"A nation that fought two fronts in WWII and brought constitutional democracies to Japan and Germany is somehow incapabable of defeating an Iraqi insurgency and terrorist agitators?"

Without debating whether Dean's statement was correct or not, I would note that this is essentially the same logic that was trotted out in Vietnam. "We did so much in WW2, some kids in huts are going to stop us?"

It's all well and good to want to win. But wishing doesn't always make it so. I'm of the mind that for a while, there was a very real chance for us to win this thing and make the ME, and the world, a better place; but after the past couple of years of Rumsfeld's stunning incompetence at handling the war effort and Bush's unpardonable acquiescence to him on that, I'm not so sure the possibility's there anymore.

Our prospects for success are far better in Afghanistan; we need more troops in both areas to get the job done right, but Dean's comment about moving additional troops to Afghanistan is at least interesting.

I disagree... Howard Dean is not a traitor, or at least we cannot call him one for what he has said in public. He carefully parses his words to avoid that charge--though he walks right up to that line.

Dean very well be a traitor.

He just lacks the courage to say so.

My question for Dean is: define "win"? The Iraqi people are free, holding elections, etc. Yes, it's still very dangerous but the violence is under control in most provinces. Why doesn't this sh*thead go to Iraq and meet the troops and see it for himself? He's pathetic in so many ways.

This entire website is guilty of TREASON.

Let me tell you why.

George Bush says that the Terrorists don't want us to have freedom.

LLPs say that Americans who speak out on what they believe are traitors. Freedom of expression is one of our most cherished freedoms. LLPs are giving aid and comfort to terrorists by joining them in hating patriotic Americans for exercising their freedoms.

Traitors!!

Let me say this. U.S. troops can NOT defeat the insurgency in Iraq. President George Bush the First saw that it was impossilbe to take on Iraq's problems by military occupatin and chose to stay far away from Bagdad. He stated vthat we could not invade Iraq and win. So either he was wrong, or his son is wrong. His son hasn't exactly established a track record for making good decisions or taking responsibility when he has turned out to be wrong.

The reason that we can't win a battle with insurgents in Iraq is that we don't have the support of a strong majority of the population. We are seen as interlopers by many. We have managed once again to put ourselves in the middle of a Civil War. The reason that WE CAN'T WIN is the same reason the the U.S. couldn't win in Vietnam. We are simply mediating a fight between two factions in the same country and neither side invited us to do that.

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome". --- George H. Bush

I'll bet it felt good to get that out of your system, Keith!

KeithS said...

"Let me say this. U.S. troops can NOT defeat the insurgency in Iraq."

GW says it will be the Iraqis that defeat the "insurgents". That has been the plan from day one.

"President George Bush the First saw that it was impossilbe to take on Iraq's problems by military occupatin and chose to stay far away from Bagdad."

GHB went with the UN. He had no UN mandate to go any further. The Euros did not approve ANY invasion into Iraq."

He stated vthat we could not invade Iraq and win. So either he was wrong, or his son is wrong."

Looks like GHB was wrong. It only took three weeks.

"His son hasn't exactly established a track record for making good decisions or taking responsibility when he has turned out to be wrong."

Like Afghanistan? You do remember that quagmire don't you. Women are in the cabinet where they couldn't even vote before GWB. Do you ever wonder why so many in the old Russian empire regard him as a hero?

"The reason that we can't win a battle with insurgents in Iraq is that we don't have the support of a strong majority of the population."

Wrong. It is the Baathist minority that does not support us. Please check the poll linked here.

http://www.iri.org/pdfs/11-23-05-Iraq%20poll%20presentation.ppt

"We are seen as interlopers by many."

Not the Kurds and Shia.

"We have managed once again to put ourselves in the middle of a Civil War."

We have freed a large majority from an opressive minority.

"The reason that WE CAN'T WIN is the same reason the the U.S. couldn't win in Vietnam."

We did win in Viet Nam. The fall of Siagon was two years after our troops left. And that fall happened because congress cut off all funding to the South Vietnamese. Those tanks that rolled into Siagon were not manufactured in North Viet Nam. It was a cold war battle staged in Viet Nam. More innocent people died in south east asia after we left than died during the time we were there.

"We are simply mediating a fight between two factions in the same country and neither side invited us to do that."

But they are sure willing for us to stay. What are you options? Tell me what happens if the military comes home tomorrow?