Murtha vows America's defeat

[eusebioCBR]

I wonder why you won't find a detailed account of this story on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC...................
Anti war congressmen and senators are willing to stab our troops in the back to make their point. That is a Vietnam all over again.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2783.html

Everyone probably hates Rush, but this is an email worth reading.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...102.guest.html

[JulieCitySlicker]

Those who are anti-war need to get over it because there will always be war, no one likes it but no one can really stop it either.

Ps. Yes! America will fall apart some day along with the rest of the world!

[RMadd]

i'm not sure they're stabbing people in the back so much as they see that 20,000 more troops won't solve this mess. the little bipartisan study group , created under the auspices of a Republican-controlled Congress (last March), headed by former Sec'y of State James A. Baker came to this very conclusion. yet Bush and his cronies decided to disregard this sage advice, and called for increases, rather than a withdrawal.

also, just b/c war is the result of people being messed up doesn't mean you have to like it or support it. in the old days, war was the tactic employed by governments when diplomacy failed. now it's become a means for some sort of moral, democratic crusade conducted by Pres. Bush. quite frankly, if you hit a dog repeatedly, it's not going to make it happy & nice. that thing'll get angry & mean. installing democracy via war won't work. it only perpetuates the cycle of violence.

[eusebioCBR]

Violence can thrive without a cycle. I'm not saying what America has done in Iraq was justified or correct, but retreat will make things far worse than they are now.
We broke, we have to fix it. The surrounding countries(Iran......) would take advantage of a young Iraqi government and its frail armed forces to steal their oil recources.
And ya you'll probably say "that's what George Bush is doing."
I'm not a military expert, but retreat doesn't sound like much of a strategy either.

[RMadd]

sometimes you have to face the facts when you're in a losing fight. yes, it might not be good to "retreat," as you put it. but i just don't see how we're going to solve this sort of religious (sectarian) divide. we couldn't even figure out Vietnam, and that was pretty much a political struggle that dates to the colonial period and was eventually manifested through communist ideology. the shi'ite-sunni division goes back pretty much to within a few generations after the prophet Mohammed and, to sum it up, is over which side is the true Islamic group. having a military presence in the region isn't exactly going to stabilize things. ahmedinejad seems pretty bent on incurring the wrath of the u.s., and things seem to be going sour in afghanistan as well. having 100k+ troops tied down in iraq, fighting this losing battle, won't be good if we all of a sudden need to go into iran. at least for now we can set a timetable, rather than being caught off-guard and getting completely screwed.

[eusebioCBR]

There is religious devision that seems hopeless and eternal. Yet there is Iraqi support for what we're doing there and their fear is we'll leave before the job is done.
Fighting for those longing for peace and stability is more noble than running from those that would inflict tyranny. imo
I can't get myself to agree with the abandonment of the hopeful and retreat is retreat, calling it redeployment is just a semantic shell game.

[RMadd]

i'm not sure i see how maintaining a large military presence is going to get the iraqis to get any warm fuzzy feelings about democracy.
Here is a USA Today from this past Sept about, and while I don't have a more current source, I could imagine that Pres. Bush's desire to increase troop levels hasn't gone over too well there.
Quite frankly, the region is pretty used to having authoritarian leadership--our good friends in Saudi Arabia & Egypt certainly don't have lovely Western-style democracies. The current generation in power isn't going to be able to change things a whole lot. And what might be most disappointing to some Americans is that Middle Eastern democracy, due to different dynamics at play (religions, social customs & institutions, etc.), won't look a whole lot like Western or American democracy.
Also, I imagine Hitler or Stalin felt they had noble causes in exterminating the Jews or invading sovereign countries. This idea of nobility is just some rhetoric, patriotic b.s.

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

i'm not sure i see how maintaining a large military presence is going to get the iraqis to get any warm fuzzy feelings about democracy.
Here is a USA Today from this past Sept about, and while I don't have a more current source, I could imagine that Pres. Bush's desire to increase troop levels hasn't gone over too well there.
Quite frankly, the region is pretty used to having authoritarian leadership--our good friends in Saudi Arabia & Egypt certainly don't have lovely Western-style democracies. The current generation in power isn't going to be able to change things a whole lot. And what might be most disappointing to some Americans is that Middle Eastern democracy, due to different dynamics at play (religions, social customs & institutions, etc.), won't look a whole lot like Western or American democracy.
Also, I imagine Hitler or Stalin felt they had noble causes in exterminating the Jews or invading sovereign countries. This idea of nobility is just some rhetoric, patriotic b.s.

So you don't believe freedom is for everybody

To compare America with Hitler or Stalin is just some speciuos liberal rhetoric bullshit

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

So you don't believe freedom is for everybody

To compare America with Hitler or Stalin is just some speciuos liberal rhetoric bullshit

enough with the republican party line bullshit already.
freedom is for everyone, if they want it. your jumping to conclusions leapfrogged right over the notion that, perhaps, these people have lived for hundreds, even thousands of years with certain traditions & customs, and may therefore not be immediately disposed to deposing any tyrannical regimes. look at china. many thought tiananmen square was going to be the start of a massive democratic revolution in the country but, while the PRC has continued its liberal economic reform, it's still modestly closed politically, nearly 18 years later. just because a bunch of Westerners believe political freedom is essential doesn't mean that everyone must believe that. and until you can grasp that concept, that some people value political order more than freedom, you won't understand why iraq is such a (giggity-giggity goo) quagmire, a losing battle.

to ignore historical events & similarities they may possess to current events is to set yourself up for immense failure all over again. i'm not saying bush is hitler or 'uncle joe,' as you seem to assert. i'm merely pointing out that what might be "high-minded" from our point-of-view (no, i'm not a communist, and yes, i do think democracy & freedom are a good thing, so i'm still kind of on your side, whether you want to believe it or not...) does not mean that everyone thinks it is. many terrorists may believe that dying for allah & defeating the great infidel that is america is a very high-minded cause; in fact, they've been indoctrinated to believe that it is the supreme cause, that it is worth dying for.

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

enough with the republican party line bullshit already.
freedom is for everyone, if they want it. your jumping to conclusions leapfrogged right over the notion that, perhaps, these people have lived for hundreds, even thousands of years with certain traditions & customs, and may therefore not be immediately disposed to deposing any tyrannical regimes. look at china. many thought tiananmen square was going to be the start of a massive democratic revolution in the country but, while the PRC has continued its liberal economic reform, it's still modestly closed politically, nearly 18 years later. just because a bunch of Westerners believe political freedom is essential doesn't mean that everyone must believe that. and until you can grasp that concept, that some people value political order more than freedom, you won't understand why iraq is such a (giggity-giggity goo) quagmire, a losing battle.

to ignore historical events & similarities they may possess to current events is to set yourself up for immense failure all over again. i'm not saying bush is hitler or 'uncle joe,' as you seem to assert. i'm merely pointing out that what might be "high-minded" from our point-of-view (no, i'm not a communist, and yes, i do think democracy & freedom are a good thing, so i'm still kind of on your side, whether you want to believe it or not...) does not mean that everyone thinks it is. many terrorists may believe that dying for allah & defeating the great infidel that is america is a very high-minded cause; in fact, they've been indoctrinated to believe that it is the supreme cause, that it is worth dying for.

I'm not a republican and make all the excuses you want for dictatorships and theocracys. I believe freedom is for EVERYONE.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

I'm not a republican and make all the excuses you want for dictatorships and theocracys. I believe freedom is for EVERYONE.

I agree with you, but you have to understand why they might not be terribly concerned about controlling their own political fortunes.