I am truly outraged at this guy.  One of the many reasons I felt that the Iraq war was a bad idea as the Bush administration outlined it was that there was no chance in hell it could sustain the public support it needs to succeed.

This speech has the pursuasive power of drool, and any bump in the polls will be short-lived.

So now things are going south and will continue to do so because the flow of people willing to blow themselves up cannot be stopped by an isolated US force.  

And what are the implications?  What happens if we stay - a draft?  What happens if we go - unimaginable chaos?  What have we accomplished by being there?  WAS THIS THE PLACE TO SPEND OUR LIVES, MONEY, GOOD WILL AND EFFORT?

In a word, no.  

But I find myself believing we have to stay, we have to get the Iragi army up to speed, and this might mean the return of the draft, including my 21 year old son who protested this fucking war from day 1.  

I can't believe this guy has the power of the Presidency.  But maybe he'll fuck things up so royally that the neocons will go the Newt Gingrich way.  

I hope the bastard has enough moral intelligence somewhere inside to at least get ulcers.  But, having none, I bet he sleeps soundly.

Seriously, all you guys who supported him, what are you thinking now?  

-- Modified on 6/28/2005 9:03:49 PM

Meanwhile, the initiation of impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be appropriate at this time.
A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to begin this process.
It is time for us to take back America from this corrupt administration and restore dignity and integrity to the Office of the President. We can start by working to elect Representatives and Senators who will actually do the work of the people, and not kowtow and genuflect before the altar of corporate greed, corruption, and the hypocrisy of Christian fundamentalism.

Forget about Cheneys ludicrous assertion that the insurgency is in its last throes. It is the Democracy that is in its last throes if we continue to allow these criminals to run rampant.

Save our Country. Remove the Bush Administration.

And while we're at it, I think we need to repeal the Federal laws against medical marijuana, and place cannabis in its proper place as a monitored substance on the same level as alcohol. At the least. (But you knew I would try to tie that on as a special interest amendment didnt you!)

That speach was the same old thing -- nothing new, no changes, no recognition that the policy and strategy is failing or has failed.

I'd like to know what all you guys who supported him are thinking now as well.

Serious but brief, as I have to take a CCNP exam in a couple of hours. So here's what I think:

1. Anyone who supported, or did'nt support this war from the beginning & thought that it would be over in 2 years is a fool.

2. Anyone who thinks that all is lost in Iraq hasn't bothered to actually look beyond the headlines and the DailyKos talking points to see what is actually happening in the country as a whole. (yes, there is and will be bloodshed - it's a war)

3. I see no point in us (i.e. me, you & the others on here) debating the validity of this war any further. I've laid out my arguments clearly on this board in the past and I stand by them. The rest of you have made your postion clear also.

So, you go on believing that those of us who support the war are: not as highly developed / rightwing hatemongers / acolytes / neocons / brainwashed / etc.. And I'll go on believing that most of you are just a bunch left leaning partisans who've have been pissed off since losing the 2000 election (yes, yes, I know, the election wasn't "won" it was "stolen" blah, blah, blah).

Oh, and Bush-lied-no-more-war-for-oil.

RLTW

I disagree that there is no point debating the validity of the war.  Learning is a continuous process and we have to make our next decisions wisely. Now, I agree that crying over spilt milk gets old but the process for this decision to go to war was fundamentally flawed and we need to learn from it.  Its major cost is the opportunity cost of actions we did not take elsewhere that would have been more potent.  Its major flaw is that the call to action was not solid enough to gain the kinds of foreign and domestic support a drawn out effort like this requires.  You've got to have substantive people on both sides of this left/right split supporting a protracted war, and Bush's rationale(s) for Iraq, weak at best, did (do) not hold water.  

I swear I think Bush's fundamental reasoning for this is his intuition - call it "divine inspiration" - that he "felt" it was right and that was enough.  I listen to his reasoning and I hear as its foundation "because I'm President and I said so."  I think I remember reading him talking about this process, where he is not so interested in data and analysis but in his own intuition.  Not that I discount intuition - I don't.  But that's a hell of a process to commit America to war on, with the death of hundreds of thousands as the consequence.  

Enough.

Hope the exam went well.... I looked it up to see what it was.

The war isn't going well?
OMG, by definition, wars don't go well, never.

Listen to (read) a transcript of Rumsfeld on NBC Meet the Press or FOX Sunday morning (He ate Tim Russert's lunch). He described the situation very well. Oh wait, he's just full of lies.

Listen to the General Officers in charge. Oh wait, they aren't free to speak their minds.

Oh well, listen to the Democrats in Congress. I am 100% convinced now that many (if not most) of them WANT the war to go badly for their own personal gain.

LAst week most polls showed that 60% said stay the course. Today it's 70%. Sure that includes some that don't like the war, but then who LIKES the war? No one LIKES war (ok maybe some miniscule percentage)

-- Modified on 6/29/2005 4:06:35 PM

Let's get down to some serious point-counterpoint without the partisan rancor.
In the meantime (cuz I'm also pressed for time this AM), a few comments:

1) As anyone who knows my perspective is aware, I have very strong pro-Israel leanings. And yet, despite the obvious, and often discussed advantages favoring the State of Israel, I have been vociferously against it from the very beginning. My initial objections had more to do with the implications of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, including the use of offensive nuclear weapons. I feared the cachet of support the US gained worldwide following 911 would be lost in a heartbeat. Lo, and behold, this has for all intents and purposes, become the case. Fortunately, the nuclear ramifications did not come to pass. At least not yet. Let us hope they never do again.

2) I honestly believe that one of the biggest blunders this administration made vis a vis Iraq was the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. It planted the seed in everyone's mind that the fighting was all but over, and the only thing left was to mop up and go home. It was ludicrous and extraordinarily short-sighted. I feel the biggest thing we as a country have lost during this war (besides the cost in human life) has been our integrity. Nonetheless, it would be specious for even the most rabidly anti-Bush partisans to ignore the positive developments that HAVE come about, starting with the elections. Whether you believe the Iraqi government to be puppets of the US or not, the fact remains the Iraqi people have been given a taste of the Democratic process. A process which, in the Arab world, had been previously unheard of.

3) You're absolutely correct, RLTW - discussing the validity of the Iraq war is pointless. Its there, its very real, and finger pointing or bitching or patisan name-calling isn't going to solve a thing.

So, how about we discuss the avenues we can take to END this war? Outside of using nukes.

The speech was right on the money.  The fact that there was nothing new as you correctly point out merely highlights the fact that the left in this country don't like the answer.  I think it has a lot to do with aging baby boomers and woodstock refugees who are trying to validate their courageous "vietnam experience" by protesting.   In any case, we are succeeding in Iraq and car bombings not withstanding, the population in Iraq is being alienated by the insurgents with every attack.   It is true that the Iraqis do not want to be an occupied country. Can't say that I blame them, but every day, the Iraqis with our help and that of our coalition are making gains in restoring some normalcy in day to day life.  That is not debateable, it is fact.  The Sunnis who under Hussein were the beneficiaries of the Baath party, are starting to look toward participation in the formation of a new government.  That is truly the start of the end of popular support.  We are already seeing increasing intelligence about the whereabouts of these cells and the Iraqis and coalition forces are inflicting increasingly heavy casualties on them.  It is still going to be several years before the new Iraqi government can stand on their own two feet without our military presence.  What is truly disturbing is the implications of the increasingly vocal resistance movement here in the US.  What lessons will a future enemy draw about conflict with the US?  If the left had their way, it would be simply this, the United States does not have the intestinal fortitude, patience, or will to win a counterinsurgency. That is a very dangerous precedent. It is precisely that analysis of our Vietnam experience, the lack of a substantial response from the 1983 bombing in Beirut, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole that emboldened the terrorists to plan and launch the attacks on 9-11.

Brilliant minds like Kerry, Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi offer nothing more than half baked criticism.  Not a single constructive deviation from the current policy. THe reason you won't hear anything else but criticism is that they have nothing constructive to offer.  The administration is handling Iraq very well.

Well imagine that, a POTUS who makes a choice based on his convictions and sticks to it despite the nay sayers and the polls. I realize those on the left are not use to their politicians having true convictions, but then again ,maybe that's whay they have such a hard time winning elections.

Kind of refreshing compared the to no-idea Democrats.

I'm thinking you have no concept of what you are writing about...

Did it ever occur to you that the more terrorist we kill over there, the less that are to attack us over here. And this B.S. I keep hearing about they wouldn't be bothering us if we hadn't invaded, go tell that to a 9/11 widow.

Bush declared a "war on terror", not JUST a 9/11 retalition exercise. Yes this is a big job, but like the man said, we can't wait for them to hit us again.

What ever happened to the strong Democrats who know how to deal with these situations (FDR?)

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=65372 (AP poll last week) says that 52% oppose Iraq war.  My point is that if you can't get a guy like me onboard with a war to begin with, and then your reasons all disappear, you can't sustain the support you need to succeed.  

I hope you're right, but I think you're wrong.  This is a fiasco in the making at a time when we needed sustainable direction in foreign policy.

Have you ever heard of John Lewis Gaddis? He's a historian who teaches at Yale and has authored several outstanding books relating to strategy & history. Follow the link and carefully read the transcript of a speech he gave back in April. Read it twice, please. Hopefully it will give you an idea of why I stated that I find it pointless to argue the validity of the war with others on this discussion board.

BTW - thanks for the well wishes on the exam.

RLTW

Hi Guys,

I am a non-American living in USA. My parents come from a country that is a Muslim country. I, myslef, am an atheist.

I follow the affairs of my parent's country very closely and I see a ressurgence of fundamentalism just because of Iraq war. When Rumsfeld said that he didn't know whether the war in Iraq was creating more terrorists than it was creating, he was having a rare honest moment. In the country that I am from, the religious right didn't do any good in any elections since the inception of the country but now the religious right demands a considerable electorate might.

After 9/11, I saw a visible sympathy towards USA in Muslim countries. People were genuinely sayingt that the fundamentalists, even if they had genuine concerns, had crossed the line on 9/11. The mainstream emotion in the Muslim world had turned against the fundamentalism in the wke of 9/11. Unfortunately, thru Iraq war, Bush administration once again strengthened the fundamentalist factions, the very factions Bush administration is trying to defeat.

I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis but I think you are ignoring how this war is affecting the rest of the Muslim world. The recent victory of hardliners in Iran is an indication. Its also an indication that folks at Fox News are clueless.

Quite surprising that Bush & co. recognize internally that they have made bad mistakes and are willing to listen to criticism.  Remember the press conference not too far back when Bush couldn't remember anything he regretted about his Iraq policies and steps?

twice. I read it once already, and will re-read it in the morning, then comment.  I always like a well-considered perspective, and this surely is.

It's what's known as target marketing, and this administration is well versed in its principles.  

I hate to say that the scene where Bush lauds Gaddis's book for his staff might have been staged, that is fake.  If you're going to stage a landing on an aircraft carrier, why not win over an academic's ego that way?  It seems to have worked like a charm here.  

You're probably objecting, thinking that a president wouldn't do that and how unfair I am to suggest that.  If Bush's motives have never been that good, why wouldn't he?  I mean, dictators have been known to do such things to win over fellow travelers, the Bolsheviks did such things.  Not to say that Bush is quite in that category, but you don't have to be one to use their tactics.

Gaddin says one thing in the speech that I know is not true: That Reagan created his foreign policy.  Reagan's foreign policy owed a lot to Paul Wolfowitz.  If he's going to make this claim, I know he'd fall for an ego-stroking trick like Bush lauding his book  

First, Reagan, now Bush.  How many times within a century could it happen that an underqualified guy takes a leadership role and turns out to be a genius?  Supposing Reagan were such a man.  Now Republicans count on Bush being such a guy too?  

For Republicans to expect this to always happen as a virtue of their superior philosophy is not very bright.  

I'd call Gaddin's evaluation of Bush's foreign policy hopeful, if not wishful, thinking.  I guess if I felt in my guts that Bush were a good person who hired good people I would be thinking hopefully too.  

-- Modified on 6/30/2005 7:29:27 AM

When the Blue States secede and we have to call the armies home to meet the crisis.  

It may happen especially when conservatives begin to blame the left for how badly this war goes, if it comes to that.  Conservatives are definitely not going to take responsibility if this is as big a fiasco as it looks to be.

Anthony H. Cordesman posted some thoughts that appear to be apolitical. His conclusion below. His complete view on the speech is linked below.

In short, this was not the honest speech that Americans needed to hear; it was dominated by efforts at spin control. It did not explain the sacrifices needed, or the risks to be faced. It provided a partial and largely misleading explanation for the U.S. role in Iraq, without mention of our moral and ethical obligation to the Iraqi people and the vital strategic interests involved. Instead of "blood, sweat, and tears," we got spin, risk avoidance, and promises without cost. Normal perhaps by today's political standards, but scarcely the kind of realism and leadership that will inspire the continuing American support that U.S. forces, Iraq, and our allies will need during the difficult and uncertain years to come.



Anthony H. Cordesman is an ABC News military analyst, and an expert on the Iraq war as a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.



-- Modified on 6/29/2005 10:53:18 PM

You can have a strong conviction that 2+ 2 = 3. That does not make is so.

What he's doing is not working. Surely you can see that?

why throw extra ammo at them?

RLTW

The hardliners of Iran were "elected" from a pool of candidates hand picked by the Mullahs, with an abysmal voter turnout, i.e. boycott. Don't try to conveniently omit the calls for democratic reform in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and elsewhere. Without the actions taken in Iraq, they would not have occured. Most notably the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

RLTW

And not as enemies to destroy.  Bushies keep saying everything is hunky-dory and just what they thought was going to happen.  That message reinforces the impression they are dolts with little ability to learn from history or their own mistakes and that they will continue to dissemble as it suits them.  The Cordesman article cited below about Bush's speech was spot on.   To my mind acknowledging past errors and setting out a truth-based vision of what lies ahead would gain emormous support for him.  

To this casual observer the situation in Iraq has changed in quite unexpected ways.  Did anyone say that what we needed to do was invade Iraq, depose Hussein so that all the terrorist crazies of the world will flock there and we can battle it out in someone else's country?

On the war I am still hopeful the President's right: that Iraqi government will be able to maintain relative control and progress functioning entity without being a training ground for terrorists to attack us or a threat to its neighbors.  But at the beginning of the invasion I had the same feeling:  I hope he's right (but don't think he is) that there are WMD and that the invasion will take out an imminent threat.

There is still an opportunity there to roundly defeat Islamic terrorists while building a relatively stable Iraq.  There is also the potential for it to go further downhill to civil war there without a sustainable Iraqi government and an immensely more hostile stance of the entire Islamic world against the U.S. for a long, long time.  The result still hangs in the balance and I have no confidence that Bush can lead us to the right result.

What we have is a clash of skepticisms.  We both get our information second hand, as most everyone now must.  You disbelieve different parts of it than I do, and that entails disbelieving me, too.  In a universe where no conservative president would ever lie due to his moral values, your point of view is completely rational.  

What it comes down to is not the evidence, it's the universe we believe we're living in.  That determines what evidence we trust as reliable.

Since your worldview is dominant and guides this country now, I hope it's more or less accurate, because its outcome will effect me and everyone in my life.

Don't blame me or the rest of the opposition if it isn't.

See Ftian69's comments below.  Your assumption is that there is a fixed number of terrorists and that we can kill them all.  My assumption is that the number of people who hate us is growing at least at the rate we kill them off (remember we only are killing them by the 1's & 2's and 10's, but large-scale perceptions of US create them by the 100's and 1000's.)

And then I'd like to address your tone: "You have no concept of what you are writing about," and "did it occur to to you that the more terrorists we kill over there, the less..."

Thanks for clearing that up.

We get all our information 2nd hand, or worse, we don't get information but perspective.  

It is the world we think we are living in that shapes what we take as true, and discount as noise.  This is a function of our developmental state - see Piaget, but what is true for children is also true for adults.  We see through the lens of our assumptions, and these assumptions are essentially developmental in nature.  RLTW may find this offensive, but it's simply a fact.

But the speech RLTW recommended causes me to pause and think, as did his recommendation of the book The Pentagon's New Map.

I'm also fully aware of the fact that assumptions, prejudices and outlooks shape our perspective and beliefs. My point is simply this: I'm all for debating the issues of Iraq, but the majority of arguments that I see here are along the lines of "Bush lied so he sould kill more babies and get more oil"; "Bush is stupid"; "see you across no-mans land in Civil War II after the neocons destroy the country"; "the Forth Riech is coming"; "I hate RepubliCONS"; etc., etc..

Personally, I just write off that type of hyperbole as inane and absurd, and see no point in wasting time with it. And that was the point in my original post, though maybe it was too subtle.

RLTW

-- Modified on 6/30/2005 8:20:53 AM

that YOUR beliefs are correct and his are wrong. While you may believe this, it ALSO does not make your beliefs correct.

The voice of opposition should always be given room within this great country, but at the end of teh day we choose our course based on Elections. We went to war prior to the 2004 elections, the the Amercan people choose to back GWB on this course in 2004.

We can't fight terrorists because there may be more terrorists created??

How about the old adage "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing". The point you have to get across is that becoming a terrorist is the LAST thing you want to do because of what will happen to you. At one time Islamic terrorist were buried with Pig entrails to ensure they would not get into their version of heaven. Sounds like a good plan to me...

BTW, in reference to my tone, I believe you were the one who used the term "bastard". If you want civility, please practice it yourself...

I tried to write this as succinctly as possible, but it’s long.  

The first thing that jumps out at me is that meeting Bush et al had significant impact on Gaddis’ perception of Bush.  Gaddis evidently had fundamental criticisms of the Iraq initiative that he modified as a result of working with the Bush administration – even so, he leveled serious criticisms at the administration at the end of the first term, before he helped draft Bush’s second inaugural address. I will come back to Gaddis’ conversion later.

The key point Gaddis supports in Bush’s address is “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate aim of ending tyranny in our world.” This is consistent with the main thrust of The Pentagon’s New Map.  The foundation for Bush’s position is that “’freedom is the permanent choice of mankind.’ Not just America. Of mankind.” There are several subordinate points in the address I won’t recap here – and I highly recommend this reading to all.  

Gaddis states (and then debunks) that the main criticisms of Bush stem from the lack of credibility because of WMD’s and the Halliburton/oil connection.  

This is not my criticism of the Iraq effort.  My criticism is that it was arrogant and a course of failure from the outset.

Let’s go back to Gaddis’ conversion.  Before being allowed into the inner sanctum, he saw what we, the public see – and he didn’t grasp Bush’s noble intent.  I think this is a key fact.

Let’s assume that the goal of ending tyranny on the planet is the right goal.  I know that other cultures fear that this is code for economic hegemony by American-based multinationals, but let’s set this aside and take it at face value as being a truly noble goal.  I can embrace this.  

But this isn’t the goal Bush has sold to me.  It’s not the one he presented to the UN.  He didn’t follow Barnett’s prescription for success by gaining developed countries’ support, and this failure matters.  He failed to lead.  Pure and simple.  If you’ve got a great vision, this is what you sell, and he sold a completely different picture.  RLTW, you see these goals because you read way between the lines.  And let me be honest enough to say, I suspect this is his goal.  But it’s not the one he sold, and the job of the President is to lead.  

It doesn’t matter now.  Not unless he’s been a great consultant and learned how to tap-dance like a pro well downstream in a major fuck-up.  But he’s lost something he can’t regain – benefit of the doubt.  He squandered a golden opportunity.

Because he failed to gain the support he needed to succeed, now America is not respected, but feared.  It’s not winning the war against terror but exacerbating it.  We’re not the world’s moral force, but its potential tyrant – “the most dangerous county in the world” is how far too many see us.  We don’t see these noble goals as why we’re doing this, but see enough ambiguity and ambivalence that there is a real pause about the fundamental morality of the effort – and this morality needs to not only justify the Americans who have died, but the Iraqi civilians, as well.  

So I go back to my original post on this thread: what are the opportunity costs of this effort? What could we have done had we done it differently?  Have we moved forward (and I can’t say definitely not, but I fear not) or have we moved backwards?

Thanks very much for the link.  It was an excellent read.  


-- Modified on 6/30/2005 10:09:24 AM

I disagree that it was the Bush Admin who failed at the U.N.. While acknowledging that putting the primary focus on WMD was a mistake.

As to the specifics of why, let's omit the abysmal track record of the U.N. in Somalia, Rwanda, and Sudan. Let's also omit the numerous human rights abuses of U.N. peacekeepers that have recently come to light.

Let's start with a brief mention of the U.N.'s faliure to enforce the numerous sanctions it placed on Saddam throughout the 90's. The oil contract interests of France and Russia. And a tendency to avoid dealing with tough issues while maintaining the status quo.

Let's end with three little words...
Oil For Food.

There can be no discussion of failure at the U.N. without those three words added to the equation.

RLTW

-- Modified on 6/30/2005 12:39:37 PM

I do use hyperbole and other flourishes in my writing.  The one about Civil War 2 I don't consider to be a flourish, but a real danger.  If there's one thing the late 20th- to early 21st- century is teaching us, it's that nation-states are not all that stable.    

I am dead serious about my point of view.

If our counter-strategy and tactics persuade one or more people to turn to that strategy for every terrorist we kill or neutralize, it is failing. (And since they may choose it for other factors as well, it may be far less than one.)  There's only one way we'll know this is happening: if we fail. If we're still fighting in 20 years, or if we get radical Islamic governments coming into power,    

In WW2, we fought an ideology, and nations with borders.  So there was a "real" objective and we could tell if we were succeeding and failing.  That isn't what we're fighting here.  Declaring another unwinnible war on something as ephemeral as a strategy is not going to stem this problem.

You know it just occured to me that fighting in Iraq is really based on the domino effect in reverse.  That we have to knock down this one dictator to start, and with a little influence, democracy will bloom in the Arab world.

It doesn't bode well for this strategy.

Makes me wonder how old you are.  These issues are divisive and political discourse is rancorous today, yes, but it doesn't compare with 1970-71.  By the end of 1970, we had over 53,000 american fighting men dead in Vietnam. (http://thewall-usa.com/stats/)  Most everyone knew someone who was killed or knew their family.  There was more of a cultural divide then too.  There was also talk of revolution then, too, but it was mostly bullshit.  Civil War 2 talk is bullshit, too.

Total U.S. dead in Vietnam War was a little over 58,000.  Our population is 45% higher now, so the comparable war dead today would be 84,000.  God forbid, but imagine what kind of divisions we would have if our KIA figures get to even half of that.

"I hope the bastard has enough moral intelligence somewhere inside to at least get ulcers."

I'm going to go out on a limb here... but you forgot to add one aspect to the failures of the UN... kowtowing to the Arab caucus because of their Petrol Power. It goes beyond the groveling because of the worlds dependence on Arab oil. OPEC, one way or another, has gotten their way for far too long.
Yes, the sheer volume of anti-Israel and Arab-supported anti-Semitic rhetoric spewing from the UN General Assembly for all these years has prejudiced my view here to one of utter subjectivity. I acknowledge that. But by the same token, i believe it is one of the reasons the UN has been hamstrung, and has not been as effective, or even adhered to its original charter.
I'm rambling on a bit here... its late, and I've got lots of unvented hostility in me.

Someone get me some damned Ether so I can justify being irresponsible!

I'm not pleased with how Bush appears to have jimmied the evidence to make the case for going in in the first place and I expressed my displeasure by having NOT voted for him this time around.

I'm pissed at our backstabbing "allies" who were more concerned about their oil for food contracts. Can you say FUCK the UN??? Goood, I knew you could.

And lastly, I'm pissed at the leftwingers who sandbagged Bush right from the beginning by acting like Bitch Queens everytime something went wrong. Especially the religion bigots. Bush's alter egos...

I would'nt want to be in an alley fight with any of these guys....

So, you finally came around to the fact that now that we're in, we have no choice but to win. Geez dude, I wish you, and others, had'nt taken so long to figure that out.......

the insurgents have been heartened till now by your willingness to tear down our leader.

1) This wasn't supposed to happen again.  Our country didn't learn any lessons from the Vietnam fiasco.  The dominant philosophy that got us into this was that Vietnam could be done right this time.  A secondary conclusion to that is that if it went wrong to begin with, it's because of the opposition.  This is why I think the blame for the opposition will be stronger this time through;

2) We have an all voluntary force.  Meaning that as the war isn't looking to good (I'm not saying it's really that bad) that the volunteers dry up.  Lack of volunteers means that we can't replace loses for a force already undermanned for the task.  It means also, that either the people over there are never coming home, we will have to draft, or we will have to take desperate measures, like recruiting immigrants from overseas with the promise of American citizenship.  

I do remember the '60s and the '70s, and one thing that I've seen is that there are cumulative effects.  Moreover, it wouldn't be just the war that would cause a divide with a border, but that other issues and unresolved problems are pulling it apart.

We can lose a lot now or lose a lot more later.  It may sound "selfish" but the same goes for Iraqis, Arabs and Moslems in general.  A pan-Islamic world war is not in their interests, and that's what this could possibly turn into the longer we are there.  

So at least you can't blame me for being obtuse as you are blaming wmblake now for conceding to any of your points and making any repair attempt.  Sheesh.  So any concession will not be forgiven.  

We already discussed my purported religion bigotry.  Regrettably, you're not going to change your mind over me and other people who've seen our discussions can already make up their minds.

As for not wanting me (on your side?) in an alley fight, I think I've fought very well here.  You give me no credit for that.  If my faithfulness is in question, I believe your side has told me, in so many words, that my service is not welcomed.  

As for the insurgents being heartened by our willingness to tear down our leader: Bush told us he was a uniter when he got into office. Either he lied or he made a promise he couldn't keep.  As unpopular as Roosevelt was to conservatives, and he was loathed, he was able to lead.  

Moreover, I was definitely not opposed to the war.  I didn't march in antiwar protests; I never donated at a deficit to the Democratic party or other groups; I never contemplated a future as an exile, and not from protest as much as fear.   Not during Reagan's term, not during Bush 1's term.  In fact, I voted for Reagan.  

So, what changed about things that has caused me to do all of this?  The leader, the people he appointed, the strategy he has followed and the way he and his people used 9/11 for advantage and to kick the loyal opposition in the balls under the table.

Furthermore, the way his people follow his example.  Hillary Clinton's support for Bush is now used against her.  Hell, at that time, I would have voted for the war.  For showing faithfulness in the past before Bush lied, screwed us over, and screwed up, we get called hypocrites in the present.          

The only thing you should blame the left for is being an aggravation by warning you that you were doing something stupid.  Besides that, we're about as far out of power and as far away from influence here as people can get.  But blaming is always easier than responsibility.

stick to his convictions when his convictions are to shred the constitution, enrich his friends and screw the middle class. I guess that if I was Ken Lay, I'd find it refreshing.

We are still losing the fight in Iraq and it is not the fault of the troops.

So, shouldn't we change our strategy & tactics like the enemy keeps doing? I'm not saying he should change the goal -- just the way we are fighting it. What we are doing is clearly not working.

The reason Bush is not changing anything is because he is "hard headed" as my Dad used to say -- not because he has some moral superiority. That is hurting us, the troops and the fight against terrorism.

Certainly you can see that?

Yes, yes you are out of power, but the rest of the world does not see it that way or understand the nuances, especially not the "Arab Street”. With the help of the U.S. press, the European press and yes, even Al Jazeera, The "detracting" Dems get plenty of face time globally and I DO INDEED think that it emboldens the terrorists.

Fox News spin. In case you have not heard. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq had no WMD. Even Bush acknowledges this now. Osama Bin Laden is still out there because we pulled resources out of Afghanistan to invade and occupy Iraq. Stop listening to Sean Hannity and get some real facts.

Before I get into my points, thanks for a good email and response. I do get so tired of the name calling I see so many on this board doing.

I actually agree with you on some points here. GWB says the Generals say thay have enough troops, so I can't say it is the number of troops. Unfortunately, it is our own humanity that holds us back. How do you fight a war in a humane way against an enemy that will kill children and not think twice about it? It sounds pretty silly, but like I have said before, they use to bury the decesaed Muslims with Pig entrails, which according to their religion made them unpure and ensured they would not enter heaven. Now I will be the first to admit this sounds juvenile, but when so many of the terrorists talk about the 57 virgins they will receive in heaven for killing infadels, then I figure if they believe something that silly, the pig thing may help. BTW, I know this is not the only thing needed, but my point is, even if we tried something this simple, the CRIES of inhumane treatment would resound loudly through the congress (you can guess from which side of the aisle)

Let's start slicing & dicing captured insurgents.

And burning the bodies, then hanging them in public.

And we can broadcast all this on Al Jazira-we have the technology to override their signal.

We can lob a few of those MOAB's into the Suni Triangle while we're at it.

Hell, since we're already "torturers" and the world seems to consider us so "despicable", let's do it right.

-- Modified on 7/4/2005 1:10:45 AM

I speciically said we were not JUST after the 9/11 terorists, but this was a war on terror. Gee, if I remember, Saddam was paying the family of bombers while he was in power. Sounds like supporting terrorists to me!!!

I do not share your belief that the US military is not competent enough to conduct two campaigns at once. Considering the two theatres of operation we supported in WWII, I do not see why we can not handle an Iraq, Afghanistan dual operation...  

hell of a lot more than 140,000 troops involved during WWII, I assume that you are in favor of instituting a draft to deal with the current mess. Good luck with that one.

Secondly, since last I looked we are not the United States of Israel so I find your argument about invading and occupying a country because they were giving some $$ to the families of people who blew themselves up in a conflict that has nothing to do with the the U.S. specious at best. Using that standard, we will be invading and occupying a whole lot of countries for a long time to come. I suggest we start procreating quickly because we will need a population over 1 billion to get that done.

you also can not compare Afghanistan and Iraq to the formidable powers the Axis represented during WWII. Therefore to assume we need a draft for what is truly a much smaller operation is a bad analogy. Also, we did not go into Iraq until after the large scale fighting in Afghanistan was over. Another luxury we DID NOT HAVE during WW II.

Secondly, pre 9/11, I would have agreed with your second point, but it has now become obvious that statements you made like "conflicts that has nothing to do with us" are not applicable, because obviously they can effect us here at home such as happened. That is why the laisse-faire approach no longer works.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress—Want Bi-Partisan Solutions—New Zogby Poll

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

there were no Palestinians on those planes either on 9/11. You can wave the 9/11 flag as much as you want, but that still does not make these people responsible. We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Considering we went into Afghanistan to take care of him, I would have to say that that mission was definitely not accomplished--plus I hear that Afghanistan is not too safe these days either.

Now considering that the Saudis support the Palestinian terrorists a heck of a lot more than Saddam did, I assume you are in favor of invading and occupying that country too. It should be easy since the Saudi Royal family can be easily found in Crawford, TX. a lot of the time.

Our relationship wiht Saudi Arabia escapes me. They still teach Western hatred in their schools. Perhaps one day we can end that hypocacy. One thing though, last I checked Clinton was on pretty god terms with that Saudis too, so your GWB only argument is kind of weak.

As far as 9/11, that was the spark, but not the whole picture. Remember, GWB claimed a war on terror and Iraq was a state that actively sponsored terror and one we had a LONG track record of negotiations with. In addition, even if no WMDs existed, it sure looks like he had the capability to produce chemical weapons, which ccombined with his "love" for the US made him a clear and present danger.