Al Qaeda seems to be doing well

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's probably only coincidence that the rhetoric coming from Democrats and Iraqi insurgents sounds so much alike.

I submit that it only 'sounds alike' if you're listening through some sort of voltage controlled filter installed in your own head. In such a state I suppose everything must sound the basically the same, like the adults in Charlie Brown, but admitting you hear warbly trumpets when people speak doesn't lend you much credibility in political discussions.

Originally Posted by Mazer

They both want us out of Iraq and for the same reasons.

Even though this statement is based on sweeping presumptions so loosely connected to any semblance of reality that one can only hazard guesses about what it's actually intended to mean, it's still fundamentally and ludicrously false.

First of all neither Democrats nor Iraqi insurgents are single minded entities.

By even referring to democrats in this way, one assumes you are actually talking about a small group of hopeful candidates who are trying desperately to appeal to their base in typical political style: by talking a lot but not saying much. Even they understand that being a democrat isn't an absolute indicator that you're against the war in Iraq, any more than being republican means you're absolutely gung ho.

As far as the insurgency, it should be patently obvious their motivations are even more disparate.

Originally Posted by Mazer

They both think the president is a liar and a coward. Is it really any wonder that Dems are called unpatriotic?

Yes, because as has been argued approximately a billion times, and must sound like warbly trumpets to some people, if the president is a liar, it's pure patriotism to point out those lies and guard one's self and others against them. No one person has more potential to damage the country one loves, and only the most 'weak minded and easily swayed' would confuse an elected office with infallibility.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

I submit that it only 'sounds alike' if you're listening through some sort of voltage controlled filter installed in your own head. In such a state I suppose everything must sound the basically the same, like the adults in Charlie Brown, but admitting you hear warbly trumpets when people speak doesn't lend you much credibility in political discussions.

Sorry for baiting you, Ramona, but I'm glad you responded.

Even though I don't listen to country music, I'm not the sort of person who would have boycotted the Dixie Chicks when their lead singer's offhand remarks at a concert in London stirred up so much trouble for them. They have their opinions, they had an audience, and they have a right to make their minds known. I didn't agree with Bush when he suggested that the band had no right to complain about hurt feelings. To me the whole thing was childish, but I could empathize with the band and with their crtics. I can understand why certain Americans would take shame in knowing Bush is a Texan, and I can understand why others would be offended when that sentiment is expressed publicly.

I know for a fact that you are capable of empathy so I can only assume that your one-sided response is not caused by any lack of understanding but is instead a reaction to the one-sidedness of my post. But now that we've boiled this complex debate down to two very simple, diametrically opposed arguments, let's have a look at both. You'll notice that I did not visit the intentions of either Democrats or insurgents. I omitted such speculation from my post for a reason: I am not a mind reader. I can only infer motive from what I hear and see, and were it not for this limitation I would not pick words that indict citizens of my own country for their rhetoric. I don't accuse people of 'un-patriotism' lightly and was not making that accusation here. But the self-serving reasoning you have so keenly deconstructed is what goes through the minds of half of all Americans when they make such accusations. And your Charlie Brown analogy is apt because the left does sound like parrots or a broken record or muted trumpets to a large portion of the right. Everyone's talking, nobody's saying too much.

To point out that politicians lie, besides being a statement of the obvious, may be pure patriotism when an American citizen makes the point. But Iraqi insurgents making the same statement are not in the same class; obviously their motives are different. Ditto when insurgents call for America to leave Iraq; they have different intentions for post-occupation Iraq than Democrats have. I understand this, and I think you know that. So why would I state "sweeping presumptions" that are "fundamentally and ludicrously false?" Because they are the landscape of this debate for a large portion of Americans, those fed on a daily diet of sound bites and headlines and this-many-soldiers-died-in-Iraq-today news reports. The true geography of these issues are unmapped for most people which is why a group of country singers were so blindly criticized when they expressed themselves a few years ago. But give me a little more credit than the rest of them. My desire is for you to consider both sides of the debate, not just my side and not just your side. Neither of us will convince each other, we both knew that going into this discussion. All I can do is make my side of the argument known and hope to articulate it well, even if that means I have to advocate for the small minds and prejudices of others. (If I ever sound like I'm defending albed, it's only coincidence.)

Can it be helped if Democrats and insurgents are making similar arguments? Sure it can: Democrats can point out that they don't want the insurgents to win. But they don't say so, and those who believe the insurgents have already won don't lament it. Instead they lament that we started the war in the first place, as if the Iraqis share no blame for their current troubles. In fact they share the blame with us; it is not all ours. Democrats could at least attempt to sound like they wanted us to win this war, but their politics have overcome them. The result is that they sound as if they wanted our troops to die and retreat in utter defeat in order for them to win their political games in Washington, D.C. They have allowed themselves to be perceived as agreeing with our enemies, they have invited accusations of un-patriotism. We can only assume from their glaring defeatism that Democratic politicians care more about wining votes than wining wars. Whether or not this perception is justified or supported by reality is irrelevant, it is what people have come to believe.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Can it be helped if Democrats and insurgents are making similar arguments? Sure it can: Democrats can point out that they don't want the insurgents to win. But they don't say so, and those who believe the insurgents have already won don't lament it. Instead they lament that we started the war in the first place, as if the Iraqis share no blame for their current troubles. In fact they share the blame with us; it is not all ours. Democrats could at least attempt to sound like they wanted us to win this war, but their politics have overcome them. The result is that they sound as if they wanted our troops to die and retreat in utter defeat in order for them to win their political games in Washington, D.C. They have allowed themselves to be perceived as agreeing with our enemies, they have invited accusations of un-patriotism. We can only assume from their glaring defeatism that Democratic politicians care more about wining votes than wining wars. Whether or not this perception is justified or supported by reality is irrelevant, it is what people have come to believe.

it's over for us and the the public is way out in front of both parties on the issue of iraq. by all available evidence, the perception is justified: US goals in iraq cannot be achieved militarily.

the only reason you're clinging to the status quo is because Bush put us there. if it was a Democratic president that had done it, in the manner that Bush did, you and every other rightie would be calling for his head on a platter. criticism of Bush by the Dems may be political, but it's entirely justified - we really are in a geopolitical abyss that will drain the nation's resources for years, if not decades. furthermore, it will not achieve any of the stated objectives - in fact, by any metric, we have multiplied the terror threat. Bush put us there and wants to keep us there - yes, there should be blame and recriminations, and they belong squarely at Bush's feet. posturing about patriotism and politics should be seen for the cheap straw-man argument that it is.

[Mazer]

Consensus doesn't necessarily indicate truth, knife. It is possible and even likely that the mob is wrong. Therefore policy makers should keep public opinion from factoring into their decisions. The politicians wish to distract you from the important issues and set your sights on November 4th of 2008. Don't be so gullible. Democrats in congress want Bush to stay the course because it guarantees that a Democrat will be the next president. Do you like being manipulated like that?

A Democrat president wouldn't have started this war in the manner Bush did so it's not worth thinking about. Do you often fantasize about what Gore would have done in Bush's place? That ain't healthy.

Obviously our goals in Iraq won't be achieved only by the military. Just as obvious should be the fact that nothing can be achieved without the military to provide security. It's a cost this nation can bear with ease, if not finesse.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Consensus doesn't necessarily indicate truth, knife. It is possible and even likely that the mob is wrong. Therefore policy makers should keep public opinion from factoring into their decisions. The politicians wish to distract you from the important issues and set your sights on November 4th of 2008. Don't be so gullible. Democrats in congress want Bush to stay the course because it guarantees that a Democrat will be the next president. Do you like being manipulated like that?

A Democrat president wouldn't have started this war in the manner Bush did so it's not worth thinking about. Do you often fantasize about what Gore would have done in Bush's place? That ain't healthy.

um, the last round of policy makers who ignored public opinion just went home for good (see election results for November, 2006). you're starting to sound a little bitter - like a guy who bought into a bad stock tip and then rode it all the way to the bottom. perhaps you should have bought a few shares of Gore instead investing all in Bush - you'd probably feel a little better about your judgement.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Obviously our goals in Iraq won't be achieved only by the military. Just as obvious should be the fact that nothing can be achieved without the military to provide security. It's a cost this nation can bear with ease, if not finesse.

ease and finesse, hmm? the Army's top general assessed US military capability only yesterday, but he was not quite so cavalier. "ease" and "finesse" were not terms he used:

US army 'pushed to its limit'
February 24, 2007

THE US Army's top general has presented a grim picture of America's preparedness to confront future military challenges and was even bleaker about the prospects for stability in Muslim regions where those challenges are most likely to emerge.

General Peter Schoomaker, the army's chief of staff, told a Dallas audience that the army was overstretched because of demands posed by simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

edit: Mazer, i know you're a very bright guy and you have strongly-held beliefs, as i do...but sometimes your political perspective is hard to fathom. it just reads like some kind of conservative stream-of-consciousness riff that is un-sourceable (is that a word?), undocumented, and only loosely connected to reality.

fortunately, this does not mean you're not a nice fellow

[Mazer]

Please don't confuse my assertiveness for bitterness, or for animosity towards you, for that matter.

Originally Posted by theknife

um, the last round of policy makers who ignored public opinion just went home for good (see election results for November, 2006).

Election results: Democrats now control 51% of the Senate and 53.7% of the House, hardly the coup d'état you've made it out to be. We're still waiting on them to raise the national minimum wage, are we not? Without a supermajority they can't play hardball, they can't effect any change at all. They'll say they have, people will want to believe they have, but if even one Democrat in the Senate switches his affiliation it'll take all the wind our of their sails. The current congress is nothing to be proud of.

The wealthiest and third most populous nation in the world can accomplish anything it attempts. If our military capabilities are diminished then it's due to a lack of will, not a lack of resources. So what happened to our resolve? What is this nation risking in Iraq that it can't bear to loose? What does an average guy like me, whose friends in the army have all safely returned from Iraq and who has lived comfortably for the duration of the war, what's at stake for me? What do I gain if the troops are yanked from their posts with their jobs left unfinished? Is it unreasonable for me to support the occupation on the principle that Iraqis deserve to live free? And must I be labeled a Bush fanboy simply because I happen to agree with him on the most important issue of the decade?

[albed]

List of Parrot Squawks that we've all heard over and over:

The war cannot be won militarily.Do parrots really think they can pass themselves off as military experts? Given the past accomplishments of the world's most powerful military, that's a pretty silly phrase they've learned.



If a democrat was president all the conservatives would be protesting the war.The Vietnam War was run by democrats and had plenty of protesters but they sure weren't conservatives. Another stupid thing to squawk, but parrots don't notice how stupid their phrases are, they just repeat what other parrots squawk.



The war in Iraq is a horrible mess.Another proclaimation by the make believe military experts. Wars are generally messy but the parrots seem to think they should be quick and neat like some G-rated hollywood depiction.



The U.S. military is overstretched and about to break.That's a years-old squawk that isn't much repeated because the prediction by the pretend-military experts just never happens.



Everyone hates the U.S. because of the Iraq war.Propaganda has always been a component of warfare and when you have millions of brainless parrots, even with no reason of their own to hate the U.S., you can get them squawking whatever you want and make it seem like it's true.



mandatory squawks:Any negative news about Iraq and republican politicians.

forbidden squawks:Anything positive about Iraq (heroic actions, successful missions). Anything positive about republican politicians (booming economy, lower taxation).