Defeat and retreat
A succinct summing up of the disconnect between the Democrats and the current situation in Iraq.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
A succinct summing up of the disconnect between the Democrats and the current situation in Iraq.
Just to be complete, Pelosi should propose surrendering to the Confederacy after that awful bloodletting at Gettysburg.
In other words, the facts on the ground should matter to the Dems, but for now, they don’t.
Traitors are not very interested in their enemies winning. Traitors put their very heads on the chopping block. Certainly they are more concerned about whether they will win or lose. The fact that they are losing and their enemies winning, is not often a subject for introspection amongst traitors. Even if they are staring death in the face.
The Soviet Union themselves faced the final truth in Afghanistan and Berlin. It shattered them. America faced the truth of extinction in Vietnam, the extinction of national will and fire. Yet America is still strong and she has been given another chance. Another chance to erase those that once defeated her. The Soviets never got that chance, or perhaps this is their chance right now.
I think part of this is that the liberals are trying to, in their view, save America. In their worldview, victimhood is the only source of virtue. Success is a sign of evil. By trying to bring about defeat in Iraq they are trying to make America a victim and thereby virtuous. Whereas victory would be proof that we are irredeemable.
Whatever the final result in Iraq, the terrible decisions, fraught with misrepresentations and bloated, self-congratulatory misdeeds, have failed to convince this nation of this war’s legitimacy. Its wounds will take a generation to heal and there will be many sacrifices before its done.
This the voters in the upcoming election should remember. There is a majority now and it’s not silent. It repsents a sound renunciation of the current direction of this country. It will be heard.
Whatever the final result in Iraq, the terrible decisions, fraught with misrepresentations and bloated, self-congratulatory misdeeds, have failed to convince this nation of this war’s legitimacy.
As if people like you in this nation would even recognize honest means.
Jimmy:
I urge you to really read and understand this comment by Richard Fernandez (Wretchard) at his magnificent blog “The Belmont Club (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/):
“It’s the nature of fighting dictatorships that it takes a long time. It took 14 years to bring down Marcos. The junta in Burma looks to be far from finished. And would Saddam have fallen without OIF? Chances are he’d still be in power, throwing people into wood chippers.
It’s a hard job fighting secret police organizations, rigged elections, bought media. And years of living on the run takes its toll. Every time you sleep, some part of you is subconsciously listening for car pulling up; the sound of footsteps running up the stairs; feeling for the Smith and Wesson by your head.
Ask anyone who’s lived the life what he remembers most about getting to the USA. It’s the first night’s sleep. It’s an unimaginable feeling. And the next morning, to see the sun stream through the window. To hear the hiss of steam heating. To hear the sound of people yelling in yard. And not be afraid.
And if you stay long enough on one of the trips to the post office you’ll look up and the force of it will break your heart. Up above, flying in a way that those who take it for granted rarely see it is the flag; and the flag; and the flag.”
The comment comes in response to a thread about the situation in Venezuela, where students have begun to become disenchanted with Hugo Chavez. I wonder if you have the foggiest notion what real repression is like?
The comment comes in response to a thread about the situation in Venezuela, where students have begun to become disenchanted with Hugo Chavez. I wonder if you have the foggiest notion what real repression is like?
Incredible! We waged a war in Iraq so the 4000 or so Iraqi refugees we’ve allowed into this country could wake up to sunshine, bacon and eggs, and the smell of coffee! As for the rest of them…eh, well give us time. We’re working on “democracy by warlord” and that takes a while.
Hey, Stumbley, why don’t you ask some of our vets what it feels like to get up in the morning after a long night of having nightmares about what they’ve seen/done in Iraq?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jITKTba2i-fNsbrfV2BBwpza5NKQD8ST121G0
I suppose you’d tell them just to gaze upon the glorious stars and stripes and be healed, eh?
X, you are a sad human, indeed. Iraqis sure were better off before, eh?
War is hell. Tyrannical peace can sometimes be worse…but again, if you’ve never lived it, X, what would you know? Let those wogs fight it out amongst themselves, right?
X, you are a sad human, indeed. Iraqis sure were better off before, eh?
War is hell. Tyrannical peace can sometimes be worse…but again, if you’ve never lived it, X, what would you know? Let those wogs fight it out amongst themselves, right?
Well, since many Iraqis also happen to think they were better off before the war, than I suppose that makes them “sad humans” like me. Though perhaps in a literal sense, which wasn’t what you meant of course.
And spare me the moral outrage. I know it was a few years back, but try to remember why we actually went to war. You know, that whole WMD thing? You know, the WMDs we actually didn’t find? All that humanitarian blather only became relevant once we couldn’t find the WMDs, and then only to the extent as an ass-covering exercise by war hawks who can’t bear to be criticized for being utterly wrong about something. I pretty much just ignore lectures from those who think “humanitarianism” means dropping a few thousand bombs and missiles and people and just seeing how things shake out.
“War is hell”; for you that sums up the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, who are so clearly better off for being dead in an civil war than living under tyranny that it’s quite obvious to you that things are better now than they were under a “tyrannical peace.” Any minute now Ymarskar will trot along and lecture you about the value of human life over principle. Oh, or not.
“I know it was a few years back, but try to remember why we actually went to war. You know, that whole WMD thing? You know, the WMDs we actually didn’t find?”
The sad part, X, is that you are stuck in this idiotic MoveOn trope, that has been debunked here, there, and everywhere. If you can’t remember 17 UN resolutions, a “regime change” resolution by Clinton and his Congress, then you are indeed a sad–nay, ignorant–human, intent only on perpetrating a discredited and trite meme. You are not worth arguing with, since facts do not seem to take root in the sludge of your “mind”.
Hang in there, Xanth. The Neos will only be happy if they can lump you in with all the other evil Lefties (a la Moveon). They won’t deal with your ideas, because there is no defense of this policy and they don’t understand a perspective that is not Americentric. If we’d never attacked Saddam and instead put our resources into defeating the forces that created 9/11, this country would still have international support and many thousands of Iraquis and U.S. soldiers might still be with us.
Oh, but I guess I’m just a sad human.
They won’t deal with your ideas, because there is no defense of this policy
X’s ideas have been dealt with indepth by me and others. The idea that there is no defense to policies that you disagree with is an idea that has already been covered and eviscerated.
this country would still have international support
See. What did I tell people about that international law thing. It is only excuse for the use of violence in the Left’s view, for the Left has no real experience with violence except dishing out emotional violence. They need, thus, emotional support to attack others, even others like Osama Bin Laden.
This simply verifies the point. It is fine to talk about theory and theoreticals, but nothing beats facing the truth from multiple members of the Left right here, right now. Such people are real, not just words on paper lambasting Leftist ideology.
Incredible! We waged a war in Iraq so the 4000 or so Iraqi refugees we’ve allowed into this country could wake up to sunshine, bacon and eggs, and the smell of coffee!-X
Stumbley, fake liberals don’t pock or a fauk about human progress and the protection of the weak. So I don’t see the use in trying to nudge their consciences, Stumbley. They don’t have any, not in the form that we know of at least.
It is a simple philosophical difference that makes every difference.
Hey, Stumbley, why don’t you ask some of our vets what it feels like to get up in the morning after a long night of having nightmares about what they’ve seen/done in Iraq?
X assumes that you get nightmares from serving in Iraq. As opposed to honor, glory, and pride. Those things aren’t achieved in war, after all. At least, that is what the Left assumes.
Iraqis sure were better off before, eh?
Like I said, X doesn’t give a damn about the Iraqis. Or the Venezuellas. Or Americans, even. He values the Constitution, which translates as he values himself.
Well, since many Iraqis also happen to think they were better off before the war, than I suppose that makes them “sad humans” like me.
Just like X speaks for Americans when he says the Constitution is more important than the lives that Americans have, so does X seek to speak for the Iraqis. X is one large platform of cultures and nations, dontcha know S.
“War is hell”; for you that sums up the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis-X
You don’t know jack about war tactics, strategy, and logics either, X. So what are you spamming about “war is hell”. You have no conception of what that means, except in relation to Leftist ideology.
Any minute now Ymarskar will trot along and lecture you about the value of human life over principle.-X
You don’t have the requisite philosophical understanding to predict what I will or will not do in terms of arguments, X. So why are you even trying? Is your own position not strong enough?
If you can’t remember 17 UN resolutions, a “regime change” resolution by Clinton and his Congress, then you are indeed a sad–nay, ignorant–human, intent only on perpetrating a discredited and trite meme. You are not worth arguing with, since facts do not seem to take root in the sludge of your “mind”.
Stumbley, are you a lawyer? Your argument is the hallmark of great lawyering, where you pick and choose from the facts and law at hand to make an argument that, when viewed by someone with common sense, makes NO sense. We didn’t go to war because of a Clinton resolution, or because of UN resolution (remember the last one we didn’t get from the UN?) You forget that all of those things were aimed at controlling the WMDs-and yes-removing Saddam from power. But NONE of them involved us invading to do either of those things, a tiny, inconvenient fact of history that you gloss over. That impetus didn’t come about until we were struck on 9/11, and until Bush and his administration convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam had deadly WMDs (smoking gun…mushroom cloud…sound familiar?) and that he was preparing to use them on us.
And anyway, your whole defense hardly even alludes to the supposed humanitarian cause that you trumpet even now, and argument which ALSO became handy after the WMDs were not found. So really, your response missed the point.
Whatever your arguments for staying in Iraq are, you must acknowledge that 1) we did NOT go to war for humanitarian reasons and 2) we went to war premised on the threat of WMDs that never existed.
If you cannot admit to these basic facts, then you cannot expect to make a reasonable argument for why we should stay in the country.
Stumbley, fake liberals don’t pock or a fauk about human progress and the protection of the weak. So I don’t see the use in trying to nudge their consciences, Stumbley. They don’t have any, not in the form that we know of at least.
It amuses me that compared to someone who, in response to the death’s of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis says “war is hell” I’M the one who has no conscience.
X assumes that you get nightmares from serving in Iraq. As opposed to honor, glory, and pride. Those things aren’t achieved in war, after all. At least, that is what the Left assumes.
No. Pay more attention. I am merely analogizing to the Iraqis who are not so happy about being “liberated”; as there are Iraqis who are happy to be free of Saddam, so are there Iraq war vets who are proud to have served and are healthy and happy. Of course, there are also nearly 4,000 dead soldiers, who we cannot be polled about their feelings about the war.
He values the Constitution, which translates as he values himself.
Since your side has already concluded that I’d be willing to let terrorists blow me (and others) up in defense of the Constitution, I’m not sure how that statement makes any sense.
Just like X speaks for Americans when he says the Constitution is more important than the lives that Americans have, so does X seek to speak for the Iraqis. X is one large platform of cultures and nations, dontcha know S.
Sorry, but it’s not liberals that have trouble understanding the nuances of Iraqi culture. It’s the right who thinks that empowering various Sunni tribal chieftains and warlords is the equivalent to democracy.
You don’t know jack about war tactics, strategy, and logics either, X. So what are you spamming about “war is hell”. You have no conception of what that means, except in relation to Leftist ideology.
Since we’ve never had a discussion of war tactics or strategy (only politics) I’m not sure how you would know that. But you don’t have to be a Napoleon to understand that war kills people, and you don’t have to be Thucydides to understand that in the past, many, many wars have been waged that were completely unnecessary.
You don’t have the requisite philosophical understanding to predict what I will or will not do in terms of arguments, X. So why are you even trying? Is your own position not strong enough?
No, actually, I’m making fun of your pseudo-intellectual arguments, which are highly predictable (liberals hate America, and the troops, yada yada.) It seemed appropriate at the moment.
Efforts to access the linked article via two different browser programs have proven fruitless. I suspect that this is because I use a Mac rather than PC. Mac users are no doubt considered leftist traitors and thus restricted from certain locations on the internet due to security concerns.
In the scant couple of weeks since I discovered and posted a few comments on neo neocon in which I had the temerity to express a view other than complete agreement with the conduct of the war in Iraq and support of Musharraf in Pakistan, I’ve been compared to Benedict Arnold, called a traitor and accused of all sorts of idiocy. I’ve also read comments that find little or no difference between Stalin and Hillary Clinton. A number of posters see no difference between Communists, Islamofacists, the MSM and liberal Democrats. While I made no comments about President Bush it has been assumed that I equate him with Hitler. In fact, so far I’ve said very little about my personal political philosophy, although I have asked a number of admittedly leading questions. Not that I got any straight answers, just attacks against my (presumed) positions.
All in all I find it amusing that the kind of close minded rejection of anyone who disagrees with the thinking of the dominant group which Neo experienced within her liberal crowd during the time her own mind was changing is so extreme here.
As you can clearly see Stumb, X will only embroil you in meaningless quagmire battles.
All in all I find it amusing that the kind of close minded rejection of anyone who disagrees with the thinking of the dominant group which Neo experienced within her liberal crowd during the time her own mind was changing is so extreme here.
Extremists will always find those of moderate bend too extreme to tolerate.
to the death’s of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
Since when did you care about hundreds of thousands in deaths or lives?
Do you care about Venezuella? Do you care about the lives of Americans that would be sacrificed for your ideological fanatic beliefs in the “US Constitution”? No, you do not.
And anyway, your whole defense hardly even alludes to the supposed humanitarian
To make a clarification point, classical liberals are not for advocating humanitarian policies. What classical liberals advocate is for peace, justice, security, life, liberty, and prosperity. Not humanitarian policies. That is for the UN in order for them to exploit girls and boys.
This distinction is something they always use against people like you, Stumbley. Or rather, the lack of a distinction.
I’d be willing to let terrorists blow me (and others) up in defense of the Constitution
I have never forwarded the proposal that you would let yourself be blown by terrorists on purpose. I have forwarded the proposal that if 150 million Americans needed to die to preserve your Constitution, you would favor words on paper over the lives those words are designed to protect.
Why should I be blamed for your choices in beliefs, Xan?
Sorry, but it’s not liberals that have trouble understanding the nuances of Iraqi culture.
Fake liberals said something about Sunnis hating Shia so much that they would never be able to work together. They did this to drive the civil war rhetoric into Iraq. That was before Sunni Syria openly allied with Shia Iran.
Extremists will always find those of moderate bend too extreme to tolerate.
Because of course, it is the hallmark of moderation to accuse those who disagree with you of being traitors to their country.
To make a clarification point, classical liberals are not for advocating humanitarian policies. What classical liberals advocate is for peace, justice, security, life, liberty, and prosperity. Not humanitarian policies. That is for the UN in order for them to exploit girls and boys.
I would like you to name which of those the war has actually brought about in Iraq.
I have forwarded the proposal that if 150 million Americans needed to die to preserve your Constitution, you would favor words on paper over the lives those words are designed to protect.
It truly amuses me to hear that argument from one who thinks it has been perfectly justifiable to throw away thousands of American lives in Iraq AND is willing to see the Constitution degraded. I suppose that’s the right-wing equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
Fake liberals said something about Sunnis hating Shia so much that they would never be able to work together. They did this to drive the civil war rhetoric into Iraq. That was before Sunni Syria openly allied with Shia Iran.
Yes, and the Germans and Russians were “allies” before Germany invaded. And for the record, Sunnis and Shiites still hate each other. At least, those who are in charge of deciding whether the fighting goes on or not.
Not that I got any straight answers, just attacks against my (presumed) positions.
And your patriotism, intelligence, sincerity, etc., etc. Get used to it around here.
As a conservative democrat, I marvel at the shortage of troops needed to advance the neocon global imperialist agenda. None of y’all are signing up. I mean I served in the military, and y’all are calling me unpatriotic these days. How is it that able bodied neocons dont seem to have the stomach for the front lines of battle. Guys and gals, line up, sign up, or shut up. Ya got no guts. Long on talk, short on guts.