Yes, we should. But how many on the left can stomach it? You know the media can't.

 

"The left" has nothing to do with it. The President had a Republican Congress and carte blanche to do whatever he felt was necessary for nearly four years. What I want the Bush/war supporters to explain is why we've been fighting this "decisive struggle" for the past four years with an insufficient force to do the job? During World War II, the U.S. population was 133.5 million and 16.4 million Americans were in the military. Today, we have a population well over two times that number and we're fighting "the decisive ideological struggle for the 21st century" with about 1/100th as many uniformed military personnel. Why? You can't blame "the left" for starting a war and then committing too few resources to win it--up until two months ago, the Republicans controlled Congress! Frankly, the way this war has been conducted is a lot like the way LBJ micromanaged Vietnam. The civilian leadership has bungled the war by not committing the overwhelming resources necessary to win it. The average American civilian has never been asked to sacrifice anything significant for this war. If winning the war on terror is so important, why is nearly all of the burden being placed on the miniscule 0.053% of the American population that is in Iraq?

"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.

Yeah, well that freedom of the press cost us countless more lives in Vietnam and the war, so.....

"The left" has nothing to do with it. The President had a Republican Congress and carte blanche to do whatever he felt was necessary for nearly four years. What I want the Bush/war supporters to explain is why we've been fighting this "decisive struggle" for the past four years with an insufficient force to do the job? During World War II, the U.S. population was 133.5 million and 16.4 million Americans were in the military. Today, we have a population well over two times that number and we're fighting "the decisive ideological struggle for the 21st century" with about 1/100th as many uniformed military personnel. Why? You can't blame "the left" for starting a war and then committing too few resources to win it--up until two months ago, the Republicans controlled Congress! Frankly, the way this war has been conducted is a lot like the way LBJ micromanaged Vietnam. The civilian leadership has bungled the war by not committing the overwhelming resources necessary to win it. The average American civilian has never been asked to sacrifice anything significant for this war. If winning the war on terror is so important, why is nearly all of the burden being placed on the miniscule 0.053% of the American population that is in Iraq?

It’s called underestimating your enemy, one of Bush’s mistakes I spoke of in an earlier post. And now it has a whole lot to do with the left, no stomach for what really needs to be done. We need to really unleash our military, but the Murtha’s and the Kennedy’s and so on of this country doesn’t have the guts to do it. And Bush doesn’t have the guts to ignore them and just do it. And BTW, what is it about not having a draft currently don't you get?

It’s called underestimating your enemy, one of Bush’s mistakes I spoke of in an earlier post. And now it has a whole lot to do with the left, no stomach for what really needs to be done. We need to really unleash our military, but the Murtha’s and the Kennedy’s and so on of this country doesn’t have the guts to do it. And Bush doesn’t have the guts to ignore them and just do it.

 

Wait a minute. In post #62, you made a point that Bush listens to the recommendations of his military advisors. It has been well established that the Army Chief of Staff in 2003 recommended a much larger invasion force. The Desert Crossing Iraq invasion war game recommended a 400,000 troop invasion force and predicted a high probability of sectarian conflict. Neither recommendations were followed and Iraq descended into chaos shortly after Saddam was toppled. If he listened, he didn't listen very closely. I'd say underestimating the enemy is a bit of an understatement, wouldn't you? This president wrecklessly launched a war with substantially fewer troops than the highest ranking officer in the Army recommended and then failed to do anything other than "stay the course" for almost four years! If GWB were President during World War II, we probably would be speaking German today.

 

And BTW, what is it about not having a draft currently don't you get?

 

If we're not willing to take the steps required to win, we shouldn't fool ourselves and spout nonsense about lacking the stomach for the fight.

Wait a minute. In post #62, you made a point that Bush listens to the recommendations of his military advisors. It has been well established that the Army Chief of Staff in 2003 recommended a much larger invasion force. The Desert Crossing Iraq invasion war game recommended a 400,000 troop invasion force and predicted a high probability of sectarian conflict. Neither recommendations were followed and Iraq descended into chaos shortly after Saddam was toppled. If he listened, he didn't listen very closely. I'd say underestimating the enemy is a bit of an understatement, wouldn't you? This president wrecklessly launched a war with substantially fewer troops than the highest ranking officer in the Army recommended and then failed to do anything other than "stay the course" for almost four years! If GWB were President during World War II, we probably would be speaking German today.

Wait a minute. In post #94 I explained that the president (any president really) listens to his advisor's (more than one or two by the way) and then makes his decision, and no, it's not an understatement. It's just a fact. You're hatred for all things Bush makes you think only in a negative way I guess. You're last comment on WWII isn't even worth mentioning, just typical by you. Get over the past, concentrate on the future. Mistakes were made; hopefully they won't be in the future.

 

 

 

If we're not willing to take the steps required to win, we shouldn't fool ourselves and spout nonsense about lacking the stomach for the fight.

Not sure, but by that comment I would guess you mean me. It's not nonsense and I think there are too many Americans today that don't have the stomach for it. I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to believe you're one of them. What is nonsense is you acting as if there's something I can do about what steps we take. What the heck do you want me to do about it?

Let me ask you this. Do you have a kid that's draft age if we have one? I do, and I stand behind all of my comments. If my son should have to go, he can rest assure that I'm in full support of him and his fellow troops. Could you say the same?

^ Run to State, not referring to you personally, but I was referring to the administration.

 

Perhaps a better wording would have been:

 

"If the administration is not willing to take the steps required to win, they shouldn't mislead us and spout nonsense about lacking the stomach for the fight."

 

Sorry, but I have had my fill of incompetent leadership of this war and then hearing the Pres and VP question people's patriotism for bringing honest criticism.

Well I don't know, but the President called the war on terror "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century". Sounds pretty important to me. If it is that important, we should probably have at least a million soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of a paltry 160,000, don't you think? Certainly many times more than the "fight a war on the cheap" doctrine of this administration. And all those Humvees, tanks, and helicopters will need gas, won't they? Where will that petrol come from? The last time I checked, oil is a highly constrained natural resource. Makes sense to ration gas to support the war effort. And speaking of all those Humvees, tanks, and helicopters, we're using them up at an alarming rate. Shouldn't we convert some of our peacetime production capacity to build more? We keep hearing about armor shortages and the lengthy delays to get more to the field. Why? We are the arsenal of democracy (or at least we were in WWII). If we were really into this sacrifice thing, we would convert some of those plants building civilian Hummers and pleasure boats into body armor factories.

 

The President is very fond of telling us that we're a nation at war. Isn't it time we started acting like one and share some of the burden with our men and women in uniform? If it is as crucially important as many on BGP believe, shouldn't we be going all out to win it? All out doesn't mean sacrifices by 160,000 military in a nation of 300 million. It means everybody gives up something they value to accomplish the goal. That's true sacrifice.

 

94 Camel, do you support that level of sacrifice?

I support any level of sacrifice neccesary. However, what raw materials are we short on? Is is steel, fuel, brass, copper? Please explain to me what I need to ration and I will do so. We learned a grave lesson in WWII. We will never again have to mobilize to that point because our standing military will always be large enough to handle the outset of a conflict.

I support any level of sacrifice neccesary. However, what raw materials are we short on? Is is steel, fuel, brass, copper? Please explain to me what I need to ration and I will do so. We learned a grave lesson in WWII. We will never again have to mobilize to that point because our standing military will always be large enough to handle the outset of a conflict.

 

How about real sacrifice to reduce our consumption of oil? Islamic terrorists don't get their funding by delivering pizzas. We could apply some serious pressure to their sources of funding if steps were taken in this country (in the name of national security) to substantially reduce the amount of oil we consume. Think Iran would be meddling in Iraq and supporting Hezbollah if we were willing to significantly cut oil consumption (thereby slashing their petroleum revenue)? Here's an idea: Gradually phase in either an gasoline rationing plan or a federal surcharge on gas that would be applied to the cost of the Iraq war. Either idea could be phased in over three to five years, allowing time for consumers to adjust their consumption habits (buy more fuel efficient vehicles, carpool, use public transportation) and industry to invest in less petroleum-intensive technologies. If our consumption of oil is funding terrorism against us (which it is), then it makes perfect sense to attach the peripheral costs of fighting that terrorism to the consumption of oil. This would create an economic incentive that would ultimately weaken the forces we're at war with. I can only think that ex-oil man GWB hasn't proposed a plan to seriously reduce our consumption of oil because it would upset his friends in Saudi Arabia.

 

And I think you're mistaken if you think our current military is large enough to fight a prolonged war on the other side of the world. If we had a large enough military for this task, we wouldn't keep extending the service of reservists and national guardsmen to maintain force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How about real sacrifice to reduce our consumption of oil? Islamic terrorists don't get their funding by delivering pizzas. We could apply some serious pressure to their sources of funding if steps were taken in this country (in the name of national security) to substantially reduce the amount of oil we consume. Think Iran would be meddling in Iraq and supporting Hezbollah if we were willing to significantly cut oil consumption (thereby slashing their petroleum revenue)? Here's an idea: Gradually phase in either an gasoline rationing plan or a federal surcharge on gas that would be applied to the cost of the Iraq war. Either idea could be phased in over three to five years, allowing time for consumers to adjust their consumption habits (buy more fuel efficient vehicles, carpool, use public transportation) and industry to invest in less petroleum-intensive technologies. If our consumption of oil is funding terrorism against us (which it is), then it makes perfect sense to attach the peripheral costs of fighting that terrorism to the consumption of oil. This would create an economic incentive that would ultimately weaken the forces we're at war with. I can only think that ex-oil man GWB hasn't proposed a plan to seriously reduce our consumption of oil because it would upset his friends in Saudi Arabia.

 

And I think you're mistaken if you think our current military is large enough to fight a prolonged war on the other side of the world. If we had a large enough military for this task, we wouldn't keep extending the service of reservists and national guardsmen to maintain force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Reserve and National Guard ARE PART OF OUR MILITARY. It makes perfect sense that we are large consumers of oil, therefore, we must engage in activities that protect the resource. You are of the quit using it because someone distateful has it, where I more come from the take it if we want it philosophy. Are you really trying to compare our military readiness to that before WWII? Your prposal would make the transportaion cost of goods in this country skyrocket, making our economy take a nose dive.

The Reserve and National Guard ARE PART OF OUR MILITARY. It makes perfect sense that we are large consumers of oil, therefore, we must engage in activities that protect the resource. You are of the quit using it because someone distateful has it, where I more come from the take it if we want it philosophy.

 

I didn't say quit using oil, I said reduce our use of it so that we stop financing the people who are trying to kill our troops. We are funding both sides of the war on terror. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "take it if we want it". Do you suggest invading Saudi Arabia next?

 

Are you really trying to compare our military readiness to that before WWII?

 

I didn't say that. There's no question our military readiness is substantially higher than before World War II. But we didn't fight World War II with the same military we had in Dec 1941. The nation was mobilized industrially and the armed services increased substantially in size in a very short time period. We clearly don't have a large enough active duty military (Army and Marines) to sustain the level of deployment we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan the last four years. This is no secret and has been stated openly by active duty and retired military leaders (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/06/MNG2VALREE1.DTL, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/national/main2266367.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2266367, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200403/fallows). Yet, here we are four years into this thing (longer than our entire involvement in WWII), and we are just starting to talk about increasing the size of the military.

 

Your prposal would make the transportaion cost of goods in this country skyrocket, making our economy take a nose dive.

 

It's simply of matter of whether we want to control our own destiny. The cost of good and transportation already skyrocket every time someone in the Middle East sneezes or a refinery catches on fire/gets damaged by a storm. Did our economy falter last summer when gas abruptly increased to $3 a gallon? No. And it would not if my proposal was implemented because the effect would be gradual. We shouldn't pretend that our energy costs are market-driven, because they clearly are not. OPEC can trim its output to maintain prices and they do it all the time. If they have the discipline to control their output of oil, why can't we have the discipline to reign in our consumption to accomplish an important national security objective?

 

You asked how you could sacrifice to help our national security and I told you. There are 160,000 military men and women making a heck of a lot more significant sacrifice right now than paying a few bucks more to fill up the old pickup. The next time you see a soldier or marine, make sure to thank them for their service and for the cheap gas.

I didn't say quit using oil, I said reduce our use of it so that we stop financing the people who are trying to kill our troops. We are funding both sides of the war on terror. I don't even know what you're talking about when you say "take it if we want it". Do you suggest invading Saudi Arabia next?

 

The royal family of Saudi Arabia is completely vested economically in the U.S. It was repoted last year on Nightline that they own nearly 4% of the stock available in the Dow. Therefore, I don't think we will ever need to invade Saudi Arabia.

I didn't say that. There's no question our military readiness is substantially higher than before World War II. But we didn't fight World War II with the same military we had in Dec 1941. The nation was mobilized industrially and the armed services increased substantially in size in a very short time period. We clearly don't have a large enough active duty military (Army and Marines) to sustain the level of deployment we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan the last four years. This is no secret and has been stated openly by active duty and retired military leaders (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/06/MNG2VALREE1.DTL, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/national/main2266367.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2266367, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200403/fallows). Yet, here we are four years into this thing (longer than our entire involvement in WWII), and we are just starting to talk about increasing the size of the military.

This is the reason that we have kept reserves and the national guard, so that we don not have to maintain a fully active military.

 

It's simply of matter of whether we want to control our own destiny. The cost of good and transportation already skyrocket every time someone in the Middle East sneezes or a refinery catches on fire/gets damaged by a storm. Did our economy falter last summer when gas abruptly increased to $3 a gallon? No. And it would not if my proposal was implemented because the effect would be gradual. We shouldn't pretend that our energy costs are market-driven, because they clearly are not. OPEC can trim its output to maintain prices and they do it all the time. If they have the discipline to control their output of oil, why can't we have the discipline to reign in our consumption to accomplish an important national security objective?

You are correct. They are not market driven. However, all fuel cost are passed on to the consumer. No company eats higher transportation cost. Therefore, higher transportation cost do have an effect on the economy in the long run.

You asked how you could sacrifice to help our national security and I told you. There are 160,000 military men and women making a heck of a lot more significant sacrifice right now than paying a few bucks more to fill up the old pickup. The next time you see a soldier or marine, make sure to thank them for their service and for the cheap gas.

I take the opportunity to thank servicemen every chance I get. They are obviously fighting for more than for me to save a few bucks when I fill up my Toyota. They are fighting to maintain resources that sustain our countrie's economic power, not to mention to maintain our domestic safety. I do not know how to highlight my replies that I left under your comments.

^ So, given what is known about the financial underpinnings of Muslim extremists (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray122002.asp et al), would you not support long-term strategic measures to reduce our consumption of oil?

 

It's time people with "I Support Our Troops" magnetic ribbons on their back bumpers did something a little more demonstrative...

^ So, given what is known about the financial underpinnings of Muslim extremists (http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray122002.asp et al), would you not support long-term strategic measures to reduce our consumption of oil?

Might as well support long-term strategic measures to reduce our consumption of oxygen.

Might as well support long-term strategic measures to reduce our consumption of oxygen.

 

:lol: People used to think horses, typewriters, and telegrams were indispensable, too. We can suck it up and exercise some control over the situation or we can pretend like we have no say and wait for the next time OPEC or some weather event puts the squeeze on our supply of oil.