Two questions on the same point

[Borealis]

First of all, the Democrats and American liberals in general have spoken often about how they 'oppose the war but support the troops.' Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not? Because I've seen a lot of interviews with American soldiers, both in Iraq and returning home, who have spoken often about how the left's actions are demoralizing the troops, not supporting them. Should the Democrats not rethink their strategy in view of this?

Secondly, (okay, this is technically a third question), after nearly five years of consistent, unrelenting criticism of America's actions abroad, from the beginning of the Afghan invasion (when the media predicted doom for American soldiers in the Afghan terrain) to today's ubiquitous calls to 'get the troops home,' is there any political advantage for the Democrats if the Bush doctrine can produce a genuinely free and democratic Iraq? In other words, does their only chance of regaining power lie in the defeat of America abroad?

If so, then isn't it time that we quit beating around the bush and admit that the left really is invested in America losing?

 

[notto]

First of all, the Democrats and American liberals in general have spoken often about how they 'oppose the war but support the troops.' Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not? Because I've seen a lot of interviews with American soldiers, both in Iraq and returning home, who have spoken often about how the left's actions are demoralizing the troops, not supporting them. Should the Democrats not rethink their strategy in view of this?

Well, since many of the returning troops who are running for elected office are running as Democrats, I think it is safe to say they were not demoralized or did not feel supported by the democratic position.

Secondly, (okay, this is technically a third question), after nearly five years of consistent, unrelenting criticism of America's actions abroad, from the beginning of the Afghan invasion (when the media predicted doom for American soldiers in the Afghan terrain) to today's ubiquitous calls to 'get the troops home,' is there any political advantage for the Democrats if the Bush doctrine can produce a genuinely free and democratic Iraq? In other words, does their only chance of regaining power lie in the defeat of America abroad?

That is a big if and I think that is the whole point. All we are promised by the Bush doctrine is a longer and destabalizing war and more body bags of US soldiers. Not to mention a distraction from terrorism and other real threats from countries that have infrastructure, long range missles, and the will to use them.

If so, then isn't it time that we quit beating around the bush and admit that the left really is invested in America losing?

How is wanting to change strategy after 5 years of failure investing in America losing? Wouldn't more investment in 'stay the course' be an investment in America losing?

 

[Jetgirl]

Well, since many of the returning troops who are running for elected office are running as Democrats,

Like who? We don't have any former troops running as Democrats in this state, as far as I can tell.

I think it is safe to say they were not demoralized or did not feel supported by the democratic position.

If the above is correct, I would agree with you.

Not to mention a distraction from terrorism and other real threats from countries that have infrastructure, long range missles, and the will to use them.

Since we have been attacked several times before we went to the middle east, do you think leaving the middle east now will elimiate this potentiality?

How is wanting to change strategy after 5 years of failure investing in America losing? Wouldn't more investment in 'stay the course' be an investment in America losing?

Depends on if you think we're failing and losing. I agree this could be confirmation bias, but I see a number of people who don't think either.

On an off note, I find it very disturbing that we seem to have a gulf between two mindsets in America such that one half's "winning" is the other half's "losing".

This can't be good in the long term.

 

[Borealis]

Well, since many of the returning troops who are running for elected office are running as Democrats, I think it is safe to say they were not demoralized or did not feel supported by the democratic position.

I submit that the percentage of returning troops who are running for office is infinitesimally small, so your statement proves nothing.

That is a big if and I think that is the whole point. All we are promised by the Bush doctrine is a longer and destabalizing war and more body bags of US soldiers. Not to mention a distraction from terrorism and other real threats from countries that have infrastructure, long range missles, and the will to use them.

You'd have to wait another 40 or 50 years to match the WWII body count America racked up, which is less time than it took to get America out of Germany. OTOH, there are lessons to be learned from the aftermath of WWII. Germany was overseen by the four major allies: America, Britain, France (God knows why), and the Soviets. Japan was overseen by the Americans and no one else. Which one recovered faster?

War isn't easy; anyone who thinks you can win a war without casualties is an utter moron.

How is wanting to change strategy after 5 years of failure investing in America losing? Wouldn't more investment in 'stay the course' be an investment in America losing?

Let me counter with this question: Osama bin Laden stated that America is a paper tiger that will quit when its soldiers die. Mogadishu proved it to him; 9/11 was the result. Do you want to prove him right again?

The Iraqis don't consider it to be a failure; only the mainstream media and the Democrats do. America isn't losing, they're kicking butt and taking names. It's only in the media's version of reality that America is losing, just as it was in Vietnam. In the real world, America is succeeding, as it always has (except for 1812, when Brits and Canadians kicked your BUTTS! )

Here's an example of what America is doing in Iraq. The link is to a transcript of a call to Rush Limbaugh's show from a Navy serviceman recently returned from Iraq. I'm excerpting a fair chunk of it because the link will be restricted to subscribers only by tonight or tomorrow evening.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090106/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html

RUSH: What was it like? Tell me how it happened? You flew from where to where? When you got off the airplane at the airport, what was it like to get back here?

CALLER: It was... Well, couple points. It was incredible, one. I thoroughly enjoyed my experience over there. Unfortunately, we were able to -- we actually have assess to, you know, satellite TV in the chow halls and things like that over there, and so --

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: -- we see what's being reported back here, and it just disgusts us. A lot of the true things that are going on over there aren't reported, and that's part of the reason for my call. We get a lot of Drive-By politicians that come out to Iraq for a couple of days, come back here and report what they think they see in two days as opposed to, you know, all the troops that are over there for six months, 12 months.

RUSH: How long were you there?

CALLER: I was there boots on the ground just over ten months.

RUSH: Hold on just here, Greg. I'm not trying to embarrass you.

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: I want to point something out to the audience. A full 99% of the people of this country will never do what you just did. This is not a criticism. I'm just establishing here a fact.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Those 99%, when they think about it, think, "What if I had to go? What if I had to go to a war," and what do they think of it, IEDs going off every day, massive death, US soldiers killing and getting killed. So when they picture it, I'm sure that when they thought that they had to go, that they would be petrified, just petrified. And I would also wager that many of them, while they could not wait to get out of there and to get back and touching down on US soil would be one of the sweetest and most memorable home comings ever, and to hear you describe it, sound like you just got back from Keokuk.

CALLER: (Laughing.)


RUSH: It was no big deal, but you don't even want to talk about it. You went; you did your ten months. You volunteered as you said as all of you have and you got back and it was like you went to the grocery store on a shopping spree for ten months, no big deal to you. But I'm telling you, most Americans, you know, they have pictures of the World War II movies and here come the returning veterans and everybody is in town to greet them and their wives and their girlfriends, they are hugging them and there are tears and so forth. You just, hey, it's just the way life is for you, you just got back, and I'm just amazed by that. That's why I think you people are a different breed.

CALLER: Absolutely, and it's not like we hear that's being reported, "Oh, these are all uneducated people that are being brainwashed to go over there." That is totally not the truth. You know, the majority over there, I would say, at least have an associate's or even college degrees. There's many of us over there that, you know, chose to go and I know you gotta break coming up but I just wanted thank you and let your 20-plus million listeners out there know I was enrolled in the Adopt-A-Soldier Program, and a gentleman, if you don't mind me saying his name --

RUSH: No.

CALLER: Randy Remenap and his wife adopted me. Well, they asked me, said, "Hey, what can we do for you over there? We'd like to do something for you and your unit," and I said, "Hey, we're fine over here, but if you can send over, you know, maybe some spare clothes that you have, maybe a couple boxes, and I'll distribute them out to the Iraqis," because I actually lived with the Iraqis, Rush, and helped train them. So, they said, "Hey, no problem! We'll send some over." I was expecting two or three boxes. Well, they got together with a couple of high schools out in Michigan where they're from; the next thing you know I'm receiving in the mail over there up to 60 to 80 boxes (voice breaks). Sorry, it's emotional for me, but they ended up sending over literally over close to a thousand pieces of clothing that I ended up giving to the Iraqis.

 

[notto]

Here's an example of what America is doing in Iraq. The link is to a transcript of a call to Rush Limbaugh's show from a Navy serviceman recently returned from Iraq. I'm excerpting a fair chunk of it because the link will be restricted to subscribers only by tonight or tomorrow evening.

I submit that the percentage of returning troops who are calling into Rush Limbaugh's show is infinitesimally small, so your statement proves nothing.

If civil war is success, I can't imagine what the Bush administration considers a failure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/03/wirq03.xml

 

[Borealis]

I submit that the percentage of returning troops who are calling into Rush Limbaugh's show is infinitesimally small, so your statement proves nothing.

Is that the best you can come up with in response? Did you even read the transcript? Let me sum it up for those with short attention spans: this soldier's membership in Rush Limbaugh's website was paid for by a family (the Adopt-A-Soldier program), who through e-mail contacted him and asked if he or the troops needed anything. He said that the troops were fine, but clothing for the Iraqis would be welcome. Expecting maybe a couple of boxes, he was surprised when they collaborated with a couple of high schools and sent between SIXTY AND EIGHTY boxes of clothing for the Iraqi civilians.

THAT is the kind of thing America is doing in Iraq. And you'll never hear a word about this in the mainstream media, because it's a positive story, which they refuse to admit exists.

 

[notto]

Is that the best you can come up with in response? Did you even read the transcript? Let me sum it up for those with short attention spans: this soldier's membership in Rush Limbaugh's website was paid for by a family (the Adopt-A-Soldier program), who through e-mail contacted him and asked if he or the troops needed anything. He said that the troops were fine, but clothing for the Iraqis would be welcome. Expecting maybe a couple of boxes, he was surprised when they collaborated with a couple of high schools and sent between SIXTY AND EIGHTY boxes of clothing for the Iraqi civilians.

THAT is the kind of thing America is doing in Iraq. And you'll never hear a word about this in the mainstream media, because it's a positive story, which they refuse to admit exists.

This is anectodal at best and doesn't show any true success in Iraq. If the success this administration has to show for its efforts is that troops get free membership to Rush online and that people are sending cloths to Iraqis, I would again, wonder what failure looks like in the eyes of the administration and its supporters. Why exactly is it that Iraqi's need clothes? Could it be the lack of infrastructure the administrations success has left them with?

Was all of that clothes donated by Republicans? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Jetgirl]

Can we go back to the point about soliders coming home and running as Democrats?

I honestly haven't heard of any and would like some evidence to the contrary if possible.

Notto: if the number are like one or two, I'm not going to be convinced, but if there are soliders coming home and going Democrat in droves I'll definitely concede the point.

 

[Borealis]

This is anectodal at best and doesn't show any true success in Iraq. If the success this administration has to show for its efforts is that troops get free membership to Rush online and that people are sending cloths to Iraqis, I would again, wonder what failure looks like in the eyes of the administration and its supporters. Why exactly is it that Iraqi's need clothes? Could it be the lack of infrastructure the administrations success has left them with?

Was all of that clothes donated by Republicans? Inquiring minds want to know.

It was donated by Americans. Isn't that good enough for you?

See, your attitude is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about in the OP. Success is anathema to the opponents of George W. Bush, because any success will reflect well on him, and that is simply intolerable to the left. He MUST be demonized endlessly, regardless of the consequences to the nation, the national will, or America's image across the world. Anything is acceptable, from forged National Guard documents to books and movies on his assassination, from dredging up thirty-year old drunk-driving charges to mocking his intellect.

America was undefeated in war until Vietnam (not counting 1812, which we won) for a very good reason: the country was always united against whatever enemy was faced. And yes, that includes the Civil War, when the entire Union banded together without question against the south. They didn't all like it much, but they believed that America came first. The same through to World War II; American political squabbling ended at the water's edge. Democrats and Republicans alike stuck together during times of war, because America meant more to them than petty political bickering.

Wendell Wilkie said that he would rather lose the election than cause America to lose the war through partisan divide. Maybe the Democrats should take a look at that attitude instead of constantly framing every single little thing in terms of 'how will this help us get reelected?'

The left cost America victory in Vietnam and considers it their high-water mark in history. Now they seek to repeat that 'glory' by tearing America down once again against an eminently beatable enemy. They demand an instant success, knowing that such a thing is impossible, and then scream that Bush is a 'failure' because Iraq didn't instantly turn into a smaller copy of America.

Bill Veeck, the promotional whiz that owned the St. Louis Browns, once said that baseball must be a great game, because the owners haven't been able to kill it.

America must be a great nation, because the left hasn't been able to kill it.

 

[nvxplorer]

First of all, the Democrats and American liberals in general have spoken often about how they 'oppose the war but support the troops.' Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not? Because I've seen a lot of interviews with American soldiers, both in Iraq and returning home, who have spoken often about how the left's actions are demoralizing the troops, not supporting them. Should the Democrats not rethink their strategy in view of this?

Strategy aside, at a personal level, no one should feel compelled to either support or oppose any military mission. Such opinions should be formed based on the direction the mission is taking, not the feelings of any particular troops. If morale is lacking, I'd look more to the events on the ground, not what some politicians may be saying. If some troops are incapable of operating with criticism of the war, then the military should seek personnel with thicker skin and/or revise its training regimen. I don't see Wal-Mart failing because some people criticize the company.

Secondly, (okay, this is technically a third question), after nearly five years of consistent, unrelenting criticism of America's actions abroad, from the beginning of the Afghan invasion (when the media predicted doom for American soldiers in the Afghan terrain) to today's ubiquitous calls to 'get the troops home,' is there any political advantage for the Democrats if the Bush doctrine can produce a genuinely free and democratic Iraq? In other words, does their only chance of regaining power lie in the defeat of America abroad?

If so, then isn't it time that we quit beating around the bush and admit that the left really is invested in America losing?

As has been mentioned, the US is in the middle of sectarian violence. The war has become Iraqi vs. Iraqi. Therefore, before the US can "win," we must first decide on which side we stand: Sunni or Shia.

 

[JustOneWay]

First of all, the Democrats and American liberals in general have spoken often about how they 'oppose the war but support the troops.' Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not? Because I've seen a lot of interviews with American soldiers, both in Iraq and returning home, who have spoken often about how the left's actions are demoralizing the troops, not supporting them. Should the Democrats not rethink their strategy in view of this?

Secondly, (okay, this is technically a third question), after nearly five years of consistent, unrelenting criticism of America's actions abroad, from the beginning of the Afghan invasion (when the media predicted doom for American soldiers in the Afghan terrain) to today's ubiquitous calls to 'get the troops home,' is there any political advantage for the Democrats if the Bush doctrine can produce a genuinely free and democratic Iraq? In other words, does their only chance of regaining power lie in the defeat of America abroad?

If so, then isn't it time that we quit beating around the bush and admit that the left really is invested in America losing?

you are funny. Absolutely wrong, but funny nonetheless.

 

[notto]

It was donated by Americans. Isn't that good enough for you?

I'm not the one suggesting that Democrats want failure for the Iraqi people in Iraq. It would seem kind of strange if that were true for the Democrats to be sending clothes to Iraqis. That is why I asked.

 

[notto]

Can we go back to the point about soliders coming home and running as Democrats?

I honestly haven't heard of any and would like some evidence to the contrary if possible.

Notto: if the number are like one or two, I'm not going to be convinced, but if there are soliders coming home and going Democrat in droves I'll definitely concede the point.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2006540,00.html

Mr Horne, 44, is not alone. He is one of a dozen Iraq war veterans running for congressional seats in the November mid-term elections. What makes this new band of political brothers extraordinary is that all but one are running as Democrats, and against a war that only months ago they were fighting in.
“It’s unprecedented. It’s amazing the Democrats have found this many,” said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia.
Thirty military veterans from the wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are seeking seats in the US House of Representatives as antiwar Democrats in a country where more than half the public now consider the war a mistake.
The only Iraq veteran running as a prowar Republican is Van Taylor, a decorated Marine captain challenging a Democrat incumbent in Texas. Republicans also have 35 candidates for House seats who fought in other wars.

 

[Borealis]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2006540,00.html

Mr Horne, 44, is not alone. He is one of a dozen Iraq war veterans running for congressional seats in the November mid-term elections. What makes this new band of political brothers extraordinary is that all but one are running as Democrats, and against a war that only months ago they were fighting in.
“It’s unprecedented. It’s amazing the Democrats have found this many,” said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia.
Thirty military veterans from the wars in Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are seeking seats in the US House of Representatives as antiwar Democrats in a country where more than half the public now consider the war a mistake.
The only Iraq veteran running as a prowar Republican is Van Taylor, a decorated Marine captain challenging a Democrat incumbent in Texas. Republicans also have 35 candidates for House seats who fought in other wars.

So in other words, the majority of veterans running for federal office are running as Republicans, 36-30? What about more local representation? How many returning vets are running in local or state elections?

 

[notto]

So in other words, the majority of veterans running for federal office are running as Republicans, 36-30? What about more local representation? How many returning vets are running in local or state elections?

Don't know. I'm only demonstrating that the majority of returning Iraqi vets who are running for federal office seem to be running as Democrats. If the Democratic plan is based on failure in Iraq, that would seem to be a strange thing to happen and that overall it is a fairly even split between veterans (who I would be hesitant to say don't support the troops) who are running Republian or Democrat.

I don't think that these returning Iraqi vets could be seen as not supporting the troops by running as Democrats. My guess is that based on what they have seen, they believe there is a better way. Perhaps they are seeing something that you refuse to.

I think that the strawman that Democrats want failure can be demonstrated for what it is. I talking point that is not based on the reality of these returning Iraqi veterans running as Democrats.

 

[Anovah]

First of all, the Democrats and American liberals in general have spoken often about how they 'oppose the war but support the troops.' Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not? Because I've seen a lot of interviews with American soldiers, both in Iraq and returning home, who have spoken often about how the left's actions are demoralizing the troops, not supporting them. Should the Democrats not rethink their strategy in view of this?

Secondly, (okay, this is technically a third question), after nearly five years of consistent, unrelenting criticism of America's actions abroad, from the beginning of the Afghan invasion (when the media predicted doom for American soldiers in the Afghan terrain) to today's ubiquitous calls to 'get the troops home,' is there any political advantage for the Democrats if the Bush doctrine can produce a genuinely free and democratic Iraq? In other words, does their only chance of regaining power lie in the defeat of America abroad?

If so, then isn't it time that we quit beating around the bush and admit that the left really is invested in America losing?

I'm not saying I share this view but I believe that some do not see "getting the troops home" as a defeat, but quite to the contrary, see it as a win for America.

Also, I haven't found that statement/thinking to be any more ubiquitous than "I don't disagree with a war on terrorists, but I do disagree with how that war is being handled"

Just throwing out another perspective.

 

[Borealis]

I'm not saying I share this view but I believe that some do not see "getting the troops home" as a defeat, but quite to the contrary, see it as a win for America.

The way retreating from Vietnam was a 'win for America?' That 'win' cost 5,000,000 lives in Cambodia and Vietnam at the hands of the 'humane' Communist regimes that took over. If that's a win, imagine what a loss would have been like.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Voegelin]

Has anyone asked the soldiers whether they see the Democrats' actions as supportive or not?

Don't have to ask. They tell me. They don't see any difference between what Dick Durban and Ted Kennedy are doing now to Democrats in Congress who wrote a fawning letter to Daniel Ortega, accepted Soviet expansionism in Central America and did all they could to stop the arms build up which busted the Soviet Union. Some go back even earlier to a Democrat congress banning all military aid to Vietnam and to the spies uncovered in the Roosevelt and Truman adminstrations by Venona.

Every person in the military I know in CT, retired and active, is voting for Lieberman this fall. They are aghast that Lamont got this far.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

oh look, another "democrats hate america and want the country to fail because they don't fawn all over GWB and his policies" thread.

 

[blueapplepaste]

Every person in the military I know in CT, retired and active, is voting for Lieberman this fall. They are aghast that Lamont got this far.

I'm sorry that your friends are so upset to see democracy in action.