home

CNN's Lou Dobbs: Victory In Iraq Is Not An Option

In his weekly roundtable blowhard pundit segment, with Ed Rollins, NY Daily News' Michael Goodwin and Dem strategist Hank Sheinkopf, Lou Dobbs and his group skewered Sen. Harry Reid for saying "Iraq is lost."

ROLLINS: It's not fair to the men and women who are there to basically say, they are losing a war. They are in a police action. They aren't fighting a war anymore....
DOBBS: Thank you for saying that.

Not ten seconds later, Dobbs said:

I believe William Odom, General William Odom will be proved exactly right in his characterization of our involvement in Iraq.
Oh really Mr. Dobbs? This General Odom?

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Hmmmm. Is Lou Dobbs emboldening . . .?

From General Odom's piece:

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of "who gets the blame" could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hey, Lou Dobbs is right, General Odom is speaking truth on Iraq.

And so is Harry Reid.

< Locking Down the Truth | Comparing Cho Seung-Hui to the Columbine Killers >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Anyone who argues (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by buhdydharma on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    against the statement "Iraq is lost," must be forced to describe and define what "winning in Iraq" means.

    What IS victory in Iraq?

    See the Odom Excerpt (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    I added.

    Parent
    How could Reid respond to GOP attacks (none / 0) (#22)
    by annefrank on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    BRIEFLY using the Odom article?

    Parent
    By quoting it (4.50 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:54:43 PM EST
    and quoting Kissinger and the other Generals and the American People.

    The ting is Reid does not have to worry about being attacked on Iraq AS LONG AS he is trying very hard to end it.

    Parent

    Wish there were a way to condense (none / 0) (#44)
    by annefrank on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    Odom's article into a TV sound bite. Slogan-ish - like the Repubs.


    Parent
    THAT is what makes me insane. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by RenaRF on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:37:55 PM EST
    Because you know what?  I haven't really seen that as a consistent and newsworthy comeback by Democrats.  All I ever hear is the Republican retort about how the Democrats could stop it if they were serious and not just spewing talking points.

    Parent
    What's dangerous to Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    is that Reid is very obviously right. They're trying to do to him what they tried to do to Murtha a year ago. They will fail, of course.

    As to Dobbs. . .I wonder who his audience is anyway.

    They will fail of course (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    I hope Democrats realize this because the idot Beltway pundits will NOT get it.

    Read Odom. Dobbs IS right, Odom nails it.

    Parent

    You seem to assume that (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    Dobbs read Odom. Given the fact that he "skewered" Reid, what's the evidence that he did?

    Parent
    Odom says the same thing (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    all the time.

    It's not like that article is out of character.

    Parent

    fair enough. (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    Lou (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:52:28 PM EST
    "Broken Borders" Dobbs is a great journamalist. Right up there with Captain Ed.

    But he's right (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 06:55:14 PM EST
    General Odom is right. Victory in Iraq is not an option.

    Or, as Harry Reid said, Iraq is lost.

    Parent

    Oh I agree (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:04:31 PM EST
    that Odom is right. But Dobbs doesn't know that. When Dobbs said Odom was right, he didn't even know what he was right about, right?

    Parent
    Who knows what Dobbs knows? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    Maybe it's time to get him before a grand jury.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    We know what we know (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TexDem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 07:56:52 PM EST
    and we know what we don't know,

    But we don't know what we don't know.

    That great sage, Donald Rumsfeld.

    Parent

    Known unknowns (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    That's our boy (none / 0) (#17)
    by TexDem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:11:02 PM EST
    Do you think any members of Congress have read Gen. Odum's piece?

    Parent
    Harry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    Looks like the rest follow the position of my sig (none / 0) (#21)
    by TexDem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    line from other sites.


    A man who chooses not to read, is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.
    Mark Twain


    Parent
    How much more plan can he make it? (none / 0) (#19)
    by TexDem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:15:21 PM EST
     

    The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.


    Parent
    The issue would look entirely different (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:16:53 PM EST
    and would stop arousing such defensive emotions if we just stopped calling it the Iraq War. It's not a war, and hasn't been since Bush declared victory. It's an occupation. Wars are won or lost, but occupations simply come to an end, and rightly so.

    It is a Debacle (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    So it is (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:45:30 PM EST
    But we need the old media to start calling it that.

    Parent
    Is Sheinkopf, the Dem strategist on the panel (none / 0) (#24)
    by annefrank on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:41:05 PM EST
    a DLC type?


    Parent
    Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    more old line than DLC.

    Parent
    Debacle (none / 0) (#46)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    Debacle is judgmental, a negative valuing.

    Occupation is simply factual.

    Parent

    How many times do we have to declare (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Sanity Clause on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:01:54 AM EST
    that there is no hope of a military victory in Iraq before someone, somewhere initiates diplomatic talks?  Now that Harry's caught in the "flip-flopper" merry-go-round, it's unlikely that he'll be the one to redefine our "situation" as was apparently recommended by Ed Rollins (was Ed really right for the first time since he taught Reagan to say "Weeeellll, . . ." before every answer?), but he just mixed up his terminology a little bit.

    We already won "The War Against Saddam" just like we won "The War Against Afghanistan."  This little "police action" described by Ed Rollins isn't a war anymore. We know war when we see it. We've seen wars of conquest and wars of independence; we've seen wars to end all wars; we've played chess -- or checkers, or Risk, or Battleship -- enough to know that a "war" takes place between two (or more) nations.

    There's no USA vs. Iraq here. Heck, there's no "us" vs. "them." Our unprovoked invasion of Iraq wiped out that "nation" as the world knew it. We won; let us declare victory and go home.

    No war remains for us to win. There is no battleground for which it is worth fighting and dying. There remains only chaos and anarchy. The "insurgents" and "terrorists" have brought thousand-year-old feuds to life in the streets of Baghdad and Basra. Theirs is not a global war for world domination (unlike ours), but a turf war at the most basic level - street by street; neighborhood by neighborhood; the Hatfields and McCoys; the Capulets and Montagues; the Jets and the Sharks on a monumental scale.

    We know a military solution is unattainable in the eyes of most Americans and unacceptable to most of the Iraqis who are both still alive and living in Iraq. We have an abundance of unemployed diplomats who, prior to being mothballed by W's Frank Sinatra School of International Diplomacy, have had a modicum of success in moderating seemingly impossible conflicts, such as short term negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (and we know how well that's working out). If we (and by "we" I guess I mean the UN, or Amnesty International, or the European Ryder Cup team - anybody but "we" the US government) can come up with a neutral team of diplomats equivalent to Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson, we'll be halfway to Paris before you know it and all those newly minted IED experts can put their new-found skills to work for the oil companies. Contrary to Genereal Odom's dire predictions of hopelessness, a 21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East just might convince the Shia and Sunni leaders, and Fatah and Hamas, and BP and Sunoco to lay down their arms long enough for the spoils of post-war rebuilding to trickle down to the Iraqi on the street.

    How many times do we have to (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    declare that there is no hope of a military victory..

    I don't know.

    Are you a military expert? Diplomat?

    Do you think if we projected a united desire to win it would help??

    Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson, we'll be halfway to Paris

    Please. I'm laughing. Have you been paying any attention to Carter's bias against Israel??

    Do you remember Jackson's "Hymie Town" comment?

    Do you think Israel would accept either one, or both, of these?

    And then there's that short guy in Iran who keeps saying that Israel can  not exist. Think you can negotiate anything with him?

    21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East just might convince the Shia and Sunni leaders, and Fatah and Hamas, and BP and Sunoco to lay down their arms

    Just might convince? So you are unwilling to fight a single battle in the WOT, but are willing to spend billions of dollars on a region based on diplomacy by Jackson and Carter?

    And since you bring in the oil companies, why should we spend a dime on the region, since they have so much oil? Do you think Carter and Jackson will be able to convince the governments to give up power and wealth and give it to the people??

    And I note you bring up the "oil excuse." Try this.

    Likewise with a "war for oil." What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port - probably Basra - and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign - what for? - and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    Link to a Florida Gator Fan's blog.

    Parent

    General Odom is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    General Odom is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:15:14 PM EST
    Are you a military expert? Diplomat?
    General Odom is.
    The Iraq Survey is.
    Gen. Petraeus is.

    bush, cheney, and ppj aren't.

    Parent

    And your point is? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    If you are saying I am not a military or diplomatic expert, we finally agree on something.

    Of course I never have claimed to be...do you??

    Parent

    General Odom (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    is one of your heros because he disagrees with the strategy.

    Now we have context.

    Parent

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 02:30:32 AM EST
    that's utter nonsense. of course victory in iraq is an option, it always has been. the real question is: are we willing to pay the required cost of achieving that victory? that cost includes increasing troop levels by 300-400k, securing all borders, and shooting anyone attempting to cross into iraq, period.

    as well, it requires that we be willing to level entire towns, and leave them nothing but smoking holes in the ground, regardless of the potential for collateral civilian damage.

    it would require a complete, wwII-like european theater sweep of iraq, from end to end, destroying anything or one that gets in our way.

    we then set up a gov't we like, and give them a constitution. anyone who doesn't like it is removed from the scene. to the winner goes the history, just as in germany and japan, ala wwII.

    we certainly have the capability of doing this. so complete military victory in iraq is clearly a legitimate, realistic option.

    again, that then begs the question: are we willing to expend the resources necessary to accomplish this goal?

    i would say that we aren't. however, it's never been presented to congress and the public in this manner, so any assertion would be purely speculative in nature.

    but yes, victory in iraq is certainly a viable option, should we choose that course.

    That would produce peace all right (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 03:34:23 AM EST
    that cost includes increasing troop levels by 300-400k, securing all borders, and shooting anyone attempting to cross into iraq, period.

    as well, it requires that we be willing to level entire towns, and leave them nothing but smoking holes in the ground, regardless of the potential for collateral civilian damage.

    it would require a complete, wwII-like european theater sweep of iraq, from end to end, destroying anything or one that gets in our way.

    The peace of the grave.

    Parent

    apparently (none / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    you can't read very well. nowhere did i say anything about peace, just victory. the two aren't mutually inclusive by definition.

    as well, i didn't suggest i supported such an approach, merely that it is certainly a viable option. military victory always is. again, it depends on whether the resources, and willingness to use them, are there.

    whether it's a good idea at this point is an entirely other issue for discussion.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#45)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    I read your comment just the way (I think) you meant it - taking 'victory' to its scorched earth extreme to see what it would look like. I was just summing up the difference in the implied priorities:

    nowhere did i say anything about peace, just victory

    Exactly.

    Parent

    Bloodlust or Bedwetter? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    It has become apparent that you truly do not understand that to fight a war, a country must be united.
    In order to end a war a country must be united and it looks like you are way behind the curve.

    I guess that there are always a few warmongers left who remain in a permanent state of bloodlust rallying the cry for new wars and fanning the dying embers of nationlaism and world conquest. Freicorps?

    The propaganda campaign (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    to justify and win political support for the invasion of Iraq was very successfully prosecuted by the criminals in the White House. It took not very long.

    The attack and invasion itself was very successfully prosecuted by the generals and the troops. They are the best at what they do. It also took not very long.

    All that is left to be done is the hard work of giving back their country to the Iraqis, somehow compensating them for what has been done to them...

    ..and successfully prosecuting the criminals in the White House who deceived the country into this shameful debacle.

    Hopefully it won't take very long.

    That hard work can't be avoided. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 12:15:17 PM EST
    Because, as scribe described yesterday, there is an unavoidable choice to be made:
    What we do, and what we vote and say, today, will ring down through the centuries. And those who stand with Bush and Cheney, or oppose removing them, will do so at the peril of being on the wrong side of history.

    I wonder what it will be like to live, say a century or two in the future, when people may well look back at these days, shake their head and wonder "what ever possessed them...
    ...
    On the other hand, in a century or two, torture, degradation and authoritarianism may, because of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen, be as normal and accepted as breathing, eating and drinking.
    ...
    The paradigm for the future - for the descendents of those who may have kids today - is what the choices made today will decide. And that is why the precedent we set today is eternal. Once that choice is made, or ducked, it's done and the alternative path now available, is gone and can't be gotten back.

    Kapish?


    Parent
    The War Is Lost (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by john horse on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    Senator Reid is right.  This war is lost.

    Take the idea that the we will stand down as the Iraqi army "stands up".  This is the cornerstone of Bush's Iraq policy.  Unfortunately, it is turning out to be another one of Bush's pipe dreams.  According to McClatchy newspapers "Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces."  It is so bad that currently we aren't even allocating any new resources for training Iraqis.  

    The only thing that supporters of this war have left is wishful thinking.   They think that if we only believe we will be successful then we will be successful.  They are only fooling themselves in their own self-delusion.  Wishful thinking will not bring any of 3300 Americans killed in Iraq back to life.  However, it will ensure that their numbers will grow.

     

    Sad (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    Hmmmm. Is Lou Dobbs emboldening . . .?

    In a word, yes.

    And so is Harry Reid. He hould resign as an embarassment to himself, the Senate, our military and the American people.

    Tough situation. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    We killed almost a million people. So now what?

    Ah ha! Blame it on Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs. Of course!

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    It has become apparent that you truly do not understand that to fight a war, a country must be united. If not, that aids the enemey. I find it remarkable that people as educated as Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs does not understand that.

    I have no idea as to your social background, your finanial position, your intelligence, your schooling, your age, actually nothing that would let me understand why you are so anti-war, besides the obvious costs in human life. That is not a valid reason because war is the result of the failure of diplomacy, and the lives will be lost at some point. The question becomes, whose lives?

    The "terrorists" have clearly indicated two things.

    1. They see terror as a tool to bring the world under Shari law.

    2. They will gladly die in that effort.

    There is really nothing that they are willing to change, do or negotiate. Their bottom line is victory.

    Your failure to understand that is something I hope you your intellectual growth will overcome.

    Parent

    It doesn't work anymore, Jim. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    All it does is make you sound like ppj.

    There is no war. There is an illegal occupation.

    The war in Iraq was won and declared so to the peasants by a monkey on a boat about six weeks after the invasion began. It has been an illegal occupation and murderous debacle of monstrous proportions ever since.

    The other war, for the minds of the peasants (the 26 percenters) was won long before the invasion began. It was short battle. The losers had so little to offer.

    Which is probably why some of them haven't noticed yet.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:28:46 PM EST
    I find it interesting that you can not make a response with out calling people names. Those who support Bush are "peasants." Bush is a "monkey" and an aircraft carrier is a "boat."

    I am really working on understanding you edger, and I must say that I am beginning to believe that you have a superiority complex, but then:

      Superiority and Inferiority Complex are often found together as the different expressions of the same pathology.

    And yes, I realize I am enagaging in "psychobabble" but your many comments about those who disagree with you has driven me to this opinion.

    And I love the way you grasp at some "talking point" that is "popular" for the moment by the Left, irrespective of the facts, and repeat it endlessly until, in many cases, the public forgets the facts. To assist those who may be starting ti do so, let's examine your claim that Bush was declaring the war won.

    Context: An aircraft carrier was returning from a cruise. Bush, in an admittedly PR move, went to the aircraft, to thank them. Part of this was to proclaim:

    "Mission accomplished."

    Now, I know you know from nothing about the military. So it is with great hope you will learn something that I tell you that "mission" within the military is a discrete event or group of events. The USS Lincoln was returning from a "mission." During that time, the men and women on the carrier had a number of "missions."

    Note that the President did not say:

    "War accomplished."

    Have a nice day. And I hope I have accomplished my mission.

    Parent

    You're right Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 06:51:47 AM EST
    It was rather insulting of me to compare Bush to a monkey.

    I hope the monkeys will forgive me.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:26:18 AM EST
    Oh the monkeys won't care, and neither will Bush.

    The issue will come when your venom corrodes you so badly that it splashes over into the real world.

    Parent

    Into the real world? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    You mean like this?

    btw, did you have a better name for the 26 percenters?

    "Peasants" works well enough, I think:
    The infallible test for identifying a peasant is whether he believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack. It is an unarguable fact, widely known for years, that Saddam was not behind it, yet large numbers of Americans to this day think that he was. In linking Saddam with 9/11, President Bush simply lied, for reasons that seemed good to him, but his lies are not my concern. I am concerned that he never produced evidence and it was widely publicised at the time that there was no such evidence, yet much of the country believed him. The highest proportion of believers were, and still are, Fox News viewers.


    Parent
    Oh I love it (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    You should change your moniker to EGO.

    First you quote yourself, and then you link to your blog.....

    And no, ego. That is not the real worlg.

    Parent

    No answer. Not surprising. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    I guess we'll stick with "peasants". It's descriptive enough.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    BTW - This "peasant" is sleeping in, in the morning.

    You??? No.

    Good. Gotta keep my social security and medicare coming...

    Parent

    ppj (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:55:49 AM EST
    If you're trying to say that it's my fault Bush and the peasants have so wretchedly lost public confidence... well... I'll gladly take the blame. I do what I can to help, you know?

    But all my efforts are as nothing compared to yours. ;-)

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    You don't have to accept blame. You have thoroughly demonstrated it.

    Parent
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    As I said, I do my best to help.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    sailor (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    Put me down for always responding to personal attacks, especially personal attacks based on a false understand and/or knowing misuse of facts.
    Especially when the word "peasants" is tossd around.

    Now. Why didn't you nail edger???

    Still got a "thing" for me???? God, I am glad I have better things to do than follow you around....

    Parent

    I know, I know (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    The American people are so fragile and ignorant that if you say the "wrong words" around them it will completely destroy their abilities to do the right thing, think the right thing, to even remain sane and able to function.  After all these years of being able to think for myself and build the life of my own choosing that brings me and mine happiness one wrong word could just fold it all up and flatten it like a Stars of Hollywood map.

    Parent
    Tracy - Are you? (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    Actually Tracy I am not that concerned about the American people, although the constant drum beat of "we have lost..we are savages...the terrorists are just insurgents...Bush evil....etc., does in the end have an effect on the beliefs of people. It is called propaganda, and if it was not helpful in the mission of the Left to defeat Bush, even if it does hurt the country, then it would not have been repeated millions of times.

    You say that you are a military wife. My problem with you is not that you oppose the war, but that you seem to not care that constant attacks on the administration, "war lost," etc. does, at the least, improve the morale of the enemy. An enemy with a good morale is much more difficult to defeat, and much more likely to kill US military.

    It is for that reason that I really am having problems accepting your claims.

    You know, about two years ago on this blog when I asked a commonentator if he understood his comments were costing US lives, his reply was that he understood, but by losing a few lives now, a larger later loss would be avoided, because the administration would have been forced to bring them home.

    Do you agree with the commentator?

    Parent

    If Strong Public Support Is Needed for Victory (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by john horse on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    re:"to fight a war, a country must be united."

    PPJ, first of all, this country is becoming united as far as opposition to this war is concerned but I don't think that is what you meant.  However, let me address your point.

    Lets carry your logic to its obvious conclusion.  If you need strong public support for success in a war and there is no strong public support for this war and there is unlikely to be any strong public support in the future (the trend is definitely moving in the opposite directrion) then why are you supporting a war that is likely to be a failure by your own logic?

    Parent

    John H (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    then why are you supporting a war that is likely to be a failure by your own logic?

    I don't base my actions on what the "big boys down on the corner" are doing.

    I relate more to MacArthur's, "Duty, honor, country...."

    BTW - I think your question frames the moral, or better yet, lack of a moral position in general, by the Left.

    BTW - Iraq is a battle, not the war. I desperately want to win the battle because it will save lives on both sides, in the long run.

    The Left is interested in defeating Bush.

    See the difference??


    Parent

    In the long run. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    'Collateral Damage' as Euphemism for Mass Murder
    If we take this collectivist argument for "collateral damage" at face value, set aside the calculation problem with foreign central planning, and assume the U.S. government is honest in its intentions and able in its deeds, we would presumably agree that the U.S. government has a right to kill innocent people, so long as it is ousting a human monster that would kill more innocent people.

    In other words, the U.S. government, in overthrowing a foreign regime, can justifiably slaughter any number of innocents up to the number that regime would slaughter if left in place. Ousting Hitler in 1939 would have therefore justified the killing of millions of Jews, homosexuals, dissidents, Gypsies, and disabled people by the one doing the ousting - so long as the number killed was fewer than the number Hitler would have ultimately killed.

    Ousting Stalin, Pol Pot, or any other mega-murderer would justify committing any crime less serious than the crimes committed by the enemy.

    The statistical utilitarian argument for mass slaughter is no more than a defense of mass murder on a grand scale, so long as it is known that the enemy would murder even more. This is not an individualist, libertarian, or even humane argument. It looks upon innocent human lives as mere numbers.

    And, as was pointed out earlier, there is no way to gather accurate information on the costs and benefits even in sheer numbers of lives lost, in order to act upon the information with a feasible and successfully centrally-managed implementation of slaughter-minimizing coercive action.

    Furthermore, there is no reason to trust the U.S. government's numbers, even if it bothered to present any, on how many it has killed and how many it has saved.

    This argument for "collateral damage" is effectively no less than a blank check to the State to go to oppressed countries and murder large numbers of their populations, claiming all the while that it is saving lives.


    Parent
    Moral Position? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    How bout if China beat us to Iraq? What if they took the "moral" position that Sadaam was a threat and were setting up bases right and left in Iraq in order to fight the WOT.

    One thing for sure is that ppj would be calling for sending troops in ASAP in order to free the Iraqi people from an illegal occupation.

    hahahahaha.

    Parent

    May instead of trying to (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    Blame the debacle on Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs, he might listen to Lou Reed:
    Give me your hungry, your tired your poor Ill piss on em
    Thats what the statue of bigotry says
    Your poor huddled masses, lets club em to death
    And get it over with and just dump em on the boulevard
    Dirty Boulevard

    Parent
    How bout if China beat us to Iraq? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.

    And your next question is??

    Parent

    Got It (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:57:20 PM EST
    You would be screaming about communism and illegal occupation.

    Parent
    edger (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:53:56 PM EST
    This argument for "collateral damage" is effectively no less than a blank check

    Huh?? Collateral damage is not an argument, but a description of damage.

    Can't you do better?

    Parent

    You're right again, Jim. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:12:52 PM EST
    I've already said that I'd be happy to take the blame for the fact that Bush and the peasants have so wretchedly lost public confidence, but as I conceded earlier all my efforts are as nothing compared to yours: "Collateral damage is not an argument, but a description of damage."

    Parent
    oddly enough (none / 0) (#53)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:22:41 PM EST
    but that you seem to not care that constant attacks on the administration, "war lost," etc. does, at the least, improve the morale of the enemy.

    it didn't help the confederacy, during the american civil war. lincoln was constantly assaulted, in the press, by his political enemies, etc. both as a person and as commander-in-chief.

    surely, this must have raised the morale of the confederate army to staggering heights, ennabling them to sweep the union armies off the field of combat. except, well, it didn't. geez, lee didn't even need to have the news translated for him, he read and wrote english.

    of course, it helped that lincoln was a lot smarter than bush, and pretty much knew what he wanted, he just required the right commander to get there.

    the last i checked, nothing i say here, or anywhere else, other than the ballot box, will have the slightest impact whatever on our operations in iraq.

    cpinva (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    Thanks for taking my statement and then over stating it. But no matter.

    If Lincoln had had the moral courage of the current Demo leaders, he would have surrendered.

    And I seem to remember he ran through several commanders...

    He also approved of one whose strategy was just to kill everything that moved.

    You willing to give Bush the same leeway??

    No? I didn't think so.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    yadda yadda DA

    Think of something original for heavens sake.