Do you support the war in Iraq?

Do you support the war in Iraq?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 166 65.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 84 32.9%

  • Undecided/Don't Know/Don't care.

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • Total voters
    255
What other reason to halt communist aggression than to preserve a power balance. Oh right I forgot, the poor South Koreans. Granted we have fought wars to help people, like Bosnia and Somalia, but most of these were started by Clinton, probably to up his popularity.
 
It's expanding our power by giving us a large base of operations in the Middle East, its expanding our economy by fueling the military industrials and many other industries, and its securing our future because we expanded our power and expanded our economy. Years from now when oil starts becoming very very hard to find, I don't want the Middle Eastern countries to charge exorbitant fees for the oil, why pay for the milk when you can fight the cow and steal it?
Click to expand...

Let us separate rhetoric from reality.

Reality: We are not expanding our "power" by having a base of operations in the middle east. We already had a base of operations, our bases from the Kuwait liberation and from Afghanistan. To trump that, we don't need bases of operations in the middle east anyway.

Reality: Our economy is flat and teetering on the edge of a long slide into a deep recession. The cost of this war has contributed significantly to our having made a very rapid move from a surplus economy to a deficit economy.

Reality: When Iraq gets back to full production of oil, they will simply fall in line with the rest of the OPEC countries and gouge us as much as possible. Did you think that they would give us cheap oil out of gratitude for liberating them? If you think that then take a look at how other countries that we have liberated have treated us 10 and 20 years later.


My dilemma is that this war has to be won but its gonna cost us...so far the only ones paying are the Troops in the field and thier families back home.
Click to expand...

Reality: This is not a "war". A war is fought by armies in open battle. We fought and won a war against Saddam and his military, but we are now involved in something else entirely.

Reality: We may need a new word for it, but it is not a "war". This is not something that will ever be declared "won". Won means that an enemy has been defeated to the point of surrender or death and is no longer functional as an enemy. That is not going to happen with terrorism. Terrorism is going to go on for at least the next several generations.

Reality: You are only kidding yourself if you think that our being in Iraq somehow has taken the "war" to them and is keeping us all nice and safe here at home. Our border with mexico is completely wide open and if terrorists are not infiltrating the USA in quantity through that border then they soon will be. They don't need WMDs to use terror tactics here on our lands.

Reality: Imagine 5 terrorists in 5 separate cars driving around the USA at random shooting children in school yards and school buses. How much of that before we would be in full lock down mode? That is just 5 cars, 5 crazies, and 5 rifles. Do you believe that things like this are going to be kept out of our future because we are over in Iraq?

Wake Up! We would be well served to seal our borders. In fact that would be a real step forward for us in this "war" on terrorism.
 
Last edited:
What other reason to halt communist aggression than to preserve a power balance. Oh right I forgot, the poor South Koreans. Granted we have fought wars to help people, like Bosnia and Somalia, but most of these were started by Clinton, probably to up his popularity.
Click to expand...

I beleive of you consult the history books you will find that the first troops America sent to Somolia were sent by George H. Bush in Aug of 1992 not Clinton. Even after he left office George H Bush.

In Nov of 1992 after losing the election to Clinton here is what happened

"President Bush ordered a U.S.-led military operation to stop the starvation, provided that (1) the Security Council agreed, (2) there were troops of other countries to accompany U.S. forces, and (3) the United Nations take over the relief operation within six months. With all of these agreements in place, the first American forces arrived in Somalia in early December 1992."

Bush felt that the UN reaction would be too slow.......

So I am afraid Clinton Inherited Somolia form George H. Bush.

Yep Im afraid Clinton will have to take the Blame for Bosnia and for an operation where the the American presence has been whittled down over the years...and is a NATO/IFOR Operation.

The biggest belly chuckle the current administration gave me is during the campaign they badmouther the "Clinton" military. Well for the record that Clinton ragtag Military is the one that haded them the victories in Afghanistan and Iraq........

As for this balance of power... Where is it? If you find it let me know. Some folks in the world just dont get that we have a balance of power I guess.
 
I think you will find that yes, indeed, Bush I sent troops in to feed the Somolians.
You will also find that Clinton changed the mission from feeding the people to taking out the terrorists.

You will also find that Clinton's DOD Secretary, Les Aspin refused the ground commanders request for armor. Told him "he did not need them".

You may also find, if you do some basic digging, that the so-called Clinton's army was really the leftovers from the previous administration. Slick Willie put increasing demands upon the military, such as Bosnia and other stunts, but would not approve further funding. So the military followed its orders, and went where it was told to go. The money came from procurements for spare parts and new systems, so when something broke, the only way to fix it was to cannibalize.

Recall when the military was running out of cruise missiles? Apparently, Clinton's army did not need them. Easier to endanger an expensively trained aviator than to spend the money getting the stockpiles up where they needed to be.

THAT, was Clinton's army.
 
perhaps you should do some digging.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/default14.asp

These were the same questions that Clinton was asking his aides. Until this raid, Clinton had been briefed on missions in advance. This one had been mounted so quickly he had not been informed. He complained bitterly to Lake. He felt he had been blindsided, and he was angry. He wanted answers to a broad range of questions from policy to military tactics.
At the breakfast table in the East Wing on Oct. 6 were Lake and his deputy, Samuel R. Berger, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright. Then they walked with Oakley into the Oval Office, where they joined the President, the vice president, Christopher, Aspin, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several advisers.

The meeting lasted six hours. The thrust of the discussion was: What do we do now? An American soldier's body had been dragged through the streets by jeering Somalis. Eighteen soldiers were dead and 73 wounded. Hundreds of Somalis were dead. Durant was being held captive. The public was outraged, and Congress was demanding withdrawal.

Staying in Mogadishu to pursue Aidid was out of the question, even though retired Adm. Jonathan Howe, head of the U.N. effort there, and Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, commander of Task Force Ranger, thought Aidid had been struck a mortal blow, and that it wouldn't take much to finish the job. Intelligence reports were that Aidid supporters were fleeing the city, their arsenals of rocket-propelled grenades expended. Others were sending peace feelers, offering to dump Aidid. But it was clear that America had lost its stomach for anything further in Somalia.

The meeting ended with a decision: America was pulling out. Task Force Ranger, reinforced to make a show of military resolve, would stay on - but would make a dignified withdrawal by March 1994. All efforts to capture Aidid would be called off.

Oakley was dispatched to Mogadishu to deliver this message and to try to secure the release of Durant.

There would be no negotiating with Aidid. Oakley was instructed to deliver a stern message: The President of the United States wanted the pilot released. Now.

and this from the Congressional report

"Although he backed commanders' request for the armor, the report said Powell did not back an earlier request that AC-130 Spectre gunships be sent to Somalia with the special forces. It quoted special forces commanders as saying the AC-130s frightened Somali militia so they would have had psychological impact in the October raid.

But it said Powell and another senior commander rejected the request, saying as few new U.S. forces as possible should be sent to Somalia and the Spectres were not useful because they should not fire in Mogodishu itself."

and this

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/garrison.asp

I have been involved with the military since 1975..... The first cuts were initated under the first Bush administration. Cheney even bragged about making cuts

Cheney: "The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

this was continued under the Clinton Administration.........

I did some digging what do you think?
 
"I did some digging what do you think?"

Not a bad shovel at all, except it does not contain much in the way of what I addressed. Still does not explain why the armor units were not approved by Les Aspin who had the authority, and who resigned after the fact. The Joint Chiefs are nothing more than an advisory committee to the President-they don't command anything. The ground commanders were not listened to, as they often aren't. The fact that we had to go to the Pakistani's for armor speaks volumes.

It also contains nothing about the procurement issues under Clinton, with the deployments he demanded. I have talked to many soldiers who served under Clinton's watch, and the spare parts shortage seems to be a common problem.


Got to agree with you on Cheney-never thought much of him as a SecDef, but thats what you get when you have a politician in the seat. Had it not been for the first Gulf war, he intended a lot more damage to the military than what has been presented here. If there can be anything said about Cheney's military cuts, it might be from a stand that the administration was not planning on deploying to new regions. I know, thats a bit thin, but compared to what Clinton did to the military, I find rather striking.
 
"Clinton had been briefed on missions in advance. This one had been mounted so quickly he had not been informed. He complained bitterly to Lake. He felt he had been blindsided, and he was angry. He wanted answers to a broad range of questions from policy to military tactics."

A question-why does a President believe he should be involving himself in the tactics of a military operation? Thats the same thing which got LBJ in so much hot water. I can understand the strategic briefings, but as to the tactical, I am not amused.

Might be that the congress got cold feet if they knew that Willie was calling the shots on the ground.
 
The point is that the Adid mission was a UN thang that they wanted...... and was probably planned as an operational mission which Clinton never got briefed on due to the hurry of it....... Thats why he called the meeting because he was pissed that he got blindsided and should have been briefed.
This operation as we see slao had political consequenses...Clinton might have asked them wtf they were thinking if he had been briefed beforehand and put a stop to it. WE will never know because Clinton didnt have that chance

Even if we had had the armor on the ground.....the mission was destined to be a Charlie Foxtrot. Gen Garrisons letter even mentioned that fact.

I beleive the parts issue still carries on even after 4+ years of Bush......

this is an evolving thing that was started after Desert Storm and was continued by Clinton and is being continued today. I think $$$ is the major cause instead of politics.

no body armor for the troops and vehicles? *smacks forhead*

I was at K2 in Uzbekistan and was involved in logistics for Northern Afghanistan....you should have seen the boneyard there..lol if you want to talk about cannibilization.

the current supply system has evolved from having a big supply on hand to on time demand and using COTS (Commercial of the shelf) stuff. If you go to Miltary Installations you will find that parts are being bought locally with IMPAC cards from commercial sources. The military has moved away from keeping large inventories of parts on hand due to the manpower and expense of maintining these stocks. This did cause some travail during the initiation of this policy but it has been pretty well refined now.......except that we find ourselves involved in a war that had no prior logistics planning for what to do after our victory in Iraq.

I dont see the parts as strictly a "Clinton" problem. It was something that began under the first Bush administration and has contined to evolve to what it is today.
 
Good read on the issue - Sands of Empire by Robert Merry - Publisher of
Congressional Quarterly.

It clear points up the evolution of a failed foreign policy based on humanitarian interventions and a belief that we must and can bring democracies to all the countries on Earth. This is a belief set of Dems and GOP dudes. It is wrong.

I have decided that the GOP and Dems vary little in the their idiotic policies. Clinton and Reagan both cut and run. Bush I left Saddam in power and those who revolted against him die.

We are not the police or saviors of the world. Best solution, figure out how to get out of our addiction to Middle East oil and let failed cultures deal with their own problems. If they are active against us, deal with appropriate and overwhelming force.

I had an argument with a Bush zealot friend who says that the reason we aren't committing more troops to Iraq is that if we win the war, the Iraqis will get depressed. Thus he is willing to let our guys get cut up because he is blind loyalist to Bush and some moronic babble from Rummy and Cheney. Good God!

Win or get out.
 
Good point. But if we stay, we need to commit overwhelming resources. Bush won't do it or is incapable of understanding the need to do this. I really would have supported strong military action against Islamic terror but I just feel he is deluded as the book I quote indicates. Even conservative commentators are seeing him as so out of his depth. I know people going over their and have friends with kids going over and I feel that Bush is clueless on what to do as he has been hoodwinked by the Rummys and Cheneys and Wolfwitz failed philosophy. Shineski and Powell had it right - overwhelming force and clear objectives.
 
Iraq

The only reason we are there is so W can show up HW for not taking care of business the first time.
I simply cannot understand why W, if he wanted a war, did not go to Nam when he could, rather than staying here and polishing pols and rich people shoes[ I do not really mean shoes].
:rolleyes: :barf:
 
But if we stay, we need to commit overwhelming resources
Click to expand...

I don't think we have enough resources to overwhelm terrorists. By their nature they hide and make small attacks. Overwhelming them would require millions of troops because you can only be effective against them by being everywhere, on every corner, behind every tree, etc...

Isn't it interesting though that the terrorists know that if they really want us to pull out and leave that all they have to do is quit attacking for 12 months. If they stopped, we would train up the Iraqis and leave. Then they could attack the Iraqis after we are gone and probably kick their butts in a month, without us there to prop them up.

But instead they keep us there by attacking all the time. Almost as though they really don't want us to leave isn't it? Perhaps they don't want to "win" this "war", but instead want a "perpetual war".
 
They are using the same tactics of the North Vietnamese....the longer the war goes on the more support erodes for it as more Americans die. Rumsfeld and the administration got caught with thier pants down by lack of planning before and after the war started.

You will never have enough resources to overwhelm them. Terrorists are beign grown everday by the oppresive regimes in the middle east who claim to be our allies.
 
The tactic of attacking us is just keeping us there longer. I am sure they are intelligent enough to understand that.

It could be though that they are made up of mulitple de-centralized and possibly competitive groups, so that no one organization actually has control of the overall mission or strategy. If one group attacks and gets a big news story, then other groups probably get jealous and try to outdo them. No one is willing to back off and wait us out because they don't trust the other groups to hold steady.

The VC were a well organized and disciplined organization, with central control, that actually had a military goal - take over territory and then take over the govt. There is not much comparison between the Viet Nam War and this (whatever you want to call it but in isn't a "war" now) mess that we have gotten ourselves into.

These Violent Islamic Extremists (VIEs) do not, IMO, actually want to take over territory and the govt. I think they want to keep this thing going because it suits their primitive and base desires in some manner that civilized people can not comprehend.
 
Vitnam Vs Jihad

Agree with you Butch. This is a lot of things, but for sure not another VietNam. We are dealing not with a central control or a central goal of any kind, but simply a bunch of religious fanatics having a holy war with us as the only visible military target that meets all their needs, foreighners, non-muslim(mostly), light-skinned (mostly), uniformed, and having multiple targets of opportunity while we patrol and guard, and rebuild, etc. As long as we have one of our guys on the ground there, they will have one fanatic nut case ready to hug a bomb between our guy and himself. We need to find a way to encourage them to blow themselves up out in the desert, instead of always taking a couple of us along with them. Maybe show them videos of the monks that used to immolate themselves to protest us in VietNam? That's a trend we could certainly support. Failing that, we may be stuck there taking two to twenty casualties a day for the next ten years. Or at least until Hillary gets to be the Pres, and can go over there and talk the poor bastards to death.
 
I saw on a car today

A two bumper stickers
On said "Bush's family values" and showed bombs falling
The other said "who let the stupid people out of Texas" and then had a picture of Bush.
And then they told every one how they really felt with a sticker that said Hillary for president.
Just shows you how stupid people can be, I was surprised they let people like them drive.
 
I heard another talking head compare Iraq to Vietnam again today. Sickening how stupid the media people can be.

What is scariest (to me) about the media is that they are nothing more than a mirror held up to the American people. The media is in business to make a profit, they won't make a profit unless people watch them, people won't watch them unless those people find what they say/do interesting enough to watch.

Thus you have the media, selling what sells to America, and therefore you have the mirroring effect. That's why there aren't any succesful news channels that show only good news - there is no money in it or they would be doing that instead.

So those whiny stupid liberal media jerks are simply reflecting what their viewing audience wants to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top