The Washington Post & the NY Times. Well duh... :lol:

 

That's about what I expected. Attack the source rather than the substance.

We lost this war, and someday we'll pay price.

 

 

What say you?

I would like to see all of the opinions of the heroes that support what we are doing over there.

That's about what I expected. Attack the source rather than the substance.

Good, just so you weren't disappointed.

That's about what I expected. Attack the source rather than the substance.

OK H, you deserve a real answer. First of all, I said you act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do; clearly he was advised and made his decision. Yes, he his the man in charge and he can either take that advise ore choose not to. What, you think he’s the only president to do that? Surely you know better than that. Something else I think you need to understand is that I don’t blindly support Bush in all that he does, as a matter of fact there are plenty of things I disagree with him on and many things I’m not happy about.

The fact remains that we are in this war, like it or not, and we need to fix what is broken. We can’t just leave, for God’s sake look what happened when we did that in Vietnam. The soldier in the article is right on the money, too many people in this country don’t care enough anymore, they’re too wrapped up in themselves and they just don’ get it nor do they care to. We had better think down the road and understand that this is a real problem. These people hate us and have for a long time, they want us dead. We had better learn to toughen up and fight, and I mean fight like they do, it’s the only thing that they’ll understand.

I hate to say it, but Bin Laden may have been right, maybe we are a paper tiger, the people not the military. Maybe we can’t take a punch. Really sad when I think of all of our troops who continue to bravely fight on, thank God for them.

OK H, you deserve a real answer. First of all, I said you act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do; clearly he was advised and made his decision. Yes, he his the man in charge and he can either take that advise ore choose not to. What, you think he’s the only president to do that? Surely you know better than that. Something else I think you need to understand is that I don’t blindly support Bush in all that he does, as a matter of fact there are plenty of things I disagree with him on and many things I’m not happy about.

The fact remains that we are in this war, like it or not, and we need to fix what is broken. We can’t just leave, for God’s sake look what happened when we did that in Vietnam. The soldier in the article is right on the money, too many people in this country don’t care enough anymore, they’re too wrapped up in themselves and they just don’ get it nor do they care to. We had better think down the road and understand that this is a real problem. These people hate us and have for a long time, they want us dead. We had better learn to toughen up and fight, and I mean fight like they do, it’s the only thing that they’ll understand.

I hate to say it, but Bin Laden may have been right, maybe we are a paper tiger, the people not the military. Maybe we can’t take a punch. Really sad when I think of all of our troops who continue to bravely fight on, thank God for them.

I couldn't agree more! Great post!:ylsuper:

OK H, you deserve a real answer. First of all, I said you act as if Bush calls the shots without the military leaders advising him on what to do; clearly he was advised and made his decision. Yes, he his the man in charge and he can either take that advise ore choose not to. What, you think he’s the only president to do that? Surely you know better than that. Something else I think you need to understand is that I don’t blindly support Bush in all that he does, as a matter of fact there are plenty of things I disagree with him on and many things I’m not happy about.

The fact remains that we are in this war, like it or not, and we need to fix what is broken. We can’t just leave, for God’s sake look what happened when we did that in Vietnam. The soldier in the article is right on the money, too many people in this country don’t care enough anymore, they’re too wrapped up in themselves and they just don’ get it nor do they care to. We had better think down the road and understand that this is a real problem. These people hate us and have for a long time, they want us dead. We had better learn to toughen up and fight, and I mean fight like they do, it’s the only thing that they’ll understand.

I hate to say it, but Bin Laden may have been right, maybe we are a paper tiger, the people not the military. Maybe we can’t take a punch. Really sad when I think of all of our troops who continue to bravely fight on, thank God for them.

 

Bush has put us in a situation that doesn't play to our strengths. Conventional military power doesn't work too well against an opportunistic enemy who is willing to dress as civilians (indeed hide behind civilians) and which seeks to pick our people off whenever, wherever. Throw in the fact that this enemy is willing to die if it means taking a few of ours with them and that the general population in Iraq is either too frightened or too apathetic to help identify the bad guys and you have the makings of a real military quagmire. I keep hearing things like, "we don't have the stomach for the fight" and "can't take a punch", but those remarks imply that the outcome is entirely in our hands. That isn't always the case. Sometimes, a team's destiny is not in its control. For example, if enough Iraqis/jihadists decide to pick up arms against us, their numbers will grow at a rate that outpaces our capacity to identify and eliminate them. What's the military solution in that scenario?

^ He's right, George call the generals, tell them to pack up and come home. We can't win, the enemy's not playing by the rules, we've been out smarted, they played the "can't find us" card. It was a good try but its useless. Chalk it up to experience. (with heavy sarcasm)

Bush has put us in a situation that doesn't play to our strengths. Conventional military power doesn't work too well against an opportunistic enemy who is willing to dress as civilians (indeed hide behind civilians) and which seeks to pick our people off whenever, wherever. Throw in the fact that this enemy is willing to die if it means taking a few of ours with them and that the general population in Iraq is either too frightened or too apathetic to help identify the bad guys and you have the makings of a real military quagmire. I keep hearing things like, "we don't have the stomach for the fight" and "can't take a punch", but those remarks imply that the outcome is entirely in our hands. That isn't always the case. Sometimes, a team's destiny is not in its control. For example, if enough Iraqis/jihadists decide to pick up arms against us, their numbers will grow at a rate that outpaces our capacity to identify and eliminate them. What's the military solution in that scenario?

Our military will adapt, we will find a way and we will win. Providing the people in this country let us. H, your post is exactly what I'm talking about, in your eyes..... we can't win. I'm glad our troops don't feel that way.

Now we are inviting Syria and Iran to discuss with us how to fix the Iraq problem. Personally, I think its an excellent idea.

Now we are inviting Syria and Iran to discuss with us how to fix the Iraq problem. Personally, I think its an excellent idea.

 

 

If you're serious, I agree. I think one of the problems that's been persistent is that the US has sided with one Middle Eastern Country over another time and time again, which has created huge problems not only in our relationships with the offended countries, but exacerbated the existing problems between countries. IMO, the entire Middle East should be invited to help solve the problem. Treat the Middle East as an entity similar to the European Union. Assist them in learning to work together for the mutual benefit of the entire region. Right now, each country is essentially an enemy of the other. And within each country are factions that support the countries' enemies. The US should take a leadership/moderating role, and let the people and leaders who live ther hash it out.

If you're serious, I agree. I think one of the problems that's been persistent is that the US has sided with one Middle Eastern Country over another time and time again, which has created huge problems not only in our relationships with the offended countries, but exacerbated the existing problems between countries. IMO, the entire Middle East should be invited to help solve the problem. Treat the Middle East as an entity similar to the European Union. Assist them in learning to work together for the mutual benefit of the entire region. Right now, each country is essentially an enemy of the other. And within each country are factions that support the countries' enemies. The US should take a leadership/moderating role, and let the people and leaders who live ther hash it out.

Rockmom, there is no disrespect intended when I make this statement, but you need to further study the history of the Muslim people and their religeon. It is a society based on conversion and military triumph. Their sects have been fighting against one another since the last of the four rightly guided caliphs died, leaving a void in their religeous leadership. Peaceful solutions of compromise are not part of their history to the point that compromise is looked at as a source of weakness. Iran would love to help solve the problem. They are the most militant anti-U.S. government in the region. They would love to control Iraq's resources, creating a muslim superpower. This could create a nuclear superpower in the middle east that could create a shift in military and economic power globally. This is NOT in the United States interest.

Rockmom, there is no disrespect intended when I make this statement, but you need to further study the history of the Muslim people and their religeon. It is a society based on conversion and military triumph. Their sects have been fighting against one another since the last of the four rightly guided caliphs died, leaving a void in their religeous leadership. Peaceful solutions of compromise are not part of their history to the point that compromise is looked at as a source of weakness. Iran would love to help solve the problem. They are the most militant anti-U.S. government in the region. They would love to control Iraq's resources, creating a muslim superpower. This could create a nuclear superpower in the middle east that could create a shift in military and economic power globally. This is NOT in the United States interest.

 

 

I know the history well, better than most. I'm saying that while historically peaceful solutions, compromise, and mutual benefit are not a part of the equation, the world has changed. I disagree that helping establish peace in the Middle East will harm us. The point is that a new kind of change has to occur. We need to be a part of that, as well as other industrialized nations. We should take the leadership role, though.

I know the history well, better than most. I'm saying that while historically peaceful solutions, compromise, and mutual benefit are not a part of the equation, the world has changed. I disagree that helping establish peace in the Middle East will harm us. The point is that a new kind of change has to occur. We need to be a part of that, as well as other industrialized nations. We should take the leadership role, though.

I think that when we think of peace in the middle east, we see it as a conglomerate of countries working in a world economy. I think this is a dream according to the history of the culture in the region. I think the kind of "peace" that can happen in the middle east is conglomerate controlled by the most militant sects that are willing to take control by force. The language of the Quran couldn't be more plain from the militant view. A muslim should seek to convert infadels to the faith, or be conquered and destroyed.

I think that when we think of peace in the middle east, we see it as a conglomerate of countries working in a world economy. I think this is a dream according to the history of the culture in the region. I think the kind of "peace" that can happen in the middle east is conglomerate controlled by the most militant sects that are willing to take control by force. The language of the Quran couldn't be more plain from the militant view. A muslim should seek to convert infadels to the faith, or be conquered and destroyed.

 

So, what you're saying is that there is no way that the Quran's teachings will allow for cooperative effort toward peace?

 

Have you read the Quran?

So, what you're saying is that there is no way that the Quran's teachings will allow for cooperative effort toward peace?

 

Have you read the Quran?

Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is that the people who have held power in the region throughout history have been the most radically minded. The Quran DEFINATELY uses language that allows for the continuance of militarist domination. It can be used as a tool to radicalize the masses towards a path of welcomed death. In short, its teachings to lead towards a path that sways far from peace. We must pursue OUR interest in the area, not the interest of those that would like to see the establishment of a muslim based military and economic superpower in the middle east. It is not that there is NO WAY its teachings will allow for peace, it is that there is NO WAY that the radical leadership in the area will allow for peace.