I'm not sure if you're making fun of me or not, but that's essentially what I've been longing for for about 15-20 years! Career politicians are NOT good for the country.

I am going to put this in a thread.

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me or not, but that's essentially what I've been longing for for about 15-20 years! Career politicians are NOT good for the country.

Actually, in somewhat of a rare moment I am quite serious.

 

I guess you're not the pinko lib I've made you out to be... :lol:

( I am kidding you on this one. )

 

Apparently, I'm not the radical republican kool-aid drinker you've made me out to be.

 

 

 

 

I'm ready for a second American Revolution... preferably peaceful, but definitely revolutionary. I'm ready to get our govenment working for us again instead of forcing us to work to support all the broken programs in it.

I know a History professor at NKU that is very adamant in his belief that the Cuban Missile Crisis was played up by the Kennedys as an October suprise to thwart the Republicans in the midst of a mid term election of which the Democrats were percieved as being weak on national security...

 

Is this true? I'm not sure. Is it worth discussuion? Definitely.

 

I'm not much of a political historian, so I can't comment with a lot of confidence, but it seems that if they wanted to show that they weren't weak, they would have agreed to the recommended airstrike by the military to destroy the missiles and perhaps followed it up with an invasion to overthrow Castro, which was also a suggested option from the military.

 

To claim the Kennedy's were using it to prove they weren't weak on national security doesn't really add up with what actually happened...they refused to airstrike and destroy the missiles, refused to retaliate after a US plane was shot down, and then traded away missiles in Turkey to get the USSR to remove their missiles from Cuba.

 

Again, I'm no expert, so I'm looking at it from a very simplistic point-of-view, but it just doesn't add up.

Folks, if you think there are no politicians on either side that would sell out our troops for political gain you are mistaken.

 

I agree, it's sad, but to them it's about more than just the war, it's about the over all way of life and the way America runs and how they feel it should be run. It's what those politicians believe in and live for.

I'm not much of a political historian, so I can't comment with a lot of confidence, but it seems that if they wanted to show that they weren't weak, they would have agreed to the recommended airstrike by the military to destroy the missiles and perhaps followed it up with an invasion to overthrow Castro, which was also a suggested option from the military.

 

To claim the Kennedy's were using it to prove they weren't weak on national security doesn't really add up with what actually happened...they refused to airstrike and destroy the missiles, refused to retaliate after a US plane was shot down, and then traded away missiles in Turkey to get the USSR to remove their missiles from Cuba.

 

Again, I'm no expert, so I'm looking at it from a very simplistic point-of-view, but it just doesn't add up.

 

I personally, based on what little I know could ever see us raiding Cuba back then, Russia would've done something. To me that seems like Iran or someone raiding Israel right now and us not doing anything. I just don't see how it would ever hardly ever happen.

^Sure Russia would have done something...the popular opinion is that they would have attacked at Berlin, and then it would escalate. Obviously, the cost and the destruction would have been high, but it's not likely the United States would suffer much, if any, attacks on it's home soil, because once they destroyed the missiles in Cuba, it would be hard for Russia to attack us at home.

 

So, my point was, with that in mind, if Kennedy wanted to prove that he wasn't "weak" on national defense, he would have weighed those options and attacked Cuba. I just don't buy the conspiracy theory that Kennedy used the crisis to show he wasn't weak...

 

It seems to me that Kennedy considered the cost of human life and placed a higher premium on it than many others at that time, and his resolve allowed both sides to stay out of a huge, likely nuclear war, and get out of a tense situation as safely as possible for not only the USA and USSR, but also the world at large.

^Sure Russia would have done something...the popular opinion is that they would have attacked at Berlin, and then it would escalate. Obviously, the cost and the destruction would have been high, but it's not likely the United States would suffer much, if any, attacks on it's home soil, because once they destroyed the missiles in Cuba, it would be hard for Russia to attack us at home.

 

So, my point was, with that in mind, if Kennedy wanted to prove that he wasn't "weak" on national defense, he would have weighed those options and attacked Cuba. I just don't buy the conspiracy theory that Kennedy used the crisis to show he wasn't weak...

 

It seems to me that Kennedy considered the cost of human life and placed a higher premium on it than many others at that time, and his resolve allowed both sides to stay out of a huge, likely nuclear war, and get out of a tense situation as safely as possible for not only the USA and USSR, but also the world at large.

 

 

Actually the Russians had plenty of ICBM's to shoot at us in a full scale Nuclear war. The reason for the missles in Cuba was that there would be less warning time for the US to get their missles out of the ground.

 

Kennedy played a game of "bluff" with Kruschev and won. It was a calculated game that weighed what was worthy of retaliation and its costs versus what was not.

Actually the Russians had plenty of ICBM's to shoot at us in a full scale Nuclear war. The reason for the missles in Cuba was that there would be less warning time for the US to get their missles out of the ground.

 

Kennedy played a game of "bluff" with Kruschev and won. It was a calculated game that weighed what was worthy of retaliation and its costs versus what was not.

 

:thumb:

 

In any case, what I know about it and the conspiracly theory presented just doesn't add up to me.

Have to disagree. It's easy for some to say the Dems want a good result, but provide one link where a Dem offers a solution to even attempt a good result. I haven't heard one Dem offer anything other than surrender. Not trying very hard (as in not at all) for a good result.

 

As near as I can tell there are 4 different "solutions" being offered by Democrats. There is the Joe Lieberman "stay the course the surge is working" plan but that's really the Republican plan. Then there's the Joe Biden "split Iraq into three parts" plan which nobody, Democrat or Republican, seems to be supporting except Joe Biden. Nearly all other Democrats can be lumped into two other categories: first there's the "pull out today because we should have surrendered yesterday" group and finally there's the "I'm worried about what will happen when we leave so let's surrender tomorrow" group.

Again, the Dems only solution is surrender, which is the worst possible result. They either want a bad result (very likely) or just believe we can't get a good result (unlikely). I don't have any use for either of those scenarios...

 

 

Use of the "s" word implies we're in a symmetrical fight against a definable enemy. This isn't World War II. Our forces are fighting Sunni, Shiite, al Qaida in Iraq, and foreign fighters, and from what I've read all those factions are also fighting each other and even fighting within their own groups in some cases. And there's no sign that Iraqi politicians (on vacation right now) are going to be effective in any way in repairing these rifts. What evidence can you present that a good result is even possible? Remember, a good result is a stable Iraq that doesn't require tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops to hold it together.

 

The American people have had enough of this nonsense.

Use of the "s" word implies we're in a symmetrical fight against a definable enemy. This isn't World War II. Our forces are fighting Sunni, Shiite, al Qaida in Iraq, and foreign fighters, and from what I've read all those factions are also fighting each other and even fighting within their own groups in some cases. And there's no sign that Iraqi politicians (on vacation right now) are going to be effective in any way in repairing these rifts. What evidence can you present that a good result is even possible? Remember, a good result is a stable Iraq that doesn't require tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops to hold it together.

 

The American people have had enough of this nonsense.

 

As you are surely well aware, there is more and more evidence that the Sunnis and the Shiites are both becoming very tired of the foreign insurgents ruining Iraq and killing Iraqis. Seems like almost every other day there is an article in the WSJ talking about the increased cooperation we are getting from both sects. There is good evidence that the surge is working. There is even evidence to indicate that they are working together with U.S. forces to fight the foreign insurgents. An article in today's WSJ indicated that the foreign insurgents are now aggressively targeting teenage and younger boys to do the IED and suicide work because the adult Iraqis (both Sunni and Shiite) refuse to help them. And the young boys are only doing it for the money because they are so poor and desperate. If we can rebuild the economy (which will take time, time which a lot of Americans don't have the stomach to take), that source of assistance will also go away from the foreign insurgents.

 

A stable Iraq without tens of thousands combat troops to hold it together is more than a good result; its an impossible result for years to follow and in my opinion an unrealistic goal in the short term. We kept troops in Japan and Germany for how long after WWII?

 

And for all the problems and unfinished business that we have in the States, don't our Congresspersons and Senators take a summer recess each year? Yep. Locking the Sunni and Shiite elected officials in Baghdad during the summer, while appeasing some folks and sounding good to some folks, isn't going to make the necessary actions and agreements occur any more quickly.

As you are surely well aware, there is more and more evidence that the Sunnis and the Shiites are both becoming very tired of the foreign insurgents ruining Iraq and killing Iraqis. Seems like almost every other day there is an article in the WSJ talking about the increased cooperation we are getting from both sects. There is good evidence that the surge is working. There is even evidence to indicate that they are working together with U.S. forces to fight the foreign insurgents. An article in today's WSJ indicated that the foreign insurgents are now aggressively targeting teenage and younger boys to do the IED and suicide work because the adult Iraqis (both Sunni and Shiite) refuse to help them. And the young boys are only doing it for the money because they are so poor and desperate. If we can rebuild the economy (which will take time, time which a lot of Americans don't have the stomach to take), that source of assistance will also go away from the foreign insurgents.

 

A stable Iraq without tens of thousands combat troops to hold it together is more than a good result; its an impossible result for years to follow and in my opinion an unrealistic goal in the short term. We kept troops in Japan and Germany for how long after WWII?

 

And for all the problems and unfinished business that we have in the States, don't our Congresspersons and Senators take a summer recess each year? Yep. Locking the Sunni and Shiite elected officials in Baghdad during the summer, while appeasing some folks and sounding good to some folks, isn't going to make the necessary actions and agreements occur any more quickly.

 

 

I've heard that argument a lot and I'm not saying you aren't valid in your point but are the two that similar? Japan and Germany were not being held sway by tribal leadership and fueled by religious fanaticism. We also stayed in these countries because our two greatest threats (USSR and China) were at the doorstep of each. Now that's a legitimate reason to look at our staying put. The problem is that the violence and deaths in Iraq have escalated I believe beyond what we experienced in post war Japan or Germany.

 

I would also add that for many (not making it right) this war was a bad choice in its inception while WW II pretty much appeared as a "just war" in the minds of most everyone. It's easier to clean up from that viewpoint than have the stomach to clean up from the other.

 

Just some extra thoughts on the matter.

I've heard that argument a lot and I'm not saying you aren't valid in your point but are the two that similar? Japan and Germany were not being held sway by tribal leadership and fueled by religious fanaticism. We also stayed in these countries because our two greatest threats (USSR and China) were at the doorstep of each. Now that's a legitimate reason to look at our staying put. The problem is that the violence and deaths in Iraq have escalated I believe beyond what we experienced in post war Japan or Germany.

 

I would also add that for many (not making it right) this war was a bad choice in its inception while WW II pretty much appeared as a "just war" in the minds of most everyone. It's easier to clean up from that viewpoint than have the stomach to clean up from the other.

 

Just some extra thoughts on the matter.

 

To some extent the tribal leadership and religious fanaticism are greater reasons to stay to allow the Iraqis a chance to build their country, don't you think? The job in Germany and Japan was easier; we totally bombed them into submission. In Germany, there were very few male adults alive to present any post war resistance and those that were, were weery of war. The Japanese were devastated by the nukes and their spirit totally destroyed. They feared additional resistance would result in additional nukes. Because the rules of war have changed in the last 60 some years,we could not use those same tactics against Iraq.

 

If we had totally destroyed Iraq the way we leveled Germany and Japan, the rebuilding effort may have actually been easier (although the world and media condemnation would have been huge). But doing only those things that are easy is not what this country has been and hopefully is not about. Its tough and my heart and prayers go out to the young men and women making the ultimate sacrifices. But I still believe that if we continue the course, their sacrifices will not have been in vain.

 

And I hope you agree that we are beyond arguing whether we should have or should not have invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter at this point from the standpoint of pulling out or staying. We started it, right or wrong, so we have to finish it.

I believe I have the perfect idea for the consevatives,since we invaded a soverign nation why not go all out an annex it? That way West Virginia and Mississippi would not lead us in poverty anymore. That way our kids aren't being killed on foreign soil, they would truly be fighting to protect America. I say this in jest but we all know there is not funny about this situation, if we look deep down inside of our selfs we have to see we have to get out, We destablized this country and their only way to get back to their way of life, NOT our way of life is for us to leave

As you are surely well aware, there is more and more evidence that the Sunnis and the Shiites are both becoming very tired of the foreign insurgents ruining Iraq and killing Iraqis. Seems like almost every other day there is an article in the WSJ talking about the increased cooperation we are getting from both sects. There is good evidence that the surge is working. There is even evidence to indicate that they are working together with U.S. forces to fight the foreign insurgents. An article in today's WSJ indicated that the foreign insurgents are now aggressively targeting teenage and younger boys to do the IED and suicide work because the adult Iraqis (both Sunni and Shiite) refuse to help them. And the young boys are only doing it for the money because they are so poor and desperate. If we can rebuild the economy (which will take time, time which a lot of Americans don't have the stomach to take), that source of assistance will also go away from the foreign insurgents.

 

The surge is working inasmuch as it has shown that if our occupation force is boosted to an unsustainable level and strict curfews (that squelch economic activity) are enforced, you can reduce the number of headless bodies in the street in the morning. That doesn't mean that there has been any lasting change that will allow the country to stabilize. In spite of any improvement in security, the various factions in Iraq still have not settled anything politically, which means the surge has ultimately failed to accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Well, this horse hasn't drank in about 1300 years.

 

A stable Iraq without tens of thousands combat troops to hold it together is more than a good result; its an impossible result for years to follow and in my opinion an unrealistic goal in the short term. We kept troops in Japan and Germany for how long after WWII?

 

It never was and will never be a realistic goal. Reference my comment above about the past 1300 years. You're counting on people who have never settled their differences to settle their differences because we want them to. That's rich. Japan and Germany were about a thousand times more homogeneous than Iraq, and as Hatz correctly stated, we posted large numbers of troops in those countries to counterbalance the threat of communism, not because either country needed holding together like Iraq. And clearly, there wasn't anywhere near the level of overt hostility toward our presence in Germany and Japan as there is in Iraq. Have you seen the Dick Cheney clip from 1994 regarding the reasons we didn't topple Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War? They knew the mess that would be created.

 

 

And for all the problems and unfinished business that we have in the States, don't our Congresspersons and Senators take a summer recess each year? Yep. Locking the Sunni and Shiite elected officials in Baghdad during the summer, while appeasing some folks and sounding good to some folks, isn't going to make the necessary actions and agreements occur any more quickly.

 

The problems and unfinished business in the States absolutely pales in comparison to what is going on in Iraq. Where's the sense of urgency? You can put aside the blood of our troops who are being killed while Iraqi politicians sleep in and work on their tans--I'm sure they could not care less if any incremental Americans die. What about the chaos and death that reigns every day in various parts of the country due to sectarian disunity? Do they care? Let's assume they do. Why aren't they working night and day 24/7 to settle their differences? Because they're impotent, just like al Maliki is impotent. They don't have control of the situation, and neither do we.