Democrates lose again to Bush

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Baby Alex has a better chance of getting murdered in D.C. than killed in action in Iraq. Mischaracterization politics at its best. But what does one expect from folks with a September 10, 2001 attitude.

The McCain camp used that term yesterday. I was wondering how long it would take before it started getting recycled.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by wintersprings

"nature of the war that it's hard to assess how well it's going."

are you hiding in a hole? The good news is every where, but mainly on the bloggs. Even the French now say we won (That made CNN).

So where do you get your news? When Bagdad is safer than DC, I think you got your answer.

I'm not hiding in a hole. It's just that progress now is a matter of judgment rather than a matter of lines on a map. It's the difference between a judged competition, like gymnastics, and one with clearly defined win conditions, such as baseball. In baseball, you win if you score the most runs at the end of the game. In gymnastics, it's a judgment call.

When you go to war against a nation, typically the capture of the capitol or the seat of government ends the war. When you go to war against a rebellion, you win when they surrender to you or when you've eliminated their ability to fight you. They come to the table with their hats in hand on their knees, and you sign the papers. They gave up.

You can observe progress in a conventional war by the amount of land captured and secured. When their soldiers start to surrender and drop their weapons, and you know they've only got so many soldiers left, you are winning. You know when you've won campaigns or battles.

This one has been hard to judge. You make progress - and then you lose a lot of troops in a month. You clear out an area - and come back later to find it infested again. You kill the enemy - but he keeps reappearing. It's been like a huge game of Whack-A-Mole.

I'm not saying we haven't been winning - I'm saying there's not an easily quantifiable means of observing win conditions. Seems like we declare we've won when the smoke clears and we don't hear anything for a while.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by awpitt

The McCain camp used that term yesterday. I was wondering how long it would take before it started getting recycled.

You mean like Bush Lied, People Died and No Blood For Oil? This illegal and immoral war? I support the troops but I'm against the war?

Best one I know of is the Cheney "gravitas" meme - everyone on air used that word, one that has barely been used since.

McCain uses an accurate term - before 9/11, we were under the impression that terrorism doesn't happen here. We weren't paying attention to the fact that extreme Islam had been trying to kill us and had openly declared war on us - written, and openly spoken. That police and security were sufficient to stop terrorism.

Dems STILL believe that one - that terrorism is a law enforcement matter.

[wintersprings]

"amount of land captured and secured"

are you really that narrow minded? We bombed Iraq 3 times, then invaded, and you judge results by "amount of land captured and secured".

Geeee, its a new world folks, we win by killing, and thats the only answer that makes them stop, or did you miss the zero attackes after 9/11, thanks to Bush.

Thats the only yard stick you need. Number killed, and the result, no attacks.