Reading the article, I don't see where Moveon labels Petraeus a traitor. Do I need a special decoder, or do I just have to huff glue for a few weeks?
moveon.org =! the democratic party, no matter how much they'd like that to be true. the real power in congress still lies with the centrists and nothing will ever happen on Iraq without compromise.
it's good that the surge is working, but in the end, what does it matter if the Iraqi government used the time that the surge was supposed to buy them to go on vacation? and how can anyone take any presidential administration at their word when nearly every report ever released has gone through the spin machine?
in the spring, we were told to wait till the fall to judge the surge... now in the fall, I bet we're going to be told to wait till the winter to judge the surge. it's just another damn game of Calvinball with these guys.
it's good that the surge is working, but in the end, what does it matter if the Iraqi government used the time that the surge was supposed to buy them to go on vacation? and how can anyone take any presidential administration at their word when nearly every report ever released has gone through the spin machine?
in the spring, we were told to wait till the fall to judge the surge... now in the fall, I bet we're going to be told to wait till the winter to judge the surge. it's just another damn game of Calvinball with these guys.
The accusation of betrayal is not the same as the accusation of treason, anyway. MoveOn hasn't accused Petraeus of going over to the enemy, which is treason, but rather of dishonestly abusing his position of power and trust for political purposes.
There's a difference, no matter how desperately Bushfans want to frame the situation otherwise... and the sad truth is that the Bush clan betrayed America's trust long ago when they set out to invade Iraq in the first place...
He has, iirc, a history of putting the situation in the rosiest terms possible, so it seems unlikely this will be any different. He's not worried about the trust of the American people, but rather the trust of the CinC... which are increasingly two entirely different things...
There's a difference, no matter how desperately Bushfans want to frame the situation otherwise... and the sad truth is that the Bush clan betrayed America's trust long ago when they set out to invade Iraq in the first place...
He has, iirc, a history of putting the situation in the rosiest terms possible, so it seems unlikely this will be any different. He's not worried about the trust of the American people, but rather the trust of the CinC... which are increasingly two entirely different things...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I agree almost totally with this post but take exception to the assumption that the surge is working. As has been pointed out in other threads, the success in Anbar which proponents
attribute to the surge has almost nothing to do with the surge. Take away improvements in Anbar and there is almost nothing positive to point to.
Iraq is still that same leaky boat problem it always was. The good news is that we have 30,000 extra bodies engaged in bailing out the water that leaks in and the boat still floats, the bad news is that the boat still leaks like a sieve and no one is patching the holes. And worse yet, many of the existing holes could get much larger and if anyone of many holes suddenly get much bigger no amount of extra boat bailing will keep the boat afloat.
I have long called the so called surge the mini surge, but in truth if a real surge were a skirt, what we have in Iraq would not amount to a thong or even a fig leaf. Its still stay the course but change the slogan.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Well now, you certainly get my vote for the Defeatist of the Year Award; However, there are a few congressman and women who might take the prize from you, so be careful!
Then again, in order to win the award, you're going to have to convince yourself that there is no way in hell that you can actually win the award... oh, what a conundrum!
good times...
Heh there is little debate now. It is simply two sides saying what they want without even having a full review of the facts. The democrats craft the law, the report is generated and before even questioning the general they are on a full blitz attack.
Republicans of course praise the report and we go on and on.
Republicans of course praise the report and we go on and on.
Because he is a general in the United States military and not a lawyer? Calling a general a traitor without an abundance of evidence to back it up is deplorable.
But wait wait, the Repubs did this so it makes it ok!
But wait wait, the Dems did this so it makes it ok!
(Just wanted to help out the partisans who excuse deplorable actions by their "side" because the other side did something similarly deplorable. The ironic thing is that we wonder why our politicians keep getting worse.)
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Can yiou demonstrate that other administrations have not made changes to the military command structure during the course of a war? If you can then you may have a point.
nice attempt at a play on words. In that case, Fox News =! the republican party, no matter how much they'd like that to be true.
see how that works?
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
Still, people actually watch Fox news. WTF visits moveon.org anyway especially for information and news.
Can you point out where in the modern history of war that politicians dictating the field of battle has actually worked?
I can highlight some major examples of where politicians dictating the rules of war despite strong military dis-approval has failed.
1. WW2 - Hitler dictating that Stalingrad *had* to be taken, focusing their power there and eliminating their biggest advantage, speed. The symbolic focus bogged down the war and essentially lost it for Hitler. He might have lost either way, but this definitely harmed the efforts significantly.
2. Post WW2, when we had the armies in place to go after the Soviets, we did not. This lead to pretty much every post-WW2 conflict, including Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and helped in the current situation in the ME.
3. N. Korea. Had we not been so timid about going after N. Korea and also putting full weight behind going after China, things might have been drastically different. Again, the military was limited by politicians.
4. Vietnam. Classic textbook case of limiting military efforts through political means. This conflict probably wouldn't have even happened had it not been for our timidity post-WW2. Despite that, the political nature of target choosing and the shackles of not winning a war as opposed to not losing it cause this quagmire.
5. GW1. I agree with the rationale behind not going after Saddam, it wouldn't have been prudent at that juncture (hah).
6. GW2. Instead of following our Generals, Bush/Rummy/Cheney decided we didn't need 2x the forces, which the Generals said were essential for victory. We went in with a faction of what they said, instead of overwhelming and smothering, we bypassed, dodged, and allowed pockets of resistance to fester into gangreen. We ignored history in not going after the Fadayeen, which required bypassing Baghdad for a few days. Had we done that we would have ripped the core out of the most fanatical portion of Saddam's army, which later became the core of the insurgents. Instead, much like Stalingrad, politicians wanted the symbolic victory, driving straight to Baghdad. This effect was multipled by our ineffectual protection of key military supply dumps, we again went after symbolic victories rather than protecting these key sites. We compounded this mistake by dismissing the entire Iraqi army, which then bolstered the insurgency which already had thousands of tons of weapons from the above sites. Then, instead of smothering the resistance there and co-opting the Iraqis, we pissed them off more by creating problems with private contractors, who were not answerable to the CMJ or any Iraqi Law, thanks to Bremer and his lackeys who were there to just pilfer Iraq.
You see, the military is to be used when politicians have failed. It is not to be limited afterwards except for strategic levels at the 10k foot view. Tactical levels and theater strategic issues should be left to theater commanders.
Every time a political leader attempts to control theater strategy and tactical strategy, the effort fails. Failure to learn from history in this matter results in repeating it.
Patraeus will probably do what every general after Shinseki did, waffle.
I do indeed, and I agree with you.
but there are more republicans who watch fox than there are democrats who visit moveon.org.
if moveon were one of the most highly watched cable news channels, getting millions of people to listen to the crap they spew, I'd probably be more concerned.
my parents are the staunchest, unionized democrats I know and neither one of them could probably tell you what moveon.org even was. personally, I think I've been to their website... once, maybe.
Republicans and their hyper patriotic, military solution loving, authoritarianism and aggressive power loving mentality, based in fact on cowardliness and fear, committed the greatest blunder in American history when they invaded Iraq. They did so on the pipe dream of a PNAC, American Century, new world order that has led exactly where it was obvious it would lead, turning the sympathy and good will of the world for America after 9/11 into almost universal world wide hate. These geniuses and the Democrats who supported and support them should be expunged at the ballot box. The the fascinating feature of the insane is that they are convinced that the cure is always more of the same.
Iraq is the full blown expression of the insanity of Americans, the loudest and the sickest of Americans. And instead of hiding under the table or in the closet, these fools who have massively damaged our country are out in droves screaming for more and more madness. Our trouble, they cry, is that we are not insane enough, that we must become more and more insane.
Iraq is the full blown expression of the insanity of Americans, the loudest and the sickest of Americans. And instead of hiding under the table or in the closet, these fools who have massively damaged our country are out in droves screaming for more and more madness. Our trouble, they cry, is that we are not insane enough, that we must become more and more insane.
Are you saying that both sides only say that they should listen to the generals when it helps their ideological view?
Shocking.
Sort of like how Bush says that we should listen to our "generals on the ground". The only thing is that if the Generals On The Ground start disagreeing with him, he replaces them with ones that won't. Then he goes back to telling us how we should listen to them again.
The Iraq war supporters are so desperate at this point to have any good news about this disaster that they are trumpeting the fact that the surge only moderately failed instead of completely failing as some sort of coup for their side. If you go back and look at what the goals of the surge were when they started... they have by and large failed. The best thing is that while we were flailing around in Baghdad, something good happened (in the midst of dozens of horrible things) in an area that was only moderately related to the surge, and the good thing happened by at best limited virtue of ours. (the tribal leaders approached US, not the other way around)
This is being trumpeted as our Great Success? That we didn't fail as badly as originally thought? You guys are truly grasping at straws, any straw in order to keep your war going. The worst part is that in the end after we withdraw you guys will try to propogate another 'stab in the back' myth ala Vietnam. It's disgusting.
Your pathetic flailing would be funny if it didn't involve people's lives.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Politicians didn't interfere much in the past when we just went in and carpet bombed entire areas. Unfortunately, post-WW2, the left weeaseled their way into war tactics so we could employ the Rules of Engagement by Hoyle. No longer was carpet bombing acceptable. Broad attacks were spurned for attempted pin-point accuracy instead. We tied our hands in the name of fighting a kinder, gentler war.
btw, who was it that preveted the US from going into NK? iirc it was one of the greatest US generals of the 20th century who also served as President for 2 terms. Damn him for interfering in military action. What does he know about war? :roll:
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Once again TLC asks the question that clobbers himself. If we review the various successful wars the United States has conducted, we would have to go back to the civil war to see a case where playing musical chair generals showed dramatic improved results. And in the Spanish American War it was basic no command changes, WWI where we stuck with Persing, in WW2 where we stuck with Eisenhower and McArther, and in Gulf war 1 where we stuck with storming Norman are all examples where we stayed the command course. And the war ended cleanly with a clear win.
Now if you want to review most of the major conflicts we have either lost or not won, then the case for musical generals fits perfectly. In the case of Korea, McAurther succeeded in fading away and the conflict stalemated, in Vietnam it was a whole chorus line of musical generals before Nixon outfoxed the North and won peace with honor at the negotiating table, and in the current Iraqi occupation you almost need a program and numbers on uniforms to keep track of all the personnel changes.
In short TLC, major command changes is very seldom a good sign or an indication that the war is going well.
We didn't tie our hands for kinder/gentler war in NK nor Vietnam, that's complete bullspit. When it came to the rules of engagement we didn't go after the right targets because we didn't want to piss the chinese off, or other political items. When it came to attacking specific sectors, specific targets in Hanoi, or going after SAM sites or aircraft bases, it was all pussy-footing around China and other political crap. The symbolic nature of many of these micro-managed items massively reduced the armed forces ability to carry out a strategic and successful war.
By the time Eisenhower came into power Truman had already f'd up the situation, especially by not listening to McArthur in many cases (although I agree with the non-usage of nukes). Eisenhower whimped out though and he was a consummate politician first and a good military general second. That's why he was allied supreme commander, not because he was a superior general. However, he was also a person who sought peace over war in many cases. When it comes to NK he saw a losing situation at that point and decided to seek an ending. However, you can be assured that if he were in a superior position it would not have resulted in the same scenario. Lastly, if we were, Ike was such a general and president that he realistically would have trusted his ground commanders with best practices.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
Speaking as a liberal, I don't use the term "traitor" lightly, since I'm willing to concede that most people (which includes Petraeus) on the left or right are probably motivated by what they genuinely see as being in the best interests of the country. A traitor, on the other hand, is someone who wants the country to do badly. So my opinion is that labeling people traitors simply because they hold views opposite one's own is outrageous. And in particular, I think labeling Petraeus a traitor is outrageous.
I note, however that there was a time in the not too distant past when anyone who opposed the Iraqi invasion was called a traitor by the right. Yet I don't recall you, Pabster, or other right-wing AT'ers calling THOSE statements "disgusting" or "outrageous."
In other words, I think you're being hypocritical on this.
the weird thing is, good news from Petraeus is a good thing for the anti-war movement.
Bush is going to use it as cover to start withdrawing forces and claim a doublespeak victory.
Bush is going to use it as cover to start withdrawing forces and claim a doublespeak victory.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Poor LL. He imagines the there were only US forces in WW1 and WW2. Would you care to comment on the various changes amongst the generals in the British and French forces?
Let me get you started on WW1. You can look into WW2 on your own.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/...aders/ww1/allied-a.htm
Maybe if he'd quit lying and cooking the books? Where are all these trained Iraqis he claims we had, why are they still saying, after over 4 years that they need another 12 to 18 months to train them?
What is the proper term for people who keep lying to us while it cost the American people their lives and money? Shill just doesn't seem strong enough?
Actually they're the only ones using the word "traitor", they can't refute the facts so they're resorting back to their "swift boat" tactics to avoid talking about the issues, because if they did they would be shown for the fools they've been and still are.
See the ad for yourself:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
No mention of traitor in that ad? Just the facts maam.... with links.
Apparently, attempting to tell the truth is all the reason needed for the right to attempt to label you as a traitor. Now if they could just expand that patriot act. :thumbsdown:
As I said in another thread, there's no reason to quantify someone a traitor just because you happen to disagree with their perspective. IMHO, it completely invalidates your message. It is wrong no matter which "side" happens to employ it.
It should also be noted that MoveOn.org did not call Petraeus a traitor directly; But when you ask if the General "betrayed" his country, you certainly give that connotation - and I believe that's exactly what they're aiming for here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter