N. Korea's got the bomb...

[Bubba]

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

From December 8th 1941 to the first of August 1945 we managed to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan. This thing is on it's third year and we've not been able to stabilize just one country. And if you look around, Afghanistan is teetering again. The Taliban is back and they're pissed.

Well...this Army is an all volunteer force consisting of about 500,000 active duty soldiers. In WWII there was a draft and we had a MUCH MUCH larger force...We also used the atomic bomb in Japan...

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

I believe it was long overdue to clean house in Iraq and Klinton did us no favors in Korea.

If that's your belief then fine, you're entitled to it and that I may disagree on certain points does not make it right nor wrong. Decisions made by Presidents past and current with the availability of hindsight are always food for debate and debate is healthy.

Where I take exception with some of the other posts is that somehow if one takes issue with an administration such as this one then they're somehow less of an American.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Well...this Army is an all volunteer force consisting of about 500,000 active duty soldiers. In WWII there was a draft and we had a MUCH MUCH larger force...We also used the atomic bomb in Japan...

Are you saying 500,000 active duty soldiers should not be expected to stabilize a country the size of Iraq? Are you saying we should use the atomic bomb now?

I doubt that is what you're saying as today's soldier is better trained and equiped than his/her predessor soldier from 1944. It was total war in the 40's, both in the theatres of operations and on the home front. FDR told us of sacrifice, this administration told us to go shopping. Seems to me the only people being asked to sacrifice is the active duty or reserve soldier put into that situation.

It is my belief that they never had a chance to succeed because their civilian leadership was more interested in advancing an idealogy than they were in ensuring the right resources were there to rebuild the infrastructure, keep the peace, and get the oil flowing.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

Are you saying 500,000 active duty soldiers should not be expected to stabilize a country the size of Iraq? Are you saying we should use the atomic bomb now? Well, we don't have 500,000 IN Iraq. We have soldiers deployed in several regions...some that people don't know about...hehehe

I doubt that is what you're saying as today's soldier is better trained and equiped than his/her predessor soldier from 1944. It was total war in the 40's, both in the theatres of operations and on the home front. FDR told us of sacrifice, this administration told us to go shopping. Seems to me the only people being asked to sacrifice is the active duty or reserve soldier put into that situation. [color="red"]I agree with that. Most people now days are not about to sacrifice anything. They want everything handed to them. The media also plays a role....If we had the media that we have NOW...during WWII we may have lost the war...lol. Imagine imbedded reporter from CNN or MSNBC (and I use the term reporter loosely for MSNBC) covering the lading of D-Day on Omaha beach with todays liberal spin.... /COLOR]

It is my belief that they never had a chance to succeed because their civilian leadership was more interested in advancing an idealogy than they were in ensuring the right resources were there to rebuild the infrastructure, keep the peace, and get the oil flowing.

The civilian leadership...the DemoKrats constantly tie our hands because of political correctness and such. It's easy to be on the outside looking in and judging but ultimately it's the DemoKratiK party that makes it hard on the military. Let me ask you a ? Although the military is a cross section of America (female, hispanic, black, white, etc) How come they OVERWHELMINGLY vote REPUBLICAN? We are NOT told how to vote at all, we just vote. What better people to understand and know who's taking care of them and doing the right thing...than the people wearing the boots.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Outofdodge

If that's your belief then fine, you're entitled to it and that I may disagree on certain points does not make it right nor wrong. Decisions made by Presidents past and current with the availability of hindsight are always food for debate and debate is healthy.

Where I take exception with some of the other posts is that somehow if one takes issue with an administration such as this one then they're somehow less of an American.

Hindsight, or Monday morning quarterbacking, always seems to leave out that prior to the invasion of Iraq almost all major Democrats believed Saddam had WMD’s and supported the invasion. Now they want to play politics with it.

One of the biggest exceptions that I take is the constant criticism of the current administration for doing things that were being done by the previous Democrat administration. For example the wire tapping program and monitoring of bank transactions. These were done prior and Clinton was being praised for it by the same folks that are objecting to it now. With all the uproar over the Patriot Act, Clinton had asked for a version of that and Al Gore supported it. We would have had some version of it regardless who was in office. I recall that those opposed to these things in the 90’s were blown off as paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists.

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

The civilian leadership...the DemoKrats constantly tie our hands because of political correctness and such. It's easy to be on the outside looking in and judging but ultimately it's the DemoKratiK party that makes it hard on the military.

Oh give it a break, The Democrats (with a c) haven't tied anything in six years. This administration is your problem, specifically an arrogant defense secretary who goes beyond strategic direction and attempts to micro manage the professionals and who royally screwed this pooch up. Compound that with a president who is more interested in a tough guy image and a band of advisors that, if accounts are to be believed want to stifle any debate to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

Let me ask you a ? Although the military is a cross section of America (female, hispanic, black, white, etc) How come they OVERWHELMINGLY vote REPUBLICAN? .

The military is not a cross section of America. The % of Blacks and other minorities is higher and the % of women are lower. Secondly it has a culture that tends to be less individualist which it has to have. As you know better than I, when the order to take a piece of ground comes down you can't have every private wondering if that's the best thing for him. Thirdly, the majority of enlistees come from republican states west and south. Lastly it is not as overwhelmingly republican as you want to believe. The trend towards republicanism last I looked was linear as rank grew higher and length of service, which is consistent with behaviors in the private sector. I agree that republicans post Carter have tended to put more into defense spending but I;ve previously put Aspin in the same class as Rumsveld.

Again look around, The republicans are losing ground there too now. Extended forced enlistments, multiple tours to Iraq, previously mentioned medling and inappropriate missions are taking their toll. You keep ignoring the obvious. Bush, Cheney, Rumsveld et al are putting your co-workers at risk in a mission they should not be doing because they could not or would not let them do the mission with the right resources and the right force.

Which btw, is this recent trend of lowering standards in order to meet a recruiting goal a good thing, a bad thing, a little of both, or none of the above?

[Outofdodge]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

Hindsight, or Monday morning quarterbacking, always seems to leave out that prior to the invasion of Iraq almost all major Democrats believed Saddam had WMD’s and supported the invasion. Now they want to play politics with it. .

Consider for a moment that in supporting the President, tho some here has posted otherwise, they tried to do the right thing. However when it started becoming apparent that the proper allocation of resources were not being committed, that proper post-conquest infrastructure and policing needs were not considered, and the tune started changing that they tried to excercise their constitutional duty to provide some oversight and balance, and then got vilified for it. There seems to be quite a few republicans now asking the same questions.

Originally Posted by Highwayman

We would have had some version of it regardless who was in office. I recall that those opposed to these things in the 90’s were blown off as paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists.

There is a cycle in this country that needs to be broken. The polarizing political is doing no good. Clinton was dogged at every step in his administration, this administration-until the past 12 months or so managed to escape it by it's dogged insistence on closing ranks which to a certain extent is a good thing. It's almost like the old give them an inch, they'll take a mile saying. I don't like. It seemed to some that any opening for this administration to do something gets a compounded FY when anyone questions it.

We're a long drift from the Koreans now so I'll compound it. You know what I didn't like about both the Clinton and Bush initial elections? That both candidates won as a result of a third party draining votes primarily from a stronger candidate giving them a slim enough majority to win office. Then they come in like 90% of the people gave them some kind of mandate. A little humility in both cases might have gone a long way. One can be humble AND be a leader.

[Detector]

I think what is really sad is that this election, like the ones before, will be based on "the lesser of two evils" rather than who is right for the job. This is because both parties run on what the other party did wrong instead of what they will do.

If you ask me the biggest threat to America is politics.

[TexKan]

Amen to that brother!!!!