“If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.”

When facts and logic turn against basso he tends to ignore it, and pretend as if it never happened. He will start threads and then routinely stop discussing them once it becomes inconvenient for him. That is the way of things with basso.

 

So do you support a few congressmen, or do you support the military?

Once again as General Casey said, the debate is good for democracy, and the enemy who receives some minor warm fuzzies from that don't understand the first thing about democracy.

Anytime we are engaging in healthy democracy it is good for the U.S. and on the whole bad for the enemy.

 

is this all you have baghdad basso? a bunch of bush/cheney administration lap-dogs who disagree? who would have thunk it!

50% of the troops are convinced they cannot 'accomplish the mission'. why dont the troops support the troops baghdad basso?

what effect does continuing and escalating a war that only half the troops still support have on the morale of the troops?

my cousin's morale is down right now, but it isnt because of some resolution - its because his president is sending him back to afghanistan for his 3rd tour in 4 years. here is an army ranger captain, who wanted to make a career out of the military and now cant wait to get out - bush is driving all the good people out of the military by sending them out for their 3rd and 4th tours. we didnt even do this to troops in WWII.

 

Biden said it best a few weeks ago. Something like "it's not debating a resolution or Americans disagreeing with the war that emboldens our enemies. It's the failed policies of this administration. That's what is emboldening our enemies."

 

Gates is the civilian leader of the Pentagon.

Petraeus - is in the vast minority of military leaders on the issue, and I support his right to discuss it and argue his side. Too bad he is against others doing the same in our democracy. Also of all the military leaders who have experience in Iraq who are speaking out on the issue, he has the least, as far as I know.

Trying to hamper democratic debate certainly seems like more of a boon to terrorists than letting out the secret that nobody likes the idea of escalating this war.

 

McCain was for undercutting the morale of the troops, before he was against it-


Sen. John McCain - October 19, 1993


There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/republicans-and-congress-war-powers.html

 

Do you really beleive this? Are you that much of a moron? If you really are, then there's really not much more to say.

You think our troops are so fragile that they can't do their jobs when faced with a NON-BINDING Congressional resolution that questions the effictiveness of the current strategy?

You think our enemies actually care about this? They don't. They have idealogical reasons for fighting us that do not depend on our perceived "resolve" or machismo.

Grow up and admit that you are dead wrong on this.

 

What an *******.

 

Actually this isn't really true. Osama is on record as saying the withdraw from Somalia convinced him we didn't have the internal resolve to be a dangerous enemy. Ho was considering a truce in Vietnam but his advisors pointed out the internal dissent in the US as a factor to continue the war. That doesn't necessarily mean we continue with an action that is not working, but neither should we act as if these external actors do not perceive these actions nor that it doesn't go into their calculations.

 

Hi basso! Good to see you finally think it's safe to show your face in your own thread again!

Still waiting for answers to the following questions:

1. How does 50% of the troops believe we can win equal "the troops believe we can win?"

2. How does a majority of the troops believing it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and a majority of the troops believing Bush is screwing up there equal the troops "supporting the mission?"

3. How does "almost 50% of the troops" believe we should add troops (even with your bogus Kuwait caveat) meet your standard for "supporting the troops all the way?"

4. You said you "weren't wrong" about the above things. What color is the sky in your world?

5. And this is the biggie: We know from the poll of the troops that they do not meet your standards for supporting themselves. We also know from four years of posts from you that that means they support terrorists and are happy when they and their fellow troops are killed. Do you actually stand by this ****ed up logic? Do you actually believe that those troops that oppose the president's policies vis-a-vis Iraq want to die? Do you believe they root for terrorists to win?

6. And this one's big too: One of the troops you claim to support posted in the thread you started. His views clearly do not meet your standard for supporting the troops. Is that why, after all your bluster about "supporting the troops" you haven't thanked him for his service or even addressed him? More interestingly, for all your talk about courage and cowardice I still haven't seen you take him to task for supporting terrorists and wishing for his own death. Why not?

Go poof again now, basso. We all know you will.

 

Ok, but that doesn't really change the point. Everybody knows there's a ton of dissent on the war no matter what Congress does.

 

I agree that is part of their calculations but at the same time war in a democracy is as much a political exercise as a military exercise. The matter of sustaining the will to fight is a matter of political discussion.

The problem with saying that we are in the war so we have to stay in the war is that using something as its own justification doesn't always work. For that matter saying we can't give the otherside what they want doesn't always work either. In the end whether we stay in Iraq or leave Al Qaeda will claim victory either way. In a democracy the decision to stay or leave is always an issue that should be discussed.

 

As I indicated in my previous post, I wasn't saying that we should follow a path that isn't working because of this factor, but rather that contending our enemies operate in a vacuum is a folly.

 

It means exactly what I think it means: that you disappear when you're proven wrong and embarassed. The fact that you'll still start propagandist threads off-topic, the fact that you'll still make exceptionally lame attempts at humor and the fact that you'll post about other posters' sex lives, etc. hardly controvert your blatant cowardice when confronted with facts that prove you wrong.

Nearly a week later, you still refuse to respond to the myriad ways you were wrong about the stuff that you said you weren't wrong about. Again, these are numbers. They're not open to debate. Less than 50% is not a majority, no matter how much you want it to be. In all but one case it's not even a plurality. But even if it was either of those things, it wouldn't meet your requirement that people support the troops "all the way" by never questioning Bush's failed policies or else they're not allowed to say they support them at all.

Things you can never say here again:

1. That you support the troops. If you did, you would have said word one to the member of the troops that posted here.
2. That failing to support Bush's failed war without question equals opposing the troops and/or supporting or emboldening of terrorists. If that's true, as you've been saying for four years, then half the troops or more are suicidal traitors.
3. That anyone here doesn't have an opinion of their own. You are that plagiarist, right?
4. That you're not wrong, partisan, dumb, dishonest and prone to going poof. This thread speaks for itself.

 

yes the contrast is instructive. The soldier in the first clip is in the minority even among soldiers, and Obama is voicing the opinion of the majority of the soldiers over there in saying that we should have never gone in in the first place.

That is quite a contrast indeed.

This time please don't attempt to misrepresent the poll numbers.

Thank you in advance.