Unregistered
Moderator
The generals better quickly learn to do what they can with the money they have, or they are going to get a lot of soldiers killed. The Democrats are in charge for now, and I don't think funding is likely to increase.
Why pro-war conservatives should support Paul
- Thread starter GoSlash27
- Start date
The generals better quickly learn to do what they can with the money they have, or they are going to get a lot of soldiers killed. The Democrats are in charge for now, and I don't think funding is likely to increase.
Unregistered
Moderator
I might be naive, but I am not trying to be tricky.
In a nutshell, what I see is Republicans wanting to continue the war, and Democrats saying they want to end it, but instead of having the backbone to stand up, vote, and end the war, the Democrats have chosen to simply decrease funding.
The Republicans are using this to their advantage, and are trying to say if troops get killed because of decrease funding, its the Democrats fault.
If the Republicans encourage (or order) generals to send inadequately prepared troops into battle, and they know they are inadequately prepared because the Democrats wont fund enough equipment, then it is really the Republicans who are jeopardizing the troops. I dont think the Dems are likely to increase funding, do you? If they don't then, like I said before, our mission and tactics will have to be modified to accomodate the new level of funding.
But maybe the troops are used to having inadequate equipment. Bush went to war with too few troops and too little equipment, so the first half of the war we didnt have what we needed because of him. Now the Democrats are defunding the war, so we dont have what we need now.
In a nutshell, what I see is Republicans wanting to continue the war, and Democrats saying they want to end it, but instead of having the backbone to stand up, vote, and end the war, the Democrats have chosen to simply decrease funding.
The Republicans are using this to their advantage, and are trying to say if troops get killed because of decrease funding, its the Democrats fault.
If the Republicans encourage (or order) generals to send inadequately prepared troops into battle, and they know they are inadequately prepared because the Democrats wont fund enough equipment, then it is really the Republicans who are jeopardizing the troops. I dont think the Dems are likely to increase funding, do you? If they don't then, like I said before, our mission and tactics will have to be modified to accomodate the new level of funding.
But maybe the troops are used to having inadequate equipment. Bush went to war with too few troops and too little equipment, so the first half of the war we didnt have what we needed because of him. Now the Democrats are defunding the war, so we dont have what we need now.
It's a bad situation when we're in a conflict the Congress doesn't support. How did the Republicans handle this situation when they held Congress and Clinton was busy with nation building operations in Somalia and the Balkans? Did they tie funding to any of their own goals over the protest of the President?
The Tourist
Moderator
I think this is a case of where the language gets in our way. We assign improper quips as a sound byte to state our position.
In reading this thread, and trying to be fair, it went off of the tracks early. I cringed at the definition of a conservative position as "pro war." A friend of mine once joked that no one protested the Vietnam War more than he did, except his voice was drowned out from gunfire by the Viet Cong...
And so it is here. I'm a conservative. I want a conclusion. In saying that, we have a sloppy, poorly constructed, and frightfully executed game of Whack-the-Mole using our children as targets.
If we fight, let's pick a reason (hopefully valid) let's chart a strategy and a conclusion, and initiate an end-game devoid of mission creep.
If you cannot do that, you're a lousy general and you should be replaced. It's a crime to sacrifice boy after boy because you do not know what to do next.
So being 'pro war' can also mean "I'm a clueless idiot."
That does not make me a leftie protester. The Framers of The Constitution gave repeated warnings about dabbling in foreign strategies and intrigues. We're neck deep in one now.
I'm not going to support a canadidate that simply wraps himself in the flag, promises to "kill better and damn longer" and then eats up bag after bag of tax money.
So, here's a staunch conservative that is not 'pro war.' I'm 'pro plan' and I don't see one on the table.
In reading this thread, and trying to be fair, it went off of the tracks early. I cringed at the definition of a conservative position as "pro war." A friend of mine once joked that no one protested the Vietnam War more than he did, except his voice was drowned out from gunfire by the Viet Cong...
And so it is here. I'm a conservative. I want a conclusion. In saying that, we have a sloppy, poorly constructed, and frightfully executed game of Whack-the-Mole using our children as targets.
If we fight, let's pick a reason (hopefully valid) let's chart a strategy and a conclusion, and initiate an end-game devoid of mission creep.
If you cannot do that, you're a lousy general and you should be replaced. It's a crime to sacrifice boy after boy because you do not know what to do next.
So being 'pro war' can also mean "I'm a clueless idiot."
That does not make me a leftie protester. The Framers of The Constitution gave repeated warnings about dabbling in foreign strategies and intrigues. We're neck deep in one now.
I'm not going to support a canadidate that simply wraps himself in the flag, promises to "kill better and damn longer" and then eats up bag after bag of tax money.
So, here's a staunch conservative that is not 'pro war.' I'm 'pro plan' and I don't see one on the table.
Unregistered
Moderator
Well I completely agree with The Tourist on this one.
The plan has been laid out since Jan. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously with the Senate fully aware of it. Congress held back funding until MAY despite just having confirmed the General knowing this was his plan. His plan wasn't first implemented until June and since August has been yielding significant successful results.
Now in the face of success the SAME Senate now wants to be the General. He has laid out his troop reduction schedule and thus far has made no revisions that I'm aware of. Someone else may be.
It hasn't been 'wack-a-mole' since Abizaid left and Petraeus got his resources.
The Tourist
Moderator
Unregistered said:
Careful, I have a reputation here...
Sorry, Unregistered, I cannot take credit for this position and philosophy.
George Washington is remembered as being "First in War, First in Peace."
GoSlash: You're wrong. The next president, if a Republican won't pull us out because he believes we should be there to help. BUT the next president, if Democrat, won't pull us out because they don't want to be the president that gets saddled with the "defeat" legacy. The "anti war" rhetoric is just a way to gain the hippie college kid votes. All 3 of the top Dem candidates are on record as saying they can't confirm a pull out date before 2013. It's simple, they say they want to pull out just so they can still seem against Bush and side with the far left. But they know there is a lot more on the line than that. Including how they will be viewed and remembered for years to come. No president wants to be the "tail between the legs" president. It's that simple.
Just like how the Dems voted to give Bush the power to send us to war in Iraq, and then blame him when he does. The Dems just pass the buck so they don't have to own up. They want to take part in all of the success but pass all the blame onto Republicans. That's why there huge push to set up the defeat before Bush leaves. They don't want to be stuck holding the bag. If a Dem becomes the next president, all of the "get us out now" talk will dry up before morning of November 3rd. It's also the reason why the whole Iraq war has taken a back seat in the media. They know we're winning, so they don't talk about it. The left, politicians and media, placed all of their bets on us losing and running home scared. They were wrong, so now they try to either make themselves right by forcing us to run home, or to simply not mention the success we have been having. They invested in defeat, and in opposing Bush no matter what. And they'll do anything it takes to make themselves right, as long as they can get away with the defeat not being put on their shoulders.
Just like how the Dems voted to give Bush the power to send us to war in Iraq, and then blame him when he does. The Dems just pass the buck so they don't have to own up. They want to take part in all of the success but pass all the blame onto Republicans. That's why there huge push to set up the defeat before Bush leaves. They don't want to be stuck holding the bag. If a Dem becomes the next president, all of the "get us out now" talk will dry up before morning of November 3rd. It's also the reason why the whole Iraq war has taken a back seat in the media. They know we're winning, so they don't talk about it. The left, politicians and media, placed all of their bets on us losing and running home scared. They were wrong, so now they try to either make themselves right by forcing us to run home, or to simply not mention the success we have been having. They invested in defeat, and in opposing Bush no matter what. And they'll do anything it takes to make themselves right, as long as they can get away with the defeat not being put on their shoulders.
Unregistered
Moderator
Thats great, but if We the People tell the General the plan has changed, he's gotta change the plan. That's basically whats happened.
I also agree with G-Cym... I don't expect the Democrats to actually pull out... they are just playing politics right now like the Republicans.
The Tourist
Moderator
C'mon, guys. We're playing shoulda, woulda, coulda.
When this entire mess started, fully 92% of the people and congress were behind The President's plan.
Remember all of the little flags all over the place?
The issue here is the fact that we are in the middle of a new style Vietnam. We ran in for the wrong reason, to the wrong country, with the wrong strategy and the wrong definition of 'end.'
Why we aren't applying military pressure to Afghanistan has always been a mistery to me.
Now the body bags are piling up and everybody is pointing fingers at everyone else.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
When this entire mess started, fully 92% of the people and congress were behind The President's plan.
Remember all of the little flags all over the place?
The issue here is the fact that we are in the middle of a new style Vietnam. We ran in for the wrong reason, to the wrong country, with the wrong strategy and the wrong definition of 'end.'
Why we aren't applying military pressure to Afghanistan has always been a mistery to me.
Now the body bags are piling up and everybody is pointing fingers at everyone else.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
The conclusion is a political decision, not a military one, and isn't up to the generals. There's no "if" about it. We're fighting to rebuild a stable Iraq, a very difficult task, given the makeup of Iraq. When can we call it rebuilt and leave? Whenever we get tired of it, I guess, but I don't think it's such a good idea to leave right now. I think the Sunnis in Iraq, aided by Saudis, would try to topple the government and regain control. Iran would probably want to stop it, and the Turks would want to take advantage of the opportunity to do something nasty to the Kurds. Other countries in the region might be drawn in, and we might be drawn back in.
We're also trying to combat terrorists of various groups around the world, and the conclusion to that is a whole different question. I think there's some truth to the idea that our support for the likes of the Saudi royal family and the dictator of Pakistan makes people dislike us and support the terrorists. We supported the Shah in Iran until it became untenable, and then look who took over.
Not exactly, I was there when we crossed the LD in 03 into southern Iraq. Even through those lean times we had everything we needed to fight the fight at hand. Since that date the theatre logistics has matured and on my last tour we literally had boxes of unused gear sitting in quadcons because we were too much gear. Much of it not needed and counterproductive, but given out because of concerns about force protection and to prevent causalities. The senior leaders are so concerned about reducing causalities they are killing us with kindness.
In the beginning, it wasn't so much we didn't have adequate equipment to fight it was that we had an inadequate, short sighter or more correctly soft populace at home. In over 4 years of war, we has still lose less people in fighting that we had in single days of fighting in WWI and WWII. In fact, we are still losing as many if not more troops here in the states to accidents and suicides than we are loosing overseas. Two of the three services actually are safer overseas than they are here in the states, sailors and airmen have lower death rate in Iraq than they day in CONUS bases.
Well part of the problem is that most of the US population has no historical context of fighting war, much less counter-insurgencies. This type of war generally takes 10-15 years to fight and in fact the majority are won by the counter-insurgency force.
The Tourist
Moderator
publius42 said:
Fair enough. At the end of wars, this is usually the path.
I do not see a plan at this point, and a foreign government of equal ferver, who is offering just such an idea.
dalegribble
New member
We have won the Iraq war. We went in and kicked ass. There were no mwd's. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Sadam was hanged. Iraq now has to stand up on its own.
We are losing blood and treasure trying to make Iraq into a mirror image of ourselves. The only ones profiting from the conflict now are the corporations and Iran. There is a big difference between telling the Iraqis it is time to stand up for themselves and setting a surrender date.
People equate an end to the war with surrender. All wars must end sometime. Our soldiers have fought bravely and done everything we have asked. Now we are facing the highest desertion rates in a generation. Our soliders are commiting suicide in record numbers. Returing soldiers are not getting the proper care they deserve. Returing soliders are becoming homeless at record rates and our country is going broke.
It is time for people to ask why this war was fought on credit instead of being put in the budget. Why were we told not to worry and just go shopping? Why should our children and grandchildren pay for this war when we are not willling to? Why is oil near $100 a barrel and will probably top $200 a barrel withen 5 years or less? Why the US dollar is at record low, hell even the canadian dollar is worth more. If anyone has ever played the game of Risk, they know there is a time to expand and a time to fortify. We are growing weaker because of the war while China and Russia and India and the rest of those 3'rd world toilets are replacing us as global leaders. We are following the same model as the Soviet Union and no one seems to care. We are bankrupting ourselves both monitarialy and morally. We make nothing, we sell nothing, all we do is buy,buy, buy. The bill is coming due and the piper will be paid and it will not be pretty.
We are losing blood and treasure trying to make Iraq into a mirror image of ourselves. The only ones profiting from the conflict now are the corporations and Iran. There is a big difference between telling the Iraqis it is time to stand up for themselves and setting a surrender date.
People equate an end to the war with surrender. All wars must end sometime. Our soldiers have fought bravely and done everything we have asked. Now we are facing the highest desertion rates in a generation. Our soliders are commiting suicide in record numbers. Returing soldiers are not getting the proper care they deserve. Returing soliders are becoming homeless at record rates and our country is going broke.
It is time for people to ask why this war was fought on credit instead of being put in the budget. Why were we told not to worry and just go shopping? Why should our children and grandchildren pay for this war when we are not willling to? Why is oil near $100 a barrel and will probably top $200 a barrel withen 5 years or less? Why the US dollar is at record low, hell even the canadian dollar is worth more. If anyone has ever played the game of Risk, they know there is a time to expand and a time to fortify. We are growing weaker because of the war while China and Russia and India and the rest of those 3'rd world toilets are replacing us as global leaders. We are following the same model as the Soviet Union and no one seems to care. We are bankrupting ourselves both monitarialy and morally. We make nothing, we sell nothing, all we do is buy,buy, buy. The bill is coming due and the piper will be paid and it will not be pretty.
G-Cym,
At least somebody around here still remembers what the topic was
They have all shown their weaknesses and contradictions on the war. Paul can snatch that anti-war group right out from under them.
And even though they are basically paying lip-service, I guarantee you the general public will vote for that before they vote for any of the other Republican candidates.
But I suspect I missed your point. Are you suggesting that the Iraq war effort could survive 4 years of Hillary, or are you suggesting that the general public will see through her anti-war rhetoric and see her as identical to Rudy? Or is there some other point you're getting at?
At least somebody around here still remembers what the topic was
Which is exactly why they're vulnerable to Paul.
They have all shown their weaknesses and contradictions on the war. Paul can snatch that anti-war group right out from under them.
And even though they are basically paying lip-service, I guarantee you the general public will vote for that before they vote for any of the other Republican candidates.
But I suspect I missed your point. Are you suggesting that the Iraq war effort could survive 4 years of Hillary, or are you suggesting that the general public will see through her anti-war rhetoric and see her as identical to Rudy? Or is there some other point you're getting at?
Orionengnr,
That's a pretty interesting insinuation to hang your hat on considering that the majority clearly state that they trust the Dems to handle Iraq more than the Republicans.
Before you bet on your assumption that the general electorate thinks like you and your friends and these polls are misleading and/or incorrect, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at what you're wagering. Beyond the billion dollars a day and lives/ limbs of our servicemen there's an additional side-bet. Your guns are in that pile, as well as many of your personal rights, and a sizeable chunk of your paycheck.
This is a bet you can't afford to get wrong. So are you really, really sure you want to go for broke on a pro-war candidate?
That's a pretty interesting insinuation to hang your hat on considering that the majority clearly state that they trust the Dems to handle Iraq more than the Republicans.
Before you bet on your assumption that the general electorate thinks like you and your friends and these polls are misleading and/or incorrect, I'd strongly recommend you take a look at what you're wagering. Beyond the billion dollars a day and lives/ limbs of our servicemen there's an additional side-bet. Your guns are in that pile, as well as many of your personal rights, and a sizeable chunk of your paycheck.
This is a bet you can't afford to get wrong. So are you really, really sure you want to go for broke on a pro-war candidate?