Winning in Iraq

[Vinnick]

AFC's posting tendencies should be well known to all of us by now.

Live and learn I guess. Or in his case. Cut and Run. Now that you mention it, he did the same thing in another thread.

[WinSkins]

FUBAR, Cluster ****, can't find their *** with two hands and a flashlight...these are just a few of the terms I learned on active duty that come to mind when I read this kind of a :bsflag: post.

It's the same crap that got shoveled (on top of us) when we were in Vietnam :(some of the names have changed, but the song remains the same and the bull**** still walks.

I wish we could say we're "winning," but not one swinging **** on this forum has said what the hell they mean by winning.

As a libertarian and veteran I have a strong mistrust of government and a healthy and empirically based skepticism that any government officials have the potential to recognize truth, even if it is right in front of them. I know they and their minions are lying when I see the telltale sign...their lips are moving.

[Redskins Diehard]

Well, I watched the actual interview.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html

He never said progress 'makes the Democrat's job harder.'

And he's not the Majority Leader.

Those are both VERY misleading statements about who Clyburn is and what he said.

What he DID say was a glowing progress report would make it difficult for those who wish to set a timetable for withdrawal. The guy is the Majority Whip. It's his job to get people within his own party to follow the leadership, and if the leadership wants a timetable, he's got to push for that. However, RIGHT AFTER his "it would be a problem for us" quote (which is the actual quote, btw) he goes on to say "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we to going to get in a position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."

He then goes on to say that despite that, the Democrats are not going to 'roll over' just because Bush says things are going well, but he considers Patraeus a trustworthy source.

Feel free to view the interview if you think I'm embellishing.

Is "make the Democrats job harder" and "it would be a problem for us" really that different? A problem tends to make things harder and I assume the "us" he refers to is Democrats.

Granted he is not the "Majority Leader", he just gets the majority to do what the leader wants them to.

I am a little confused as to why those comments would warrant a "VERY"

[Henry]

Is "make the Democrats job harder" and "it would be a problem for us" really that different?

Yes. Read what I wrote again.

A problem tends to make things harder and I assume the "us" he refers to is Democrats.

Then you would be wrong. Read what I wrote again.

Or better yet, watch the interview and see what he actually says, in context, rather than having the Washington Post or AFC do it for you.

Granted he is not the "Majority Leader", he just gets the majority to do what the leader wants them to.

Which explains why 'us' does not mean 'the democrats.'

I am a little confused as to why those comments would warrant a "VERY"

Because he's not speaking for the whole party and he's not referring to the whole party. Those are rather significant distinctions.

[Mad Mike]

FUBAR, Cluster ****, can't find their *** with two hands and a flashlight...these are just a few of the terms I learned on active duty that come to mind when I read this kind of a :bsflag: post.

It's the same crap that got shoveled (on top of us) when we were in Vietnam :(some of the names have changed, but the song remains the same and the bull**** still walks.

I wish we could say we're "winning," but not one swinging **** on this forum has said what the hell they mean by winning.

As a libertarian and veteran I have a strong mistrust of government and a healthy and empirically based skepticism that any government officials have the potential to recognize truth, even if it is right in front of them. I know they and their minions are lying when I see the telltale sign...their lips are moving.

With all due respect, thank you for your service, but this is not Vietnam and there are plenty of grunts with boots on the ground in Iraq who would disagree with you. The past is the past. I can understand that from your past experience you are cynical, but if one girlfriend burns you and cheats on you do you stop dating? No. Because each new girl and each new situation is different and must be judged on it's own merits.

And for the record. Winning means stablizing the country so that when we do leave, we leave a peaceful democratic nation in place of a dictatorship that started wars, killed millions, tourtured and killed it's own citizens, and supported terrorism.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yes. Read what I wrote again.

Then you would be wrong. Read what I wrote again.

Or better yet, watch the interview and see what he actually says, in context, rather than having the Washington Post or AFC do it for you.

Which explains why 'us' does not mean 'the democrats.'

Because he's not speaking for the whole party and he's not referring to the whole party. Those are rather significant distinctions.

What you wrote is that calling the 3rd Ranking Democrat the Democratic Leader is a VERY(I assume you used all caps to make your point) misleading statement. That he only gets his party to do what the leadership wants him to do. Seems to me that the third ranking Democrat is part of the leadership even if not the leader.

The question posed to him before he referred to "us" and "we" was "What do Democrats do?". I can see how someone would think that his answer had something to do with Democrats. So who is speaking for? The Democrat leadership?

Finally you are no more qualified to discuss how I gather information and form opinions than I am to discuss how you do the same. Stating do it yourself instead of having the Washington Post or AFC adds nothing to the discussion, is flat out wrong, and is insulting to me and I assume some sort of jab at AFC. Aren't you one of the "grown ups" around here?

[Henry]

What you wrote is that calling the 3rd Ranking Democrat the Democratic Leader is a VERY(I assume you used all caps to make your point) misleading statement. That he only gets his party to do what the leadership wants him to do. Seems to me that the third ranking Democrat is part of the leadership even if not the leader.

The question posed to him before he referred to "us" and "we" was "What do Democrats do?". I can see how someone would think that his answer had something to do with Democrats. So who is speaking for? The Democrat leadership?

Finally you are no more qualified to discuss how I gather information and form opinions than I am to discuss how you do the same. Stating do it yourself instead of having the Washington Post or AFC adds nothing to the discussion, is flat out wrong, and is insulting to me and I assume some sort of jab at AFC. Aren't you one of the "grown ups" around here?

I suggested you watch the interview because I don't want to be misrepresenting what Clyburn said. That seems to be the order of the day around here, and yes, it's irritating to me. Having to repeat myself is irritating too. Sorry if you feel that my ire is insulting to you.

Whether or not you personally are willing to acknowledge the difference between the Majority Leader and the Majority Whip, or who the Blue Dogs are and what party they belong to isn't really relevant here. AFC made two rather significant innaccurate claims in one sentence. I pointed it out. That's all. I am baffled as to why I have to explain why it matters that someone get simple facts straight when making partisan rants around here.

But if you don't care if people are truthful when talking about this stuff that's your perogative.

[helptheSKINS]

It's so typical that an article with good news on Iraq can get turned into a pissing match. Why is it that some of you have such a problem with simply being happy about it. Instead some people decide to disect every word someone else writes in an attempt to discredit them. AFC is always reporting good things about Irag and many of you vulchers attack him for it. It's F'ing pathetic.

[martytheman]

You guys know what kills me about all these mediots and their reports, and these so called "experts" on a war in which they have never set their boots on the ground in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan.

They don't know what they're talking about.

All the people who complain that we (troops) are not doing enough,

Have you ever rolled through baghdad waiting for the next IED?

Have you ever pulled security for vehicles blown up and carried mangled bodies back?

Have you ever been in the middle of a crowd of people not knowing where the next shot is going to come from?

no?

The war is HARD, I wish people would understand that. We're fighting an uphill battle against an enemy who is almost invisible (because they hide amongst the civilians)

And you know what? Having been to both countries, I believe we're winning. I can see the difference in the two places over time, and it is heartening to me at least. It has been and will continue to be a long, tough bloody fight. Yes it's taking longer than everyone expected, but if you want to do it right, it has to continue, no cutting and running because it's not popular back in the states. Too bad. We all know what we got ourselves into, and most of us are proud to be doing what we can to defend our loved ones back home.

/rant

Sorry if I offended anyone, this was not directed personally to anyone here, just needed to vent a little bit. It's just frustrating when I read things like that article, people here are dying, and politicians are jockeying for position back home. Like was stated earlier, Democrats have staked their campaign on our failure in Iraq/Afghanistan, so they can come in and supposedly "fix" things. and I don't feel that it's right.

[Henry]

It's so typical that an article with good news on Iraq can get turned into a pissing match. Why is it that some of you have such a problem with simply being happy about it. Instead some people decide to disect every word someone else writes in an attempt to discredit them. ASF is always reporting good things about Irag and many of you vulchers attack him for it. It's F'ing pathetic.

I don't think I've ever attacked AFC for his reports on Iraq (I assume that's who you meant.) In fact, I appreciate them greatly.

I do agree that dissecting every word someone says in order to discredit is distasteful. It's exactly what I've been talking about in this thread.

[helptheSKINS]

I don't think I've ever attacked AFC for his reports on Iraq (I assume that's who you meant.) In fact, I appreciate them greatly.

I do agree that dissecting every word someone says in order to discredit is distasteful. It's exactly what I've been talking about in this thread.

Yes I meant AFC. Thanks

[Predicto]

What you wrote is that calling the 3rd Ranking Democrat the Democratic Leader is a VERY(I assume you used all caps to make your point) misleading statement. That he only gets his party to do what the leadership wants him to do. Seems to me that the third ranking Democrat is part of the leadership even if not the leader.

The question posed to him before he referred to "us" and "we" was "What do Democrats do?". I can see how someone would think that his answer had something to do with Democrats. So who is speaking for? The Democrat leadership?

Finally you are no more qualified to discuss how I gather information and form opinions than I am to discuss how you do the same. Stating do it yourself instead of having the Washington Post or AFC adds nothing to the discussion, is flat out wrong, and is insulting to me and I assume some sort of jab at AFC. Aren't you one of the "grown ups" around here?

You really do not seem to understand.

Clyburn is the whip. The whip's job is to gather votes and present a unified party. Clyburn is saying that if the surge works, it will make it harder for HIM to do HIS job, that is, to gather votes, because the democrats are likely to fracture between those that want to leave and those that want to stay.

Just because HIS job as whip is harder does not mean that this is bad for the Democrats as a whole, or for the country. It means that HIS job is harder because there will be less Democrat unity on this one issue.

Does that make sense? Now do you understand how this is being misrepresented by AFC and others?

[Mad Mike]

You guys know what kills me about all these mediots and their reports, and these so called "experts" on a war in which they have never set their boots on the ground in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan.

They don't know what they're talking about.

All the people who complain that we (troops) are not doing enough,

Have you ever rolled through baghdad waiting for the next IED?

Have you ever pulled security for vehicles blown up and carried mangled bodies back?

Have you ever been in the middle of a crowd of people not knowing where the next shot is going to come from?

no?

The war is HARD, I wish people would understand that. We're fighting an uphill battle against an enemy who is almost invisible (because they hide amongst the civilians)

And you know what? Having been to both countries, I believe we're winning. I can see the difference in the two places over time, and it is heartening to me at least. It has been and will continue to be a long, tough bloody fight. Yes it's taking longer than everyone expected, but if you want to do it right, it has to continue, no cutting and running because it's not popular back in the states. Too bad. We all know what we got ourselves into, and most of us are proud to be doing what we can to defend our loved ones back home.

/rant

Sorry if I offended anyone, this was not directed personally to anyone here, just needed to vent a little bit. It's just frustrating when I read things like that article, people here are dying, and politicians are jockeying for position back home. Like was stated earlier, Democrats have staked their campaign on our failure in Iraq/Afghanistan, so they can come in and supposedly "fix" things. and I don't feel that it's right.

Thank you for your service and dedication. :notworthy

[JMS]

Go read the other thread. He said it.

:doh: He didn't say anything like that. In fact in the interview he said the exact opposite.

[Vinnick]

Notice that people are fighting over the words of this poster who appears to be a liar, but he's not man enough to come and back up what he posted?

[PeterMP]

Notice that people are fighting over the words of this poster who appears to be a liar, but he's not man enough to come and back up what he posted?

Maybe he's busy today? From what I've seen AFC is very much a random poster. He'll post for maybe a day or two, but then be gone for a week or so.

[Henry]

Notice that people are fighting over the words of this poster who appears to be a liar, but he's not man enough to come and back up what he posted?

To be fair, I don't think AFC was purposefully lying. I think he was exaggerating, and in doing so changed the meaning of the statement in question. I'm generally not a nitpicker (I don't think ) but I think it's important to point this one out because it's something many of us do when we get on a roll.

[Predicto]

Maybe he's busy today? From what I've seen AFC is very much a random poster. He'll post for maybe a day or two, but then be gone for a week or so.

He has managed to post in several other threads since then.

[WinSkins]

With all due respect, thank you for your service, but this is not Vietnam and there are plenty of grunts with boots on the ground in Iraq who would disagree with you. The past is the past. I can understand that from your past experience you are cynical, but if one girlfriend burns you and cheats on you do you stop dating? No. Because each new girl and each new situation is different and must be judged on it's own merits.

And for the record. Winning means stablizing the country so that when we do leave, we leave a peaceful democratic nation in place of a dictatorship that started wars, killed millions, tourtured and killed it's own citizens, and supported terrorism.

MM...I plead guilty to being very close to cynicism when it comes to government officials.

Also curious why you tell me "The past is the past," then make a case for a current questionable strategy by reverting to the past in your comment, "in place of a dictatorship that started wars, killed millions, tourtured (sic) and killed it's own citizens, and supported terrorism."

Saddam wasn't one of my favorites, even when the US government supported him during the Iran-Iraq war. In my opinion US policy during those days emboldened him as well as supplying necessary military supplies and political underpinning that strengthened his control domestically.

Having studied the history and politics of the region I remain skeptical that the country can be militarily stabilized in the fashion you describe without committing US troops for at least a decade or more. I cannot support that strategy.

I am particularly concerned that we are using United States troops to attempt to intercede between warring factions on a variety of religious, ethnic and tribal levels. These historic competing interests are also exacerbated by the natural tendency of political interest groups to jockey for position and power.

My skepticism, or as you describe it, my cynicism, is not based on any paranoia, lack of support for the troops or lack of patriotism. I and my family have served our country in the armed forces, by choice for many decades and I love my country with passion and fervor. My skepticism is based on empirical evidence and experience as well as the facts presented and discussed in so many ES threads related to the Iraq war.

My desire to see us seriously and honestly explore alternative approaches and solutions is apolitical. I am tired of the typical politicized rantings and ravings, based on the latest talking points distributed by the kids working for the two political parties here in Washington, masquerading as serious discussion and problem solving.

Saddam Hussein is dead and long gone. His demise has been celebrated and I agree the world does not miss him or his sons.

Iraq, however, is in turmoil wherever we do not have large concentrations of US or British troops engaged in active operations and we cannot secure Baghdad.

The political leadership of Iraq is incompetent, in many cases corrupt, and has failed to meet a single benchmark, goal or objective to which they've agreed.

Shouldn't we be seriously exploring realistic alternatives instead of suggesting that we keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[Hooper]

I hope we are "winning" -- what that means I'm not sure.

But man, the naysayers have been pretty much right about everything so far, which as an American, blows. I was against this war from day one and take no pleasure in being... well, proved correct IMO. I would be thrilled if I was proved wrong.

[hokie4redskins]

I hope we are "winning" -- what that means I'm not sure.

But man, the naysayers have been pretty much right about everything so far, which as an American, blows. I was against this war from day one and take no pleasure in being... well, proved correct IMO. I would be thrilled if I was proved wrong.

Problem is, I think there are too many Americans that are devastated by any good news coming out of Iraq. Partisanship ahead of country. It's infuriating.

[WinSkins]

Problem is, I think there are too many Americans that are devastated by any good news coming out of Iraq. Partisanship ahead of country. It's infuriating.

I disagree with you on this point. I believe the vast majority of Americans wish there was more success in Iraq and take no satisfaction whatsoever that we are mired there and that our troops are being wounded and dying in the absence of progress toward any satisfying results.

[Vinnick]

I disagree with you on this point. I believe the vast majority of Americans wish there was more success in Iraq and take no satisfaction whatsoever that we are mired there and that our troops are being wounded and dying in the absence of progress toward any satisfying results.

I agree. I'd say a huge majority just wants to win, and get everybody home quickly and safely. ASAP.

[Mad Mike]

MM...I plead guilty to being very close to cynicism when it comes to government officials.

Also curious why you tell me "The past is the past," then make a case for a current questionable strategy by reverting to the past in your comment, "in place of a dictatorship that started wars, killed millions, tourtured (sic) and killed it's own citizens, and supported terrorism."

Saddam wasn't one of my favorites, even when the US government supported him during the Iran-Iraq war. In my opinion US policy during those days emboldened him as well as supplying necessary military supplies and political underpinning that strengthened his control domestically.

Having studied the history and politics of the region I remain skeptical that the country can be militarily stabilized in the fashion you describe without committing US troops for at least a decade or more. I cannot support that strategy.

I am particularly concerned that we are using United States troops to attempt to intercede between warring factions on a variety of religious, ethnic and tribal levels. These historic competing interests are also exacerbated by the natural tendency of political interest groups to jockey for position and power.

My skepticism, or as you describe it, my cynicism, is not based on any paranoia, lack of support for the troops or lack of patriotism. I and my family have served our country in the armed forces, by choice for many decades and I love my country with passion and fervor. My skepticism is based on empirical evidence and experience as well as the facts presented and discussed in so many ES threads related to the Iraq war.

My desire to see us seriously and honestly explore alternative approaches and solutions is apolitical. I am tired of the typical politicized rantings and ravings, based on the latest talking points distributed by the kids working for the two political parties here in Washington, masquerading as serious discussion and problem solving.

Saddam Hussein is dead and long gone. His demise has been celebrated and I agree the world does not miss him or his sons.

Iraq, however, is in turmoil wherever we do not have large concentrations of US or British troops engaged in active operations and we cannot secure Baghdad.

The political leadership of Iraq is incompetent, in many cases corrupt, and has failed to meet a single benchmark, goal or objective to which they've agreed.

Shouldn't we be seriously exploring realistic alternatives instead of suggesting that we keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I never said it was going to be easy. I just believe that it is something we have to do. You said it yourself. We helped create the mess by suporting Saddam. We had a responsibility to clean that mess up. But even if you dissagree on this point... Even if you think we never should have gone in to Iraq... We did it. We are there and we have a responsibility to see it through. And when I hear the people on the gound saying we are making progress, I think we should listen.

Again though. And I really mean it. Thank you and yours for your service. :notworthy

[Predicto]

Problem is, I think there are too many Americans that are devastated by any good news coming out of Iraq. Partisanship ahead of country. It's infuriating.

This is something that many conservatives say over and over about liberals, but I never meet any liberals who actually feel this way.

I think the term for this phenomenon is "projecting."