What is the difference

[jarhead]

BART

Bart,

You are correct in your assumption implied by my pen name that I once served in “The Green Machine”. And yes, I know what it is to fix the battlefield. Hitler also fixed the battlefield when he invaded Poland, France, and Russia. Adolph still gets no accolades from me for his militarism and quest for the thousand year Reich. .

Your analysis that we have not had any further attacks on our soil due to our invasion of Iraq is about as coherent as my stating that there have been no further attacks on our soil due to the fact that I started drinking skim milk. I doubt that either theory is valid. As much as many pilots on these boards complain about the impositions placed by the TSA on further highjacking’s, and bin Laden bars being installed on all aircraft, and frequent shut downs of places like LAX, might have a lot to do with the lack of other attacks….so far. The secretary of homeland security has stated that in his view, we will be attacked again, that that is a certainty. I’d like to see our forces used in a better manner than trying to install a government of a democracy in a country like Iraq, to be deployed in areas that would help mitigate the threats of terror. Our treasury needs to fund more and better border security with better and more customs agents, and armed forces and predator aircraft flying our own borders in surveillance. Where terrorist train and exist, yeah, lets go get ‘em. But to abuse citizens of a sovereign nation, is not in the best tradition of America. We have no business being in Iraq, and never did. We (Bush &Company) have now created a monster we cannot control.

We are at war against Terror. We have too few forces in Afghanistan, where one of the biggest nests of terror is still in action, and OBL is still on the loose. Al Queda and the Taliban are the ones being suppressed, but our forces are fighting a war of insurgency by people we invaded, who never attacked us. Saddam was evil, I am glad he’s gone. It would be nice if Castro were gone, should we fix the battlefield there also? While we are at it, why not North Korea too? Kim Il Sung is an SOB also. This war of pre-emption is a bad idea. Isn’t that what Japan did to us at Pearl Harbor…..fix the battlefield? Should we seize Saudi Arabia too, in your view? That's where OBL and 16 of the 19 9-11 highjackers came from. Fix that battle field too, and while we're at it, sieze their oil fields. Our gas costs too much now, right?

Yes, America is at war, but at war in the wrong place. The adventure we are in now in Iraq is called nation building. Bush has opened the doors to recruit another thousand OBL’s, as we are almost universally hated around the world.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I believe the Republican party (at least at the presidential level) has left me, and become extreme right wing, Neocon controlled people in the administration and in the cabinet. Ashcroft is taking the country away from the rule of law, and denying due process which in my view, is not constitutional.

There is no way in hell that a Republican wrote this.

I don't believe you for one second, sir.

 

[enigma]

You state that since I have been a Republican for 40 years, and now am going to vote for a liberal, that I never have been a Republican.

I didn't say you had never been a Republican, I said that 40 year Republican would never vote for Kerry.

I believe the Republican party (at least at the presidential level) has left me, and become extreme right wing, Neocon controlled people in the administration and in the cabinet. Ashcroft is taking the country away from the rule of law, and denying due process which in my view, is not constitutional.

True conservatives know that neocons are not right wing. Neocons are just the eastern liberal wing of the Republican party. They share their worldview with the eastern liberal Democratics.

True conservatives are as mad at President Bush as are you, the exception being that a true conservative would never vote for a European Socialist like Kerry.

I'm beginning to agree with sqwkyvfr, you write like a seminar caller speaks.

enigma

 

[jarhead]

sqwkvfr

You are correct, a Republican did not write that. An ex-republican wrote it. Look, you will not change my mind about these things, and I know I will not change your mind. That's the great thing about America; these things are decided at the ballot box. We shall just have to agree to dis-agree. Our differences on this will be decided for us in November, by the collective votes of those who choose to use their constitutional franchise, and cast a vote.

 

[bart]

Jarhead,

I am going to boil your words down to two strategies:

1) Fortify and secure our borders

and

2) The enemy is in Afghanistan, go find em, fix em and kill em.


I will have to say that they sound attractive, however, they are most likely doomed to failure. Let's start with number one:

1) Enemy has the initiative
2) Vast resources must be deployed
3) Easily exploited (fixed positions, routines and procedures, easily observed and studied for weakness)
4) No pressure on enemy bases of support
5) Difficulty in maintaining high state of vigilance in absence of open hosilities

Number two:

1) No pressure on sources of financial, material and political support
2) Terrain favors defense
3) History of fierce resistance to centralized authority
4) Unwillingness of Pakistan to allow thorough operations in their country

I would be happy to debate any of the above points with you. I have alot of friends serving in Afghanistan right now, and not one of them complains of lack of support or resources. They say more troops will not solve their problems. Being able to foray into Pakistan and deny the enemy sanctuary would solve their problems. Two of them have likened the situation in Afghanistan to Vietnam in that the enemy only operates close to the border and pulls back when a superior force approaches.

Given that we do not expect the political situation in Pakistan to change anytime soon, I would expect the situation in Afghanistan to be unfavorable for major combat operations for some time. The root of this problem and the real bases of support for terrorism lie with the oil rich countries in the Middle East. It is there that the real war will be won or lost. To the degree that success in Iraq takes place, there will be (and already has been) tremendous pressure on other countries to clean up their act.

Case in point are the recent security ops in Saudi Arabia. Can you recall open gunfights between govt forces and terrorists in Saudi Arabia before the invasion? Seems someone got a message and is doing something about it. I keep going back to: If you think this is all about WMD and yellow cakes (though you may need only look as far as Syria to find what is left of any of it), you really need to step back and look for a bigger strategy.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Re: sqwkvfr

You are correct, a Republican did not write that. An ex-republican wrote it.

Well, best of luck to ya, my good man. I just hope that for both your sake and for the sake of the Democrat party, your moderate voice isn't drowned out by the WTO rioters, militant pro-abortion activists, anarchists, socialists and other highly vocal fringe groups.

 

[Dubya]

What is so rediculous....

....is that the only reason we can argue about any of this is because the media runs this country. You can hate Bush and Kerry and conservatives and liberals...but at the end of the day...they are the way they are because of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FOXNews, CSPAN, CSPAN2 (are you serious?), 60 Minutes, Dateline, 2020.....and on and on.
My President can't do his job because of the media

The CIA, FBI, etc...can't do their jobs because of the media.

I don't want to know what is going on inside a prison in the middle of friggin Iraq.

I don't need Geraldo running around on the front lines.

I don't need a scrolling recap of the same story for 24 straight hours.
The media is out of control and they run our government...period.

I want my government and my country's military doing what they need to do to prevent my country from being attacked. Seems to me that is the case...whether or not you agree with the sequence of events that led us there. Go read the post with all of the quotes from both sides of the eisles concerning Iraq. We are there...we need to be there...and we need not stop there.

Sure we need checks and balances....but it has spiraled completely out of control.

I'm not going to get into the debate about morals when it is involving.....WAR....hello? It's war.

W

 

[Big Duke Six]

OK, had to go do some stuff with the kids for a bit. I'm back.

Several things:

Dubya, you hit it right on the head. We're crippled militarily because of the media. In everything we do now, we need to ensure we will meet the approval of John and Jane Q. Public before we do it. "Oh, thugs are holed up in a mosque are they? Well, we'd better let this play in the media back home for a while, and make sure everyone in Massachusetts understands what the rules are before we take it apart or there will be hell to pay when Kennedy sees what we did, spins it and puts it on CNN." I don't know who let the pics out from the prison, but I would rather let them do their jobs there and get results. I trust us.

I can't stand it when people attack us in the media for intelligence failures, then scream again and attack the methods used to get the results they demanded in the first place. The hypocrisy kills me. We are still on the moral high ground because our cause is just. WE have no intention of occupying their country. We don't want it. We DO need to get rid of the people standing in our way. If it takes insulting some suspicious Iraqi's along the way, well then, they were on the wrong side. They made their choice. I'm confident of that.

This conversion to democracy may take awhile, but I believe we are there for the right reasons. Some Iraqi's may not know it yet, but we are. I feel, contrary to what the media wants us to believe, that the average Iraqi wants us to succeed. Of course, you won't see Ted Koppel telling the US public all the things we've accomplished, but he'll happily read the names of the dead to us. No bias there. If he wants to honor people, honor the living soldiers too.

So Jarhead, if you really feel Iraq is better off without us, you just go ahead and vote Kerry. Losing Iraq would be bad enough, but the damage to our national security would be immense, as others have posted earlier. Kerry lacks the heart of a true patriot. So although I'm not 100% happy with Bush either, he'll get my vote.

I personally don't want to hand this country over to terrorists because our president can't stomach the realities of the world.