Is DEFEAT & FAILURE the only thing in Iraq that LIBERALS will accept?

Question

All politicians are guilty of trying to hedge their bets when they can get away with it.

But the rhetoric employed by the Dems has consistently rested on US failure and defeat because it plays well to their leftist base, who have bet their entire ideology on America's defeat and humilitation.

The Democrat's dilemma is that they can't possibly win an election with only that base, so they have to pander to the patriotic Americans just enough not to alienate them completely.

Clearly, from their perspective, it would be best if America surrendered and admitted defeat. That would be the best possible outcome.

They could keep their lunatic anti-American, anti-Bush, base; and win over those disgusted that the Republicans and Bush managed to lose a war and sacrifice American lives for nothing.

But, oh dear. What if things turn around?

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

Answer 1

The Democrats relish the idea of failure as their hope for taking the presidency. All the major candidates are so liberal the American people will not accept them.

Answer 2

"Would you whine as much about the acceptance of defeat and failure on the part of German liberals during World War II?

How about asking an intelligent question instead of a rhetoric-filled, hate-mongering rant filled with loaded questions? You might actually make sense that way, instead of appearing to be a moron."

To me, YOU sound more like the moron. You have given away your obvious partisan views in your statement in the same way that the questioner has.

Plus your answer is somewhat ranting, bumbling and makes no attempt to answer the question or even tackle the issues, so leave your ignorance at home next time.

Now,
Im not 100% sure of the sitution in the States becuase im English. But the way its going here is that those who were anti-war in the first place are playing up these ideas of defeat and failure, and unwilling to accept any thing other than 'troops leave iraq now'.
This i feel is irrational and backward looking. They focus their views on past failures (of which, to be fair, their were many). This doesnt help the Iraqi people, nor does it speed up the war.
An immediate withdrawal of troops will be the worst thing Americans could do. In fact, Im behind Bush sending many many more troops to Iraq.
I dont think you are right in saying that anyone bases their ideology on American humiliation. I think it is more like humiliation of Bush personally, and, more importantly, the end of American involvement in the war despite what might happen.
i think Defeat and Failure are possibly the wrong words to use and perhaps simplify the issue too much.
I think they want to show that Bush is a bit of a psychopath and cannot see past 'victory for America'. They may also be concerned with the loss of American lives but i think this is more something that just plays in to their argument, rather than a primary concern.

Answer 3

Sun Tzu said tell me the nature of the leaders and I will tell you the outcome of the war. As he goes on to describe the qualities of a winning leader. Bush is a miserable failure at every point, the perfect example of what not to do.

He has among other rules that the invader must know the nature of the land and the enemy. Bush did not even know that there were Sunnis and Shiia, much less what that meant. (not even mentioning that Saddam hated AlQueda even worse than Bush did)

He then describes a military occupation of the sort of Viet Nam or Iraq as a recipe for defeat, that recipe hasn't changed.

Your Magical thinking about Iraq deciding that having a Sunni/Shiia conflict is a bad idea, that will only make life worse, so they won't do it, is even less likely than you realizing that you have been stupid about this for years, and becoming a liberal.

Answer 4

There is no "other side" as it pertains to the Iraq war. Our current secretary of state, John Kerry, was all for it, and our former sec. of state as well as our current vice president were very adamant about Iraqi WMD's. Over 100 democrats in congress voted for the Iraqi war resolution. Other side my @ss. They held hands together on a bullshit war. There is a clear mission in Afghanistan. Zbignew Brezinski called the shot during the Clinton administration and even wrote a book about it call "The New Great Game." Its all about energy futures. Central Asia is the next middle east as it pertains to oil and natural gas.

Answer 5

It's what they think gives them the best chance to win the Presidency. That is the most important thing for them, so they are willing to accept defeat, even hope for it. They know if we are successful in Iraq, their chances in November of 2008 are slim.

Answer 6

honey, things will never turned around...what's sure is that bush can not satisfy himself with a bipartisan governance. will not have a beautiful exit from the white house next election. and perhaps history will absolve him if iraq will be a prosperous and democratic country in the next 4 or 5 centuries when almost nobody could remember what had happen.

Answer 7

If you are going to attach a gaming state to Iraq and must have a win or lose absurd result, then we must surmise that we already have "lost". We lost our prestige in the world, lost habeas corpus in our midst, lost a trillion dollars, thousand of lives and we have "won" a few zillion jihadists that will haunt us for generations to come. Put that in your conservative pipe and smoke it, because what you are smoking now does you no good.

Answer 8

And what if thinks don't turn around?
Maybe we can just "reason" with them. Right. You make good points. Thank you for having common sense.

Answer 9

This Liberal will gladly accept you're enlisting, and going into battle.