March 9, 200719 yr Well, in each of those cases, the shooting stopped in less time than we've been in Iraq. And the local populations were unequivocally supportive of our staying there to rebuild their countries and provide protection from communist neighbors. Didn't Truman send the first troops to Korea and then we came out sometime in the mid 50's? Didn't JFK send the first troops into Vietnam and wasn't it Nixon who brought the troops out?
March 9, 200719 yr Didn't Truman send the first troops to Korea and then we came out sometime in the mid 50's? Didn't JFK send the first troops into Vietnam and wasn't it Nixon who brought the troops out? U.S. Soldiers dying in Vietnam: 1963-75 Philipines- I don't know Japan: 1941-present West Germany: 1945-1980 South Korea- 1945-present We act in our political interest. There is a reason that we haven't had to ration resources since WWII. We MAINTAIN a world dominating military, and we ensure that our resources are prottected.
March 9, 200719 yr U.S. Soldiers dying in Vietnam: 1963-75 Philipines- I don't know Japan: 1941-present West Germany: 1945-1980 South Korea- 1945-present We act in our political interest. There is a reason that we haven't had to ration resources since WWII. We MAINTAIN a world dominating military, and we ensure that our resources are prottected. We were at war with Japan and Germany for less time than we have been in Iraq--hence my earlier comment in post 134. The fact that we kept troops in Germany and Japan for over 60 years now is irrelevant to Iraq because our forces were for the most part welcome there. They certainly weren't under mortar/sniper/IED fire for those six decades. I did not refer to Vietnam because it was not mentioned in the post I was commenting on. And your comment about not rationing since World War II is incorrect. During the Korean conflict, certain strategic metals were unavailable for many industrial uses due to their critical nature for the war effort. I still want to know why more sacrifice isn't being required of the 300 million Americans, instead of the 160,000 deployed in foreign wars? If this is an all-out battle against terrorism and the security of our country is at stake, why are we not treating it as such?
March 10, 200719 yr Author You know what a great start in getting the job done in Iraq would be? Cut off the media, completely. Nothing uncensored gets shown.
March 10, 200719 yr Author I still want to know why more sacrifice isn't being required of the 300 million Americans, instead of the 160,000 deployed in foreign wars? If this is an all-out battle against terrorism and the security of our country is at stake, why are we not treating it as such?Weakness, from the left mostly. They can't handle what's going on now, you think they're willing to sacrifice?
March 10, 200719 yr Weakness, from the left mostly. They can't handle what's going on now, you think they're willing to sacrifice? Why hasn't the President asked for more if this war is so critical to our security? He has received everything he has ever asked for from Congress where the war is concerned. He's never even asked non-military people to make any real sacrifices. :confused:
March 10, 200719 yr Author Why hasn't the President asked for more if this war is so critical to our security? He has received everything he has ever asked for from Congress where the war is concerned. He's never even asked non-military people to make any real sacrifices. :confused:OK, I'll bite. What sacrifices are you speaking of?
March 10, 200719 yr OK, I'll bite. What sacrifices are you speaking of? Read my post #130. I tried to get 94 Camel to answer, but I'll open it up to anyone.
March 10, 200719 yr I suppose H is refering to rationing or the devotion of our industrial capacity to the war.
March 10, 200719 yr I suppose H is refering to rationing or the devotion of our industrial capacity to the war. Correct. If the war on terror is indeed "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century" (GWB, Aug 2006) and failure in Iraq would invite "disastrous consequences" (GWB, Feb 2007), why go at it so half heartedly by not mobilizing the entire country?
March 10, 200719 yr Author Correct. If the war on terror is indeed "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century" (GWB, Aug 2006) and failure in Iraq would invite "disastrous consequences" (GWB, Feb 2007), why go at it so half heartedly by not mobilizing the entire country?I don't think you realize the type of war we are in. We're not facing another army with tanks and so on, I'm sure if it's called for Bush will ask for these things and I will gladly comply. I can't answer for him so I would guess you would have to ask him that question. Now as for the Congress, they grow weaker by the day, listening to too many Dems calling for withdrawal, part of the paper tiger I mentioned earlier. Also, as I stated earlier I really think we need to cut off the media coverage of the war completely. Nothing uncensored gets shown.
March 10, 200719 yr I don't think you realize the type of war we are in. We're not facing another army with tanks and so on, I'm sure if it's called for Bush will ask for these things and I will gladly comply. I can't answer for him so I would guess you would have to ask him that question. Now as for the Congress, they grow weaker by the day, listening to too many Dems calling for withdrawal, part of the paper tiger I mentioned earlier. Also, as I stated earlier I really think we need to cut off the media coverage of the war completely. Nothing uncensored gets shown. Oh, I realize EXACTLY the type of war we're in. I think it's crystal clear that the administration didn't. Their plans envisioned 5,000 troops left in-country by Dec 2006. At least one four star general and a 1999 Pentagon war game simulating an invasion of Iraq each called for approximately 400,000 troops to pacify the country. We clearly went in with too few troops. But what I'm asking now is, given the importance of the mission, shouldn't we significantly up the ante (that is, if this is truly the ideological struggle that will define the 21st century)?
March 10, 200719 yr I don't think you realize the type of war we are in. We're not facing another army with tanks and so on, I'm sure if it's called for Bush will ask for these things and I will gladly comply. I can't answer for him so I would guess you would have to ask him that question. Now as for the Congress, they grow weaker by the day, listening to too many Dems calling for withdrawal, part of the paper tiger I mentioned earlier. Also, as I stated earlier I really think we need to cut off the media coverage of the war completely. Nothing uncensored gets shown. I couldn't agree more:ylsuper:
March 10, 200719 yr Author Oh, I realize EXACTLY the type of war we're in. I think it's crystal clear that the administration didn't. Their plans envisioned 5,000 troops left in-country by Dec 2006. At least one four star general and a 1999 Pentagon war game simulating an invasion of Iraq each called for approximately 400,000 troops to pacify the country. We clearly went in with too few troops. But what I'm asking now is, given the importance of the mission, shouldn't we significantly up the ante (that is, if this is truly the ideological struggle that will define the 21st century)?Yes, we should. But how many on the left can stomach it? You know the media can't.
March 10, 200719 yr You know what a great start in getting the job done in Iraq would be? Cut off the media, completely. Nothing uncensored gets shown. "I would rather have a press and no government then a government with no press." Thomas Jefferson That's how imporntant he deemed freedom of the press.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.