NationStates Jolt Archive

If only we had done this from the beginning we'd be in a lot better shape. The fools who baffled the Vietnam war botched another one... Rummy's already gone at least. The military should run all military operations with little or no changes from the civilian authorities. Reconstruction is a different story, but it's hard to reconstruct something still in chaos.

linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

If only we had done this from the beginning we'd be in a lot better shape. The fools who baffled the Vietnam war botched another one... Rummy's already gone at least. The military should run all military operations with little or no shcnages from the civilian authorities. Reconstruction is a different story, but it's hard to reconstruct something still in chaos.

Linky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=1227)

Hmm, a link to starting a new thread.

What an interesting way to speak out :p

Btw, military serves the civilians. Civilians do not serve the military.

Maybe it's so the congressman will make a new thread?

Maybe it's so the congressman will make a new thread?

No, the link is supposed to be to the article. Perhaps I made the mistake of inputting the wrong link. I'll correct it. My question is, do you agree with the congressman or no? The link is now fixed. As for the military working for civilians, that is partially true. A Marine works the government and therefore the people of the USA. Does he take order from Joe Blowhard down the street? No, he follows order from other military men and women who know what the hell they are talking about. The point is that the military should handle wars, not civilians.

No, the link is supposed to be to the article. Perhaps I made the mistake of inputting the wrong link. I'll correct it. My question is, do you agree with the congressman or no? The link is now fixed. As for the military working for civilians, that is partially true. A Marine works the government and therefore the people of the USA. Does he take order from Joe Blowhard down the street? No, he follows order from other military men and women who know what the hell they are talking about. The point is that the military should handle wars, not civilians.

Then surely Iraq should never have been invaded?

I mean, it was president Bush, a civilian, that started the war.

And in fact, it's a really bad idea to let the military conduct itself. The US military exists to serve the US government and the US government exists to serve the US people. The politicians get to decide who are commanders, how much funding the military gets and they certainly also get to decide when a war is lost.

I believe the congressman is out of order.

It is prudent to follow the suggestions of your men on the ground and trust them to be expert in military affairs.

However, war and its use are nothing but political tools.

So therefore, the Military must always answer to Civilian Oversight.

IF the civilians wo provide that oversight are too stupid to listen to good advice from men who dont wnat to see a complete cluster fuck and the deaths of thousands of their troops ...well then you have just elected George W Bush...Congress is trying to dig itself out of a hole Bush started---no one knows what to do because this is fucked.

Plan english--fucked.

If only we had done this from the beginning we'd be in a lot better shape. The fools who baffled the Vietnam war botched another one... Rummy's already gone at least. The military should run all military operations with little or no changes from the civilian authorities. Reconstruction is a different story, but it's hard to reconstruct something still in chaos.

linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

Very interesting considering it was the Democrats that actually botched the Vietnam War.

No, the link is supposed to be to the article. Perhaps I made the mistake of inputting the wrong link. I'll correct it. My question is, do you agree with the congressman or no? The link is now fixed. As for the military working for civilians, that is partially true. A Marine works the government and therefore the people of the USA. Does he take order from Joe Blowhard down the street? No, he follows order from other military men and women who know what the hell they are talking about. The point is that the military should handle wars, not civilians.

I think he's unintentionally correct, or rather, the words he's saying make sense, just not in the way he intends them to. See, he's saying that disaster follows when the govt. doesn't listen to the military on military matters (we'll set aside the veracity of that statement for a moment). And indeed, if Bush had listened to his commanders in 2003, we might have had a different outcome here. But he's saying that Congress isn't listening to commanders now when they're calling for benchmarks, and that that would be disastrous, and he's wrong on two counts. First of all, Congress is listening to commanders, past and present--that's why they're calling for a gradual withdrawal. And secondly, the question of whether it would be disastrous is up in the air, and given the right's shitty track record on this matter so far, well, why believe anything they predict anymore?

"The Democrats"? So because they're in the same political party, they're hypocrites for what their political party did decades ago? I think it's safe to say that for the most part, it isn't even the same people around this time. I've read elsewhere about how the two main political parties' positions have switched over the decades...

Positions have always switched depending on the time era so you are correct about that :)

Problems come in when politicians decide to micromanage the military rather than letting those who know what they are doing handle military details.

The military exists to serve the people, but the people should not be interfering with the conduct of the war.

Civilian leadership should tell the military what their goal is, and roughly how they want to accomplish it (and whatever secondary considerations they have). The military leadership then comes up with a plan on how to reach those goals and whatever secondary goals are practical, what the requirements of that plan are, how long it will take, and what the chances of success are. That is what seems to make the most sense to me. It is idiotic for a civilian to decide for political reasons to use a tiny fraction of what the military says in necessary and tie the hands of the military in terms of accomplishing the goals.

Set the goal, set the limits (no nukes, no carpet bombing, no land mines etc) then let the military have a free hand to do what has to be done to meet those goals. If the military says it cannot accomplish the goals within the restrictions, the politicians have to then revise either the goals or restrictions until the military experts judge it to have a reasonable chance of success.

Once the military is set loose, politicians should not micromanage. They should not be involved in the day to day operations as they lack the experience - leave military operations to those who have the experience and knowledge to conduct military operations. this seems so basic and a matter of common sense, but so many people just dont seem to understand.

Okay, I've just heard this one too many times.

People in the military are just that, people. They are as likely to make mistakes as everyone else.

They are not superhumans to be followed mindlessly after war were declared.

A good politician is just as likely to win a war as any good commander is, because both have good leadership skills (or should).

Anyone who supports militaries also have to remember where the money is coming from in the first place and if they, the politicians who gave the money in the first place, decide that the war isn't worth the cost anymore, then it is within their full right to cut off funding, especially since the politicians in the US who are trying to stop it are not all the same who wanted to start the war.

Then surely Iraq should never have been invaded?

I mean, it was president Bush, a civilian, that started the war.

And in fact, it's a really bad idea to let the military conduct itself. The US military exists to serve the US government and the US government exists to serve the US people. The politicians get to decide who are commanders, how much funding the military gets and they certainly also get to decide when a war is lost.

Read up on your Constitutional Law there my friend. It clearly establishes the President as the Commander in Chief (CinC) of the US armed forces. Therefor they are not taking orders from a civilian, but the highest ranking official in the chain of command. USMCLeatherneck2 reminded me of this recently and I'm ever mindful of his and others' advice. There's a difference between Johnny Blowhard and the CinC, u get it? Are you an American because you have little knowledge of where our "commanders" come from? They are not chosen and promoted by the President or any other politician for that matter. In order to lead our forces you must earn your way to that position. Therein lies the difference.

Okay, I've just heard this one too many times.

People in the military are just that, people. They are as likely to make mistakes as everyone else.

They are not superhumans to be followed mindlessly after war were declared.

A good politician is just as likely to win a war as any good commander is, because both have good leadership skills (or should).

Anyone who supports militaries also have to remember where the money is coming from in the first place and if they, the politicians who gave the money in the first place, decide that the war isn't worth the cost anymore, then it is within their full right to cut off funding, especially since the politicians in the US who are trying to stop it are not all the same who wanted to start the war.
For instance, does anyone here think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out better if JFK had just left it up to the military? Or Korea if Truman had let MacArthur do what he wanted? What I think happens in these discussions is that people take what is accurate on a small scale and try to apply it to a larger scale. You don't want Congress deciding whether or not the military should use targeted bombing campaigns versus land assaults, but they certainly have a place when it comes to the political end of the discussion, as does the President.

Read up on your Constitutional Law there my friend. It clearly establishes the President as the Commander in Chief (CinC) of the US armed forces. Therefor they are not taking orders from a civilian, but the highest ranking official in the chain of command. USMCLeatherneck2 reminded me of this recently and I'm ever mindful of his and others' advice. There's a difference between Johnny Blowhard and the CinC, u get it? Are you an American because you have little knowledge of where our "commanders" come from? They are not chosen and promoted by the President or any other politician for that matter. In order to lead our forces you must earn your way to that position. Therein lies the difference.

He's still just a civilian that was voted into power though. What difference would there really have been between George Bush and Al Gore?

Also, defense ministers have a tendency to be appointed.

For instance, does anyone here think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out better if JFK had just left it up to the military? Or Korea if Truman had let MacArthur do what he wanted? What I think happens in these discussions is that people take what is accurate on a small scale and try to apply it to a larger scale. You don't want Congress deciding whether or not the military should use targeted bombing campaigns versus land assaults, but they certainly have a place when it comes to the political end of the discussion, as does the President.

You gave a better example than I could have.

For instance, does anyone here think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out better if JFK had just left it up to the military? Or Korea if Truman had let MacArthur do what he wanted? What I think happens in these discussions is that people take what is accurate on a small scale and try to apply it to a larger scale. You don't want Congress deciding whether or not the military should use targeted bombing campaigns versus land assaults, but they certainly have a place when it comes to the political end of the discussion, as does the President.

I am in full agreement with you.

Very interesting considering it was the Democrats that actually botched the Vietnam War.

Ah yes, this old gag. It was a Republican who sent in the first "advisers" to Vietnam and officially led to escalation of hostilities. it was also a Republican, Nicxon, who decided to "cut and run" (A good decision at the time). Also, I'm speaking of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, et al. There were certain members of the administration during the Vietnam war who have seemed to get regurgitated in this Bush administration. Could you name any others?

He's still just a civilian that was voted into power though. What difference would there really have been between George Bush and Al Gore?



You gave a better example than I could have.

The President is the CinC, therefor he is not a civilian when it comes to military matters. Let the military decide how to fight the war and the civilians decide why to fight the war. Simple enough? So the military does NOT work for civilians as they are subject to the CinC's orders.

I am in full agreement with you.

I agree with you also Nazz

Politicians should handle war policy, the military handles the actual fight!

The President is the CinC, therefor he is not a civilian when it comes to military matters. Let the military decide how to fight the war and the civilians decide why to fight the war. Simple enough? So the military does NOT work for civilians as they are subject to the CinC's orders.

Correct, But does not the Commander in Cheif work by orders from the people presented by their representatives in congress? (if congress even still cares)
Thus, does not the military serve the people in the means of defense and protection, were the average citizen works to support, and supplement the funding and stabilization of the military?
Plus, the military is made up entierly of the average American citizen

Symbiotic in an awkward way...

Correct, But does not the Commander in Cheif work by orders from the people presented by their representatives in congress? (if congress even still cares)
Thus, does not the military serve the people in the means of defense and protection, were the average citizen works to support, and supplement the funding and stabilization of the military?

Symbiotic in an awkward way...

point granted, but the military doesn't take order from joe civilian, u dig? The military is there to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic. If it worked as easily as some here would suggest then our troops would be out of Iraq as an overwhelming majority of Americans want the troops home. This is not the case because the CinC, right or wrong, deems that we should be there.

Counter-insurgency is not the job of congress. Counter insurgency is best handled by military commanders that have training in that area. The war part should be handled by the military leaders according to the USMJC with civilian (congressional) oversight. Congress or he President get to decide the policy of the war, while the Soliders, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen get to decide how to fight it.

Correct, But does not the Commander in Cheif work by orders from the people presented by their representatives in congress? (if congress even still cares)

Bush would say no, as he's a believer in the Unitary Executive, the idea that the President is as absolute a ruler as any emperor of old. You can hear it in the way he talks about Congress even today. His idea of negotiation is "give me the bill you want so I can veto it and then you give me the bill I want." There's never a moment of "hey let's see if we can work out a deal we both hate."

I'm out of here folks so enjoy the rest of the thread until at least 0500 tomorrow.

Ah yes, this old gag. It was a Republican who sent in the first "advisers" to Vietnam and officially led to escalation of hostilities.

yes it was a Republican that sent in advisors. It was a Democrat who sent in military troops.

It was also a Republican, Nixon, who decided to "cut and run" (A good decision at the time).

Correct. He ended Vietnam.

Also, I'm speaking of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, et al. There were certain members of the administration during the Vietnam war who have seemed to get regurgitated in this Bush administration. Could you name any others?

I hate to say this but you do go with experience.

Politicians should handle war policy, the military handles the actual fight!

And the politicians are doing just that. They are cutting funding, because they don't wanna waste anymore money on it and they are making a withdrawel timetable.

That's war policy right there, nothing to do with the actual fight.

It's now up to the military to use the funds they will be allocated and the time table given. If they can't win - too bad, this war was lost the moment your CinC decided to not just eliminate the Iraqi threat, but also topple the Iraqi government and try to introduce democracy, while making a bunch of people disenfranchised.

And the politicians are doing just that. They are cutting funding, because they don't wanna waste anymore money on it and they are making a withdrawel timetable.

That's war policy right there, nothing to do with the actual fight.

I am sorry but I respectfully disagree that it has nothing to do with actual fighting. It has everyhing to do with fighting.

It's now up to the military to use the funds they will be allocated and the time table given.

Which means they will be able to do less than the would be able to otherwise if funding is cut.

If they can't win - too bad, this war was lost the moment your CinC decided to not just eliminate the Iraqi threat, but also topple the Iraqi government and try to introduce democracy, while making a bunch of people disenfranchised.

1) This is a nice runon sentence.

2) This war is not lost but it will be if the Democrats want to retreat from Iraq and leave what the troops do there unfinished. The government is highly unstable and if we do leave, there will be more Iraqi on Iraqi bloodshed and a new dictator could rise.

I am sorry but I respectfully disagree that it has nothing to do with actual fighting. It has everyhing to do with fighting.

It's war policy. It has nothing to do with fighting.

Which means they will be able to do less than the would be able to otherwise if funding is cut.

If you fail, do you get rewarded? The military had their success in the beginning - They did topple the Iraqi government.

But was this the goal the civilian government gave them?

It was a goal perhaps, but not the goal.

1) This is a nice runon sentence.

2) This war is not lost but it will be if the Democrats want to retreat from Iraq and leave what the troops do there unfinished. The government is highly unstable and if we do leave, there will be more Iraqi on Iraqi bloodshed and a new dictator could rise.

The war is lost. You lost it when you started it.

point granted, but the military doesn't take order from joe civilian, u dig? The military is there to protect America from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I understand, the military does not take orders from the American public, but in Democratic theory the Military does indeed serve the American people by protecting it...they're not doing it for their health. The military serves the president, but the president is merely the main representative of the American people, and the people's ideaology.

If it worked as easily as some here would suggest then our troops would be out of Iraq as an overwhelming majority of Americans want the troops home. This is not the case because the CinC, right or wrong, deems that we should be there.

But if the people do want the troops home, why does the will of the White House and Congress overpower the will of the people? If the majority of the people declare they want the soldiers to come home, why then is the Administration allowed to decide otherwise?
He has the duty to protect the American people, yes, but aside from doing "whats best" why is the Vox Populi deemed irrelevant?
The administration, congress, the pentagon, and the courts all work for the people and are tools of the people.

It's war policy. It has nothing to do with fighting.

But it will affect the fighting so yes, it does.

If you fail, do you get rewarded? The military had their success in the beginning - They did topple the Iraqi government.

And they have achieved success on the ground as well. Is there problems? Yes there is. No one is denying it. Not even me but why cut and run now when things are not stable? That would be more disasterous than staying.

But was this the goal the civilian government gave them?

And what goal are you talking about?

The war is lost. You lost it when you started it.

Prove that the war is lost! The only ones that are spouting it is the ones that have opposed this war.

But it will affect the fighting so yes, it does.

Do you agree that going to war is a political decision?

And what goal are you talking about?

Well, what goal does the US military have right now?

Stabilizing Iraq?

Well, they failed to do that in the beginning, when museums were looted and chaos ran rampant. That's failure and you do not get rewarded for it.

Prove that the war is lost! The only ones that are spouting it is the ones that have opposed this war.

I cannot prove a negative. I can only prove that the positive does not exist.

Also, there have been sources posted here on NSG pointing that former supporters of the war now oppose it. I haven't seen any similar sources of opposers supporting it.

Do you agree that going to war is a political decision?

It was both if you truly want my opinion.

Well, what goal does the US military have right now?

Stabilizing Iraq?

Once a nation is destabilized by war, the nation that does it should restablize it.

Well, they failed to do that in the beginning, when museums were looted and chaos ran rampant. That's failure and you do not get rewarded for it.

Its a big nation Seathornia and other targets had to be secured. Most notably the targets that would be of economic interest to Iraq.

I cannot prove a negative. I can only prove that the positive does not exist.

That is only in your mind.

Also, there have been sources posted here on NSG pointing that former supporters of the war now oppose it. I haven't seen any similar sources of opposers supporting it.

And the point of this post is really irrelevent.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief? So, although a civilian for the purpose of civilian control of the military, he has place in the chain of command. And he ought to have a staff, including the Joint Chiefs. So the President says "We're invading Iraq with the objective of ousting Saddam. No WMDs or anything. Give me a plan and forces needed and I'll adjust what I can't agree to" and there's much discussion and debate until its settled. The Staff says to the commander "Plan, assets, objective. Off you go" and he assigns subordinates and units and so it continues down to a squad leader telling his privates which alcoves to duck into. That's how civilian control should work. A military chain of command with an elected civilian at the top.

I won't be writing US military anymore, since it is clear which military we are speaking of.

I also thank you for a reasonably civil discussion :)

It was both if you truly want my opinion.

Both political and military I presume?

If starting a war is both political and military, why is ending a war not both as well? Why can't the political side simply decide it doesn't want to be there anymore?

While the military gathers the strength, arms and forces needed to conduct operations, it is the politicians that are paying them. If the military really wants to stay in Iraq, they should seek to become mercenaries. It is entirely possible in this day and age and perhaps the Iraqi government would even be interested in paying for them.

Once a nation is destabilized by war, the nation that does it should restablize it.

Should the military really be involved in this? Wouldn't the proposed department of peace potentially do a better job?

Its a big nation Seathornia and other targets had to be secured. Most notably the targets that would be of economic interest to Iraq.

Well, I don't think this is going to go anywhere, but what the heck. Why is the economic interest of greater value than cultural interest?

That is only in your mind.

No. That's science. You do not prove negatives. I can say, with 99% certainty that a liquid without iron does not contain iron, but there is a chance that I made an error and that there is indeed iron, despite the test being negative (testing for iron is simple, so I choose that one).

If however, the test is positive, there is a 100% certainty that there is iron, as we define it, in the liquid.

In the similar way, I cannot prove that we have lost, but I can prove that we haven't won yet and by empirical evidence state that we will never win (we being coalition).

And the point of this post is really irrelevent.

The post or that sentence?

The post is certainly relevant to the discussion.

The sentence doesn't include links, I admit, and might not be relevant.

Do you deny, however, that former supporters of the war now oppose it?

The President is the Commander-in-Chief?

Yep. The President is indeed the Commander-in-Chief as stated by the US Constitution.

I won't be writing US military anymore, since it is clear which military we are speaking of.

I also thank you for a reasonably civil discussion :)

I do try to have a reasonable civil discussion. I have seen discussions get heated around here and when that happens, no one listens to what any side has to say on the issue.

Both political and military I presume?

Yes.

If starting a war is both political and military, why is ending a war not both as well? Why can't the political side simply decide it doesn't want to be there anymore?

If the political side does not want to be there, the military will resent it. Case in point being Vietnam. The military had the ability to actually defeat the enemy there but there was no political will to actually do so. When you couple that with the micromanagement of the war from the White House, and you have a very bad situation.

It is somewhat similar here though Bush is not listening but is not micromanaging either. Now we have politicians who no longer have the will to see things through. This will cause resentment among the military but they will follow the orders when they come in because of the consequences if they do not.

While the military gathers the strength, arms and forces needed to conduct operations, it is the politicians that are paying them. If the military really wants to stay in Iraq, they should seek to become mercenaries. It is entirely possible in this day and age and perhaps the Iraqi government would even be interested in paying for them.

Under the UCMJ, that would be illegal as all of our forces are voluntary but by the same token, must follow all legal orders from the chain of command. The only way for this to be legal is they up and resign to become such. After that, I can not answer.

Should the military really be involved in this? Wouldn't the proposed department of peace potentially do a better job?

I take it you never watched the Science Fiction show Babylon 5? They had a department of Peace and it did not do anything for the peace but shutting down anything that disagreed with the President of the Earth Alliance. Nightwatch was responsible for doing that and I believe they were placed under the Department of the Peace. I am going to have to double check that however.

Well, I don't think this is going to go anywhere, but what the heck. Why is the economic interest of greater value than cultural interest?

Does that really need to be explained? How else is one going to rebuild a country? It is wiser to use the assets of said country to rebuild and hopefully to keep it afloat during reconstruction.

No. That's science. You do not prove negatives. I can say, with 99% certainty that a liquid without iron does not contain iron, but there is a chance that I made an error and that there is indeed iron, despite the test being negative (testing for iron is simple, so I choose that one).

If however, the test is positive, there is a 100% certainty that there is iron, as we define it, in the liquid.

In the similar way, I cannot prove that we have lost, but I can prove that we haven't won yet and by empirical evidence state that we will never win (we being coalition).

I know you cannot prove a negative. In Iraq though, things are still going on to secure the peace. To say that we have lost is disingenious right now because we neither have won nor lost that battle yet. If we pull out, then yes, we would have lost but if we stay, there is a chance of winning.

Do you deny, however, that former supporters of the war now oppose it?

No I have not denied it nor will I deny it though for politicians to switch to a cut and run philosophy does our troops a diservice, I cannot in good conscience condemn it.

No I have not denied it nor will I deny it though for politicians to switch to a cut and run philosophy does our troops a diservice, I cannot in good conscience condemn it.

Unless Bush supports it. Then it's a good idea, and a sound military strategy.

If the political side does not want to be there, the military will resent it. Case in point being Vietnam. The military had the ability to actually defeat the enemy there but there was no political will to actually do so. When you couple that with the micromanagement of the war from the White House, and you have a very bad situation.

It is within the rights of the military to resent it, as it is within the rights of the non-military to resent it as well.

It is important to note that, like civilians, soldiers get to vote too. They are still represented politically.

It's important, because it means that their opinions were listened to, but it just so happens that a majority of americans don't agree with it. What do you do when the people you claim to be fighting for begin to tell you that they don't want you to fight or refuse to acknowledge your claim? Sure, it may be a morale loss, but it's as good a time as any to go home.

Disgruntled, perhaps, but it is up to the people who support the military to convince those that don't that things are going swell. This has neatly failed so far.

It is somewhat similar here though Bush is not listening but is not micromanaging either. Now we have politicians who no longer have the will to see things through. This will cause resentment among the military but they will follow the orders when they come in because of the consequences if they do not.

Not quite sure what to comment here. It seems to me you don't want to support any of the politicians involved in this, which is consistent with your earlier positions.

Is that the case? Do you not trust any of the politicians to make any wise choices, because Bush messed up by going to war in the first place and you feel the Senate is making a mistake by pulling out?

Under the UCMJ, that would be illegal as all of our forces are voluntary but by the same token, must follow all legal orders from the chain of command. The only way for this to be legal is they up and resign to become such. After that, I can not answer.

Let's hypothetically suppose that every US soldier was given permission to serve the Iraqi government in exchange of money.

I am basing this hypothesis on the Swedish officers that were permitted to serve the Finnish army in their war against Russia in the second worldwar.

Would this be an adequate compromise, assuming the Iraqi government showed interest?

I take it you never watched the Science Fiction show Babylon 5? They had a department of Peace and it did not do anything for the peace but shutting down anything that disagreed with the President of the Earth Alliance. Nightwatch was responsible for doing that and I believe they were placed under the Department of the Peace. I am going to have to double check that however.

Nope, never watched it, so I can't comment here unfortunately, as I don't understand this either.

Does that really need to be explained? How else is one going to rebuild a country? It is wiser to use the assets of said country to rebuild and hopefully to keep it afloat during reconstruction.

Perhaps, but cultural values can keep a divided people together (see Belgium) and losing that can have an impact on the economic value. It all gets very complicated at some point. In any case, the oil that was protected was sold too cheaply. A mistake, but by whom I do not know.

I know you cannot prove a negative. In Iraq though, things are still going on to secure the peace. To say that we have lost is disingenious right now because we neither have won nor lost that battle yet. If we pull out, then yes, we would have lost but if we stay, there is a chance of winning.

Hmm, I see your point. My statement that we have lost is purely subjective, but even so, I don't see victory by our hand anytime soon. Soon, it'll be your hand alone, not that it makes a massive difference, but still.

You quite caught me :p I did indeed state that I cannot prove that we have lost.

No I have not denied it nor will I deny it though for politicians to switch to a cut and run philosophy does our troops a diservice, I cannot in good conscience condemn it.

Alright.

Unless Bush supports it. Then it's a good idea, and a sound military strategy.

Actually, in his defence, it doesn't seem as if he is supporting Bush either. He hasn't done so yet anyway.

It is within the rights of the military to resent it, as it is within the rights of the non-military to resent it as well.

It is important to note that, like civilians, soldiers get to vote too. They are still represented politically.

It's important, because it means that their opinions were listened to, but it just so happens that a majority of americans don't agree with it. What do you do when the people you claim to be fighting for begin to tell you that they don't want you to fight or refuse to acknowledge your claim? Sure, it may be a morale loss, but it's as good a time as any to go home.

Disgruntled, perhaps, but it is up to the people who support the military to convince those that don't that things are going swell. This has neatly failed so far.

I am not going to say that you are wrong here for how can opinions be considered right or wrong? The problem I have is that it was the politicians that started this war by agreeing to it (whether they voted for it or not is relatively irrelevent) and it is now the politicians that want to stop it before it is fully completely.

I will agree with most of what you wrote here though.

Not quite sure what to comment here. It seems to me you don't want to support any of the politicians involved in this, which is consistent with your earlier positions.

Is that the case? Do you not trust any of the politicians to make any wise choices, because Bush messed up by going to war in the first place and you feel the Senate is making a mistake by pulling out?

Do I feel that the House and Senate is making a mistake by pulling out? Yes I do. Do I blame them for wanting to? No I do not. They have the authority to do what they wish provided the President signs off on the bill and from what I am reading, he is going to veto it and I do not blame him there either just like I will not blame him if he agreed to it. Politicians have to do what is best and we can either agree with their choices or disagree with their choices.

Let's hypothetically suppose that every US soldier was given permission to serve the Iraqi government in exchange of money.

I am basing this hypothesis on the Swedish officers that were permitted to serve the Finnish army in their war against Russia in the second worldwar.

Would this be an adequate compromise, assuming the Iraqi government showed interest?

It could be.

Nope, never watched it, so I can't comment here unfortunately, as I don't understand this either.

I completely understand :)

Perhaps, but cultural values can keep a divided people together (see Belgium) and losing that can have an impact on the economic value. It all gets very complicated at some point. In any case, the oil that was protected was sold too cheaply. A mistake, but by whom I do not know.

I will agree with you there but then, you do have to look at it what is in the best interest of the Iraqi people at that moment in time. Both could be considered equally important and I feel that we should have done more to secure the cultural sites as well as the economic.

Hmm, I see your point. My statement that we have lost is purely subjective, but even so, I don't see victory by our hand anytime soon. Soon, it'll be your hand alone, not that it makes a massive difference, but still.

I cannot falt you there and I am glad that you realize that it is subjective :)

You quite caught me :p I did indeed state that I cannot prove that we have lost.

At least you can admit it. A rarity in people these days.

Alright.

Glad we agree there too :)

Actually, in his defence, it doesn't seem as if he is supporting Bush either. He hasn't done so yet anyway.

I respect the Office of the President more than the person that is in the position at the moment.

snip

I respect your positions, though I won't be sharing all of them anytime soon ;)

Back to the question at hand, the OP!

If only we had done this from the beginning we'd be in a lot better shape. The fools who baffled the Vietnam war botched another one... Rummy's already gone at least. The military should run all military operations with little or no changes from the civilian authorities. Reconstruction is a different story, but it's hard to reconstruct something still in chaos.

I disagree with this statement, in that the war is not a military operation, but rather a joint political and military operation. The military carries it out and the politicians are the ones who decide at what scale the war will proceed. It is such that the current political climate in the US is divided. The public may be overall against the war, but politically, until I see enough votes to bypass a presidential veto, I am going to call the opinion divided.

Do you agree with this LancasterCounty? Because if yes, then we might actually be agreeing about something where we have differing opinions :D

Let's hypothetically suppose that every US soldier was given permission to serve the Iraqi government in exchange of money.

I am basing this hypothesis on the Swedish officers that were permitted to serve the Finnish army in their war against Russia in the second worldwar.

Would this be an adequate compromise, assuming the Iraqi government showed interest?
This is an interesting idea.

This is an interesting idea.

I would also like to revise it: The soldiers could choose what they wanted to serve the Iraqi government for.

For instance, does anyone here think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out better if JFK had just left it up to the military? Or Korea if Truman had let MacArthur do what he wanted?
Or worse - imagine if it'd been Bush and his cronies around during either of those two periods.
We'd be living underground, eating cave moss and using sticks to fight off giant irradiated cockroaches.

Or worse - imagine if it'd been Bush and his cronies around during either of those two periods.
We'd be living underground, eating cave moss and using sticks to fight off giant irradiated cockroaches.

I disagree entirely with this.

Set the goal, set the limits (no nukes, no carpet bombing, no land mines etc) then let the military have a free hand to do what has to be done to meet those goals.

Would you expand those limits to no coverups over crimes, no slaps on the wrists for crimes while in uniform and assorted rules that the military is supposed to follow to begin with?

yes it was a Republican that sent in advisors. It was a Democrat who sent in military troops.


Funny. I don't remember 'advisors' being allowed to shoot people, bomb places and generally do things people do in wars.

Or worse - imagine if it'd been Bush and his cronies around during either of those two periods.
We'd be living underground, eating cave moss and using sticks to fight off giant irradiated cockroaches.

I disagree entirely with this.

Oh, I think it's a far example, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis one. That situation required diplomacy, not a "shoot first last and always" attitude, and I think we've seen that Bush/Cheney is way short on the diplomacy side. It's important to remember just how much pressure JFK was under from the military to turn this into a war. LeMay, in particular, wanted to nuke Cuba out of existence and then go after the Soviets. And Bush, when it came to Iraq, wanted to go to war from the very beginning.

Oh, I think it's a far example, especially the Cuban Missile Crisis one. That situation required diplomacy, not a "shoot first last and always" attitude, and I think we've seen that Bush/Cheney is way short on the diplomacy side.

Actually, that is not entirely correct. The Bush Administration is doing diplomacy in North Korea as well as Iran for the most part. And if you truly look at things, Bush did conduct diplomacy when it comes to Iraq.

It's important to remember just how much pressure JFK was under from the military to turn this into a war. LeMay, in particular, wanted to nuke Cuba out of existence and then go after the Soviets.

Yes I know how much pressure JFK was under from the military.

And Bush, when it came to Iraq, wanted to go to war from the very beginning.

But did not until 2003. That is also something to remember.

Actually, that is not entirely correct. The Bush Administration is doing diplomacy in North Korea as well as Iran for the most part. And if you truly look at things, Bush did conduct diplomacy when it comes to Iraq.To say Bush conducted diplomacy in Iraq is to simply be blind. To truly conduct diplomacy, you have to be willing to do something other than go to war, and Bush was never willing to do anything else. Paul O'Neill pointed out that they were planning this from the moment they took over. There's no true bargaining when you won't consider compromise as an option. As for Iran, do you really think that if we had the military that Bush would hold back? We're saber-rattling right now. Iran doesn't take us seriously because they know we're no real threat to them. As for North Korea, they don't have anything we really want, so it's no big issue for us to talk to them. If they had significant natural resources, though, you can bet we'd be a lot more belligerent with them under Bush.


But did not until 2003. That is also something to remember.
Stupid doesn't look good on you. It took that long to build up the political will of the country to go to war, and even then he could only get support after lying about the threat they posed to the US.

To say Bush conducted diplomacy in Iraq is to simply be blind. To truly conduct diplomacy, you have to be willing to do something other than go to war, and Bush was never willing to do anything else. Paul O'Neill pointed out that they were planning this from the moment they took over. There's no true bargaining when you won't consider compromise as an option.

Compromise. If memory served me right, for 12 years we did nothing but compromise when it comes to Iraq and we are trying it with North Korea.

As for Iran, do you really think that if we had the military that Bush would hold back?

If I answer yes, are you going to hammer me for it because it disagrees with what you are thinking?

We're saber-rattling right now. Iran doesn't take us seriously because they know we're no real threat to them.

And Iran is saber-rattling as well. Everyone is saber-rattling and the UN is passing resolutions against Iran with French support I might add.

As for North Korea, they don't have anything we really want, so it's no big issue for us to talk to them. If they had significant natural resources, though, you can bet we'd be a lot more belligerent with them under Bush.

Maybe but then again, maybe not. One does not know how one will handle different situations. I am not saying that you are wrong mind you but I am not saying that you are right either.

Stupid doesn't look good on you.

Was that a character attack on me because I dare disagree with you?

Actually, that is not entirely correct. The Bush Administration is doing diplomacy in North Korea as well as Iran for the most part. And if you truly look at things, Bush did conduct diplomacy when it comes to Iraq.

No, see, the problem is, and this is something the current administration has never learned, is that diplomacy is a 2 way street. In order to get, you need to give.

To conduct diplomacy you need to be willing to make concessions, make agreements, come to a common middle ground. Bush didn't do that in Iraq, and he hasn't done it anywhere else. His method of diplomacy has been "do it, because we say so."

Giving an order to a sovereign nation, with the threat of invasion if they do not comply is not, and will never be, diplomacy. Even if he speaks politely and says please.

Which is the problem. This administration has NEVER conducted diplomacy with any of these three nations. Not once. They have followed the course of action of "do it, because we say so" and when the nations in turn reply "no, and fuck you" bush shrugs his shoulders, and says "well, we tried"\

That's no diplomacy.

No, see, the problem is, and this is something the current administration has never learned, is that diplomacy is a 2 way street. In order to get, you need to give.

You are indeed correct.

To conduct diplomacy you need to be willing to make concessions, make agreements, come to a common middle ground. Bush didn't do that in Iraq, and he hasn't done it anywhere else. His method of diplomacy has been "do it, because we say so."

And yet I seem to recall that he let the EU handle negotiations with Iran on a promise that if that fails, it will be taken to the UN. That is a big step.

Giving an order to a sovereign nation, with the threat of invasion if they do not comply is not, and will never be, diplomacy. Even if he speaks politely and says please.

I do not recall him threatening force if Iran does not comply with UN Resolutions.

Which is the problem. This administration has NEVER conducted diplomacy with any of these three nations. Not once. They have followed the course of action of "do it, because we say so" and when the nations in turn reply "no, and fuck you" bush shrugs his shoulders, and says "well, we tried"

That's no diplomacy.

"Its agressive negotiations" :D

And yet I seem to recall that he let the EU handle negotiations with Iran on a promise that if that fails, it will be taken to the UN. That is a big step.

Um, letting other people do the job for you doesn't exactly equal to diplomacy. If the most diplomatic thing this administration can claim to have done is gotten the fuck out of the way, that speaks volumes.

I do not recall him threatening force if Iran does not comply with UN Resolutions.

Axis of evil?

"Its agressive negotiations" :D

An oxymoron, I fear.

Was that a character attack on me because I dare disagree with you?
Not at all. It was based on your ridiculous comment, and I noticed you didn't reply to the point I raised, which was that the only reason we weren't at war with Iraq before 2003 was that Bush didn't have the political capital to do it before then, and he only got that capital by lying about the threat Iraq posed.

"Its agressive negotiations" :D
I love how you think this is all so cute when there are other peoples' lives at risk. You're such a child. These aren't pieces on a Risk board--they're human beings.

Um, letting other people do the job for you doesn't exactly equal to diplomacy. If the most diplomatic thing this administration can claim to have done is gotten the fuck out of the way, that speaks volumes.

They negotiated that deal. Everything done at the United Nations is done through negotiations. But you do have a good point.

Axis of evil?

Though it was a bad choice of phrase I will admit but frankly, that is minor compared to, "do as you are told or we will bomb the living daylights out of you"

An oxymoron, I fear.

Now there we are in full agreement. Man, I love star wars.

I love how you think this is all so cute when there are other peoples' lives at risk. You're such a child. These aren't pieces on a Risk board--they're human beings.

I see jokes are lost on you. It was also called sarcasm. Thank you for talking down to me. That is so mature.

And yet I seem to recall that he let the EU handle negotiations with Iran on a promise that if that fails, it will be taken to the UN. That is a big step.


Cause he can't afford to start open hostilities with Iran. The problems in Iraq would escalate out of control the moment bombs started landing in Iran. Shipping would be heavily disrupted, with I have no idea how many tankers sunk.

And that's a dodge for what Bush did with his so called 'diplomacy' to Iraq.

Though it was a bad choice of phrase I will admit but frankly, that is minor compared to, "do as you are told or we will bomb the living daylights out of you"


"Severe repercussions" doesn't quite have the flavor of "We'll bomb you to the stone age", but that's what happened anyway.

I would like to look at this issue like when I was a career fire officer.

As a city employee, I had to take my orders from my Battalion Chief, my Deputy Chief and my Chief. That is called the established chain of command. Of course, I was working for the citizens of the city, which are represented by the City Council and the Mayor. The City Council and Mayor enact local legislation and decide what the city will do (The Congress gave the President authority to go to war). The in turn, give the City Manager (Secretary of Defense) the mandate and authority to carry out the wishes of the Council and Mayor.

Every time that we had a working fire, the Mayor and City Manager would show up on the scene to see what was going on. However, even though I worked for the Manager and the Mayor (by chain of command) and by that same logic the citizens, the Manager and Mayor did not tell the Fire Chief what he needed to do nor would they direct firefighting operations. Their line of thinking was that they hired a Fire Chief to take care of those situations for him/her to manage.

As a Company Officer, my Chief Officers would tell me what they wanted me to do, and it was up to me to accomplish the task given. If I did not have enough firefighters to do the job, then it was my responsibility to ask for more help. Did I take orders from the ordinary citizen during a fire? Hell no!!! My job was to take care of the immediate problem with the resources I had. I never got in trouble for calling for more help because I could not control the monster with the crews I had at the time.

What has gotten us in this trouble has been the micromanagement of our military. General Schwartzkoff said it best during Desert Storm. The military is there to kill people and break things. Give them an objective and a set of rules, and let them do the job they were given. Granted, they do require civilian oversight, since that is our system of laws.

I knew that we were in trouble, when persons like my father, a highly decorated Army Veteran from two wars; and my father in law, a highly decorated Air Force war veteran tell me that we are doing the same damned thing that happened in Viet-Nam. Too many politicians dictating what target you can and cannot attack, objectives and rules of engagement being changed before the mission you are currently engaged in is over, higher ranking officers reporting what the politicians want to hear instead of telling them the truth as to what is really going on.

Just my thoughts, Y'all take care.

No, the link is supposed to be to the article. Perhaps I made the mistake of inputting the wrong link. I'll correct it. My question is, do you agree with the congressman or no? The link is now fixed. As for the military working for civilians, that is partially true. A Marine works the government and therefore the people of the USA. Does he take order from Joe Blowhard down the street? No, he follows order from other military men and women who know what the hell they are talking about. The point is that the military should handle wars, not civilians.

FDR? Winnie?

For instance, does anyone here think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out better if JFK had just left it up to the military? Or Korea if Truman had let MacArthur do what he wanted? What I think happens in these discussions is that people take what is accurate on a small scale and try to apply it to a larger scale. You don't want Congress deciding whether or not the military should use targeted bombing campaigns versus land assaults, but they certainly have a place when it comes to the political end of the discussion, as does the President.
I absolutely agree with these two examples. But I don't recall any military man in recent years threatening to invade a nation like China. In the present day, our success is much more endangered by the threat of 536 Commanders in Chief, as opposed to a single rogue military commander.

Once the political ends require military action, the planning and execution of those plans is best left to the military. We don't need another Lyndon Johnson and Robert MacNamara planning and timing missions so they'd look good on the evening news.

Not at all. It was based on your ridiculous comment, and I noticed you didn't reply to the point I raised, which was that the only reason we weren't at war with Iraq before 2003 was that Bush didn't have the political capital to do it before then, and he only got that capital by lying about the threat Iraq posed.
So he(Bush) must be a pretty smart guy to fool all these other smart people, huh?

So he(Bush) must be a pretty smart guy to fool all these other smart people, huh?

If memory serves me right, saying the samething back in 1998 that he Republicans were saying in 2003 and vice versa.

If memory serves me right, saying the samething back in 1998 that he Republicans were saying in 2003 and vice versa.
Something like that. One day some unequivocal truth about the capability and interest of Iraq to create WMDs and shelter terrorists will be produced, but that day is still a ways off.

If only we had done this from the beginning we'd be in a lot better shape. The fools who baffled the Vietnam war botched another one... Rummy's already gone at least. The military should run all military operations with little or no changes from the civilian authorities. Reconstruction is a different story, but it's hard to reconstruct something still in chaos.

linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

Maybe government shouldn't quibble over the specifics of how operational matters are handled...

But they sure as hell should be deciding when we are at war or not.

If the people are sick of the 'war', it is up to their elected representatives to see that war finished.

The federal government should have les control over military operations than they have. During the onset of the American Involvement in the Vietnam War the chief of staff of the US mIlitary said "Give me all the bombers we have and I will sink the island of North Vietnam."
When he was told that Vietnam was not an island he curtly replied, "I know it isn't sir, but if you let me do what I plan then it will be."
Instead of giving him full authority and allowing a possibility for a quick and efficient operation the government decided to run evrything, from picking important targets to deciding how much toilet paper was to be ussied to combat troops. Thats not a way to run a war, and do you think we learned anything from it all? No, not at all. Once again we pick a fight we can easily win and let the government mess things up. One man trained in the art of warfare can make far better decisions than 535 men who accidently shoot each other while hunting for pheasants.

The federal government should have les control over military operations than they have. During the onset of the American Involvement in the Vietnam War the chief of staff of the US mIlitary said "Give me all the bombers we have and I will sink the island of North Vietnam."
When he was told that Vietnam was not an island he curtly replied, "I know it isn't sir, but if you let me do what I plan then it will be."
Instead of giving him full authority and allowing a possibility for a quick and efficient operation the government decided to run evrything, from picking important targets to deciding how much toilet paper was to be ussied to combat troops. Thats not a way to run a war, and do you think we learned anything from it all? No, not at all. Once again we pick a fight we can easily win and let the government mess things up. One man trained in the art of warfare can make far better decisions than 535 men who accidently shoot each other while hunting for pheasants.

You don't let soldiers pick wars. They do their job - they fight once they are called on - but they shouldn't decide whether they are called on, or when they are no longer needed.

The military is not our only option... and, if we learn anything from history, it should be that the military is often nowhere near the best option,either.

I never argued for the Military being a good option. I'm a passivist by nature and I tend to see the use of armed force to be the worst or at best the next to worst option. But when that option is used you must letthe ones who know what they are talking about run the scene. Rome got away with it for the most part because to be the Emperor of Rome you most likely either took the throne through military force or spent at least some time on th ebattlefield.

I never argued for the Military being a good option. I'm a passivist by nature and I tend to see the use of armed force to be the worst or at best the next to worst option. But when that option is used you must letthe ones who know what they are talking about run the scene. Rome got away with it for the most part because to be the Emperor of Rome you most likely either took the throne through military force or spent at least some time on th ebattlefield.

I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think government needs to micromanage - but it must have a strong oversight responsibility.

Japanese soldiers in WW2 carried out some pretty barbaric acts, and the responsibility for that is laid at the feet of the Japanese people, the Japanese culture of the time, and the Japanese ruling regime. We are judged by how our military handles itself, and by how our government dictates that.

But - I'm not talking about micromanaging. The government has, not just the right, but the responsibility to end the war, if it be the will of the people. That isn't trying to dictate tactics or strategy - it is saying 'game over'. Let the generals decide how we wrap it up, maybe - but they don't get to decide they want to stay there.

Frankly, any argument that the democratic party's actions are "micromanaging" is both ascinine and unsupportable.

Has this spending bill told them where to fight? No. Has it told them how? No. Has it changed any rules of engagement? No. Has it changed the command heirarchy? No.

Democrats have not attempted, in any way, to tell the commanders HOW to fight, other than that they be bound by law. They have tried to micromanage nothing.

They have done exacty one thing. Attempted to say when they will stop fighting.

This is not micromanaging. This is not "not letting the generals do their job". This is not taking over the war and having 500 commanders in chief and other bullshit.

It is the government exercising its power to end a war. Anyone who attempts to argue that democrats have tried to take authority that should belong to the military is suggesting that the military alone should decide when they fight, and when they stop.

Are you fucking insane?

Glad we agree Grave. I just got here and would hate to make enemies right out.

Glad we agree Grave. I just got here and would hate to make enemies right out.

Welcome to NS General. :)

I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think government needs to micromanage - but it must have a strong oversight responsibility.

Japanese soldiers in WW2 carried out some pretty barbaric acts, and the responsibility for that is laid at the feet of the Japanese people, the Japanese culture of the time, and the Japanese ruling regime. We are judged by how our military handles itself, and by how our government dictates that.

But - I'm not talking about micromanaging. The government has, not just the right, but the responsibility to end the war, if it be the will of the people. That isn't trying to dictate tactics or strategy - it is saying 'game over'. Let the generals decide how we wrap it up, maybe - but they don't get to decide they want to stay there.
If ending a war isn't a strategic decision in the conduct of a war, then I don't know what is. The current problem is aggravated by the fact that this invasion was met with widespread approval by the appropriate governing bodies at the time it was proposed. I suspect a lot of that approval was due to political expediency or necessity. The same political pressures are at work to call for a end. The question we are all asking is "How closely coupled should we allow politics and warfare to become?"

If ending a war isn't a strategic decision in the conduct of a war, then I don't know what is. ... The question we are all asking is "How closely coupled should we allow politics and warfare to become?"

Your answer to that question seems to be "we shouldn't let politics dictate when a war ends".

That is frankly stupid. A war is an act of nations. It begins, and ends, when the government decrees. To say that the government should stay out of a decision to END A FUCKING WAR is ascinine even for you.

I believe the congressman is out of order.

It is prudent to follow the suggestions of your men on the ground and trust them to be expert in military affairs.

However, war and its use are nothing but political tools.

So therefore, the Military must always answer to Civilian Oversight.

IF the civilians wo provide that oversight are too stupid to listen to good advice from men who dont wnat to see a complete cluster fuck and the deaths of thousands of their troops ...well then you have just elected George W Bush...Congress is trying to dig itself out of a hole Bush started---no one knows what to do because this is fucked.

Plan english--fucked.

QFT. just what i was going to say, and now i don't need to. +1

Oh calm down. The problem is that the government isn't making this decision based on any criteria other than how many seats the Democrats can pick up because of the anti-war hysteria that has been created. That's _not_ government, it's politics. And I hope we agree that political expediency has no place on the battlefield, and a very minor role in good government.

I can agree to that.

Your answer to that question seems to be "we shouldn't let politics dictate when a war ends".

That is frankly stupid. A war is an act of nations. It begins, and ends, when the government decrees. To say that the government should stay out of a decision to END A FUCKING WAR is ascinine even for you.
Oh calm down. The problem is that the government isn't making this decision based on any criteria other than how many seats the Democrats can pick up because of the anti-war hysteria that has been created. That's _not_ government, it's politics. And I hope we agree that political expediency has no place on the battlefield, and a very minor role in good government.

Suuuuure it is. Nothing about, you know, saving the lives of soldiers. No no, after all, the only way to support our troops is to send them into a war to die without accomplishing anything.

Thank god the republican party supports our troops so well.

You might make more friends if you lose the attitude.

Oh calm down. The problem is that the government isn't making this decision based on any criteria other than how many seats the Democrats can pick up because of the anti-war hysteria that has been created.

Suuuuure it is. Nothing about, you know, saving the lives of soldiers. No no, after all, the only way to support our troops is to send them into a war to die without accomplishing anything.

Thank god the republican party supports our troops so well.

You might make more friends if you lose the attitude.

I have absolutly no interest what so ever in ever calling Myrmidonisia a friend. Therefore I shall not mourn the loss.

And, may I suggest stop with the suggestions on how to live my life, k? I didn't ask you.

I have absolutly no interest what so ever in ever calling Myrmidonisia a friend. Therefore I shall not mourn the loss.

And, may I suggest stop with the suggestions on how to live my life, k? I didn't ask you.

Attitudes do not move debates along but causes more anamosity than there needs to be.

Suuuuure it is. Nothing about, you know, saving the lives of soldiers. No no, after all, the only way to support our troops is to send them into a war to die without accomplishing anything.

Thank god the republican party supports our troops so well.
Well, you know, when a leader of the Democratic party says something like,

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding," it does make one wonder exactly where their priorities lie.

--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

Well, you know, when a leader of the Democratic party says something like,

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding," it does make one wonder exactly where their priorities lie.

--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

I could say something here but it would be very impolite. Reid does have a point but yet, you also have a small point as well.

Well, you know, when a leader of the Democratic party says something like,

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding," it does make one wonder exactly where their priorities lie.

--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

Holy shit, Reid said something true. Quick, call him a traitor again! Now here's a lesson for you, I know it's hard, and I know it's tough, but try to get through the whole thing without drooling on yourself.

How does that, in ANY way, invalidate what I said, other than show, as I said, that the views of the democratic party has views more in line with the majority of this country?

In other words, and try really, REALLY hard not to get lost here, Democrats won BECAUSE of what they believe.

How does that, in ANY way, invalidate what I said, other than show, as I said, that the views of the democratic party has views more in line with the majority of this country?

People get their views by what they hear on TV and what politicians are saying. People today do not try to get actual information. To bad people are so politically apathetic.

In other words, and try really, REALLY hard not to get lost here, Democrats won BECAUSE of what they believe.

Partly true but the scandles had more to do with it than anything else.

Attitudes do not move debates along but causes more anamosity than there needs to be.

Were I to believe that Myrmidonisia were capable of ever having anything CLOSE to a conversation that wasn't anything but bullshit and misdirected anamosity, I would endeavor to actually discuss it.

however as he has shown time and time again a complete and total incapability to actually discuss anything even close to rationally, I'm not going to bother.

whether I'm polite or not polite, he's still a hack

Were I to believe that Myrmidonisia were capable of ever having anything CLOSE to a conversation that wasn't anything but bullshit and misdirected anamosity, I would endeavor to actually discuss it.

however as he has shown time and time again a complete and total incapability to actually discuss anything even close to rationally, I'm not going to bother.

whether I'm polite or not polite, he's still a hack

And the way you are talking makes me believe that you are a hack too. You have been showing yourself to be irrational by the tone you use to post. It is disgraceful to see from a supposed adult.

So he(Bush) must be a pretty smart guy to fool all these other smart people, huh?

You don't have to be smart to pull off a lie. Sometimes it even helps to be a dumbass--helps you pull off the sincerity angle.

tell me, to what degree should I bother to be polite and make effort to explain things to a man that said Senate Majority Leader Reid had comitted treason and thus should be put to death for stating that the war had been lost?

To the fullest degree. By being polite though someone else is not, shows you to be the bigger person in a debate.

What degree should I bother to be rational and make effort to explain thigs to a man who attempted to "disprove" global warming by stating that this past february had been "the 39th coldest of the last 130 years"?

To the fullest degree. YOu should always be polite regardless of the absurdity of people.

What degree should I bother to be rational and make effort to explain things to a man who has advocated the administration declare martial law and suspend elections?

Same answer as the previous two responses above.

And the way you are talking makes me believe that you are a hack too. You have been showing yourself to be irrational by the tone you use to post. It is disgraceful to see from a supposed adult.

tell me, to what degree should I bother to be polite and make effort to explain things to a man that said Senate Majority Leader Reid had comitted treason and thus should be put to death for stating that the war had been lost?

What degree should I bother to be rational and make effort to explain thigs to a man who attempted to "disprove" global warming by stating that this past february had been "the 39th coldest of the last 130 years"?

What degree should I bother to be rational and make effort to explain things to a man who has advocated the administration declare martial law and suspend elections?

How long would you bother? You're new here. Don't presume to think you know the history behind things. There are people who can be talked to, and people who cant. Myrmidonisia has shown time and time again that he is not someone who will ever listen to a thing anyone has to say, despite any efforts to refute his inane commentary.

In other words, and try really, REALLY hard not to get lost here, Democrats won BECAUSE of what they believe.
You are 100% right. They did win because of what they believe. What, exactly, that is is subject to which side of the hysteria you are talking from. The Democrats certainly believe that the fighting in Iraq is a wonderful political tool to be used against the President. They certainly believe that by creating a cloud of mistrust and an atmosphere of defeat, they can capitalize on that to gain seats in the government. I'm even sure that some Democrats are idealistic enough to believe that the war in Iraq is and always has been a bad thing. Those Democrats are not Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. I'd throw Clinton in here too, but I'm sure that would overwhelm you.

Anyhow, we agree and I guess there's nothing more to discuss, huh?

If ending a war isn't a strategic decision in the conduct of a war, then I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is.

You are 100% right. They did win because of what they believe. What, exactly, that is is subject to which side of the hysteria you are talking from. The Democrats certainly believe that the fighting in Iraq is a wonderful political tool to be used against the President. They certainly believe that by creating a cloud of mistrust and an atmosphere of defeat, they can capitalize on that to gain seats in the government. I'm even sure that some Democrats are idealistic enough to believe that the war in Iraq is and always has been a bad thing. Those Democrats are not Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. I'd throw Clinton in here too, but I'm sure that would overwhelm you.

Anyhow, we agree and I guess there's nothing more to discuss, huh?

Yeah, only you in your deranged mind would somehow magically transform "we don't want more people to die needlessly" into "we want to use you as a political tool"

Only you would somehow dogmattically cling to the idea that saying "I supported a war when I believed america to be in danger, and I no longer support it as I no longer believe america to be in danger" is an inconsistant position.

Only you would believe someone is two faced for changing his opinion after learning that the information upon which he formed that opinion was a lie.

In short, only you would come up with this shit.

But you know, keep on trucking, keep on slinging the mud, it worked OH SO WELL for your party in 2006. Oh well, enjoy the minority.

How long would you bother?

I would constently be polite for as long as I need to regardless of how idiotic someone sounds.

You're new here. Don't presume to think you know the history behind things. There are people who can be talked to, and people who cant.

Everyone can be talked to. The question is just how civil it will be. The more civil people are, the better the discussion and vice versa. By taking an attitude is just going to entrench them more.

Myrmidonisia has shown time and time again that he is not someone who will ever listen to a thing anyone has to say, despite any efforts to refute his inane commentary.

Then why bother responding to him?

Arthais just refuses to be happy. He objects to Myrmidonisia because he's irrational, but objects to me for my rationality.

To the fullest degree. YOu should always be polite regardless of the absurdity of people

No. Fuck that. People are worthy of my respect, and people are not. People who have earned my respect get treated with respect.

People who have not, have earned nothing. People like Myrmidonisia have in fact swung the other way and earned my scorn ridicule and derision.

Be polite to him? Fuck that.

And, by the way, may I point out that telling people that they should change their behavior is not very polite.

then why bother responding to him?

I don't so much talk to him, as enjoy pointing out his idiocy to other people. I know he won't change. I know trying is worthless. I do get some joy pointing out his stupidity for others to laugh at, however.

Arthais just refuses to be happy. He objects to Myrmidonisia because he's irrational, but objects to me for my rationality.

No, I object to your misguided belief that you approach anything close to rationality

No. Fuck that. People are worthy of my respect, and people are not. People who have earned my respect get treated with respect.

There I would agree but those that we do not respect do deserve the same curtesy. Respect is indeed earned.

People who have not, have earned nothing. People like Myrmidonisia have in fact swung the other way and earned my scorn ridicule and derision.

Which means you have to be derisive to him? So you are decide to do the same as he has done to you? Ok! I understand now.

Be polite to him? Fuck that.

Ok then. Continue to be immature.

And, by the way, may I point out that telling people that they should change their behavior is not very polite.

Another thing we agree on.

I don't so much talk to him, as enjoy pointing out his idiocy to other people. I know he won't change. I know trying is worthless. I do get some joy pointing out his stupidity for others to laugh at, however.

Whatever floats your boat.

Ok then. Continue to be immature.

K

Another thing we agree on.

Good good, so what, exactly, was this
You might make more friends if you lose the attitude.

then? Awfully impolite of you, wouldn't you say? What was that thing about casting the first stone?

Good good, so what, exactly, was this

A suggestion actually.

What was that thing about casting the first stone?

"He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone"

All I did was make a suggestion! It was not an order.

No, I object to your misguided belief that you approach anything close to rationality
I am definitionally the most rational person possible. I employ pure reason.

Frankly, any argument that the democratic party's actions are "micromanaging" is both ascinine and unsupportable.

Has this spending bill told them where to fight? No. Has it told them how? No. Has it changed any rules of engagement? No. Has it changed the command heirarchy? No.

Democrats have not attempted, in any way, to tell the commanders HOW to fight, other than that they be bound by law. They have tried to micromanage nothing.

They have done exacty one thing. Attempted to say when they will stop fighting.

This is not micromanaging. This is not "not letting the generals do their job". This is not taking over the war and having 500 commanders in chief and other bullshit.

It is the government exercising its power to end a war. Anyone who attempts to argue that democrats have tried to take authority that should belong to the military is suggesting that the military alone should decide when they fight, and when they stop.

Are you fucking insane?

I would not blame either party of micromanaging the war. The micromanaging came from the SecDef himself. When our troops were being fired upon from a mosque, the received orders from "up above" not to fire back. What kind of stupid shit is that? That is the point that I was referring about changing rules of engagement in the middle of the fight.

What the democrats want to do is to bring the troops back home. Hey, I would love to see them back home also. However, they voted for the war, we should let them finnish the job they were sent to do, then bring them home.

The politicians (dems and reps) have forgotten that war is just an extension of foreign policy. It is very easy to rattle the saber, very easy to say "cry havock; and set forth loose the dogs of war". What is not easy is to end what was started.

Just my thoughts.

Vic

I would not blame either party of micromanaging the war. The micromanaging came from the SecDef himself. When our troops were being fired upon from a mosque, the received orders from "up above" not to fire back. What kind of stupid shit is that? That is the point that I was referring about changing rules of engagement in the middle of the fight.

What the democrats want to do is to bring the troops back home. Hey, I would love to see them back home also. However, they voted for the war, we should let them finnish the job they were sent to do, then bring them home.

The politicians (dems and reps) have forgotten that war is just an extension of foreign policy. It is very easy to rattle the saber, very easy to say "cry havock; and set forth loose the dogs of war". What is not easy is to end what was started.

Just my thoughts.

Vic

In case you didn't notice, the senate isn't made up of the same people that declared war in the first place.

In case you didn't notice, the senate isn't made up of the same people that declared war in the first place.

That's A.

B is the fact that the reasons many congressmen had for voting for the war have since turned out to be false.

If you supported the war based on the belief that Iraq had WMDs and was aligned with Al Qaeda, and it was for these reasons you voted for it, why would it be unreasonable to no longer support it once that turned out not to be the case? The reason for voting for it no longer applies.

If I spend $30,000 on a picasso, take it home, and it turns out it's not, it's not wrong for me to try and get my money back.

The republican party, through its allegations of "flip flopping" and trying to point out that some democrats voted for the war is effectivly trying to tell them that since they decided to buy the painting, they shouldn't try to return it now, completely ignoring the fact that what they wanted to buy, and what they ended up with were to radically different things.