Why We Need More Troops in Iraq (Persuasive essay by Lieberman)

[Xavier_Onassis]

How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?
=====================================
Quite simple.
After they lose, those who won, who might have been in the minority, will accuse them of being traitors, and will also have the power to convict them and punish them for treason.

In the American Revolution, there never was a majority in favor of independence. About a third were Revolutionaries, a third were Tories, and followed King George, and a third were either neutral or just too busy trying not to be eaten by bears or scalped by Indians to have a position.

After the French blockaded Yorktown and threw the victory to the Rebels, a large number of Tories split for Canada.

Wars are not about majorities. Majorities are nice, but wars are about winners

[sirs]

<<I shall remain on record as backing what the folks on the ground in Iraq say they need, not what politicians in DC (and arrogant cybersaloon pundits) think we need>>

That's just an excuse for not thinking. You don't even attempt to take an analysis as far as it can go within its structural limitations: you simply punt.

Actually it's an excuse for letting those who know better make the decisions.  You should try it sometime big guy

[Lanya]

Responding to BT:

<<I don't see where Rose's feeling are anymore credible than her son's feelings. What are his thoughts? Does he think himself a dumbass for putting on the uniform?>>

 He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family.  I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back.  I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.

[domer]

Of the plethora of different views vying for recognition, Sirs, which is the one by your "designated thinker," and why? Indeed, who is YOUR "designated thinker," and why? You can't cede all thought.

[sirs]

Of the plethora of different views vying for recognition, Sirs, which is the one by your "designated thinker," and why? Indeed, who is YOUR "designated thinker," and why? You can't cede all thought.

A) General George Casey, and his immediate commanders underneath him. 
B) Because they're the folks actually on scene with the greatest grasp of current reality & needs, minus the interferrence from political scrutiny, media saturation, and polls
C) I haven't conceded any thought to anyone.  Simply allowing someone(s) who know better make the final decisions.  Kinda similar to me avoiding telling a surgeon how best to perform a specific surgery.

[Michael Tee]

<<How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?>>

I'm not following you.  Surely you are not suggesting that a majority of the Iraqi population are actively working in collaboration with the U.S. occupation?

[domer]

You kill me, Sirs. Do you ever have original thought? Bush has been deferring to Casey on troop levels for, what, two years, except perhaps now when he might promote a surge, which Casey initially didn't support, but, great independent thinker that he is, will probably support under pressure before Bush announces his decision. And why pick Casey? Wouldn't officers or even enlisted men have a better sense of the situation than the green-zone-bound Casey? Indeed, is information available to Casey that isn't available to the Joint Chiefs, the NSC, Bush and his secretaries, Cheney? The only thing that distinguishes Casey in this lineup -- and I can extend it to myriad non-governmental watchdogs in think tanks and elsewhere -- is that he has the constant exposure to SOME of the issues and the responsibility for SOME of the practices. But this begs the fundamental question: eschewing dittoheaddom, don't we as citizens of a democracy have the right (and duty) to try to understand these matters as best we can and then to speak our mind in whatever small contribution we can make to the national debate. The answer is obvious. Indeed, if I were to approach the whole venture from the start and were to latch on to (adopt) anyone's thinking, it may be Ted Kennedy's. He predicted this "disaster that didn't have to be" and decried its costs. Yes, that's it. Look up Ted Kennedy's remarks every time you wonder what I might be thinking.

[Michael Tee]

<<Leaving reliable facts aside since we are dealing with predictions rather than history, I will note nonetheless that those who oppose Lieberman's view, the withdrawal proponents, have not sketched a vision comparable to Lieberman's as to how their goals (please define them) can be achieved by the alternate course they suggest.>>

Here is a vision for you, the vision of one withdrawal proponent: (numbered in order of importance)
1.  I envision for the first time in decades a USA in compliance with international law, specifically with the Charter of the United Nations, which the U.S. signed, which prohibits armed intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state;
2.  I envision no more flag-draped coffins coming back every week from a war whose only beneficiaries are Iran, Israel and the Shi'ite majority of Iraq.  And possibly the shareholders of certain favoured oil companies and general contractors.
3.  I envision no more maimed, crippled, deformed and generally fucked up and fucked over Americans piling up in VA hospitals all over the fucking country to the great benefit of the beneficiaries just named.
4.  I envision a lessening of the appeal of radical Islamic preachers to join in the jihad against the Great Satan when the Great Satan is not engaging in a jihad against them.

That is not a vision "comparable to Lieberman's," that egregious ass-hole, it is a vision incomparably better.  Lieberman's vision is basically to keep fighting until everyone in Iraq learns to love one another and sing Kumbayah.



 

[Plane]

<<How can a majority of a country's population be traitors?>>

I'm not following you.  Surely you are not suggesting that a majority of the Iraqi population are actively working in collaboration with the U.S. occupation?

They certainly are .

Although a tiny minority wants the US presence to be long term , a strong majority wants our democracy building program to succeed.

[BT]

Lanya says: He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family.  I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back.  I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.

Lanya, Why cloud the issue with emotion laden arguments when you readily admit you don't speak for the son.

[Michael Tee]

from Lieberman's "persuasive essay" - -

<<Because of . . . the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. >>

Does anybody know WTF Lieberman is talking about?  (just asking)

<<This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.>>

That at least is true.

<<On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. >>

That's moronic.  It'll be a victory for whoever wins the civil war.  Al Qaeda doesn't have much of a chance.  Iran's a winner no matter what outcome results.  Iran was a winner from the day of the invasion.  It'll still be a winner (by a lower margin)  even if the Sunnis win the civil war.

<<To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. >>

Sure.  You strengthen the moderates by showing everyone else your determination to conquer Iraq and bend Iraqis to your views.  This is the most idiotic part of a generally idiotic speech.  How do you strengthen moderates by invading their country and killing anyone who isn't "moderate" enough for you, the foreigners?  The only ones who are "strengthened" by this are the extremists and the resistance.

<<After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there . . . >>

Translation - - after speaking to every fucking moron I could find

<<I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.>>

During which time all the insurgents will conveniently commit suicide or emigrate to Sweden so your collaborators won't have to worry about what happens after you leave.

<<In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it.">>

So this guy who doesn't have the balls to speak up in a meeting wants the chance to fight mujahideen who have absolutely no fear of death.

<<In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.>>

Oh, yeah - - that's right.  Don't forget to "clearly define their mission" before sending them over to die there; it'll look so much better.  BTW, how come none of these Einsteins has clearly defined any mission for the cannon fodder they're planning to send over?  Is it because there is no conceiveable mission that will alter the course of this disaster and a "clear definition" would just make the ridiculousness of it all the more apparent?  NAH.  Gotta be some other reason.

<<Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.>>

Fear that will magically vanish with the "surge," which the stupid Iraqis will never realize cannot last for more than a few months.

<<I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army . . . >>

Yeah?  Did you also by any chance notice any evidence of any monoethnic, extremist organizations opposed to the American invasion and/or its collaborators?  (just askin)

<<We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.>>

Can abandon and will abandon.  "Brave patriots" is probably what the Nazis called the Vichy French, but in the end, a defeat is a defeat and a collaborator is a collaborator is a collaborator.

[sirs]

You kill me, Sirs. Do you ever have original thought?

Yea...I'm simply not as verbose in expressing them, as you are.

Bush has been deferring to Casey on troop levels for, what, two years, except perhaps now when he might promote a surge, which Casey initially didn't support, but, great independent thinker that he is, will probably support under pressure before Bush announces his decision.

Funny, I've seen Casey & Bush frequently reference different #'s of need, and Bush, as you've referenced almost always deferring to Casey's conclusions

And why pick Casey?   Wouldn't officers or even enlisted men have a better sense of the situation than the green-zone-bound Casey?

Because he's the fella in the best position of knowing what's actually happening here, minus all the extracurricular dren I referenced earlier.  You think I should pick Domer?  Ted Kennedy?  Bush?  And I've already referenced Casey's officers as also being integral in assisting Casey in the decision making process

don't we as citizens of a democracy have the right (and duty) to try to understand these matters as best we can and then to speak our mind in whatever small contribution we can make to the national debate.

No one has said otherwise.  Did you actually think I was advocating that no one think, that no one question, that no one do their own analysis of events?  And you're supposed to be man of impeccable professional grasping of others thought process?

[Michael Tee]

<<Although a tiny minority wants the US presence to be long term , a strong majority wants our democracy building program to succeed.>>

We're talking apples and oranges here, plane.  I have no idea what the majority of Iraqis want regarding your "democracy building program" and I don't think you do either.  Nobody is free to speak under the guns of an occupying army.  They'll say whatever they think the man with the gun wants to hear.

HOWEVER, even if a strong majority DID want your "democracy building program" to succeed, the topic was the deaths of collaborators after the U.S. forces leave.  You yourself in your initial post put the number at "tens of thousands."  Those are your words.  How can "tens of thousands" be a majority of the country?

You were confused.  You confused the collaborators with ordinary citizens who, whatever they may or may not have wanted, did not aid or assist the occupation.

[Lanya]

Lanya says: He did his time. He did not make a career of it because he didn't like it enough to do it for the next 20 some years (or for another re-up). He's back here, he has a job, a wife, and is starting a family.  I am not him so I won't speak for him, but his mother says he doesn't want to go back.  I don't see where I claimed her feelings were any more credible than her son's feelings. Why erect straw horses, BT? We got enough to do.

Lanya, Why cloud the issue with emotion laden arguments when you readily admit you don't speak for the son.

I didn't cloud the issue, and I made no emotion laden arguments. 

 I've stated how many tours he already did in Iraq.  No shit he doesn't want to go back!  There, that's emotion laden for you. 

[BT]

I didn't cloud the issue, and I made no emotion laden arguments.

Bullshit. Rose is no different than Cindy Sheehan. The whole basis of their appeal is emotion based. Poor mama, her son actually has to fulfill the terms of his contract. Life is so unfair.