Lieberman offers clear assessment on Iraq

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The military won't support a draft. So if you say that a draft may be necessary you would be injecting politics (or what I call 'reality') into the process, that the military hierarchy would not support.

What you say is true; perhaps it's because there are enough people volunteering for the military even today. Still, I still believe that we need to allow the military to make all the decisions in this war and for the politicians in DC to support those decisions.

A very good friend of mine is in the National Guard here in Utah and has been deployed and returned safely both times. His biggest complaint about what is happening over there is that the troops are not allowed to kill the enemy if the enemy shoots at them from a mosque, as school, a house or any place where collateral damage may occur. He has had friends injured of killed by snipers who shoot at them from mosques and unless that sniper comes out of the mosque under his own free will, they can't return fire. This is the result of politicians getting in the way.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The terrorists are responsible for attacking us, and they should be held responsible.

Our president is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq (which has little to nothing to do with the terrorists, and in fact has empowered them in many ways), for the poor state of our military, for our poor planning and execution of the occupation of Iraq, and for awful communication to world leaders and to the American public, and he should be held responsible for those actions (or lack of actions).

I guess you didn't hear the irony in my voice. Of course I knew what you meant. Iraq's "awfulness" is Bush's fault. 9/11 was America's fault, and Virigina Tech was Charlton Heston's fault.

Why blame the real responsible parties, when you can score political points instead? It's fun!

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yes, I will.

It's time for the politicians to step aside and allow the military to run the war.

The real questions I have are "how long would the military need?" And "is this even a war that is winnable?

My personal thoughts are 5 years more at double troop strength, at the barest of minimums. And even that is very unlikely to settle the situation down completely.

Having said that I think doing the job right, creating a stable multi-ethnic Iraq is likely to take more than a decade more to do the type of institution building necessary to support such a construction. Absent something like that I think this is not winnable, in the sense that any development will be lasting.

[MikeWaters]

The United States can't win at any cost.

If we wanted to win at any cost we would firebomb any neighborhood where we were attacked.

This may frustrate some soldiers, but those soldiers aren't realistic.

The entire thing is political, and the only solution is political. This war can't be won with bullets. I hope your friend will understand that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess you didn't hear the irony in my voice. Of course I knew what you meant. Iraq's "awfulness" is Bush's fault. 9/11 was America's fault, and Virigina Tech was Charlton Heston's fault.

Why blame the real responsible parties, when you can score political points instead? It's fun!

LOL.

Tex, it's great to have you over here. Keep posting.

(I am serious)

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess you didn't hear the irony in my voice. Of course I knew what you meant. Iraq's "awfulness" is Bush's fault. 9/11 was America's fault, and Virigina Tech was Charlton Heston's fault.

Why blame the real responsible parties, when you can score political points instead? It's fun!

Does the "decider" ever get credit or take responsibility for the outcome of his decisions by you?

9/11 and Va. Tech don't have anything to do with Iraq, obviously. I am not sure why you want to bring them in. Oh, wait, you were accusing someone else of bringing in material that was irrelevant to try and score political points.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

The real questions I have are "how long would the military need?" And "is this even a war that is winnable?

My personal thoughts are 5 years more at double troop strength, at the barest of minimums. And even that is very unlikely to settle the situation down completely.

Having said that I think doing the job right, creating a stable multi-ethnic Iraq is likely to take more than a decade more to do the type of institution building necessary to support such a construction. Absent something like that I think this is not winnable, in the sense that any development will be lasting.

I agree that it most likely will take a long time. Nothing worth doing is easy - never has been, never will be. Which leads to my real question "Wouldn't it be worth the effort to rid the world of terrorists, or to at least let them know that any of their activity will not be tolerated?"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess you didn't hear the irony in my voice. Of course I knew what you meant. Iraq's "awfulness" is Bush's fault. 9/11 was America's fault, and Virigina Tech was Charlton Heston's fault.

Why blame the real responsible parties, when you can score political points instead? It's fun!

I am surprised to hear you say that 9/11 was America's fault and that VT was Charlton Heston's fault. I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation (though I can agree with your assessment of Bush bungling Iraq).

I would think you were just being sarcastic, but nobody else has ever come close to saying what you just said, so I can only assume you were being honest.

Or were you just trying to score political points?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The United States can't win at any cost.

If we wanted to win at any cost we would firebomb any neighborhood where we were attacked.

This may frustrate some soldiers, but those soldiers aren't realistic.

The entire thing is political, and the only solution is political. This war can't be won with bullets. I hope your friend will understand that.

Agreed.

The "totally take the gloves off and let the military run the war" has several problems. There is a reason the Constitution put the civilian authorities in charge of the military authorities.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Does the "decider" ever get credit or take responsibility for the outcome of his decisions by you?

Yep. I have no problem with Bush being held accountable for his decisions, and I'll wager a guess that he doesn't have a problem with it either. They're called elections. That's politics.

I do have a problem with saying Bush is "responsible" for the "awful" situation in Iraq, since I kinda thought it was the terrorists. But since Bush is the world's biggest terrorist, I guess it's sixes.