| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2598
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:28 pm: | 
|
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, one the staunches defenders of the administration’s policy in Iraq, said the war in Iraq was not a “serious effort.”
Transcript:
BILL KRISTOL: There would not be civil war if Zarqawi had not spent the last 2 1/2 years – had ex-Saddamists with him, very skillfully going on the offensive slaughtering Shia in Karbala, now blowing up the mosque.
CHRIS WALLACE: They’re there. There are going to be more mosques to blow up. What do you do about the terrorists?
KRISTOL: Kill them. Defeat them.
CHRIS WALLACE: We’ve been trying.
KRISTOL: We’ve been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in Iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out.
CICI CONNELLY: I think that really begs the question then: what have we been doing over there for three-plus years? You say there hasn’t been a serious effort to rid that region of the terrorists. I just wonder what secretary Rumsfeld would say in response to that or all the U.S. soldiers who have been over there all this time.
KRISTOL: Secretary Rumsfeld’s plan was to draw down to 30,000 troops at the end of major activities.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12645
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Well, I've seen the WW-II news reels that show major industry switching from clothing and cars to uniforms and weaponry. I saw the film "Rosie the Riveter" depict an economy turned inside out for the sake of the war. I've heard about rationing of copper, rubber, meat, gas, etc. for the sake of the war. I've heard about a heavy draft program and everyone else qualified vounteering. I've heard of tax hikes and war bonds to fund the war.
That would be a serious effort.
But we can't do that now, because we don't really believe in paying for this war or participating in it. It's more of a spectator sport.
So yeah, I agree with Kristol that this is not a serious effort. And by saying that, I don't mean to demean the tragedy of the losses the US and others have had. But we are not acting as if this is a top priority.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10806
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 4:28 am: |
|
In the end, I think the Administration looks at Iraq as more of a political effort than a military one. From day one we never had enough troops to do the job which is why so many units there live a sort of tragic "Ground Hog Day" movie existence taking the same objective time and time again.
We could put 500,000 troops in Iraq for a short period of time. However, we no longer have the capability to sustain that sort of effort. Iraq would be like WWII. Once you went to the war zone you stayed in the war zone until it was over. I doubt if the American people would stand for that these days.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2599
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:29 am: |
|
Are the neo-cons going to throw Rumsfeld under the bus?
My theory on Rummy is that he has some geriatric dementia or something like it. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3067
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:35 am: |
|
The reason we cannot sustain a WW-II-like effort is because the war in Iraq does not carry the seriousness and gravity of WW-II. Similar to Viet Nam in this sense. This war was never adequately justified to the American people, never properly sold, and never fully supported.
Now, if Bush sent 500,000 troops to find Osama Bin Laden, I bet the American people would pony up for that effort. |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
For Bush supporters, this is not a rhetorical question: how does the administration deal with a complete descent to civil war? What is the spin, and what is the policy? |
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 327
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 11:50 am: |
|
Kristol called for Rumsfeld's resignation way back in December 2004 on the grounds that Rumsfeld wasn't fighting the war as aggressively as he thought it should have been. There seems to be some longstanding division between neoconservatives and Rumsfeld, who prefers a smaller military. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2601
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
But just think how differently things might have gone if he had been forced to resign. Setting aside the right and wrong of going to war in the first place, almost no one really argues that he did a good job. He looks good - the jaw, the polished glasses, the squint, but I think he is genuinely incompetent. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10820
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Kristol is a smart guy, unlike his sidekick Fred Barnes who is an idiot. He has a point. If you go to war to go to war to win on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table. We should have learned that after our "limited" wars in Korea and Vietnam.
If we don't have the national will to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 735
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Are we still arguing this? Why weren't you guys letting your elected Democrats know the deal before they voted to authorize? If this is all you've got you will once again lose the vote of opinions. As for the Groundhog scenario, please. What do people who join the military think they are signing up for? And by the way, where is the Bush draft most of you predicted? Once again, another prediction that proves most libs live in a bubble (although an entertaining bubble I like to visit). |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12655
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Are you saying you didn't hear us objecting to the war before it started? I was there.
Sure, some of us got bamboozled into believing it was a good idea. I wasn't among them.
The fact that Bush won't institute a draft means he's not willing to ask us to make big sacrifices for the war. How is that a good policy? War should be, as he said "hard."
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Tom,
You are not counted in that group. You have been steadfast in your position and I have a lot of respect for it. I wish you would run for office. It is guys like you that keep my faith in the Democratic party's future.
As for the draft question your response is double speak. You know you would nail him if he instituted a draft. If you want "hard" then we should withdraw all troops and then nuke the place. Are you advocating any means necessary? Maybe we agree on something? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12656
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:03 pm: |
|
I mean that the fact that we haven't instituted the draft shows that Kristol is right. We're not in this to win it.
You bet I would get angry if he instituted the draft, but I'd then respect him for doing what he said he would do (going into a war he believes in) in the same way you respect me for my steadfastness. It would be that respect-but-disagree kind of thing.
Sorry you think we should nuke a place, any place. That's crazy stuff.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5100
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:08 pm: |
|
"Why weren't you guys letting your elected Democrats know the deal before they voted to authorize?" Well, as those who have looked at the facts could tell you, then-Senator Corzine and Maplewood's Congressional Representative, Donald Payne, opposed the resolution that effectively gave carte blanche to the President to go to war.
And you shouldn't forget Maplewood's resolution against the rush to war.
It's not our fault that you and other folks in the rest of the country let us down, chief.
[Edited to add] I was going to let this go, but I decided not to.
Bob K wrote above: "From day one we never had enough troops to do the job which is why so many units there live a sort of tragic 'Ground Hog Day' movie existence taking the same objective time and time again."
Southerner replied: "As for the Groundhog scenario, please. What do people who join the military think they are signing up for?"
I don't know what they think when they sign up. They might have assumed that their leaders would not call upon them to put their lives on the line, unless there was a clear plan, and unless there was no other alternative. I've reached the age where some of my kids' friends think about joining the military because that is the only option they think they have. The least we can do for them, is to make sure that the people in charge are acting responsibly.
I'm also pretty sure that Bob K was referring to the situation of a young man who grew up here and graduated from Columbia High School, and who was killed in Iraq as his unit was trying to take the same town over again.
So, I guess that's why I found Southerner's callous dismissal to be just a little offensive, especially to the people of this community. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 740
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:15 pm: |
|
No, I don't think we should nuke anyplace. Some places yes, but not anyplaces. As for the draft issue, you know it's all politics. The Dems brought the issue way back when for political purposes. It was never an option. And now you bring up an option that was invented by the left as if it is a credible subject. And if it were necessary, it wouldn't happen until after the elections. It's all politics all the time. I can feel you coming down to my level of pessimism. Don't let it happen! Then again, you'll need another 20 to 30 years of a Congress controlled by the opposing party to feel my level of mistrust and pessimism. Believe me, as a conservative, I don't want to go back to an iron fisted Democratic Congress. If you guys do win back Congress in November, then you will understand what you lost and will never want to go back. That is why I am so stubborn with my winning is everything mantra. From my point of view it is and you guys are starting to understand this point as well. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
I've never held Bill Kristol in high esteem. He's a Monday-morning quarterback on the right side of the Beltway. And that's about it. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10830
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 4:19 am: |
|
Yes, I think Augie was killed on the fifth mission to recapture some shitass little town. The Marines would clean it out, leave and come back again. This isn't unusual. We don't have enough troops to control territory.
The Stryker Brigade, an elite Army unit, is out near the Syrian border which almost everyone agrees is an entry point for terrorists and fighters. Prior to their deployment we hadn't swept the area for six months.
Obviously, if you join the military you realize there is danger involved. However, using troops the way we are using them is dangerous and immoral. If the Iraqis turn against the Coalition forces we are going to have heavy casualties as they fight their way out of the country to Kuwait. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12662
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:18 am: |
|
The draft issue was brought up to illustrate the lack of commitment to win. The lack of commitment is there because the people of the USA would not want to pay the full price of a war.
Why did we have a draft in WW-II and why do we not have one now? What's the difference? If it was right then, why is it wrong now?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12663
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:19 am: |
|
cjc, once again, you discredit the speaker by his name alone rather than his ideas. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3279
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:32 am: |
|
We had a draft during Viet Nam. It was still a major loss. Having a draft doesn't mean the political will is strong. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12666
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:46 am: |
|
Right. Having a draft doesn't mean the will is strong, but not having it means the will is weak. It's simple logic.
I believe we continued the draft through Korea and Vietnam out of mere habit.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5262
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 8:52 am: |
|
No -- simply because there is no draft it doesn't necessarily follow that the will is weak. If you have to have a draft it could be argued the will is weak. And we don't need one. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2603
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
But no one is defending Rummy here, I see. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5103
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Are Kristol's remarks an attack on Rumsfeld? All along, we've been told by the Administration that the "commanders on the ground", and not politicians, will make the decisions about troop levels and strategy (But see the dumping of General Shinseki when he suggested at the start that more troops would be needed).
In any event, Kristol's line of thought is obviously one of the "talking points" they want to get out there (otherwise why say it on Fox News Sunday?), and it seems to be aimed at the troops, not the Administration.
So, will there be more bashing of the troops by the "neo-cons" now? Whatever happened to "Support the Troops"? Are they going to change it to "Support the Troops, Unless They Screw Up Our Plan, Which Looked Perfect on Paper"? |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 6:40 pm: |
|
The only joke about neo-conservatives I've heard:
Q. What's the difference between a neo-con and a woman?
A. You occasionally see a woman on the battlefield.
Cheers |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 743
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Nohero,
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but I see no one bought it. You'll have to dig a little deeper next time. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page