Republicans and Iraq - role playing

Ichabod · Sep 5, 2006

why would we have that number of troops if we could only use 1/3rd of them at any time?[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the point would be to always have fresh, eager, well-rested troops ready at the push of a button for any potential problem. After all, we're trying to hold onto and expand global dominance right now, not bring a decisive end to a conventional conflict where the targets and the goals are clear.

If we extend the Rome analogy to our predicament, I think all it would take to "sack Rome" would be for a few countries to get together and decide that all their oil was going to developing China. I mean, they're basically inside our city walls already, they just need enough incentive to want to do us harm. Then what? Invade all OPEC nations and rule with an iron fist?

SteveS · Sep 5, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]314625[/snapback]</div>

I'm guessing that the point would be to always have fresh, eager, well-rested troops ready at the push of a button for any potential problem. After all, we're trying to hold onto and expand global dominance right now, not bring a decisive end to a conventional conflict where the targets and the goals are clear.

If we extend the Rome analogy to our predicament, I think all it would take to "sack Rome" would be for a few countries to get together and decide that all their oil was going to developing China. I mean, they're basically inside our city walls already, they just need enough incentive to want to do us harm. Then what? Invade all OPEC nations and rule with an iron fist?
[/b]
Click to expand...

You just made my point for me

Ichabod · Sep 5, 2006

Which point? that it doesn't matter how many troops we throw into any given conflict because the real threat right now is not one that our military can address?

Or that we should ruthlessly crush Iraq to force them and their neighbors not to hate us?

SteveS · Sep 5, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]314632[/snapback]</div>

Which point? that it doesn't matter how many troops we throw into any given conflict because the real threat right now is not one that our military can address?

Or that we should ruthlessly crush Iraq to force them and their neighbors not to hate us?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I would tend to agree with your first statement.

Not so much with your second, though. My point is that we created this mess and now we have to fix it instead of half-assing it like we did Vietnam. The major difference is that we screwed up Vietnam and it hasn't cost us very much in the way of terrorism or future conflicts... If we screw up Iraq.... we're really in for it. We will have just created the exact situation we went in there to try and avert.

Ichabod · Sep 5, 2006

Ah, so the truth comes out... we agree.

SteveS · Sep 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 5 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]314694[/snapback]</div>

Ah, so the truth comes out... we agree.
[/b]
Click to expand...

We may agree, but unfortunately two people aren't enough to change much.

hycamguy07 · Sep 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveS @ Sep 5 2006, 10:17 AM) [snapback]314490[/snapback]</div>

I would double the number of troops we have there, and crack down hard on the insurgents. We're trying to be politically correct about fighting a war - just like in Vietnam - and all its doing is demoralizing our boys and getting them killed. You didn't see us worried about this kind of crap during WW2... we knew what our goal was, and we did what we needed to do to achieve that goal. We didn't try to half-nice person our fighting, or only let our troops attack if they were fired upon, or send half the troops we needed... We went all-out and beat the hell out of our enemies - and accepted nothing but total surrender.

Unfortunately, the reality is that we've bumbled the occupation so badly that we cannot possibly pull out now. We were so concerned with being PC and with convincing the public that we had a valid reason to go to war that we refused to see the reality of what would happen once we deposed the government.

As such, "since the end of major combat operations", we have lost the lives of scores of soldiers (not only American ones) that probably would have not been lost if we had executed the occupation properly. Unfortunately, our government deemed it was better to mislead the American people and delude themselves about the reality of the post-war operations instead of being honest and forthright about the reality of the situation we would face. Now we are paying the price for this incompetence.

Before the "Bush Lied" crowd gets all excited, I will point out that I feel it is inappropriate to accuse the Administration of lying about the presence and danger of WMDs, because nobody (except Saddam and others involved) knows if the intelligence they supposedly had was based in reality or not... However, that being said, it is appropriate to accuse the Administration of lying about our reasons for invading Iraq after the fact... by that I mean that before the war, we were told that Iraq had reconstituted a WMD program and was an immediate danger to America. After we got there and found no WMDs, we were then told that the WMD threat was only ONE of the reasons we had gone to war... with some of the other reasons being that he was mean to his people, and he had a bad haircut. That is a bald-faced lie.

I would have had a huge amount of respect for this President and this Administration if he had said, "Well, the intelligence said the WMDs were there and were a threat, but it turns out that our intelligence was wrong. But, Saddam was a meanie and he did have a stupid haircut. So, we're here now, and I'd ask you to all stand behind me as we finish the job we started." But instead of acting like a man and owning up to his mistake, he acted like a little girl and lied to our faces.

Now, before the "Bush is Jesus reincarnated, how dare you criticize him" crowd gets all excited, I will point out that I also lost all respect for Clinton when he lied to us all, too. I would have much preferred him to have said things like, "It's none of your god-damned business if I smoked pot in college. The only thing that matters is that I don't anymore." and "No, Senator, I will not tell you if I had sexual relations with that woman, because that's none of your damn business."
[/b]
Click to expand...

Might I point out we had to start out on this alone, after we went in, others offerd to help on a limited basis..
The UN was no help at all, they kept dragging thier feet.

dragonfly · Sep 6, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 6 2006, 10:44 AM) [snapback]315182[/snapback]</div>

Might I point out we had to start out on this alone, after we went in did others offer to help on a limited basis..
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, that might have been a clue that it was a mistake from the beginning!

hycamguy07 · Sep 6, 2006

What's next after Iraq?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Republicans and Iraq - role playing

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

dragonfly New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Republicans and Iraq - role playing

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

Ichabod Artist In Residence

SteveS New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

dragonfly New Member

hycamguy07 New Member