Reply With Quote
Do exactly what the Democratic leadership is doing.
I was just thinking about this today, and I wanted to pose a question to all viewers, how would you undermine a war effort? Particularly the Iraq war. Yes there has been lots of dissent along the lines of "War only for Oil", "Iraq is not winnable", "The U.S. soldiers are all a bunch of middle class poor people who went there unwillingly,etc". Ok, thats fine, even though I disagree with those statments. And also, the very same people who make them say that they're not undermining a war effort or being unpatriotic, they're just doing their free speech thingie, so my question to you'all is if you were to undermine a war effort without being unpatriotic, how would you do it??
Do exactly what the Democratic leadership is doing.
Torture. Death Squads, and Fallujah.
lie about our reasons and justification for going to said war
Kind of like the last time that was done...under Lyndon Johnson? A Democrat.
I think even those that "support" the war can undermine it by their actions.
My question is, if you disagree with the war or the reasons for the war, why is undermining the war such a bad thing?
Chapaquitic!!! Beat you to it.
Yes, exactly like that. Nice of you to acknowledge the similarities!
The democrats did it too
Quit being such a zealot.
We still live in a democratic republic, do we not? Why are the people and their representatives not allowed to question their government? This is not to say that the criticism be correct or well-founded, but is not the point of having such a form of government that we can have that expression?
If you think about it, the argument then becomes that any dissent undermines the government and that the dissent must go...
Not the best example.
I think the partisans on the board have made it clear that this is what they believe.
Someone once said that politicans don't take responsibility anymore. They come to occupy this safehouse where everyone's guilty, so no one is wrong.
Put the country before this kind of mud-slinging. Is it in American interests to continue a war if the leadership of the country is dishonest about the true intentions, the true reasons for going to war, and the timetable for withdraw?
Last edited by Darrin; 02-13-2006 at 06:42 PM.
Partisan is a term meant for politics. This dissenting opinion is speaking in opposition to make sure the country is serving the best interests of all its people.
It seems to me it's getting more and more difficult to have honest and open debate without being labeled as working for one party or the other. I mean, we all think America's the greatest country on the face of the earth, right? This is a discussion about how to keep it that way, not how to win an election.
I thought that is what we were talking about...?
I was only saying that some on this board have made it clear that, in their opinion, if you don't support the war, you should leave the country.
I thought that is what we were talking about...?
I was only saying that some on this board have made it clear that, in their opinion, if you don't support the war, you should leave the country.
or that you would rather play with dolls, or cry like a baby, or engage in sexual activities. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I just kick ass and drink beer!
America... YEAH!!
Exactly. Those who govern are elected through a political system. The issue of Iraq is one of questioning how those politicians govern.I thought that is what we were talking about...?
I'm sorry if I prematurely jumped all over you for that, but I think it's an important distinction.
Because, if you're wrong the consequences could be irreversible.
I was just listing the latest example, that's all.The democrats did it too
Quit being such a zealot.
much like war itself.
^^^
Exactly!
Is this Vashner? It couldn't be.
The Repugs have been absolutley flawless ing up their Iraq war:
1. not enough troops
2. not enough troops
3. not enough troops
4. Paul Bremer, incompetent Repug operative with no crisis mgmt, runs Iraq after "mission accomplished", disbands the Iraqi army and police, allowing the insurgency to hit the ground running, and it's still running strong 3 years and 2000+ military lives later.
5. Assume that there would be no insurgency, and so make no plans for it. The Repug "2003-re-election war" was over with duby's faux flyboy, crotch-padded "mission accomplished". Or assume there would be an indefinitely long insurgency (as the intelligence pros predicted), but hide it until it becomes as obvious as dubya's brain-dead ignorance.
6. Start a war with lies, spin, bogus evidence, cherry-pick the intelligence while hiding all serious doubts by intelligence professionals who were right about every ing thing that went wrong about Iraq. Expect none of this chicanery and deception to be exposed and expect ALL of the US people to be fooled ALL of the time. When ALL of the people aren't fooled, blame the stupid people for not being fooled.
7. Forget the lessons of Viet Nam, and start a war of choice where the US citizenry are lied to and mislead profoundly and repeatedly, until the majority of US turns against the war for too many lives lost, for too many bodies and minds maimed, too many $100B up in smoke, with many $100Bs to come, with no increase in security for USA, and generally nothing at all to show for the Repug Iraq war except a big, ing black hole of an weak Iraqi governemt corrupt from top to bottom, incapable of controlling the country and supporting its own army.
8. Start a war without a serious multi-national force, so you are left holding the bag and bills by yourself.
9. Start a war of choice where the odds of success are 1 in 100 at best. And above all start the wrong ing war in the wrong ng place, when the real enemy are elsewhere.
10. Try to force democracy onto a deeply divided sectarain "country" which has NEVER experienced democracy or chosen unity and whose religious leaders teach that secular democracy is not the Muslim theocratic style of govt.
etc, etc, etc,.
Nobody tell me how wonderful the troops are,
how much they have sacrificied,
how nice they are to Iraqi kids who have survived collateral damage.
The troops are not the problem and are NOT the solution.
The troops have been forced to fight a war that was ed in conception, ed in execution, and troops are getting ed by the Repugs.
The US military has been sacrificed and wasted on the Repug Iraq war.
The failures in Iraq are not with the troops.
Now the right-wingers here are trying to blame the ng abortion of the exclusively Repug-botched Iraq war on anybody but the Repugs.
Last edited by boutons_; 02-13-2006 at 11:12 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
