Wow, it sucks to be a loser. The democrats must hate life.



We bring up John Kerry is piss pore American for the comments he says about our troops.



Democrats response:

He did not mean that?

Dick Cheeny did this…

George Bush did this…

Republicans did that…

Rush Limbaugh was mean… M. Fox was over medicated…

Fox is not fair…

Afganistan…

Talaban took over town… with 2 terrorists…

Kerry meant this… lower grades and lost election…





Sounds like a kids response after being caught stealing.





Come on men/ladies. Was it this way in the 90’s? The difference was Clinton was blown in the oval office and the Senator from Mass screwed a page. Ohh yeah, Ruth Beta was nominated for the Supreme Court. That was one hell of a Q & A… Well I dont think I should answer that… Followed by childish giggle.



What did the Republicans talk about that was not based on fact? I am asking this since I do not know.

[quote=StarsAndStripes] [quote=dude]

I’m in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I’m bored.

Oh, did I mention that I’m also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[QUOTE]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? When we don't find WMD's
or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, or when civil war erupts, or when
after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.....
Not that I advocate 'cut and run'. This has been an awfully executed war
with little in the way to justify it. Whether we establish a stable
government or not I would hope that in the history books the Iraq war is
not cited as an example of why we should go to war or how it should be
executed. Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had
egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if
eventually the desired outcome manifested? It will be someone elses
mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it
right, would it be a success then?

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI by colonial
imperialist interests, populated by a culture that is religiously and socially
at odds with ours who has been suffering under the weight of economic
destitution is not a fertile soil to plant the seed of a Western Style
democracy...especially not at the hands of it's 'oppressor'. We may not
agree with the paradigm of America as an oppressor, but only an idiot
would ignore that the average muslim in the Middle East does when trying
to convince the masses to hop on board. It's the population of Iraq whom
we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's
government.

[/quote]

This pretty much nails it. Our failure to understand or at least plan for
the tribal nature of this mission is in large part responsible for where we
stand today. That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to
begin with.

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. This his third book
about Bush/Iraq. The previous two have been pro bush if you want to
know how Woodward leans. This one not so. Just through the first section
of the book and it's incredible how poorly this was planned. Clueless
doesn't come close. it does bring out the fact that all of our top field
commanders believed there were WMDs but were troubled that there was
no confirming intell to that end. Also interesting is a snippet about
something called 'Sunday morning Prayer Meetings" Where field
commanders and their junior officers would meet every Sunday, in
Kuwait, just prior to the invasion to discuss everything about everthing. It
was an open forum quest for new thinking. Had we thought of
everything? One week an officer put forth a counter intel reasoning for
Sadam's requiring his offices to read Black Hawk Down. The popular belief
was it was a moral builder for Iraqie commanders. Kill a few americans
and they'll go home. Yet this officer put forth that it was instead an
operations manual. A "How To" on how to defeat a superior force. His
hypothesis, that Sadam's army would melt away and become an insurgent
army. popping up at will, and drawing the U. S. into a long drawn out
gorilla war, for which the american public had no stomach, was dismissed
by all in the room. So much for out of the box thinking. They stuck with
the Fortress Bagdad theory, and we all know how that turned out.

By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. In Iraq we're
doing Stand and Lose.

Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[quote=Incredible Hulk] [quote=StarsAndStripes] [quote=dude]

I’m in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces.

Sometimes I moonlight as a Force Recon agent, when I’m bored.

Oh, did I mention that I’m also a Ninja in the Foot Clan too?

[/quote]

This is funny how?

[quote=BondGuy]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=BondGuy] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=BondGuy]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=BondGuy] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=BondGuy]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=BondGuy]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=BondGuy] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=BondGuy] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

You get what you pay for. The right paid for that report to fight this very same debate. Bought and paid for stats never have impressed me, left or right

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

Which means what? The number doesn't count? $38,000 in Jersey gets you sleepless nights waiting for the repo man. And public assistance. Bump it up to $44k and what, we're sending jr to Rutgers? Not a chance. And while the cost of living in NJ may be higher than say Alabama or someplace it's not significantly higher. The 44K as a middle class income number is not valid. It certainly doesn't allow families to freely foot the bill for college. The military is a great answer to a big problem. Which is why the military offers money for school.

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Actually yes, these states would come to mind, along with rural areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and WVa. Dead ends for serious job prospects. Think small one horse towns where the biggest thing going is the Friday night football game. One or two employers supply the economic engine and hold all the cards. These towns exist all over the country. Nothing wrong if you want to follow family tradition and work down at the plant, but if you want more or different getting out can be a struggle. The military is one way to achieve that end, and maybe the only way for a kid who is average.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

No, I don't know that's there's a basis for red/blue versus enlistment. On the surface it holds some merit. As for the inner cities, I don't think so. I don't think there would be a lot of recruiting there. One problem is the military won't take those without a HS diploma. The closest inner city to me is Camden NJ. Dropout rate is over 50% or there abouts. Many of those who stay in school pay for college thru a variety of aid programs. I know of two students from single mom households who are attending college this way. Mom pays zero, the kids pay zero. One of these kids is at Douglas. That's 1/2 notch below Ivy league. Not bad for a poor kid, or any kid. Next, the enlistee has to pass a test with a minimum score. My thinking is that an inner city dropout, or all dropouts for that matter, would have little chance of scoring high enough on that test to be eligible. So the inner city would be a poor recruiting ground.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

They've lowered their standards to make the goal. With my son, they told him that they'd made a mistake, discovered where it was made and corrected it.  They also told him that even if he had the medical condition as they previously believed, it no longer disqualified him. Sounds like a lower standard to me. But, yes, where you live does make a difference. My original point, recruiting is less successful where competition is greatest. That's both economic and regional in nature. In a one horse town the kid has one or two choices if he doesn't go to college. In a metro area like the Philly suburbs he can become a union carpenter making $60K a year or an electrician making the same. He/she could work for UPS making $50k to drive a truck. The opportunities are endless. The military has got to compete.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[/quote]

I think it's connected to the inner city drop out problem. But, don't know for sure.

[quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure?  When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when..... Not that I advocate 'cut and run'.  This has been an awfully executed war with little in the way to justify it.  Whether we establish a stable government or not I would hope that in the history books the Iraq war is not cited as an example of why we should go to war or how it should be executed.  Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested?  It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then?

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI by colonial imperialist interests, populated by a culture that is religiously and socially at odds with ours who has been suffering under the weight of economic destitution is not a fertile soil to plant the seed of a Western Style democracy...especially not at the hands of it's 'oppressor'.  We may not agree with the paradigm of America as an oppressor, but only an idiot would ignore that the average muslim in the Middle East does when trying to convince the masses to hop on board.  It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.

[/quote]

This pretty much nails it. Our failure to understand or at least plan for the tribal nature of this mission is in large part responsible for where we stand today. That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. This his third book about Bush/Iraq. The previous two have been pro bush if you want to know how Woodward leans. This one not so. Just through the first section of the book and it's incredible how poorly this was planned. Clueless doesn't come close. it does bring out the fact that all of our top field commanders believed there were WMDs but were troubled that there was no confirming intell to that end. Also interesting is a snippet about something called 'Sunday morning Prayer Meetings" Where field commanders and their junior officers would meet every Sunday, in Kuwait, just prior to the invasion to discuss everything about everthing. It was an open forum quest for new thinking. Had we thought of everything? One week an officer put forth a counter intel reasoning for Sadam's requiring his offices to read Black Hawk Down. The popular belief was it was a moral builder for Iraqie commanders. Kill a few americans and they'll go home. Yet this officer put forth that it was instead an operations manual. A "How To" on how to defeat a superior force. His hypothesis, that Sadam's army would melt away and become an insurgent army. popping up at will, and drawing the U. S. into a long drawn out gorilla war, for which the american public had no stomach, was dismissed by all in the room. So much for out of the box thinking. They stuck with the Fortress Bagdad theory, and we all know how that turned out.

By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. 

Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=BondGuy] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=BondGuy]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=BondGuy] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=BondGuy]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=BondGuy]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=BondGuy] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=BondGuy] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

For the record, not that it matters, everthing above this line attributed to me, not me. How did you connect me in to someone elses words?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

I heard Snow liked Bob's first two books about the Bush Presidency. They get so snippy when it's not all positives. Woodward would be disappointed if they said anything kind about him or his book. Interestingly, no big controversy disputing Woodward's claims. They let it quietly slip from the publics view. Usually the attack dogs do a hatchet job, not so in this case. i'm reading it to gain insight. I trust Woodward is centered enough not to be pushing an agenda.

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

Actually I can tell you exactly how many troops we have in Afganistan. Not enough to find  you know who, the six foot three diabetic, after five years of fighting and searching. Not to mention the resurgent taliban, who gain ground everyday. Yeah, mike, things are just peachy in Afganistan.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

Mike, wrong tense, lost is the proper term. We've already lost. We've lost the country, we've lost the people. they are fighting each other. That's a civil war, unless it's an election year here and then it's not a civil war.  Because we've lost we need a new strategy to get this thing back under our control. Stay to course isn't cutting it. Failing a new course getting out is an alternative.

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[/quote]

I agree that we've got some pretty smart guys on the ground. Yet, these are some of the same guys who embraced Fortress Bagdad. So they're capable of mistakes. Even big picture mistakes. But mostly they're hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are running this war.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy]

Mike, the Heritage Foundation? Come'on, could you find a more right wing spin, oops, I mean think tank? [/quote]

They used DoD information. You wouldn't expect a left wing group to do that research, would you?

You get what you pay for. The right paid for that report to fight this very same debate. Bought and paid for stats never have impressed me, left or right

The stats are DoD, they weren't paid for. Don't like their editiorializing? Fine, read the spread sheets, the DoD numbers. The left has this nifty stereotype of who enlists (or seeks a commission) and why. Facts don't seem to make much of a difference.

[quote=BondGuy]Middle class family income of about $44,000. Recruiting from this income bracket is up and improving.

Taking my state, NJ, the true poverty level(2x federal poverty level) for a family of four is $38,000. [/quote]

It's a Federal number, not a NJ number....

Which means what?

Which means twisting national numbers to a specific state (as if they aren't already part of the national average) distorts all of it. $38k ain't "poverty line" anywhere, aside from with people like us.

[quote=BondGuy]On the issue of opportunities. This is borne out in the top states for recruiting. In no particular order, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska. Extremely rural to undeveloped states with poor job prospects. [/quote]

Really? Did you do some check of unemployment numbers? If someone said "quick, name the states with "poor job prospects" would those three come to mind? I wouldn’t have thought of them first.

Actually yes, these states would come to mind, along with rural areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and WVa.

Engage in whatever stereotypes you like. These aren't the states with the highest unemployment rates.

Ever consider that the denominator isn't employment rates, but the fact that they're culturally "red" states? Perhaps that's also why you see (in your personal experience) lower interest in NJ? If enlistees came from “poor job prospect” areas you’d expect they’d come from the worst areas, the inner cities.

No, I don't know that's there's a basis for red/blue versus enlistment. On the surface it holds some merit.

Military service holds a higher position of repect there than you'll find in blue state suburbs. Yours is a classic blue-state why-would-a-kid with-opportunity attitude.

[quote=BondGuy]The problem right now is Iraq. Many who sign up now are looking to join the fight. Yet, most of the young people I talk to, and having two teenagers in the house I talk to a lot, won't consider the military because of Iraq.[/quote]

Your anecdotal perspective is interesting, but it doesn't explain the DoD making their recruiting goals and the high re-enlistment rates. Again, where you live makes a difference.

They've lowered their standards to make the goal.

They didn't lower re-elistment standards, and the percentage of Non-HS grads now allowed in is miniscule. It was "big news" when they fell short, funny how it's NBD now that they've hit them again.

[quote=BondGuy]

I was surprised to read that recruiting in the lowest income brackets was down. Need time to cogitate on that.

[/quote]

Yeah, that one confuses a lot of people who don't have much contact with the military.

[/quote]

I think it's connected to the inner city drop out problem. But, don't know for sure.

There ARE graduates in the inner-city. There are also pockets of much higher unemployment than the regions where the military does best in recruiting. Here's an interesting aside, I did some econ work for my undergrad degree looking at the correlation of unemployment to enlistment rates. The talking point of the day was that we had an "economic draft". Guess what? No correlation, period.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]

Ok, so when does someone admit failure? [/quote]

When it’s over. Just like we didn’t start talking about “failure” in any other war until it was over. People who want to describe it as “failure” now have a agenda to call it such.

[quote=dude] When we don't find WMD's or any 'smoking gun' links to Al Queda, …[/quote]

There were links to AQ, not finding WMDs has already been called an intel failure.

[quote=dude]

or when civil war erupts, or when after the Govmnt falls and the population begins to fight us, or when.…[/quote]

If, not “when”….

[quote=dude] Would you call a project that spiralled out of control, had egregious cost overruns and evidence of poor planning a success, even if eventually the desired outcome manifested? [/quote]

That would be an apt description of almost every war that mankind, much less the US, has ever been involved it. It’s only after the parades that the retelling of the story loses the above and only mentions the victory. Take a look at any description of our Civil War, for example.

[quote=dude]

It will be someone elses mess to clean up anyway since Bush is gone in 2 years...they might get it right, would it be a success then? [/quote]

That’s just the sort of lets-paint-it-as-a-failure-now, and for transparently political reasons that just makes these conversations a waste of time.

[quote=dude]

A country fraught with ethnic tensions, crafted out of WWI…..[/quote]

Sounds just like the descriptions of how/why we couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan. “Tribal culture”, “brutal Afghan Winters” QQQUUAAAAAGGGGMMIIREEEEE….

[quote=dude] It's the population of Iraq whom we're fighting now (and who are now fighting each other), not Saddam's government.[/quote]

No, it’s an element of that population. Actually a fraction of it, and it’s of various subsets.

[quote=dude] That and the fact that we shouldn't have invaded them to begin with.[/quote]

There you have it folks, some people just need to be right, even if the real cost is victory.

For the record, not that it matters, everthing above this line attributed to me, not me. How did you connect me in to someone elses words?

I didn't see dude's post until after you asked this question. I simply responded to your post that included the above and didn't have full attribution in it.

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm reading "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. [/quote]

As Snow correctly put it “If They’d Only Listened to Me”…..if the war was going well he book would have featured a different set of voices from the very same available chorus. Books written after we win will sound completely different, just like a book written about Afghanistan today would read completely differently than one written a year ago, which would sound completely different than one written on week two of that fight..

What would a book written about WWII after Dunkirk or the Battle of the Bulge or Pearl Harbor or any number of other setbacks read like, versus one written after 1945?

I heard Snow liked Bob's first two books about the Bush Presidency. They get so snippy when it's not all positives.

Given where we are in the war it's to be expected that it will be filled with "if they'd only listened to me" lines. The ones written after we win won't. That book will be about how the hurdles we faces were defeated and how the critics of the time overstated the gloom and doom.

[quote=BondGuy] By the way, we've already done cut and run, in Afganistan. [/quote]

That’s ridiculous beyond words. I bet that without doing a Google you couldn’t even tell us how many US troops are there. You simply haven’t a clue.

Actually I can tell you exactly how many troops we have in Afganistan. Not enough to find you know who, the six foot three diabetic, after five years of fighting and searching.

Funny how you're certain he's there and how you know nothing of the force structure in Afghanistan. You really don't have a clue on this one, bond.

Not to mention the resurgent taliban, who gain ground everyday. Yeah, mike, things are just peachy in Afganistan.

Panic, panic, the resurgent Taliban, panic I say. This is the same baseless quagggganmmiirreeee talk we heard starting week two in Afghanistan. Remember when we were dooooomed in Iraq because of a sand storm? And again in week two because we had outrun our supply lines?

Look, they can't hold ground, they're killed by the score when they try to fight. N.Ireland had the IRA for 30 years, Spain has had ETA for decades. There will be remnants of the Taliban, coming back over from Pakistan where they've been hiding, and they'll be destroyed. It's stunning how quickly you dip into defeatist talk.

[quote=BondGuy] In Iraq we're doing Stand and Lose. [/quote]

Yawn….seems like you still haven’t gotten around to reading the AQ inter-office mail that details how they are saying they’re getting crushed…my guess is they know more about the situation on the ground than you do.

BTW, tell me, besides getting people like you to talk doom and gloom louder and louder, and get those who speak like you to grow in numbers, how will the insurgents/terrorists defeat us when they can’t do anything but set off bombs and snipe? They can’t hold ground, they can’t organize a government, and as unpopular as you think we are there, they’re even more unpopular with the population.

So tell me, how do we lose?

Mike, wrong tense, lost is the proper term. We've already lost. We've lost the country, we've lost the people.

And you know better than AQ's leadership how, exactly? Sorry bond, the politically inspired "lost" talk is just too foolish.

Tell me again how we “lose” (unless we take the doom and gloom to heart and hightail it out) to a group that can’t hold ground, can’t control roads, can’t control their supply lines?

Let me give you a hint, the ONLY way we lose is if we leave. They can’t make us leave, but if we wobble, if we run, THEN we can lose. They’re trying to win this like the Viet Cong did with the Tet Offensive. The gloom and doom types said that battle “proved” we couldn’t win at the same time the VC were eliminated, never to rise again, from the battlefield.

[quote=BondGuy] That's a civil war, unless it's an election year here and then it's not a civil war. [/quote]

More of the same, it’s over, we’ve lost, yadda yadda yadda. Iraq, according to some, was “dipping into civil war” two years ago. A civil war would require much larger elements of the population to be involved, for alternative governments to be formed and proposed. Think our civil war.

Because we've lost we need a new strategy to get this thing back under our control. Stay to course isn't cutting it. Failing a new course getting out is an alternative.

Pardon me, but when did you gain this grand insight? When were you on the ground in Iraq? In fact, when were you on the ground anywhere were there were more than 25 guys in uniform? What’s your vast experience in uniform?

Do you have any idea how silly it sounds to hear someone with absolutely no training, not background and really nothing aside from apolitical agenda pontificate about what should be done next and how we’ve “lost”? And please, don’t pretend “stay the course” mean there are no changes in tactics on the ground. It simply means we don’t cut and run.

[quote=BondGuy] Something needs to change. A new strategy or get out.

[/quote]

No doubt the finest military strategists can be found right here, on this forum. Here’s the deal, the commanders on the ground are constantly evolving their tactics and strategy on the ground, moving and reorganizing forces as the enemy changes. This war isn’t being run out of the basement of the Whitehouse. Bush isn’t reviewing target lists. The military professionals are, and I have confidence in their abilities.

[/quote]

I agree that we've got some pretty smart guys on the ground. Yet, these are some of the same guys who embraced Fortress Bagdad. So they're capable of mistakes. Even big picture mistakes.

Setting aside your “fortress Baghdad” punch line, about being capable of mistakes (which is often what people assume when what they’re really seeing is the ebb and flow between warring forces) really? You mean they’re just like every group of military professionals that have ever existed? Golly….

But mostly they're hamstrung by the policy makers in DC. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are running this war.

Of course they are, the guys in uniform aren;t running it, and thus your gloom and doom is explained….

It's not really surprising that a thread about Kerry's foot-in-mouth issues gets twisted into how Bush has lost Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? Some form of knee-jerk Kerry defense, even if it’s just changing the subject to Bush, has to appear.

You guys feel free to continue, I have no interest in debating how we've "lost" with people that couldn't ID a Colonel from a Corporal, don’t have a shred of historic perspective of the hurdles confronted in every war in the history of mankind and allow a political desire to be "right" to cause them to speak nothing but doom and gloom with extraordinary certainty.

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it's no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well.  You and I know that Murphy enters the equation early and often; I believe what separates a good leader from bad is how one adapts and overcomes what Murphy throws.  Many things involved with this war, certainly as I see it, have been bungled because of stubborness and arrogance but not for lack of desire and at the end of the day, not for lack of belief in the "mission" at hand. 

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through.  And as a result, those wearing the uniform are once again the pawns of the process who are suffering the results and are caught in the middle of our nation's arguments.  To me, this is most disheartening, as I believe, regardless of level of education, those who sign their name, raise their right hand, put on the uniform and stand their post are the best of what our nation has to offer - better than anybody else who has never served for what ever their reasons.  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

As citizens, our best course of action may be not to take our own podiums to debate to no avail our own beliefs, but to start demanding our politicians do their damn jobs and start working together to solve this or we need to throw ALL OF THEM out on their arses! 

[quote=csmelnix]

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it's no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

Agreed. It's a waste of time...

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well. 

I doubt you'll find anyone defending every aspect of the fighting of the war. What I've done is try to bring some historic perspective to the issue. NO war is fought perfectly, ever. Never has, never will, but the problems that seemed insurmountable at the time are usualy forgotten after the victory is won. The same will be the case here.

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through. 

I disagree about "neither side... to see this mission through". I think we've reached a dangerous place where the followers (if not the political leaders themselves) of one side are so committed to "being right", so engaged in irrational hatred of the CinC that they are willing to smear US troops (read some Murtha comments about Marines who haven't even had the benefit of a trial and deserve the presumption of innocence) claim defeat right now. The otherside will have to win in spite of them.

  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

Again, I don't think the "both sides" applies. One side is committed to victory, the other, well, I have my doubts.

Mike,

I agree with your summation of those on the left - I think you are dead on.  But we will just have to agree to disagree about those on the right.  I think they are far to "my way or the highway" to work together and way to arrogant in their approach. 

[quote=csmelnix]

  But we will just have to agree to disagree about those on the right.  I think they are far to "my way or the highway" to work together and way to arrogant in their approach. 

[/quote]

Everyone is capable of being "my way or the highway" but just who are they to "work" with? What are they refusing to do? Give me an example.

Personally I think there's a large contingent of left/right committed to doing what's required, giving commanders on the ground what they ask for and need.

again Mike, we are getting into a debate that will not change either mind here but...a couple off the top of my head:

...the idea of looking at the partitioning of Iraq was welcomed by the administration as Tony Snow put it "a non starter."

...establishing measureable objectives, milestones or however one wants to word it to position the security into the Iraqi government entirely and also as a goal to begin withdrawl from Iraq....again welcomed as a nonstarter. 

Regardless of the merit of the examples simply refusing to discuss them more is what my point is. 

If there are enough left/right members who are committed to do what's right; why aren't they?

[quote=mikebutler222]

It's not really surprising that a thread about Kerry's foot-in-mouth issues gets twisted into how Bush has lost Afghanistan and Iraq, is it? Some form of knee-jerk Kerry defense, even if it’s just changing the subject to Bush, has to appear.

You guys feel free to continue, I have no interest in debating how we've "lost" with people that couldn't ID a Colonel from a Corporal, don’t have a shred of historic perspective of the hurdles confronted in every war in the history of mankind and allow a political desire to be "right" to cause them to speak nothing but doom and gloom with extraordinary certainty.

[/quote]

Talk about cut and run. Mike at least be honest. The people you're not interested in debating is only one person, me.  As soon as I start in on Iraq you start with the labels. I'm a defeatist. I have a political agenda. And now my lack of military duty disqualifies me from any standing in a public forum. Which I've got to wonder how you square that with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rice. Does Bush's National Guard duty qualify him to speak? OK, how about the rest of this group? Not only do they get to speak, the get to act. And they have a political agenda. Which, you agree with.

Mike, the midterm elections are about one Issue, Iraq. If the pols are correct, the house will go to the dems. You could consider it a referendum on Iraq. It's also a referendum on the abuse of power that has taken place over the last six ears. It's the american people saying "Sorry Mr President you no longer have a blank check to do what ever you want." And while it's ashame in that the dems don't have the answer either, it's a victory for the american people. They've taken the first step for getting their government back.

Lastly about my lack of military duty. I came of age during the latter stages of Vietnam. Enlistment or draft guaranteed a tour in country. I prepared by qualifying for Army flight school. I wanted to be a helicopter pilot.  The Army was going to give me that dream. I used the Army as a plan B because of Vietnam. When my number didn't come up in the draft lottery I went to college to get an engineering degree. Two years in to school and free of the draft threat I became disillusioned with school and went to sign up for flight school. Again, the batteries of tests. As part of my college courses I was an intern at an engineering company. One of the guys I worked with knew what I was doing and intervened. He set up a dinner with a buddy of his, a decorated Helicopter AC, just back from his second tour. I went, a 20 year old excited to talk to a real live war hero helicopter pilot. 34 years later, I still remember that dinner like it was last night. The war hero leveled me with a stay the hell out of the army speech that floored me, as well as scared the hell out of me. Grusome is the word to describe it. He wasn't John Kerry, but this guy had his own anti war gig going. He convinced me that joining the army was a mistake. So I left that meeting stayed in school for another year before striking out on my own to a start a small business. I met with early success, made a ton of dough, bought myself flying lessons and five years later bought myself a helicopter company. In the end I believe that the bad timing of coming of age during Vietnam screwed me out of the valuable training and experience the army would have provided.

I'm tired of being judged by those who have never had to face such a decision. Those who didn't live in that time and are clueless as dire situation Vietnam represented to young men at the time. Why do you think, Clinton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Bush did as they did?  We were simply put in the situation of being victims of a government that was more than willing put us in harms way for nothing. Not for something, for nothing.  A half assed police action being fought on the cheap with nothing at stake. We had to protect ourselves from that government policy run amuck. A policy with life and death consequences.

Not serving is a regret. However, I apologize to no one for my decision.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

again Mike, we are getting into a debate that will not change either mind here but...a couple off the top of my head:

...the idea of looking at the partitioning of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq was welcomed by the administration as Tony Snow put it "a non starter."

We don't have the right to "split" Iraq, a country with a democratically elected government. If THEY decide to do that, that’s another issue. The fact that some proposals aren't acceptable doesn't mean all proposals are.

...establishing measureable objectives, milestones or however one wants to word it to position the security into the Iraqi government entirely and also as a goal to begin withdrawl from Iraq....again welcomed as a nonstarter. 

Imagine this, but I disagree. That's exactly what's being done. In fact, that process has received a great deal of press coverage lately and resulted in some back and forth between the US and Iraqi governments. What was rejected, and rightly, was tying some date certain to the process.

Regardless of the merit of the examples simply refusing to discuss them more is what my point is. 

Some things, like picking a withdrawal date certain or splitting up a country with a democratically elected government or cutting and running should be rejected, flatly. You make it sound like bad ideas need to be given more respect than they deserve so we can look like we can engage in give and take.

The fact is Baker is currently heading up a bi-partisan group to review alternatives that will report back to Bush shortly.

If there are enough left/right members who are committed to do what's right; why aren't they?

They are. Just because there’s a constant hum of noise from unproductive people doesn’t mean there’s not a constant effort to provide troops and commanders with what they need.

[quote=csmelnix]

MikeB - you and I along with Dude had a very long and dragged out debate several months back on the Iraq war and I agree it’s no use to debate and carry on our own expert analysis again. 

As blind as we are on the side that feels the war in Iraq has been mishandled and improperly planned and executed are - equally those who defend the war in it's execution as well.  You and I know that Murphy enters the equation early and often; I believe what separates a good leader from bad is how one adapts and overcomes what Murphy throws.  Many things involved with this war, certainly as I see it, have been bungled because of stubborness and arrogance but not for lack of desire and at the end of the day, not for lack of belief in the "mission" at hand. 

Unfortunately, regardless of what side we sit, are nation and politicians have become so stinking polarized that neither side can work together for the betterment of our nation and to see this mission through.  And as a result, those wearing the uniform are once again the pawns of the process who are suffering the results and are caught in the middle of our nation's arguments.  To me, this is most disheartening, as I believe, regardless of level of education, those who sign their name, raise their right hand, put on the uniform and stand their post are the best of what our nation has to offer - better than anybody else who has never served for what ever their reasons.  And it is simply unfortunate that politicians on both sides can not do them justice when they need it most; while at war. 

As citizens, our best course of action may be not to take our own podiums to debate to no avail our own beliefs, but to start demanding our politicians do their damn jobs and start working together to solve this or we need to throw ALL OF THEM out on their arses!