I agree with the breakdown of Defeatists versus those who want to fight to the end and achieve complete victory, however the “Defeatists” unfortunately are very loud and they are all over the place.
"achieve complete victory"
Define this in the context of Iraq, please.
That is what the entire argument hinges upon.
The president has redefined "victory".
I do not support the president's new definition, so I can not support "achieving complete victory" when the president doesn't really mean "victory" in the military sense of the word.
--“Defeatists” unfortunately are very loud and they are all over the place--
Kudos, JV, for carrying on the good fight. I'm with you 1000%.
Just like Vietnam, Defeatists are trying to turn victory into a loss, and gloat about it later. After the Paris Peace Accords, there was a basic understanding with the North that if they #$%@d with South Vietnam they'd get bombed back to the Paleolithic.
The only "loss" in Vietnam was after the wussiest Congress in history (up to now, perhaps) stabbed our ally in the back and stupidly voted to cut off ALL funding (not just military).
The worst thing that can happen now is for reasonable Americans to similarly jump on the MaimScream Media's bandwagon, and join the UpChuck Hagels of the world in caving to the Defeatocrats.
My union (when I was still working, I'm now retired) the AFL-CIO was against the war from Day One. I remember our union steward being vocal about this. In the last election, they conducted a massive get-out-the-vote effort that was very effective in my state of PA in turning Republicans out of office. I even got a mailing from them, and I'm retired and no longer paying union dues.