home

Another Change of Heart

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 09:36:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Rep. John Murtha, described in the linked AP story as “one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats,” today announced his support for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

How long before the Bush administration brands this decorated Vietnam War veteran as unpatriotic?

< Spinning Torture | All About Oil? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another Change of Heart | 53 comments (53 topical)
    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    How long? By the end of the day. If it hasn't happened already. Wow, a decorated Vet demanding this. Credibility in spades, it appears. Will be fun to watch how they turn his years of service into some "I hate America" meme... The good thing? Nobody believes them anymore.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    How long before TChris realizes that the kind of pullout Murtha advocates would leave Iraq looking like Vietnam and Cambodia (and Laos) looked like in the 1975-1980 interval? Is TChris ready to accept the kind of collapse that such a pullout would bring? And don't tell me that being opposed to the war from the start excuses you from responsibility, either. We are there now, and arguing over whether we should or should not have gone in don't matter from a forward looking standpoint.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Wonder if we'd allow the Iraqis to vote on the proposal "Should U.S. troops immediately withdraw from Iraq?" Wonder if we'd let Americans vote on it. Wonder if the votes could ever get "counted".

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Wonder if, given the choice, how many Iraqis would choose the tyranny of Saddam over the instability and violence of the American occupation that turned Iraq into our personal terrorist hunting ground? That would be an interesting case of the lesser of two evils.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    The money quote? Murtha: "This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." Blackmailing us into this fiasco, the Busheviks now want to blackmail us with 'what will happen after their evil intentions collapse.' We put Bush and the whole WHIG on warcrimes trials, and pay reparations so that LOCAL Iraqis can rebuild their country, and our terrorism risk goes down 100%.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    "Posted by kdog: "Wonder if, given the choice, how many Iraqis would choose the tyranny of Saddam over the instability and violence of the American occupation" Don't forget how Hussein got into power in the first place. He was a CIA asset, installed, cosseted, armed (with chemical and biological weapons) by the US (and others). His GENOCIDE of 1,000 Kurd villages was ignored by Reagan/Bush, UN resolutions blocked, on the theory that opposing Iraq would harm US agricultural sales to the country. If you ask educated Iraqis whether they prefer US tyranny via Hussein, and US tyranny via USPNAC, THEIR CHOICE WOULD BE OBVIOUS. Hussein, while he murdered his political enemies (and racist scapegoats), allowed the country to continue at a fairly high standard of living. USPNAC has been an absolute disaster for Iraq, with its arming of hostiles via total lack of stewardship, and with its barely hidden intention of dismantling the country through an instigated civil war. USPNAC burned the Koran-Torah Repository and the National Library to the ground. USPNAC looted the National Museum, and has willfully destroyed many or most of the archaeological sites in the country. Destruction of cultural property on a grand scale makes USPNAC FAR WORSE than Hussein. This is genocide. The WHIG should be Nuremburged, and hanged (or imprisoned for life).

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    How long before TChris realizes that the kind of pullout Murtha advocates would leave Iraq looking like Vietnam and Cambodia (and Laos) looked like in the 1975-1980 interval?
    Actually, there is a fairly easy solution to iraq. Since we are the ones destabilizing it, we need to beg the UN and Arab league states for help to get us out of there.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    How long before TChris realizes that the kind of pullout Murtha advocates would leave Iraq looking like Vietnam and Cambodia (and Laos) looked like in the 1975-1980 interval? Both Laos and Cambodia were considerably destabilized by our initially secret "incursions" in each. The words "blowback" and "domino theory" come to mind. Perhaps too "the white man's burden" with a presumption of a greater good and a better intent always lighting the actor's mind (and perhaps deluding it as well). More on this at OUT THERE

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Another voice in the choir of millions: America, take your war machine and get the f*&k out! NOW! The arrogance of the right is truly stunning. Saddam is gone, so that justifies all the rest that follows. Okay, fine, Saddam is gone now - so WHY isn't America gone? Just more and more excuses until it's too damned late. When is America going to realize that it not only caused the impending implosion of Iraq but that there is damned little it can do now to stop it? The Mesopotamian Pandora's Box; easy to open, impossible to close - or to leave alone, apparently.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#10)
    by N in Seattle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Sez Punchy [emphasis added]: How long? By the end of the day. If it hasn't happened already. Wow, a decorated Vet demanding this. Credibility in spades, it appears. Will be fun to watch how they turn his years of service into some "I hate America" meme... I recall that a recent presidential candidate met the conditions I've bolded. And look what they did to him. Though, as Punchy also notes, more and more Americans are finally seeing that the chimperor has no clothes.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    I just saw Murtha's statement live. This was a guy who went for bushco's lies hook, line and sinker, and he still has the guts to say he was wrong, bush was wrong, and the iraq war was wrong. Gee, a war hero not running for prez steps up. (swiftboaters here they come;-) N, yep a deserter did it to war hero kerry, but kerry bent over. And the MSM were there to lube the way.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    How long before TChris realizes that the kind of pullout Murtha advocates would leave Iraq looking like Vietnam and Cambodia (and Laos) looked like in the 1975-1980 interval?
    as usual, mr. robertson has screwed up his history. remember, we weren't officially in cambodia or laos, so our pullout from vietnam had no effect on them whatever. i am beginning to think that if we unilaterally packed our bags and left iraq, there wouldn't be a civil war. so far, the insurgents have used our presence to legitimize their actions. take us out of the equation, and what have they got? nothing, that's what. should they continue attacking fellow iraqis, absent our presence as justification, they will start to incur the wrath of the average guy, without whose support they can't operate. our leaving accomplishes two immediate goals: 1. gets our guys out of the line of fire. 2. forces the iraqis to confront the insurgents as their enemies, not ours. they will then have to decide what kind of society they want, an actual representative democracy, or a theocracy. i'm betting on the former.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#13)
    by Strick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Rollcall, May 6, 2004 Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.” Had more impact when it was considered news, didn't it? It's over at The Corner on NRO.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Actually, the real money quote is this: "I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. ... I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done,'' Murtha said. And this is worth mentioning, too: The Bush administration already is required to send the House quarterly reports on the war, under a provision attached to spending legislation by Murtha and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. The latest report made for disheartening reading, Murtha said, and he is convinced that the U.S. presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency, not helping to pacify the country. Most importantly for Murtha, the number of insurgent attacks is running at 700 a week, up from about 150 a year ago, and casualties are mounting, with more than 2,000 Americans killed and almost 16,000 wounded. --------------- Of course, people like James Robertson know better than that. They think we are stopping a civil war rather than instigating one. They want us to stay forever and they don't care how many lower class kids have to die to stave off their imagined apocalypse.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    It didn't take long...the white house statement in response basically said Murtha has been brainwashed by Michael Moore and the radical leftist wing of the Democratic party.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    The immediate wirthdrawl of troops would be a disaster. Someone make a logical argument that it wouldn't. Get the Iraqi's up to speed and then bring the troops home. Whether or not you supported the war (wich most democrats did) or not is irrelevant at this point. The WMD issue is settled. The intelligence debate is just partisan bickering by both sides. Do you want Saddam back? Do you want civil war? Do you want a terrorist trainig ground worse then it is now were at least we can kill them? I respect life but the idead that 2000 casualties in 3 years of war is something this nation can't handle is ridiculous. We are winning if we stay and finish the job. We haven't lost yet so why are so many "anti" war critics ready to grab defeat from the jaws of victory? Please only realistic responses. Non of this Bush lied WMD crap that has no relevance to the here and now. That ship has sailed and we can either declare defeat or finish the job.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Gerard Baker makes my point better then me... Democrats and Amnesia

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    slado-
    The immediate wirthdrawl of troops would be a disaster.
    This premise is not a fact but your opinion, a minority opinion at best. Unless you mean a disaster for your beloved leader...it is already clear to most Americans that he has lost the war..if you mean a disaster for his ratings, I think that his poll ratings are already a disaster.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Slado, It's a disaster now. Face reality. And it is NOT getting better. Leaving would remove the main irritant to this "conflict", and the Iraqis could face their own disaster on their own terms. Or do you think there are enough insurgents to just take over the entire nation as soon as we leave? The right keeps telling us this is different than Vietnam in that the insurgency DOESN'T have popular support like they did in Vietnam. Agreed, but that also means they won't face popular support when we leave, and they won't march through the streets as champions. In other words, they won't have the rosy scenarios we lied to ourselves and everyone else about before we invaded. They are waiting for us to get out. They are waiting for us to say, "We supported your oppressor for so long, and we are now making things worse with our military presence. It's time for us to let you decide your own future." Now, to me, that is a much better option that staying the same course, which will only mean an occupied nation, an increasingly fueled insurgency, thousands and thousands more dead (i mean, how many people do you think we'd have to slaughter to really "outlast" or "defeat" the insurgency? half a million? a million? it's sickening). We are paying the price for not practicing what we preach. Support a sociopathic dictator, as we've done many times, and nothing good will come of it. Nothing. Tell me, what was gained by supporting Hussein all those years? What?? We got to f*ck with Iran? Right now that doesn't seem like a very good trade-off, does it? That's what happens when we fail to use our supposedly free American imaginations, when we don't think beyond the heat of the moment. Now imagine Iraq after 10 years of foreign military occupation, limited basic services, hopelessness, murder and mayhem... We have f'd the place up, and we can't fix it, only its own people can. No matter what, it will not, most likely, be pretty. But the longer we ugly up the place with our presence, the future of Iraq gets further and further from the Iraqis themselves. It, as it is now, is all about us. And that's not good for anyone, us or them. Bring the troops home now.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Slado: We are winning? If that's your premise then there is no debating with you, since you are obviously not coming from a point anywhere in reality. Read the facts: attacks are running at 700 per week, up from 150 per week. Is that the best proof you can submit that we are winning? The fact of the matter is that we are getting killed, figuratively and literally and the longer we stay the more emboldened, organized, and efficient the opposition becomes. What does that mean? That the longer we stay, the more formidable a fighting force they will be when we leave! Think back a bit: the Taliban and the 9/11 hijackers were the inevitable fruits of the dragon seeds we sowed in Afghanistan. They grew from the funds and training provided by the CIA to give the Soviets "their Vietnam". Fifteen years later they took out the World Trade Center as an "added bonus" to our initial plan. In this case it is the reverse, we are creating a jihadist army by fighting against them. If we had not gone there, they would not they be there. The facts are obvious: ouyr presence there is making them stronger. That was what woke up Murtha, cold hard reality. Something that can slap you in the face without any apparent effect. And the "better there than here argument" only needs one subway attack to be debunked. "Bring it on" is all I hear your side say about that. Go ahead and advocate prolonging the inevitable. All it means is that you will have more mothers of dead sons reading your bizarro world illogic about why they died. The same as the Vietnam debacle. You'd probably be less worried about saving face if it was your ass on the line. But somehow it never is. Yeah I know, Democrats voted for Vietnam, too. And those that did were wrong then, too. Memories fade, lessons are forgotten, history repeats.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Ernesto...I'd bet that Slado doesn't think Vietnam was a mistake, he thinks our only mistake was not "finishing the job" aka "getting more people killed". The only ones left defending this war are the ones who don't think Vietnam was a mistake aka crazy people.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Speaking of "Memories fade, lessons are forgotten, history repeats," I picked my 81 year-old dad up at the airport last night and about the first words out of his mouth were how the "'bring the boys back, we're losing' crowd was equally vocal during WWII, and we know how that one turned out."

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Please ask dad who invaded who to start WWII.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Well, he's sitting right here, he said the Japs attacked us. He wants to know what the hell that's got to do with the "we're losing" crowd?

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Sarc, And my 80 year-old dad says just the opposite. WWII was as "popular" a war as this nations has ever seen. Tho using that word to describe war makes me uncomfortable. Sure, there were plenty of pacifists, isolationists, etc., who opposed WWII, but they do not come CLOSE to the percentage of the American electorate who think this "war" was a willful mistake. They are incomparable in this way.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Well hell, I bet Dad would want to drop some nukes on the towel heads then since they attacked us, right? Please don't tell me he can't differentiate the 9/11 hijackers from Saddam.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Sarc, I think Ernesto's point is, um, that Iraq, unlike Japan, didn't attack us. Hope dad's doing well. Mine is a glorious pain in the ass. Like father like son.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Ernesto your comment makes no sense. So what? We're not losing no matter if we invaded first. kdog. You're wrong. we did loose Vietnam because the public stopped supporting a war we were winning.and didn't try to win it while we were there. Dadler we aren't planning to stay inevitably so your argument makes no sense. Two options. Train Iraqi military to protect new government or leave and free for all. Easy choice. Stay If losing wars means removing a tyrant from power, starting a democracy, freeing a press from dictatorship and stopping then what wars have we ever won? I can make a case that WWI, WWII, Korea weren't worth fighting becasue war always sucks. What's the point of nit picking on all the bad if you are blind to the good? I dont' understand. Answer the questions I asked. Do you want Saddam back in power? If yes then there you go. We shouldn't have invaded. If no then you're just harping because it fits your naive political viewpoint. The fact that were not losing this war is just that a fact. You can say it's too costly, you can say that no american deaths are worth the outcome but you simply can't say we're losing. The military doesn't think we're losing. Neither does the Iraqi governemnt. I guess we should trust Senators in Washington and lefty critics who didn't support the war in the first place or did so simply for politcal reasons over the people on the ground.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Slado, 2000+ dead is only a part of the overall "cost" of this war. What about the thousands wounded, some of which deformed for life (amputated limbs, blindness, deafness, etc...)? What about the psychological issues that many soldiers are going to deal with for years after they return home? What about the billions of tax dollars spent? What about American credibility with foreign powers? It is time for people to look at the total cost of ownership regarding this war.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    Of all the strange comparisons brought forth to contextualize Bush's little war, none are quite so perplexing as the ones invoking WWII. First of all, politicallyh and militarily speaking, the whole Saddam's Iraq = Hitler's Germany doesn't wash. As to sarcastic's dad's suggestion: Having gone through many newspapers from the 30s and early 40s, I have to say that these claims don't square at all with what I have found. Once Pearl Harbor is hit, there is almost uniform, media-wide support for our war effort. Not to mentionm the fact that (just imagine!) our Congress actually declared war in the wake of that attack. This is a far cry from today, wherein our President has used elections and the media and dissemination to get "Resolutions" passed. Now, if you want to get into the Nazi sympathtics that permeate the American Press and Academia in the early thirties, that's a different story altogether.....perhaps we can forgive them for that since, as it were, at that point they knew not what they were doing.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    I admit to costs. But the left never admits to successes or the greater good if we win. The left doesn't want to hear it or admit it. Only criticize. Criticism is fine but without admitting some good is going on over there then it's worthless. When's it's over and if we've lost I'll admit it wasn't worth it. But calling it quits before it's over doesn't make sense. VDH says it well

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Ernesto your comment makes no sense. So what? We're not losing no matter if we invaded first.
    I said we are losing because the attacks are increasing at a nearly exponential rate. A fact that you have chosen to ignore.
    Do you want Saddam back in power?
    Not really, but... Didn't we sell him the poison gas to use on Iranians?

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Dadler, my dad agrees with you about the difference in size of the WWII "we're losing" crowd versus today's. He also says that just because more people believe it's so doesn't make it so.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Ern/Dadler, my dad wants to know what the hell I'm doing wasting my time blogging.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Slado, Plenty of people in the military think we're losing. And they have for some time now. Are you serious? Hell, rent the documentary "Gunner Palace". And that's from a few years ago. Do a google search. Go ask Colin Powell what he REALLY thinks -- granted you'd have to get him a little drunk probably to get him outta the ingrained company-man mode. We don't plan on staying? With all the American military bases all over the world, are you REALLY telling me you don't think we planned on staying there for a good long time? And if we don't, it will only be because the opposition here at home did a decent job and the Iraqi people made it clear they weren't going to tolerate it. Good lord, we don't plan on staying??? And do I want Saddam back? Gee, what do you think? Christ, of course not. I'd just like my country to stand up and ACT LIKE THE FREE EVOLVED NATION WE CLAIM TO BE. Are you saying those are the only choices? This or Saddaam? Okay, fine, that's your opinion, but it ain't our decision to make. And with our Bull-in-a-China-Shop presence in the country right now, further inflaming an already delicate situation (a nation at a crossroads in its history), we are not contributing to a positive outcome anymore. If the Berlin Wall came down without a shot fired, don't try to tell me what is or is not possible without plunging a nation into the chaos of war. And I'll ask again, what did we gain from supporting Hussein? What does it mean that "the insurgency" in Iraq is almost entirely fueled by our presence?

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    "...my dad wants to know what the hell I'm doing wasting my time blogging." It's only a waste of time if you don't learn anything. ;)

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    My dad says one last thing. You won't find the WWII "bring the boys back, we're losing" crowd in the newspapers. He says it's what he heard from private citizens - like his mom, for example. Dadler, re: PIA dads. Mine decided not to bring his hearing aid and not to bring his anti-snoring contraption. So he can't hear a word we say, and I got about 2 hours sleep last night as he rattled the walls of my house. Hmm, he thinks that last bit I typed is funny.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Tell dad it's a modern version of the old front porch, the brownstone stoop, the street corner chorus that doesn't exist as it did before. Or the checkerboard on top of the pickle barrell out front of the store, where people played and shot the sh*t, disagreed, laughed, what have you. Tell him blogging, at its best (and I emphasize this), is a way to hear opinions from people you'd never have the chance to meet in the good old days. Tell him (again, at its best), it's a sliver of decent, humane progress, a real power to the people kind of tool, amid the cacophany of commercial noise and consumer junk ("party" politics included) that is early 21st century America. Tell him to try the brisket, it's wonderful today.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Sarc, Our posts crossed. I was talking about blogging in the last post, but anti-snoring devices for PIA dads are key. Don't envy you. Although the timer on the television is a godsend, and he can't leave on the Murder She Wrote marathon at full blast. He'd house-sit for us, no lie, and the neighbors would complain about hearing Angela Landsbury and Polident commericals all night.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Dadler, Define plenty. 95% 10% 35%? I'll grant you plenty probably do but plenty more think we're not. Agree to disagree. Your Colen Powell remark is just wrong. He was on Charlie Rose last night saying we'd prevail. His whole china shop remark states exactly what I'm arguing. If you start stay the course. Stop misquoting the man and using him against me when he supports my position. As for your Berlin Wall comment that's ridiculous. I guess the Korean, Vietnam and Cold War cost no lives and our buildup of nuclear weapons which cost trillions and the many small skirmishises or defacto wars we faught with the Soviets cost no lives? Please. See heres the deal. Wars are either worth no casualties, or the ammount of casualties it takes to win. It's that simple. If you loose then it becomes real hard to justify. But to justify declaring defeat based on numbers is intellectualy dishonest. Their is not standard no RATE or number of casualties that can at anyone time define if your winning or losing. By your logic we were winning during the invasion, losing following it, winning again after the election and now losing again? Double according to your logic we are now losing in Afghanistan since the RATE of calsualties is almost the same as Iraq? Should we pull out? Now the same people who want us to leave Iraq are complaining that we're actually handing it over to NATO. Because they know that not even another occupying force, let alone no occupying force, can do the job. We stay, finish the job we win. We leave and don't we loose. It's that simple.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    slado...it's spelled "lose" not "loose". But however you spell losing...if you want to define winning as building a more lethally efficient opposition, then your idea of progress is diametrically opposed to mine. And I think I have reality on my side, which is why Murtha is now talking sense, at long last. The rest will follow, but the people will lead. Show me an opinion poll where support for WWII was at the level it is now for Iraq. You don't trust public opinion anymore?

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Saldo, In your response to Dadler you once again focus only on casualties as a cost. Earlier you stated that you admit to costs. However, I still don't think you are taking in to consideration the total cost of ownership regarding this war. Based on the total cost of ownership (money, credibility, seriously wounded, etc..) is there a clear benefit of staying the course? Can you calculate an ROI for this war? Also, comparing this war to WWII is like comparing apples to oranges. Different wars in different times fought for very different reasons.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Sorry... In my last post I meant Slado.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Slado the Magnificent Declares: "When's it's over and ... we've lost I'll admit it wasn't worth it." BUT NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE!

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#46)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Slado, Please define "winning" this war. What are the objectives? When will we be able to say that we have won. If someone could clearly state what our goals are, the discussion would improve. War on Terror is vague and really does'nt make sense. We need clear language.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    "Winning" this war is enriching the military industrial complex to the 1000th degree at taxpayer expense. Too much is not enough for them, and no amount of blood and guts is unacceptable.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    slado-how 'bout this: We Won!!!! Now can we bring the troops home?

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Mission Accomplished: We Won!

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Slado, I'll just say we disagree as strongly as two people could. I still can't get you to tell me what we got for supporting Hussein all those years? Or why the same minds and mindset behind that support, and it's subsequent failure and blowback, are to be trusted in the here and now. As for Colin Powell, why did you think I said you'd have to get him a little drunk. He's a company man, always was, probably always will be. But if you think there's nothing more to him than his safe public remarks, or the veneer of the good soldier, well, I guess we have a slightly different view of the guy. As for putting words in his mouth, he's the one who got up and lied to the world at the UN, and has admitted so. His bosses seemed much more able to fill his lips with whatever they wanted him to say than I'll ever be.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Slado, Also, war (especially this "new" kind) is as far from "it's that simple" as you get. To think it is, wow, I don't get it. We may be on opposite political poles, but I'd hope we could agree that this mess is ANYTHING but simple.

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    But the left never admits to successes or the greater good if we win.
    Define 'winning'! There were no WMDs, there was no iraq/AQ connection, there have been elections, there is a 'constitution'. Everything else is worse than when we invaded, or even a year ago. Less electricity, potable water, oil production, ready iraq troops, AQ is firmly entrenched, they have secret torture prisons and all our presence does is inflame the populace and insurgency. What is there more of? Death, coalition and iraqis!

    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    Remember Congresswoman Schmidt calling Murtha a coward?
    “He (Bubp) asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message – that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
    It turns out that Bubp claims he never said it.
    "Our conversation was based strictly on the proposal to immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq and the consequences of such a proposal," he said in a statement released Tuesday. "We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to ever disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation."
    Re: Another Change of Heart (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ambiorix on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    On Democratic Underground Dan Bubp: The weeny who attacked Col. Murtha through Jean Schmidt

    Another Change of Heart | 53 comments (53 topical)