The Voting BoothPlease vote in our polls, give your opinion on current events!
Are you interested in the events of the world around you? Please take our Featured Poll Today!
View Poll Results: Consider this as a poll and vote with sincerity;
Yes: We achieved our goal and it’s time to leave
0
0%
Yes: We failed to achieve our goal and it’s time to leave
3
15.79%
No: We need to stay till Iraqi’s take responsibility
5
26.32%
No: We need to stay till we achieve all of our goals in the region
Yes, those are all concerns, and I absolutely dread getting the DOD Casualty announcements, but we need to finish what we started. There have been at least a handful of occasions in the last 30 years that the USA didnt finish what we started, or complete the promises that we made (Lebenon 1983, Samolia1993, Iraq 1991, and Afghanistan 1991) and it came back to bite us in the ass with Iraq and Afghanistan. We are paying the price for our shortsightedness 16 years ago when we walked away from Afghanistan and let them disolve into civil war, and then let Madman Hussien jerk us around like a puppet with his little cat and mouse games with the UN inspectors. We are in the middle of it, I had a feeling when they pressed so hard to go into this, that we would be here for a while... Its going to be at least 10 years, so dont count on taking a vacation any time soon... we just need to deal with it, whats done cant be undone, so we just do the best we can and finish the job.
This is not a serious question. Nor is it a serious option. When has the United States ever pulled out and left a country we had begun to help to be overtaken by its enemies? Only once. Vietnam. Never again.
I'll tell you the honest question we need to be asking in all sincerity. Not, "should we still be in Iraq?" Of course we should. Not, "are our troops spread too thin and unable to their job?" Of course they can do it, and they are doing it as well as or better than any previous generation of soldiers the United States has ever had.
No, the real question is, Are President George Bush, his administration, and the current Congress the leaders we need to wage and win the war in Iraq, to deal with the threats and concerns arising due to terrorismn, wmd proliferation, and Islamic extremism? If not, who is there waiting in the wings to step up and take on the responsibility in upcoming elections? And are the people of the United States too soft, self-centered, and concerned with their own pocketbook and entertainment to accept and wage a war that might cost thousands more lives and untold treasure in order to maintain a secure, free society?
Freedom is no cliche. Before our eyes nation after nation is self-censoring itself to the outrageous demands of violent Muslims. Nation after nation is becoming less free because of fear.
Has America sunk so low that we would rather live in fear than in freedom? That we'd rather appease than fight?
Those are the honest, serious questions that arise in my mind when questions like yours are asked.
Some presume the dying all stops if we saddle up and pull out.
Some more questions to ponder, if we dump Iraq:
- What happens in Afghanistan?
- What happens to our credibility, with friend and foe alike, the next time we need consensus to reign in some ne'er-do-well country?
- What happens to Saudi Arabia, seeing us apparently unable to stick with anything? Does their regime change from what it is today to a theocracy inimical to our interests?
- What happens to Iran? Clearly, our threats are meaningless. Same with North Korea, and any other tryannical regime thinking about attacking a neighbor. Why not? The U.S. won't stop us. The U.N.? Please.
A United States unwilling to "pay the price" will end up paying a price far greater in terms of lives and money than many can appreciate at this point. The al Q'aida "manifesto" DEPENDS on an irresolute American, unwilling to pay the price. They can push us around and grow stronger because they think we'll run sooner, not later.
Will the dying stop if we pull out? Not on your life. It might be delayed a bit.
Of course, these opinions are easy for someone to say who doesn't have a son or daughter serving in the military. Oh, wait.
unfortunately too many people are questioning things... they dont look at the big picture or understand that we are in the middle of a war on terror. Sometimes I think President Bush should have prepared people better after September 11, told us we are going to have to make sacrifices instead of going on about our lives to fight this war on terror. During WWII people understood what was at stake, and they had reinforcing messages out there everywhere... today with the media focusing so much on the bad, I think its all that is in people's minds, they dont see progress or understand how important this is that we finish the job. jmho
While the country was generally united in WW II, there were situations not too dissimilar to some of what we see today. The general spirit of sacrifice of course prevalent then has no resemblance to our consumer WalMart cheap gas entitlement culture of today.
There were scandals, the casualty lists at Tarawa, the poor armor on the Sherman tank in 1944, a number of wasteful project scandals, and some items like the Higgins boat that were killed and killed again and barely survived. Even the draft in 1940 passed by one vote as I recall. Pearl Harbor casued a major investigation and quite a bit of scapegoating. Many couldn't understand why we had a Germany-first policy when Japan attacked us. A fair number of GIs didn't understand why they were being shipped to North Africa instead of the Pacific and had nothing against the Germans. The Kasserine Pass fiasco led to a lot of troubles around quality of troop training and leadership.
Somehow, our "complaining" can end up being productive if it gets things fixed.
I fear there is a lot of complaining today intended only to sour the public for political gain. The worst things look, the better for the Party out of power appears to be the mantra. We're not really in a war after all.
Even this driveby splammer is doing that while offering no perspective or plan of his own. No doubt he googled this site and read two posts and figured we're all a bunch of skin head lunatics and he would throw a cat in with the pigeons and see what sorts of lunatic responses he could elicit.
I doubt he knows a serviceman or woman. I imagine he thinks we shouldn't have a military and should just be nice to people. I'd like that too very much. I can bet he thinks this is a Big Oil scheme full of high level schemes and mysteries and connivances, and probably Enron crashed its corporate jet into the WTC to instigate this, or somesuch. Mebbe he's Charlie Sheen.
As V6 said, I think, dialog about how best to prosecute this "war" and who is best suited to do it would be "positive", to the extent yacking about something can be positive.
