Posted on 03/31/2007 9:58:35 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 04/01/2007 10:19:50 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Actually, the President needs to stand up and say that one of the failings in VietNam was that the war was being fought by politicians in Washington and not the Generals on the battlefield.
The Democrats want to run this war from Washington and take the decisions out of the hands of the Generals trained to complete the mission.
What a simple, eloquent explanation.
Silly to keep propagating such utter nonsense. It's akin to belief in flying saucers or the "grassy knoll" shooters.
This kratzhammer guy don't know what he's talking about.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been the real wars on terror, especially Iraq, although the iraq war is now dubbed a war of liberation...
It is good to know that God will protect the Israelis. It appears that they won't protect themselves anymore. They did not see fit to unload that eager loser, Olmert.
General Panic (Meet Brig General Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran's anti-American Qods Force)
Unfortunately, because of a soft paper tiger American populace, who voted in the Dems. We will lose in Iraq. Then all of the "insurgent terrorists" will flock to Afghanistan.
We will have to commit even more troops to Afghanistan with the Iranians influencing and manipulating Iraq.
We are not winning. We need to be ruthless or we lose.
Kratzhammer... LOL
Amen.
John Boyd - USAF
The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of Air Warfare
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm
Well you know (to borrow from Hilary) I thought about this in the beginning, and the only reason I could come up with for the administration not touting this was that they figured the public wouldn't go for a war not clearly defined.
Our microwave generation seems to not be able to grasp dealing with a threat without a time limit, or one that doesn't have a clear geographical boundary.
When you think about it, the President did lay the plan out in his post 911 speech.
LOL.
Krauthammer.
LOL!
I mistyped it.
Lesson learned: don't think - just cut-and-paste.
Our PC/MC educators have really done a number on our Republic, not to mention the traitorous MSM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So tragic, I entered first grade in 1950 in a poor county in South Carolina and I was required to learn more about History, Geography, and Government in the first seven years than our local university graduates know in this day. When young South Carolinians don't know who Hampton street is named for something is amiss.
Agree with what you've said. However, President Bush has failed to state the case. We cannot win without strong leadership. Our leader is weak. A strong leader must clearly define the threat and the objective. This leader refused to define radical Islam as the enemy. He also fails to define victory. This leadership failure allows his enemies, the Democrats to define the objective (get Osama not defeat Islam) as well as define rules of engagement. Until our leader is willing to make the case, Americans will not understand and will tire of sacrifice. If Americans feel threatened and understand this is a fight for survival, they will fight as they did in WWII.
History will show, George Bush started the Iraq war and lost it because he was not up to the challenge of leadership.
A part-ion of Iraq would inevitably result in a wider regional war involving Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and various factions in Iraq. It is the simplistic answer spewed forth by various idiot "Realists" Do Nothing Neo-Isolationists whose dogma of "Never do anything in the Middle East and maybe the problem will go away?" bought us 09-11-01.
Stupid simplistic Know Nothing answers need not apply here.
They are counting on the Democrats to stop President Bush and our military from kicking their butts. If it wasn't for the Dem cowards this war would probably be won already. If we want to secure the US we need to get rid of the Democrats in 08. We can not afford to have these traitors working against our President and military.
Turkey and the Saudi's and the rest of our "friends" would not let us use their "air space" to defend our Country. This is really bringing the war to the terrorists.
Iran has nothing to lose, IMHO, at this point in time. A very dangerous situation for the world and we need to step up to the occasion.
My point is that "Afghanistan is the real war" is a totally insincere argument. Let's say they win this round and get us to exit Iraq "to focus on Afghanistan". Is there any real doubt that, soon afterwards, it would suddenly become imperative to leave Afghanistan, for some other reason(s)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.