back to perception not equaling reality
I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, and he just said something as I was driving to the bank (it's better than listening to 80's music) about how, "there has to be a winner and a loser, whether it's a football game or a war, there is always a winner and a loser."
Exactly right, Bill.
He was talking about how we are losing in Iraq, because we are taking too long to train, or we are allowing too many insurgents, or we are not getting enough insurgents quickly enough....etc, the same clap trap-BS-pussy foot stuff that people who oppose the war use as theirjustification--they will say they don't oppose the war, and they support our tropss 100% but Bush is screwing it up because he isn't _______(fill in the blank).
I will address that junk later, but first, I have to say---THERE IS A WINNER AND A LOSER--THE GAME IS OVER--WE WON. And to use the football game analogy, after the game (which we won--- as the visiting team), we have the courtesy to stick around and help the fans of the home team clean up their stadium. The fact that the MSM refuses to call a spade a spade is beyond me. By any military standard the Iraq war has been the most successful mission ever to be planned, and executed in the history of human kind. We successfully overthrew a dictator, caught him alive even though he attempted to flee and elude, destroyed his army while not destroying the civil infrastructure, keeping civilian casualties to a minimum (we didn't level the entire country a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and now we hold him in prison, with less than 1% of the casualties that we faced in WWII and accomplished all of this in a matter of weeks.
When people complain that we are in Iraq too long I have to ask----how many troops are still in Germany? Korea? How long after WWII did we stay in Germany? (trick question--we are still there!)
There is a winner and a loser, and declaring the loser the victor does not make it so...just like declaring that the victor is vanquished does not make it so.
Exactly right, Bill.
He was talking about how we are losing in Iraq, because we are taking too long to train, or we are allowing too many insurgents, or we are not getting enough insurgents quickly enough....etc, the same clap trap-BS-pussy foot stuff that people who oppose the war use as theirjustification--they will say they don't oppose the war, and they support our tropss 100% but Bush is screwing it up because he isn't _______(fill in the blank).
I will address that junk later, but first, I have to say---THERE IS A WINNER AND A LOSER--THE GAME IS OVER--WE WON. And to use the football game analogy, after the game (which we won--- as the visiting team), we have the courtesy to stick around and help the fans of the home team clean up their stadium. The fact that the MSM refuses to call a spade a spade is beyond me. By any military standard the Iraq war has been the most successful mission ever to be planned, and executed in the history of human kind. We successfully overthrew a dictator, caught him alive even though he attempted to flee and elude, destroyed his army while not destroying the civil infrastructure, keeping civilian casualties to a minimum (we didn't level the entire country a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and now we hold him in prison, with less than 1% of the casualties that we faced in WWII and accomplished all of this in a matter of weeks.
When people complain that we are in Iraq too long I have to ask----how many troops are still in Germany? Korea? How long after WWII did we stay in Germany? (trick question--we are still there!)
There is a winner and a loser, and declaring the loser the victor does not make it so...just like declaring that the victor is vanquished does not make it so.
posted by djobe at 12:55 PM
3 Comments:
WOW ... why do you think we are still in Iraq? As soon as someone starts convincing the country why, no more pussyfoot reasons why we should leave. The fact is, Bush or talk radio or Fox, nobody, is doing enough to convince us why we're there.
Although I agree with you, that we accomplished more from a military standpoint in this war in an amazing fashion, if you don't agree with why we went in the first place, then the rest doesn't matter unless you explain why we should keep loosing lives.
I personally don't hear anything more about where the WMD went. I hear all the possible reasons, which are certainly possible, but why not talk about them ... at all? We have to make it clear to the nation to support our President and our efforts in Iraq. But without clear reasons why their, Bush's credibility will continue to decline, as will support for the war.
Will comment more later ...gotta go to class.
Jake
People complain that Iraqi's are being trained too slow. 5,000 Iraqis in the last year...I feel we must do better than that. And, why do you blame them? If a superpower came in with such might why do you expect them to sign up to risk their lives, when they know we won't leave? And, what motives do we give the Iraqi gov't to help??
Consider all the money we pump into Iraq's economy, not mention the physical and social destruction that existed before we got there, as well as the share we caused through the war, that Iraq desperately needs help with. Seems like keeping the US around for as long as they can would be in their best interests.
On the topic of side goals with this war. As much as I truely want democracy there, it is my opinion it will never happen in my lifetime or my children's. Not due to the shortcomings of any of our soldiers, but soley because of the culture you are trying to change. Islamic foundation for rule for the past 1000 years ... I don't believe it is something you or I are able to comprehend.
Pres. Bush Sr said it in his book about why he didn't invade the Gulf when he had 550,000 troops, about the chaos that would unfold if the regime were to fall. Now, everything he said would happen, seems to be happening. I don't understand why some seem so surprised. You can claim monday morning quartback, but its a bit beyond that if you look at the way the gov't planned for this war. It is clear this type of opposition was not expected for several reasons ...many which unfortunately cost lives.
Much similar to cost-benefit analysis the gov't uses in every social service, I think most people have to be sold we are getting more out of this than we are loosing. So the big question really is ... if I oppose the Iraq war, then how do I suggest we fight terror. I have to run now, but I'll come back a few days. Also congrats on expecting. We just had a baby girl .. Mya Catherine. 8 lbs 1/2 oz on May 26.
Later-
Jake
Congrats on your daughter's birth, I am sure you are very proud.
If you approach the question from the direction that no matter what good comes of this it is not worth the cost, then there is no point explaining why we went there....it is sort of a fait accompli (to borrow from the french).
Originally there were 22 reasons to go to Iraq, many of the top reasons dealt directly with attempting to insure our own national security, some of the justifications were humanitarian, some of them were diplomatically engaged (after all--how many years were we supposed to be shot at in the "no fly zone" without retaliation?) How much resources, in men and capital was wasted in attempting to keep this madman in his "box?"
Either way, to argue that regardless of what is accomplished, it is not worth the cost is to take an irrefutable position, it is not a rational statement of someone who wants to learn more, it is an idealogically driven absolute.
To say that Muslims are incapable of democracy is the soft bigorty of low expectations. Are they too primitive for self rule? Too stupid? Too culturally entrenched in Sharia?
The Japanese changed from thousands of years of imperial rule, to a representative republic---after we annihilated two cities and hundreds of thousands of people in a global struggle for land and resources. This is no different.
Post a Comment
<< Home