Iraq na Phobia

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Wow, that's a silly statement.

I'm assessing a 15 yard penalty for oversimplification abuse.

-spence

I'm assessing a matching 15 yard penalty for Analysis Paralysis.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I'm assessing a matching 15 yard penalty for Analysis Paralysis.

Overruled by the Chair Umpire!

You don't undertake a global effort costing a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives without some basic understanding of what's understandable.

Well, Bush does...but you and I shouldn't

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Overruled by the Chair Umpire!

You don't undertake a global effort costing a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives without some basic understanding of what's understandable.

Well, Bush does...but you and I shouldn't

-spence

Come on, this isn't Tennis its Football. The time to partake in engaging dialouge and nuance study ended with the pre-season (September 11, 2001). The dialogue that remains should be on the level of our military leadership and field commanders. Let the quarterbacks call the plays and this game will be won. Bin Laden's true victory will come when America locks itself into an unwinnable debate over whether we should fight back or not.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Come on, this isn't Tennis its Football. The time to partake in engaging dialouge and nuance study ended with the pre-season (September 11, 2001). The dialogue that remains should be on the level of our military leadership and field commanders. Let the quarterbacks call the plays and this game will be won. Bin Laden's true victory will come when America locks itself into an unwinnable debate over whether we should fight back or not.

Well said.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Let the quarterbacks call the plays and this game will be won. Bin Laden's true victory will come when America locks itself into an unwinnable debate over whether we should fight back or not.

Absurdity.

Even the neoconservatives who architected the strategy have blasted the quarterbacks for demonstrating near zero competence in calling plays.

This isn't about fighting versus not fighting back, it never was and it never will be.

The question is "how" we go about fighting back.

Do we follow a militarized pre-emptive doctrine rooted in idiological fantasy and executive arrogance?

...or do we use all our weapons including military, economic, polical to competently demonstrate by example why the US should be the leader in the world.

You're just rehashing divisive election year rhetoric

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Absurdity.

Even the neoconservatives who architected the strategy have blasted the quarterbacks for demonstrating near zero competence in calling plays.

This isn't about fighting versus not fighting back, it never was and it never will be.

The question is "how" we go about fighting back.

Do we follow a militarized pre-emptive doctrine rooted in idiological fantasy and executive arrogance?

...or do we use all our weapons including military, economic, polical to competently demonstrate by example why the US should be the leader in the world.

You're just rehashing divisive election year rhetoric

-spence

I'm hoping your definition of quarterback is different than mine but it may not be. I define the Quarterback as the guy on the field making the plays as in Generals on down and last I heard it wasn't the Neocons criticizing them. I dont trust politicians, be it Kerry, Pelosi, Rumsfeld or Bush to win wars. I'll trust the most efficient, effective military machine in the world to win wars. Let them do what they know needs to be done and we will have a real victory. The party that most allows our soldiers to win gets my vote. And if you think differing opinions are divisive you'd best learn to deal with the division because it aint changing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I define the Quarterback as the guy on the field making the plays as in Generals on down and last I heard it wasn't the Neocons criticizing them.

It's a better fit certainly, but I avoided the parallel because it simply doesn't work.

The US Military has been hamstrung by poor policy since the fall of Saddam, and perhaps much before.

Try as hard as our Military can (and I do believe they are giving it their all) they have been put into a situation where their skills and effort are not enough to win on their own. There is no military end game in Iraq, nor the War on Terror.

If your vote truly goes towards those that give the troops what they need to win, they you should be outraged those you probably voted for sent them on an unplanned, mismatched mission with weak justification in Iraq...and were not allowed to finish the mission in Afghanistan.

-spence

["uffah!!"]

We wouldn't be in this position, if the job was completed in 1991 when we had 580,000 troops there. But the Dems were crying about the 10 or 15 troops we lost then, and its the same Dems that want us out now.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

If your vote truly goes towards those that give the troops what they need to win, they you should be outraged those you probably voted for sent them on an unplanned, mismatched mission with weak justification in Iraq...and were not allowed to finish the mission in Afghanistan.

-spence

I probably would be outraged if I didn't know that we have the best equipped, supplied, and trained military in history. But that can be debated/discussed/studied ad nauseum when we set up a few dozen committees, commissions, inquiries and investigations into the root causes. I'm sure Terrorism will give us a timeout until we conclude the proceedings.