 |
| |
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
and im sure a lot of them think we should fight the war seriously, and send enough troops to win, and not skimp on troops to advance a scheme of military transformation. and make sure those troops are adequately equipped. And drop a SecDef when hes become a liability, not an asset. |
Send enough troops? From where exactly? The problem is that we're bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and woefully missing recruitment goals and unless we are planning a draft, troops are in very short supply.
The best way to oppose Bush is to not argue that we don't have enough troops. It is to argue that the entire thing is a cluster**** on massive proportions and we should try to set a timetable to get the Hell out of there. |
And then the problem with a quicker pull out is that it will symbolicaly be paraded as america(and uk) losing the war by all the now super radicalised madmen in the middle east. It will give them hope and recruits. So we have to stay untill Iraq can look after itself.
Which wont be anytime soon - but then with the continueing rising dissatisfaction at home in our countries, i wonder what will come first?
Still when this mess is all sorted out(and who knows how long the repercusions will last?) i hope the idiots who started this stupidity get some back - investigations, jail hopefuly. We gulible citizens need to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen in our names again so easily(and obviously to many of us i suspect).
Last edited by child of Thor on 17-08-2005 at 02:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
and im sure a lot of them think we should fight the war seriously, and send enough troops to win, and not skimp on troops to advance a scheme of military transformation. and make sure those troops are adequately equipped. And drop a SecDef when hes become a liability, not an asset. |
quote:
Send enough troops? From where exactly? The problem is that we're bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and woefully missing recruitment goals and unless we are planning a draft, troops are in very short supply. |
Im not suggesting more troops. Im indicating that at least a part of the opinion that thinks bush is mishandling the war support MORE troops, not less. They have no more thought through the implications of what they want, than have those who want total withdrawl. But it seems theyd be likely to oppose premature withdrawl. By the way, we are missing recruitment goals for the Army because those goals have been increased, due to a congressionally mandated expansion of the army. The number of brigades is already increasing, due to reorganization. The next rotation is expected to be almost entirely regular army, and very few reservists cause of this, even if there is no drawdown.
quote:
The best way to oppose Bush is to not argue that we don't have enough troops. It is to argue that the entire thing is a cluster**** on massive proportions and we should try to set a timetable to get the Hell out of there. |
Well i suspect most citizens are more concerned about the best policy for the US and the world than the best way to oppose Bush. as forwould be candidates like McCain, Biden, and Clinton, they have to consider that they might win, and be called upon to implement the policies they advocate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by techumseh
The problem is, their policies are virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. What, really, is the difference? |
Their basic policy would be the same. Keep training Iraqi forces, and only execute a limited drawdown in 2006 if Iraqi forces are ready. and encourage the political process in Iraq, including negotiations with sunni arabs to weaken support for the insurgency. Which is right, as that is the correct path to win in Iraq.
I dont think the public, if they understood the strategy, and had it explained by someone they trusted, would oppose that. The problem is that the admin is bearing the baggage for past things - WMDs were not found, even though allied intel services and the US govt under Clinton thought they were there - this becomes "Bush Lied". They underemphasized broader strategic reasons for the war, so they were not taken as seriously as they should have been when they were emphasized later. They went in with too few troops, and didnt plan properly for the occupation. The CPA was largely run by political loyalists, rather than by professionals, which delayed reconstruction, and led to political gaffes in the critical first year. And when things went seriously bad in April of 2004, they didnt come clean on how bad it was, or really explain what they were doing about it. When they changed the regime on Iraq completely in 2004 - shifting control from DoD (bremer) to NSC (Negroponte) and later pushing Feith and Wolfowitz out, they pretended there was no change. They screwed up Abu Graib, and while they got rid of Feith, they kept Rumsfeld.
A Biden or Clinton has none of that baggage. And would be more articulate and maybe more honest about the war. And would, I presume, be less reluctant to fire the incompetent, than over loyal Bush.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2005 01:39
I thought it was his only point?......and it was a cluster f**k from the off. 
). While I now feel the initial war was a mistake, I don't advocate leaving. That would be another mistake.
Imran
|