Bluesman

I'm not CAUSING the division, I'm pointing to it. You don't want to see it, fine. But it was there before my thread, and it's not any of MY doing.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

TopHatter

Everybody playing nice in here...?

S-2

"Okay, so when JFK had a choice to back an ally, he had him shot, instead."

Not quite the way I read it.

Diem's Assassination

Let me guess? You're about to shift this argument to a democratic congress in 1973. Ah well, if you insist...

It seems that your arguments are now dissembling into tactical considerations. Make your case that these fine men (JFK and LBJ), foibles and all, had placed our enemies interests ahead of ours.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Bluesman

You got it wrong AGAIN, smart-guy. I want to withdraw. I just don't want to do it NOW, under fire and DEFEATED. I'd like to leave when we WIN, and I'll trouble you to take notice that that is NOT a pre-condition for ANY Democrat, ANYwhere.

Oh, I'd say that's a given, wouldn't you?

BIG DIFFERENCE: nobody but the Democrats are actually seeking DEFEAT.

No, and if that's all there was to it, FINE; they don't have the key to the lock, either. And that would be okay, BUT they ARE actively looking to lose, and don't you dam' well deny it. If we left RIGHT NOW, as has been explicitly called for by Democrats up and down the party roster, WE LOSE, PERIOD. So knock off the 'Well, we're just as mystified as YOU are about how to win this thang' act, because that's NOT what they're about.

Because Democrats HAVE said such. They have called them all kinds of epithets, and have promulgated lies of their activities. You must be absolutely BLIND if you're going to write that you have not seen hateful, black lies about US troops coming from Democrats, and frankly, I wouldn't believe it if you claim ignorance of it. ANSWER ME: which party believes the military is the savior of the country, and which believes he's a threat to innocent life?

No denial here, and if you want to start a thread about it, you won't see me weighing in with denials of any explicit, documented examples you may cite.

But that isn't what THIS thread is about.

But ALL of 'em involve defeat, whether it be immediate or in slo-mo. NOBODY in the Democratic Party is talking about winning or displaying a will to win or working towards victory, and they never DO. (Lieberman being the exception, and maybe you'll recall that he lost the Democratic primary to a proto-commie candidate, and had to run as an independent.)

It was in wrong-headed pursuit of the national interest, and if you think I'm going to defend any of that, you're wrong. Because I don't need to to make my point. So quit trying to drag this into the 'Yeah, but your guys are no better' territory, because I'm not going to follow you into the tall grass.

We thank you for it, too. But I bet you would be seen as a weirdo in Democratic Party circles, except in the context of helping all us pore simple children that were duped into volunteering, because we were too stupid to get a job at the post office, or we're all inner-city poverty victims.

I accept a well-meant, well-delivered apology. I'll climb down, too, but I still defend my point.

OF COURSE THEY CARE, you idiot. It's the whole POINT of most of what they DO. Oh, they're still going to try to kill us all no matter who lives at 1600 Pensylvania, but for you to claim that they have no interest in the outcome of elections is ignorant in the extreme, and dammit, you BETTER tell me you've re-considered, or you go on permanent 'Ignore' as being too goddam' stupid to continue this or any other discussion with.

HELL YES, they care, and their actions and statements bear this out. I KNOW you know what I'm talking about, which is why I'm VERY frustrated with that absurd statement.

Actually, we almost had 'em to that point. They were telling me every day that they couldn't keep the lads in the harness and pullin'; they WERE ready to pack it in. As soon as a new jihadi arrived from a night border-crossing from Syria or Iran, the first thing they'd do is get his documents, lock him up and guard him, and get him addicted to drugs, if they could. Because when the n00bs took a look around at the reality of 'holy war', they'd scarper off. The process of becoming a suicide bomber starts with taking an on-fire-for-martyrdom kid and making him so hopeless that there really is no way home, and only one way out: drive the bomb to the checkpoint, and Paradise awaits. So YEAH - we almost had 'em there.

But they hung on, because there was the slimmest hope that MAYBE if they could keep bleeding us, MAYBE their story of what an unmitigated disaster it had all become would become the steady drumbeat that it became, and they'd get enough traction to just stay another day, one more election cycle. And BOY, were they ever RIGHT. With the Democrat's willing accomplices in the press leading the way, the narrative became one of IEDs and Abu Ghraib, and it all turned around for 'em. Now, their leaders look like prophets, the Iraqi government looks like losers, and the esprit-de-corps is with the enemy, even though we beat 'em like rented mules every dam' day in the field.

This is what I've been saying that you simply don't get: with the Democrats opposing the President on SIMPLE POLITICAL GROUNDS, the enemy takes heart, our allies lose heart, and we're well on the way to losing just we did in Vietnam, where we never lost a single battle. Well, we've never lost a platoon-sized engagement in Iraq, either, but Harry Ried says we've already lost the war.

I know a pretty fair deal about the subject matter, thanks very much. And this insurgency COULD HAVE BEEN DEFEATED BY NOW, but for the actions of the Democrats, and if you think that's outlandishly improbable, I watched it happen from a 50-yardline seat. (Actually, the bench, even though I tried to get Coach to play me. ANYhoo, I didn't perceive too many Democrats that were on the team.)

Not enough, it would seem. The Democrats refer to this as 'Bush's War', as if a political party or a presidential administration wins wars. NATIONS win wars, and right now, only half of ours shows any interest whatsoever in doing that; the other half is trying to LOSE it.

FAR TOO MUCH, is the correct answer to that question. MoveOn.org, DemocraticUnderground.com, DailyKos.com, and innumerable others are made up of rank-and-file Democrats. The Republicans have some outliers, no doubt, but NONE of them are the subject of this thread: DEMOCRATS that are explicitly anti-American.

It DOES, though. PLEASE try to deny that the Democratic Party owns and cherishes these people as faithful voters. They're the core of Democratic Party politics, and NO, you don't get to ignore that FACT.

Bluesman

Ah. I see. I suppose, then, that everybody in the Cabinet just assumed coups were routinely carried out WITHOUT killing the head-of-state, and that it was a simple miscalculation, nobody could've seen THAT coming, total surprise that a military junta would just...ummm...

Balderdash; support a coup, and you're complicit in the assassination of the deposed leader. Any OTHER outcome would be the surprise.

You know, we hadn't even come to THAT one yet, but you make a good point. For ME.

Alright, then YOU tell ME: WHY do the commies always get the breaks? When a decision is to be made, WHY do these guys always seem to make certain it'll break the wrong way?

Bluesman

Me, too. I've said RIGHT HERE (i'll find it later) that I'm prepared to vote for Hillary if she can convince me that she can win the dam' war.

She can't even convince me she WANTS to. NONE of 'em can.

Bluesman

S-2

"Balderdash; support a coup, and you're complicit in the assassination of the deposed leader. Any OTHER outcome would be the surprise."

If you insist. Would that include Nixon's support for the ouster of Salvador Allende?

"WHY do the commies always get the breaks? When a decision is to be made, WHY do these guys always seem to make certain it'll break the wrong way?"

Uh, we went from about 500 advisors to about 16,000 (JFK) and 550,000 under LBJ. What breaks? Before you get to that democratic congress, perhaps you'll address the Paris Peace Accords. You know, the agreement that left SVN neutered-all by itself.

Bluesman

Too EASY.

Bluesman

You're not really clear on what this thread's about, are you?

Allende was a COMMUNIST, and a de facto enemy of the US, so WHY THE HELL WOULD I NOT BE ALL-TOO-HAPPY TO OWN UP TO IT, even if this thread has NOTHING to do with Republicans?

Since you brought it up, allow ME to point out to YOU that Democrats LOVE to defend Allende, they LOVE to point out that it was Bad Ole America that led to his 'ouster', and that BOTH of those points WORK IN MY FAVOR IN THE CURRENT ARGUMENT.

DANG; any other points you'd care to make for ME?

The BREAKS that stopped us from using those troops to actually WIN. Remember, nothing much effective was done POLICITCALLY with or about Vietnam UNTIL a republican got in there. And as soon as anything was attempted, Democrats did WHAT?, why, they tried as hard as they could to get it STOPPED.

Think about the invasion of Cambodia and Laos. Nixion's idea, and he was vilified for it by...wait for it...the DEMOCRATS.

Think about the bombing of the North. Nixion's idea, and he was vilified for it by...wait for it...the DEMOCRATS.
Paris Peace Accords were what extracted us from Vietnam, a Democratic quagmire that was allowed to go completely off the rails while they held Congressional majorities. It did NOT neuter the Republic of South Vietnam.

Here's your historical timeline:

These are just the rough overview points, and we aren't even dealing with Democrat bombing halts, restrictive RoE, and all the other measures that protected the ENEMY far better than their own defenses could.

DAYUM, who do you think you're dealing with, here? Stop insulting me like this, and pitch your best game.

astralis

bluesman,

that'd be hard to do, seeing as how no one has managed to define "winning", republican or democrat. what's winning, when we have a blossoming democracy in iraq which doesn't pander to sectarian concerns? when the last insurgent falls over dead? when the insurgency is constrained? because as petraeus et al have repeatedly told us, this is not something that can be won militarily. and, as a reminder, the main goal of the iraq war was to remove saddam hussein and remove the threat of WMD proliferation. that has been achieved; as bush so advertised, "mission accomplished". what we're left over now is a bunch of shifting benchmarks in which no one is sure of what victory is.

of the major candidate positions, how many of them are calling for a withdrawal right NOW? even among the ones who are in support of a fixed timetable, withdrawal period ranges from march 2008 to september 2008, and not full withdrawal at that.

and there are strategic considerations to be had in a withdrawal, as discussed in other threads. it's not as if people support withdrawal simply because they just can't wait to humiliate the US one more time.

and again. are the only democrats you ever interact with the ones who go for code pink? i'll not deny that i have met a few of those; but i've met a hell of a lot more that proudly support their country and their armed forces. yours is a false dichotomy...but you refuse to see it for what it is. you seem to have enough trouble, for instance, in believing that even one (sort of) democrat, me, wish nothing but the best for our troops and wish that the war was won yesterday.

well, you already wrote out what i meant by that statement: they are still going to try to kill us all no matter who lives in 1600 Pennsylvania. either way, they will make their propaganda hay.

but seeing a democrat elected to the presidency is not the goal of al-qaeda. their goal, as stated, is to divide us internally, weaken us economically, and then finally ruin us, whereupon their fantasy world-wide caliphate will emerge. they are interested in the elections only to the degree in that it internally divides the american public, to show the world that american democracy is a failure.

then your experience goes against several core principles of what petraeus and the other managers of our current strategy say. namely, that insurgencies are not defeated by military force. that insurgencies take a hell of a long time to crush, even under the best of circumstances.

and i say the insurgency COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED ALMOST ALTOGETHER, but for the actions of the republicans, whom limited troop numbers. i should remind you again that in 2003 and 2004, the republicans could have put more troops into iraq, or for that matter, not disbanded the iraqi army, putting even more insurgents on the street. but the point of this is not for me to start a new round of nasty finger-pointing, but just to demonstrate that the republicans, every bit if not more (as they were in charge) than the democrats, have muddled the war.

i agree. nations win wars. but instead of unifying the country, bush, in his search for political advantage, has divided it. and i absolutely reject the notion that anyone who even speaks of withdrawal is automatically guilty of actively trying to lose the war.

which is why, of course, the democrats nominated kucinch the last time around. or why hillary clinton rejects the notion that she is liberal. and of course, through those people, won stunning victories in traditionally deep-red areas in the last legislative elections. must have been all those hippies and commies suddenly coming out of the woodwork in the american heartland.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

astralis

bluesman,

before we lose track of this whole conversation in the back-and-forth, i would just like to make clear the point of all this.

- not every democrat sees the goals of the party above the goals of the nation.

as a corollary to that,

- not every democrat is pleased to see dead US troops.

- when it comes to bungling the war, i do not believe dems have sole, or even majority, responsibility.

S-2

The thread is about the determined resistance of the democratic party to America's national security interests since 1945.

Bombing the north was Nixon's idea? Really. Are you certain that we didn't go north before then?

Victory? Invading Cambodia. Center of gravity was north of the 17th parallel, not west.

"In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam's throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South."

Sounds honorable to me, eh? Oh, "allowing Vietcong troops...". They're indigenous. How about allowing NVA troops to remain in the south? THOSE ARE lousy terms.

"In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete..."

No different than the Republican party from this perch but, really, I thought that these guys, starting with Truman, acted out of a secret malevolence against the United States, not incompetency.

S-2

I've done my very feeble best to find the actual voting record on the funds cutoff without success. Perhaps you or somebody else can do so. I'm curious to know how many republican fellow-travelers did so and why Gerald Ford didn't veto (as GWB recently did)the vote. More than two-thirds?

At any rate, the "cutoff" was a reduction from $1.5 bil to $700+ mil for fiscal 1975. Never spent en toto because the collapse came in April. Meanwhile, the republican recipe for victory (i.e. "peace with honor") centered on our precipitous withdrawal of forces between 1970-1971. Two years we effectively emptied South Vietnam of all combat forces. In fact, the drawdown began before May, 1970 (Cambodia). Laos? The SVN only, remember?

Nixon's overwhelming mandate in 1968 was to GET OUT. Nothing but. That "smells like victory" to me. Sorta, kinda, I suppose.

S-2

My point, bluntly, is that you've failed to make a case that democrats everywhere are a determined impediment to the interests of the United States. You've reached back as far as 1945/1950 to so. Ineffectively, from my view.

That's been the over-riding gist of your rant/argument. I think it's terribly weak. Anything short of making that case irrevocably is just so much gnashing of teeth.

Know history? You've your slant. That's about it. Your case here is flawed, in extremis, and provocative.

And I'm not even a democrat...