We Win, They Lose
Please Sign the Petition
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Today I joined a new coalition spearheaded by Patrick Ruffini called "We Win, They Lose." As Ruffini describes it on Townhall, it's a "place where conservatives can sign up to keep the pressure on elected officials to stand by our troops and stand for victory in Iraq." The petition drive has already attracted the support of my fellow RedStaters Erick Erickson, Ben Domenech and Victoria Coates, as well as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, Bryan Preston of Hot Air, Lorie Byrd of Wizbang and Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. I've embedded the petition into this post. I hope you sign it.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | "Why Congress Should Embrace The Surge" And Other Moves Away From Meaningless Symbolism — Comments (3) »
We Win, They Lose 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I assume you mean "automatic for the people" by that.
If the Dems are so concerned about things that are "strategic to our national interests", why do they fight expansion of our oil refining capacity, domestic drilling and the building of new nuclear plants?
I am underwhwelmed by their dedication to our national interest where oil is concerned, and I'm little skeptical of their ardor where Israel is concerned. I have yet to hear a Dem crowing about the twofer we got out of this war: securing iraq's oil supply and shutting down the Palestan suicide bomber payroll.
In what universe?
Much of your post is incoherent and bizarre. Do I think President Hillary Clinton would pull troops out of Iraq if the left demanded it? I think she will do whatever the polls tell her to do. Do I think Pres. McCain would do the same? Hardly, since McCain is committed to victory in Iraq and he has called for the equivalent of the surge since 2003.
Iraq doesn't share a "direct" border with Israel, but it is close enough to be a threat. That wasn't the point, as you know.
As for the rest of your empty rebuttal, I'll leave it to my 12 year old son to respond.
And learn to use the Reply To This feature*.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*As for septembergurl... learn to use the Reply To This feature, please.
that says "borders" doesn't mean "Adjacent to" but rather means "in the neighborhood".
Yes, Iraq and Israel are both in the Middle East -- I'll give you that.
Your point of course was that Democrats will not pull all our troops out of Iraq because we have a national interest there as we are committed to the defense of Israel. Well, that is indeed a national interest of ours.
But in reality, of course, that's not at all how the Democrats spin this particular issue. According to them, our presence in Iraq is not helpful or supportive of Israel. In fact, it increases the danger to Israel because it makes the Arabs really, really mad. It's counterproductive -- get it? Israel would really be helped if we pull out all our troops from Iraq and then the "peace process" can begin again.
So, I look forward to hearing from your 12-year old son, who may be able to answer the questions I pose:
Show me where Mccain (or any Republican -- except Huckabee) will pull out some or any troops before events on the ground warrant it after 2008.
With the Democrats claiming the elections in 2006 gave them a mandate to lose the war in Iraq, it would be quite an eye-opener for them to get 1,000,000 or so petitions. Less than 500,000 won't really mean much. Can it be done?
Over on Michiganliberal.com they are trying to get Saul Anuzis to support a draft and raise taxes to support the war.
system and offer pardons to the low level offenders who are in there for non-violent crimes. It's not fair for our government to expect us the taxpayers to foot the bill to babysit some drug addicts, low level drug dealers, drunk drivers, cold check writers and other small time hoods who don't pose much of a threat to society. If only a 1/3 turned out to be good soldiers it would still be worth it we could always lock the other 2/3 back up if they didn't work out. We badly need troops so it's either a draft or Mercenaries or prisoners.
...but the only group of people on your list that I'd not wince to see in uniform would be the cold check writers. This is not the age of Wellington, or even of Kipling.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
have locked up. I saw the Dirty Dozen a few times maybe that isn't such a bad idea if we really need the men that bad which i think we do.
I used to be an avid reader of Sgt. Rock and Haunted Tank comics but it never occurred to me to advocate military policy built around them. But it isn't a bad idea.
Okay, I think we should draft the ghosts of Charles Martel, Richard Lionheart, Jan III Sobieski, Ferdinand of Aragon, Charles Gordon, Lord Kitchener and a few others and let them control operations in Iraq.
Does that work for everyone?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Demophilus should add maytags to his prison list.
Did you read Sgt Fury & his Howling Commandos?
How 'bout that Percival Pinkerton? Talk about DADT...
.... had the same idea in WWII and used it quite frequently. The most frequently documented use of the 'Penal Battalions', as they were referred to, was during the Battle for Stalingrad in which roughly one million souls went to their maker to explain their wordly sins. Of course the 'Penal Battalions' were never issued any weapons, they were only expected to lead the charge, trip the land mines with their bodies and fall dead on the barbed wire so the regular troops could use their corpses to breach the barricades.
The'Russkies' were a hard, merciless bunch in warfare. There is one story out of Stalingrad that illustrates this almost perfectly. A young Soviet officer was put in charge of a battalion of other Soviets whose dialect he didn't understand. The conscripts used the opportunity to concoct a plot to desert, which some six or seven or so actually succeeded in doing. They simply took the officer out after the discovery, stripped him of his uniform (to give it to some other living officer without holes) and shot him.
Your idea probably won't fly in this country. Too many bad comparisons still left out there.
And you have a very low opinion of what it takes to be a soldier.
I served in the Army for nine years and my principal occupation was to instruct and train troops.
You want to go back to the days when, at the start of a war, the authorities would empty the prisons to get warm bodies for troops. If a prisoner could see lightening and hear thunder, he was enlisted.
Todays military do not manuever in battalion mass with pikes.
You are recommending reducing the efficiency of our troops as well as increasing the potential for disruptive behavior. Better a small army of well trained soldiers than a large mob.
have a low opinion of troops but remember criminals were the founding fathers of Austrailia so some of them are surely worth giving a second chance.
was the number of totally unsuitable persons that I was expected to train.
Not many people have the necessary motivation and aptitude to be a good infantryman. The same holds true for both the other combat arms as well as the support arms. Better a small highly motivated army than a large mob.
During my nine years, I served in seven different company sized units. From units that were mostly draftee to totally volunteer. The draftees were mostly good people but did not have the aptitude or motivation. They tried but, unfortunately, compared with most of the enlistees, they were usually a day late and a step behind in field exercises.
Twice, I served in all volunteer units and the difference was incredible. It was like going from playing pickup games in a backlot to playing on a professional baseball or football team.
If I was seeking pikemen for a 17th century tercio, I would consider your suggstion but not when I was seeking personel for a modern fighting force.
As to the founding fathers of Austrailia, I, as a desendant of the rebel Irish of County Cork, would point out that most of the founding fathers were political prisoners not common criminals.
I know we keep harp on making sure that your comments are threaded, but we have our reasons. Throw us a bone here, people. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...but when somebody broaches a bad idea, that I have some knowledge of and strong feelings about, I feel obligated to reply.
As for the Demos, well it's too bad Tom Hanks had to send Private Jackson up into that bell tower to burn, we need him now more than ever.
I'm not as concerned as some of you who feel the US military will leave Iraq if the democrats win in 2008. Far from it. Hillary Clinton has already stated there would need to be a significant amount of troops in Iraq for many years to come. The question is, how many troops will the Pentagon decide is sufficient to protect our interests there ?
Much of the debate now is nothing more than political theatrics leading up to 2008. Once the election is decided, no matter which party wins, some troops will be redeployed, but the majority of troops will stay.
Do any of you really think a President Clinton or a President McCain would remove all US troops inside Iraq just because the liberal left wants it done ? If elected democrats really cared what the left wing of their party wants, the funding for the war would have been cut off already. Nor is the democratic establishment suicidal. They know, just as republicans know, Iraq is strategic to our national interests for a number of reasons. With the price and demand for energy going up around the globe, Iraq is the third largest gas station on the planet. The US has a vital interest in maintaining the security in the region to keep the oil flowing to market. Not to mention the fact that Iraq borders our strongest friend in the region, Israel. Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the next president, won't risk the collapse of the US economy, and with it her presidency, just because the liberal left wants out of Iraq.
Bottom line, US troops won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon no matter which party controls the White House. You can all breath easier now.