?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous File Entry | Next File Entry

Give War A Chance!

Unlike our knee-jerk liberal politically-motivated Democrats, I support the temporary "surge" of US troops to Baghdad to calm the current swelling of sectarian violence. Bush also briefly addressed the concern that Syria and Iran are helping fuel the fire in Iraq. Bush's approach will probably deal with Syria and Iran on a diplomatic basis, just like liberals and Libertarians want us to, but if that doesn't work we should force Syrian and Iranian trouble-makers out of Iraq.

Democrats are said to be planning a "symbolic" vote on the troop surge in Iraq soon. Why symbolic? Because like all good political politicians, Dems want it both ways. There's an old saying that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. Democrats don't want to be associated with failure but they still want to be associated with success if Iraq becomes successful. Dems also do not want to be associated with cutting military funds and then having Iraq plunge into a living hell worse than it is already.

Thus is the current state of Democrat leadership - a luxury cruise ship voyage with many captains and no rudder, with no course planned for the choppy rough high seas, with no hope of hitting land. Unlike the president and Republicans, Democrats and their anti-war activists have never asked themselves or will never ask themselves "what's next?" especially after cut-and-run. Bush and the Republicans know that failure cannot be an option for the Iraqi people.

Democrats could care less if one person in the world is under tyranny or terrorism (except in Sudan and Darfur). The Democrat's foreign policy is to capitalize on the world's misery for their own immediate political victories. This can not and should not be a basis for foreign policy. To deny Iraqis the right to liberty and freedom and push them to slaughter is not only un-American but also inhumane.

Democrats are determined to change Iraq into another "Vietnam", hoping history repeats itself and finally elects a Democrat for president in 2008. But liberal Democrat's memory on history is shorter than their "you-know-what". Democrats in 1975 denied the funds for South Vietnam to protect themselves. The fall of Saigon came because we trusted the word of 'terrorists' that they would respect liberty, independence, and freedom.

After the final end of the Vietnam War, President Gerald Ford eventually lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter, but 4 years later, Carter lost to Reagan. It's the long way to get a conservative Republican into office but if anybody can do it again, it's the Democrats.

Comments

( 11 conspiracy theories — Conspire Here! )
micahblitz
Jan. 11th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC)
So do you think we should ony have 20,000 troops or do you think 100,000 is better (which is recommended by everyone that isn't in favor of drawing out).
dgreatone
Jan. 11th, 2007 10:52 pm (UTC)
Post-graduate college students with draft cards? Sounds interesting. Tell me more of your idea... ;-)

I haven't heard the 100,000 figure but I have heard the 30,000 figure. It's not going to happen because we don't have the troops.

And everybody forgets we still have troops in Germany and Japan 60 years after the end of World War II. Where's the call for their "redeployment"?

There's alot more here at stake than the Democrat's vanity and ego. We're also talking about freedom and independence for people. In a country that takes freedom for granted, how dare we Americans not wish it for others?
micahblitz
Jan. 12th, 2007 05:44 pm (UTC)
Don't frame this as a Democrat/Republican issue. This is an American issue. Can you not take sides for once and recognize that there's more to Iraq than which political party supports what? We're losing a war in a country and we unity, not division among ourselves. And the iraq Study Group said that for Baghdad to be secure there would need to be 100,000 troops. Andrew Sullivan also agrees we need a higher number.

And who is to say that the Iraqis wanted freedom?American culture is unique; how we interpret freedom is very different from others. Plus, how many countries can you name underwent rapid democratization from being a dictatorship/autocracy and actually was successful afterward? I don't think there has been one.
dgreatone
Jan. 12th, 2007 11:41 pm (UTC)
To answer your Democrat/Republican question - NO - because the Democrats look at Iraq as partisan. We do need unity, but we ain't going to get it from Democrats. Their Philosophy: You agree with Democrats, we have unity. You don't agree with Democrats, we don't have unity. The Iraq issue is bigger than politics, but nobody has ever told the Democrats that.

How many countries can you name underwent rapid democratization from being a dictatorship/autocracy and actually was successful afterward?

Germany after Hitler, Japan after WWII, Italy after Mussolini, Poland, Hungary, and most of eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Post-WWII Germany took seven years before it elected its first parliament.

And outside of Venezuela, who wants to live under dictatorship?
micahblitz
Jan. 13th, 2007 12:16 am (UTC)
1) All of those countries still had legislatures. It's not as if the infrastructure for democracy wasn't present; they didn't use that power because a smaller group had more control. And note I said successful. Poland, Hungary and eastern Europe took quite a few years before they even had a semblance of a full running democracy.

And you're being eurocentric. Just because we don't like dictators doesn't mean others don't. It's a cultural thing and who are we to push our values on others?

How often can you detach things from a Democrat/Republican issue and just see it as an issue?
dgreatone
Jan. 16th, 2007 05:55 pm (UTC)
I am seeing it as an issue - you are the one that is seeing it as partisan issue. Like I said - as long as everybody agrees with a Democrat we have unity!

You think people want dictatorships? That's the arrogance of ignorant elitists college kids nowadays. Unconcerned for everybody else while they are in their perpetual college party all the time life. Shame. Today's American youth are going to hand our country over on silver platter to any tyrant who wants it one of these days because the USA is the always the bad guys. I pity the future of this country.
micahblitz
Jan. 16th, 2007 08:13 pm (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the definition of freedom isn't universal and it's wrong to assume it is. And the future will be a lot greater than what the Neo-Cons have made it.

And how did I make it a partisan issue? You're the one that brought up the word "Democrat". All I said was to stop being eurocentric.
conjurman
Jan. 12th, 2007 02:49 am (UTC)
I really have to ask, because no one has been able to convince me of the importance of Iraq, or the Iraqi people, why should I care about Iraq or the Iraqi people?

Now I don't believe this war is keeping terrorism from happening in this country. I think the terrorists are planning something much bigger for America because they know doing something in America is like moving from the bush leagues to the big leagues, and they have to make a big splash to be successful in America so they are taking their time. That's the only reason we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11, not because we are "keeping the war over there".
dgreatone
Jan. 12th, 2007 03:43 pm (UTC)
Why should we care about Sudan or Darfur? A few people are anxious our involvement in that region too.

Terrorists are always planning something. Last year they wanted to blow up international flights from the UK to the United States, and they got caught. To pretend that terrrorists are waiting for a lull in the six o'clock news broadcast is ridiculous.

The terrorists are wating for a lull in us, which I'm sure the Democrat party will provide to them.

I do believe that fighting over there is keeping the most of the war on terrorism over there. Plus some people believe that democracy in that region will bring more stability to that region and lessen the "need" for more terrorism.

What bothers me is the blatant disregard from the Left and the Democrat party. The liberal Democrats of the past would have been falling all over themselves demanding intervention and freedom for Iraqis, for humanitarian reasons. The Democrat party is slowly becoming a party of isolationists and anti-Semitism, and I glad I'm not in that party.
micahblitz
Jan. 13th, 2007 12:21 am (UTC)
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we remain fearful and xenophobic of terrorists we'll be terrorized.

And the Democrats support just causes, not overthrowing governments just for the hell of it? Iraq didn't do anything to us. To call Democrats anti-Semitics is just wrong. You ought to watch yourself.
conjurman
Jan. 13th, 2007 04:17 am (UTC)
I don't really care about the Sudan or Darfur either.

I look at where in the US the billions spent on the war could've been spent. I saw a breakdown of the spending and what it could buy in the US on CNN. 700 schools per state, free gas for every American for one year, rebuild New Orleans, hire 6 million port inspectors, hire 8 million police offices throughout the country.

In the future we will be one planet, one people, but that is far off. Right now we are divided by race, religion, sexuality, and while there are many people out there who want to change the world now, I'm one of those isolationist types that is sick of caring about others when our own country needs help first. Native Americans are starving, displace4d Americans are suffering, and if we aren't at our best how dare we presume to go into another country and tell them how they should be?
( 11 conspiracy theories — Conspire Here! )