[excon]

Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout.

Hello again, El:

Nope, it wizzed right over your head. Didn't you hear it? It went wooooshhhh as it zipped by.

I'm not anti war - I'm anti going to war and NOT winning it!

That's what we did in Vietnam, and that's what were doing in Iraq. In fact, I WAS for kicking a$$ in Vietnam. But we didn't try to win. We held back. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job. Therefore, in my view, ALL 58,000 dead Americans lives were wasted.

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

excon

[CaptainRich]

Elliot has a very good point. But the differences are a little more between the lines when we try to compare Viet Nam with Iraq.

When the US entered the conflict in south east Asia, it was primarily for "humanitarian" reasons. We perceived someone was being oppressed and we were attempting to stem the flow of Communism. But the American public didn't agree that the battle belonged to us on humanitarian grounds and it was more political: Democracy vs. Communism. The difference is now, in the south central Asia, Iraq, the concern has a global ramification: jihad. "They" will follow us here. And they've proven they want to.

The outcome of this and our presence there is far more important now than in Viet Nam.

Why isn't this obvious?

[CaptainRich]

bases closing in Germany it's Dubya's idea to move us permanently into the Mid-East region.

Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.

The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.

Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.

[excon]

Why isn't this obvious?

Hello again, Captain:

We're back to square one. Why wasn't it obvious to BUSH? Why didn't he TRY to win?? Why didn't he send in a half a million men? Why aren't they lined up on the Iranian border? Why is Bin Laden still free?

The danger IS obvious to me - always has been. But, talking about the danger, and DOING something about it are two different things. Bush tried to do something about a SIGNIFICANT danger, ON THE CHEAP. It didn't work. It had NO CHANCE to work. In my view, if you're not going to DO something about it, and we have not, it's better to stand aside.

This surge is too little and much too late.

excon

[CaptainRich]

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now??? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.

[tomder55]

excon
We were kicking butt in Vietnam up until the time Congress decided to defund the effort. We were doing it with counter -insurgency also .

The military learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. They came up with what has been called the Powell Doctrine. They decided they would not occupy the space they captured ;they would go in with massive force ;achieve a limited objective ,have an exit strategy before you even go in. They stopped training for counter-insurgency for the most part .

This doctrine actually served well in the limited nature of Operation Desert Storm . But again the objective was limited ;push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but in the end leave the enemy standing .

The problem is that our enemies went to school and studied the lessons of Desert Storm. They correctly determined that they could never defeat us in a conventional war. Therefore they were not going to fight us in one. They opted instead to create an asymmetrical battle field .

The military planned for this war as a modified version of Desert Storm and was unprepared for counter-insurgency operations . Blame whoever you wish for that . It was a decision they made 25 years ago. It took time to realize the battle plan was not working and needed revising . It also took time to find the General who was up to the task.

This is not unusual either . Lincoln went through many Generals and many battle plans before he chose Grant and Sherman. The Civil War was lost almost until the fall of 1864 .But in the end it was won.

[BABRAM]

Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:

Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.

I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.



Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally:

"Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so."



I answered: George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already. My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?



Bobby

[Dark_crow]

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.

Isn't Democracy just awful, just think what America could accomplish if it were a Fascist Nationalist Government, and public opinion didn't matter.

[CaptainRich]

And in south central Asia, we're confronted with an enemy that has many faces and many nationalities: they don't wear uniforms; they have no discernable military assets, only militants that are brainwashed or "kidnapped" into believing their death by any means serves a higher purpose. And they realize, this war doesn't have the public intestinal fortitude to obtain what is necessary to declare victory.

[ETWolverine]

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

By all reports, we're not doing that anymore.

Do I believe that he’s really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

I never said you were a , Excon. That wasn't my point. My point is that you experienced Vietnam, and that experience is leading you top believe that that is how the USA fights all wars. It's not that you don't want t win, it's that you don't think the government wants us to win. This isn't an issue of you being a coward, it is an issue of your experience dictating your position. Which is fine. We all make decisions based on our experience.

My experience has just been different from yours. My experience includes Granada, Nicaragua, and the Gulf War. I believe that if the people and the government are behind the military operation, we CAN win and we WILL win. In your experience, the people and the government simply CAN'T get behind the military, and therefore we will lose. I disagree. I think they can get behind the war, and the war is therefore, winable. And given the trend-shift over the past 6 months in the polls with regard to support of the war in Iraq and support for pulling out of Iraq, I'd say that things are beginning to shift back towards support of the war. People like the results they are seeing from the surge. They are making that fact known. And as a result, some of those who supported a pullout are now backtracking from their statements. For the first time, the pressure is shifting toward THEM to stay the course, not on Bush to change it.

Clearly the support for operations (for kicking a$$) will be there is the plan is effective and is working. So far, the surge is working. Ergo, the support is growing.

Elliot

[BABRAM]

Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.

We know the bases were already closing. The point is where some of these people may end up. My brother is located (stationed) in Germany, but currently is in his third mission in Iraq under the current President. His base will close I think 2008, and his MOS personnel will be coming back to the States. But this doesn't mean that others will not be going abroad, nor that that the future plans don't call for this eventually. Personally I do hope we give more attention to detail at home. Thankfully Bush can't be elected three times.

Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.

Yes. But Saddam was not a child, he was the leader of a country that we did business with and we were willing to comply.


Bobby

[CaptainRich]

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

[BABRAM]

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

Yes. It's how we are trying to correct this misjudgment. I was for bombing their govt back to the stone ages. But Bush chose his way and I think excon makes an excellent point.



Bobby

[speechlesstx]

I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.

We at least agree the reports shouldn't be dismissed, and presumably the battle lines drawn beforehand as Kerry and co. are doing.

Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally...

Bobby, forgive me, but when someone makes a statement like "George Bush needs to surrender his ideology" I think that's a candidate for further clarification before continuing the discussion... especially since this was my post to begin with :cool:

Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already.

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.

My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?

Bobby, I don't patrol these posts that carefully. I had not seen your follow up and had no idea what "second post in consective days" I had allegedly avoided until now. Cut a guy some slack there will you? I will most certainly take a crack at it. :)

[CaptainRich]

...But Bush chose his way...Bobby

Bush had his hands tied by lack of public and congressional support.

They're more concerned with opnion polls and their prospects of re-election than getting this important task completed without unnecessary losses.

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.

[speechlesstx]

Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.

That's a big help there NK, it only strengthens our point. :D

[BABRAM]

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.

Steve, as you know, I'm originally from Texas and love you like a Dallas Cowboy brother. Elliot and I have disagreed, respectfully, on how the Iraqi war campaign has been executed for years now. I don't know that we would be leaving Iraq anytime soon. In fact, I never said that we would. Kerry may have ideas otherwise and sure he may be trying to represent the Democrats publicly, but to be quite honest with you, since Kerry is not running for election I don't pay much attention to his personal agendas. To the mans credit though, I do think last election he got a bad rap concerning his Vietnam service compared to Bush, that did less. But overall, I see Kerry as another very wealthy politician with lips moving to fan a breeze. Most of the Democrat hopefuls are for immediate re-deployment in phases, not immediate full pull-out. The Republicans, with exception of a few, want to gradually cede the govt control over the Iraqis than eventually leave. I would think, and I'm guessing, that the majority of plans, either way would call for leaving some bases in place.

To suggest that the critics are wrong for not supporting Bush's view is a misconception. Many of these people are just as patriotic and privileged to disagree with the President, as I. Of course there are always a few that lose the respect for the Presidents position of authority, but not all critics disagree with the President for the same reasons. The Jihads challenge is perplexing and one that I've put much thought into since it goes beyond a few countries. We still have not found Bin Laden and we can't be everywhere. I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.



Bobby

[BABRAM]

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

[Dark_crow]

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.

[BABRAM]

The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.

That's another good issue. One that excon brought up awhile back. I don't recall the exact wording but to paraphrase: How much has the President, since being in office, changed the power structure of decisions to fit his own agenda, or likewise Congress, for that matter?



Bobby