Democrats Announce 08' Surrender in Iraq

[Mathematician]

We're already at the embarrassment level at this point, but be certain that this is a surrender. It's not a loss. We won the war, but because we occupied the country, we're stuck fighting the insurgency. If we leave now, we will be surrendering to the insurgency. That's just a cold hard truth. Just because its surrender, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, but liberals need to begin using the English language instead of the one they make-up for their sound bytes.

Before you critique others' vocabulary, you should think about your statement that the current engagement is not a war. The original war plans, vague that they were, still called for the rebuilding of Iraq; occupation was not an issue of the resistance (though numbers were). Only a handful of the original mission plans have yet to be accomplished -- not at the fault of our military, but because this administration and their intelligence are blind to the facts and reality -- meaning the war goes on. The enemy may be different, but we're still pumping out men, bullets, morale, and getting back debts and coffins and wounded soldiers and wounded pride... oh and a dead dictator.


Perhaps we are surrendering to the mess known as "unnecessary war"; we did the same in Vietnam, and looking back history judges that move as one of the sanest actions taking in the war.

I do hope we learn from this mistake (Iraq) and fight the War on Terror by defending our own borders instead of breaking down others'.

I say the Democrats show some skin and do everything they can to end our country's involvement asap.

 

[lilithu]

Demos propose to Surrender in Iraq

Is a US surrender in Iraq going to help or hurt the democrats in the 2008 presidential election?

You inserting the word "surrender" makes any discussion here pointless.

It's akin to an anti-abortionist starting a thread saying that the Dems want to "kill babies."

whatever dude.

 

[Flappycat]

So...when do we begin sending orders to our troops to lay down their weapons and surrender themselves to the enemy? When do we invite the Shiite militia groups to set up military bases on our soil? There is a difference between a surrender and a retreat, RFX. You just haven't learned it yet. Part of the point of withdrawing American troops from the region is a hope that doing so will help ease tensions in the region and provide an impetus for the Iraqi government to begin acting as an autonomous state.

liberals need to begin using the English language instead of the one they make-up for their sound bytes.

Do you realize, RFX, that this in itself is sound byte language? Do be more creative than to ply us with canned ad hominem and freeze-dried hypocrisy. Some of us are people of taste, and the rest of us shop at Whole Foods.

 

[love]

I think we just want to come home.It is the Iraqi people's decision on where they want to go from here. We cannot let the Iraqi people down and pull out before law and order is the will of the people of Iraq. Anarchy and division among the Iraqi preople has no productive value. Factions of the same religion can't battle each other to the death and accomplish anything. Death as far as this world is concerned is final.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Before you critique others' vocabulary, you should think about your statement that the current engagement is not a war.

It's not a war. It's a temporary occupation gone horribly wrong, because we shouldn't have occupied Iraq in the first place. Occupation doesn't work, unless you've won a Total Victory. However, people are dying and fighting, so there is no semantic problem with calling it a war. It's just that the war was won once the Iraqi government and military fell apart. After that we stayed to win the hearts and minds of the people, which was naive, if not down right foolish. You can't win hearts that hate you with complete, blind passion. You can't win minds that have been brainwashed as thoroughly as theirs have been. In and out is the only thing that works. You could call it a war for peace, or an occupation, or something, but we aren't trying to win anything over there. We're just trying to maintain enough peace and stability for the ALREADY EXISTING Iraqi government to take control. The problem is, the Iraqis are inept.

Perhaps we are surrendering to the mess known as "unnecessary war"; we did the same in Vietnam, and looking back history judges that move as one of the sanest actions taking in the war.

We are surrendering Iraq to the Iranians and Syrians fighting in Iraq. We are surrendering or position. We are not surrendering in the sense that we are throwing down our arms and allowing the enemy to take us prisoner.

I do hope we learn from this mistake (Iraq) and fight the War on Terror by defending our own borders instead of breaking down others'.

It is naive to believe that the only place this war needs to be fought is on our borders. You can't defend borders anymore. Just look at Israel.

I say the Democrats show some skin and do everything they can to end our country's involvement asap.

The Democrats aren't going to do anything. They don't have the votes. They are fighting with each other. Why? Because they don't know what to do. They have no solutions. Do they hate Bush? Of course they do. But they don't have solutions.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You inserting the word "surrender" makes any discussion here pointless.

It's akin to an anti-abortionist starting a thread saying that the Dems want to "kill babies."

whatever dude.

Democrats don't want to kill babies? Republicans don't want to destroy all the trees? Libertarians don't won't anarchy? I'm simply aghast! I had NO IDEA! lol This is a surrender. The democrats want to surrender Iraq to Iran and the terrorists. That doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do. They're just too cowardly to admit it.

 

[MaddLlama]

Democrats don't want to kill babies? Republicans don't want to destroy all the trees? Libertarians don't won't anarchy? I'm simply aghast! I had NO IDEA! lol This is a surrender. The democrats want to surrender Iraq to Iran and the terrorists. That doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do. They're just too cowardly to admit it.

I'm still not clear on how you "surrender" an occupation.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'm still not clear on how you "surrender" an occupation.

You leave. But we are not leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. We're surrendering Iraq to the insurgent terrorists, Iranians, and Syrians. We're surrendering all hope for peace.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The Democrats aren't going to do anything. They don't have the votes. They are fighting with each other. Why? Because they don't know what to do. They have no solutions. Do they hate Bush? Of course they do. But they don't have solutions.

They can only say what they are against because if they ever said what they are really for, no one would vote for them.

To successfully achieve positive change, one must compromise with the other side to obtain the needed support. This concept eludes the liberals. They don't want to compromise. They cannot even agree among themselves. In other words, they are their own worst enemy. All the while, we conservatives accomplish our goals without help from the government. This is the basis of our success. We don't need the government while the liberals are dependant upon it.

Until the liberals learn how politics work, we will continue to win.

Example: A southern democrat could win the presidency, but the liberals could never tolerate the compromise of a viable candidate.

All the while, conservatives really don't worry about who is our candidate because as long as a republican candidate wins, we can further our objectives.

 

[lilithu]

Democrats don't want to kill babies? Republicans don't want to destroy all the trees? Libertarians don't won't anarchy? I'm simply aghast! I had NO IDEA! lol This is a surrender. The democrats want to surrender Iraq to Iran and the terrorists. That doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do. They're just too cowardly to admit it.

I'm not talking about overgeneralizations, RFX. I am talking about the frame - the view in which the debate is approached. Republican strategizers figured this out before the Dem ones did but now we're all aware of it, well most of us are. If you can get your opponent to accept your frame, you've already won the argument, because the opponent then has to argue from a position of weakness.

So if you can get the abortion debate framed as a debate about killing babies, then no matter what the pro-abortion side says, it will sound like they're supporting the killing of babies. If otoh, you can get the abortion debate framed as a debate about a woman's right to choose, then no matter what the anti-abortion side says, it will sound like they're trying to keep women subservient to men.

Here, you are trying to frame the debate about withdrawal from Iraq in terms of "surrender," so that no matter what the pro-withdrawal side says, it would sound like we're putting up the white flag and letting our enemies dictate the terms of the cease fire. With that word, you intentionally conjur up imagery of weakness and shame. Sorry, no.

As several other posters have pointed out, we are the occupiers here, the invading force. Withdrawal means that we stop what we started. No one surrenders unless they perceive that they have to - that it's either surrender or anihilation. Withdrawal is not surrender because we have a choice. We are not facing anihilation, no matter how much the Bush admnistration wants to stir that cauldron of fear. We can choose to wisely assess the harm we cause to ourselves and to Iraq and withdraw from causing further harm, or we can continue onward enslaved by the irrational sense of not wanting to "lose."

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'm not talking about overgeneralizations, RFX. I am talking about the frame - the view in which the debate is approached. Republican strategizers figured this out before the Dem ones did but now we're all aware of it, well most of us are. If you can get your opponent to accept your frame, you've already won the argument, because the opponent then has to argue from a position of weakness.

True. But the democrats do this too with the "Estate Tax" as opposed to the "Death Tax", or what it really is, as tax on the newly acquired possessions of the bereaved, all of which has already been taxed multiple times. But, yes, framing the question is important.

But Democrats need to have the courage of their convictions and when it comes to Iraq, it doesn't seem like they have any courage at all.

a) A non-binding resolution? What is that? What did that achieve?
b) Talk of "redeployment"? No one is misinformed enough to think that there is anything about this that qualifies as a redeployment.
c) Democrats can't figure out whether they want a time table or pull out now. They have no long term solutions for Iraq and they don't seem to care. All they care about is ending the war. They have no actual, legitimate foreign policy here.

So if you can get the abortion debate framed as a debate about killing babies, then no matter what the pro-abortion side says, it will sound like they're supporting the killing of babies. If otoh, you can get the abortion debate framed as a debate about a woman's right to choose, then no matter what the anti-abortion side says, it will sound like they're trying to keep women subservient to men.

And calling it Pro-Choice, makes it sound like if you are against women killing their fetuses, then you are against choice. To a lot of people, abortion is morally no different than murder. Ignoring that fact when framing slogans doesn't do anyone any good either.

Here, you are trying to frame the debate about withdrawal from Iraq in terms of "surrender," so that no matter what the pro-withdrawal side says, it would sound like we're putting up the white flag and letting our enemies dictate the terms of the cease fire. With that word, you intentionally conjur up imagery of weakness and shame. Sorry, no.

If we pull out of Iraq now, without succeeding in any of our post-war agendas, then we are weak and we are shamed. We are surrendering our position in Iraq, but not to the Iraqis. That's what makes it so terrible. That's why we have to stay longer. Was the occupation wrong? YES. But surrendering Iraq to the Iranians and Syrians is just as wrong. We're leaving half the population to be slaughtered.

As several other posters have pointed out, we are the occupiers here, the invading force. Withdrawal means that we stop what we started. No one surrenders unless they perceive that they have to - that it's either surrender or anihilation. Withdrawal is not surrender because we have a choice. We are not facing anihilation, no matter how much the Bush admnistration wants to stir that cauldron of fear. We can choose to wisely assess the harm we cause to ourselves and to Iraq and withdraw from causing further harm, or we can continue onward enslaved by the irrational sense of not wanting to "lose."

I disagree with this assessment because we are not simply leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. If the Iraqis had a viable government, then I would say we've completed our mission, let's leave gracefully. But there is no viable Iraqi government. The Iranians have more political influence in Baghdad and the American Generals have been unable to do anything about it.

 

[lilithu]

But Democrats need to have the courage of their convictions and when it comes to Iraq, it doesn't seem like they have any courage at all.

a) A non-binding resolution? What is that? What did that achieve?
b) Talk of "redeployment"? No one is misinformed enough to think that there is anything about this that qualifies as a redeployment.
c) Democrats can't figure out whether they want a time table or pull out now. They have no long term solutions for Iraq and they don't seem to care. All they care about is ending the war. They have no actual, legitimate foreign policy here.

I think the problem is that the Dems don't agree amongst themselves what to do. Not to mention the fact that whether or not we fight a war is completely up to the discretion of the executive branch. All the legislative branch can do is control the funding, which puts Dems in the awkward position of having to cut funding for our troops if they want to try to force Bush to stop the war. If the Dems cut funding while our guys are still fighting and dying, it won't matter that Bush put them there and kept them there; the Dems will still look like the bad guys. Pretty much the only way this war is going to end is if a Dem gets elected president.

And calling it Pro-Choice, makes it sound like if you are against women killing their fetuses, then you are against choice. To a lot of people, abortion is morally no different than murder. Ignoring that fact when framing slogans doesn't do anyone any good either.

That's my point. So by calling it a "surrender" this thread has been more about the legitmacy that term as opposed to your original question.

If we pull out of Iraq now, without succeeding in any of our post-war agendas, then we are weak and we are shamed. We are surrendering our position in Iraq, but not to the Iraqis. That's what makes it so terrible. That's why we have to stay longer. Was the occupation wrong? YES. But surrendering Iraq to the Iranians and Syrians is just as wrong. We're leaving half the population to be slaughtered.

I disagree with this assessment because we are not simply leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. If the Iraqis had a viable government, then I would say we've completed our mission, let's leave gracefully. But there is no viable Iraqi government. The Iranians have more political influence in Baghdad and the American Generals have been unable to do anything about it.

I agree that it's an awful position, one that Bush put us and the Iraqis in. And I used to be against withdrawal even tho I was always against the war for the reasons that you give. It's not about pride but about doing the right thing. I am now convinced however, that our mere presence there is continuing to fan the flames against us and against peace. In terms of the "frame" we have already lost. We are the foreign occupiers. Every time we accidentally kill an Iraqi civillian it will be seen as the foreign occupiers killing an Iraqi and will recruit more people against us. And accidentally killing civilians is inevitable in war. If we tie our soldiers' hands too much in an effort to win the public relations war, we put them in a situation where they cannot defend themselves. Even when we don't kill civilians but kill bona fide combatants, we are still viewed as the foreign invaders, because we are.

The only way to successully occupy another country is to be so brutal as to squash all resistance. Do you think we're willing to do that? Do you think we even can do that, given that we're already stretched beyond our capacities? Do you think that the rammifications against us would be worth it? Do you think that squashing resistance through force can result in a lasting peace? Wouldn't violence erupt as soon as we left anyway?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Again, the important distinction is that we are not leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. Many Democrats are already meeting with the Syrians and Iranians. They know what leaving Iraq means. I believe that the Democrats are secretly trying to get the Iranians and Syrians to promise not commit genocide against the Sunnis. The fact the Democrats trust the Shiites is a sign of unbelievable naivety. The Iranians have as much political power in Iraq already as the Iraqi government.

So the Democrats have to answer the question, is the democratically elected Iraqi government worth supporting? Or should we hand Iraq over to Iran?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I believe the reason why we are still in Iraq and bringing in more troops as well as another air craft carrier for a total of two is Iraq is the staging grounds for the Iran situation. This is a war on terror not Iraq.

 

[lilithu]

I believe that the Democrats are secretly trying to get the Iranians and Syrians to promise not commit genocide against the Sunnis. The fact the Democrats trust the Shiites is a sign of unbelievable naivety. The Iranians have as much political power in Iraq already as the Iraqi government.

You are wildly speculating and then calling the Dems naive based on your speculation.

So the Democrats have to answer the question, is the democratically elected Iraqi government worth supporting?

Worth supporting? Of course!! Support does not necessarily mean militarily.

Or should we hand Iraq over to Iran?

Yeah, something that Papa Bush understood way back at the end of the first gulf war. And the hawks had the nerve to say that they were going in this time to finish what he should have done then. :verymad:

 

[lilithu]

This is a war on terror not Iraq.

Funny, because it's the Iraqis who are dying.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

You are wildly speculating and then calling the Dems naive based on your speculation.

This is not wild speculation on my part. It is speculation though. What do we actually know for sure?

1. Syria and Iran have shown a consistent interest in extending and promoting Shiite influence in Iraq.

2. Democrats have been meeting with Syrian and Iranian officials.

3. Shiites and Sunnis are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. US and EU intelligence has said that there is no conceivable end to the escalation and Democrats can't risk getting blamed for allowing genocide. They need assurances from Iran and Syria that genocide will not take place.

Thus, the difference in the Republican and Democratic strategy is in who they choose to trust. Republicans have put their faith in a democratically elected, Sunni majority while Democrats are beginning to put their faith in the Shiites, under the leadership of Iran and Hezbollah.

Now, its easy to see why the Bush administration would back the Shiites. The Bush family is quite close to the Jordanian and Saudi royal families. BUT, we have a democratically elected IRAQI government. Now, you say...

Worth supporting? Of course!! Support does not necessarily mean militarily.

In this case, yes it does.

Yeah, something that Papa Bush understood way back at the end of the first gulf war. And the hawks had the nerve to say that they were going in this time to finish what he should have done then. :verymad:

A very excellent point. We never should have tried to occupy Iraq. We should have let the Saudis and the Iranians fight over the ruins. That would have actually been in our interest. It's better for the terrorists to fight each other in Iraq, then to fight us at home or abroad.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Funny, because it's the Iraqis who are dying.

I'm thinking these people who are dieing are Syrians and Iranians who have come to Iraq to jihad.

 

[lilithu]

I'm thinking these people who are dieing are Syrians and Iranians who have come to Iraq to jihad.

:cover:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

[Reverend Rick]

:cover:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Civilian count assumes they are Iraqi. Just because they are Arab and fighting in Iraq does not necessarily make them Iraqi's.