The Democrats Still Don't Get It
Posted by Slobokan @ 21:40 · 178 words · print
As I sit here watching the floor debate, I realize a pattern is emerging. Every Republican is stating why it is wrong to think of pulling out of Iraq at this time. Every Democrat is stating why it is wrong to "attack Jack Murtha's character".
Once again, the Democrats have missed the mark. They stand there at the podium and spout that they support the troops, knowing full well if the troops came home tomorrow, thousands of our men and women will have died in vain. Thousands of Iraqi's will have died in vain.
This vote is not an attack on Jack Murtha, it's in response to the demand that we bring our troops home immediately. The Democrats need to realize that the American people are not as stupid as they think they are.
I will post again after the vote. I need to get the popcorn ready. While I am gone, enjoy this audio clip of Nancy Pelosi's speech from the House floor.
Posted In: War In Iraq
Posted by Slobokan
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
You may think we are not safe You may think we are not safer, but I cannot think of a single terrorist act that has occurred within our borders since September 11th.
Hmm… I don't know. Maybe it's just me.
Guess what? Whether or not we went after bin Laden, whether or not we took out Saddam, and whether or not we eat beans for dinner tomorrow evening, the Muslim world will be, as it has been, extremely anti-American.
Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not been a popularity contest. No one said doing the right thing is always popular. While some will use the "Global War on Terror" as an excuse for any increase in extremism and terrorism, as you said before,
Extremists will find any reason to launch a terrorist attack. In fact, I believe it is inevitable that another attack will take place here eventually. The thing is, I would rather them know that we are willing to stand our ground and fight back, than for them to think we might flinch when the pressure gets too high.
Posted by Hokie Explorer
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
Unfortunately, you aren't any Unfortunately, you aren't any safer now then you were before the invasion of Iraq.
In fact, you are probably less safe as extremist have pointed to this as an example of things like: "American imperialism", "America's war on Islam", ect. Thus giving them great recruiting capability and a larger backing in the Muslim world; which, is amazingly anti-American at the moment.
You can't defeat terrorism without curbing extremism and Iraq is a lightning rod for extremism.
Posted by Slobokan
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
And I guess that is our diffe And I guess that is our difference.
I believe lending a helping hand and promoting democracy while we are at it, is a service that keeps me, and my family, safer here at home. Which is a very valuable service in my opinion.
World War II (in Europe) was not our problem. While Hitler did declare war on us after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, our only "problem" at the time was with the Japanese. And what do you know, when we were done, we set up a democracy there too. How poignant.
I guess idealogical "crusading" is only justified when you have history to help you put things in perspective.
Posted by Hokie Explorer
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
World War 2 was our problem b World War 2 was our problem because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor at which point we entered the war (rightfully so too). The last time Congress actually declared war like it is suppose to was WW2 as well. World War 1 was also our problem because the German's were sinking American shipping in international waters (an act of war).
The Shiites are like 80% of the Iraqi demographic and had plenty of people in the regular military with access to all sorts of heavy weaponry. If they wanted to overthrow Saddam – they could have. Yes, a people should stand on their own and ask for our help if they want it. Even then it should be used sparingly in indirect ways such as supply and logistical matters for a revolution we support. Would would have survived you asked? Saddam couldn't wipe out 80% of his country even if he wanted to; its unrealistic. If he tried there would be a massive uprising against him. A dissident or two hundred is easy to silence but the majority population in a country is not.
Idealogical crusaders are not an acceptable use of the military. I do NOT pay tax dollars for spreading democracy to the far corners of the globe. I pay them so the government can provide me with services.
Posted by Slobokan
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
Well Hokie, \r\n\r\nYou are not g Well Hokie,
You are not going to change my opinion and I am not going to change yours, it's as simple as that, so there is no point in continuing this thread.
The only point I wish to raise is with the following,
First of all, we might not have kicked the massively superior British out, if it had not been with logistical help from our allies at the time.
Second, if we use your logic, then there really was no reason for us to enter World War I at all, or Europe during World War II. Heck, if those people "craved" freedom enough, they could have defeated the Central Powers, or the Nazi's themselves. Right?
Certainly, those held in concentration camps greatly outnumbered those keeping them there. Did those people not "crave" freedom? Or was there something else that kept them there?
Fear.
The psychological effect of being repressed for a long period of time took it's toll on the people in the concentration camps, and it took it's toll on the people of Iraq.
While their numbers were greater, they had seen the atrocities committed by Hitler and felt they could not escape the horrors of the concentration camps.
The Iraqi's too, saw the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime.
If we require a people to stand for themselves before offering our assistance, who would survive to be saved?
If we ignore the atrocities elsewhere in the world, those atrocities will arrive at our doorstep in no time at all.
World War I was not "our" problem. World War II (in Europe) was not "our" problem. Were either of those wars worth the lives of Americans?
No one wants war, but sometimes you have to do what's right.
Was this war right? Only history will decide that.
Posted by Explore VT blog
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
Slugging it out on Iraq\r\n\r\n T Slugging it out on Iraq
Thanks to the political debable in the House of Represenatives today there has been a flurry of blogging activity about the subject. I've found a blog that I'm in a comment debate with blog owner on and I've written a couple of thou…
Posted by Hokie Explorer
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
The problem is the job may ne The problem is the job may never be done.
Vietnam was not a winnable situation which is why we left. If we "stayed the course" in Vietnam there is a very good chance we'd still be fighting there today. When people are fighting in their homeland for something they truly believe in you will never be able to defeat them unless you wipe them out. Quite literally, we would have had to turn North Vietnam and Cambodia from a jungle into a nuclear desert. That may seem acceptable if you have a whatever-it-takes-to-win attitude but that is not realistic or acceptable.
Obviously, immediately withdraw of forces in Iraq would be a disaster. The result probably being the current government being overthrown and replaced by some sort of strong-arm theocracy or a civil war. Which would invalidate everything we've done over there to date.
Going over there was a bit of a mistake and now we are in a lose-lose situation that will be very difficult to get out of. "Spreading democracy" is not an acceptable use of the US military. It is not the world's police force and it is not an idealogical crusader. It is for defending the national interests of the United States. Countries like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and China spread their idealogical feelings around the world – not the United States.
If they crave freedom they would have overthrown Saddam's government on their own. They did exactly 0% of the actual toppling of Saddam's regime so I don't know which "extra mile" you are referring to. We kicked the massively superior British military out in the 1700s, they could have just as easily done it to Saddam. In fact, if you look at the numbers most of the Iraqi army minus the Republican Guard were conscripts which means a military coup d'etat would have been a very real possibility IF they "craved" freedom enough to do something about it. In reference to my above paragraph about the use of the military; dealing with other people's problems is not one of them. I'm not saying Saddam is not a brutal dictator; but, it is not the United States' problem and in my opinion not worth the lives of the Americans dying for it.
Civil war is probably inevitable anyways; Iraq is like a cracked egg divided along deep ethnic and religious boundaries that go back thousands of years. The Sunnis do not trust the Shiites and vice-versa. The Shiites have been oppressed by the Sunnis since the day Saddam came to power; I bet they didn't like that very much. Then there are the Kurds in the North. The likelyhood of civil war is so great I'd almost put money on it. Right now, policy is being dictated for the most part by the American prescence there which probably moderates a little bit of the ethnic tension. I think in the end Iraq will probably be divided up a little bit like Yugoslavia with the Sunni's getting the short end of the stick because their section of the country is oil-deficient and they really don't have another great economically viable source of income.
Extremism and terrorism is a never ending problem. They are going to launch attacks whether we leave or not – today was a great example of that. Unless you are willing to have a permanent deployment over there there will have to be a time table for withdraw eventually; and, whether you make that time table now, or 5 years from now, the bad guys are going to have a date for when we are leaving. Insurgents does not effectively label the threat in Iraq which is a mix of insurgents (foreign nationals), and Iraqi citizens.
Having troops in this combat deployment cycle for years and years is hurting the US military. Our manpower is continuing to dwindle. At this point the military would be hard pressed to respond to a major battle somewhere else in the world. The military is having major problems recruiting people because no one wants to go fight for this cause that you support. Continuous use of National Guard and Reserve troops for long periods that they were not intended for is hurting those organizations as well. The all-volunteer military is great until you have an unpopular war (which this is). Like Rep. Murtha said, having troops over there is really not in the best interest of the United States. In terms of defense and in terms of the loss of American life.
Not to mention its costing $200 billion and will keep on costing $200 billion for the foreseeable future. Thanks to that and making tax cuts permanent they are now cutting student loan subsidies (I'm a student). The party roles have shifted over the past few years with the Republican party becoming a little bit less fiscally responsible than the Democratic party which is surprising. Republicans historically cut funding for social programs however they wouldn't have to if we weren't spending billions keeping most of the military on the other side of the planet. There is an old Tom Hanks movie called "The Money Pit" and I think this is a good example of one.
Anyway, I can't think of anything else to type about so I'm going to cut off this comment here.
Posted by Slobokan
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
Hey Hokie, \r\n\r\nBy your logic, Hey Hokie,
What I find inappropriate is the thought that Congress would even entertain the thought of bringing our troops home before the the job is done. If anything, Vietnam taught us what happens when we cut and run. They may not have died in vain, but they died a needless death.
One thing I found funny in tonight's final hour of debate was the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike were praising Mr. Murtha, not attacking him.
If attacking Mr. Murtha during a debate on the House floor is political suicide, then so is withrawing support for our troops who are working diligently so they can finish the job they were sent to do, so they may come home safely. Setting any timetable (whether 6 months or not) for our troop withdrawal, accomplishes nothing but telling the terrorists (aka insurgents for you slow readers) when it will be okay to launch more attacks.
The people of Iraq crave freedom, they deserve freedom. They, as a people, have gone the extra mile to bring democracy to their country, and turning our back on them now will serve absolutely no purpose.
I too want our troops to come home as soon as possible. As soon as the job is done.
Posted by Hokie Explorer
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
"They stand there at the podi "They stand there at the podium and spout that they support the troops, knowing full well if the troops came home tomorrow, thousands of our men and women will have died in vain."
By your logic, every soldier who lost their life in Vietnam died in vain. That seems a little bit inappropriate.
Also, the "troops home tommorow" part of the bill was introduced by Republicans, not by Murtha. Murtha's bill called for a 6 month staged withdrawl.
Attacking a former Marine Colonel who spent 37 years in the Corps in which he served in Vietnam and racked up 2 purple hearts and a bronze star among other things is political suicide.
rusty you are correct that the Democratic party is in a bit of predicament with having to back off of something they voted for intitially. But to be fair, they did not really have a choice. In the wake of 11 Sept there was a very strong push to support the war and public followed the administration. Anyone who would have voted against it would be opening themselves to a tornado of criticism and politicians try to avoid that when they can. Not only did the public support it but like other pieces of recent legislation the names themselves are politically charged in order to make the people less likely to vote against them. For example, instead of simply being called house resolution 3162, the bill was named the USA Patriot Act. Think from a politicians perspective: How will people perceive me if I vote against the "patriot" act? The same is true of voting against a measure in the "war on terror," who would be against something as noble as that? I've made my point here.
As an aside; if you have been following other Congressional developements you will have noticed that a group of bipartisan Senators is about to scuttle the Patriot Act unless some of the more Bill-of-Rights infringing parts of it are moderated a bit and more safeguards are added.
Posted by rusty
December 3, 2006 @ 02:06
I could not agree with you mo I could not agree with you more. I think it is great that Republicans are holding the Dems feet to the fire. I look forward to seeing the Dems explaine why they are agaist the war but didn't vote to stop it.
I also find it funny that Dems are complaining about character attacks. I think they all owe Dan Quayle a apology.