DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Oh those wacky Islamist Terrorists are at it again in Africa

I guess when you are trying to "make comparisons" they should actually "compare" to each other shouldn't they?

Who needs to put the pipe down now?
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

WOW !! There is no cause to insult the man like that . <img src="/images/graemlins/naughtydevil.gif" alt="" />

because the US not staying in Europe after WW1 worked out so well...

Actually Ire,England and France were scared to DEATH of us leaving! So we stayed. We're not winning in Iraq in the very same time frame that we beat both Germany and Japan.

Other than Israel,we have no allies in this region of the world. And our troops are still actively involved in waring with these factions.Their are neighboring nations on all sides who have members aligned with these religious sects that can come and go from Iraq at will.

Because much like in our own country,we have insufficiant troops and measures to secure their borders. It's apples and oranges. There is no realistic comparison to the two scenarios.

The one big problem you have,is getting the American people to vote for ANYONE who would promote or advocate such a plan.

Even many members of the GOP wouldn't promote such a plan. Especialy if they plan to get elected.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

There can be no proper comparison between today's Iraqi situation with Muslim jihadists and any previous situation where we have become engaged.

Post WWII Europe and Japan had nothing equal in numbers to the tens of thousands of Muslims ready to butcher in the belief of Allah's will to defeat any non Muslims in Arabia. Vietnam had soldiers who wanted to end their struggle after the fall of Saigon while the Islamic Extremists want to take the fight to the godless West and hated Israelis.

If we do pull back or out of Iraq...or if we begin to redeploy away from the hot spots do we think that talking and concessions with Iran,Syria and Iraq's extremists will stop the Jihad against any non extreme Islamists??? I do not think that has a chance.

You do, I don't touch that crap (anymore) <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />


1. The only nations that WANTED us there were ones we liberated and were not occupying.

2. The Germans did NOT want us there, they just didn't want the Russians there MORE. They had no choice either way.

3. The only comparison I made was the length of committment needed. The rest was debating/refuting whatever irrellevant side points you were trying to make.

I thought we had already covered this in another post?
Pulling out of Iraq would only explode the situation. It would make Iraq far worse than it is now.

You would have Syria pre-occupied backing the Sunni's in Iraq. Iran would be pre-occupied backing and fighting with the Shias in Iraq. And Turkey busy backing the Kurds.

We would have these extreme Muslim countries fighting amongst themselves. That's pretty much perfection in my book. Better they are killing each other and fighting amongst themselves than having our troops being caught in the crossfire isn't it?

And diplomacy? As I stated in the other post,diplomacy is no more than a stall tactic. Let's face it,if we can't conquer Iraq in the same time it took to win WW2,our military needs a major overhaul and greater troop strengh. So the diplomacy and permiting them to kill each other serves two purposes. It weakens our enemy,while at the same time,permiting us the time needed to strengthen our military.

Then we would actually be "war ready" to take on a real threat like Iran. Diplomacy with these countries is futile. But it's a great stall tactic untill such time as we have the proper military build up we desperatly need for this war on terror.

Because as of now,we're bogged down in Iraq,which is really no viable threat to us at this time,while Iran keeps getting stronger and more threatening by the day. It's simply a matter of strategy.

We have spendt the same amount of time in Iraq as we did winning WW2.

So I guess you must be thinking of Vietnam?

Because we've already invested the same time "fighting this war" as we did fighting WW2. And where has it gotten us? Last time I checked,things are getting worse every month,not better.

You have hundreds of thousands,if not millions of Sunni's,Shia's and Kurds bordering Iraq that will keep streaming in for decades. So rather than re-group and build our military while while leaving all these nations fighting amongst themselves while we build up our military,makes less sense than "staying the course" which is steadily going backwards with each month that passes?


We have soldiers on their third deployment due to a lack of troop strength. But nah,we don't need to regroup. We're fine.
<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.

Iran is growing stronger by the day,but heck,let's keep wasting our recourses in Iraq and losing soldiers while the enemy keeps recruiting. That's the ticket.
<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Just because someone actually has a common sense approach to this problem that you don't agree with,has nothing to do with the fact they smoke a little weed on occasion. Actually,I haven't smoked any in a couple of days. But don't let the facts get in your way PPE. Personal barbs are fairly weak and transparent.

And how in any way does that compare with Iraq? Heck,even the majority of their own people don't want us there. Unless of course you are accusing Bush of lying? He said we were going there to liberate,not occupy. And which neighboring nations that are our allies want us to stay there again? I missed that part.
<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

That's fine.... I was referring to the 60+ years that we've been there, so less than half a decade is insignificant to me.


And no, your solution is not a common sense approach. Withdrawing is withdrawing... you have just shifted to using "preparing for Iran" as a secondary excuse. We can and will build our forces WHILE being in Iraq... there is zero need to withdraw to do so and what better way to prepare for someone than having a few hundred thousand troops on their border?





Who said it compares with Iraq? I'm just refuting what you put forth that they wanted us there, I'm not comparing anything... you were. You keep confusing the hell out of things like this and you wonder why I make the cracks about smoking that stuff. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I can see your plan working just fine if we institute the draft. Otherwise,you have the vast majority of Americans who disapprove of this war. How do you plan to build up troop strength,when a minority of people support the war?

Personaly,I think either the draft,or mandatory service is a good idea. Because this is a global war and we will need great numbers of troops. There's no doubt in my mind about that. but under the current conditions,you're not going to have recruits lined up at the door.

If that were so,we've been there since 03,don't you think by now we would have a much larger troop strength? And are you trying to say our war strategy in Iraq has been sound?

People can see the folley involved in this war strategy and have pretty much shown a no confidence in this president when it comes to the strategy and his handling of this war. So do you really feel we're going to gain major troop strength on a volunteer basis under this administration? I sure don't,or we would have seen the results of that before now.

Untill we either withdraw and admit our grave misgivings about this war,or constitute the draft,I believe your asessment is a "pipe dream".

The only way to accomplish the goal is to have a president who does use sound strategies and can once again regain the trust of the overall population of our nation. And he would have to support this war as well.

I think you really need to look at the odds of any concievable success of that under the current conditions.

Not following you here, pit. Are you saying we should leave the country that borders Iran in order to come home to "regroup", in order to go back to the middle east and invade Iran? Why do that? Why not keep what we have in Iraq, in order to launch what you seem to feel would be a justified war against Iran? Why fly half way around the world to regroup in order to fly right back to a country where we have no bases?

And as for the pot thing, I thought you said last week you hadn't touched the stuff in years?

You need to look back arch. I said I haven't sold or grown in years. I also stated that having a very small amount for personal use is no big deal from a legal standpoint.

My point is on the Iraq war is pretty simple. How do you plan to build up the military while we're embroiled in Iraq?

Let's face it arch,now that it has been proven their was no WMD's,no nuclear program and these major reasons far war given the public proved to be false,do you really think we'll get people lining up at the door to enlist?

Under the current scenario,without a draft,you're not going to get enough "volunteers" to "build up troop strength" sufficiant to fight the global war on terror. Our citizens see the failed policys and strategy's from this White House. They see the false claims that the people of this nation believed that caused their support for this war to begin with.

So how do you plan to "build up troop strength" while this administration and war continue? Without a draft,it will pretty much be impossible. So could you explain to me how we'll achieve a major build up in troop strength on a volunteer basis while we stay in Iraq?

The vast majority of our nation feel this war has been mishandled and botched up pretty bad. So out of the minority left,how do you plan to accomplish this goal?

It's pretty simple IMO arch. To succeed at building up troop strength on a volunteer basis,you'll need to leave Iraq and admit to the American people that we were wrong on many of the reasons for that war. And that we now plan to fight the war on terror against legitimate terrorist threats. Which Iraq never was to begin with.

Untill and unless the White House can once again garner the trust of the American people,the vast majority of young Americans will never "volunteer" to serve in a war they deem as wrong and misguided.

So either we institute the draft to accomplish building up our military troop strength,or our nations oval office must once again garner the trust of the American people. And that's simply not going to happen as long as this administration is in office.

So how do you propose we build up troop strength when the bulk of our nation doesn't believe in this war without a draft arch?

What makes you think Iran would have a different scenario than Iraq?

Beyond the poor planning, execution and logistics of Iraq, it's an unwinnable war - much like Vietnam - because our policymakers continue to ignore the cardinal rule - YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION YOU ARE INVADING LIKE YOU.

We're not viewed by the world as the 'good guys' or spreaders of democracy. In fact, it's the exact opposite. We won't win anything on a battlefield until we win the people. And we'll never win the people with force.

First, the pot thing was a "poke in the ribs", a joke.

Second, as far as building up our troop strength in order to attack Iran: I don't know that we are attacking Iran in the near future. However, if it happened, would it be better to: leave Iraq, build up our forces, and then go back to the middle east, with few bases near? or: stay in Iraq, with the bases we currently have, and attack from there?

And lastly, how does leaving Iraq now and having an "apology" from our gov't. help increase troop strength? Not being a smart ass, just wondering how quitting one war in order to ready for another one would increase our troop strength. (and I'm not advocating attacking Iran - you put that out there, and I'm replying to that.)

As soon as you answer the questions I posed to you in my previous post,I'll be more than happy to address yours. Not trying to be a smart ass or anything,but I'm interested in how you propose we "build troop strength" on a volunteer basis,while the vast majority of this nation disaproves of the war?

Even Blade,who is VERY vocal in support of this war,refuses to serve in it. So please answer the above questions in the previous post of mine and I'll glad to move forward with the debate on this matter

Short of instituting the draft,how do you propose to build up troop strength,when a small minority approve of the way it's being handled?

That's actually an easy one. In fact, I think you'd be shocked at how simple it is.

We're already meeting recruitment goals with standards being higher than they were (smaller military means you can be more selective) went I went in at the end of the Cold War. All we'd have to do is lower entrance standards back to what they were and we will grow. It's really that simple.

How do we build up troop strength? I don't know. What was done 10 years ago or so when the numbers were higher?

PPE may have an idea with his response, also.

Well to me then,the logical question would be,9/11 happenned over 5 years ago. Our president announced we were going to be in a "global war on terror".

So are you then telling me to do this, he "chose" to wait 5 years to do what you percieve is a very basic and simple means to accomplish this? That it's taken this long for him to figure out that "Clinton's way" of a more streamlined military wouldn't support a "global war"? I mean,some of these troops are on their THIRD deployment for Christ's sake. And they haven't take what you say are "simple steps" to correcxt that problem?

I mean how can people sit here and place the blame,five years after 9/11,on Clinton having cut back on the military,when in those five years,Bush hasn't taken what you claim are simple measures to build up appropriate troop strength to fight a global war "that he himself declared"?

Hell,if it's that simple,somebody should have done it five years ago shouldn't they? Myself,when he declared a "global war on terror" I expected strategic strikes and operations against terrorist strongholds,training facilities and their homes,and possibly palaces. Now of course,this weakens the terrorists but may lead to wars against "nations" in the future.

But by your own reasoning,we could have easily built up troop strengths in that timeframe quite easily. So I'm not sure if you're saying we should have done this five years ago,or that now that we're already in one hell of a pinch,it's time to start now.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything,but it seems to me if it's that simple,somebody made some bad decisions to this point doesn't it?

While I agree that we should disregard any criticism concerning what Clinton did 6 or 7 years ago in terms of troop size...I believe that we shouldn't even mention his name in terms of action in the Middle East. He avoided it and so should we avoid his minor involvement.

The questions seems to be why did we not lower the admission standards for troop recruitment expansion. My first guess is that we simply refused to admit the fact that we overestimated the desire of Iraqis to fight for their own democracy.

Once it became apparent that these people were too afraid to fight against warlords and clerics we realized we needed more troops but hesitated. We hesitated to drop the standards for fear of adding weight to the theory that only the lower classes who have no other opportunities enter the military service. This is not true and wouldn't be true if we did lower the standards some.

Ralphie,I agree with you to the extent you took it to. But let's take it one step further.

I mean were we so sure that other countries wouldn't get involved when we went into Iraq? Could we be so sure that Russia and China wouldn't percieve that the U.S. invading both Afghanastan and Iraq as a threat on their flow of oil and form alliences with Iran and other nations in the region?

And what about terrorism on "a global scale" as Bush proclaimed this war to be? Did he seriously feel we had the adequate troop strength to make such a global proclimation?

I'm not against the GOP. I'm not against the war on terror. But it's the decision making,poor planning and haphazzard way this administration has gone about it that scares the Shiite out of me and concerns me so much.

And it has concerned me ever since they felt 120,000 to 140,000 troops would be adequate to secure Iraq. Many people I knew felt that was unwise and that somewhere between 250,000 to 350,000 would be needed to "secure" the country. We need to have contingency plans as you do any time you fight a war. And they obviously just weren't there.

I felt that assuridly,when their government fell,we would send at least 100,000 more troops for security measures to keep the country under control. But the troops simply weren't there and no major build up is there to accomplish this now. I find that very troubling,don't you?