Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-07-2005, 05:55 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win

Maniacs like Saddam wake up with different goals and strategies every day, just like maniacs in poker do every hand.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-07-2005, 07:11 PM
canis582 canis582 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I, state your name...
Posts: 178
Default Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win

"Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can't Win"

Are you sure you arent thinking of George Bush who told Katie Couric on the Today Show that the war was not winnable?

Or maybe you were thinking of the Roman and British commanders who concluded that Iraq was unwinnable after their long, low intensity conflicts that drained their treasuries.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-08-2005, 04:06 PM
cdxx cdxx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: playing way too many hands
Posts: 45
Default IN DEFENSE OF DEAN (bump)

thought that maybe this thread will appreciate an opinion to argue with. taken off TNR.com

[ QUOTE ]
IN DEFENSE OF DEAN.
Chair Lift
by John B. Judis

Only at TNR Online | Post date 12.08.05

Howard Dean is being vilified again--not only by Republicans in the White House and Congress, but by his fellow Democrats as well. And once again it's for making a critical comment about the administration's conduct of the Iraq war. In an interview Monday with a San Antonio radio station, Dean, comparing the conflicts in Iraq and Vietnam, said, "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Dean also likened the Bush administration's lack of candor about the war to that of the Nixon administration. "What we see today is very much like what was going on in Watergate," he said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman accused Dean of sending "the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people." House Speaker Dennis Hastert said, "Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender." Democratic senators Bill Nelson and Ben Nelson and Democratic Representative Jim Marshall all took issue with their party's chairman. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," Marshall said.

There are, however, two very different questions to ask about Dean's statements on Iraq. The first is whether they are politic--whether they have advanced his own or his party's electoral chances. Probably not--I am no fan of Dean as a national politician or party chair; and I would certainly concede that a Democrat in Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska might not want to run on what he says.

advertisement

The second question, though, is whether his judgment on Iraq has been sound. And there I would say that it certainly has been. During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and during the invasion and occupation, Dean has been almost consistently correct in his statements. He has been the Democrats' and the nation's Cassandra--willing to reveal bitter truths about which Republicans and his fellow Democrats would prefer that he remain silent.

Dean's statements perfectly fit Michael Kinsley's definition of a "gaffe"--an assertion that is impolitic but true. Here is a brief timeline of Dean's most controversial statements about Iraq and his critics' responses during the months before and immediately after the invasion:



February 2003. After Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case for war at the United Nations, most other leading Democrats applauded. Senator Joe Biden called Powell's case "very powerful and, I think, irrefutable." Senator John Kerry called it "compelling." Only Dean dissented. "I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq," he said.

Later that month, Dean warned that the Bush administration was preparing to invade Iraq unilaterally. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay charged that Dean "either doesn't know what he's talking about ... or he's seriously uninformed, or he's just misleading the American people and his party."



April 2003. Senator Joe Lieberman declared that the capture of Baghdad and the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime vindicated his support for the invasion. "The vindication that I feel is the confidence that with Saddam gone, America's going to be a lot safer than it otherwise would have been," Lieberman said. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said that "it's a continuation of a historic, long-term trend that we stand on the right side." Once again the dissenter, Dean said, "All these folks who are crowing about their vote and the outcome are going to learn that the occupation will be very difficult." He added, "I'm not a pacifist. We've removed a horrible dictator, but the price we're going to pay is down the road."



June 2003. As reports began to surface that the Bush administration might have misled the country about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, many leading Democrats were hesitant to question the administration's probity. Biden said, "I don't think there is any doubt that the administration was right in saying that he had those weapons." Republicans dismissed any doubts. Senator George Allen asserted, "It's not a question." But Dean said, "We need a thorough look at what really happened going into Iraq. It appears to me that what the president did was make a decision to go into Iraq sometime in early 2002, or maybe even late 2001, and then try to get the justification afterward."



December 2003-January 2004. After Saddam Hussein was captured on December 14, Dean appeared to go out on the farthest of limbs. "[T]he capture of Saddam has not made America safer," Dean said. "The Iraq war diverted critical intelligence and military resources, undermined diplomatic support for our fight against terror, and created a new rallying cry for terrorist recruits." Gephardt termed Dean's statement "ludicrous." Kerry took it as "more proof that all the advisors in the world can't give Howard Dean the military and foreign-policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times." Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said, "It's baffling that anyone could possibly think life under a brutal dictator who routinely tortured, raped, and imprisoned his own people is better than the freedom and democracy taking root in Iraq today."



Much of what Dean said on those occasions has now become conventional wisdom. But as the recent fracas over Dean's remarks demonstrates, his statements continue to be poorly received. How could he say Iraq is like Vietnam? Well, it's true there are no rice paddies in Iraq, but there is a striking resemblance between the Nixon administration's plan for Vietnamization--which culminated in the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese--and the Bush administration's plans for training an Iraqi army. In both cases, victory proved elusive.

And Watergate? Well, Bush officials have certainly not tried to burglarize the DNC. On the other hand, they have engaged in a campaign of deceit that might even make E. Howard Hunt blush. It may not make political sense for the DNC chair to make these comparisons; but, contra Representative Marshall, the comparisons themselves make a lot of sense. And if we don't want to make the same kind of foreign policy mistakes five or ten or fifty years from now, we should be glad that someone is willing to play the role of Cassandra.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-11-2005, 03:21 PM
hetron hetron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 175
Default Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win

So the idea is to take up arms against anyone in iraq who takes up arms against the US? what if the 30, 40, 50% of the population wants to take up arms against us? do we still fight all of them?

There are a lot of people involved in the insurgency. It is not just one group. A lot of insurgents are iraqis who simply want the foreigners out of iraq. Do we want to shoot and kill as many of those people as possible? What if people continue to take up arms against the US for the next 50 years in Iraq. Should we stay there to fight them, just to win?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-11-2005, 09:00 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can\'t Win

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of insurgents are iraqis who simply want the foreigners out of iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they want us out so that they can insure a non-democratic government with their group dominating the other ethnic/religious groups. And this isn't a "what if" situation. The majority don't want us out, all though of course they do expect us to leave when their own democratically elected government can handle the security situation. And it's not like we are there to steal their oil or something. The only detriment our presence can have to various factions is preventing them from installing a non-democratic theocracy, run of course by their particular branch of Islam.

And this isn't really extra complicated by there being a widespread insurgency comprised of "various" groups. There are basically only 3 who happen to share the same anti-US and anti-democratic interests: the Saddam loyalist thugs, the Sunnis who wish to impose their will on the Shi'a and Kurds, and those who are Islamic foreign fighters.

Sure would be nice if the situation were even simpler and all Iraqis supported democratic government. But just because it isn't doesn't mean our involvement was wrong to begin with, nor especially since we are there, that we should leave before the job is done. But of course the typical lib viewpoint is that any military action that takes over 3 months must be wrong, epitomized by the views of defeatist and quitter Howard Dean.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.