A Momentous Admission

[Flanders]

Barack Taqiyya cutting & running in Afghanistan and Iraq is a mixed bag. Retreating is never a good thing; less so when the cut & run crowd throw in a winning hand.

On the plus side Barack Taqiyya does not want to win:

Afghanistan: President Obama's new strategy for what he once called "a war that we have to win" is a "zero option" of irrevocable defeat. The world's strongest military power can no longer win wars.

Obama's Promise To Win Afghanistan Now Total Pullout
Posted 07/09/2013 07:01 PM ET

Obama's Commitment To Win In Afghanistan Is Now Total Troop Withdrawal - Investors.com

I can hear my friends moaning “Flanders went nuts! Why is that a plus?”

The answer is simple. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan is a momentous admission that Peace Without Victory is a philosophical disaster:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww15.htm

Barack Taqiyya & Company would stay in Afghanistan and Iraq until the Devil installed air conditioning in hell if he thought Peace Without Victory had the slightest chance of succeeding. It’s been nearly a century since Woodrow Wilson delivered the most destructive speech any president ever made. Barack Taqiyya’s admission is the closest any Democrat ever came to openly rejecting Wilson’s foreign policy.

NOTE: Before getting to it let me remind everyone that Woodrow Wilson was the first dirty little moralist who decided America had to save the world. In the second half of the twentieth century every freak, every pervert, every murdering butcher in the Democrat party sold Wilson’s theory as the word from God. They were worse than Wilson in that TRYING to save the world was all that was required of them. Count the corpses if you want to see what their trying did for the country.

Now, let’s take a look at the benefits that might be triggered by Barack Taqiyya’s admission.

1. Only fools will insist Peace Without Victory is possible after America is attacked as it was in Pearl Harbor and on 9-11-2001.

2. Touchy-feely do-gooders will be very careful about calling for military interventions when a declaration of war removes the option of Peace Without Victory.

3. Once Peace Without Victory is finally abandoned America will only go to war when war is declared.

4. Nobody is going to openly declare a Peace Without Victory war, nor will Americans fight such a war.

5. Americans will no longer be tricked into fighting Peace Without Victory wars.

Parenthetically, President McKinley gave the country The Spanish-American War in addition to sending American troops to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in China; whereas, Wilson’s Peace Without Victory speech sixteen years after McKinley’s death stands as a blueprint for defeat.

American President: William McKinley: Foreign Affairs

NOTE: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were Peace Without Victory wars. They were justified based solely on self-defense. Had Congress declared war in every case the result would have defeated America’s sworn enemies —— Communists, and Islamic fundamentalists. Example: There would have been no Vietnam had Congress passed a declaration of war for Korea. And please don’t ask how declarations of war are justified against a shadowy enemy. Democrat assholes in Congress have no trouble justifying Peace Without Victory wars. If they can’t figure out how to defend this country with a declaration of war they have no business being there.

Finally, Vietnam was a howling success for Peace Without Victory. Looked at from the perspective of American liberals a country going Communist is the very definition of Peace Without Victory. On the other hand Korea was a compromise —— Democrats cannot call Peace Without Victory a success until North Korea conquers South Korea.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama got his nose in a snit because Karzai refuses to recognize the Taliban as the government in exile.

 

[Borillar]

Well, why didn't Republicans declare war after 9/11 then? They had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The people of the US were righteously pissed and would have gone along with it. Dems wouldn't have dared to block it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well, why didn't Republicans declare war after 9/11 then? They had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The people of the US were righteously pissed and would have gone along with it. Dems wouldn't have dared to block it.

They had an agenda to push through first that was more important. #statingtheobvious

 

[Sallow]

What were we looking to "win" here?

We were attacked by a stateless group of Saudis that set up camp in Afghanistan.

The camps are gone. The leader of that group is dead.

So what do you mean by "winning"?

Is this a Charlie Sheen thing?

 

[Flanders]

Well, why didn't Republicans declare war after 9/11 then?

To Borillar: They couldn’t.

The State Department dictates foreign policy to every president, and State has been controlled by Democrats for at least a century. In addition, foreign policy dictates Peace Without Victory unless there is an attack like Pearl Harbor.

Note that Woodrow Wilson got a declaration of war when America was not threatened in any way. In effect, Wilson sided with Great Britain over Germany for reasons I won’t go into here. The consequences of his decision dictated the remainder of the twentieth and up to today.

If you start with the WMD flap in Iraq you’ll see that Democrats originally tried to sandbag Bush with UN inspectors. After they thought Bush took the bait they authorized military action assuming UN inspectors would stall forever. Bush invaded without the UN’s final approval; hence, Democrats who “Authorized” the invasion turned around said “I was for it before I was against it.” After they were against the war Democrats then began betraying the men and women in Iraq by giving aid and comfort to the enemy just as they did in Vietnam.

NOTE: Afghanistan is a UN-approved military action as was Deseret Storm. Desert Storm was a UN-controlled Peace Without Victory war in that Bush the Elder gave the UN veto power over the American military. Had Bush gone all the way to Bagdad there would have been no second war in Iraq.

They had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The people of the US were righteously pissed and would have gone along with it.

To Borillar: Republican control of Congress is shaky at best considering the number of RINO the Democrats always count on. Any talk about a declaration of war would have taken place behind closed doors. The public never would have learned who said what.

Dems wouldn't have dared to block it.

To Borillar: Never underestimate filthy sneaks. Democrats would not have openly blocked a declaration of war. And why should they? when “authorization” offered all of the cover they needed.

 

[Mushroom]

Well, why didn't Republicans declare war after 9/11 then? They had the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. The people of the US were righteously pissed and would have gone along with it. Dems wouldn't have dared to block it.

Actually, the Democrats controlled the Senate.

And the Senate was much higher in favor of the Authorization to use force then the House was. 98 Senators voted for the use of force (98%), 2 abstained.

But the House was not much different, with 420 yes, 10 abstain and a single no vote.

As for the reason why war was not declared, why should it be? I for one am glad it was not, because the US government significantly changes under the condition of a declared war. That is why it is so rarely used.