Well, boys, you'd better be prepared to fire up the draft then. We've become entangled in something that could easily last 1000 years and our volunteer military cannot sustain the level of deployment required to beat down every Islamic hothead who chooses Iraq as a vacation spot. Make sure you tell all those soldiers and marines on their third or fourth deployment to forget about their families back home because this could take a while. Better get your checkbooks out while you're at it. Although we've skillfully deferred the costs for this adventure, at some point China and Japan will stop lending us money.

Nobody ever said that sacrifices won't have to be made to maintain our position in the world. We sure do lose our will quick these days.:sleep:

Nobody ever said that sacrifices won't have to be made to maintain our position in the world. We sure do lose our will quick these days.:sleep:

 

Question, what constitutes "quick" these days?

 

The reason I'm asking is because we're approaching, what? The 4th anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

I need to go back and do research to find sources, but I believe that when Bush was telling America that this was going to happen, we were told that this would be a Shock and Awe like no other, that this wouldn't last long. I also believe that at one point early in the war, Bush stood on a battleship and proclaimed the war to be over.

 

Now, I'm not saying 4 years is a long time. But, what criteria constitute "quick", and what constitute "long time" in a war?

Nobody ever said that sacrifices won't have to be made to maintain our position in the world. We sure do lose our will quick these days.:sleep:

 

Speaking of willpower, what sacrifices are being made in this country (other than by about 140,000 families)? We're back on our heals in Afghanistan (you remember that place? It's where the actual 9/11 attack was planned). If this war on terror is so important, why hasn't the entire country been mobilized on a scale comparable to World War II (you know gas rationing, meatless Tuesdays, active draft, war bond drives, etc)?

Question, what constitutes "quick" these days?

 

The reason I'm asking is because we're approaching, what? The 4th anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

I need to go back and do research to find sources, but I believe that when Bush was telling America that this was going to happen, we were told that this would be a Shock and Awe like no other, that this wouldn't last long. I also believe that at one point early in the war, Bush stood on a battleship and proclaimed the war to be over.

 

Now, I'm not saying 4 years is a long time. But, what criteria constitute "quick", and what constitute "long time" in a war?

Looking from the perspective of history, four years is extremely quick. We are in a situation that is not only going to be a war, but it is going to require our military support long after the establishment of a U.S. friendly government. There are too many hostile forces in the area that would like to remove any such government. For instance, lets look at our military support placed in places like South Korea, Japan, and West Germany. I would say that if we have lost our resolve after for years, then we have lost our resolve to maintain a power base in the middle east.

Speaking of willpower, what sacrifices are being made in this country (other than by about 140,000 families)? We're back on our heals in Afghanistan (you remember that place? It's where the actual 9/11 attack was planned). If this war on terror is so important, why hasn't the entire country been mobilized on a scale comparable to World War II (you know gas rationing, meatless Tuesdays, active draft, war bond drives, etc)?

Have we come to the point where our resources are depleated so that those sacrifices are necessary?

Looking from the perspective of history, four years is extremely quick. We are in a situation that is not only going to be a war, but it is going to require our military support long after the establishment of a U.S. friendly government. There are too many hostile forces in the area that would like to remove any such government. For instance, lets look at our military support placed in places like South Korea, Japan, and West Germany. I would say that if we have lost our resolve after for years, then we have lost our resolve to maintain a power base in the middle east.

 

When, though, does one need to look at situation and determine whether or not it's effective? So, in S Korea, Japan, and West Germany, there was a definitive end to the conflict. We were able to stay and help rebuild, assist in humanitarian efforts, etc, without fear of constant military reprisals. I don't see that happening in Iraq. We are trying to help rebuild, and other humanitarian efforts. Is our focus too divided in Iraq to be successful? Should we focus simply militarily right now? We obviously can't focus to the needed degree humanitarialy while roadside bombs and car bombs are still the norm. At what point does one say "This isn't working"?

When, though, does one need to look at situation and determine whether or not it's effective? So, in S Korea, Japan, and West Germany, there was a definitive end to the conflict. We were able to stay and help rebuild, assist in humanitarian efforts, etc, without fear of constant military reprisals. I don't see that happening in Iraq. We are trying to help rebuild, and other humanitarian efforts. Is our focus too divided in Iraq to be successful? Should we focus simply militarily right now? We obviously can't focus to the needed degree humanitarialy while roadside bombs and car bombs are still the norm. At what point does one say "This isn't working"?

What do you think that our real goals are in the middle east vs. our court of world opinion goals. I am basically looking for your opinion on this question.

What do you think that our real goals are in the middle east vs. our court of world opinion goals. I am basically looking for your opinion on this question.

 

 

I honestly have no idea what our goals are. And I mean that with no sarcasm whatsoever. Frankly if I knew, then maybe I wouldn't be so strongly opposed to this whole situation. I think a lot more support could be gained if Americans knew. Just as a tiny demographical outtake, look at all the varied opinions here on this board as to our goals. Even the people who are in 100% support of having invaded Iraq, and who think we've made no mistakes in doing so, are not consistent in the reasons they give. Some-Topple Sadaam. Others-Terrorists. Others-9/11. Others-WMD. Others-Establish Democracy. Still Others-Combinations of any and all of the previous.

I honestly have no idea what our goals are. And I mean that with no sarcasm whatsoever. Frankly if I knew, then maybe I wouldn't be so strongly opposed to this whole situation. I think a lot more support could be gained if Americans knew. Just as a tiny demographical outtake, look at all the varied opinions here on this board as to our goals. Even the people who are in 100% support of having invaded Iraq, and who think we've made no mistakes in doing so, are not consistent in the reasons they give. Some-Topple Sadaam. Others-Terrorists. Others-9/11. Others-WMD. Others-Establish Democracy. Still Others-Combinations of any and all of the previous.

I feel like we are playing that same game that has been played for thousands of years. We are acting in our own ecomonic, military and social interest. We must maintain a military power hold in the region that will keep an anti-U.S. alliance from occurring. This would both damage our economic self interest while also damaging our domestic safety. I think many of the reasons that you mentioned are simple court of public opinion reasons to cover the fact that we must act in our own, nearly imperialistic, self interest. We can't allow the western economy to be affected by an anti-western, militarist conglomerate coming to power in the middle east. Not to mention the terroist staging poing that this type of regime would permit.

Have we come to the point where our resources are depleated so that those sacrifices are necessary?

 

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 feel like we are playing that same game that has been played for thousands of years. We are acting in our own ecomonic, military and social interest. We must maintain a military power hold in the region that will keep an anti-U.S. alliance from occurring. This would both damage our economic self interest while also damaging our domestic safety. I think many of the reasons that you mentioned are simple court of public opinion reasons to cover the fact that we must act in our own, nearly imperialistic, self interest. We can't allow the western economy to be affected by an anti-western, militarist conglomerate coming to power in the middle east. Not to mention the terroist staging poing that this type of regime would permit.

 

 

Then why invade Iraq? That's what I don't understand. If you are correct, then why Iraq? They were absolutely no threat to us militarily, economically or socially. There was no threat of an alliance involving Iraq.

 

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it.

When, though, does one need to look at situation and determine whether or not it's effective? So, in S Korea, Japan, and West Germany, there was a definitive end to the conflict. We were able to stay and help rebuild, assist in humanitarian efforts, etc, without fear of constant military reprisals. I don't see that happening in Iraq. We are trying to help rebuild, and other humanitarian efforts. Is our focus too divided in Iraq to be successful? Should we focus simply militarily right now? We obviously can't focus to the needed degree humanitarialy while roadside bombs and car bombs are still the norm. At what point does one say "This isn't working"?

How long did our commitment in those areas take?

Then why invade Iraq? That's what I don't understand. If you are correct, then why Iraq? They were absolutely no threat to us militarily, economically or socially. There was no threat of an alliance involving Iraq.

 

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it.

 

 

Excellent questions, Rockmom. There was no threat of military alliance between Iran and Iraq before we invaded (probably still none now). There was no threat of Iraq being a terrorist staging point before we started this war.

How long did our commitment in those areas take?

 

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.

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.

It wouldn't have mattered. We WILL protect our interest. BTW, you might want to check how long the shooting lasted in all of those incidents.