RIP 2,500 United States of America Men & Women. - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #61 06-19-2006, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

At least President George Bush would never go in a half-hearted way, you must admire him for the courage of his convictions, even if you do may not share those convictgions..

I disagree.

I give him kudos for having the balls to do SOMETHING (since his predecessors didn't, and his opponents in the presidential races obviously would not have)....

And I initially supported his decision to intervene in Iraq, for a number of reasons that I won't rehash at this time...

But I do think he went in half-hearted, and with a half-assed plan. If we had gone in and waged ALL OUT WAR, as our military is fully capable of, then I think that it would largely over, and our boys would already be home, and we would have had FAR fewer casualties, and would have spent FAR less money.

At this point, it has been so bungled and so crippled with political-correctness, that I think we should just cut our losses and bail out, and leave the idiots there to their own devices. I'm quite fed up with it.

You can lead a horse to water ("water" meaning freedom and self-determination in this instance), but you can't make him smart enough to drink it.

Mike

BENZ-LGB · #62 06-19-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

But I do think he went in half-hearted, and with a half-assed plan. If we had gone in and waged ALL OUT WAR, as our military is fully capable of, then I think that it would largely over, and our boys would already be home, and we would have had FAR fewer casualties, and would have spent FAR less money.

At this point, it has been so bungled and so crippled with political-correctness, that I think we should just cut our losses and bail out, and leave the idiots there to their own devices. I'm quite fed up with it.

You can lead a horse to water ("water" meaning freedom and self-determination in this instance), but you can't make him smart enough to drink it.

Mike

Yes, but....in for a penny in for a pound.

How do you pull out and at the same time avoid creating a perception (dangerous one) that America will always cut and run when things get ugly.

If you can answer that question I would like to hear what your suggestion(s) is/are.

I am sick and tired of the idiots who can't govern themselves, but I don't know how to leave the area and not give the impression that we do not have the cojones to fight.

mikemover · #63 06-19-2006, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Yes, but....in for a penny in for a pound.

How do you pull out and at the same time avoid creating a perception (dangerous one) that America will always cut and run when things get ugly.

If you can answer that question I would like to hear what your suggestion(s) is/are.

I am sick and tired of the idiots who can't govern themselves, but I don't know how to leave the area and not give the impression that we do not have the cojones to fight.

I didn't say that there was an easy solution at this point, and I don't pretend to have one.

But I have lost my patience with the situation, and after all this time (and lives and money) there is STILL no well-defined plan for dealing with it.

I believe we had noble intentions (at least mostly), but I also believe we have seriously dropped the ball.

We should have immediately dispensed with the politically-correct bull$hit, and really should have put the hammer down right from the start, and we could have ended the quiz quickly and decisively.

Instead, we *******-footed around, afraid to offend the UN or the Europeans or the "Muslim world" or whomever, and are now in a pile of $hit from which there probably is no way to make a graceful exit... at least not anytime soon.

Mike

BENZ-LGB · #64 06-19-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I didn't say that there was an easy solution at this point, and I don't pretend to have one.

....we *******-footed around, afraid to offend the UN or the Europeans or the "Muslim world" or whomever, and are now in a pile of $hit from which there probably is no way to make a graceful exit... at least not anytime soon.

Mike

I didn't mean to imply that you had an easy answer...or that there is even one. I'm facing the same degree of frustration. Agreed with the mission but disagreed with its execution.

I agree with your second point. War is war and where soldiers' lives are at stake, PC should never enter the equation.

aklim · #65 06-19-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I didn't say that there was an easy solution at this point, and I don't pretend to have one.

But I have lost my patience with the situation, and after all this time (and lives and money) there is STILL no well-defined plan for dealing with it.

I believe we had noble intentions (at least mostly), but I also believe we have seriously dropped the ball.

We should have immediately dispensed with the politically-correct bull$hit, and really should have put the hammer down right from the start, and we could have ended the quiz quickly and decisively.

Instead, we *******-footed around, afraid to offend the UN or the Europeans or the "Muslim world" or whomever, and are now in a pile of $hit from which there probably is no way to make a graceful exit... at least not anytime soon.

Mike

You forgot one party that is more impartant that they were pussyfooting around. The US voting public. We are more of our own enemy than the other parties you mentioned. If we tell Bush right now that we will back him if he goes all the way, enough troops will be there and the problem will be solved quickly. However, with all that is going on, it is doubtful he can get enough support to stay there let alone bring mroe troops to handle the problem instead of sending weekend warriors there to do the full time military's job. Ironically that is what will lesson the problem. Kinda like having to spend more money to make some money.

Honus · #66 06-19-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

...If we tell Bush right now that we will back him if he goes all the way, enough troops will be there and the problem will be solved quickly...

And replaced with a whole new set of much bigger problems. IMHO.

aklim · #67 06-19-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

And replaced with a whole new set of much bigger problems. IMHO.

Like what? We are spread too thin there. Hence more people can get shot up more easily. Kinda like having 5 people do 10 people's jobs. A lot slips thru the cracks. The people in charge of the troops wanted more soldiers but all they sent were a few guardsmen and special forces. SF are nice but they cannot be everywhere. Ever wonder why a daycare has X personel for Y kids?

Lebenz · #68 06-19-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Like what? We are spread too thin there. Hence more people can get shot up more easily. Kinda like having 5 people do 10 people's jobs. A lot slips thru the cracks. The people in charge of the troops wanted more soldiers but all they sent were a few guardsmen and special forces. SF are nice but they cannot be everywhere. Ever wonder why a daycare has X personel for Y kids?

Not sure that’s true. I’m no expert on the conflict. From what I’ve read, the nature of the enemy is that they are not a combined force on a relentless offensive. They are folk who the evidence suggest live anonymously in the background and mostly come foreword in small groups or as individuals. Add to that there are how many people in the ME that are potential enemies? What kind of offensive short of massive bombing can or will ever deal a decisive blow to this? If we go that route we are bombing the baby and the bathwater. It will not be a solution and will only incite greater combatants. IMO no matter how it is pursued there will never be an end. Some kind of containment is the best we can hope for. Which was exactly our starting point in this fraud based fiasco.

aklim · #69 06-19-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Not sure that’s true. I’m no expert on the conflict. From what I’ve read, the nature of the enemy is that they are not a combined force on a relentless offensive. They are folk who the evidence suggest live anonymously in the background and mostly come foreword in small groups or as individuals. Add to that there are how many people in the ME that are potential enemies? What kind of offensive short of massive bombing can or will ever deal a decisive blow to this?

If we go that route we are bombing the baby and the bathwater. It will not be a solution and will only incite greater combatants. IMO no matter how it is pursued there will never be an end. Some kind of containment is the best we can hope for. Which was exactly our starting point in this fraud based fiasco.

We may not be that good at warfare but there are a bunch of people that are that are saying they need more personnel but due to political reasons are getting the shaft. The problem is that the fighters are from where? Iraq? Don't think so. Troops could secure the place a lot better if there were more of them. This was what the military wanted but because of political reasons, they decided to use special forces which are smaller in number. Most of the generals inverviewed seemed to favor more "boots on the ground". IMO more soldiers should be used not weekend warriors too but if we went that route, we have other political concerns. I am not against having civilian leadership controling the military. However, I am against micromanagement of the military by civillians. Kinda like me hiring a landscaping company to do a job then tell them how many men they can have, what days and times to work, what brand of shovels to use and hold it in this way and use this hand, etc, etc. The only difference between the military and the said company is the company can walk off the job and tell me to go fawk myself whereas the military cannot balk and say "Can't be done. See you later." The military should be given a mandate and told to do it but not how to do it, when to do it, etc etc because of political reasons.

Greater than what we have now where the combatants are not actively holding a gun but providing moral, logistical, financial, etc, etc support? I'd rather have them in front of me than behind the scenes.

Lebenz · #70 06-19-2006, 03:09 PM

The theory certainly sounds good but how many more people? Do we put a million folks on the ground there? How might that alter the frequency of suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices? Wont that only create more targets? Moreover, what will the enemy do when confronted by increased numbers? What have they done so far? Since “they” are not a combined front, don’t wear uniforms, have few bases of operation we know of, all they have to do is do nothing for a while or change tactics and/or locations. Then what? Put a 2nd million Americans on the ground? And what of the cost in both lives and deficit spending?

I’m not arguing against the desire for an end but pointing out that there is likely none on the horizon that we can create or provide. IMO the best and likely the only conclusive outcome would be a result of the people of Iraq taking on the task themselves, especially if they get assistance from folks in surrounding countries, the USA included. IIRC there are about 20 million locals to Iraq. But so far their willingness to contribute has been less than impressive and certainly less than large numbers.

As far as the nationalities of the combatants, how do you know where they come from? I admit to having seen nothing that indicates the nationality distribution of the combatants. Anyone know of such a listing? Such information, if accurate, would be helpful to justify putting more people on the ground, but I don’t think we (the USA) can ever provide enough people or tools to close their borders or make a decisive victory without killing hundreds of thousands of folk who’s only mistake was being born in the area. Is that a favorable outcome?

Botnst · #71 06-19-2006, 03:39 PM

I like killing Al Queda in Iraq. as long as they're eager to have a fight, why invite them over here?

Could it be done more efficiently? Probably. It's a balance between military necessity and political imperatives. The political imperatives are multifaceted and intercorrelated. All solutions are messy.

Before we leave Iraq and Afghanistan I'll bet we will have lost between 4,000 and 5,000 men. A terrible loss for our country.

Here are some useful questions when thinking about the long-term strategies possible.

What do you suppose the losses are if Al Quedistas? How do you know?

Do you think that the population resource is limited or unlimited? What supports your belief?

What would Al queda do if we immediately withdrew?

Honus · #72 06-19-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Like what? We are spread too thin there. Hence more people can get shot up more easily. Kinda like having 5 people do 10 people's jobs. A lot slips thru the cracks. The people in charge of the troops wanted more soldiers but all they sent were a few guardsmen and special forces. SF are nice but they cannot be everywhere. Ever wonder why a daycare has X personel for Y kids?

If I may, I would like take back my previous comment. They should send in as many soldiers as it takes to do the job. My previous comment does not relate to that issue. I was thinking about the negative backlash that would have resulted in a full-fledged, scorched-earth invasion where we leveled the whole country. I don't think that's what this thread is about.

Honus · #73 06-19-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I like killing Al Queda in Iraq. as long as they're eager to have a fight, why invite them over here?...

The problem with your flypaper theory is that is assumes that al Qaeda are stupid. How does having our troops in Iraq prevent al Qaeda from attacking us here?

mikemover · #74 06-19-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If I may, I would like take back my previous comment. They should send in as many soldiers as it takes to do the job. My previous comment does not relate to that issue. I was thinking about the negative backlash that would have resulted in a full-fledged, scorched-earth invasion where we leveled the whole country. I don't think that's what this thread is about.

"Full-fledged, scorched-earth invasion" is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

The only way to win this conflict is to either kill them ALL (which is not going to happen...the enemy is too spread out and anonymous), or to deal them such a crushing, demoralizing blow that they lose their will to fight altogether (Hiroshima, for example....although I don't think actual Nukes would be required).

Mike

mikemover · #75 06-19-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The problem with your flypaper theory is that is assumes that al Qaeda are stupid. How does having our troops in Iraq prevent al Qaeda from attacking us here?

It's a distraction. Apparently it has worked so far, eh?....

Mike