Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The questions have been asked in the past - and answered
brand new poll...brand new questions....brand newly written answers from me....
from you: same old avoidance same old spinning same old running away
if you can't discuss the subject of the thread, don't feel like you need to keep blathering away in it. Just go to some other thread and carry on intelligent conversation there.
no...wait...what did I just say??????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Been there and done that on many other threads
You want to change the subject - how the poll shows Dems do not want to win in Iraq and want to surrender
as I said been there and done that
You keep trying to stray off topic to try and cut your losses
Been there and done that MM
Even after questions are answered you keep asking them
I think it is instructive to consider how the right frames this debate about the wisdom of our continued involvement in the affairs of the Iraqi people. There is a constantly shifting definition of "winning", and, therefore, and equally shifting definition of "being defeated". At its very essence is the idea that our enemies are making some stand in Iraq and we must "win" against them there or they will have "defeated" us. This view of this involvement in Iraq as some sort of time constrained contest is artificial and tends to skew our perspective away from reality. This is not some gobal football game and we are not in the third quarter of a fixed time game. Great argument for NOT setting timetables! The enemy seeks to outlast us - not on the battlefield in Iraq, but in the timeless worldwide war of ideas and influence. Right now, they are winning that imo. In that war, we "win" when America's social and economic interest is felt in the world and those interests prevail in the world. We certainly need to look at that war with a wider, longer view.... we want to WIN that war of influence and ideas over the next century. We wont ever win that because we, as a nation cannot present a united front. Is it really sensible to chose Iraq as the hill upon which we will die this decade? Can't we admit that we made an error in elevating Iraq into some symbolic preeminence that it does not deserve? Our war is against Islamic extremism... and that war will not be won militarily, but socially, politically, and most importantly, economically. So we may as well just disband our military, right? They play no role in the war on Islamic extremeists? Our war is not against Iraqi insurgents who really want to fight one another in a turf battle for oil and a 1200 year old grudge match over islamic interpretation and ascendancy.
Those of us on here with a military background know full well that, in the major wars that engulfed our planet in the last century, America lost its share of BATTLES...America retreated from individual battlefields when it became clear that continuing to fight on that spot was not helping us win the larger victory.... when it became clear that that was not the hill we should chose to die on.... but America prevailed in those large wars because we did NOT let ourselves become obsessed with winning any one battle at the expense of overall victory.
Agreed. The one factor missing in this "war" however, is the support of the American people...and I'm not connecting that to Iraq....
I am all for fighting and winning the war against Islamic extremism. I know full well that our military will play a role at times in that war, but that ideas and economics will play a greater role. IMO, when a nation goes to war it means more than just commiting troops. Blood, treasure and other resources have to be committed and apportioned toward whatever goals have been set; and not pieemeal either. From the very outset, I have been against the action in Iraq, not because I didn't want to fight and win the war against Islamic extremism, but because I did not believe that our planned action in Iraq advanced our cause in that larger war. I have been against it because the it is my opinion that the American people will NEVER AGAIN have the guts to see military operations through to the end, whether or not military action is justified.
Saddam Hussein was an asshole.... but he was an unwitting ally of ours in our war against Islamic extremism. The vision of Islamic extremists had no place for secular nation states like Jordan or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia OR IRAQ. Saddam had no vested interest in promoting an ideology that was bent on his own destruction. True enough.
Saddam was an asshole, but he did three things very well - three things that we would LOVE for someone to be doing better than we are doing them today: 1. he kept islamic extremists from gaining bases of operation in Iraq (and don't start with me about Saddam's support for terrorists - his support was solely for NATIONALIST terror organizations and, as repugnant as they were and are, they are not the same as the Islamic extremists that threaten us) 2. he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another en masse in a country that was unique in its mixed population of shiites and sunnis at the edge of arabia and persia.... and 3. he acted as a foil against Iranian regional hegemony.
I agree he did those things well and have read your statements regarding those in other posts. Having said that, unless our military are allowed to use the same tactics and philosophy as Saddam, we will never do those things well under the same circumstances. As in other posts, I ask if you are advocating that the US military be allowed to use torture and murder as a modus operandi in these situations?
We need to admit that we will NEVER be able to do those three things as well as Saddam did them and that we fucked up by removing him from power and forcing ourselves to occupy a large portion of our military, our economy, and our diplomatic energy in trying to keep Iraq from boiling over when we could much more effectively use those assets to our benefit elsewhere in the world. No one wants DEFEAT (care to define defeat in this instance...I'm curious...) in the war on Islamic extremism, but I think we should consider leaving the battlefield we created in Iraq and focusing our efforts on winning the war that we should be fighting.
Morning MM...danged hot up here aint it?
The answers to these poll questions by some are quizzical.
And folks ask me why I dont trust polls....*sheesh*
Please feel free to answer these survey questions, RSR obviously feels they are fair and in no way Partisan.
As usual he feels Dems just cant handle the truth.
Number one is unimportant, what IS important is that Iraq can provide Border security and internal security before we leave.
Number two, I notice you can't just answer the question. I am HOPEFUL we stay till the mission is accomplished and that would be that Iraq can provide border and internal security.
Number three your answer is a bald face lie. Provide some evidence of this. As to my Answer , Military matters should be left to Military commanders and political matters left to Civilian leaders. It is Congress that decides to pay for war. However when the people in charge won't even listen to the Commanders on the ground I would suggest those Civilians are failing their DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY. Remind me, what did the democrats do on the previous vote? Did they find an hour to be briefed by the Commander that flew there to do just that? or did they snub him and ignore him in a rush to make a political jab at the President?
Four... neither of those are important. Since no one can agree what a win is it is moot. Troops should not leave until the MILITARY mission is a success. The ability of the Iraqis to secure their borders and provide internal security. And then MILITARY Commanders should be making MILITARY decisions on what is and is not needed to accomplish the mission with in the restraints of what is available.
Five.. I would agree that the Press and the Liberals WANT the US to believe it is lost and is unwinnable. They do NOT want the military goals to be accomplished, not because it can not be done, but because if the Military succeeds Bush may get credit.
Six is a no brainer.... of course we are fighting a WORLD WIDE WAR ON TERROR.
Seven... NO, it is not the troops place to worry about what the Civilian leadership decides. The problem is the political games being played. If we leave we leave. The troops are going to leave someday and I am sure some won't like staying or leaving any time.
Eight... I have no problem with a deadline that is NOT broadcast to our enemies or anyone that has no security reason to know it. Any PUBLIC deadline that says by x date we leave PERIOD is a recipe for disaster.
Nine ... Yes this is the only thing that matters... making Iraqi Troops and Police capable of providing security for that country, then we can leave.
The poll is for everyone to take, Everyones answers are valid, and interesting.I'm not a dem, but I'll take the survey anyway.
Are you responding to the poll or responding to Speculatives answers to the poll?
Are you upset the poll shows Dems are defeatests and do not care about victory in Iraq?
I have a novel suggestion RSR: why don't you go up to post #6 in this thread and refute or argue against each individual point that I made? Let's see if it is possible for you to carry your OWN water and hold your own in a discussion. this will be fun.
Been there and done that on many other threads
You want to change the subject - how the poll shows Dems do not want to win in Iraq and want to surrender
With questions "borrowed" from my thread
absolutely. the questions came directly from a webpage that reported the results of a poll.... the nine questions from your cut and pasted webpage were lifted onto this thread.... and superaltive asked poster give their own answers to those questions. I did that. I ask you - again - to actually debate me on each of those answers....explaining where I am incorrect... explaining where my logic is flawed, explaining where I might have used a false premise.... proposing counter-arguments...making your own points....that IS the topic of THIS thread.
Been there, done that? How could you? You just posted the poll yesterday.... superlative just brought the questions from your poll over to this thread last night and I just answered them later last night. YOU have never addressed any of those points before.
quit dodging.
quit spinning.
quit running.
