being invaded by N. Vietnam and 2)to stop the advancement of communism in the region--the domino theory.

Yes, LBJ's aides were worried that he would appear soft on communism if he didn't act in Vietnam, but that was in 1964 prior to the dem convention. At the convention he clearly stated that "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

The History Place - Vietnam War 1961-1964

While we are on the subject, the LBJ administration had almost total support of the Republicans in Congress. In fact, LBJ's major critics were Sen Wayne Morse and later Sen. Robert Kennedy, both dems. An effort to rescind the Gulf of Tonkin resolution failed by a 95-5 vote in the Senate with GOP help.

Now 40 years later what is different? The dems oppose and work openly to end the war in Iraq. Why? It looks suspiciously to me like they do not want a Republican administration to succeed where they failed and by working to encumber it with roadblocks (milestones) they hope to discredit it sufficiently to ensure their own victory at the polls.

then, skipping to the 90s, bill clinton's third way/DLC tried to forge a new party that was definitely more open to use of military power, to the point where american commitments overseas proved to be more than what most americans wanted (somalia). same with after 9-11 and the aftermath of the iraq invasion, as democrats fell over themselves to proclaim how glad they were saddam was eliminated. the nomination of kerry over dean comes to mind. my main concern with the Democratic Party is its vulnerability to be influenced EITHER WAY by how the popular vote goes. when the iraq war was popular in 2003, they were all for it; then by 2008 they're uniformly against it.

Good synopsis. Granted the dems didn't initially cause public opinion to go against the war, but when their support of the Administration could have helped mitigate it, they instead stoked it by getting out ahead of it. Blue's is almost certainly right that their motivation was winning elections.

i think you hit the nail dead on here: the democratic party of today seeks to leverage a highly unpopular war to win the election. however, it still believes that its actions are not only electorally popular but also the right thing to do by america (however wrong that is).

one particularly good illustration of this is a point that obama makes which really infuriates mccain: the claim that even if the US did not surge, iraq would still be better off today. obama seems to believe it, but mccain must either think obama is crazy or out and out lying

Facts speak louder than words.

EDIT: i think the crux of the argument here is exactly how deluded the democrats are. bluesman doesn't believe they could possibly be that deluded, we think perhaps otherwise

[/QUOTE]

Could have fooled me.

)

**Bluesman** · 29 Aug 08,, 19:06

[QUOTE=JAD_333;536414]I expected you to hand me my head, but I am happy to see a thoughtful response.

No, and listen, because I mean this: I don't mind if somebody disagrees with me. It takes OTHER stimuli to get me goin'. You'll know it when you find one.

Except for WWII and WWI.

That's why I only took it as far back as the '50s.

But I take my example of what a determined opposition can do back more than 100 years ago to the Civil War. When the war seemed never-ending, opposition in the Senate came close to forcing Lincoln to accept a peace "in place" with the Confederacy. And the more extreme Copperheads actively sought secret contact with the south.

Would it surprise you to know that national-level Democrats, both elected and appointed, have been secretly dealing with Hugo Chavez, secretly and in direct contravention to American law? So, it's a grand old tradition of the Democratic Party to support enemies and undermine their own government, from their earliest days until present.

Doesn't surprise me in the least that it's going on. I expect that there are Democrats peppered throughout the government in sensitive positions that are, right now, double-dealing with our enemies. I specify 'Democrats', because although there MAY be Republicans doing something similar, you know dam' well that that there ARE Dems committing treason against their country, because there has been an unbroken stream of out-and-out traitors in that party since Copperhead days. The Democratic Party is the ideological home of anti-Americanism. It's what this entire thread has been about, and is the entire basis for my loathing of the party as a whole.

Gen George McLellan, the Wesley Clark of the day,

That is CLASSIC, man. Absolutely true and a devastating hit on the archetype of Hackworth's 'Perfumed Prince' of a soldier.

even ran for president against Lincoln. Fortunately, Sherman's success turned public opinion around in the nick of time. Where would we be today if the opposition had prevailed?

And that's been my point that I've been hammering on from the start: 'SAVE YOUR COUNTRY: DEFEAT THE DEMOCRAT'. It was true then, it's true NOW, and in each of the intervening years, it's been true. Democrats are DANGEROUS, even the 'good' ones, because the philosophy that they operate on is dangerously flawed, and leads to diminished American rights, both individually and corporately.

I truncated the rest of your post into the preceding because it captures the essense of what you are saying. I see it like you do, but I come at it differently.

First of all, I recognize that what we don't like about the dems comes out the contrasts between their position and ours. Therefore, our critique of the dems' positions can only come from a defense of our own.

While the dems lamented the war's mistakes and cost in lives, money, prestige abroad, and divisiveness at home, their mistake was to forget that the war had everything to do with US national security.

One could regard dem opposition as the expression of doubts about the war churning in America's collective conscience. Surely, you and I had doubts back in the beginning. Sorting them out is part of coming to a conclusion.

It's not just the war, but my GAWD, what a terrific example of what I'm talking about. Have you EVER known of such a disgusting set of words and deeds? Not even Britain and France behaved as disgracefully in the face of pre-war Nazi and Fascist affronts as the Democratic Party has since 9/11. If I were King of the United States, I'd issue hunting licenses for 'em: NO BAG LIMIT.

What the dems did is somewhat hypocritical since many of them supported the Iraq resolution and didn't jump ship until things started to go badly. They knew or should have known that our geopolitical strategy went well beyond WMD. I think too many of them got run over by public opinion and rushed to save themselves instead of the situation.

The larger political picture isn't that far out of whack. The dems are liberals and we are conservatives; our inclination is to put first what the dems put second. The more radical members of each side are the most intractable. They don't grasp the simple fact that the natural dynamics between liberal and conservative is healthy because it prevents excesses--not all the time unfortunately, but usually. Most excesses that occur when either side is ineffectual in gaining compromise, are corrected when the political balance shifts.

Iraq will not be a pretty moment for the dems when history is written. but I am sure republicans will have, have had their not so pretty moments, although I can't find one worse.

)

I really cannot express how ANGRY I am at the entire party for their behavior. I am absolutely revolted, repulsed and disgusted by what they believe, and I loathe them utterly. I'd rather my son be a piano player in a whorehouse than be a Democrat. I'd rather my daughters work there than become Democrats. And if my most beloved wife ever voted Democrat, I'd move out of the house until she signed a recall petition to reverse that vote. If somebody tells me they're a Democrat, or if I see an 'Obama' sticker on a car, or a sign in a yard, I'm automatically and viscerally repelled. I'd sooner shake hands with a drug dealer (although you know he'd be a Democrat, too).

**JAD_333** · 30 Aug 08,, 11:09

Originally Posted by Bluesman

No, and listen, because I mean this: I don't mind if somebody disagrees with me. It takes OTHER stimuli to get me goin'. You'll know it when you find one.

Whatever stimulated you in this post had me cracked up on the floor...but let's get serious...what about this Chavez stuff...we do have an embassy in his baliwick. What gives? Source?

Would it surprise you to know that national-level Democrats, both elected and appointed, have been secretly dealing with Hugo Chavez, secretly and in direct contravention to American law? So, it's a grand old tradition of the Democratic Party to support enemies and undermine their own government, from their earliest days until present.

Oh, and what kind of dealing?

And that's been my point that I've been hammering on from the start: 'SAVE YOUR COUNTRY: DEFEAT THE DEMOCRAT'. It was true then, it's true NOW, and in each of the intervening years, it's been true. Democrats are DANGEROUS, even the 'good' ones, because the philosophy that they operate on is dangerously flawed, and leads to diminished American rights, both individually and corporately.

It's not just the war, but my GAWD, what a terrific example of what I'm talking about. Have you EVER known of such a disgusting set of words and deeds? Not even Britain and France behaved as disgracefully in the face of pre-war Nazi and Fascist affronts as the Democratic Party has since 9/11. If I were King of the United States, I'd issue hunting licenses for 'em: NO BAG LIMIT.

I really cannot express how ANGRY I am at the entire party for their behavior. I am absolutely revolted, repulsed and disgusted by what they believe, and I loathe them utterly. I'd rather my son be a piano player in a whorehouse than be a Democrat. I'd rather my daughters work there than become Democrats. And if my most beloved wife ever voted Democrat, I'd move out of the house until she signed a recall petition to reverse that vote. If somebody tells me they're a Democrat, or if I see an 'Obama' sticker on a car, or a sign in a yard, I'm automatically and viscerally repelled. I'd sooner shake hands with a drug dealer (although you know he'd be a Democrat, too).

I'm getting the idea. Maybe you need to put a littlle more passion into it; maybe a couple of bursts from a AK-47 for emphasis. Hey, after you've done the dems, I always feel wrung out. I agree with the substance, but just can't bring myself to hate the downtrodden. You ever read about the Apache indians; if you gave them a gift they thought you were weak. I don't need to tell you what that means.

Think unconditional talks.