The Liberals' War

retire@40 said:
. . .  Then we have to act upon it to squash their attempts at destroying us.  We either destroy them or they destroy us.

The goal of the US is to keep the world from changing since we are at the top.
This is where I disagree. We can't stop change. The Great Wall of China, The Inquisition, Nazi purification, . . . all failed to stop change. But they did not result in the destruction of Chinese, Spanish or German people. We need to understand and influence the change that is inevitable. And influence by example always has greater impact than influence by words or force. When we choose to influence these changes by going to war, torturing prisoners and abandoning our own freedoms, the world sees the "top power" on the globe using these tactics and promptly follows our lead. :) :) :)
 
sgeeeee said:
We need to understand and influence the change that is inevitable. And influence by example always has greater impact than influence by words or force.

No doubt that's what was in mind with this much improved version of the burka...

img_428912_0_00ab787c60b289d097f52fee7193bcc5.jpg
 
You guys are finally on the right track. Rather than shooting at our Muslim friends, we need to win their hearts and minds with porn and playstations. Show them the path to Western Enlightenment.
 
retire@40 said:
It is human nature to want to rule the world. 

The facts are that the US is the top power in the world right now and the Judeo-Christian philosophy is the foundation of how people in the west think and act.

Those not in this western-style group are just following the human nature urge to take over from us.  Nothing new in history.  This type of thing has happened throughout history.

Now the important point:  We have to be smarter than them and realize what they are trying to do before it is too late.  Then we have to act upon it to squash their attempts at destroying us.  We either destroy them or they destroy us.

The goal of the US is to keep the world from changing since we are at the top.

I agreed with most of this except the part about destroy or be destroyed. I don't think that is required. All that is needed is to encourage the more moderate members of Islam to stand up and take back their religion. Unfortunately I don't see a short struggle with this.
 
wab said:
You guys are finally on the right track.   Rather than shooting at our Muslim friends, we need to win their hearts and minds with porn and playstations.   Show them the path to Western Enlightenment.

Yeah, if every person in the Muslim world owed 1/3 of their annual income in credit card debt, I don't think we'd be too worried about bombers and insurgents.
 
brewer12345 said:
So you are planning on repealing that little Constitutional thingy about the gummint not making laws about religion? Good luck with that.
Except, of course, for all the faith-based funding initiatives...
 
Well, I supported military intervention in Iraq, based on the WMD possibility, although the invasion was ill-conceived at best...

I think W and Co. are fighting the last war. There is no country to invade, Afghanistan notwithstanding. This is a covert, guerrilla-style "war on terrorism".

Diplomatically, we need better relations with moderate Arab countries and moderate Islamic groups. We need to encourage Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, to name a few key players, to improve their economies, and help provide intel. We need to convince Russia, China, and others that selling weapons and technology to nations such as Iran is not in their best interests. (Think Uzbekistan...)

Militarily, good intel and quick-strike capability seem more suited to fighting terrorism than carpet bombing.

We're in quagmire in Iraq, and getting out with anything like a "victory" is going to be difficult. Hopefully, we won't make that mistake again.
 
brewer12345 said:
So you are planning on repealing that little Constitutional thingy about the gummint not making laws about religion? Good luck with that.

... that is a right for the people in our country, not people NOT in our country.. we can pass laws that limit their right to get visas into our country and I would 'bet' that we could limit on religion without violating the amendment.. maybe any constitutional lawyer can chime in on this...

But, I said it would probably not work.. just a thought..
 
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


I don't think a law targeting a specific religion would be constitutional. I think we would be free to restrict immigration from specific countries though.

But I am no expert in Law.
 
Texas Proud said:
... that is a right for the people in our country, not people NOT in our country..  we can pass laws that limit their right to get visas into our country and I would 'bet' that we could limit on religion without violating the amendment..  maybe any constitutional lawyer can chime in on this...

But, I said it would probably not work.. just a thought..

I think that any constitutional lawyer worth their salt could make a very convincing argument that restricting immigration based on religion is tantamount to restricting religion in the US. What if the gummint decided that Catholics were evil? No papal visits?
 
Banning entry by religion would probably not pass constitutional muster and would certainly be opposed by many, if not most, Americans. If significant problems with terror escalate, it is very possible that very tight restrictions on entry from countries that harbor lots of terrorists might be imposed. That would not violate law -- we do it now (Cuba, North Korea, etc). It is possible that soon whole swaths of the world will face extremelly tight restrictions on entry to most of Europe and North America. Still a tough balancing act since we want their oil - we need enough interaction to insure that trade continues.
 
This volatile thread has been to quiescent. soooo --- Obsidian Wings has the transcript of the testimony of General Batiste under the title "Some things Defy Excerpting." Batiste "was offered and declined a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld."

Read what he has to say:

"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except "how to win." He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build "his plan," which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and capability required to impose security, crush a budding insurgency, and set the conditions for the rule of law in Iraq. We were undermanned from the beginning, lost an early opportunity to secure the country, and have yet to regain the initiative. To compensate for the shortage of troops, commanders are routinely forced to manage shortages and shift coalition and Iraqi security forces from one contentious area to another in places like Baghdad, An Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, Ramadi, Fallujah, and many others. This shifting of forces is generally successful in the short term, but the minute a mission is complete and troops are redeployed back to the region where they came from, insurgents reoccupy the vacuum and the cycle repeats itself. Troops returning to familiar territory find themselves fighting to reoccupy ground which was once secure. We are all witnessing this in Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province today. I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld's plan did not set our military up for success.

Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba'athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge.

Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with "his plan" and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our nation's treasure in blood and dollars continues to be squandered under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. Losing one American life due to incompetent war planning and preparation is absolutely unacceptable. The work to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was a challenge, but it pales in comparison to the hard work required to build the peace. The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan. Our country and incredible military were not set up for success.

Our country has yet to mobilize for a protracted, long war. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld failed to address the full range of requirements for this effort, and the result is one percent of the population shouldering the burdens, continued hemorrhaging of our national treasure in terms of blood and dollars, an Army and Marine Corps that will require tens of billions of dollars to reset after we withdraw from Iraq, the majority of our National Guard brigades no longer combat-ready, a Veterans Administration which is underfunded by over $3 billion, and America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001. If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents."
 
Rumsfeld has been a big disappointment for sure, but there is plenty of blame to spread around. It annoys me that no one seems to ever admit that they were wrong. You don't need to resign necessarily
(not referring specifically to Runsfeld here). Just, once in a while say
"We screwed up and here is how we intend to fix it" Wouldn't that be refreshing?
Bush has been a big disappointment also. I still like Cheney though.
He's a class act (even if a poor shot). :)

JG
 
Mr._johngalt said:
I still like Cheney though.
He's a class act (even if a poor shot).  :)

JG

JG -- you are truly an original thinker. I have never heard anyone else say this (more typically things like twisted, cynical, sinister, crooked, cruel, sociopathologic, and the like)! Maybe that's why I enjoy your posts.
 
jeff2006 said:
JG -- you are truly an original thinker.  I have never heard anyone else say this (more typically things like twisted, cynical, sinister, crooked, cruel, sociopathologic, and the like)!  Maybe that's why I enjoy your posts.

Could be. :)

JG
 
Rumsfeld has violated a few rules that I thought we learned during Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Go with overwhelming force, overwhelming violence, destroy the enemy and have a game plan for getting out. Don't even go in without a definition of and a timetable for victory. Also, we did learn, didn't we, that the country will not support a protracted war. Another reason to use extreme measures and get out.
 
Eagle43 said:
Rumsfeld has violated a few rules that I thought we learned during Vietnam and the first Gulf War.  Go with overwhelming force, overwhelming violence, destroy the enemy and have a game plan for getting out.  Don't even go in without a definition of and a timetable for victory. Also, we did learn, didn't we, that the country will not support a protracted war.  Another reason to use extreme measures and get out. 

Man, I agree with you, but what a sticky situation. The stakes are
enormous and the ripples will go on for decades (centuries?).
Even my oversized ego would wilt trying to get my arms around it.
You have to feel a little sorry for the Bush administration, even though they
made their own bed.

JG
 
Eagle43 said:
Rumsfeld has violated a few rules that I thought we learned during Vietnam and the first Gulf War.  Go with overwhelming force, overwhelming violence, destroy the enemy and have a game plan for getting out.  Don't even go in without a definition of and a timetable for victory. Also, we did learn, didn't we, that the country will not support a protracted war.  Another reason to use extreme measures and get out. 

I think he forgot another lesson of Viet Nam: don't go in at all without a really good reason and iron-clad justification.
 
Before you go in to find WMDs ( :LOL:) and liberate a populace, know your audience. Shiites and Sunnis don't get along well.
 
Wonder how the troops feel that are over there? Bitter, or still positive about the mission?

I don't see a massive reduction in troop levels for at least 5-7 years more.........
 
eridanus said:
Before you go in to find WMDs ( :LOL:) and liberate a populace, know your audience. Shiites and Sunnis don't get along well.

And the Shiites and Sunnis are just crazy about us also.
 
73ss454 said:
And the Shiites and Sunnis are just crazy about us also.

Even more so since we invaded, from what I hear. Heck, who doesn't "love" us these days?
 
Australia still loves us...................from what I hear............ :D :D
 
Back
Top Bottom