Liberals unable to wage war successfully?

[Moonbeam]

A successful Republican war will be one in which all Republicans who favor all out war die in it.

You are a coward Frackal. You have a childhood trauma that haunts your sleep. You worship and lust for a strong hand to save you from your fears. You are terrified that what happened to you as a child will happen gain and that terror will drive and haunt you till you do something to relive it again. We are the animal that backs in unconsciously to our repressed memories by creating the conditions that make us feel those same feelings again. You have already lost everything you can, the god you were meant to be. Only in madness can you put yourself together again and so you and your ilk drag all the worlds children with you to Armageddon. It is coming for us all because it already happened. You turned your back on love because you were made to feel worthless. And now you will act it out. I am a real killer, Mommy, please love me.

I need a big bad enemy, Mommy, to help me quash these dreams. I'm not that bad, Daddy, no. No, I'm not that bad. I will be just like you Mommy and Daddy, and crush little people too. See, see. Mommy and Daddy, I'm good like you.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A successful Republican war will be one in which all Republicans who favor all out war die I am a real killer, Mommy, please love me.

I need a big bad enemy, Mommy, to help me quash these dreams. I'm not that bad, Daddy, no. No, I'm not that bad. I will be just like you Mommy and Daddy, and crush little people too. See, see. Mommy and Daddy, I'm good like you.

Wow. You must have tripped out bad during a Pink Floyd song or something.

I don't think it's a liberal failure or something like that. It's our modern sensibilities that get in the way of some of these things. We have socially evolved in some major ways, mostly good, yet this also means we sometimes have a hard time dealing with some realities that STILL EXIST, even though we hate them.

I will say the Left -in general- has a harder time dealing with these hard realities. It's basically derived from their flawed view of Man and existence

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: 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.

QFT

Originally posted by: Hafen
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.

QFT

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.

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.

QFT

All of the above make coherent sense. The OP should re-read these over and over until he realizes that war involves just as much luck as it does skill.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

 

[Kibbo86]

The OP has fallen victim to the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Example:

Rush Limbaugh is fat
Rush Limbaugh is a Republican
Therefore, all Republicans are fat.

You are trying to draw an inductive argument out of situations that are far from analagous. I'd also like to mention that Nixon's actions in Vietnam/Cambodia were hardly more competant.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A successful Republican war will be one in which all Republicans who favor all out war die I am a real killer, Mommy, please love me.

I need a big bad enemy, Mommy, to help me quash these dreams. I'm not that bad, Daddy, no. No, I'm not that bad. I will be just like you Mommy and Daddy, and crush little people too. See, see. Mommy and Daddy, I'm good like you.

Wow. You must have tripped out bad during a Pink Floyd song or something.

I don't think it's a liberal failure or something like that. It's our modern sensibilities that get in the way of some of these things. We have socially evolved in some major ways, mostly good, yet this also means we sometimes have a hard time dealing with some realities that STILL EXIST, even though we hate them.

I will say the Left -in general- has a harder time dealing with these hard realities. It's basically derived from their flawed view of Man and existence

Now I think that was a pretty good post, Pink Commie the exception. Could be I just traveled some farther than you. But your take on this was the one that instantly occurred to me, that war goes against the rational soul. We know consciously that our passions can destroy the world when they turn nuclear and this has given numerous people pause. We know, consciously that war is insane. But the demons within impel us like moths to the flame. The view that you claim is flawed is also a flawed view. The situation is this:

May in insane and does not know that he is. He projects this evil out onto the world and thus sees the threat out there. This is the reality and why we are armed and have to be. We live among the insane who will kill us our of their fear that we are the ones who will kill them. You do not know this because you do not know yourself, but it is the facts of the case. Anyway, to be soft in the face of insanity is to risk being killed by it. And to be macho and aggressive in the face of insanity is to heighten that insanity all the way round.

This is why the peacemaker is blessed. It's why walk softly and carry a big stick is the only way to go here. The only way that man will survive is if he learns to cooperate and see his essential identity. We are all the same. He who knows himself knows everybody. He who knows himself loves everybody because what everybody is is God. This is where that wonderful thing you call reason will lead you.

Look at the world. It entire dynamic is created by hidden self hate. It is an almost intractable problem because the belief that one is worthless is true. It is true to this extent. It is how we were taught to feel. In fact it is a lie, but if you go deep you will experience how enormously bad it is you feel. That is why the whole world is in denial.

We have to try to manage our insanity as intelligently as we can and knowing the facts, I think. is vital to our survival.

Edit: If the left has a harder time dealing with this it is because of greater cognitive dissonance. The think about mad men is that they are mentally very clear. They do not have the capacity to weigh or balance anything. The more sure a person is the more dangerous they are to the human race. Certainty is the mind killer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

Does it matter? Truman got the ball rolling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

Does it matter? Truman got the ball rolling.

Hmm, yes, it does matter.

At some point, some advisors in Vietnam had to turn into thousands of soldiers. At any point, the president could have said, "nah, I don't think this is a good idea" and not sent troops or pulled out the advisors.

Once you start an action, doesn't mean you have to go all the way through!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

Do you have proof that Truman did not initially get the US involved in Vietnam, Moonie? If so, present it. If not, stop making yourself look ignorant while trying to talk about "truth."

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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?

actually they won both the big ones. Wilson was a democrat.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

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.

I hope you aren't seriously comparing vietnam to panama, grenada, and iraq. Serious differences in scale between those. And BTW, whats the point in winning a war that isn't worth winning? Vietnam is probably better off with the north victorious.

 

[miketheidiot]

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!"

what success has the republicans had? Korea clearly didn't work out well, neither did vietnam (nixon was president for a good part off the war, including the part where we lost, and every other military campaign was a farce. The war on drugs, the one campaign that has any resemblance to "the war on terror" is a complete failure, and was started and has been prosecuted almost solely by republicans. So what gives you any idea that republics can do it better?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

Does it matter? Truman got the ball rolling.

No way, it was France's fault!

 

[azazyel]

since when are we in a war, "against Islamic terror"?

 

[CanOWorms]

WW2 was a failure. Look how Europe turned out.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
WW2 was a failure. Look how Europe turned out.

are you kidding?

I hope so, because while I have no idea what aspect of Europe you are referrign to, lets all contemplate what a Nazi-controlled Europe would be like. Fun, isn't it?


Its quite convenient that your timeline starts right after WWII. Doesn't proove your point, so get rid of it, right?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
WW2 was a failure. Look how Europe turned out.

are you kidding?

I hope so, because while I have no idea what aspect of Europe you are referrign to, lets all contemplate what a Nazi-controlled Europe would be like. Fun, isn't it?


Its quite convenient that your timeline starts right after WWII. Doesn't proove your point, so get rid of it, right?

No, I'm not kidding. WW2 was a failure in a way because Europe wasn't reformed. I don't see how a Nazi-controlled Europe is incredibly different than Europe today. They are dominated by parties and people with a similar ideology. If WW2 was a success, I don't think that mainstream European politicians would be advocating concentration camps again. Genocides still happen in Europe, and European countries still export genocide.

WW3 is coming.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Truman got the US involved in Vietnam initially and it escalated from there.

Please elaborate. Did Truman send advisors to observe/aid the French? Were they armed?

TLC caught a fish. He doesn't care about the truth of this or that. He just wants to find something to carp about that has nothing to do with anything. You must think like he does or face pages of refutation. Must eliminate error. Must eliminate error. TLC is NOMAD.

Do you have proof that Truman did not initially get the US involved in Vietnam, Moonie? If so, present it. If not, stop making yourself look ignorant while trying to talk about "truth."

The Viet Nam was was caused when the Americans took support from the French in the Revolutionary war. If you can't disprove that then shut up. And please stop trying to sound truthful spouting your ignorance.

 

[slash196]

Perhaps the problem lies not in who wages the wars, but in war itself?

 

[BBond]

AFAIK, Eisenhower was the first U.S. president to send "advisors" into Vietnam. Eisenhower planted the seed that grew into the Vietnam War.

As for liberals vs "conservatives" and war -- for every example of a "liberal" failure I'll give you a "conservative" one and the conservative failures have been more severe.

For example, Bush is failing in the war on terror miserably because he followed his secret agenda in Iraq rather that Usama and his bunch in Afghanistan/Pakistan/wherever the hell Usama is by now.

 

[BBond]

PS If you go back just a few years further than your arbitrary half-century limitation you'll find a liberal who waged war very well. He let the generals run the war, unlike the current "conservative" in the White House who lets his private business partners spin fairy tales that result in carnage for our troops and innocent civilians while they profiteer from the misery.

 

[BBond]

Here's an example of how "conservatives" wage war...

U.S. Kills 70 in Ramadi Bombings
Also in Iraq, the U.S. claims military strikes have killed 70 insurgents near the town of Ramadi yesterday. But witnesses say at least 39 of the dead are civilians. A local hospital official told the Washington Post U.S. warplanes attacked bystanders gathered around a burning U.S. vehicle on the side of a road, killing 25. In a separate incident, U.S. air strikes killed 50 people hiding in a building. Witnesses say at least 14 civilians were killed. The attacks occurred after five U.S. Marines were killed in a roadside bombing in the city on Saturday.

See first link in my sig

|
|
|
|
V

 

[BBond]

The conservatives wage war the same way they run elections. Fraudulently.

Sunnis Contest Reports Iraqi Constitution Has Passed
U.S. and Iraqi officials are predicting Iraq voters approved the country's new constitution during Saturday's nation-wide referendum. The constitution could have been rejected if two-thirds of voters in three or more of Iraq's 18 provinces voted against it. But reports indicate only two Sunni provinces voted no. Sunni Arabs are overwhelmingly opposed to the constitution, fearful it could ultimately lead to their exclusion from oil-rich Kurdish areas in the north and Shiite areas in the south. Authorities estimated a turnout of at least 60 percent. Sunni leaders contested the early predictions, saying independent monitors had concluded a sufficient amount of voters voted against the constitution. No foreign election observers were present to monitor Saturday's vote. Representatives of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq reported turnout to soldiers and officials at a command center located on a U.S. base. A U.S. Army Specialist told the Post: "We have to hold their hand to do everything around here."