Liberals unable to wage war successfully?

[Polish3d]

Granted, many think Iraq was a mistake and time will tell, but aside from that, consider this:


Every conflict liberal/democratic leaders have gotten us into over the last ~50 years has turned out very badly, often with even worse consequences (in all likelihood) than no involvement, in large part because there is a tendency among them to tip-toe about and allow themselves to become ineffective because of an unwillingness to do what is necessary to succeed. (Or don't do it at all.)

Vietnam is one example to some extent, but I'd like to focus on the others.



- Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs: Failure, refused to go "all out" to make sure it succeeded by providing air support and marines to get the job done, result: failure, embarassment, Castro still in power and now more keen then ever to get protection from Soviets, leading to Cuban Missile crisis.

Jimmy Carter's handling of the hostage situation in Iran - Failure
Not quite willing to put necessary pressure, although admirable that he wasn't willing to kill Iranians, nevertheless, a failure.

Clinton:

Somalia: Failure. His govt. does not give troops adaquate equipment out of a desire to "escalate" the operation, falls apart, Clinton pulls out, indicates to Bin Laden that America can be attacked and will respond by fleeing.

Bin Laden: Anyone who has studied our actions towards him during the Clinton years will likely come to the conclusion that we could have ended this thing had the administration stopped pussy-footing around in a paralysis of unwillingness to get our hands even slightly dirty, (ie, have US troops/CIA do the job rather than relying on locals) and in that desire to tip-toe about on this issue, we lost several chances to end Bin Laden, the result of which was of course, this whole mess of 9/11 and more.


The point? Well, liberals/democrats tend to be more concerned with nuance and walking softly when it comes to war, doing things "part way" rather than all the way, or not at all.

The result of which we can see from recent history has been utter failure in every conflict handled by a democrat for the last 50+ years, since Truman. With their constant undermining and carping at every aspect of the war effort, why would anyone with any sense think they will do a good job against Islamic terror?

 

[dahunan]

Tell us about the success of the Republicans? I honestly do not know

I do know that I think Republicans are WARMONGERS... Big Business in killing people and Republicans love anything that is Big Business.

 

[Polish3d]

Republicans have been successful in the wars they engaged in like Desert Storm, (went very well, as far as wars go) Grenada, and Panama, (also went very well). As well as Reagan and Bush I's handling of the cold war.

Democrats haven't been able to win a single war IMO largely because they detest it to begin with (good) but are also too unwilling to be decisive and face the tough decisions that are necessary in order to win, which in the longer term usually results in better outcomes than protracted, half-ass actions.

Democrats now are worse than ever before IMO as far as being anti-war and such, and I really doubt their ability to wage any sort of war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.





In fact, I'd be surprised if any democrat/defender that posts here will do anything besides complain about Republicans, as the Democrat's war record is essentially indefensible.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Republicans have been successful in the wars they engaged in like Desert Storm, (went very well, as far as wars go) Grenada, and Panama, (also went very well). As well as Reagan and Bush I's handling of the cold war.



FWIW. Desert storm was a true coalition of some extremely good armies, fought against one of the most incompetent armies in the world. Grenada was fought against some Cuban construction workers. Panama was pretty much serving an arrest warrant against W's coke supplier. Reagan did do some solid work against the Big Red Machine, but he by no means shut down the CCCP by himself and I can't give Bush Sr. any credit at all for winning the cold war, although he was a shot caller with the CIA, so maybe he did something.

Just my $0.02

Oh I almost forgot; Martin Van Buren was a democrat and he was helpful in the War of 1812. He wasn't President yet but he was a private in the army... I think.

 

[martinez]

Democrats won the big one mate, dubya dubya 2(not that, imo, it has anything to do with which party is in the white house). Desert Storm was like Shock and Awe coupled with a short campain in open terrain, I could've led that attack to equal success. What a ridiculous post this is. Iraq and Afghanistan have both been far less successful than the public was led to believe they would be. "Mission Accomplished" anyone?

 

[nageov3t]

how's the War on Drugs going?

 

[sandorski]

Cops raiding a Crack House are probably in greater danger than the military in alleged "won" Republican wars(Iraq excepted, awaiting result).

 

[Polish3d]

Wow... I figured actually stating that you guys would respond by complaining about Republicans would mean you'd probably avoid doing so... but obviously not the case.

So everything successful by Republicans is irrelevant, and every failure by democrats has been ignored by each poster so far.

Not a strong case you're making guys. Pointing the finger at someone else only says


"Hey, give me the job because this guy is ****** too!"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Wow... I figured actually stating that you guys would respond by complaining about Republicans would mean you'd probably avoid doing so... but obviously not the case.

So everything successful by Republicans is irrelevant, and every failure by democrats has been ignored by each poster so far.

Not a strong case you're making guys. Pointing the finger at someone else only says


"Hey, give me the job because this guy is ****** too!"

Ya, so? Trying to steer the debate with some kind of cutoff commen rarely works, but is often tried. You're the one who tried the political angle by implying the Dems/Liberals were worse than the Reps on this issue. We just pointed out that that judgement seems rather weak when considering the wars "won" against the wars "lost".

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Tell us about the success of the Republicans? I honestly do not know

I do know that I think Republicans are WARMONGERS... Big Business in killing people and Republicans love anything that is Big Business.

Sheesh, talk about obfuscation. You didn't respond to the OP's claims in the least except with the usual liberal "Republicans are [insert phrase here]".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No one does a "good" job as far as the US fighting wars. Vietnam was a cluster fsck, and one Richard Nixon (republican BTW) got us "Peace with honor".

In one sense you are right. A country should not go to war if it hasn't the ability to be ruthless, and crush all that stand in your way. The American public really doesn't like to see themselves of playing Hitler or Stalin and invading other countries without good cause. Last time was VN, and now Iraq.

The problem there is the enemy wasn't Saddam and never was. Unless we decide to invade the whole middle east and maybe beyond with millions of troops or using nukes to eliminate the population, you are NOT going to win.

Of course we can become who we say we hate, and maybe that's the direction you want. Certainly it is what some call for.

Iraq is what we are in, and why you posted. It is a fools errand led by fools.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Topic Title: Liberals unable to wage war successfully?


Granted, many think Iraq was a mistake and time will tell, but aside from that, consider this:


Every conflict liberal/democratic leaders have gotten us into over the last ~50 years has turned out very badly, often with even worse consequences (in all likelihood) than no involvement, in large part because there is a tendency among them to tip-toe about and allow themselves to become ineffective because of an unwillingness to do what is necessary to succeed. (Or don't do it at all.)

Vietnam is one example to some extent, but I'd like to focus on the others.



- Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs: Failure, refused to go "all out" to make sure it succeeded by providing air support and marines to get the job done, result: failure, embarassment, Castro still in power and now more keen then ever to get protection from Soviets, leading to Cuban Missile crisis.

Jimmy Carter's handling of the hostage situation in Iran - Failure
Not quite willing to put necessary pressure, although admirable that he wasn't willing to kill Iranians, nevertheless, a failure.

Clinton:

Somalia: Failure. His govt. does not give troops adaquate equipment out of a desire to "escalate" the operation, falls apart, Clinton pulls out, indicates to Bin Laden that America can be attacked and will respond by fleeing.

Bin Laden: Anyone who has studied our actions towards him during the Clinton years will likely come to the conclusion that we could have ended this thing had the administration stopped pussy-footing around in a paralysis of unwillingness to get our hands even slightly dirty, (ie, have US troops/CIA do the job rather than relying on locals) and in that desire to tip-toe about on this issue, we lost several chances to end Bin Laden, the result of which was of course, this whole mess of 9/11 and more.


The point? Well, liberals/democrats tend to be more concerned with nuance and walking softly when it comes to war, doing things "part way" rather than all the way, or not at all.

The result of which we can see from recent history has been utter failure in every conflict handled by a democrat for the last 50+ years, since Truman. With their constant undermining and carping at every aspect of the war effort, why would anyone with any sense think they will do a good job against Islamic terror?

Oh look another Apologist.

The desperation is hilarious.

You guys got your hero re-elected remember? Why such a panic???

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
Tell us about the success of the Republicans? I honestly do not know

I do know that I think Republicans are WARMONGERS... Big Business in killing people and Republicans love anything that is Big Business.

Sheesh, talk about obfuscation. You didn't respond to the OP's claims in the least except with the usual liberal "Republicans are [insert phrase here]".

And you seem to be doing a pretty good job of avoiding OPs since you crossed over from OT with your usual Liberals are.... what is your point exactly other than to indict yourself?

Anyway, on topic, how about we agree OP that wars are for the most part a lose-lose situation. Wars where our national security are in danger are wars that IMO are worth the risk of American lives to defend our way of life and our freedoms. That said, this war... not even close. And that is what makes so many of us irate with this administration and those that support it. Democratic leadership is not exempt for this kind of scrutiny but there has not been such an ill-planned, ill-advised war in 40 years so this one is the one that is going to get the attention on the board.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Not a strong case you're making guys. Pointing the finger at someone else only says

"Hey, give me the job because this guy is ****** too!"

Yet that's precisely what you're doing. One of the biggest mistakes we're prone to making as a nation is the idea that endless, futile, unnecessary warfare is just another sport, like baseball. In no way is this condition exclusive to either party.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how's the War on Drugs going?

Liberal heads preventing a win there too!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Wow... I figured actually stating that you guys would respond by complaining about Republicans would mean you'd probably avoid doing so... but obviously not the case.

So everything successful by Republicans is irrelevant, and every failure by democrats has been ignored by each poster so far.

Not a strong case you're making guys. Pointing the finger at someone else only says


"Hey, give me the job because this guy is ****** too!"

Don't ignore the big war that Clinton won in Waco! Killed every one of the enemy!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Frackal
Topic Title: Liberals unable to wage war successfully?


Granted, many think Iraq was a mistake and time will tell, but aside from that, consider this:


Every conflict liberal/democratic leaders have gotten us into over the last ~50 years has turned out very badly, often with even worse consequences (in all likelihood) than no involvement, in large part because there is a tendency among them to tip-toe about and allow themselves to become ineffective because of an unwillingness to do what is necessary to succeed. (Or don't do it at all.)

Vietnam is one example to some extent, but I'd like to focus on the others.



- Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs: Failure, refused to go "all out" to make sure it succeeded by providing air support and marines to get the job done, result: failure, embarassment, Castro still in power and now more keen then ever to get protection from Soviets, leading to Cuban Missile crisis.

Jimmy Carter's handling of the hostage situation in Iran - Failure
Not quite willing to put necessary pressure, although admirable that he wasn't willing to kill Iranians, nevertheless, a failure.

Clinton:

Somalia: Failure. His govt. does not give troops adaquate equipment out of a desire to "escalate" the operation, falls apart, Clinton pulls out, indicates to Bin Laden that America can be attacked and will respond by fleeing.

Bin Laden: Anyone who has studied our actions towards him during the Clinton years will likely come to the conclusion that we could have ended this thing had the administration stopped pussy-footing around in a paralysis of unwillingness to get our hands even slightly dirty, (ie, have US troops/CIA do the job rather than relying on locals) and in that desire to tip-toe about on this issue, we lost several chances to end Bin Laden, the result of which was of course, this whole mess of 9/11 and more.


The point? Well, liberals/democrats tend to be more concerned with nuance and walking softly when it comes to war, doing things "part way" rather than all the way, or not at all.

The result of which we can see from recent history has been utter failure in every conflict handled by a democrat for the last 50+ years, since Truman. With their constant undermining and carping at every aspect of the war effort, why would anyone with any sense think they will do a good job against Islamic terror?

Oh look another Apologist.

The desperation is hilarious.

You guys got your hero re-elected remember? Why such a panic???

Still that biased after surviving Democratic success in New Orleans?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: loki8481
how's the War on Drugs going?

Liberal heads preventing a win there too!

How so?

 

[Bitek]

*cough* Truman, FDR...*cough*

But hey why cut them out of your convient timeline? they only won the greatest war the world has ever known...


Seems to me, your *thesis* only shows (democratic) gov'ts can't wage wars effectively, unless against a crushing threat like WWII that realigns the whole country.

9/11 almost did this until Bush pooched it. Throw Iraq up there on the ineffective wars list.

 

[Strk]

What about Bosnia and Kosovo? And Somalia started under Bush, Clinton just increased the stakes.

Hell, Kosovo had no U.S. casualties.

I also wouldn't really call Korea a failure. Could it have ended better? Well, yeah, but 48 million Koreans are living free now.

 

[JTWill]

Originally posted by: martinez
Desert Storm was like Shock and Awe coupled with a short campain in open terrain, I could've led that attack to equal success.

No you could not have, You have no idea how brilliant that campaign was. This is the exact kind of comment I would expect from someone who did not study military operations. Both Iraq campains will go down in military history as brilliant. They both will stand out. But occupation of Germany and Japan was not popular either. Occupation is never popular. This thread was based on a premise not well thought out. Each war had its own causes, and war comparisons are rediculous, situations in each are totally different. Everything leading to a war is different in every respect. I would point out that every boody long war in US history did start with one party in office except one.

 

[Bitek]

Truman killed as many as 1M Chinese in Korea and as many as 4M died in all. He also bombed the North until nothing was left standing, some cities with firebombs. Don't really see how this was "pussy-footing."

What are your other examples? Iran hostage affair? Didn't realize that was a war.. I guess Waco was as well then (thanks Condor.) We're the only ones who walked away from that one. Is that a win?

Panama? A war? Military operation, but a war is a bit of a stretch. Where would you classify Columbia in there then? Drug lords still overrun the country. Reagan broke laws to provide illegal arms to Nicaragua, but the Sandanistas are still highly popular and Ortega still leads them. Reagan also supported bin Laden to "successfuly" drive the evil soviets from Afgan. Where did that whole episode lead to?

What about Bosnia? Sounds like a success as far as the mission was defined. A civil war and genocide was stopped, peace is being negotiated and genocidal leaders are taken out, put on trial, and a new gov't was formed. All with a minimal loss of American life. And on Cliniton, I didn't realize he was all at fault for 9/11. He should have stepped down as president on 9/12.. Oh wait...


All in all, the OP makes no sense. Its nothing more than a half-assed white-wash of the 2nd half of the 20th century. When in balance, most of the military conflicts achieved only a fraction of the "success" they were intended to acheive, and usually just ended up creating further problems and possibly more dangerous results, democratic or republican lead.

 

[Thump553]

It's a pretty laughable theory. I think most people would conclude that both WWI and WWII (both presided over by what Foxnewers would label as ultra-liberals) were the most successful wars the US has been involved in the last century.

As far as unsuccesful wars, Vietnam and Iraq are heads and shoulders above the rest. As far as Vietnam goes, I never saw LBJ as a liberal, and in any event, most of that war was conducted on Nixon's watch.

As mentioned above, Somalia was Bush Sr's fiasco. He got us into that without any gameplan.

And why not mention the Lebanon peacekeeping, when the US pulled out and widely seen as fleeing with its tail between its legs after ONE suicide bombing killed a large number of Marines. Many scholars view that event as the most significant one in enboldening fundamental Muslims to attack the US, that the US wouldn't have backbone. The President then? - the darling of conservatives, Reagan.

Liberal or conservative has no relevance to a President's ability to effectively conduct war. It boils down to the actual conflict, managerial skills and some luck.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Thump553
It's a pretty laughable theory. I think most people would conclude that both WWI and WWII (both presided over by what Foxnewers would label as ultra-liberals) were the most successful wars the US has been involved in the last century.

As far as unsuccesful wars, Vietnam and Iraq are heads and shoulders above the rest. As far as Vietnam goes, I never saw LBJ as a liberal, and in any event, most of that war was conducted on Nixon's watch.

I suppose he is conservative in the Dubya sense. I mean, they spend similarly.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: loki8481
how's the War on Drugs going?

Liberal heads preventing a win there too!

So like when GWB was snorting coke he was doing research to help better understand how to better fight the war on drugs?