Philip:"Why don't they have the balls to just defund the war?"
BECAUSE: Despite the passion of the moment, inspite of the urgency of the Progressive-Liberal community to (per YOUR inclination) " cut & run ", the so-called anti-war politicians recognize the potential for disaster if " defunding" were to take place.
A previous example of commitment to follow-thru on a foreign policy and military mission that in retrospect was the RIGHT DECISION, was Truman regarding Korea.
This UN sponsored "police action" was extremely "UNPOPULAR". The "Allied" forces ( guess who? Primarily US & UK) were initially met in the field by overwhelming NK forces. It was a military disaster. Many Americans were dying for "saving a foreign country far away from "commie" domination.
"Harry Truman found himself embroiled in the first of many post-World War II conflicts as the United States struggled to rescue South Korea from an unprovoked assault by hordes of North Korean and later Chinese troops. A confused, nasty slugfest resulted that cost over 54,00 American lives by the time an uneasy cease-fire was signed in Panmunjon. By then, Truman's approval rating had slipped to 22% (lower even than President Bush's most recent polling figures) and his hopes for re-election had ended with his defeat in the New Hampshire primary."
"Harry Truman's popularity plummeted during his final years in office. The frustrations of Korea, the President's inability to enact much of his domestic program and scandals involving some of his staff led many to label him weak and ineffective. On the eve of his departure from office he stood below 30% in popularity polls. In his farewell address to the nation he reviewed the accomplishments of his Administration and made his case to history. He confidently predicted America would one day win the Cold War."
http://www.americanthinker.com/ 2..._popularit.html
In the long-run, Truman's strategic vision as to what was required without concern for polls was the correct policy. Had he tied his decisions to the passion-of-the-moment, there would be no S Korea and the world would likely be a very dangerous and different place TODAY
claudo:
FrankC:"Who's the enemy in Iraq?" The "enemy" are those Islamic radicals and Jihadists who have formented the fratricide between the Sunnis and Shiites. Keep in mind that it was Al-Quida that blew-up the most revered Shia shrine with the specific intent of creating chaos.
The " no surge" vote is merely a POLITICAL feel-good excercise. It is non-binding. It has little impact beyond serving as a release-valve mechanism allowing "anti-war" politicos a means of going-on-the-record with their inclinations without any real impact on continuing military action.
Levi:
Absolutely correct! If the US were to depart from the field-of-battle; it would be trumpeted by the Jihadists as a significant, embolding victory and serve as a recruiting and incentive to continue with their Jihad, it would send a signal to the entire world that the US is incapable of fulfilling commitments and follow-thru with policy decisions. Regardless of what the emotions of " the street" are. Global leaders take a long-view. The US works cloely with military and counter-terror agencies around the world. Even with nations that proclaim ( political-voice) America's " arrogance". Should we " cut& run" the results would be disasterous to our continued credability with these nations and their agencies.
FrankC:"but Iraq is closer to a theocracy than a Democracy". No more or less so than any other Moslem country! What you cited is exactly the NeoCon/Bush intent to drag the classic Moslem "theocracy" and its attendant dibilitating weaknesses, dysfunction, and limited vision into modernity.The anticipated, at least initally, was to implant a "democratic state" in the midst of theocracies as an example of what CAN be.
abie_normal:
FrankC "sovereign arab nation". You are referring to the one that invaded its neighbors, launched missles at Israel, gassed its own minorities, supported regional terrorism, had the capacity to develope WMD, and run by a pathological-tyrant who based his government on principals of the Gastopo? Yes.
Please cite the specific "bull shit" so that I may reply>FrankC: Not so. This principal is core to the NeoCon agenda that served as foundation to initiating military action. To be differentiated from the public display at the UN.
abie_normal,
It is not wishful thinking from UberTroll at all. We know from Osama bin Laden's own words that our retreat from Somalia was one of the major contributing factors that led to the attacks of 9/11. And here we go again making the exact same mistake all over again.
OsamaBinHiding:
Your juxtaposition is not accurate nor applicable. Name one war, or even military strike, that Israel initiated that was not in self-defense. Careful now, get your Progressive emotions under control prior to answering.OsamaBinHiding: "Lebanon just last year." OK. Here we go. Hizballah initiated the action by first an artillery barrage on an Isreali farming community,as a distraction. Followed by the attack on the IDF patrol within Israel. What about self-defense don't you understand?
claudo:
OsamaBinHiding: Careful. Claudo dosen't want me to address Israel! But, as I noted, put your Progressive emotions under control if you want to address facts. Apperently that is not possible and facts are not germain to you point. I pass on emotive pissing-contests and welcome fact-based exchanges.
Indeed. And once again, I did not bring it up. Simply responding to a fellow blogger. I am flattered though that my submitals are memorable.
"You've just described both the US and Israel. Who's gonna invade both these nations??
OsamaBinHiding"
"One sided biased reports"FrankC:"WTF does that have to do with anything?". If this is an emotional out-pouring, nothing. If you want to deal with rality-based facts, everything!
claudo: Would appear that its not up to me. Better get the rest of the crew under control and stop addressing Israel. I'll sit back, not post, and see if you can? OK. Go!
FrankC: Nope. Just one of me "UberTroll". I was addressing your point.
claudo:"He ain't fer us - he's agin us and.." Are you mocking a segment of the American population with a parody as to how they speak?
DaveJ: "suicide bombing" is misleading and does not convey the intent of killing as many others as possible. Its all semantics in th war-of-words.
You and Rosie O'Donnel share the same view on Evangelical Christians. I don't get it. When were they ever violent. Seen any videos of them be heading people lately.
Where does thought like this come from.
No he is the Commander in Chief, duly elected and he has war powers. If you don't like it we have another election in '08. Vote for YOUR choice then .
Even if it's by others dying?
john t | Homepage | 02.17.07 - 1:16 pm | #
We have a volunteer armed service. They are defending our way of life and fighting a war.Unfortunately soldiers die in war. If you think profit is evil or wrong move to Cuba or Venezuela.
Meaning what. Retreat or get all the lawyers out of the combat zone and have a kick ass victory.We have the means to win. The new surge alledgedly changes the rules of engagemnt so we can win.
Defeat is not really an option. Don't you agree.
Killing for profit is disgusting. It is obvious you have never killed.
You don't have to drink the ocean to know it is salty.
You ,oh killer, are correct. Killing strictly for profit is wrong. Our troops are not mercenaries but merely doing what they volunteered to do.
What is PNAC
I think I will go back to my Playstation . You people are really moonbats.
Instead of playing silly political games, why won't the Democrats in the House and Senate simply vote on something that actually can have an effect; such as a voice vote to suspend all funding for the war in Iraq.
What do the troops think?
Wouldn't that put an end to this debate once and for all?
What are the Democrats so scared of?
http://community.cnhi.com/eve/fo...517? r=632106517
Posted February 17, 2007 15:04
Since the U.S. House sent us all a message by voting to oppose the troop surge, I wanted to make sure you understood how that message was interpreted here in Baghdad. We (collectively…trust me on this one) feel as if our political leaders and the American people have given up on us. We now believe many Americans actually hope we fail…and fail soon. However, our reaction to this disappointing and, in my opinion, shameful act was to rally around each other (since that’s pretty much all we have left to rally around) and focus harder on the mission.
Your soldiers will continue to fight in Iraq with a sense of purpose and duty to the nation. Whether or not the nation is grateful seems debatable at this point. It goes back to what I said a few weeks ago concerning divisiveness. I would give anything to see Americans unite in a common purpose to achieve some definable measure of success. At this point, I don’t see anything but divisiveness…a message that was hammered home this week by our Congress.
In addition to the message to our troops that encourages failure, we also sent a clear message to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups who openly hate America. We told them we have no stomach to fight them. We told them to wait it out a bit longer for certain victory. We showed them exactly how little we’re committed to obtaining and preserving peace.
Before it was just Democrats sending that message. Now, given the status of the party as the majority, it’s the American people. I know I and many other soldiers have never been more ashamed of our “so called” national leaders. Thanks for the support.
Posts: 308 | Location: Iraq | Registered: June 28, 2005
Maybe the question is being asked so many times because you guys have yet to answer it...
The only recourse the Constitution allows is for congress to end the funding. All other powers belong to the Executive Branch.
How many Democrats will be willing to vote to end the funding of our military in the middle of a war?
Lets see if the Dems have the balls to do it.
No, the only reason is it will finally illustrate what so many left-wing liberals are; anti-American defeatist pacifists.
If Pelosi and crowd really want to go on record as the Congress that stopped funding the war in midstream, so be it.
REALITY CHECK: The Progressive Left-Wing of the Dem Party has been sold out! YOU will not get what you want in terms of a definative and conclusive rejection of Bush's war policy. The Dems leveraged and used YOUR passion, energy, and anti-NeoCon fanatacism. Now, its business as usual. This is common practice by political parties, both Left and Right, to whip-up your passions as the feet-on-the-street to rally the Liberal true-beleivers, and then abandon your extreme position in favor of a more pragmatic and measured policy approach.
I can just tell you they will not do it.....Political power means too much to them, and they are wise enough to know the consequence of their actions.
Expect them to continue to bitch, moan and complain. And nothing more.
So, get ready to be disappointed. The Dem party WILL NOT defund, stop, nor impede America's military mission in Iraq, the Isreal/Arab conflict in general, nor blocking Iran's aggressive measures through their proxy-warriors. Reality is about to set-in. YOU have been used!
FrankC:"This guy must be the only simpleton in the world to expect the democratic majority...." to do anything that will dramaticaly alter our current foreign policy course as the " military mission in Iraq, the Isreal/Arab conflict in general, nor blocking Iran's aggressive measures through their proxy-warriors"!
The Left's bumper-sticker slogans, rants, and vehamence will have no impact. You have been betrayed. Your agenda will be diluted to the degree that the Progressives are deluded regarding the threat from Islamic-radicals. Adult-supervision will stay the course and deal with facts not Left-wing fictions.john t:"I think Uber Troll used to go by Agnostic Bob". Nope. The one and only UberTroll. Yes, please do not mention Israel. That's very emotive and fiction-based pricipals for you Left-WIngers. I am expert on such matters and will blow your rants away with facts. Eager to take on Progressives on other matters as well.
woke:
Say what?
woke:"kinda "full of yourself" eh?" If you say so. No less pontififical than others here. Only my positions are fact-based.
woke: Nope. Not a war proiteer nor an oil exec.To my point though, here you are jumping around casting dispersions not really interested in waht my POV is . You are far more interested in throwing bumper-sticker rants at me. Thanks.
big johnny: Time will tell and history is written by the victors not by blogging pundits.
woke: OK, take a finite position on something less nebulus than grand startegies and notions. Let's see if fuzzy-mindedness can focus. BTW, no need for name calling. It undermines credability. Why can't we have civil discourse?
C'mon now Frank. No declaritive end-the-war legislation nor position has been out forward by Dem leadership. Certainly, individuals have made anti-war speeches, but, that's simply preaching to the chior feel-good statements. Once done, they rejoin the Dem herd. As you well know what has been debated in Congress and the enate are non-binding pandering to the Left-fringe pontification. Nothing substantive.
john t: "Fuzzy mindedness" is a condition not an insult nor name calling.
Woke:
Makes sense to me. What about this do you take issue with?
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Graham Chapman: Bet you it does not happen! "The left wing of the Democratic Party as well as a Democratic presidential contender for the 2008 election, former senator John Edwards, have been pushing Congress to cut war funding."
woke: Reagan won the "Cold War" and and defeated the USSR!
john t: As benefit to those suffering from " fuzzy mindedness"; I cited that I was expert on Isreali/Arab issues, NOT "everything". Further, I provided the C&P for Woke so he could focus on specifics as opposed to generalities. See, it worked. He ( woke) is now picking-out specific points form the document. I in turn am replying. Next?
Woke: "Some more FACTS". Thank you for pointing out the litinay of attacks plotted and executed by those Islamic radicals that continue to pose a clear & present danger to America and our allies. Now, the major differentiator between the NeoCon approach and previous attempts to root-out this pernicious evil is that TODAY, it is no longer a law enforcement matter. This time around, we pursue preemptive military action as well as stike the nations that provide safe harbor to these JIhadists.
hoode: "So tell me why is ANYONE in here talking to this jerk???" Perhaps because concepts external to the in-group are healthy in developing intellectual strangth. Please no name calling. It dimishes your credibility.
Godzilla104:What's the matter? Feeling sensative today? Or inferior? C'mon, rise to the occasion! State something bold. Move away from feelings. Deal with facts. Next?
This is for Claudo and the dupes who believe everything that the Democrats and Liberals say. Do you think that the Bush Administration is worse than the savages who kill our sodiers and kill anyone who does not convert to their brand of radical Islam?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Posts from other Idiots on The same thread
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment