Why I hate the Rumsfeld Military and the Bush War Policies

pokerpunchout · #1 09-15-2006, 08:05 PM

I have seen a lot of debate on what we should do about the "War on Terror" and Iraq. Should we stay the course, should we cut and run? The republicans constantly state that we must win this war, and that we need to stay the course, while at the same time a majority of the Democrats seem to be in the so called "cut and run camp."

I would like to state for the record that I would consider myself a moderate independent with liberal democratic tendancies on some to most issues, but I would rather see the military get more "old school" in this conflict. My father used to say "sh#t or get of the pot" ..he was definately a simple, old school type of guy, but I find this saying true in this case. The administration says that this is a clash of ideaology, a global war that we must win, yet they fight it like they could care less and have their hands tied behind their backs. Just this week there was an article about how the military "decided" not to kill over 200 Taliban fighters when they had the chance....WTF? This is a war isn't it... did the guys with the guns and the american flags on their unforms not get this memo? War 101: (1) kill people (2) take ground (3) repeat steps 2 and 3.

All I am trying to say with this rant is we should decide if we want to go about solving this problem using education, diplomacy, police actions ect, or do we want to use military force? If it is the latter then all I ask is that the guys with the guns and the guys commanding the guys with the guns should kick it up a few notches. Go WWII on this sucka ... if we as Americans can't do that then we should get the hell out and never should have gotten involved in the first place .... if winning this war is really as important as Bush says it is, and not just some well orchistrated distraction, then lets at least try to win (note this may require killing people). War is supposed to be hell isn't it? I'm sure guys like Patton and MacArthur and Shwartzkopf would say it is and these guys were winners. If we can't bring hell to the enemy then we should try solving this by other means.

Now commence the flamming

steve9789 · #2 09-15-2006, 08:14 PM

No flame here dude. A while back I referenced one of Pattons speeches in which he referred to lubricating the tanks tracks with the innards of the enemy. God only knows the hell someone would take for that type of talk these days. I agree with your point. However, I think those days are long gone. People are alot more sensitive and I am not sure that "political correctness" even existed in those days. People called things as they saw them and be damned with others feelings. A while back, the same sentiment pushed me to post a poll about whether or not we could win WWII given the current political climate. Needless to say I checked the don't know box. No reference to the military, only because of the peace at any price crowd.

Pinchy · #3 09-15-2006, 08:19 PM

IMO, a unified home front is crucial in winning any war. We had that in a major way during WWII. Today, not so much.

vilemerchant · #4 09-17-2006, 04:05 PM

The US clearly never had enough troops on the ground to properly occupy and pacify the country. The whole invasion was a botch from start to finish and it's nothing to do with opinion polls back home. What has been achieved there? You've got a sealed off 'government green zone' in Baghdad that the wonderful elected officials hide in along with half the military. The rest of the country has basically gone to hell.

What's the latest offensive? To 'take back' areas of baghdad that are under insurgency control. Funny we never saw the announcement that they'd lost control of these areas! The information the US puts out is like what japanese citizens used to get during WW2. The location of each 'stunning victory' or 'new offensive' would get closer and closer to the home islands until.. yea. Iraq is screwed. We keep hearing about the 'risk' of civil war, how many hundreds of people there are turning up dead every day? There IS a civil war. The Iraqi government can sit around in their green zone and have all the democracy they like, but it's all just a show for the Fox news cameras when the country does not function AT ALL.

CORed · #5 09-19-2006, 12:46 AM

The Bush adminstration's conduct of the "war on terror" is curious. We are constantly told that we are in a battle that is vital to our survival, that losing will mean nothing less than the destruction of civilization. So what do we do? Reinstate the draft, raise taxes, sell war bonds, put our industry on a war footing? Nah! That might be polically unpopular. We go into Iraq with unrealistic assumptions, and a force completely inadequate to accomplish the mission and get our military so bogged down that we can't deal with serious threats from Iran and North Korea, while doing everything we can to alienate the few friends and allies we have left in the world. At home, the "war on terror" has replaced the "war on drugs" as the excuse for gross violations of civil liberties, abuse and torture of prisoners and kidnappings. If this really is the beginning of the next World War, I'm afraid it will be the U.S. against the rest of the world.

kurto · #6 09-19-2006, 10:55 AM

I see the problem is Bush keeps phrasing it with propagandistic BS. Its not a war on Terror.

The war in Iraq is not a war against terror. It has been a recruitment for terrorists. There has been more terrorism since Bush took the offensive there.

I don't think Bush or anyone has an idea how to undo the mess Bush has made. Iraq is on the verge of civil war. I really doubt there's anything America can do to stop it. But our actions helped get it there.

I don't have any idea what the correct solution is. But... if you touch a hot pan handle and your skin starts burning, you pull your hand away. I think the Bush administration has been convincing Americans to grip one scorching pan after another.