Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Lieberman's Connecticut Debacle
fwmystic
I expected someone would draw the parallel you did, having sort of invited it by using the "V" word myself, 
.
However, I must tell you that in reality the situation is vastly different! It's far too complex to deal with in a comment, and I have a lot on my plate right now, but I may do a post on the difference between Vietnam and Iraq.
posted by
Nautikos
on August 12, 2006 at 6:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Substitute Vietnam for Iraq ...
and you sound like one of the chicken little's who said civilization as we know it would cease to exist if we "lost" Vietnam. Popular opposition ended that war, and the sun still came up the next day. And to say that "we're in it now and we can't get out" goes back to the original problem many individuals have with the war: we knew Bush and the administration were lying about the reasons for invading Iraq.
posted by
fwmystic
on August 11, 2006 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin,
I fully agree, a 'massive movement' it ain't! ( I also hope that any ermerging anti-Israel sentiments didn't play a significant role in Lieberman's defeat!)
I still think, though, that the President hasn't made his case for staying the course strongly enough! Getting out of Iraq now shouldn't even be a legimate debating point, any more than it would have been possible in 1944 to advocate bringing the boys home!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 10, 2006 at 10:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Wiley,
thanks for the extensive comment. You're absolutely correct in saying that these are not 'conventional' wars (and I am including Israel's current action against Hezbollah). We definitely need to re-think our approaches to that kind of conflict, but that, in the end, is a 'technical' question. In this post my main concern was to point out that US administration has not done enough to convince Americans that this simply
has to be seen through successfully!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 10, 2006 at 9:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Sen. Joe...
Has fired his entire campaign staff......something he should have considered months ago.......
It wasn't a defeat for the Iraq war...not much of one.....let's put this in a perspective of numbers.......
The state of Connecticut is 34% Democrat; 40% of those people voted. So you have about 14% of eligible voters participating. Ned Lamont got about 50% of the vote. So what you have is 7.25% of the voters in Connecticut determining that Joe Lieberman, nominee for vice president in 2000, a guy who helped build the state party, is not welcome in the Democratic Party anymore.
There's no question the moonbats will feel emboldened. But it's useful to put it in perspective. The media's immediate response is there's this massive movement; 7.25% of a liberal state is what decided this election. Massive movement?
If the electorate was ready to be up in arms over the war......don't you think it would have produced a bit better turnout???
And now Senator Joe will be under a tremendous amount of pressure to withdraw his decision to run as an Independent............Run, Joe Run!
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 10, 2006 at 6:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Well, politicians have to come and go, and it was just Liberman's time to go methinks.
As to the war on terrorism, we are all missing the point again, that point being that anti-Semitism is alive and well as we can witness by this war in Lebanon.
Israel has had no choice, and she is showing the U.S.A. and the world that cares about peace, that these terrorists have to be fought differently than any other enemy the world has ever seen.
Of course now is the time for faulting the Israeli's for daring to fight and protect themselves, now is the time to play the anti-Semitic trump card again. That is what I see happening right now from a lot of areas.
Unfortunately, these Arab terrorists set themselves up in areas surrounded by non-combatants, civilians if you will. They are so certain that the western world will let them do that, they can go on ad infinitum, killing from behind women and children.
Now if the U.S.A. doesn't start addressing this enemy by learning to fight them in the same way as Israel is doing right now, then it would be far better to 'cut and run' and save so many more young men from death.
Now we have a Prime Minister using those same words, he wouldn't 'cut and run', no, nor would he be there in uniform either, just like his buddy south of the border.
To my way of thinking there are two choices. Get the hell out of Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and leave the Arab's to their culture and fate, or nuke everything, and get on with it.
posted by
WileyJohn
on August 9, 2006 at 9:20 PM
| link to this | reply