Originally Posted By wahooskipper Our troops who are fighting this very minute, I'm quite sure, appreciate the defeatist attitude being thrown around. On behalf of all of them...some of whom are my family members...I thank you.
Originally Posted By mele Right. Well, then, if your comment wasn't a dramatic little snit fit, then YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE WELCOME! Since they are so thankful and approving, I'll make sure to spread the word.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Questioning the war policy is not the same as questioning the individual soldiers. Matter of fact, it can easily be said it is because of their welfare and well-being that people are calling for an end to the Iraq mess. If Iraq isn't going to be done properly, then we need to cease putting the troops unncessarily at risk and get them home.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Don't make this about the troops, Wahoo. That's a cheap little rhetorical trick you're pulling, and it's insulting. The troops are doing a phenomenal job considering they never had enough boots on the ground to control the country, and their leaders went into this without an exit strategy or a clearly expressed vision of what victory would look like. We owed that to them before we ever sent them, and we didn't give it to them. We can win in Iraq... but no one has told us what winning looks like yet, and our commander in chief doesn't have any ideas on how to get there. This isn't defeatism you're reading here - it's frustration with the lack of goals, direction and vision from this Administration. And that lack of a clear vision and plan is what got us to this point. We can win - our troops are the best in the world - but we can't win if the commander in chief hasn't told us where we're going yet. Our troops deserve better than this. They'll take an objective if you tell them to take it - nothing will stop them. But if you are going to sacrifice them on the battlefield, they have to know that they are dying for something more than some right-wing intellectual's failed pipe dream of a Pax Americana. If you want to keep lying to your friends and family and tell them that everything is just fine where they are, go right ahead. But they've been lied to enough, and it's time to start treating them like the professional soldiers they are. Tell them the truth situation they are facing. Treat them like adults.
Originally Posted By mele No, SPP, that's obviously not the right way to go. We're just supposed to put flag stickers are on car and "stay the course". God forbid we analyze the war and say anything but "rah rah". To say anything negative about the President and his choices is totally spitting in the eye of the families of dead soldiers. No liberal cares about them. We hate them all and don't care if they live or die. We just want the USA to fail. Didn't you get the memo?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Questioning the direction of this war isn't in any way bashing the troops, and it isn't unpatriotic. A new AP poll says 31% of Americans disapprove of this war. A lot of people are tired of seeing fellow Americans dying over there with no end in sight, while back here empty slogans are thrown around by this administration. Bush & Co. like to question the patriotism of people who question the war. They do it time and again. It cost them dearly in this election by doing so a few times too many. So pardon me if I don't get real excited at the prospect of increasing the troop levels back to what they were.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper This has nothing to do about rhetoric. I could care less about what Rush has to say about all of this and I certainly don't care was Bush, Pelosi, or anyone else has to say about this. What I care about is what my loved one's think about all of this. And, I can assure you, they believe they can win (given the proper resources) and certainly don't think their service is in vain. I've got no problem criticizing the Administration.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I can assure you, they believe they can win (given the proper resources) and certainly don't think their service is in vain.<< No one has said that their service is in vain. If they could best serve their nation by abandoning the battlefield now, then that is what they should do. The point of their service isn't to deal a crushing blow to their enemy. The point is to defend the Constitution of the United States. Every single one of them made that oath. Their service will only be in vain if their continued presence on the battlefield harms the Constitution. Or if their withdrawal would harm it. Maybe we'd be best served by putting 500,000 troops there and taking care of it in one massive operation. But this president won't allow us to have that conversation, and anyone that wants to have that conversation is a traitor or a coward or un-American. But their service might be in vain because this president launched a war without having a vision of victory and an exit strategy laid out. He had a Secretary of Defense that was criminally incompetent and that ignored his generals and the lessons of the past. No matter how many people in the states wonder what our best options for mitigating the disaster that Bush caused, only the President's own lack of foresight can determine whether or not they will have fought and died in vain.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Again, I'm not questioning or protecting the Administration. There were earlier comments that we can't win, this is Vietnam, etc. They can win...if given the proper resources. We need to get behind THAT idea as a nation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>They can win...if given the proper resources. We need to get behind THAT idea as a nation.<< Win? What is winning in this case? What does it look like? And wouldn't it have been nice to go into this thing with the proper resources instead of undermanning it as we have?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We went in with the proper resources and assistance from friends. We started pulling out too early and declared victory too soon. Winning, in this case, may be stiffling the insurgency and being an ongoing presence for years to come. But, we can't pull out and we can't go on the way we are right now. If our leaders thought pulling out was the answer, Murtha would have won Majority Leader. Even the Democrats know we can't summarily pull out.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If we had never gone into Vietnam, or if we had not escalated the situation, this might not have happened.> True, it could have been worse. <Only those most ignorant of history would suggest "staying the course" was the solution in Vietnam, or more troop levels, or "we didn't go in to win."> Of course. That's why no one is suggesting that. The solution to Vietnam was giving the South Vietnam the support they needed so that they could defend themselves. That's what the policy became under President Nixon, and it was working. Unfortunately we withdrew that support too soon, with disastrous results. I hope we don't make the same mistake in Iraq.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Maybe we'd be best served by putting 500,000 troops there and taking care of it in one massive operation. But this president won't allow us to have that conversation, and anyone that wants to have that conversation is a traitor or a coward or un-American.> That conversation was had, and it was rejected by the generals that planned the war. <But their service might be in vain because this president launched a war without having a vision of victory and an exit strategy laid out. He had a Secretary of Defense that was criminally incompetent and that ignored his generals and the lessons of the past.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We learned a century ago in the Phillipines that you don't defeat an insurgency militarily. You need the military there, but you win it politically. And we've failed at that so far.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I disagree.<< Let's just agree to disagree now and save us each a whole lot of typing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You need the military there, but you win it politically. And we've failed at that so far.> I'd characterize it as not yet succeeded. <Let's just agree to disagree now and save us each a whole lot of typing.> That strategy only works with reasonable people.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj It took 100 years and a Civil War for the United States to evolve as a democratic republic. What makes us think we can force Iraq to be an effective government in a matter of a few years? More troops is not the answer. It's time to pull out and focus our government resources elsewhere. We have our senior military leadership telling this to the administration, and the advice is falling on deaf ears. Besides, this war was never devised as anything more than a money laundering scheme to shovel tax dollars into the hands of Halliburton and other slimy contractors. Did you know that a non-DOD contracted helicopter pilot makes $400 an hour to fly sorties in Iraq? A contractor doing security patrols in Iraq can make six figures in less than 6 months? That sort of garbage makes our troops on the ground feel a whole lot worse than any talk about bringing them home early -- why aren't our troops worth as much as the contractors who make campaign contributions to the administration?
