Dem Leader Declares: 'war Is Lost'...

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote]Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
[url="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070420/D8OK1PE03.html"]- My Way News (AP)[/url][/quote]

Atta' boy, Reid! You are your pals have always been viewed as defeatists, anti-military, and weak on national defense... and you keep reinforcing those views.

[Jaime]

You and the republicans misunderstood him completely


Later on in the day, he was looking behind his couch and he found the war.


Its always the last place you look

[kenrockthefirst]

[i]“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq,” Mr. Reid said.

Republicans across the Capitol responded angrily to Mr. Reid’s statement.

“I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said.[/i]

So, the problem for the troops in the field is that Harry Reid has publicly stated that he believes the administration knows that the war is lost, NOT that they were put in the field in the first place based on dubious justification in support of unclearly stated objectives?

[thessalonian]

Quit grousing about the past and whether we should have gone in or not and spouting the same rhetoric those who voted for the ware spew to claim we should abandon ship. Congress voted and we are there. By what measure is the war lost? Some guys handwaving because of the sad fact some people are dying over there yet? Because people don't have the GUTS at home to let the soldiers finish the job they want to finish? Did Mr. Reid ask the Generals? Has he spent any time over there? Or does he just read the papers and slam bush because it's still a difficult situation.

Fr. Corapi said last week that the cause of poor leadership is the sin of the masses and no moral fiber. If we are losing the war it is because people people like Mr. Reid continue to vote for abortion and pornography and homosexuality. But of course it's Bushes fault. To be honest I don't find Bush to be a great leader either. But he's less a product of the debauchery of this society than Mr. Reid who is a gutless whiner.

[Era Might]

For the sake of discussion, is it wrong to ever say we are losing a war? One of the requirements of a just war is that "there must be serious prospects of success." I don't know that we are even in a war in the strict sense. It seems to me that we are policing the Iraqui nation rather than fighting a war against a government (the government that we did go to war with was defeated four years ago). The question is whether we should be committing American troops to protect a foreign nation, and whether we can succeed in doing so. But assuming for the moment that we are in a war, should we ignore any prospect of defeat? Is there ever a point when the military has to face the real possiblity of defeat, or should the troops sacrifice themselves no matter what? Part of the problem, if this is not a war in the strict sense, is that there is no concrete "victory" to be obtained. The basic mission is to help Iraq become a stable nation that can protect itself against terrorism, but that is really a broad mission, and may take decades. Vietnam is still communist to this day.

[thessalonian]

Vietnam is communist today because liberals in congress like Reid undermined that war and voted on what troops in the field could and couldn't do as well. It is wrong for anyone but the president with the council of the generals to say we need to pull out. They are the leaders and it is their job to decide when to get out. The kind of complaining that is going on is the same kind that goes on in religion. People don't know how to get behind leaders. It's rebellion and sin is the root cause.

[Era Might]

I guess we disagree. We don't get behind our leaders for the sake of getting behind our leaders, we get behind our leaders because they are doing the right thing. Especially in a secular government, I will not hand over to the state the responsibility of informing me what is and is not a just war. It is based on precise moral principles, and we have a duty to make sure that our military is obeying them, or else speak out. In the same way, if the government chooses not to go to war, and war is necessary and justified, then we would speak out. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 and pulls the troops out of Iraq, will you get behind the decision because our government made it?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1250211' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:38 PM']I guess we disagree. We don't get behind our leaders for the sake of getting behind our leaders, we get behind our leaders because they are doing the right thing. Especially in a secular government, I will not hand over to the state the responsibility of informing me what is and is not a just war. It is based on precise moral principles, and we have a duty to make sure that our military is obeying them, or else speak out. In the same way, if the government chooses not to go to war, and war is necessary and justified, then we would speak out. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 and pulls the troops out of Iraq, will you get behind the decision because our government made it?[/quote]

Quite honestly yes.

You started out your previous post with the definition of a just war, being reasonable possibility for success. By what measure do you say there wasn't that possibility going in. You can't 5 years down the road say, oh it wasn't just because it's not going the way we expected. There was quite clearly a good possibility for success and I still believe there is.

By the way, quite honestly I don't think that this country had the moral nads to be making a decision regarding whether a war is just or not. But if we pull out it will be chaos.

I thought your post was for arguement sake. Seems it was for more than that.

Edited April 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Era Might]

I'm not saying that there is or is not the serious possibility of success in Iraq. I only raise the issue because it is something that must be asked. Some may come to the conclusion that there is no serious possibility of success in Iraq, and I don't think it is wrong for them to say so. I don't believe in holding back the truth for the sake of "morale" or anything else.

Five years down the road you [i]have[/i] to reevaluate. Is there no limit to what we do in Iraq? If we are there in fifty years in the same situation, should we still press on regardless of whether we can succeed or not?

If a Democrat pulls the troops out of Iraq in 2008, I will probably oppose the measure and not stand behind them in the decision. Not because of "morale" or anything else, but because I tend to believe it would be wrong to abandon the Iraqui people at this moment. I may be wrong, but I do not base my opinion on what the leaders in the government tell me, but on what I believe is right according to Catholic moral doctrine.

[thessalonian]

I read something interesting on a non-denominational board that I belong to. This guy straddles the fence and calls himself a baptist-catholic . He says that the truth can't be known for sure and we will find out in the end when we meet Christ. It's apparent from reading his posts that his conclusion that we can't know is based on lack of knowledge of the evidence, rather than lack of evidence. Many Catholics are pulled out of the Church not because the truth is not available to them but they don't trust in the Chruch that Christ started and allow their own thinking to be elevated above the teaching of the Church and the leaders Christ put in place. A friend recently said "God didn't promise us good leaders, he promised us legitimate ones". Well quite honestly I don't have sufficient information regarding the war. Bush is the elected official responsible and so to some degree I must trust him. Is that trust limiteless? No. But I haven't reached the end of my limit yet by any means. I trust the press alot less than I trust bush. A little episod a couple of weeks ago put the nail in the cofin on that. I was protesting a gay catholics meeting and got interviewed. The guy interviewed me for probably 5 minutes, then took a 10 second chunk out of the 5 minute interview that made me look bad. I take what is in the news with a grain of salt and still think this situation is winnable. Further I believe that it keeps the focus of the terrorists accross the ocean. The day will come when there will be another 911.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250205' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:33 PM']Vietnam is communist today because liberals in congress like Reid undermined that war and voted on what troops in the field could and couldn't do as well. It is wrong for anyone but the president with the council of the generals to say we need to pull out. They are the leaders and it is their job to decide when to get out. The kind of complaining that is going on is the same kind that goes on in religion. People don't know how to get behind leaders. It's rebellion and sin is the root cause.[/quote]

Vietnam is communist today because we had a limited mission, to wit, to prevent South Vietnam from becoming communist. In other words, it was a holding action. All the other side had to do was keep trying, and eventually we would get exhausted, lose patience, or however you want to characterize it. If you're only objective is to keep your finger in the dike, that's a losing proposition, IMHO. Compare this with what's going on today in Iraq. What's our mission? To stabilize the country. All the insurgents have to do is keeping blowing up themselves and others, planting and exploding IED's, etc., and the country won't be stable, and by [i]our own definition of what the mission is[/i], we'll have lost. This is the nature of these kind of "police actions" (taking EM's point that the "war" part ended four years ago).

In terms of who should say whether we pull out, the President is the CINC but in our constitutional form of government, Congress a) has responsibility for oversight of the Executive Branch, b) the power to declare war, and c) the House specifically the power of the purse. This current Congress was elected because the American people do not support an open ended commitment to this conflict, and Congress is acting in accordance with the will of the folks who sent them there. Finally, and with respect, I don't believe that you can compare a democratically elected government with the leadership of the Church. In the US, WE are the government -- our elected representatives are there to serve US. The freedom to dissent is at the heart of what it means to be American, and I take issue with you calling it "rebellion and sin."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1250146' date='Apr 20 2007, 10:41 AM']You and the republicans misunderstood him completely
Later on in the day, he was looking behind his couch and he found the war.
Its always the last place you look[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote]and I take issue with you calling it "rebellion and sin."[/quote]

I said the root cause of our inability to get behind leaders and win the war was rebellion and sin. I don't know that I would say that those who are against the war are sinning. Some are, but that is a matter of individiual discernement.

Yes in fact we are to submit to Church leadership and government leadership in the same manner. Both are put in power by God. There is no difference. Read Romans 13 and many other passages. There are limits.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250249' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:27 PM']I said the root cause of our inability to get behind leaders and win the war was rebellion and sin. I don't know that I would say that those who are against the war are sinning. Some are, but that is a matter of individiual discernement.

Yes in fact we are to submit to Church leadership and government leadership in the same manner. Both are put in power by God. There is no difference. Read Romans 13 and many other passages. There are limits.[/quote]

Are you going to reinstate the Alien and Sedition Acts? By your definition, the US was founded in sin, since we defied the God-ordained authority of King George III. There is no sin on my part in my "inability" to get behind our leaders -- I disagree with them on both the premise / justification for this war, and in their execution of it. That is my right as an American citizen. Again, I take issue with lumping church and civil authorities together. Indeed, my views on the war are informed by my religious convictions.

[Era Might]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250249' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:27 PM']I said the root cause of our inability to get behind leaders and win the war was rebellion and sin. I don't know that I would say that those who are against the war are sinning. Some are, but that is a matter of individiual discernement.

Yes in fact we are to submit to Church leadership and government leadership in the same manner. Both are put in power by God. There is no difference. Read Romans 13 and many other passages. There are limits.[/quote]
I hear what you are saying, and I agree to an extent. I think some of the ranting against the government on the radical American left is rooted in the sort of revolutionist class-warfare Marxism that the Church has condemned. The government has its role, and we should respect that. But we can disagree with the government and still respect its role in society. The freedom of the press was included in the bill of rights so that the American people could express their disagreement with the government. This country has a strong tradition of checks and balances, not only within the government itself, but between the government and the people. We are a Republic in order to prevent the tyranny of the people, but also to prevent the tyranny of the government. If we still lived in a Catholic world, I think we could be more trusting of the government, but we do not. The dropping of the atomic bomb is a perfect example of this. We have to be the voice of moral principle, so that the government does not forget what is right and what is wrong. We have to take what the Church teaches and give it a voice in our nation, because the Church will always be considered an "outsider" in some way. We are the presence of the Church and of Christ in America.