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

[JAD_333]

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.

There may be many ways, but it takes only one. If the present surge is making headway, continue or increase it until the country is largely secure. Then the motivation for the GOI to vacilate on key decisions will evaporate. Fear, chaos and insecurity are the salient problems, not anti-US sentiment.

...an intelligent withdrawal NEED NOT spell out defeat, nor does it necessarily have to be a result of mistakes we made earlier.

It's is not intelligent to withdraw when it appears the withdrawl is forced.

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).

A partial withdrawl is tantamount to a full withdrawl since it would require changing tactics and objectives. A partial withdrawl or a basing in country
has to be linked to some positive expectations. You cite problems and mistakes, and make assumptions about the psychology of Malaki and the GOI, but you haven't explained how a Congressionally mandated withdrawl makes things better?

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.

Yes, I do echo MacAruthur. I agree with him that there is no substitute for winning. He knew what he was about. He wasn't uttering sentimental nonsense. He understood that if you don't fight to win while you are engaged, you strengthen your enemy and in time he may become too strong to fight at all.

The comparison with General Smith's declaration won't wash. We're talking grand strategy, not field tactics.

[TopHatter]

This thread is definitely one of the best to come out of the WAB. :)

But let's ease up just a tiny bit on the personal attacks...please? ;)

OK, Round 78!

[Bluesman]

This thread is definitely one of the best to come out of the WAB. :)

But let's ease up just a tiny bit on the personal attacks...please? ;)

OK, Round 77!

I'm ANGRY, man. I've had it with the New York Times destroying legal and effective counter-terrorist programs, and Democrats calling the very best people in the world the very worst names I can imagine, and I'm tired of smug, self-righteous punks parading their anti-Americanism around like it'll get 'em laid.

We're going to lose the war. We need not, it could still be won, but it will not be permitted to happen.

When anybody denies the self-evident truth that there is an entire political party that is and for last fifty years has been on the opposite side of their own country, AND THAT PARTY IS ASCENDANT, I get angry about that, too. Because it is simply past debate that the Democrats like our enemies FAR more than they like their own country, and ideologically-speaking, they are closer to what we should fight than what we should defend.

US allies are routinely denounced; US enemies are typically defended.

Let's take this test, and Democrats can't play, because answers have to be honest.

For each country listed, answer 'D' or 'R', depending on which party tends to be friendliest to that country.

Ready? Here we go:

[Bluesman]

Iraq, 1978
Iran, 1978
Iraq, 1991
Iran, 1991
Iraq, 2000
Iran, 2000
Iraq, 2004
Iran, 2004
Iraq, 2007
Iran, 2007

[Bluesman]

Soviet Union, 1972
North Vietnam, 1972
South Vietnam, 1972
East Germany, 1972
West Germany, 1972
Soviet Union, 1982
Vietnam, 1982
East Germany, 1982
West Germany, 1982
Russia, 1992
Vietnam, 1992
Germany, 1992
Russia, 2002
Vietnam, 2002
Germany, 2002

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

Thick? Arrogant ass?

That's not good discourse, plain and simple-and more than a bit rude. Not sure why but, maybe, your manners might improve with a gentle admonition from on high, if not your argument.

No. I don't see your "proof". I've witnessed a rant that fails to cast the democratic party in sixty two years of American blood. No malevolent intent that I see. You simply can't handle a different view.

Don't have to be terribly bright to see that.

[Bluesman]

Not countries, per se, but still eligible for the game:

Medillin Cartel
Cali Cartel
PLO

[chankya]

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.

While I'm happy to just listen in on this debate I just wanted to point ut a few things. What the congressman above suggested is a benevolent oligarchy or a dictatorship. I rather think your founders would disapprove. The notion that any group of individuals "knows better" sound really dangerous territory.

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.

I can't find the post but I believe it was Shek who posted an article stating that in the last election AQ actually wanted Bush to win. Something about a video with jihad interspersed with environmental issues I think! :) I'll try and dig it up.

[Bluesman]

Thick? Arrogant ass?

That's not good discourse, plain and simple-and more than a bit rude. Not sure why but, maybe, your manners might improve with a gentle admonition from on high, if not your argument.

No. I don't see your "proof". I've witnessed a rant that fails to cast the democratic party in sixty two years of American blood. No malevolent intent that I see. You simply can't handle a different view.

Don't have to be terribly bright to see that.

Don't presume to lecture me and tell me what I may or may not or should do with any literature. THAT is what makes you an arrogant ass.

As for being thick, I know you read what I wrote, and it IS proof, so you obviously didn't understand it. And that's what makes you thick.

And your sniffy, snide superiority act is what provoked me in the first place, so you and your high-flown good discourse can bugger off to hell now.

[Bluesman]

Okay, somebody else take a turn, now: name a country and a year for us to consider which political party tended be friendliest to that country, and then we'll go back and determine just which side that country tended to be on (in a general sense), ours, like an ally, or were they an enemy/adversary/rival?

And I bet we'll be able to spot a trend at the end.

If we're not being thick, that is.

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

Sorry Bluesman,

No "proof" to be seen. Searched high and low. Saw an E-8 with high blood-pressure ranting incoherantly, though.

Not the first time, I'm sure.

[S2]

Bluesman Reply

I've looked at this thread real closely. The entire tone of your initial post was provocative-nothing but. It was never intended as anything but a CRUDE debasement of our system and the tons of really fine Americans who'd choose to vote democrat or support the Democratic Party.

It's a rant, Bluesman. Nothing but. Not much substance from your end. Cherry picking your points does nothing for your argument...whatever it really is.

Snide? That's not me with some smarmy title behind each democrat politician that you reference. Tasteless, actually.

Astralis has apologized for his early outburst and since tried to engage JAD, Yellow Fever, and you. What could be an interesting thread (only because of his willingness to engage about goals and objectives for OIF vs. GWOT and the available alternatives) is drowned by your drum-beat of self-righteous loathing for any other POV.

You've a very narrow view of victory. Too bad. There are some interesting alternatives that would meet our national interests just as well as dead-end commitment to Iraq, come hell or high water.

But, in my view, you've completely failed to shape the terms of this possible debate. Instead, you rant and bully. What are America's objectives? What should they be? Are they in concurrence now?

Those are the real issues 'cause, dude, that's what it's about. Not democrats. That's laughable. This republican administration has failed to make a compelling case for continuing OIF and the GWOT under the current terms. Petraeus is engaged in, what many are saying (including him, I think)may be, our last effort. Obviously, I hope he's able to create a change in prevailing conditions.

Frankly, I think that the real battle is whether Ryan Crockett can convince the Iraqi legislature to produce meaningful and fair laws on de-baathification and sharing oil revenues. Without these indicators, it's impossible for me to believe that the Iraqi national government can be successful.

That's the issue of note to me. Not democrats nor republicans.

[YellowFever]

yellowfever,

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

Alot..and I mean a whole pisspot full of the Americans believe Bush did.

And I gotta tell ya, they do so because of the talking heads from the DNC and the lefty media.

There lies the crux of our debate (which seems, to be honest, to be going around in circles). How in the world are we going to present a unified front to the rest of the world (nevermind the AQ..and other terrorists) if one side constanly keep harping that he did?

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.

And there were boatloads of people that advocated the current path we took.
This is what I meant when I said monday Morning quarterbacking.
If things settled down over there the Dems would've been falling all over themselves to proclaim they voted aye to go to war.
All the generals that advocated the current plan would be making the round at the evening news telling themselves how smart they were.
And all the people (the academics, by professionals, and allies, as you put it) that advocated a different view would be no where to be seen.

I personally feel that you're one of the most knowledgable guy in this board but sometimes, bud, you can be a bit dense.

You can't seem to get over the fact that Bush blundered. Ok, I admit, he blundered.
Mistakes were made, we both agree (hell everybody agrees). So can we move on?

I have a hard time understanding your point of view.

You seem to feel we did the right thing invading Iraq but yet you still feel we need to leave before the job is done.

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.

Strategically, isn't Iraq everything about them reacting to US?

They felt totally safe in their little part of the world, and boom Uncle Sam has 150,000 plus troops on the ground right in the middle of it now.
Ok, so they react by setting off IEDs, kill a boatload of civilians, kill a few of us every day, and now it's our turn to react to their reaction.

Hell, let's leave.

Good reaction.

(Addressed to JAD 333)

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.

OP Smith didn't come up with that quote.
It was first quoted by an unknown Marine in France back in WWI.
It became Marine legend by the Korean War and Smith was just quoting a fellow marine.

LoL..sorry for the nick-picking.

Thanks for the conversation, bud and I'll bow out now. Blues and JAD seems to be making our argument far more articulatly than I ever could. :)

[YellowFever]

You've a very narrow view of victory. Too bad. There are some interesting alternatives that would meet our national interests just as well as dead-end commitment to Iraq, come hell or high water.

Ummm..sorry to barge into THIS debate but..what's your definiton to victory in the WOT?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Ummm..sorry to barge into THIS debate but..what's your definiton to victory in the WOT?

I'm very interested to hear S-2's reply, but I would also like to hear yours. I have been trying to figure that out for a long time, and have failed.