U.S. commander warns against Iraq cutoff

I thought our view on 'win' would be different.

I'm a Thomas in faith, and a Thomas in life ie I don't usually believe things unless there's ample proof in front of me.

With Iran, yes. It might very well. Sad, too, since most Iranians don't like their leaders, anyways.

I can't be drafted for many reasons,..... but we'll see.

 

The whole thing is an incredible disaster from US terms without any easy or simple solutions for the US.

Set a firm pull out date and it leaves the door open for Iran and its southern Shiite proxies to wait us out and then destroy the Sunni's.

Sunni supporters such as Saudi Arabia could send in jets to protect its interests. Turkey could attack in the north to squash the Kurds.

But yes less American soldiers will die.

Stay there the way we are and we are facing ever increasing amounts of terror with a no-win strategy with too few troops.

More Americans die for a miserable reason.

We can't bring in enough troops to squash the violence. We don't have the troop levels. General Abizaid admitted this in testimony. This situation has been sitting there for the entire period since we invaded in 2003. General Shinseky warned of this initially and then was shunted off to a corner and ultimately retired early. This was part of the "Powell doctrine" and probably weighed in as to why the US didn't go into Iraq back in 1991.

I'd go for complete and thorough review of every policy and alternative being made by a new group of advisors....with Bush and Cheney sitting off somewhere in corner....and see if they can come up with deft ways to end this catastrophe.

 

Not that I think this applies to you, but I wonder how current America would deal with a war on the scope of World War II...would they have the stomach or courage to see it through? I consider this a very small thing in comparison.

I see you don't want to take the bet of leaving immediately, as others do.

Agreed. We need the resolve of Roosevelt, but on smaller scale than he ever imagined.

 

well we had 2 countries trying to take over the world, both declared war on us and one had attacked us

little different

 

That's not the point, chief. The point is we lack the backbone we once had. This is insignificantly small in comparison to our past conflicts, where we had deaths on the scale 10's of thousands per battle field. If we can't stomach this, how can we stomach something more significant?

 

no boss, you miss my point

if there was clear justifcation for the war then people wouldn't be bothered by sacrifices

if it wasn't a just made up war, where we attacked a country that wasn't a threat to us, under presumtions that have been determined to wrong and worse exaggerated, and if it wasn't a free for all money pit with no end in sight

people probably wouldn't be complaining as much

 

You know, Rick, I am no longer but once was a regular poster on wildbillguarnere.com - site dedicated to "Wild Bill Guarnere," E Company, 101st, 506th PIR, WWII. I asked this very question, especially in light of the notion of "The Greatest Generation." The answers coming back - many, from guys who were there - were, for the most part, that today is yesterday - there was nothing unique about the folks who fought then that marks them as distinctly different from those today.

I don't think it comes down to character, or backbone, or civil ability to handle mounting deaths. I think it comes down to the clearness of mission. In WWII, with a clear, national enemy, it was an easy thing to group around a cohesive campaign - The Axis had an ideological underpinning, but one clearly linked to a defined territorial goal; push the Japanese back to their home islands, and end their Pacific campaign. Throw Germany out of West and East Europe, in one collossal pincer movement. Reverse the territorial conquests, vanquish the regime, return to normalcy.

What national enemy, with clearly defined goals, clearly defined territorial boundaries, clearly attached to a cohesively formed regime, do we face today?

And therein lies some of the problem. It is a new problem, and will take new solutions. Putting it in the language of a War on Terror will not do it, I don't believe. From my perspective, as I have said from the beginning, until the kid attending ulamic schools is more apt to believe us than his jihadist teacher, we have a problem - the wet mops of the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

 

Okay. So you sincerly think that if there was a war on the scale of world war II (which was an extreme threat), that Americans would be as strong as they were in world war II?

I tend doubt that, highly.

 

To me it's not question of the soldiers fortitude, I know they're capable of endure almost anything.

Well, we did have an excellent leader of the time, Roosevelt. I didn't like anything about his domestic policies, really, but he was an uplifting leader. He made the most horrendous of times appear hopeful. To some level we were lucky, but I'm not sure anyone else could have done what Roosevelt did.

I think it has to do a lot with leadership. People will follow anyone, if they send the right message....even if it means defeat.

On the other side of the coin, look how people fawned to Hitler. While not a civil/good man, his charisma and leadership abilities were powerful. He wasn't an intellectual in terms of fighting a war, but he could lead a country even till it was near complete destruction. Obviously his dictatorship had a role, but the man himself was great at what he did.

Communism was hard to fight; still is, even though the threat is much smaller. The clearness of the mission wasn't all that good, but America kept contending. Not that everything was good in doing so, but it wasn't a clear fight.

Terrorists are very much the same. They want to run nations based on their idealogy. Our mission is to prevent that as reasonable as possible. While the mission is full of contradictions in a way (because of the Iraq situation), the goals are still the same.

It's like Communism, but it's ideologically weaker...but it's also more committed to death and destruction. Atleast communist could feign 'righteousness'.

How can you fight a terrorist whom is willing to sacrifice their own child to blow-up a plane? The British plane plot was said to have a person whom was going to bring bombs on board with their babies milk bottle. Their standards are not common to us.

It will take the marginalization of oil, and the end of excessive poverty to bring some sort of sanity out this (among a few things). It will exist even after that, but I believe those two things could reduce the number of recruitments.

 

Thats because you have some sort of romantic notion that people in the past where some how different , somehow stonger or more noble ,then today.

They were not, people are people.

 

Now we have a religion declaring war and because it isn't a country we can't go and defend ourselves?

 

clueless,

which religion debunked? The muslim relgion?

 

well to make sure to be PC about it, it is the extremists that hi-jacked Islam that have called for jihad (and not the wrestling within oneself jihad) against America and your most hated people/place Israel.

Did that clarify it enough for you?

 

Since you live in England, you probably know the rules of a game called soccer.
The most important soccer match every forth year is the WM final.
If the match ends equally, it usually continue on overtime.
If a team wins on overtime, it's officially a win.. no matter what the fans of the other team thinks.

 

Men are more effeminate now.

 

yeah well I have met some fags that could probably kick both our asses, so what is your point?

 

What...I'm guessing you mean gay's that are feminine. Not all gays are feminine. Being I live in the bay area, I should know.

Do you think 'Emo' boy is going to be military asset?

 

well I have seen some pretty femine gays kick the crap out of some gangsters before

but either way,

the "emo" boy, I'm not sure what emo is, like punk or whatever

again you show shallowness by acutally thinking that someones hair style or dress really matters

I think after going thru basic training, most men could fight in a war, one of my grandfathers was in the first group of drafted men in WWII , he fought just fine.

 

okay, plausible. Just to note, I have seen the opposite, far more times.

Emo=emotional. General a rock trend that's punk/poppy driven. It really promotes the idea of sharing emotions all the time, and being ultra-sensitive. Essentially, flush your masculinity down the toilet.

How's it shallow, when the above really does apply? I'm sure some of those people listen just to listen, but 'emo' as philosophy....exists. Those people are out there...taking their music way too seriously.

Reminds me of my buddy that was in the first Iraq war. He remarked to me that women are burden in combat ie don't keep-up, and often require more attention. Now, personally, I have no problem with women being in war...as long as the standard is high for everyone. No special preferences. I want high caliber, not equality.

We have the capability of running an almost all voluntary army. It takes a long time to make, and we virtually had one. It's much more superior than a draft or even reserves. I don't like the idea of doing a draft again. I'd much rather have the gov set-up a fulltime army. Most military officials will note their distain for drafts...it brings people that don't want to be there or don't have the same capabilities.

 

To adress this separately....

You're oversimplify an old thought of mine. One of my dislikes, is that often I get to know people...no matter their outward appearance, and many of them are exactly as predicted.

Not all people are followers of the trends, though, but often the fur matches the skin. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, initially. I think everyone deserves that sort of respect.

But humerously...


Ladies, I know choosing to wear scant clothing don't make you a ho and men shouldn't assume that, but you in a ho's unifom and that shit is confusing as hell. That would be like if I were to wear a cop's uniform, walk down a street, and if some one were to come up to me and say "Officer, I need help!"--"Hey, just because I wear this uniform, does not make me a cop!" ---Dave Chapelle