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

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

you still haven't answered my question to that point. if those ravings whackos were the rank-and-file, explain how the dems beat the republicans like a drum in the legislative elections. explain why most of the dems who were elected in this last batch were NOT san francisco liberals (unless you want to call the likes of jim webb a cowardly anti-american traitor, too). was it the vast left-wing conspiracy tricking all of those simple-minded americans?

my problem with your argument is that you make one big sweeping generalization. as someone who occasionally votes dem, i have nothing but the highest regard for the military, and i put my money where my mouth is on that. i have democratic friends who do, too. but under your generalization, we're no better than the raving-mad hippie who wears the Bushhitler shirt. you just called a bunch of patriotic americans terrorist-enablers. can you not understand why i'm not happy with that?

I give a good goddam' WHAT makes you unhappy, comrade. But you haven't addressed MY point: WHY does that party cuddle up with Sheehan/Moore/Sheen/Oliphant/Churchill/Kos and all the other names you know, as well as a helluva lot you don't, such as the vast, vast, vast majority of the inhabitants of Code Pink, the whacko leftie-blogs, and many others who don't care that you know that they think we military types are just a bunch of murdering thugs? ANSWER ME: if you're anti-military, WHICH PARTY are you likely to vote for? If you are quick to find fault with the US, and reflexively side with ANY enemy that happens to oppose the United States, WHICH PARTY do you vote for? If your political stance on any policy question from cruise missiles in Europe to scrapping ballistic missile defence to backing Israel is EXACTLY THE SAME AS America's adversdaries, WHICH PARTY are you likely to vote for?

You say Ted Kennedy is no traitor, and I say BIG DEAL, it wouldn't matter if he were, because for the past 40 years, he's been a reliable vote for our enemies on any given question put before his Senate seat. He has been absolutely and explicitly anti-American on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE he's ever taken a stand on.

What does Osama want to do about Gitmo? Ted's RIGHT THERE with him, no daylight between the two.

And so are the huge majority of Democrats.

So how do they get their votes?

They BUY 'em.

They STEAL 'em.

They LIE for 'em, and the fact is, negative campaigning WORKS, and the masters of it are the Democrats.

You keep holding Jim Webb up as your pro-military icon, and I'd like to point out he ran one of the most relentlessly negative and dirty campaigns ever seen, and he was elected on the basis not of a pro-military record, but an explicitly anti-Bush rant that passed for a platform. After all the free work done by the media, as well as the horrible failure of Bush's noise machine, I'm not so sure I myself couldn't have taken the seat, if I'd cared to have my morals surgically removed like Webb did.

This is the truth: the Democrats thrive when Republicans stumble and the public has a tantrum, and every single time it turns out to be a goddam' horror show for the country. This Congress has been the worst it's ever been since Sumner caned Brooks in the Chamber. And it'll get a dam' sight WORSE (think about THAT for a moment! ) if a Democratic President is elected, and can't - or won't - hold 'em in.

[Bluesman]

in a corollary to the above-view,

any democrat, no matter how competent, is bad for the country because merely by being a democrat, he is already guilty of hating his country and wishing to destroy the american armed forces.

any republican, no matter how incompetent, is better than a democrat, because merely by having the virtue of having a R by his name, his mistakes were all done in the name of furthering american interests: thus, at worst, his attempts are misguided.

bluesman, is this your view? if not, please clarify. thanks.

The first part is correct; the second part is wrong.

If you're running as a Democrat (Lieberman is the exception, and look what his party thinks of HIM! ), it is pre-supposed that you'd not have made it to a city council seat if you were anything BUT what the party expects you to be.

Are Democrats, by and large, in friendly territory when they meet the VFW or American Legion? No, they're NOT, and they know it, just as any Republican knows he better be on guard at the NAACP convention (although that's WAY easier to square; different debate; stay on-message).

I have to go, but I want an answer, and I earned it, too, because I answered your question.

WHICH PARTY do the 'useful idiots' that Stalin talked about flock to?

[astralis]

bluesman,

ANSWER ME: if you're anti-military, WHICH PARTY are you likely to vote for? If you are quick to find fault with the US, and reflexively side with ANY enemy that happens to oppose the United States, WHICH PARTY do you vote for? If your political stance on any policy question from cruise missiles in Europe to scrapping ballistic missile defence to backing Israel is EXACTLY THE SAME AS America's adversdaries, WHICH PARTY are you likely to vote for?

to be perfectly honest, if one was that extremist, they'd probably vote for the communist party, or the green party; those are the same ones who consider the democratic party sell-outs and bush-lite.

but, to borrow that reaganesque phrase, there you go again. judging the party by the most extremist and lowest common-denominator, akin to judging the republican party by the religious right nutsos and the militia members.

i'll not deny that the democratic party has a larger portion of the nutsos, a sad remnant of its low point in the late 60s and early 70s, but it seems funny to me that your argument is that a democratic party made up of these nutsos can only win its way to power through lying, as if the american people were either stupid or petty or both. the idea that a democratic party might have a good idea or two plainly is not on the horizon.

one side-issue: as for guantanamo, you mean osama would like guantanamo to close, no doubt. like this politician here, who had the temerity to say: "I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with." give you a quick guess to figure out who said THAT.

at the end of the day, though, i figure i can't even get you to consider the idea that somewhere out there, there might be democrats who don't conform to your view of them as communist, america-hating traitors who spit on vets.

it's too bad. you're a good, rational person of character with many years of honorable military experience behind you. you're a credit to this country, and if i were to ever meet you in person, i would be greatly honored to shake your hand and thank you for your service. but if all republicans thought the same way you do on this point (and for that matter, if all dems were like the code pink members you speak of), osama bin ladin must be laughing somewhere out there at how easily he split america by getting half of it to revile the other.

[S2]

Webb, eh?

"...if I'd cared to have my morals surgically removed like Webb did."

That was a real goodun' there, bluesman. Now, don't forget ol' Jack Reed.

Gotta say, though, interesting that Webb and you share one thing in common- young men in Iraq. Though your boy may or may not go (natch, quite likely in CAV), his was there as of January in the Marines.

Don't like Jim's literature, don't read it. Short of that, I don't see his morals particularly impugned. Don't like having a POTUS who's deadweight at mid-term, divorce yourself. Ya shoulda run, but as of Feb, 2006, Allen was a shoo-in. As U.S. senators go, I'm REAL fine with Webb. A real enemy, that one.

Still waiting for that irrefutable proof of malevolent intent by the Democratic Party since 1945...

Hell will freeze first, sir.

Did note that you've made an exception for Joe Lieberman. Good on you. Ready to admit to somewhere between one and three good dems'?

I can see the walls crumbling already...

[ArmchairGeneral]

What does Osama want to do about Gitmo? Ted's RIGHT THERE with him, no daylight between the two.

And so are the huge majority of Democrats.

So how do they get their votes?

They BUY 'em.

They STEAL 'em.

They LIE for 'em, and the fact is, negative campaigning WORKS, and the masters of it are the Democrats.

Okay, so 42% of Americans are traitors. Right.

[S2]

Patton Weighs In

YouTube - Incredible! George S Patton's New Speech-Iraq & modern world

[YellowFever]

yellowfever,



again, if you think those groups make up the bulk of the democratic party, you're mistaken. if that was all the democratic party spouted, it would not have beaten the republicans like a drum in the last legislative elections.

Who said anything about them making up the bulk of the Democratic Party?
I certainly didn't.

But the fact as it stands is that the Democratic "leadership" have infact, used words like "misled us into war" and "Bush lied".

What's so sad is that they use these phrases even today.
How in the heck are we going to go forth with our problems if he keep rehashing the past?

I'll ask you this astralis, straight to the point: Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq or were the information available at the time point to Saddam having WMD's?

(I'll give you the option of not responding to this question. Last thing I want is another rehashing of UN resolutions and timelines..etc)

they're not catch phrases when it's the truth. if we had NOT bungled the war, if it was well-guided, if the strategy wasn't questionable, then we wouldn't be where we are today. this is not blind criticism, especially not when military officers echo my own view. and certainly by accusing dems alone of internal division, there is some element of bias here, no?

Nonewhatsoever.

I never accused the Dems alone of internal division.
I already stated that Bush deserved a whole heapful of the blame himself but one has to be a fool to not recognize that the Dems are compounding the problems further by their rhetoric.

And sure, some military officers echo your views....some echo bluesman's views.

And for the last time, I am not going to respond to sentences like, "...if we had NOT bungled the war, if it was well-guided, if the strategy wasn't questionable..." because quite frankly, astralis, that's just monday morning quarterbacking.

the point is, i'm not necessarily trying to win you over to my point of thinking, i am just trying to show that there is a possibility for one to be democratic and one to be patriotic. a possibility which you seem to have a hard time believing.

Now you're confusing me with blues.
I never said Dems were unpatriotic.
I always stated that Dems themselves believe they are doing the "correct" thing.
I''m not questioning their hearts or loyalty..I'm questioning their actions.

i'm not trying to convert you to the democratic party, especially when i'm not a dem myself.

Glad to hear it. :)

you actually make sense so I know you're not a run-of-the-mill Democrat! (kidding..kidding..I don't want every Dem on this board after my ass..)

The point is, astralis, while the majority of the Dem Party might not be the cooks the likes of Code Red, what is irrefutable is the fact that a large portion of it's so-called leadership pander to them and the like.

Ah hell, whatever.... :)

Bottom line is, astralis, the Iranians, AQ, and other nutbags wants us out of Iraq. So does the Democrats.
That's enough incentive for me to want us to stay there.

[JAD_333]

Splendid debate, fellows. I am going to call bluesman the winner simply because I agree with his basic proposition--that we should go for the WIN.

So, what is a WIN? One of you gentlemen raised that question, and it's a good one. There are so many variables that it might be better to say what a LOSS would be. One example is being forced to leave not because of military necessity, but because of our own domestic politics.

Is there any proposal by the dems that can be construed as a WIN. I don't see one.

Astralis, you seem to represent those whose opposition is based on mistakes made in prosecuting the war and handling the peace. At least in your posts you pile them up as if they were a weight that compells disengagement.

I don't think anyone on the side of winning denies there have been mistakes--lots of them. But what I fail to understand is how the mistakes have taken on more weight than the original objective.

I have read enough military history to know that mistakes are common in war, especially at the outset. But I know of few instances where a nation with the preponderance of power gave up the fight simply because it made military mistakes. It seems to me that unity of purpose allows for mistakes and demands better tactices, not surrender.

It seems to me our unity of purpose has fallen victim to domestic politics. Dems who voted to use military force against Saddam's Iraq have almost all repudiated their vote. From a purely political standpoint it makes perfect sense. With the majority of Americans now against the Iraq war, and the politicians seized with the primal urge for reelection to office, it is classical representative democracy in action.

Venal politics it is. It is the essense of representative democracy. It's not so much that Congress opposes the war as the majority of American do. Congress is just a mirror.

Once I read--I can't recall where--something a member of congress said to the effect that there are times when an elected representative must defy the consensus because he may be in a better position to know the right course for his country. Aside from Senator Lieberman, it's hard to find a single dem who isn't infected by poll results. And now some GOP congressmen are looking to their survival as well.

The war in Iraq is a crucial pivot point for us. If we do not pursue our stated goals there and if we do not present a united front as a people, our threats will in the future be meaningless.

Anyone who thinks that AQ doesn't care who wins the next US elections is kidding themselves. Bush may be able to claim that there have been no new terrorist attacks on home ground since 9/11, but can he credit our vigilence as the reason? It is just as likely that AQ is enforcing an abstinence so as not to overturn the consensus against the war and help give support to Bush's aims.

There is no substitute for winning in Iraq.

[astralis]

yellowfever,

I'll ask you this astralis, straight to the point: Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq or were the information available at the time point to Saddam having WMD's?

i was, and am still, for the iraq war. so no, i obviously do not think bush lied.

because quite frankly, astralis, that's just monday morning quarterbacking.

that it certainly isn't. there were a boatload of people who had very good ideas for what we should have done PRIOR to the war, and they were ignored. there were a boatload of people who had very good ideas for what should have been done when the war was going on, and they were ignored. many of the mistakes that were made had been warned against, by academics, by professionals, and by allies whom had greater experience in counter-insurgency.

Bottom line is, astralis, the Iranians, AQ, and other nutbags wants us out of Iraq. So does the Democrats.
That's enough incentive for me to want us to stay there.

we should not react to our enemy, or their wishes. by god, we make them react to us. the US should do as it sees fit, and being contrarian is a quality of the french, thank you very much.

[astralis]

JAD,

Astralis, you seem to represent those whose opposition is based on mistakes made in prosecuting the war and handling the peace. At least in your posts you pile them up as if they were a weight that compells disengagement.

no, no, and NO. this is where you, bluesman, and yellowfever have got it wrong. there is more than one way to achieve victory. an intelligent withdrawal NEED NOT spell out defeat, nor does it necessarily have to be a result of mistakes we made earlier.

i am not advocating complete withdrawal, nor am i advocating it as a "way to limit the defeat." i am advocating it so that we may make better, more direct use of our armed forces. so that we can prod an iraqi government which leeches off of american support like a welfare-dependent family. i am talking about a mission that would be more sustainable, and allow the US army to do what it is designed to do, and away from what it is NOT designed to do (and what it does not have the numbers for, anyway).

There is no substitute for winning in Iraq.

you echo macarthur, eh. i'll give you another general from the same war where that macarthur quote came from.

"Retreat, hell! We're just attacking in another direction!" - General O.P. Smith.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,



to be perfectly honest, if one was that extremist, they'd probably vote for the communist party, or the green party; those are the same ones who consider the democratic party sell-outs and bush-lite.

You're not getting out of it that easliy, because the Democratic leadership cuddle up to 'em and ECHO them. Is Tom Hayden a Democrat? Yes, he IS, and he's welcome in their caucus.

Is their last presidential nominee an absolute disgrace to his former uniform, and has he accused his former comrades-in-arms of atrocities that cannot be backed up by fact? He is, and he has. Ask yourself how ludicrous this proposition is: John Kerry returns from his VERY brief square-fillin' stay in Vietnam and testifies to a pack of lies that smear EVERY SINGLE PERSON that served in the war as a criminal, and then he's elected to be the junior Republican senator from Texas.

NOT GONNA HAPPEN, EVER, because he'd be shown the door right quick, and his ONLY ideological home is the Democratic Party, or as Cuba's Propaganda Minister.

but, to borrow that reaganesque phrase, there you go again. judging the party by the most extremist and lowest common-denominator, akin to judging the republican party by the religious right nutsos and the militia members.

Are they invited to front-row seats at the convention? Does the leadership kiss their feet? Do ANY of the fringe kooks get star billing, OR...are they shoved out to the parking lot as fast as a liberal can run from a fight the issue of which is vital to US national security?

THE LATTER.

Don't give that crap again; the Democrats OWN 'em, they LOVE 'em, they LISTEN to 'em, and there is no corollary on the Republican side, but even if there were, it doesn't bear on the point: this IS what the Democrats are. LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY, LOOK AT WHAT THEY DO.

i'll not deny that the democratic party has a larger portion of the nutsos, a sad remnant of its low point in the late 60s and early 70s, but it seems funny to me that your argument is that a democratic party made up of these nutsos can only win its way to power through lying, as if the american people were either stupid or petty or both.

Oh, no, not JUST lying; through pork, preferences, perqs and a whole range of methods that would make a Moscow party boss blush with embarrassment.

the idea that a democratic party might have a good idea or two plainly is not on the horizon.

Because of the philosophy that knits that motley crew together is suspect from the very start, ANY idea they may have starts with two strikes against it. Their worldview and intentions are to be treated as coming from an enemy, and I want my party to fight 'em with both fists, and never give an inch, unless the gain is actually worth the trade.

one side-issue: as for guantanamo, you mean osama would like guantanamo to close, no doubt. like this politician here, who had the temerity to say: "I'd like to end Guantanamo. I'd like it to be over with." give you a quick guess to figure out who said THAT.

Knock it off, Trebek, because maybe you'd like to find a few quotes that Lincoln was living for the day the Civil War was going to end, too, and YET, he kept it going, for the good of us all. (And against the Democrats that wanted to end it, having lost it and destroying the Union in the process, might I mention.)

No, I happen to be referring to the DEMOCRATS that happen to be in favor of a Terrorist Bill of Rights, and against the Patriot Act ('We killed it', quoth Senator Harry Reid, to the voluble cheers of his fellow-travelling Democrats), and who coincidentally just destroyed a VERY sensible bill that would've protected Americans from being sued when they speak up with their observations of their suspicions, ala the Flying Imams.

at the end of the day, though, i figure i can't even get you to consider the idea that somewhere out there, there might be democrats who don't conform to your view of them as communist, america-hating traitors who spit on vets.

Oh, I actually know a few. My wife's grandfather, 86, WWII Marine vet, FDR sycophant, and a product of the Democrat Brooklyn-Italian-vote-producing political machine. HE is a patriot, no doubt. Stubborn, too, and absolutely blind to the fact that the Democratic Party believes in absolutely NOTHING that he does. But he's a reliable vote.

it's too bad. you're a good, rational person of character with many years of honorable military experience behind you. you're a credit to this country, and if i were to ever meet you in person, i would be greatly honored to shake your hand and thank you for your service.

I take the above kindly, and I thank you. I meant what I said about your work with veterans, too. THIS is common ground with us, surely.

On the other question, it's daggers drawn, mate.

but if all republicans thought the same way you do on this point (and for that matter, if all dems were like the code pink members you speak of), osama bin ladin must be laughing somewhere out there at how easily he split america by getting half of it to revile the other.

I'm an observer of circumstances, not their cause. I revile a Democrat for what he is, what he does, and his goddamned party's anti-Americanism, and I know contempt when I've seen it displayed towards me personally, and I return it in kind.

[Bluesman]

JAD,



no, no, and NO. this is where you, bluesman, and yellowfever have got it wrong. there is more than one way to achieve victory. an intelligent withdrawal NEED NOT spell out defeat, nor does it necessarily have to be a result of mistakes we made earlier.

We 're-deploy', and it's OVER, man. Spin it anyway you want, but what's the lead on al Jazz, the Beeb, and MSMBC?

[Bluesman]

Okay, so 42% of Americans are traitors. Right.

Of course not, don't be absurd.

[Bluesman]

But 42% of Americans VOTED for traitors.

[Bluesman]

"...if I'd cared to have my morals surgically removed like Webb did."

That was a real goodun' there, bluesman. Now, don't forget ol' Jack Reed.

How could I? I mean, I TRY...

Gotta say, though, interesting that Webb and you share one thing in common- young men in Iraq. Though your boy may or may not go (natch, quite likely in CAV), his was there as of January in the Marines.

I'm aware of it, as is anyone who ever heard Webb on his grotty little campaign. I'm grateful to his son. So was the President, even though Webb treated him with immense disrespect, conduct WELL below what should be demanded of a Senator. Ah, but didn't it play well with the Democrats, eh? Webb became an overnight hero, instead of a suspect Reagan stoogehe'd remained until then.

Don't like Jim's literature, don't read it.

I don't, and I don't, and don't you believe you're in any authority over me to dismiss me like that, you arrogant ass.

Short of that, I don't see his morals particularly impugned.

Then you're not up on your current events. Webb has handled himself with all the class of a Mafia leg-breaker.

Don't like having a POTUS who's deadweight at mid-term, divorce yourself.

With ya all the way on THAT one; I didn't vote for Dubya's daddy for re-election, because he was a great disappointment, and I figured that no matter what the Democrats managed to fumble in their four years, if it came to that, they couldn't screw us too badly while we were in Deep Peace.

I can admit now that I was WRONG.

But with Dubya's re-election, it was a LOT different, and I can only believe that we'd be flat on our backs as a country by now if President Kerry was leading us over the cliff.

Ya shoulda run, but as of Feb, 2006, Allen was a shoo-in. As U.S. senators go, I'm REAL fine with Webb. A real enemy, that one.

Well, HE certainly classes himself as an enemy of the President. And the only man left in the country that believes we should, you know, actually seek VICTORY in war IS the President. So, logically...

Still waiting for that irrefutable proof of malevolent intent by the Democratic Party since 1945...

It's been given. You're just thick, that's all.

Hell will freeze first, sir.

Tell your buddy to dress warm when you see him, then.

Did note that you've made an exception for Joe Lieberman. Good on you. Ready to admit to somewhere between one and three good dems'?

Sure. However, I remain convinced that as a Party, on the aggregate, they may as well be Hezbollah.

I can see the walls crumbling already...[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about my argument, well, note that I'm still here, giving as good as any of you that won't face it can handle.