Quote:
Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 5 2004, 04:20 PM
PD I spend more of my day reading you posts then listening to Limbaugh... what does that tell you? Only time I listen to Rush is if I happen to be in the car.
As far as Syria, what would we do after? Well we would turn it over to a gov't that is friendly towards the US National Interest. A country that does not support terrorism agains the US and Israel.
And while you clamour about Iraq.... its been less then a year since the start of the war. Who are you to judge any progress on an international scale in a few months. Expand your time reference - your an old man - you know that a few months is nothing in history.
|
Yup. I'm an old man.
As far as who I am to evaluate the situation - I'm just an ordinary average guy with an opinion, just like you. I am one skeptical S.O.B. I would be skeptical of Al Gore if he were President under the current circumstances. There's a black piece of granite in Washington D.C. that has the names of some personal friends of mine on it that is part of the reason I'm skeptical.
You can prattle on about what we did in Europe and the Pacific Rim after my daddy's war; unfortunately, that's not the approach we are taking.
We have nominal control of the cities. Our control of the countryside is iffy during daylight. Resistance is not coming from a state (although there may be some states backing the resistance - unfortunately, the people saying this [Bush, Cheney, and McRumsfeld, et al] have shot whatever credibility they had). Even though there are foreign elements involved in those resisting us, most of it is indigenous. Some of the action that we are required to take to crush this resistance will have the side effect of "proving the point" of our enemies.
We are in this situation in not one, but two different countries - and without yet achieving the sort of victory over our enemies that they did in my daddy's war, armchair warriors like yourself are already clamoring to expand the theatre of operations.
Since the triumphant carrier landing and proclamation of the end of combat we've lost more troops than before that event. The reasons given for going to war have proven to be questionable at best; the will of the American people to sustain this kind of operation for the 50 years you so glibbly talk about is very, very questionable.
That's not the recipie for my daddy's war. That's the recipie for another war entirely, and one that did not have such a neat little happy ending for our side.
Don't think that my opinion on this is based on some leftist "all war is bad" ideology - nothing could be further from the truth. This is my opinion of the tactical situation. While I have nothing but the utmost contempt for those who regard war as just another tool in international relations, I am not anti-military, nor so niave as to believe in disarmament. Quite the countrary - I think McRumsfeld's long term plan for the U.S. military is a shortsighted and incorrect approach. I am personally of the opinion that the appropriate way to negotiate with a terrorist is with a precision guided bomb.
The thing about it is - we ought to save it for the terrorists.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 5 2004, 06:55 PM