Bush's Brain in the superbar?

[mviale]

How about the Cambodia reference in Bush's speech today.

Is  Murf the real brain behind Bush?

[ChicosBailBonds]

How about the Cambodia reference in Bush's speech today.

Is  Murf the real brain behind Bush?

John Kerry was probably spinning today to know he got exposed again so badly.  Millions dead in Cambodia, hundreds of thousands in Vietnam and Kerry says it ain't no big thang.

Good for Bush, great speech

[mviale]

20% of America cheers! 

[Murffieus]

In addition to the millions who died in Cambodia and Vietnam as a result of our pullout of Vietnam 30 some years ago has enboldened terrorists ever since-----just make it hot for the Americans and public opinion will force a withdrawal (Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq?). The Vietnam withdrawal is Al Quida's model in Iraq-----and if we leave Iraq prematurely before the job is done, it just makes a tougher more confident enemy the next time around (Afghanistan)!

[ChicosBailBonds]

May I suggest a reading of this editorial today entitled "SAIGON'S GHOSTS"



Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' convention in Kansas City on Wednesday, President Bush said our soldiers in Iraq wonder: "Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?"

The president made his most overt analogy yet to the Democratic-led Congress' abandonment of Vietnam in the 1970s, and reminded the assembled veterans of the price paid in blood by so many:

"In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution," Bush said. "In Vietnam, former allies of the U.S. and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea."

He added that "one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields.' "

The comparison is so potent that the Democrats' Senate leader responded to the president's speech the day before it was delivered, after the White House released a preview of some of its content.

"President Bush's attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two," Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, contended.

But placing Iraq and Vietnam side by side couldn't be more apropos. The large Democratic majority of the post-Watergate Congress undermined then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's 1973 Paris Peace Accords by withdrawing U.S. military aid to South Vietnam. Communist North Vietnam took advantage, building up enough superiority to launch a general invasion of South Vietnam.

As Communist tanks rolled near, helicopters rescuing a few lucky Vietnamese from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon became the international image of American humiliation. By 1977, well over a million people were slaughtered by the Communists in Cambodia alone, a fifth of the country's population.

The Islamofascists are banking on us repeating that betrayal. "Osama bin Laden declared that 'the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today,' " Bush said, adding Bin Laden's "No. 2 man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al-Qaida's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to 'the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents.'

"Zawahiri later returned to this theme," the president noted, "declaring that the Americans 'know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet.' "

Fortunately, the Vietnam specter now haunts Democrats in Congress the most, because Americans rightly see that loss of nerve and betrayal of freedom as the country's — and the Democratic Party's — most shameful hour.

[ChicosBailBonds]

20% of America cheers! 

I heard the Democratically controlled Congress was at 18% now while Bush is at 37%.  You might want to get those facts checked again...erh I mean checked the first time ever in your case.

[mviale]

congress is always rated very low - republican or democrat. Its how you feel about the individual

[77ncaachamps]

Unfortunately as this war drags on, Bush and Cheney are too old to "dodge the war"! 

[tower912]

I am reminded of the old joke.   What is the difference between Viet Nam and Iraq?   Bush had a plan for getting out of Viet Nam.    Of all of the lessons our country learned from Viet Nam, the one thing he seizes is the one thing that no one else ever thought of....we left too soon.   Astounding.

[mu03eng]

Tower you are right its astounding......that no one thought of it before.  Right or wrong getting into Iraq, the point is we are there lets finish it.  People talk about the troops dying in vain, they only die in vain if we decide to just leave.  Clausewitz is still correct that war is politics by another means.  This is truly a political/social fight between us and the people we are fighting in Iraq.  If Congress and the public were to get behind the war for even two years and the media were to report fairly we would be worlds ahead of where we are now.  I'm tired of this well its hard lets just leave and we never should have been there in the first place.  Well two wrongs don't make a right.  And of course its hard, war is hard, if it wasn't hard we would do it ALL THE TIME!  The whole point of war is to make things so awlful for the other side that they don't want to wage war anymore and it becomes easier to accept the winning sides point of view than to continue the fight.  We haven't done that yet.

What I blame Bush for is misunderestimating the American public's stomach for this war.  Is it a war we should have fought, I'm on the fence.  Bush should have known the public wouldn't be able to last more than two years.  He further shot himself in the foot by continually trying to temporarily prop up public opinion by saying we are almost done like with the Mission Accomplished sign.  Just stupid stuff, once he was reelected he should have just come out and said its going to take years, lets get use to it.

The lesson of Vietnam is you can't win without support from home, thats the lesson of WWI, thats the lesson of the Crimean War, thats the lesson of the American Revolution.  We are a society of instant gratification these days, we want results NOW, war doesn't work that way.  The lesson of Vietnam is we should/could have won that war.  From a military standpoint we were on the brink of victory, but we were too concerned with public opinion polls to do what was needed.  We didn't bomb the bejesus out of Hanoi and Haiphong until it was too late.  We didn't have resolve as a nation.  That is the terrible lesson we didn't learn from Vietnam.  Bush mistook anger over September 11th as a return to the American resolve of old, in that he miscalculated.  How does giving up and going home help the situation?  Lets finish this thing in Iraq and then reassess where we are at.  Lets finish the job we started, because to leave would be the true tragedy of our life times.  Lets get together and say you know what, I may not like our government, but it is our government, we are in a war that we don't like but we have to finish it because to not has worse consequences then staying for at least another 5 years.  War is ALWAYS winnable, it just depends how much you are willing to sacrifice to win it.  So far the other side is willing to sacrifice more than us, lets change that.

Rant off/

[77ncaachamps]

I guess the easy answer of "We're there now, so let's finish the job" is really a copout since we shouldn't have been there anyway!!!

Why the frick haven't we been in Afghanistan for the past 5 years in stronger force like we are in Iraq actually killing the dude Bin Laden?

So let's spend money on this war. Let's let our infrastructure and economies continue to be affected. Let's continue to underfund education.

Let's continue fighting this war so my kids have a chance to enlist.

Let's continue fighting this war for a government that wasn't started "by the people, for the people" and continues to show a "lack of respect" for it's "liberators".

/rant

[mviale]

Bush and that Brain of his has gotten us into a conflict that has no easy answers.  We will be paying for his mistakes for decades.

That is his legacy

[mu03eng]

How does saying well we never should have been there in the first place help fix the situation now??  Mistakes were made, lets learn and not make more.  I don't care about Bush's legacy, I personally could care less about Bush himself I think he has been relatively useless as a president.  However, that doesn't change the fact that we are fighting a war.  We need to either put all our chips in the pot and win or we need to say naw it ain't worth it and walk away.  If we walk away we are compounding Bush's error by putting us there in the first place.  We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing.  All this hinges on the following questions for you.


-Do you believe that war is always winnable?

-Do you believe that a war ends when one side decides that the price they are paying is not worth it anymore?

-What would be a victory in Iraq for you?

[Chili]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

[mu03eng]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

Thats fair enough.  I'm influenced by my own friends and family serving who are tired of the fractured support at home and just want everyone to get behind it so they can get done and come home.  Its been the same story since Vietnam, we do things half assed.  I guess part of what my point is, if we leave now or real soon do we believe Iraq will be ok, and if they won't be ok, will we be all right with what Iraq turns into?

I have no problem being convinced that Iraq was probably a mistake, but do we want to compound it by leaving earlier than we need to?

[Murffieus]

Unquestionably the Dems pullout montra has given aid and comfort to the enemy while hurting our troop morale!

If the Dems win in 2008, they will have to deal with the situation they've created (impediment to victory) so the ensuing bloodbath will be on their hands if they do decide to pullout our troops-----but my hunch is that they won't----that they will be forced to pursue and see the situation through!

[mviale]

Unfortunately murf - these kinds of things hurt all americans - it isnt political win/loss thing.  The dems are just doing what 80% of their constituents are telling them.  Did you notice the last election? - people are sick of this war and upset that we really didnt need to start it. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I guess the easy answer of "We're there now, so let's finish the job" is really a copout since we shouldn't have been there anyway!!!

Why the frick haven't we been in Afghanistan for the past 5 years in stronger force like we are in Iraq actually killing the dude Bin Laden?

So let's spend money on this war. Let's let our infrastructure and economies continue to be affected. Let's continue to underfund education.

Let's continue fighting this war so my kids have a chance to enlist.

Let's continue fighting this war for a government that wasn't started "by the people, for the people" and continues to show a "lack of respect" for it's "liberators".

/rant

Well 77, why didn't Clinton take out Bin Laden in the first place on the 14 attempts he had?  We can play that game all day if you wish.

/rant

[ChicosBailBonds]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

That's funny, that's not what my niece, my nephew and many of their friends say....they're over there RIGHT NOW.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Unfortunately murf - these kinds of things hurt all americans - it isnt political win/loss thing.  The dems are just doing what 80% of their constituents are telling them.  Did you notice the last election? - people are sick of this war and upset that we really didnt need to start it. 

80% of constituents?....since you've been so lax on providing truths in the past, please provide some concrete data that 80% of the people want what you desire.  You'll forgive me for not just taking your word for it. Thanks.

[Chili]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

That's funny, that's not what my niece, my nephew and many of their friends say....they're over there RIGHT NOW.

TO each their own. I spoke to son of promoinent person in WI who just got back from Marine's in July and said the troops didnt know what they were fighting for. I guess to each their own. Or else we can get into a pissing match.

[mu03eng]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

That's funny, that's not what my niece, my nephew and many of their friends say....they're over there RIGHT NOW.

TO each their own. I spoke to son of promoinent person in WI who just got back from Marine's in July and said the troops didnt know what they were fighting for. I guess to each their own. Or else we can get into a pissing match.

Chili, thats my point.  My friends are saying the same thing, back home they don't seem to want to do this why are we out here?  My friends think it is worth the effort in Iraq but they don't want to bother if no one back home wants to do it.  As I've said before, I think we need to either go all in, or just end it now.  My preference is all in, we have given too much already not to.  Whats yours?  I think September will be interesting, based on the "results" of the surge.

[Chili]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing. 

Thats funny because I asked the same thing to my buddy who did 2 tours in Iraq with the Army and he said bring em all home. All of his buddies say the same thing.

That's funny, that's not what my niece, my nephew and many of their friends say....they're over there RIGHT NOW.

TO each their own. I spoke to son of prominent person in WI who just got back from Marine's in July and said the troops didn't know what they were fighting for. I guess to each their own. Or else we can get into a pissing match.

Chili, thats my point.  My friends are saying the same thing, back home they don't seem to want to do this why are we out here?  My friends think it is worth the effort in Iraq but they don't want to bother if no one back home wants to do it.  As I've said before, I think we need to either go all in, or just end it now.  My preference is all in, we have given too much already not to.  Whats yours?  I think September will be interesting, based on the "results" of the surge.

No you missed the point. While over in Iraq the troops do not know what they are fighting for. There are no concrete goals except victory - which to best of anyones knowledge - has not been laid out. You will here stability in Iraq is victory. Well, that is never going to happen. The ones that are over there proudly serve as it is their job. But, once they are back in the states they didn't know why they were over there.

My personal view is we need to set up perminant military presence there. Like Germany, Japan and Korea.

[Murffieus]

Well if they don't know what they are fighting for then the generals are doing a poor job of preping them, which I doubt very much!

We're fighting so Al Quida doesn't win------ we're also fighting to keep Iranian influence at bay in the area-----we're also fighting ti finish the job of stabalizing Iraq so there can be political progress----but just as important is that Iraq and Afghanistan are the central fronts in the war against terrorism!

Surrender there and the next front is England and the USA!

[tower912]

And then, there are these guys.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[ChicosBailBonds]

SHocked...Shocked the NY Times would run that.  I'll bet if I posted a number of blogs, articles, etc from military men and women that say the fight it worth it, the NY Times would publish it immediately.

 

[tower912]

So, because there opinion is contrary to yours (but consistent with that of my co-workers who have been there) it is immediately discounted.   Pretty pathetic that you can't allow for difference of opinion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, because there opinion is contrary to yours (but consistent with that of my co-workers who have been there) it is immediately discounted.   Pretty pathetic that you can't allow for difference of opinion.

Where did I ever say that Tower?  All I said is that I'm SHOCKED the NY Times would publish a story with their viewpoints.  When's the last time the NY Times published a similar story with a group of military men and women that said we should be there....he asked rhetorically.

[ChicosBailBonds]

congress is always rated very low - republican or democrat. Its how you feel about the individual

Sigh, another statement wrong.  Another softball knocked deep out of the park.

[mviale]

look at the spreads slugger - from 84 to 20 is not a good thing. Who caused that discontent?

[77ncaachamps]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing.  All this hinges on the following questions for you.

That's bull. Don't pin the faults of a military - who had to cope with changing missions - on the public and the soldiers because of the unclear direction of the White House. There was no clear plan from day one as to how to deal with Al Queda and then Iraq's instability.

-Do you believe that war is always winnable? A single war may be won and even at high costs and the fallout from that war may lead to more. The term "Pyhrric victory" and "WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, Filipino-American Wars" comes to mind.

-Do you believe that a war ends when one side decides that the price they are paying is not worth it anymore? Sure, it can. But see above answer. War begets war in some cases.

-What would be a victory in Iraq for you?Iraqis happily shaking hands with American soldiers, driving Fords (and NOT shooting their guns in the air), sipping Coca-Colas in their Old Navy jeans while waving the U.S. Flag saying, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as Lee Greenwood plays in the background.

Think that's possible?

[Murffieus]

Well the 85% was a knee jerk reaction right after 9/11----the approval base was about 40% both before 9/11 an after once the patriotism reaction died down. Then about mid 2004 when the Dems started talking surrender and the bipartisan effort came apart the congress approval rating dropped to 25%----now with the Dems in charge and obsessed with surrender and investigations it's dropped down to a record low of 18%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

look at the spreads slugger - from 84 to 20 is not a good thing. Who caused that discontent?

You said Congress is ALWAYS LOW in ratings...you were wrong.  I'd argue at 84% was when Congress worked with the President and everyone in this country was on the same page....now it's just sniping back and forth.  No wonder the Democrat led Congress is at historic lows.

Now, for once can you use some real facts.

[mu03eng]

We, the American Public are the ones who will have to look the troops in eyes and say sorry we didn't let you win, its our fault.  We are the ones who have to accept that we have made the sacrifices and deaths worth nothing.  All this hinges on the following questions for you.

That's bull. Don't pin the faults of a military - who had to cope with changing missions - on the public and the soldiers because of the unclear direction of the White House. There was no clear plan from day one as to how to deal with Al Queda and then Iraq's instability.


[/b]

I am specifically NOT blaming the troops.  I AM blaming the US public, because from the president to every member of congress we elected people that arm chair quarterback this war, fight each other, and compromise the military's ability to do anything.  Bush is to blame for not saying listen the generals tell me what they need, want to do and I will make sure they get it.  Congress is to blame by playing politics with funding and not letting the military do what it knows to do.

I don't disagree that the Bush administration has screwed up the war effort.  I also blame Bush for not knowing how much tolerance the American people would have for the length of the war in Iraq.  But in the end we the public need to say to the military, what do you need to do to complete your missions, we'll give it to you.  The troops I know just want to be able to finish the job, but as is the case since the start of Vietnam, the government has to get all over the place.

[mu03eng]

-Do you believe that war is always winnable? A single war may be won and even at high costs and the fallout from that war may lead to more. The term "Pyhrric victory" and "WWI, WWII, Spanish-American, Filipino-American Wars" comes to mind.

-Do you believe that a war ends when one side decides that the price they are paying is not worth it anymore? Sure, it can. But see above answer. War begets war in some cases.

-What would be a victory in Iraq for you?Iraqis happily shaking hands with American soldiers, driving Fords (and NOT shooting their guns in the air), sipping Coca-Colas in their Old Navy jeans while waving the U.S. Flag saying, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" as Lee Greenwood plays in the background.

Think that's possible?

Your last response is I think what Bush hasn't defined well at all and neither has congress.  The Dems want out because "we can't win", the GOP wants to "finish the job".  No one has defined what victory is.  I think victory is Iraq has a stable government that is respectful of its own citizens.  Does it have to be democracy as we know it?  Not at all for me.  Unfortunately, the benchmarks that Bush has created for report in September are probably exactly what we need.  However, he burned his credibility before that so the "I have a plan and I have metrics, trust me" line doesn't work.  Congress doesn't help with their whole, well we helped start the war but now we decided four years later we don't think its such a good idea.


Returning to my original point, if Congress throws behind the war for even one more year, we would be light years ahead of where we are now.

Also, you point out that war begets war?  We are already in a war and haven't beget another war, so then why not just finish this one as quickly and best as we can?

[77ncaachamps]

Good points. Politicians will do what they always will do: look out for themselves and perhaps, once and awhile, look out for the interests of the US citizenry. The Democrats were elected on a platform to pull out and that is their charge. Is it the smartest thing to do? Who knows? It feels right but there is trepidation about what is left behind. Since Vietnam was evoked by Bush, did we leave a stable government there? Where are they now? I cannot even begin to fathom what Iraq will be like after we pull out (much can be said about Vietnam at this similar point).

I'd love to say to the troops, "What do you need? Will get it for you" but I feel this carte blanche attitude towards funding war is so hypocritical when it comes to funding education or other social programs.

On to the government set up in Iraq, I don't think it's possible for a democratic government to be established in Iraq. Like I said earlier, this is not a government that was started by the people to overthrow a dictator; we did it for them. Therefore, the tremendous work that is usually done by a grassroot socio-political movement is absent. Adding to the complexity is our presence in Iraq, seen by some as agents of change and others as occupiers who only attract death. If the wheels of government move slowly here, how do you think we'll be able to get out of there "as quickly and best as we can"? I can hear the criticism of an Iraqi timeline falling into a deep, dark pit.

[ChicosBailBonds]

[mviale]

Is bush a Malicki supporter today or not?

[Murffieus]

mvaile----why are you so negative?----seems to me you're a Bush hater and really want us to lose in Iraq even though it reflects badly on America. Shame on you----I question your patriotism!

If Hillary were the president and taking it to the enemy in Iraq she'd have my complete support eventhough i dsagree with her on most issues. In fact if she wins in Nov 2008 that's exactly what she will be doing----"taking it to the enemy"----she will have no other choice!

[77ncaachamps]

I may not like Bush, but I want to win in Iraq...regardless of the U.S. casualties.
 

[Murffieus]

What do casualties have to do with this----if the cause is right and correct victory has to be pursued in any event. We wouldn't be here today, if that hadn't been the case in prior wars!

Please keep in mind that unlike Vietnam, these troops are volunteers that know full well that their lives are on the line when they enlisted----the threat of death is secondary to most of them----what's paramount is victory!

NCAA----in most months there are more shooting deaths in a handful of American cities than there are in Iraq----and these people who gave their lives were not volunteers!

Or how about the 4,000 non-volunteers who get killed on the nations highways every month? Should we close down all roads because too many people die on them?

[tower912]

And here we have a historian quoted by President Bush lambasting him for getting the quote right but moving it 180 degrees from proper context.....I am stunned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5499.html

[77ncaachamps]

What do casualties have to do with this----if the cause is right and correct victory has to be pursued in any event. We wouldn't be here today, if that hadn't been the case in prior wars!

Please keep in mind that unlike Vietnam, these troops are volunteers that know full well that their lives are on the line when they enlisted----the threat of death is secondary to most of them----what's paramount is victory!

NCAA----in most months there are more shooting deaths in a handful of American cities than there are in Iraq----and these people who gave their lives were not volunteers!

Or how about the 4,000 non-volunteers who get killed on the nations highways every month? Should we close down all roads because too many people die on them?

That was originally created as a tongue-in-cheek comment, but now I realize that it is not.

Let's make it clear that not all of the soldiers are volunteers: they did it for the money (bonus); they did it because of they had to though they originally volunteered to serve their country domestically. And now with the DREAM Promotion Act of 2007, many illegal immigrants can qualify for citizenship by doing two years of military service. Also, I know a close family who has told their soon-to-be 18 year old son that he either gets federal aid for college (because they're not paying for it) or join the military. Not all are volunteers...there are many who do it for other reasons.

Nonetheless, they ARE U.S. soldiers and we do have to support them. But with dwindling or vacillating recruitment numbers, are we going to use up all of the soldiers we have until we achieve victory?

I say, "No."

[ChicosBailBonds]

And here we have a historian quoted by President Bush lambasting him for getting the quote right but moving it 180 degrees from proper context.....I am stunned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5499.html

Maybe you should read your article....all the way to the very end

[Murffieus]

NCAA----all soldiers are volunteers----any way you look at it they are ALL volunteers----now they may differ as to their reasons for doing so----but they are all volunteers----as opposed to the draft of years gone by.

Something is wrong with your example of the 18 year old who volunteered because he supposedly couldn't get federal aid for college -----I mean EVERY student qualifies for a federal backed loan so joining the armed forces wasn't his only alternative as you make it out to be.

When one volunteers for the military they are aware of the negatives----the money is an incentive to look past that-----alos you talk like the military is falling apart (not being able to replenish)----the truth is that one short time span (month or quarter) they came in under quota by a little bit and the liberal news media jumps all over that----as if to say, "see what Iraq is doing to the military"!

Most of the soldiers i hear quoted after being wounded say they want to go back----that "they can't wait to get back"-----that shows me that (unlike the Dems) they are in it to win!!!!

[tower912]

I did.  A statement from the White House is supposed to make it all better?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I did.  A statement from the White House is supposed to make it all better?

Nope, a statement from the White House is their opinion just as Mr. Dower stated his opinion.

Then you read some of of the other comments by Mr. Dower and he's talking about "other expert opinions"...that's all this is....interpretations of various degrees.

[mviale]

Where does Bush stand with Malicki Today?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Where does Bush stand with Malicki Today?

No idea where he stands with Maliki (where does Hillary stand...oh, she wants him out...last I checked Maliki was freely elected by the people of Iraq.  It's their gov't, their leader or are you guys into impeachment abroad now too?)

....care to share with us the 80% statement you made the other day...we're still waiting...as usual.

[mviale]

Oh - as a representative of the 80% - we think Maliki is a putz that only wants to advance his shia power base.  We also think there have been no political gains as a result of the surge and a new strategy is needed immediately or we need to leave.

[Murffieus]

Mvaile---you are correct on Malicky being a "putz" and also on his wanting to advance his shia power base----but you aren't patient enough on the political gains------it took the continental congress 5-6 years after the revolutionary war (surge gains) to make political gains ( a constitution)----then it took the states another two years after that to ratify it!

IMO there has to be religious reconciliation prior to political reconciliation in Iraq----read my post under the "Interesting Article" thread----it's in the works!

[77ncaachamps]

NCAA----all soldiers are volunteers----any way you look at it they are ALL volunteers----now they may differ as to their reasons for doing so----but they are all volunteers----as opposed to the draft of years gone by.

Something is wrong with your example of the 18 year old who volunteered because he supposedly couldn't get federal aid for college -----I mean EVERY student qualifies for a federal backed loan so joining the armed forces wasn't his only alternative as you make it out to be.

When one volunteers for the military they are aware of the negatives----the money is an incentive to look past that-----alos you talk like the military is falling apart (not being able to replenish)----the truth is that one short time span (month or quarter) they came in under quota by a little bit and the liberal news media jumps all over that----as if to say, "see what Iraq is doing to the military"!

Most of the soldiers i hear quoted after being wounded say they want to go back----that "they can't wait to get back"-----that shows me that (unlike the Dems) they are in it to win!!!!

I disagree. They receive a paycheck, therefore they are NOT volunteers. Since you and I (assuming you still work) receive paychecks, do we "volunteer" for the companies we work for? Therefore the misuse of the word "volunteer" erodes much of the impact in your above arguments.

Almost anyone can QUALIFY for a government loan, but in my case, because my parents were making too much money for the government's threshold it would not have paid for college by itself. Therefore, joining ROTC is a way to pay for the $25k yearly tuition at Marquette!

Another point: Media is media - whether it be left, right, up or down - they will twist words for their own purpose. But look at the facts:

- Black recruit numbers down, but the incentives are buoying the decrease:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/22/washington/22recruit.html

- They maybe on their way, but 1) a projected increase from 65,000 to 547,000 in 5 years will not happen and 2) a recruit is just that: a recruit - he/she still needs to qualify and not many are meeting the threshold so...
http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1357645.html

- ...maybe that's why they're "lowering the standards" of becoming a soldier.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-12-recruit-education_N.htm

- ...or the lowering numbers of qualified recruits may have solved our immigration problem: serve and you can become a citizen!
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_311/news/12678-1.html

(More on the DREAM Act: The DREAM Act and American Dream Act would make certain undocumented students eligible for a six-year conditional permanent resident status upon high school graduation. These students could then apply to have the conditional basis of their permanent residence status lifted after completing at least two years of higher education (read: Junior college or tech college or beauty college doesn't count)or serving for at least two years in the U.S. military.)
http://www.janispetersonlord.com/Updates.jsp

- This could help: Instead of raising the bar, raising the AGE but also LOWERING the bar.
• Raising the enlistment age to 42.
• Enlisting recruits who don't meet weight standards if they trim down their first year.
• Giving a $20,000 bonus for joining by Sept. 30 and going to boot camp within a month.
• Increasing the number of waivers given for failed drug tests.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/08/10/0810recruiting.html

- Congress should act, says McCaffrey. Why? One reason is because their recruitment numbers are not where they should be and it's taking a toll on the current soldier numbers. The FACTS are outlined for you by a NON-Liberal.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,149957.shtml

Finally, according to you, you say soldiers state that they "can't wait to get back." This is the mentality of soldiers who do not want to abandon their friends. I understand that mentality and commend as such, but do not confuse it for "I can't wait to serve another year away from my family so that the Iraqi government can get settled." Conversely, you cannot deny that there are many who'd rather be home, just like my buddy, a MU grad and Marine, who's training for another deployment to Iraq (this time it's a year and he just had his 6 month "break") - his 3rd in 5 years and 4th or 5th overall (incl. Afghanistan).

[Murffieus]

Well you're the first person I've heard yet describe the current US Army as NOT being made up of volunteers. The concept of volunteers goes back to the Revolutionary war-----history has considered them volunteers as there was NO draft back then either and they got paid. Anytime someone hasn't been conscripted (drafted) into the armed forces, he/she is considered a volunteer whether they get paid or not----always has been the case----always will be the case!

Most anyone who wants a college education can qualify for a student loan----so your example is bogus----at best your example covers a very, very small segment of potential students (so small it would fall into the category of an exception and there are exceptions to everything).

NCAA----if our soldiers were as disillusioned as you say----- they wouldn't be making the huge progress they have made in the past 3 months establishing security in Iraq. Obviously morale is very high or such progress would be impossible!

BTW---check out the dictionary definition of volunteer ----"given of free will and without compulsion"-----in otherwords----"not forced or coerced"!

[77ncaachamps]

So let me see, I decide to work for my company. They put me through interviews and deem me worthy. Then, they pay me a monthly check - sometimes a bonus - and sometimes don't pay me for the duties I do. IF that is volunteering, then we're ALL volunteers. Ask a soldier if he'll do what he does without getting paid.

I think you're getting confused with the use of the term volunteer. It means:

"a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army."

Henceforth, volunteers do so with NO intention of being a member of the regular or permanent army. I would agree with you that this applies to the reserve and national guard units, but not to the "career soldiers".

I love the fact that you say, "Most anyone who wants a college education can qualify for a loan" because that was my only agreeable point with you. But the fact is going to Marquette is $25k and that government loan wouldn't have helped. You lost the impact of the quantity and quality of the loans to today's secondary schools' tuitions: for state school students, it helps in all cases, but for many, it's just a small dent.

I think it is dangerous to imply that ALL soldiers are disillusioned, but you can't help but to think that there are scores upon scores who would rather be at home. Has there been progress in Iraq? Sure. Enough to warrant us being there for another 1, 2, 3,(how long does Bush want us there again?) years? Not really, but that's part of the debate. And morale cannot be "very high" because of the progress...it's for the simple fact of defend or be killed. Survival is #1, then progress/mission is #2.

I am, again, in no way saying recruits are "forced or coerced" - but if you dangle enough of a big steak in front of someone, I guess you can call that "gentle persuasion". TRUE volunteerism is when someone does it without "strings attached" - no kickbacks, just the pleasure of doing it. You know, rebuilding your neighbor's house after a tornado, etc.

Want to test if these recruits are TRUE volunteers? Take away the bonuses and any financial aid and tell them that the only reason they're doing it is for their homeland. If anyone steps up, I applaud them. But obviously the government doesn't think that will happen because the advertisements and calls "dangle the purse".

I will agree with you, if you agree with me too, that many new recruits are volunteering for the money and the bonuses...and not to defend their country.

In the recruitment of the modern army, you cannot separate the two.

[77ncaachamps]

And to emphasize the last point, here is Staff Sgt. Kevin Gordon on the Army's "Quick Ship Bonus":

The $20,000 bonus can be enticing, especially to those who lack a steady job, languish in debt or are worried about their future. Staff Sgt. Kevin Gordon, a recruiter in Glen Burnie, said a majority of the people who come into his office have already decided to join the service and then jump at the chance to leave now.

"They have school loans, mortgages, they have family concerns," said Gordon, whose three recent recruits all took the bonus. "It's a great incentive because something like that leaves families in a good financial posture, and they feel a little more comfortable knowing their bills will be taken care of."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20453080/

I don't see defending the homeland up there as a primary reason to "volunteer" for the army.

The romanticism of being in the military has worn off since the Vietnam War. It's becoming now more of a necessity: need to do something in their life, need to pay bills, need to add to the resume (especially politically), need to add skills, need to double dip in pensions, etc. Not to say any of those reasons are not valid ones, but defending America is not up there.

But it sure sounds like a "job".

[Murffieus]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

[77ncaachamps]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

#1 - Enlistments soared after 9/11 much like they did after Pearl Harbor, no doubt, because of the love of the fatherland. But you still are turning a blind eye to the "meat and potatoes" of being a soldier...er...volunteer: the pay, the bonuses, the benefits, etc.

#2 - Let's not clump ALL soldiers into the "doing it all for the money" because there are those who fight for freedom. But if you take their "volunteer check and benefits away or cut them, you're not going to see high morale.

Look at Shays' Rebellion...these were the people who fought for America's Independence and almost started a rebellion against the infant US government over not getting paid! I'm sure the U.S. military has learned that lesson and that's why they're burning at least $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq - a significant amount going to the companies that Chicos' outlined in another post.

#3 - I wonder what the recruitment numbers would actually be like without the bonuses. Moreover, I wonder what percentage of recruits actually make it to the "ready to ship" stage. I think it might be around 50-60%, but I'd love to know because the government cannot flaunt "high recruit numbers" just to get a smaller number in return.

#4 - The U.S. Soldiers are successful because of their training, weaponry, and dedication to the job. They are extremely focused and motivated...because they have to be. One bomb and it's over. If my f---in' life was on the line, you'd bet I'd be focused. My job is to kill the guy trying to kill me...that's my first instinct.

Re: Gulf War, we overwhelmed a weaker opponent. You want a real test? Try China.

#5 - What I love is how you ignore the previous links and say that I suggest the people are there for the money. Again, not all are there, but it's a HUGE part of being in the military. In addition, you haven't commented on each article's addressing the lack of troops needed for the military to relieve those currently there and add to the surge. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the definition of volunteer I shared with you that includes a discriminating aspect of being a "volunteer" in the military. Finally, you haven't refuted what McCaffrey points out as being a military in dire need of recruits.

Don't bunker down behind the progresses that have and are being made in Iraq, yet ignore the White Elephants in the room (tired, worn and stretched thin military; decreasing numbers of recruits; lack of progress towards the 547,000 readied soldiers needed in 5 years; the continuing cost of the war and its impact domestically and personally - think care of the soldiers' wounded and traumatized; lack of a long-term plan in Iraq - think how many years as an occupying force; etc.). It may help to remove the blinders.

[Murffieus]

Well of course the money is a big part of the all volunteer army----I mean the alternative is getting a job in the private sector so the military has to be competitive (supply and demand). I mean these people have families to support what do you expect that they let them starve?

The volunteer part is "of their own free will"----the money most of them could get anywhere----no one is going to get rich in the military!

As I've pointed out morale is very high to get the quality work we're getting out of these guys----and morale isn't high because of the money----that most of them can get anywhere-----don't listen to those media reports of "tired, stretched military"----if our military was so tired and stretched they wouldn't be making the HUGE progress they've made in the past 3 months-----I know you liberals hate to see that, but it's happened-----the money they get isn't the motivation allows them to put their ass on the line 24/7------if it was the money they would have chosen to be with their families working in the private sector in the first place!

[ChicosBailBonds]

1977, what do you think will happen if we withdraw from Iraq? 

[mu03eng]

I repeat------if defending America were not a major reason for enlisting in the military how were we able to defeat Saddam's army in 2 weeks when Iran couldn't do it in 8 years. How come the surge has all but stabalized the former Sunni Triangle aka "the Triangle of Death" just in the past 3 months and that with the temperature soaring to 125 degrees during the day. Then too in the gulf war----that was over in a few days. You don't accomplish all that with people who are "in it for the money" as you suggest----these are extremely job focused and motivated people!

After 9/11 enlistments soared!

#1 - Enlistments soared after 9/11 much like they did after Pearl Harbor, no doubt, because of the love of the fatherland. But you still are turning a blind eye to the "meat and potatoes" of being a soldier...er...volunteer: the pay, the bonuses, the benefits, etc.

#2 - Let's not clump ALL soldiers into the "doing it all for the money" because there are those who fight for freedom. But if you take their "volunteer check and benefits away or cut them, you're not going to see high morale.

Look at Shays' Rebellion...these were the people who fought for America's Independence and almost started a rebellion against the infant US government over not getting paid! I'm sure the U.S. military has learned that lesson and that's why they're burning at least $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq - a significant amount going to the companies that Chicos' outlined in another post.

#3 - I wonder what the recruitment numbers would actually be like without the bonuses. Moreover, I wonder what percentage of recruits actually make it to the "ready to ship" stage. I think it might be around 50-60%, but I'd love to know because the government cannot flaunt "high recruit numbers" just to get a smaller number in return.

#4 - The U.S. Soldiers are successful because of their training, weaponry, and dedication to the job. They are extremely focused and motivated...because they have to be. One bomb and it's over. If my f---in' life was on the line, you'd bet I'd be focused. My job is to kill the guy trying to kill me...that's my first instinct.

Re: Gulf War, we overwhelmed a weaker opponent. You want a real test? Try China.

#5 - What I love is how you ignore the previous links and say that I suggest the people are there for the money. Again, not all are there, but it's a HUGE part of being in the military. In addition, you haven't commented on each article's addressing the lack of troops needed for the military to relieve those currently there and add to the surge. Furthermore, you haven't addressed the definition of volunteer I shared with you that includes a discriminating aspect of being a "volunteer" in the military. Finally, you haven't refuted what McCaffrey points out as being a military in dire need of recruits.

Don't bunker down behind the progresses that have and are being made in Iraq, yet ignore the White Elephants in the room (tired, worn and stretched thin military; decreasing numbers of recruits; lack of progress towards the 547,000 readied soldiers needed in 5 years; the continuing cost of the war and its impact domestically and personally - think care of the soldiers' wounded and traumatized; lack of a long-term plan in Iraq - think how many years as an occupying force; etc.). It may help to remove the blinders.

See this touches a nerve with me.  I think you are playing semantics with Volunteer.  Yes, they get money.  Yes, they get bonuses.  Yes, they get benfits like tax free goods when they purchase on base.  Because they get money that technically means they aren't volunteer, but they certainly aren't getting paid fair market value for what they do.

Now I'm sensitive to it because I'm a son a mother who was in the Navy and a father who was in the Air Force.  Both didn't get paid nearly what the could have gotten on the civilian market.  My mother was a nurse in the Navy was paid 1/3 of what she would have seen in the civilian world.  When my dad retired after 20 years, he got the same job in the civilian world that he had in the Air Force.  Doubled his salary, and you know what he had a desk job.  It wasn't like earlier in his career when he was flying covertly into Iran or dropping troops over Grenada into a hot drop zone.  Both joined up(volunteered not drafted) near the end of Vietnam, so yes they were paid, yes they had bonuses, but how do you put a price on being spit on or not being allowed to wear your uniform in Boston because the people there might attack you.  Thank god our troops don't deal with that kind of stuff now.  The point is not for me to beat my chest about how great my parents are....in fact its the opposite, I think they were just like every other individual that serves in the military.  Sure they get paid, sure they get benefits, but its not nearly what the could get in the civilian sector.  Factor in, constant danger, even in time of peace.  Moving at least every four years, being stationed overseas, etc.  You say they aren't volunteers because the money is a huge part of it.  I say bull$&@*, they are volunteers because the government is getting one heck of a discount because of patriotism and love of nation.  Maybe that doesn't make them volunteers by your definition but it does in my book.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well said ENG.  The bonuses, etc are great but some on the left like to imply that this is the only reason they join which is not true.

It's the nature of the world we live in today.  Incentives are part of the gig and were started long before Bush was even governor of Texas let alone President of the United States.

They are most definitely a volunteer military as there are plenty of other oportunities out there, especially in an economy with 4.5% unemployment to do something else and get paid without being put in harm's way.

[77ncaachamps]

Let's make this clear: soldiers are not rich. Hell no. But don't call them volunteers. Sure it's semantics, but what about the soldiers who make a "career" out of it. Would you say they're "career" volunteers? Are the 3-star generals volunteers? When do you draw the line? Better yet, how do you draw the line between "volunteer" and "career soldier"? Those generals are eating well, I can tell you that much.

I think it's worthless to debate the value of people. Soldiers are important as much as the teachers in this world. Hell, it pisses me off some stupid CEOs or ball players make such insane money. If you calculate the number of hours I work outside of my day, the burger flipper at In-N-Out makes more than I do per hour. Unfortunately, the world is what it is...if you're happy doing what you're doing despite the pay, hey, good for you.

And good for the soldiers getting pay...I have no intention to piss on the army - my granddaddy fought with the Philippine Scouts and was promised citizenship by the US Gov't but they didn't give it to him (talk about love of a country...that's not even yours) - but only to debate the status of soldiers as volunteers. Like I said, strip the bonuses and see if the 547,000 goal will be reached.

And you're right, Murf...money isn't the motivation they put their ass on the line. If you read what I had posted earlier, it's survival and love for their brothers/sisters in combat. That's why they return. That's why they don't mind serving a surprise extension of 6 months on their duty. They're with their own.

Chico, to answer your question, I don't know what will happen to Iraq. I do not possess the proverbial crystal ball or silver DeLorean. But this crappy plan of occupation is ticking me off because in no way was the government prepared for what was to come:
- vacuum of power in Iraq
- the waning support of the war at home
- the lack of resources dedicated to the injured coming back
- the extended use of national guard and reserve forces
- the cost of the war (and how to fund it)
- the length of the war and transition to occupation
- the difficulty of trying to implant democracy into a society where the idea is foreign
- the trials and tribulations of Iraqi figureheads who they supported to get the government going
- the need for more "ready" recruits
- how to assess progress (other than Bush saying it's going on)

I will end my participation in this thread knowing that we will agree to disagree on many topics. Furthermore, I am proud to be an American and love this country so, but it tears my heart at some of the actions it has taken. I support the troops and want them to be safe, but acknowledge that this is not going to be a quick exit, but a long, drawn-out and messy one. Lastly, I do not think that the Iraqis understand democracy and freedom as we do here in the United States, and since America has their fingerprints on this government, it will reek of corruption and distrust.

Furthermore, don't label me a Liberal as I am a registered Republican.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Then let's call it a vocational military.  They are getting paid, but they are choosing to be there for lower wages and often because they want to serve a greater cause.

They are not drafted and no one is forcing them in is the bigger and more salient point.

[Murffieus]

NCAA----if you're a registered republican, you're in the wrong party.

A definition of the word volunteer----is someone who does something of his/her own free will and not being coerced into the endeavor. Money is NOT coercion----it's an incentive!